The Union of the West Pacific

[That Called the Vlagh]

Fair enough, and I see the distinction now. However, I'd still like to see, at the very least, the delegate prohibited from throwing out the constitution entirely and starting a new assembly (as opposed to calling a referendum for reform of the existing system, for example.) This revolution we're in the middle of will greatly advance TWP, I think, but I don't think a revolution is appropriate every time the delegate is unhappy with the existing system. Constitutions are supposed to be a strong foundation that can last--otherwise they're not worth the trouble.

The ultimate problem with this is that what you want is not feasible with reality in TWP.  With the authority of the Delegate, this is exactly what has just happened and why we are having a Convention at all. 

 

A constitution can be a strong foundation and I can assure you that so long as this constitution does not seek to impose itself unnecessarily on in-game authority it will not be summarily rejected by the Delegate.

[The Church of Satan]

Frankly I find the original draft (Cormac's) to be fine. I myself couldn't really get behind the changes suggested so far. As it was pointed out, those particular parts struck out in said suggestion) act as a sort of "checks and balances" that I believe maintains an equilibrium that's worked quite well here. Why get rid it of that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[That Called the Vlagh]

Frankly I find the original draft (Cormac's) to be fine. I myself couldn't really get behind the changes suggested so far. As it was pointed out, those particular parts struck out in said suggestion) act as a sort of "checks and balances" that I believe maintains an equilibrium that's worked quite well here. Why get rid it of that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Because there are no 'checks and balances' here. The Delegate has ultimate authority in TWP and that will not change.

[Darkesia]

I have a few tweaks to your edits, Vlagh. 

 

I would indeed like to see statements like "The Delegte has no authority off-site except that of any other resident of TWP, unless granted by off-site consensus/authority."  The idea is to compel the Delegate to cooperate as strongly as the off site is compelled to cooperate.  So, while the Delegate may have no authority over the off site, it is in everyone's best interested to follow the same foreign policy guidelines when it comes to embassies and treaties.  Therefore, I don't think one body should be charged with radifying the other's treaties.  In fact, in-game treaties are more like backroom political deals than treaties.  Just try to keep in mind that if you codify that the off site gets to radify the Delegate's treaties and vice versa, you are asking for trouble.  TSP is a good example.  (I have an embassy with them which mostly represents that we thing TSPers are cool and fun, but they refuse to recognize the in-game supremacy of in-game activity, so no treaty or even embassy on the forums.)

 

We want the forum community strong enough that if we were to put in place a crazy marsupialist as a Delegate, the community could organize and carry out a rebellion of their own.  

 

With respect to Militaries, the fourm community has a clear mission to organize and house a military for the protection of the region as a whole, both off site and in-game.  When things are going well, this means the Delegate and MoFA or PM( or whomever) will likely take the lead in selecting targets via in-game diplomacy and forum Foreign Affairs.  When things are not going well, this will result in an adversarial relationship which will be very threatening to the Delegate.  Personally, I like that.  It's one of the few ways to ensure cooperation is the goal.  But if the community wishes to change that relationship, they may do so.  Because in the end, the Delegate need only be active and have attentive Guardians in order to maintain conrol in-game.

 

I hope that clarifies a little bit.  I am heading out the door and won't be back for a few hours.  In a bit of a hurry and couldn't get to the actual editing of the text.  But I think we are all smart enough to figure it out

[That Called the Vlagh]

Thanks for the clarification, madam Delegate.

[That Called the Vlagh]

I have modified my edits. The offsite community will evidently have the power to approve the Delegate's foreign policy. If this was not the intention of the Delegate, my apologies. I am reading this on my phone while walking to a meeting.

[Darkesia]

I'm in a parkinglot on my phone too. I think I'm just going to leave it all till tomorrow, when I will have the time to invest here.

[Reçueçn]

I had a whole post written and I lost it. The jist of it: I really like Darkesia's comment, but will wait until Cormac posts the next draft to say anything of more substance.

[Elegarth]

To include or integrate some of Dark's comments more strongly, we would probably need to re.visit the text. Or post it and get comments

[Consular]

I guess I feel like this reads more as a mission statement than a constitutional document.

