Embassy of the South Pacific

[Disco Viking]

Nowhere in "the laws" does it say the Delegate is the person who decides the region is under threat. That's the role of the CSS. It's an inconvenient thing, these "laws". You see, obviously if Milograd had requested military support TNP would have had no legal obligation to support Milograd. The CSS, not the delegate, is the body that decides the region's security level.

Furthermore, your assertion is untrue, a number of TSP treaties specify the CSS must recommend support. TNP's treaty was written by a different author and may be an exception to that rule but the Balder-TSP treaty also had specific conditions set on military support which TSP would not currently qualify for - unless TSP has recently announced its being couped or invaded.

And, since you're delegate and the only one receiving foreign support, naturally, if TSP is being couped/invaded, the only person in TSP that Balder would legally be required not to support would be... you. But this is, of course, purely academic.

First of all, it's be hard to pull back since Balder has deployed already deployed the Walken Walkers. Also, not sure what the big deal is. Despite our best objections, Hile has ordered us to keep pillaging other nations to a minimum.

[SillyString]

I'm not sure how it helps the situation to get TNP and Balder involved.

Regardless, neither region is authorized to have troops in TSP piling on the Delegate. Such authorization must come from the CSS, which it has not. Not even our treaties authorize this. Both treaties only allow foreign troops to enter our region and pile on the Delegate in the event of an invasion or a coup. There is no invasion, and Hileville can point to no internal coup he needs help fending off.

I'm politely requesting that TNP and Balder recall their troops from TSP, unless and until the CSS authorizes a piling operation, or the relevant treaty clauses are acted upon under a valid request against an invasion or coup.

I cannot find any clause in TSP's law, or in the TNP-TSP treaty, which requires CSS authorization of NPA movement into TSP. I'm not an expert on TSP law, though, so if there is something I'm missing I'd appreciate it if you could quote it for me.

From what I can tell, the legal delegate of TSP is authorized to request assistance in the event of an internal or external attack, and TNP is obliged to comply. At other times - that is, when there is not a current internal or external attack - TNP is not obliged to comply, but I see no clause prohibiting that from happening. It is possible that under TSP law it is the Foreign Affairs Minister who must make that request, as the Charter says that the FA Ministry "is responsible for all interactions with foreign regions". My understanding is that Sopo has approved and authorized this request, but as I spoke to Hileville and not Sopo, I have reached out to the latter to get confirmation.

TNP may not be obligated to deploy to TSP in this case, but we have chosen to do so in order to keep a very tense situation from escalating. It was certainly conceivable to us that an interested party might take this opportunity to attempt to coup the region, or to frame someone else for doing so - for example, flooding foreign endorsements onto an unknowing CSS member. As Hileville remains the legal delegate of TSP, having not been recalled, and there is no other contender for that status that might make things murky, in our judgement NPA presence in TSP benefits the Coalition's security.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Regardless of who called in troops, or who gave an order, or why, foreign troops entering TSP in the midst of one of its most serious constitutional crises in its history is not a wise move. There's no point in TNP and Balder getting dragged into this.

[Unibot III]

Nowhere in "the laws" does it say the Delegate is the person who decides the region is under threat. That's the role of the CSS. It's an inconvenient thing, these "laws". You see, obviously if Milograd had requested military support TNP would have had no legal obligation to support Milograd. The CSS, not the delegate, is the body that decides the region's security level.

Furthermore, your assertion is untrue, a number of TSP treaties specify the CSS must recommend support. TNP's treaty was written by a different author and may be an exception to that rule but the Balder-TSP treaty also had specific conditions set on military support which TSP would not currently qualify for - unless TSP has recently announced its being couped or invaded.

And, since you're delegate and the only one receiving foreign support, naturally, if TSP is being couped/invaded, the only person in TSP that Balder would legally be required not to support would be... you. But this is, of course, purely academic.

You are blatantly lying. None of TSP's treaties require the CSS to ask for foreign support. Being that you were a Citizen during most if not all of them being passed, you know this.

On the contrary, I wasn't just a citizen. I was a Cabinet Minister and a Speaker at the time. The guy who knew the laws better than anyone. Plus I was the delegate of one of the region's you treatied with. TRR-TSP Treaty of Peace and Amity makes specific use of the term, "appropriate security organ." The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between The South Pacific and Lazarus does the same thing. It's not about the delegate, it's about the appropriate security organ.

But if you reallllllllllllly want to get in a legal battle with me...

The waffling over TNP treaty's language is unnecessary.

