[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment 

Proposed by: @"New Rogernomics" 

Preamble

This amendment will declare the operational guard commander a government official and not a minister, and allow for the Delegate to give more operational flexibility to the guard if they so authorize.

Section 1. Amendment of Section 1

(1) Section 1 shall be amended to read:

(1) The Lazarene Regional Guard will be the sole military force of Lazarus, unaligned in alignment.

(2) The Delegate will be the commander-in-chief of the Regional Guard. The Delegate may appoint a citizen to serve as operational commander of the Regional Guard, subject to all provisions for appointment and removal of a government official. Operational command authority may be further delegated to a chain of command subordinate to the operational commander.

(3) The command, conduct, and membership criteria of the Regional Guard may be further regulated by law or by executive policy.

Section 2. Amendment of Section 2

(1) Section 2 shall be amended to read:

(1) The regional military alignment of Lazarus will be neutral. Lazarus will bear the Neutral tag at all times.

(2) Lazarus may not bear any of the following tags: Defender, Imperialist, Independent, or Invader.

(3) The Regional Guard may engage in the following types of operations without prior approval of the Delegate:

a. Defense of Lazarus;
b. Defense of Lazarus' treaty allies, if mandated by treaty terms;
c. Invasion of regions upon which Lazarus has declared war, and defense of other regions against their military forces;
d. Defense of other Feeders and Sinkers at the request of their legitimate governments;
e. Assistance in other regions' legal Delegate transitions at the request of their legitimate governments;
f. Offensive or defensive training operations in game-created Warzone regions;
g. Invasion of fascist regions and defense of regions against fascist military forces;
h. Invasion of regions which pose a substantial threat to the out-of-character security or safety of NationStates players, and defense of regions against forces which pose such a threat.

(4) The Assembly may enact a resolution empowering the Regional Guard to invade a region that is the ally or protectorate of a region upon which Lazarus has declared war. Such a resolution may be approved or rescinded by two-thirds vote of the Assembly.

(5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to engage in military operations short of an act of war upon approval of the Delegate.

[spoiler]Edit (11/14/19):

(5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to support military operations of allied and friendly regions upon approval of the Delegate.

Edit (11/13/19):

Section 2. Amendment of Section 2

(1) Section 2 shall be amended to read:

(1) The regional military alignment of Lazarus will be neutral. Lazarus will bear the Neutral tag at all times.

(2) Lazarus may not bear any of the following tags: Defender, Imperialist, Independent, or Invader.

(3) The Regional Guard may only engage in the following types of operations:

a. Defense of Lazarus;
b. Defense of Lazarus' treaty allies, if mandated by treaty terms;
c. Invasion of regions upon which Lazarus has declared war, and defense of other regions against their military forces;
d. Defense of other Feeders and Sinkers at the request of their legitimate governments;
e. Assistance in other regions' legal Delegate transitions at the request of their legitimate governments;
f. Offensive or defensive training operations in game-created Warzone regions;
g. Invasion of fascist regions and defense of regions against fascist military forces;
h. Invasion of regions which pose a substantial threat to the out-of-character security or safety of NationStates players, and defense of regions against forces which pose such a threat.

(4) The Assembly may enact a resolution empowering the Regional Guard to invade a region that is the ally or protectorate of a region upon which Lazarus has declared war. Such a resolution may be approved or rescinded by two-thirds vote of the Assembly.

(5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to support military operations of allied and friendly regions upon approval of the Delegate.

Edit (11/12/19):

Section 1. Amendment of Section 1

(1) Section 1, Subsection 2, shall be amended to read:

(2) The Delegate will be the commander-in-chief of the Regional Guard. The Delegate may appoint a citizen to serve as operational commander of the Regional Guard, subject to all provisions for appointment and removal of an official, including a 50%+1 vote of the assembly. Operational command authority may be further delegated to a chain of command subordinate to the operational commander.

(2) Section 2, Subsection 5, shall be included, and amended to read:

(5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to support military operations of allied and friendly regions upon approval of the Delegate.

Edited (11/12/2019):

(2) Section 2, Subsection 5, shall be included, and amended to read:

(5) The Regional Guard operational commander will not be permitted to promote a regional military alignment:
a. They will not be allowed to emphasize one type of military operation over another, inclusive of raiding, invading, defending, for any military operation that requires the approval of the Delegate. 
b. This shall imply to only favor, and not for instances where the operational commander may more often than not promote a particular type of military operation. 
c. They will not be allowed to publicly declare the Regional Guard as an aligned organization or recruit for the Regional Guard as if it is an aligned organization. 

(2) Section 2, Subsection 6, shall be included, and amended to read:

(6) The Regional Guard may be empowered to support military operations of allied and friendly regions upon approval of the Delegate.

Edited (11/12/2019):

(2) Section 2, Subsection 5, shall be included, and amended to read:

(5) The Regional Guard operational commander will be not be permitted to propose military operations that promote a regional military alignment. 

Edited (11/10/2019):

(2) Section 2, Subsection 5, shall be included, and amended to read:

(5) The Regional Guard will be not be permitted to propose military operations that promote a regional military alignment. 

Edited (11/10/2019):

(2) Section 2, Subsection 6, shall be included, and amended to read:

(6) The Regional Guard may be empowered to support military operations of allied regions upon approval of the Delegate.

[/spoiler]

[Debussy]

I support this and it is the best direction for the region.

[Leonism]

I considered putting forward an amendment that gave the assembly the power to authorize any military operation, regardless of the "neutral" stance of the region according to previous law.

Ultimately, the assembly has this power anyways, so I'm glad that NR hereby proposes an even better law that makes the military operations a prerogative of the delegate, simplifying the decision making process in case a swift decision is needed.

