Better to have and not need than need and not have.
2 Likes
I feel like we're overcomplicating things. If the Assembly wishes to declare war it should be as simple as passing a resolution that declares that a state of war exists between the Coalition and whichever foreign region or organisation is intended to be our enemy, subject to the same passage and repeal requirements as would apply to any other resolution (i.e. any general law, since resolutions are at the end of the day just general laws).
2013.
2 Likes
Who is “we”?
The Assembly… Which has the sole and “supreme legislative authority in the Coalition”…?
I don’t know that declarations of war are necessarily legislative. In many countries, the power to declare war is not reserved by the legislature; even where it is, it is reserved by a provision of the constitution, not implicitly under legislative power. Under our current laws, one could plausibly make the argument that it is no more illegal for the Delegate to make a unilateral declaration of war than it is for the Prime Minister to appoint an advisor — neither is provided for in law, and neither is prohibited. There are plausible arguments to the contrary as well, but I don’t see how declarations of war are so inherently legislative that clarification is a net negative.
1 Like
The constitutional history of the region says that the Assembly declares war by passing a declaration of war, as was the case with the TSP-GGR War and the TSP-Gatesville War.
The version of the Charter in force at the time of the Gatesville war expressly reserved the power to declare war to the Assembly:
Article 3: Legislature
Section 1 - Assembly and Powers of the Assembly[…]
- The Assembly has the sole power to declare a state of war exists with another region or organization.
[…]
- Declarations of War and Treaties require a 60% majority in favor to be enacted or repealed.
The version of the Charter in force at the time of the GCR war, while not reserving the power to declare war solely to the Assembly, did establish declarations of war as a legislative process:
Article 5 - Legislature and Legislative Power
[…]
- Any nation may propose a bill including but not limited to Laws, Treaties, and Declarations of War.
Contrast that to our current set of laws, where declarations of war are nowhere defined. In fact, under current laws, only “the Coalition” is described as declaring war, whatever that means. One could even make the argument that “the Coalition” is broader than the Assembly and must be interpreted as such.
It is confusing at best and dubious at worst to rely on non-binding precedent from over eleven years ago, especially when that precedent was formed on the basis of provisions of law that are no longer in force.
I understand the desire for simplicity, but in this case, codifying nothing is more confusing. It is neither simple nor predictable to have laws that reference declarations of war, but do not specify who can declare it. It is neither simple nor predictable to need to find historical war declarations from 2012 and 2013. It is neither simple nor predictable to infer that those processes should remain similar, even though the Charter that no longer discusses declarations of war. Is all of that really simpler than to, for example, at least add a single clause to say that the Assembly has the sole power to declare war?
I do not object to such a clause, but similarly I find it unreasonable not to assume as a matter of course that the Assembly can pass any and all measures that it deems fit as long as it complies with the Charter, and there is no reason why declaring war should fall outside that scope.
1 Like
I didn’t mean to disagree with that principle. I think there are a couple of reasons in this case why this change wouldn’t conflict with that principle:
- The Charter’s only mention of declarations of war references regions that “the Coalition has declared an official state of war” against. We can certainly make plausible arguments as to why the Assembly is authorized to represent the Coalition as a whole in declaring war, but I think there are plausible arguments to the contrary as well. If declaring war is an authority we think the Assembly should have, even if it’s maybe or probably compliant with the Charter today, there’s no harm in making it definitely compliant with the Charter.
- The Assembly holds exclusive legislative authority, but that does not necessarily mean exclusive authority over specific subject areas. For example, in the absence of any legislative prohibition, the Assembly could presumably appoint a citizen as an advisor to the Prime Minister. That does not mean appointing executive advisors is a power exclusive to the Assembly — otherwise, we’d be objecting every time a Prime Minister appointed an advisor. Similarly, it can be simultaneously true that the Assembly can declare war under current law, and that the Assembly has not reserved the exclusive right to declare war.
1 Like
I agree. Welly’s proposal, in my opinion, covers this very well. It is best to make it clear in case of any future doubts.
1 Like
Are there any further thoughts? If not, I would probably move the proposed amendment I offered above to a vote. But I don’t want to cut off debate if other people want to weigh in.
I don’t really have any thoughts to add on this.
Sorry, I was too busy responding to Griff and Kris to respond to you 
I’d prefer if the proposed Charter XI(1) was explicit in that the Assembly has the sole power to declare war. If we want, we can discuss having a system where other parts of the government must also approve of declaring war, but that’s not what the rest of the amendment reads like.
I agree with this change and will implement accordingly.
I move this to a vote.
Out of curiosity, why do declarations of war need a separate title in the Charter instead of just being mentioned in the Assembly section as one of the measures that require a higher threshold?
I considered that, but I think it is helpful to clarify the exclusivity of the Assembly’s war power in the Charter itself, not just the Legislative Procedure Act. And the Assembly section in the Charter did not really have a list of powers in which it would make sense to insert a new one. Hence a separate section.
Seconded.
I worry that war is being given an outsized placement in the Charter when (a) no other lawmaking power is given that same prominence, and (b) war doesn’t really mean much as far as NS is concerned. Why is war so special that it needs its own title?
Well, there are almost no other lawmaking powers mentioned in the Charter at all. If there were, I would have preferred to include a war power in that list, as apparently it was in the Charter that was in effect during the Gatesville war. But since no such list currently exists, there wasn’t a natural place to insert this provision if we wanted to include it in the Charter. Which brings me to your second point.
Maybe it doesn’t mean that much as a practical matter, but a declaration of war still strikes me as a momentous and profound decision, which the authority to take should be provided for in our supreme governing document. I agree that the precise way in which war is to be declared, if the Assembly is to be given that authority, is a matter of legislative procedure that could entirely be dealt with in that act. But the initial grant of sole authority to the Assembly seems more foundational than that and thus belongs in the Charter.