Final Draft: May be motioned to vote, in accordance with Rule 5-d of the Great Council Resolution

Referencing Chapter III of The Charter entitled 'Rights and Freedoms', with proposed changes. Community feedback on areas which should be included & further expansion will be well appreciated.

Citizen: Refers to nations admitted in the Assembly and/or ''registered voters''.
Residents: Refers to all nations residing in the region of the South Pacific.

Freedoms, Rights and Duties

Recognizing the freedoms, rights and duties within The Coalition

(1) All citizens of The Coalition of the South Pacific enjoy the freedoms of speech; within bounds of Community Standards, which are to be enforced by the global moderation and administration staff.

(2) All global moderation and administration staff members have the duty to enforce Community Standards as they are written; arbitrary interpretations are prohibited.

(3) All citizens enjoy the right to a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations.

(4) No citizen may be sentenced to a crime they did not commit; all accusations of crime brought to court under false pretense are illegal and as such the accuser will be subject to a separate trial.

(5) No citizen may be subject to multiple, simultaneous trials concerning the same crime.

(6) All citizens enjoy the right to request an appeal of a sentence; approval of such request will depend upon discretion of The High Court.

(7) All citizens enjoy the freedoms of suffrage; to vote and be voted.

(8) All citizens enjoy the right to hold office if such position is obtained in a regular, legal procedure related to that specific office.

(9) All citizens enjoy the right to democratic participation, in the forms of association and discussion, within the bounds of the Community Standards.

(10) All residents and visitors of the South Pacific region, who have dutifully followed the Community Standards, are free from ostracization of the region.

(11) All citizens, residents and dignitaries of the South Pacific discord channel, who have dutifully followed the Community Standards, are free from ostracization of that discord channel.

(12) Members of The High Court of the South Pacific have the duty to strike down any law, policy, legislation or action which violates the freedoms, rights and duties found in the Charter.

(13) Members of The High Court have the duty to act solely in the role of Justice and Associate Justices within the confines of The High Court opinions, trials and sentences.

(14) All global moderation and administration staff members have the duty to act solely in the role of moderation and administration staff members when enforcing the Community Standards.

(15) RMB rules of the South Pacific region are to be revised by the global moderation and administration staff members; such rules are to be devised in the spirit of the Community Standards, within the bounds of Nation States site rules.

(16) RMB moderation of the South Pacific region is to be handled by the global moderation and administration staff members or whomever they wish to appoint to such a role under their own discretion; the appointed are responsible to their appointees.

(17) All citizens, residents, dignitaries and visitors of the South Pacific have the duty to abide by the South Pacific Community Standards.

III. RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Recognizing the democratic rights and freedoms of all members of the Coalition.

(1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies.

(2) The right to a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations will not be abridged. No member may be subject to any bill of attainder, be tried for the same crime more than once, or be tried ex post facto.

(3) No member, who had joined the region in good faith, may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.

(4) No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law.

(5) No law may be passed by the Assembly that directly affects the activities of the in-game community without the consent of the in-game community.

(6) The High Court may strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

(This post was last modified: 08-14-2022, 07:11 PM by A bee.)

Reply

What is your goal here?

I'd like to ask that question before pointing out that several of these provisions are impossible to enforce or would have some pretty wild consequences you're likely not thinking about.

Reply

In the event that the abuse of power includes heinous crimes, all citizens are obliged in notifying the victim's local law enforcement service.

This is way too OOC to add to the Charter, to my mind.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

Hello. I am Mr. Prime Minister. I like trolling. On the last week of my term, I strike down a whole bunch of laws for BS reasons that go to the court. By the time the 3 months of court cases wrap up, I have already fled to Balder.

Also,

No citizen may be tried for the same crime more than once.

needs to be less vague. I think I know what you're trying to get at here but this would be really up to interpretation and would depend on how the justice servicing the court case interprets this sentence as it stands right now.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

No citizen may be ostracized by the South Pacific without trial.

There is more than one way to be removed from the region and not all require or even warrant a trial. The standard should be that in each case reasonable due process is observed.