It's very clear that the treaty does not require TNP to endorse the delegate just because he or she asks. "Military assistance in case of a military attack, either internal or external," (from TNP's treaty) directly assumes that it could be the delegate, having gone rogue, who is the source of the attack. Defining "other signatory" as strictly "the delegate" is illiterate as far as the South Pacific's laws are concerned - if you read said treaty by replacing "other signatory" with "the delegate", the treaty becomes unintelligible. For example, "This treaty shall come into effect upon its ratification by the duly authorized individuals or bodies of both the signatories," is unintelligible if you read it as "both of the delegates". It's clear the treaty means signatories are the regions and the use of "other signatory" is specific to who is authorized constitutionally to do what on behalf of the region according to each region's local laws and constitutions.

The Assembly holds the sole authority to pass treaties, so we can interpret from that that the final section of the treaty applies to the Assembly not the delegate or the CSS (in theory, the Assembly can pass treaties even if the executive disagrees with them, which happened in at least one case.) The CSS, however, constitutionally holds jurisdiction over identifying security threats and "military attacks" - not the delegate - and therefore it's inconsistent with how the rest of the treaty is to be interpreted to just hand the clause to the delegate by default without specification. It's also prima facie a silly notion since it's usually delegates who are the people the CSS wants to see treatied allies deploy against (e.g., Milograd, Stujenske).

[Glen-Rhodes]

TNP may not be obligated to deploy to TSP in this case, but we have chosen to do so in order to keep a very tense situation from escalating.

I'm no expert or anything, but you may want to reassess how well NPA presence is preventing the situation from escalating

[Disco Viking]

TNP may not be obligated to deploy to TSP in this case, but we have chosen to do so in order to keep a very tense situation from escalating.

I'm no expert or anything, but you may want to reassess how well NPA presence is preventing the situation from escalating

Not sure how you and Unibot discussing treaty laws here is an escalation.

[Todd McCloud]

-snip-

Balder-TSP Treaty

TNP-TSP Treaty

Tell me where it states the CSS must be involved when defense is requested, or that a "state of emergency" must first be declared. I can't seem to find it anywhere.

[Cormac Stark]

I'm not sure why The North Pacific, Balder, or The East Pacific are even acknowledging Unibot's or Glen-Rhodes' existence. Regardless of the correct interpretation of various laws, the former isn't even a citizen of The South Pacific and the latter has no authority to order or even request withdrawal of allied forces. You really don't need to justify deploying at the request of TSP's legal Delegate to them. That they believe they are superior to TSP's legal Delegate doesn't mean anyone should treat them that way.

[Disco Viking]

Good point but technically, I'm not Balder but a resident of TRR just doing my duty as a resident of TRR! No one in Balder has officially responded to this.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm not sure why The North Pacific, Balder, or The East Pacific are even acknowledging Unibot's or Glen-Rhodes' existence. Regardless of the correct interpretation of various laws, the former isn't even a citizen of The South Pacific and the latter has no authority to order or even request withdrawal of allied forces. You really don't need to justify deploying at the request of TSP's legal Delegate to them.

Because Gameplay will sometimes follow the old adage of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". It's how we operate. Those who shout the loudest are often those who write the history books.

[The Grim Reaper]

You really don't need to justify deploying at the request of TSP's legal Delegate to them.

self-flagellation opens the gates to heaven

[Unibot III]

-snip-

Balder-TSP Treaty

TNP-TSP Treaty

Tell me where it states the CSS must be involved when defense is requested, or that a "state of emergency" must first be declared. I can't seem to find it anywhere.

The state of emergency (i.e., an invasion / coup) is only required for Balder's treaty. In TNP's treaty, you can request military support in case of emergency or a delegate transition.

Balder:

4) Both signatories agree to provide diplomatic and military support to one another if requested, in the event of an invasion or attempted coup against a signatory region if requested.

TNP:

3. The signatories shall provide one another military assistance in case of a military attack, either internal or external, targeting the other signatory's home region, to the best of their ability, and at the request of the other signatory.
4. The signatories shall provide one another military assistance for delegacy transitions, at the request of the other signatory.

In both cases it's left vague in the treaty who can authorize military assistance or diplomatic and military support on behalf of a signatory region - the abstraction is intentional: to allow the treaty to appeal equally to both regions. You see, depending on different regional laws and regional constitutions, different officials and bodies within either region are granted the authority to make such requests - plus it'd be a nuisance to update a treaty and re-ratify them every time regional laws and constitutions are amended or altered causing responsibilities to shift.

