by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics



Region: The Leftist Assembly


This term, my fellow Justices, Auven and Morvan, and I have committed to being considerably more alive than previous Courts, proactively conducting legal reviews and providing faster judgments on cases. I have also created a running document for us that will track all of this information, so we have a concentrated place to consider precedents and previous court cases.


In saying that, we have already collectively come to our first decision on a matter discussed approximately two weeks ago concerning the legality of Ministers applying policy, particularly in relation to the example of then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Hecknamistan temporary withdrawal of the embassy with The Versutian Federation.

This legal review was in particular relation to Section IV.3 of the Constitution, which states that "The General Assembly shall be responsible for: (a) Voting on proposed laws, amendments, and policies".

These are each of our statements on the matter:

The point of contention seems to be that between Article III, 5 ("The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters relating to embassies") and Article IV, 3 ("The members of the General Assembly shall be responsible for: (a) Proposing laws, amendments, and policies; (b) Voting on proposed laws, amendments, and policies"). The activity executed by the then foreign minister Heck was to withdraw the embassy to the Versutian Federation without a vote. Embassy Act 1.a. states, "An embassy region must satisfy the following criteria: (a) Ten or more active nations". Judging by both the RMB and discord of the region it would be fair to say the region is pretty lifeless. Hence in my judgement Heck was not proposing a policy, they were simply executing their capacity as foreign minister to uphold the established policies that are to be enforced by that role.

I am of the opinion that "policies" and the application of those "policies" are distinct things. In this case, Heck's decision was done in a Ministerial capacity, with this position constitutionally bound to "be responsible for matters relating to embassies." He was acting in line with the "policy" (the Embassy Act) that was dictated by the General Assembly, and so their actions were legal.

Well, my interpretation is admittedly one of grammar, the text as it is written states voting on proposed laws, amendments, and policies, which could be interpreted as amendments and policies in general alongside proposed laws, but could be interpreted as proposed laws, proposed amendments, and proposed policies. As we can clearly see that policies already in place do not have to be voted on to be fulfilled, such as actions undertaken by the supreme court when fulfilling their judicial duty. Now. Article 3 of the constitution is vague, simply stating that The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters relating to embassies, again, this can be interpreted in multiple ways, what's most important to note however is the lack of mention regarding voting on their actions. When we also consider that their action did indeed fall in line with the Embassy Act, as there had been no active member in the RMB for 14 days before the action was taken, it seems clear to me that there was no breach in conduct.

Hence, we unanimously determined that it is within the powers of Ministers to apply policy as legislated by the General Assembly. In relation to the case study that provoked this inquiry (Minister of Foreign Affairs closing an embassy without GA approval), the action was legal and would have stood had the closure of the embassy not been withdrawn, or if the Secretary had not otherwise overruled the Minister.

Nottinhaps, South Miruva, Uan aa Boa, Hecknamistan, and 4 othersArgentigrad, Dawtania, Greylyn, and Nangka