I am proposing additional grounds for proscription to address a recent regional security concern.
Proscription Act
An act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition
1. Acts of Hostility
…
(4) Insofar as an act of hostility as defined above is committed against an ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription
(4) In the case of innocent regions, proscribable acts of hostility will be limited to individuals, regions, or organizations who repeatedly engage innocent regions with the intent of griefing or destroying them, regardless of the successfulness of such acts.
Draft 3
Proscription Act
An act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition
1. Acts of Hostility
(1) The following acts committed against the legitimate government of the South Pacific, or its allies, or innocent regions are considered acts of hostility, whether or not they are successful:
…
(4) Insofar as an act of hostility is committed against an ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription.
…
3. Grant of Authority
…
(2) The Prime Minister and Council on Regional Security may issue a proscription based on acts of hostility committed against innocent regions not actively allied with the South Pacific only where the target of proscription has committed repeated or unapologetic acts of hostility against such innocent regions.
Draft 2
Proscription Act
An act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition
1. Acts of Hostility
(1) The following acts committed against the legitimate government of the South Pacific, or its allies, or innocent regions are considered acts of hostility, whether or not they are successful:
…
(4) Insofar as an act of hostility is committed against an ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription.
Draft 1
Proscription Act
An act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition
1. Acts of Hostility
(1) The following acts committed against the legitimate government of the South Pacific, or its allies, or innocent regions are considered acts of hostility, whether or not they are successful:
…
(4) Insofar as an act of hostility is committed against a region not actively allied with the South Pacific, repeated or unapologetic acts of hostility toward innocent regions throughout NationStates will also be valid grounds for the issuance of a proscriptionan ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription.
While I understand the context in which this legislation is being pushed, I cannot unequivocally support this amendment. So I will play devil’s advocate here.
Is it possible for PM and CRS to overreach in terms of applying proscriptions with this amendment? In a plain reading of this amendment, if every “repeated or unapologetic [act] of hostility toward innocent regions” known to the PM and CRS is acted on with a proscription, does that effectively mean that the PM and CRS would be proscribing every raider region/organization on NS? For that matter, how would the PM and CRS determine what constitutes a “repeated or unapologetic” act of hostility? An “innocent region”?
Well, I would say that it is something that happens routinely and that those responsible for it do not show any remorse for their actions, which, in my view, is something very noticeable and I would even say obvious.
A region that didn’t start a war/regions that didn’t do anything wrong to get invaded.
I would second Lord’s question as to whether this would permit the PM / CRS to proscribe every raider region in the game.
From a more technical perspective, is there a reason that you chose to delete the existing sub-section (4) and replace with this provision, rather than including this provision as a separate sub-section (5)? Sub-section (4), as currently written, is a limitation on the PM / CRS’s authority to proscribe based on a single act of hostility towards an ally, that limitation being that the region in question must actually be an ally at the time of proscription. Your amendment seems a bit different in that it is concerned with regions that are not actually allies at the time of proscription. If you included this as a sub-section (5), then the rules would be that the PM / CRS can proscribe: (a) based on a single act of hostility only when that act is directed against TSP or a current ally or (b) based on “repeated or unapologetic acts of hostility” towards “innocent regions” that are not TSP allies. That strikes me as a reasonable way to structure the proscription authority.
If a PM wanted to do that, I honestly see nothing fundamentally wrong about that.
I believe that the amendment would render the deleted language redundant and unnecessary. With the Proscription Act taken as a whole, Section 4 currently limits the issuance of proscriptions for acts of hostility toward TSP and its allies. The proposal opens the Proscription Act further by considering repeated or unapologetic acts of hostility towards non-allied regions that are innocent. Between these two things, one offers narrow authority and the other offers broader authority.
I’m really in doubt about the need for this clause with the addition in clause 1, as it is currently only specific at what time a region should be allied for the proscription to be allowed.
I’m not sure that clause was useless. I might have amended it slightly, but I read it as a limitation on the expanded proscription power that this proposal would give the CRS. Currently, the CRS can proscribe a nation or region only when they commit an act of hostility against TSP or an ally, but (apparently) a single act of hostility is sufficient for the CRS to issue a proscription. This amendment broadens the CRS’ proscription authority by allowing it to issue proscriptions against nations or regions that commit hostile acts against innocent, non-allied regions. But the clause in question seemed to limit that authority by requiring the target of proscription have committed multiple “repeated or unapologetic acts” of hostility against innocent, non-allied regions before they could be proscribed. That struck me as a prudent limitation on this expanded authority. In other words, where an act of hostility is committed directly against TSP or its allies, then that alone is sufficient to justify proscription. But where such acts are committed against non-allies, then the Act would require a pattern of such behavior before authorizing proscription.
I have drafted up some language to that effect below. Of course, EmC, this is your proposal. If you intended it to authorize the CRS to proscribe based on a single act of hostility against an innocent region, then this isn’t what you are looking for. But I took the text of your initial proposal to suggest that something more was required–i.e., multiple or unapologetic acts.
Amendments
Proscription Act
An act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition
1. Acts of Hostility
(1) The following acts committed against the legitimate government of the South Pacific, or its allies, or innocent regions are considered acts of hostility, whether or not they are successful:
…
(4) Insofar as an act of hostility is committed againstan ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription.
…
3. Grant of Authority
(1) The Prime Minister, together with the Council on Regional Security may proscribe an individual that is not a member of the Coalition, or a foreign region or organization, that they determine to be hostile. The Prime Minister, together with the Council on Regional Security may proscribe a member or a group of members that they determine to be hostile.
(2) The Prime Minister and Council on Regional Security may issue a proscription based on acts of hostility committed against innocent regions not actively allied with the South Pacific only where the target of proscription has committed repeated or unapologetic acts of hostility against such innocent regions.
I’m satisfied with the language here, but I guess I’m still somewhat concerned about whether the PM/CRS would be overzealous with their use of proscription powers.
Well, I believe that these regions are increasingly becoming a greater risk for both the NS regions in general and TSP. I have no doubt that, at one time or another, they will try something against us, whether stealthily or not. Therefore, I believe we should take as much precaution as possible.
Well, Welly’s draft specifies well that these attacks must work in a “repeated or unapologetic” way, So I see no reason to worry.