Therefore, the treaties must be interpreted as giving the authority of said request to the appropriate agent of the signatory according to the signatory's laws. And in the case of the South Pacific, the constitution makes the CSS, not the delegate, the ultimate authority in security matters. In a contradiction between the CSS and the delegate, it would be legally inadvisable to stick troops in TSP while the CSS is saying "we didn't order this request".

EDIT: I should add, if I were TNP & Balder, I would have done the same damn thing if Hileville asked me to deploy in TSP. But the story changes when the CSS, TSP's security organ, says it didn't approve a deployment and has continued to not approve a deployment - that's when you've got to consider withdrawing. It's not Hileville's jurisdiction to go over the CSS on a matter of security.

[Todd McCloud]

In both cases it's left vague in the treaty who can authorize military assistance or diplomatic and military support on behalf of a signatory region - the abstraction is intentional: to allow the treaty to appeal equally to both regions. You see, depending on different regional laws and regional constitutions, different officials and bodies within either region are granted the authority to make such requests - plus it'd be a nuisance to update a treaty and re-ratify them every time regional laws and constitutions are amended or altered causing responsibilities to shift.

Therefore, the treaties must be interpreted as giving the authority of said request to the appropriate agent of the signatory according to the signatory's laws. And in the case of the South Pacific, the constitution makes the CSS, not the delegate, the ultimate authority in security matters. In a contradiction between the CSS and the delegate, it would be legally inadvisable to stick troops in TSP while the CSS is saying "we didn't order this request".

With respect to the boldface text: I agree. The CSS is not needed to authorize assistance. That matter has been cleared up now.

With respect to the whole: clearly those in TNP, Balder, and TSP felt it necessary to possibly send assistance. That's entirely within their right to do so, and therefore does not require correction from an individual who is citizen of none of these regions.

[Hileville]

Even if you were correct. Which you arent. That would require more than one member of the CSS to say that. Which they aren't.

[Unibot III]

In both cases it's left vague in the treaty who can authorize military assistance or diplomatic and military support on behalf of a signatory region - the abstraction is intentional: to allow the treaty to appeal equally to both regions. You see, depending on different regional laws and regional constitutions, different officials and bodies within either region are granted the authority to make such requests - plus it'd be a nuisance to update a treaty and re-ratify them every time regional laws and constitutions are amended or altered causing responsibilities to shift.

Therefore, the treaties must be interpreted as giving the authority of said request to the appropriate agent of the signatory according to the signatory's laws. And in the case of the South Pacific, the constitution makes the CSS, not the delegate, the ultimate authority in security matters. In a contradiction between the CSS and the delegate, it would be legally inadvisable to stick troops in TSP while the CSS is saying "we didn't order this request".

With respect to the boldface text: I agree. The CSS is not needed to authorize assistance. That matter has been cleared up now.

With respect to the whole: clearly those in TNP, Balder, and TSP felt it necessary to possibly send assistance. That's entirely within their right to do so, and therefore does not require correction from an individual who is citizen of none of these regions.

With respect to your boldface text, the ambiguity does not mean the CSS's acquiescence is not necessary, the ambiguity allows for the treaty to apply to both regions based on their regional laws. Thus the treaties only require the CSS's support because regional law dictates that decision ultimately lies with the CSS.

With respect to the whole: you've clearly ignored the evidence I've provided against your previous claims that the treaties did not require a particular set of circumstances for military deployment. Presumably you've ignored that evidence because it doesn't support your argument. Now you've just said my argument doesn't matter because I'm not a citizen of either region. Which is a funny claim to make since being a citizen does not determine one's competency with regards to one's knowledge of the law - as you've clearly demonstrated here for us now in plain view.

Even if you were correct. Which you arent. That would require more than one member of the CSS to say that. Which they aren't.

I am absolutely correct and you know it. But you are correct the CSS would have to show more signs of opposition than one member. We'll have to wait and see, won't we...

[Disco Viking]

4) Both signatories agree to provide diplomatic and military support to one another if requested, in the event of an invasion or attempted coup against a signatory region if requested.

To me, this means that if there is a military threat against one of the signatories that the military HAS to support the other region if it is requested. This does not include other situations and thus does not bar other situations for deployment.

[Unibot III]

That they believe they are superior to TSP's legal Delegate doesn't mean anyone should treat them that way.

Being a region's legally delegate means piss all if you're operating outside of the constitution. Surely detractors of Milograd and Stujenske (et. al.) can understand that logic. Currently the Supreme Court is considering TSP Cabinet's actions and whether they were consistent with the constitution; meanwhile the CSS's other members appear to not have been contacted about this surprise allocation of foreign troops.