[Cormac]

Charter of the Union of the West Pacific

Preamble

The Union of the West Pacific will endeavor to meet the needs of the West Pacifican community in a way that is unique to the polity and culture of this region. We, the residents who have assembled to ratify this Charter, will make no apology for maintaining a unique community. We will make no apology for thinking outside the box. We will make no apology for respecting the realities of Feeders and Sinkers in NationStates or the dynamics between Delegates and regional communities inherent to those realities. We will instead seek to provide a community government that is vibrantly active and open to participation by any resident of the West Pacific who wishes to participate, guided by reality rather than by ideological dogma. It is with this purpose in mind that we, the assembled residents, ratify this Charter and establish the Union of the West Pacific.

 

1. Relationship Between the Union and the Delegate

 

(1) The Union will recognize the absolute authority of the Delegate over the West Pacific as the reality of NationStates mechanics.

(2) The Union will recognize as legitimate any Delegate elected by the endorsements of the World Assembly nations of the West Pacific.

(3) The Union will recognize the right of the Delegate to exercise any power granted to the Delegate by NationStates mechanics.

(4) The Union will recognize the right of World Assembly nations of the West Pacific to elect a new Delegate at any time.

(5) The Union will recognize its own autonomy from the Delegate as an autonomous off-site community government of the West Pacific.

(6) The Union will cooperate with the Delegate whenever such cooperation is desirable or necessary for the welfare of the overall regional community of the West Pacific.

 

2. Voice of the Union

 

(1) The Voice of the Union will be the supreme governing authority of the Union of the West Pacific.

(2) The Voice will be comprised of all residents of the West Pacific who wish to participate in the Voice. Each resident will have only one vote in the Voice regardless of how many nations they have residing in the West Pacific.

(3) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, admit non-residents to its membership provided the non-residents in question are prevented from residing in the West Pacific.

(4) The Voice will have only the powers enumerated by this Charter and may not assume additional powers except by amending this Charter.

(5) The Voice will have the power to enact, amend, and repeal its own procedural rules.

(6) The Voice will have the power to enact, amend, and repeal non-binding resolutions expressing the sense of the Voice in regard to all matters.

(7) The Voice will, with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to enact, amend, and repeal treaties.

(8) The Voice will have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in treaties proposed by the Delegate.

(9) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote and with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to declare war and to repeal war declarations.

(10) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to confirm and rescind Union participation in war declarations proposed by the Delegate.

(11) The Voice will, by two-thirds majority vote, have the power to amend this Charter or to repeal this Charter in its entirety in favor of a constitutional convention.

(12) Except where otherwise explicitly mandated by this Charter, all votes of the Voice will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only members of the Voice who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.

 

3. Government of the Union

 

(1) The government of the Union will be administered by the Advocate, who will be elected by and preside over the Voice.

(2) Elections for Advocate will consist of a three day period for declarations of candidacy followed by a five day period for voting.

(3) Any member of the Voice who has held continuous membership in the Voice for one month or more will be eligible for candidacy for Advocate.

(4) Any resident who participated in the constitutional convention to enact this Charter will be eligible for the first election for Advocate immediately following enactment of this Charter.

(5) In the event that the office of Advocate is vacant during an election for Advocate, the Delegate may administer the election, may appoint an election administrator, or the member of the Voice with the longest continuous membership and who is available to serve will administer the election.

(6) In the event that no candidate receives a simple majority on the first election ballot, a run-off election will be conducted between the two highest voted candidates, starting no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 72 hours after the previous election has closed. This election will also last for a five day voting period.

(7) In the event that an election results in a tie between only two candidates, the incumbent will be re-elected or, if the incumbent is not a candidate, the candidate who first declared candidacy will be elected.

(8) The Advocate will serve terms of four months, with a limit of two consecutive terms.

(9) The Advocate may appoint officials to assist in government and may dismiss such officials.

(10) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, dismiss the Advocate from office.

(11) The Voice may dismiss any official appointed by the Advocate from office.

