Regional Security Act

[ProfessorHenn]

Mr. Chair, I move that this act be brought to a vote.

[KrisKringle]

@ProfessorHenn

(2) Individuals appointed by the Security Council may be recalled by the Assembly as officials of the Coalition.

I still think this is more broad than necessary. For example, would an individual appointed by the Security Council to do bookkeeping really be liable to recall?

@ProfessorHenn

(1) A proscription is a prohibition on attaining voter status in the Coalition and maintaining residency in regions under the Coalition’s jurisdiction.

Does this mean that proscriptions would not include forum or server bans? Since those are not “regions”.

@ProfessorHenn

(3) Proscriptions must be based on a clear threat to the Coalition’s security, the security of allied regions, or acts of hostility against the Coalition and her allies.

This provision, as written, doesn’t require that the proscribed party be the one to have engaged in such actions, only that the actions have happened. That could be misread to say that anyone could be proscribed if somewhere is a thread to the Coalition or if someone committed acts of hostility.

@ProfessorHenn

(5) Proscriptions may undergo a judicial review, if requested by the affected party.

What would be the scope of such review? There is a difference between the Court reviewing a proscription on its merits and it merely reviewing if there is a rational basis for it, or some other level of review in between those.

---

Is there anything at all that we would want to include in this act regarding states of emergency?

[Pronoun]

@KrisKringle

For example, would an individual appointed by the Security Council to do bookkeeping really be liable to recall?

Why not? If our community doesn’t trust that individual to be a bookkeeper for the Security Council, maybe they shouldn’t continue to hold that position.

[ProfessorHenn]

@KrisKringle

For example, would an individual appointed by the Security Council to do bookkeeping really be liable to recall?

Echoing Pronoun’s words. If the Security Council appointed a bookkeeper, they have access to sensitive discussions, and should not be totally separated from Assembly oversight or trust.

@KrisKringle

Does this mean that proscriptions would not include forum or server bans? Since those are not “regions”.

I can add in a prohibition on access to off-site resources, but I hesitated on adding that in originally in the event of a request by the proscribed for judicial review.

@KrisKringle

This provision, as written, doesn’t require that the proscribed party be the one to have engaged in such actions, only that the actions have happened.

I will edit the provision.

@KrisKringle

What would be the scope of such review? There is a difference between the Court reviewing a proscription on its merits and it merely reviewing if there is a rational basis for it, or some other level of review in between those.

This is a question I figured would be better answered in a Judicial Act, or equivalent. Given that the Great Council has yet to define judicial procedure, the game is still wide open.

@KrisKringle

Is there anything at all that we would want to include in this act regarding states of emergency?

The extant law regarding states of emergency is this clause, from the Charter, Section X.9:

(9) During a coup d’etat, whether committed by outside forces, infiltrators, or duly elected officials, the Council on Regional Security may declare a state of emergency, until such a time that a legitimate government is restored. All necessary measures may be taken to defeat a coup d’etat or hostile invasion, except that the legitimate Assembly may not be suspended.

I’m fine with adding a clause stating that the Security Council can declare a state of emergency (perhaps in case of a threat to the Coalition), but beyond that, what else do we need to define?

[KrisKringle]

@ProfessorHenn

Echoing Pronoun’s words. If the Security Council appointed a bookkeeper, they have access to sensitive discussions, and should not be totally separated from Assembly oversight or trust.

I disagree. I see no point in a provision so wide open that clerical staff could potentially fall under it. If we want to have the Coral Guard (or however its successor is called) be subject to recall then let’s add language to that effect. We don’t need to have every single position subject to recall (which is not the same as saying that they shouldn’t be subject to Assembly oversight).

@ProfessorHenn

This is a question I figured would be better answered in a Judicial Act, or equivalent.

I don’t know if we want to go down the rabbit hole of having the Judicial Act codify the scope of each possible case.

@ProfessorHenn

I’m fine with adding a clause stating that the Security Council can declare a state of emergency (perhaps in case of a threat to the Coalition), but beyond that, what else do we need to define?

There is a significant amount of grey area around that. Would the PM remain the commander-in-chief of the military under a state of emergency? What kind of relationship would the executive have with the Security Council? How are states of emergency ended? What remedies would the Assembly have in case of abuse or refusal to end one? What qualifies as a “necessary measure”?