My suggestion to TSP's citizens concerned about this recent action by their delegate would be to open a legal question asking whether requesting military support without a coup, invasion or transition present is provided by the Balder/TNP treaties - I think the justices would find the delegate was acting outside of those treaties since it clearly states the terms under which calls for assistance ought to be acquiesced.

To me, this means that if there is a military threat against one of the signatories that the military HAS to support the other region if it is requested. This does not include other situations and thus does not bar other situations for deployment.

CORRECT! But foreign deployment in a game-created region outside of the parameters of a treaty or an invasion, coup, transition etc. is unorthodox and usually a sign of a rogue administration - and is often treated as a security threat, not a harbinger of goodwill by security organs. Regions generally don't like it when allies deploy in their regions unnecessarily.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

CORRECT! But foreign deployment in a game-created region outside of the parameters of a treaty or an invasion, coup, transition etc. is unorthodox and usually a sign of a rogue administration - and is often treated as a security threat, not a harbinger of goodwill by security organs. Regions generally don't like it when allies deploy in their regions unnecessarily.

So let me get this straight, because what you quoted and replied to was basically my thought as well -

There is zero legal issue with them coming in, and you've just agreed to that.

All that's in the treaties is a requirement to take positive action under circumstances. Nothing prevents a positive action in circumstances other than those specifically listed.

Balder and TNP have taken action that they were, therefore, not legally required to make but rather chose to make voluntarily, at the request of the legitimate delegate.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't really see what's wrong here, unless you're declaring Hileville to have gone rogue, and his request to be an indicator of such.

[Cormac Stark]

It's a flawed reading of TSP law to identify only the CSS as a security organ. If that were the case, who would request foreign support if the CSS were responsible for plotting or actually perpetrating a coup? Section 1.6 of the Charter empowers the Cabinet to "adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists." There is no law related to a security threat from within the CSS, so the Cabinet is empowered to request foreign military support for the Delegate as a matter of executive policy when such a threat from within the CSS is perceived to exist. There is no law that makes clear which office or institution is empowered to request foreign military support in general, for that matter, so the Cabinet is empowered to request foreign military support in general as a matter of executive policy as well.

Glen-Rhodes and Unibot are only objecting because Glen-Rhodes is the threat, and Unibot has always been his accomplice. Their legal arguments are absurd, as the Assembly can't possibly have intended to legislate such a ridiculous security vulnerability by granting the CSS absolute power over regional security. Only a group of morons would do that on purpose, and while Glen-Rhodes and Unibot may think every other citizen in TSP is a moron, the rest of us shouldn't.

[The Church of Satan]

Good point but technically, I'm not Balder but a resident of TRR just doing my duty as a resident of TRR! No one in Balder has officially responded to this.

Just to be clear, The Rejected Realms is in no way involved in this.

[Unibot III]

CORRECT! But foreign deployment in a game-created region outside of the parameters of a treaty or an invasion, coup, transition etc. is unorthodox and usually a sign of a rogue administration - and is often treated as a security threat, not a harbinger of goodwill by security organs. Regions generally don't like it when allies deploy in their regions unnecessarily.

So let me get this straight, because what you quoted and replied to was basically my thought as well -

There is zero legal issue with them coming in, and you've just agreed to that.

All that's in the treaties is a requirement to take positive action under circumstances. Nothing prevents a positive action in circumstances other than those specifically listed.

Balder and TSP have taken action that they were, therefore, not legally required to make but rather chose to make voluntarily, at the request of the legitimate delegate.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't really see what's wrong here, unless you're declaring Hileville to have gone rogue, and his request to be an indicator of such.

Yes and no. It's true that to be legal as far the treaties are concerned, the actions must take place outside of the terms of the treaty. This current behaviour then enters into a legal grey area where normally only rogue delegates enter - that is to say, when a delegate asks foreign troops to support themselves when the troops aren't necessary.