 

4. Justice in the Union

 

(1) The Voice will vote on whether to hear any complaint for unacceptable conduct filed against a member of the Voice by another member.

(2) If the Voice votes to hear the complaint, the matter will be referred to a public hearing by three Arbiters elected by the Voice prior to the hearing.

(3) Elections for Arbiter will follow the same procedure as elections for Advocate. Arbiters may determine hearing procedures. Arbiters will serve and their hearing procedures will be binding only for the duration of the hearing for which they are elected.

(4) During all hearings, the complainant may present their case against the defendant and the defendant may present a defense.

(5) At the conclusion of a hearing, Arbiters will find the defendant guilty or not guilty of unacceptable conduct.

(6) If a defendant is found guilty, they will be removed from the Voice for a period of time sentenced by the Arbiters.

(7) A defendant may appeal to the Voice within fourteen days of a guilty verdict imposed by the Arbiters.

(8) The Voice will vote on all appeals and may, by two-thirds majority vote, overturn a guilty verdict and its accompanying sentence. All appeal votes will be final and will not be conducted more than once.

(9) The Voice may, by two-thirds majority vote, commute a sentence imposed by the Arbiters at any time following imposition of the sentence.

(10) The Voice will have no jurisdiction to impose justice on residents, or any other persons, who are not members of the Voice.

(11) The Voice will not infringe upon the right of forum administration to resolve out-of-character offenses at their discretion.

(12) The Voice will not infringe upon the right of the Delegate to resolve game-side offenses at their discretion.

 

5. Military of the Union

 

(1) The military force of the Union will execute the policies determined by the Advocate and officials appointed by the Advocate to assist in military command.

(2) The military force of the Union will maintain a division for home defense that will operate under the command of the Delegate and officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in command of the home defense division.

(3) The Voice will have the power to adopt and amend an official name for the military force of the Union.

(4) The Voice will have the power to override and bring to an immediate end any deployment of the military force of the Union.

(5) No participant in the military force of the Union will be compelled to participate in any military operation against their conscience or prudent judgment.

(6) The existence of an official military force of the Union will not prohibit other residents of the West Pacific from creating alternative military forces with the consent of the Delegate.

 

---

 

Above is the draft Elegarth and I have come up with so far. I wasn't entirely sure how to incorporate Vlagh's and Darkesia's suggestions, which don't appear to be entirely the same, into the draft, so maybe now that the draft is posted they'll be able to suggest revisions to specific clauses.

 

I guess I feel like this reads more as a mission statement than a constitutional document.

 

Well, it originally was more like that because we were in the proposal stage of the convention rather than the drafting stage. I hope the above draft looks more like a constitutional document, and would welcome any suggestions you have for its revision.

[lemonpledge]

I love the look of it so far, but I have an issue with the selection process for Arbiters.

 

If they are elected on the same basis as the Advocate, wouldn't this mean that trials have to wait 8 days before being heard?

[That Called the Vlagh]

I actually have no recommendations for changing this document.  It conforms to what I was anticipating the forum government structure to be about.  I will say that it appears, although she stated she will comment further later today, that the Delegate wanted the Army incorporated into this structure to some extent and I don't see that present.

 

Also for Article 3, Section 10, should the method of dismissal for an official be stated as the same as that of the Advocate or is the threshold lower (e.g. a simple majority)?

[Eli]

I would prefer that the Voice (nice terminology) would only express it's misgivings or recommendations (by a vote) about treaties that the Delegate may wish to enter into

 

 

Surely any Delegate that wanted to maintain their position would work with the Voice to come up with a solution to any such issue without a vote in the first place.

 

Likewise I would advocate that any in game military be ultimately subservient to the Delegate, if the Delegate so desires.

 

 

But otherwise, I must say I'm quite impressed. Cormac you have done well with this.

[lemonpledge]

Well, if the off-site community wants to form it's own military, a militia of sorts, it definitely can do so, getting together the people of the off-site community with WA nations ready to act in-game on the decisions made by the off-site community.

 

At the same time, as can be said about the rest of the community, without the Delegate's approval, such a force couldn't be associated fully with TWP.

 

Also, yeah, I love the terminology too.