(4) The High Court, the Delegate, the Prime Minister and/or the Assembly are obliged to strike down any law, policy or action that violates any of the rights and freedoms found in the Charter.

Neither the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or the Assembly have any authority to strike down laws or regulations, not should they gain such an authority. Judicial authority is, and rightfully so, in the High Court alone.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

What is your goal here?

I'll give a thorough answer;
The goal of this thread is to present a revision of Chapter III while getting community feedback on what, how and why should be improved.
The goal of revisiting the first three chapters (here) separately is because I feel they are separate topics, wherein the preamble and the first two chapters elaborate on norms preceding system preceding the rights of citizens in detail.
The reason why I'm suggesting changes to this aspect specifically is that they provide the foundations, the general circle of rules of the game. Expanding on these three topics I feel is a) necessary given other proposals concerning structural changes in governance, b) desirable for comprehending The Coalition, it makes it less of a Nomic, provides basic consensual consensus.
I also might've misinterpreted your question if it was in reference to ''why are you proposing these changes specifically?''

This is way too OOC to add to the Charter, to my mind.

I've pondered on whether it should be added. Given my very careful approach when re-drafting the Charter, I've decided to see how an extreme approach would be received.

needs to be less vague.

Taken in account. It's basically not allowing double jeopardy, dating back to ''autrefois convict''.

There is more than one way to be removed from the region and not all require or even warrant a trial.

''Ostracized'' refers to the ''banishment'' term, rather than social exclusion. Taken in account.

strike down laws or regulations, nor should they gain such an authority. Judicial authority is, and rightfully so, in the High Court alone.

I assume that you believe this change would produce conflicting implications. I'm taking it in account and requesting feedback on adding a different clause which grants ''veto'' to the aforementioned bodies on policies and laws before they are enacted?

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply

''Ostracized'' refers to the ''banishment'' term, rather than social exclusion.

I'm aware, but my point remains. A classic example of a removal that does not ordinarily require a trial are banjections ordered by the Local Council. I can assure you that I do not fancy the idea of holding a trial every time one of those gets ordered.

I assume that you believe this change would produce conflicting implications. I'm taking it in account and requesting feedback on adding a different clause which grants ''veto'' to the aforementioned bodies on policies and laws before they are enacted?

I'm not sure that is necessary. If there is a concern that a particular law or action conflicts with the Charter than one need only ask a legal question or submit a review request.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

The goal of this thread is to present a revision of Chapter III while getting community feedback on what, how and why should be improved.

If you stop and think about this for a moment, I think you'll see just how much of a non-answer it is.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

Yes, I am asking what you wish to achieve with this specific proposal. Why do we need freedoms? What are the purposes of freedom and rights, specific to what this game is? What rights and freedoms are relevant here versus just copying the US Bill of Rights like we current do?

Reply

I can assure you that I do not fancy the idea of holding a trial every time one of those gets ordered.

I'm assured though this clause has already existed in an alternative form. Would a redefinition such as ''No (law-abiding)/(rule-abiding) citizen may be ostracized by the South Pacific without trial.'' Or by retaining ''No citizen may be ostracized by the South Pacific without the due process of law'' would fix this issue?

I'm not sure that is necessary. If there is a concern that a particular law or action conflicts with the Charter than one need only ask a legal question or submit a review request.

Although it's a veto concerned with a legal question, would giving this active right not make the playerbase more vigilant and legally aware?

What rights and freedoms are relevant here versus just copying the US Bill of Rights like we current do?

It hasn't really been copied as Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't present within this Chapter alone.
It's been simulated to a version which is applicable in the game.
Not carbon-copying existing documents (but still drawing inspiration from them as they're not ex nihilo) while simulating a government should be preferable as it incentivizes creativity and critical thinking of the players.

Why do we need freedoms? What are the purposes of freedom and rights, specific to what this game is?

I'm assuming you don't mean metaphysically. The purpose is to define limitations of governance, avoid arbitration and provide a document which legally insures the democratic process. I don't understand the underlined part of the question or its' reference, though.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply