Regional Security Act

General Archives Great Council
62
If the government has done something and the party affected believes that due process was not followed then they should, as matter of course, have the opportunity to challenge that in court.

We can discuss the scope of the judicial review -for example, how strict the standard of review should be- but the very notion that there should be some avenue for redress via the judiciary should not be up for discussion.

–

If the concern is about the level of scrutiny of a hypothetical review of foreign proscriptions, I say again that the goal is to verify that (a) procedure was followed, and (b) there is a rational basis for the proscription; that is, that whatever justification the proscribing authority used is not blatantly arbitrary or capricious.

I hope we can all agree that government should not ignore procedure or be arbitrary or capricious in its actions, and the judiciary should be there in case such a thing happens.

2 Likes
63

Eh, we’re a sovereign region. Nobody not in TSP is bound by our laws, covered by our rights, and so shouldn’t be assumed to have any access to our courts.

If John Doe in Region X is barred from entering TSP by security declaration, nobody in TSP is harmed. Doe has no rights because he isn’t in our region. Therefore, he is not harmed either under any sensible or sensical theory of law. Neither is any citizen of TSP harmed by the banning of a foreigner, so they have no legitimate cause to raise suit on behalf of Doe.

We have no obligation or responsibility to anybody outside of TSP. That is why there’s no reason for PNG declarations against a foreigner to be reviewable period. It’s a diplomatic executive prerogative. There is literally nobody legally harmed under our laws. If a TSP voter doesn’t like a PNG declaration, they can exercise their disagreement in an election.

64

We will have to agree to disagree then.

There is no area of government action that should be outside the scope of judicial review. The only question is what the scope of that review should be. It doesn’t matter if the party affected is a foreigner with few ties to the region. It is a matter of principle and consistency with our values that they should be able to have their day in court.

65

I feel like I’m missing something here, but if a resident targeted by a prescription would quickly become… well, a non-resident, would the proscription be put on hold while they appeal as a resident or would they be appealing as a non-resident?

66

Under the draft, residents would not be proscribed.

67

There is recourse via the election process. There is no reason they are entitled to judicial review to protect their non-existent rights.

The law could be written to grant them the right of appeal/judicial review based on their status in the region at the time.

I don’t think that’s a correct reading of your current draft.

68

I fundamentally disagree with that view.

69

Here’s a draft in line with Glen’s comments, which I heartily agree with.

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 will be subject to a reconfirmation vote, initiated by the Chair of the Assembly at the start of June every year, and a simple majority must in favor of their reconfirmation to retain their position.

3. Persona Non Grata

(1) The Prime Minister may declare any individual who is not a Citizen as persona non grata if they believe the individual to be hostile to the Coalition. Persona non grata declarations must be posted publicly.

(2) Any individual who is declared persona non grata is prohibited from participating in or being a part of the Coalition, regions under its jurisdiction, or off-site venues maintained by the Coalition.

(3) The Prime Minister may publicly revoke the persona non grata status of any individual.

4. 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.

(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) A member of the Coalition subject to a proscription may petition the High Court for judicial review under one of the following procedures:
a. the individual may request that the High Court review underlying evidence of intelligence upon which their proscription is based, solely for the purpose of determining if the issuing authority followed the required process and has a rational basis to their interpretation of evidence and intelligence underlying the proscription; or
b. if under a proscription of a region or organization, the individual may present an appeal that they are not a member of the targeted region or organization.

(6) For the purposes of judicial review, the individual must be granted adequate forum permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.

5. States of Emergency

(1) The Assembly may vote to overrule actions taken during a state of emergency by the Security Council with a three-fifths 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.

70

I motion the above draft to a vote

71

I’m curious, what is the goal of having both PNG and proscriptions?

72

They’re distinct prohibitions. Declaring someone persona non grata is a political declaration that someone is an enemy of the region. A proscription is a security protection against someone’s entry into the region based on clear evidence of intent to commit acts of hostility. One is a political declaration and the other is a security tool and the mechanics of each are defined in the law I’ve written.

They have similar practical effects (although under the law I’ve written, groups cannot be declared persona non grata).

73

Why would we need to make that distinction though? If our final goal is to prevent someone from joining, what does it matter whether we call it PNG or proscription?

74

PNGs can only be applied to individual non-members, do not require proof of acts of hostility, can only be applied by the Prime Minister, and are not subject to judicial review. Proscriptions can be applied to both members and non-members, as well as groups and individuals, are subject to judicial review, require proof of an act of hostility, and can be applied by the executive or the Security Council.

Yes, the result is the same. The legal process and intent is different.

75

So…if a PM wants to avoid the hassle of a proscription they can just use PNGs exclusively?

76

A PM can use persona non grata status to apply to individual non-members of the Coalition. That distinction is significant.

77

That’s a made up distinction.

78

How? It’s a clear legal distinction between:

  • individuals and organizations. A PM could declare persona non grata Testlandia, as an individual, but not the NS Administrative Team as a collective.
  • members and non-members. A PM could declare persona non grata Testlandia but not Roavin.
79

Which is made up. It’s not as if we need that distinction. You could easily codify a single PNG provision and say that either the PM or the CSS could order it for being a threat to the security of the region.

Don’t get me wrong, this was motioned and it will be brought to a vote. I take my job very seriously in that regard.

Still, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out how the distinction between PNG and proscription isn’t actually needed. I know you say they are used for different things, but I don’t think they are different things at all. At the end of the day you are banning someone who is a threat to the security of the region or its interests. That’s all there is to it.

80

Sorry if I missed something — did someone say otherwise?