[Eli]

we've had 'defender' and 'invader' forces both in the same forum before here so I'm not saying I'm not still for anarchy.

 

 

there was an 'invader' that supported me for Delegate back when, and when I didn't turn the region full out invader he was offended, thought he'd been double crossed.

 

 

Actually I asked for his support, when he asked if I would support him, I said I wouldn't oppose him. There is a big difference in my mind between support and a lack of opposition. But other players not so much apparently. *shrugs* nuance can be important

[Cormac]

I love the look of it so far, but I have an issue with the selection process for Arbiters.

 

If they are elected on the same basis as the Advocate, wouldn't this mean that trials have to wait 8 days before being heard?

 

Trials would have to wait eight days to be heard, yes. That isn't actually that significant a time period in NationStates judicial systems, and any way you slice it the Voice would have to vote on Arbiters. Even if they were, for example, appointed by the Advocate, surely we would want the Voice to approve their appointments or the Advocate could appoint Arbiters with some kind of agenda. While it may not be ideal to have to wait eight days, we want to make sure Arbiters remain independent and as unbiased as they can be, and the best way to do that is to directly elect them.

 

I actually have no recommendations for changing this document.  It conforms to what I was anticipating the forum government structure to be about.  I will say that it appears, although she stated she will comment further later today, that the Delegate wanted the Army incorporated into this structure to some extent and I don't see that present.

 

Also for Article 3, Section 10, should the method of dismissal for an official be stated as the same as that of the Advocate or is the threshold lower (e.g. a simple majority)?

 

We could potentially incorporate the military. Right now that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Advocate, like every other governmental matter. I don't see any reason to give the military special treatment, but I'll wait to hear what Darkesia has to say because she may have some compelling reasons.

 

The method for dismissal of appointed officials was meant to be simple majority. My thought process here was that because the Advocate is elected, the Voice should have to vote by supermajority to remove the Advocate. But appointees are just appointed by the Advocate without any input from the Voice, so I think the threshold for their removal should be lower.

 

I would prefer that the Voice (nice terminology) would only express it's misgivings or recommendations (by a vote) about treaties that the Delegate may wish to enter into

 

 

Surely any Delegate that wanted to maintain their position would work with the Voice to come up with a solution to any such issue without a vote in the first place.

 

Likewise I would advocate that any in game military be ultimately subservient to the Delegate, if the Delegate so desires.

 

 

But otherwise, I must say I'm quite impressed. Cormac you have done well with this.

 

Thanks, I'm glad you're impressed. That's actually high praise. 

 

Regarding treaties, I think votes on treaties that the forum community doesn't have any problem with would be relatively quick and efficient. I like having a vote on all treaties, even those with broad support, because it shows how broadly the community supports them. There have been some who have questioned the legitimacy of some of our current treaties because there wasn't an actual vote on them. While votes would have just been formalities for those treaties because the community clearly does support them, in that nobody has raised the possibility of repealing them, conducting votes would have removed the political ammunition from detractors of TWP and its allies.

 

Finally, regarding the military, I actually don't agree with the military being under the Delegate's jurisdiction. Most militaries have little to do with regional self-defense/security -- which is typically carried out by a security council, like our Guardian system -- and much more to do with raiding or defending (or both) other regions. Since the forum government's military would primarily, if not exclusively, be carrying out its activities outside TWP, I don't see any reason the Delegate should have jurisdiction over the military. Even for operations inside TWP, the military would either be supporting the Delegate (which shouldn't be a problem), or exercising the legitimate right of TWP's WA nations to engage in open rebellion. In the latter case, requiring the Delegate's approval to rebel against her doesn't make any sense. So I really don't see a circumstance in which it's appropriate for the Delegate to have jurisdiction over the military, but I'm open to hearing reasons from you or others who agree that the Delegate should have a military role.

[Nox]

This one is definitely my favourite, yep. The voting period for Arbiters could perhaps be decreased slightly, but other than that, it's very nice.