[Pronoun]

@KrisKringle

I see no point in a provision so wide open that clerical staff could potentially fall under it.

We’re not just talking about clerical staff in general, we’re talking about clerical staff in the context of the Securit Council. I think it’s fair to say that members of the Security Council should be trusted members of the community, and I don’t see why that shouldn’t extend to those working for the Security Council who have access to the information available to the council and are privy to decisions made by the council. The power to initiate recalls (or re-confirmation votes, which I’d also be amenable to) are means by which that trust can be measured.

[KrisKringle]

I think you overestimate the “access to information” that is available to the CSS.

[Pronoun]

I’m assuming there’s enough information that appointing a clerk is a plausible scenario. But even if we’re talking about a bookkeeper who isn’t even bookkeeping much information, it’s still important for the CRS and their appointed officials to be trusted members of the community.

[KrisKringle]

This is one area where I do believe we risk Assembly overreach. If we want the Coral Guard then that is a discussion I’m willing to have, and I even think it’s perfectly reasonable to make their members subject to recall. A blanket provision that any and all CSS-made appointments should be subject to recall is a step too far, in my view.

[ProfessorHenn]

@KrisKringle

any and all CSS-made appointments should be subject to recall

Given that recalls may only be started for dereliction of duty, abuse of power, or violations of the law, I am not concerned with Assembly overreach in allowing all Security Council appointments be subject to recall.

With regards to codifying states of emergency, I think someone else can take a better crack at it than I could.

[ProfessorHenn]

I’ve elected to just replace the old clause into the act. I seek final comments before moving it to a vote at the end of the week.

[KrisKringle]

What is this referring to?

[ProfessorHenn]

@ProfessorHenn

(4) During a coup d’etat, whether committed by outside forces, infiltrators, or duly elected officials, the Security Council may declare a state of emergency, until such a time that a legitimate government is restored. All necessary measures may be taken to defeat a coup d’etat or hostile invasion, except that the legitimate Assembly may not be suspended.

The above is included.

[KrisKringle]

That clause is in the new Charter, so I’m not sure how much it adds to have it here?

[Sandaoguo]

To be honest, we need to return to allowing persona non grata designations and not conflate them with proscriptions. Every proscription since that idea was created was against a foreign actor. Why do people not in TSP have any rights to protect in TSP? They don’t, the entirety of NationStates doesn’t have rights here and shouldn’t. Just because somebody has some level of celebrity in NSGP doesn’t mean they are deserving of any right to trial against a diplomatic or security-based ban, yet we act like it does. Why?

The Cabinet should be allowed to PNG anybody who isn’t a citizen of our community, and just throwing a nation in the region should not be enough to skirt that because we should be capable of not being pedantic idiots.

For those in TSP, that’s where the real debate is. The main reason we’ve gone the proscription route for domestic security concerns is because there’s been a lack of faith in the criminal trial system. A large part of that is the assumption that the burden of proof is absurdly high given the nature of the game. Can we simply establish a reasonable burden of proof? Can we allow certain measures pending trial? In most countries, you’re arrested and in jail for the duration of your trial if you’re a significant risk. Why can’t we limit somebody’s ability to post, vote, etc. during their trial, if the court finds there’s probable success or whatever? Again, at a reasonable burden of proof for this game.

[KrisKringle]

@Sandaoguo

The Cabinet should be allowed to PNG anybody who isn’t a citizen of our community, and just throwing a nation in the region should not be enough to skirt that because we should be capable of not being pedantic idiots.

I would tend to agree. My view is that the government should be able to prevent someone from joining and that the Court should still be able to accept challenges to those decisions. The caveat would be that judicial review should be limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision; that is, if the government's decision would be reasonable enough given the evidence available, even if others who looked at that same evidence could make a different decision.

I think we’d need a more thorough discussion when it comes to proscribing actual members, but it should be possible to balance the region’s interests with the idea that members should be able to challenge their proscription.

[ProfessorHenn]

I’ve redrafted the Regional Security Act and added an amendment to the Charter following some conversations on Discord.

