(04-15-2018, 05:35 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(04-15-2018, 05:17 PM)Roavin Wrote: The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708, so while it's not enshrined in law, it's defined by judicial precedent. It's not fully objective, no, but it is something that can be determined legally in one way or another.

Not beyond "I know it when I see it", if we're being real. Which is my whole point, and why these decisions should be left to the judgement of people and not poorly written legalese. (Not referring to Kris's ruling, but to the fact that none of us are uber-lawyers here.) HCLQ1708 is based entirely on "good faith," which is inherently subjective. Sometimes it's better to let politics and political accountability handle things, than to try to codify subjectivity.

... and my point too. So we're in agreement, basically
 

(04-15-2018, 05:35 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(04-15-2018, 05:17 PM)Roavin Wrote: You mentioned that you did not support having trials+preemptive measures as an alternative to a process to PNG Legislators. Your stated reasons were our court system as well as precedent with the PGO law. What I missed was an argument on the matter itself - assuming we didn't have the PGO precedent, and our court system was perfect, why would you or would you not support the alternative I proposed earlier?

If the court was perfect, we would be using a lot more, instead of trying to avoid it as much as possible. I don't see the point in fantasizing about it. I really don't believe that regional security or interregional diplomacy should be handled through the court.

I do hope we start using it more now, tbh. But yes, I understand your argument.