Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 735
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Mar 3, 2021 21:36:20 GMT -5
Petitioner Salaxalans asked: Recently Spiritus joined the Partnership for Sovereignty. The Charter for the organization states, in section II.1.: "Each member region may appoint a delegation to participate in private discussions about voting with other member regions of the Partnership for Sovereignty." My question is, given how World Assembly and Foreign Affairs authority are split between the Delegate and the Chief Executive, respectively, who gets to appoint said delegation?
The Chief Justice presiding over the full Court. Petitioner Salaxalans and the Attorney General are not required, but invited, to submit briefs expressing their opinions. Anybody else may express theirs via amicus curiae brief in the Courtroom Gallery. Submission period will be seven (7) days, until March 11.
|
|
TimS
•
Citizen
Posts: 219
Likes: 23
|
Post by TimS on Mar 5, 2021 14:59:35 GMT -5
Brief for Spiritus as Amicus Curiae It is the opinion of the Government that the Government could have passed a law layout out the method through which Spiritus can appoint a delegation to the Partnership for Sovereignty, but it did not. Absent such a provision, the ability to appoint such a delegation lies with the Chief Executive. Inherent in the Constitution's granting of executive power to the Chief Executive is the power and responsibility to deal with other regions and comply with any interregional agreements the Government chooses to engage in. Foreign affairs in general is an area where the executive power of a country or region has nearly, though not totally, unlimited dominance. Spiritus has recognized this principle both legislatively, through the treaty act which acknowledges that the Chief Executive is responsible for negotiating and creating treaties, not coming to the Legislature to approve the treaty until the document has reached the "final draft," and in other avenues of regional life, such as the interregional festivals organized solely by the executive branch. It follows, then, that any formal delegation or meeting described in a treaty is, absent a statute instructing otherwise, fully within the purview of the Chief Executive. The position of Delegate is only granted the powers inherent to the position of World Assembly Delegate, including the abilities to exercise Spiritus' vote in the World Assembly and appoint regional officers. This does not inherently include any power over foreign affairs matters or any of the other powers that the Chief Executive has in this area. While it is true that the Delegate's interests are substantially impacted by this treaty, that alone does not automatically grant additional power to the Delegate that it does not already have. Another question may arise if the text of a treaty requires the Delegate to take a particular action, but this treaty puts no such requirement on the Delegate. The Government thanks the Court for its time. Timothy Snyder Attorney General of Spiritus
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 735
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Mar 25, 2021 10:54:11 GMT -5
Advisory Opinion 005 - PfS Delegation Appointment Opinion by Rogamark, Chief Justice, with whom Ltin, Magistrate Judge, joins. Tim, Magistrate Judge, concurs in judgment:This question arises from the Charter of the Partnership for Sovereignty, a treaty whose signatories agree to discuss and coordinate World Assembly matters, primarily by issuing non-binding recommendations as to how the WA member nations of the signatory regions should cast their votes. To that end, signatories appoint delegations to represent them, engage in discussions, and exercise the region's right to vote. This includes on the questions whether an amendment to the Charter shall be proposed, and whether to admit a new region to the Partnership. The Charter as ratified through the treaty process states in section II, 1 that "[e]ach member region may appoint a delegation to participate in private discussions about voting with other member regions of the Partnership for Sovereignty". We have granted a request for an advisory opinion to decide who specifically gets to appoint that delegation for Spiritus - the Chief Executive or the Delegate. We find this power lies with the Chief Executive. The Delegate "may exercise all powers inherent in that office" (const. 4). Chair Potato Louisistan suggests in his amicus brief that this limits the Delegate to "those powers which can be executed in the game, that is to say functions which are contained in the game code". The Attorney General argues in a similar direction by correctly pointing out that statutory law places the responsibility for matters of diplomacy squarely within the domain of the executive government. But we further observe that Delegates have in the past conducted diplomacy - in coordination with the Chief Executive, yet under their own authority - when negotiating was required to execute their duties in connection with special events such as the Secretary General election or N-Day. While we recognize that such diplomacy is obviously limited in both scope and duration, and that many arrangements required the Chief Executive's approval, we nonetheless find that the Delegate is not as far removed from the sphere of diplomacy as the briefs suggest. This is in keeping with the rule this Court has expressed in past opinions that branches of the government must be able to exercise their constitutional duties without undue encumbrance by the other branches. (Cf. AO 001, opinion; AO 003, Rogamark, CJ, respecting the dismissal as improvidently granted) The question is therefore whether appointing the delegation under said treaty falls under this rule. We are unanimous - and also agree with the thrust of the submitted briefs - that the scant definition of the Delegate's powers in the Constitution compels a narrow, restrictive interpretation. We thus apply an absolute test - which we shall call the Salaxamont test - to the appointment question: Is making this appointment inseparably connected to, or does it flow directly from, a core duty of the Delegate, in a way that not making the appointment would obstruct that core duty? We answer that question in the negative. While WA matters are undoubtedly the sole prerogative of the Delegate, nothing in this treaty - as the Attorney General helpfully points out - ever forces the Delegate's hand. He is free to ignore any recommendation, refuse to publish one, indeed free to issue a contrary recommendation if he so wishes. That the delegation also votes on amendment proposals and member admittance, issues that are entirely unrelated to WA or ingame matters, only further persuades us that appointing this delegation is a matter of treaty execution - and thus an executive matter - and not one of WA affairs. As this is an advisory proceeding, the Court takes the liberty of further observing that it seems prudent to more clearly spell out the powers and duties of the Delegate through legislative action, or a constitutional amendment. When a higher degree of precision and specificity is desired, additional accompanying legislation to a treaty could be considered during the ratification process.
|
|