Regional Security Act
An act to provide for the region’s security

1. General Provisions

(1) This law is a constitutional law and has precedence over all general laws and regulations.

(2) Acts of hostility are defined as the following actions taken against the legitimate government of the Coalition or her allies, successful or otherwise:

1. overthrowing the legitimate government,
2. unlawfully causing a nation to become Delegate,
3. unlawfully gaining access to, distributing, or publishing privileged or classified information,
4. exploiting, manipulating, or unduly influencing elections or votes,
5. acting as an agent on behalf of a foreign region or organization, to the detriment of the legitimate government,
6. planning, strategizing, or otherwise showing an intent to commit an act of hostility (also known as conspiracy),
7. promoting, inducing, aiding or abetting an act of hostility, including a conspiracy to commit such an act (also known as complicity).

2. Security Council

(1) Individuals appointed by the Security Council may be recalled by the Assembly as officers of the Coalition.

(2) Members of the Security Council must pass an approval vote, initiated by the Chair of the Assembly at the start of June every year.

3. Proscriptions

(1) A proscription is a prohibition on participating in or being a part of the Coalition, regions under its jurisdiction, or off-site venues maintained by the Coalition, except as necessary for judicial review of the proscription.

(2) The Cabinet or the Security Council may proscribe an individual, region, organization that they determine to be hostile. Individuals may not be a member of the Coalition in good faith.

(3) Proscriptions must be posted and maintained publicly, including a report detailing the acts of hostility.

(4) The issuing authority may revoke the proscription at any time by publicly issuing a report detailing the justification for the revocation.

(5) Proscribed parties may request a judicial review of the proscription by the High Court, limited to assessing the rational basis that the issuing authority used for the proscription.

4. States of Emergency

(1) The Assembly may vote to overrule actions taken during a state of emergency by the Security Council with a super majority in favor.

(2) Appointments during a state of emergency will be reversed one week following the end of the state of emergency unless approved by the Assembly.

(3) The Security Council will consult with the legitimate government on taking actions during a state of emergency, including but not limited to:

1. Coordinating with the Coalition's allies,
2. Promoting a loyal member of the Coalition with a high number of endorsements to overtake the illegitimate Delegate.

CHARTER OF THE COALITION OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

[. . .]

VIII. Regional Security

[. . .]

4. The Council may declare a state of emergency in the event of a coup d’état or invasion until such a time that a legitimate government is restored, and during that time it may take all measures necessary to defeat the coup d’état or invasion, except as defined by constitutional law. with the exception of impeding the business of the Assembly.

[HumanSanity]

@KrisKringle

My view is that the government should be able to prevent someone from joining and that the Court should still be able to accept challenges to those decisions.

Why should the Court accept a challenge to that decision? That player is not a member of the Coalition, they don’t have rights here, they have never demonstrated good faith in their engagement with us or desire to participate in our process. As a result, the government should be given broad discretion to exclude them. This can’t be exploited by the PM to ban their enemies within the region, it would be a way for the PM to prevent potential entry by known enemies and potential bad actors should they attempt to arrive.

[KrisKringle]

@HumanSanity

@KrisKringle

My view is that the government should be able to prevent someone from joining and that the Court should still be able to accept challenges to those decisions.

Why should the Court accept a challenge to that decision? That player is not a member of the Coalition, they don’t have rights here, they have never demonstrated good faith in their engagement with us or desire to participate in our process. As a result, the government should be given broad discretion to exclude them.

You left out key context from my post, which already addresses your concern:

@KrisKringle

The caveat would be that judicial review should be limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision; that is, if the government’s decision would be reasonable enough given the evidence available, even if others who looked at that same evidence could make a different decision.

If the above isn’t quite clear, what I imagine is the Court being able to verify only that:

• The proscription was issued following the proper procedure, which I think we can all agree is a reasonable thing to expect.

• The proscription can be reasonably interpreted to follow a legitimate security purpose. I emphasise here that the goal is not for the Court to decide if the available evidence supports the proscription beyond a reasonable doubt, rather it is to ensure for any proscriptions that, on the whole, the evidence can in any way support the proscription and serve a legitimate security purpose.

[Quebecshire]

While I understand giving the court the ability to ensure procedure is followed, non-citizens should not have recourse to challenge proscription.