[That Called the Vlagh]

Finally, regarding the military, I actually don't agree with the military being under the Delegate's jurisdiction. Most militaries have little to do with regional self-defense/security -- which is typically carried out by a security council, like our Guardian system -- and much more to do with raiding or defending (or both) other regions. Since the forum government's military would primarily, if not exclusively, be carrying out its activities outside TWP, I don't see any reason the Delegate should have jurisdiction over the military. Even for operations inside TWP, the military would either be supporting the Delegate (which shouldn't be a problem), or exercising the legitimate right of TWP's WA nations to engage in open rebellion. In the latter case, requiring the Delegate's approval to rebel against her doesn't make any sense. So I really don't see a circumstance in which it's appropriate for the Delegate to have jurisdiction over the military, but I'm open to hearing reasons from you or others who agree that the Delegate should have a military role.

The only issue I have with this part is that the military could be used as a means of supporting open rebellion without that necessarily being the aim of those taking part.  What I mean is that the leadership of the military could be subverted to some extent and nations (perhaps uninformed nations?) could blindly follow orders that were counterproductive to what the offsite community wants.

 

But, provided that the chain of command conforms to the Voice I do not foresee this as an issue.  

 

That said, will the current TWP Army be considered subject to this setup?  At present it seems to act more or less independently of the offsite government, at least that is the impression I got with the HGA.

[Eli]

If TWPs military is in rebellion against the Delegate they'll get banjected.

 

 

Just like any other tawdry miscreant.

 

 

If they're in rebellion then they aren't TWPs military but someone else's. If that's the case why have one at all?

 

 

I have to agree with Vlagh, there is no legitimate role for the forum govt. with the military, it is solely a game function.

 

 

If the Delegate wants to allow them to frolic without direction then I would defer to the Delegate, otherwise they need to follow the Delegate's orders or move somewhere else.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Eli
because

[Elegarth]

The military may be revisited, as Cormac said. I think that perhaps, if the military is seen more as a part of the Delegate's power, we could set up some way in which the forum government may request the Delegate's militia to perform assistance or help to governments friendly to the forum? Some sort of collaboration, that is both non mandatory for the delegacy nor for the military. What do you think?

[Cormac]

I don't agree regarding the military, and will not be amending that into this draft. Either we're going to have the forum government autonomous from the Delegate or we aren't, and either we're going to allow WA nations to organize against the Delegate if they choose to do so or we aren't. If we aren't, we should drop any charade of the forum government being autonomous from the Delegate and implement a government similar to the New Pacific Order. That is an approach I would not support.

 

This military isn't supposed to be the West Pacific's military. This military is supposed to be the Union of the West Pacific's military, e.g., the forum government's military. If the Delegate wants a separate military she can set one up herself*, but if we're going to make the forum government's military subject to the Delegate then we might as well drop this separation altogether and make the entire forum government subject to the Delegate.

 

* I'm using female gender pronouns in recognition that the current Delegate is female, but I'm speaking generally.

[That Called the Vlagh]

I don't agree regarding the military, and will not be amending that into this draft. Either we're going to have the forum government autonomous from the Delegate or we aren't, and either we're going to allow WA nations to organize against the Delegate if they choose to do so or we aren't. If we aren't, we should drop any charade of the forum government being autonomous from the Delegate and implement a government similar to the New Pacific Order. That is an approach I would not support.

 

This military isn't supposed to be the West Pacific's military. This military is supposed to be the Union of the West Pacific's military, e.g., the forum government's military. If the Delegate wants a separate military she can set one up herself*, but if we're going to make the forum government's military subject to the Delegate then we might as well drop this separation altogether and make the entire forum government subject to the Delegate.

 

* I'm using female gender pronouns in recognition that the current Delegate is female, but I'm speaking generally.

I was not stating that the forum government should have no authority over the military.  I was asking if the current TWP Army would be incorporated into the Union.

[Elegarth]

And I was just thinking out further ideas

[Eli]

the forum government isn't in game, the military is in game, I'm just pointing out the (what I perceive as) lack of logic in your position.

 

 

I'm telling you that if the 'forum govt' military opposed a position strongly held by me and I was Delegate I'd remove all of them from the region, permanently, and the forum govt could do as they wished with that result.