Of course the Assembly retains the power to veto such decisions. Ultimately, as mentioned in previous discussions, I believe the Guard needs regular and interesting operations to continue to function and ideally grow in size and capability. Instead of ideological Raider/Defender discussions, this practical approach should be the main focus in all discussions pertaining the Guard.

I approve of the proposal for the amendment.

[Debussy]

The assembly would be a terrible place to decide what gets approved for the military on a case by case bases. Its slow, you'd have to work within procedures, so 3 days minimum of dicussion before every operation. No thanks. Better off attempting a recall of the delegate than that. I'm glad you came around to the proposed change.

[Imaginary]

RE: (5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to engage in any other military actions short of an act of war upon approval of the Delegate.

Iz raiding a region an act of var?

[Debussy]

I would not think we need an act of war to target any small, dirt region out there that falls within the approval of the delegate.

[McChimp]

I don't think leaving approval at the Delegate's discretion is a good solution. It sidesteps rigorously defining exactly what kinds of operations would and would not be permitted, leading to the kind of vagueness Imaginary has pointed out-how are we supposed to know whether an operation is an act of war or not? That clause in particular seems unsuitable for law. It also leaves the alignment of the guard at the discretion of the operational commander, since they could only organise raids or only organise defences. This doesn't resolve the alignment issue, it just doesn't discuss it.

The idea that the Assembly could veto those decisions is incorrect-this law contains no such provision and neither does any other.

[New Rogernomics]

I don't think leaving approval at the Delegate's discretion is a good solution.

The Delegate is the commander-and-chief. If the Delegate can't do their responsibility they shouldn't be Delegate. So that doesn't really stick. If they can't do adequate discretion, why would you argue that such an individual is good enough to be in any position, let alone a military one? The procedure for that is a removal vote. We had the same policy during the Humane Republic of Lazarus without issue, and that was when Lazarus had an active military under the Founderless Regions Alliance.

It sidesteps rigorously defining exactly what kinds of operations would and would not be permitted, leading to the kind of vagueness Imaginary has pointed out-how are we supposed to know whether an operation is an act of war or not?

No it doesn't. It is clear that the only other things in the game you can do are raids and defenses, and as stated out previously requiring the assembly to do a vote for every defense or every raid makes for a slow process. It certainly doesn't mean to imply a Delegate can authorize to invade a region and take it over.

If someone is a truly inept Delegate that couldn't tell the difference between authorizing a raid, a defense, or a liberation, then they shouldn't be Delegate. This point doesn't really stand for the same reason as the first point, which is why would you advocate an inept Delegate be commander-and-chief of the military, and why would you rely on some act to define what an inept Delegate would fail to do under any circumstances?

The idea that the Assembly could veto those decisions is incorrect-this law contains no such provision and neither does any other.

The Assembly can amend the Guard Act at any time to define what operations it permits or not. This amendment is not for that, but allow for the Delegate to permit defenses and raid operations requested by the military. Which raises the second point, if the official/minister in charge of the guard proposes something the region doesn't like, they can again be removed.

[New Rogernomics]

RE: (5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to engage in any other military actions short of an act of war upon approval of the Delegate.

Iz raiding a region an act of var?

In the history of the game....nope. As I'd interpret it, that requires a continual occupation, that is more something exclusive to invaders (who didn't just tag but outright take over a region). You can ask any raider/defender/invader that question and get a different answer. Can it be morally or ethically questionable though, sure. If you don't like that your Delegate is permitting raids of fellow GCRs then you should probably vote to remove them. 

Though I'd really question the region that would think that putting in place a Delegate that believes in raiding GCRs at will, is the right decision. :/

Making sure the military commander was a reputable and level-headed leader is a requirement of being a Delegate, if you can't appoint one, then best to pack up bags and not be the Delegate of any GCR, let alone Lazarus.

That said, even if you were to amend this to state, "the military is only permitted to raid or defend upon a per-operational vote of the assembly", there is no way to prevent creative interpretations of that, and anyone who tried would be arguing that a raid or a defense operation of a certain type is "moral" while another is not. I'd be curious to see anyone define a raid as a "moral" act, which is what a specific definition would require.

You either permit raids or defenses, or you adopt the non-interventionist position. It is the height of moral hypocrisy to argue for an interventionist policy that permits taking over warzones, aiding foreign allies, and making war on foreign foes, while simultaneously claiming they are moral to be doing so. To engage in a military action is immoral from the point you put a single nation in another region without their consent.

So the most extreme interpretation is Lazarus having a military at all is an "act of war", so if that is the concern, it is time to repeal the Guard Act entirely, and make it exclusively a home-defense only force that cannot engage in any military operations beyond supporting Delegacy transitions - as that is the only truly morally justified position. Since if we are arguing that a "raid" or a "defense" can be unacceptable, that implies that there is such a thing as a moral military operation.

Sorry, if that was a bit pushy, though this brings in the ethics and morality of gameplay R/D. From a defender position there is no moral "raid", only a morally unacceptable act that violates the sovereignty of another region, and when you raid, the region will not want you there - so you can't raid without violating their sovereignty.

Ultimately however, the refusal to allow raids (while attacking raiders) can be interpreted as a defender bias, so that too is making an R/D position.

[New Rogernomics]

This would be an acceptable compromise, if you could define what time limit you consider unjustified:
(2) Section 2, Subsection 6, shall be included, and amended to read:

(6) The Regional Guard may not occupy another region for more than 72 hours without prior authorization by assembly measure or act.

A time limit would totally rule out the ability to raid or invade for an extended period of time, as they'd be forced to withdraw unless the assembly authorized them further.