You see the constitution grants the CSS the exclusive jurisdiction over the internal security of the region: "The Committee for State Security is responsible for the internal security of The Coalition." (s.2.1). It all depends on how a justice might see it then. One reasonable interpretation is that the CSS holds residual powers over internal security, so the question of whether foreign troops should be brought into TSP lies with the CSS not the delegate. Under that interpretation, Hileville's actions are illegal because, once again, he's acted outside of his powers in the constitution. Another reasonable interpretation is that foreign troops should only be deployed in the South Pacific in "States of Emergency" (a specific circumstance - coup, invasion or transition - in the constitution) but otherwise, introducing foreign troops to support the delegate in times of peace would contravene the principle of the Coalition as being a free society or worse be tantamount to an ongoing invasion and a decivilianisation of the delegacy. Neither interpretation is kind to Hileville. Both suggest his actions, while legal outside of the treaties as far as the treaties are concerned, would be illegal under the constitution as either an act ultra vires or fundamentally contrary to its constitutional powers. ¹

_{1. I prefer the ultra vires argument myself, but I could see another justice making the other argument if they saw the constitution as more of a kind of structure where certain actions can implicitly run contrary to the "democracy" and "freedom" anticipated by the constitution. Having foreign troops hanging around with no reason for them to be there is not exactly a good basis for a liberal democracy.}

---

Cormac's suggestion is absurd: (1) the constitution does explictly give the CSS jurisdiction over internal security (s.2.1), I wrote the clause he's blabbering on about - it's not terribly relevant either, (2) Glen-Rhodes is not a security threat to the South Pacific - my dead grandmother is a greater security threat to the South Pacific, given if, nothing else, her lesser demonstration of service and commitment to the region and her inherent shadiness as an Englishwoman, (3) I am not a security threat to the South Pacific, my nation is in the Rejected Realms where my recent treasonous activity has mostly involved sending telegrams to government officials (shock and horror) about their lawbooks needing to be updated, (4) I'm not an "accomplice" of Glen-Rhodes - I am, however, a friend and I'm fairly competent in interpreting and recalling regional and constitutional law in cases of regions I've served in as extensively as the South Pacific (in TSP's case, barring to none, really.)

[Cormac Stark]

Unibot seems to be ignoring that Glen-Rhodes, a member of the CSS, made statements that were perceived by the Cabinet as a threat against the Coalition.

The Charter of The South Pacific is not a suicide pact. Is the Cabinet just supposed to ignore a perceived threat from within the CSS? Obviously not. What the Cabinet is supposed to do is deal with the situation through executive policy because no law exists to deal with it, as Section 1.6 of the Charter mandates. That is exactly what they did, by requesting foreign military support as a matter of executive policy.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

I find Unibot's focus on the law so incredibly ironic when he's fairly useless at following any kind of laws himself. The irony is not lost on me.

[Cormac Stark]

I find Unibot's focus on the law so incredibly ironic when he's fairly useless at following any kind of laws himself. The irony is not lost on me.

Those quickest to play lawyer in NationStates are often also the quickest to break regional laws. Their lawyering isn't done out of any real respect for regional laws, just as a means to achieve their ends, and when their ends can be better achieved by breaking the laws instead of playing lawyer they're fine with doing that too.

Lest anyone forget, Unibot's history in TSP includes getting UDL members to vote stack against a treaty with TNI in 2011, and in TNP it includes using Ravania's espionage against TNP to further defender ends. He can go on about his dedication and service all he wants but at the end of the day, he has been no more and no less dedicated to the Feeders and Sinkers he has manipulated than has Biyah.

[Unibot III]

Unibot seems to be ignoring that Glen-Rhodes, a member of the CSS, made statements that were perceived by the Cabinet as a threat against the Coalition.

The Cabinet does not have the authority to contravene the CSS on a matter of internal security (jurisdiction which belongs to the CSS according to the constitution, not the cabinet) if it senses that a sole member of the CSS is a threat against the Coalition, no. The proper legal method for resolving such a concern is to direct your query to the only body superior to both the CSS and the Cabinet: the Assembly. The Assembly possesses the power to recall a CSS member. Once again however, the Assembly was not contacted. Probably because the Cabinet's case against Glen-Rhodes is about as flimsy and unconvincing as Trump's toupee.

I find Unibot's focus on the law so incredibly ironic when he's fairly useless at following any kind of laws himself. The irony is not lost on me.

I've never been convicted of anything in a region. Your irony is seriously misplaced. I consider myself to have been a pretty good speaker and interpreter of TSP's law over the years.

Lest anyone forget, Unibot's history in TSP includes getting UDL members to vote stack against a treaty with TNI in 2011, and in TNP it includes using Ravania's espionage against TNP to further defender ends.

I did not act on Ravania's "espionage" and I did not get UDL members to vote stack against a treaty with TNI in 2011.

He can go on about his dedication and service all he wants but at the end of the day, he has been no more and no less dedicated to the Feeders and Sinkers he has manipulated than has Biyah.

I think I made a better delegate of the Rejected Realms than Biyah would have - but that's up to others' interpretation and standards of quality.