Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Myroria on May 25, 2015, 01:00:23 AM
-
Over the past few weeks, as Lazarus has recovered from its coup and gotten back on its feet, I have been discussing with their delegate, our very own Funkadelia, about a treaty of alliance between us.
The new Lazarene government shares many things with Taijitu - a commitment to democracy on a level only known by people who have seen it oppressed themselves previously, an open legislature open to all residents, and an active, thriving new community.
In addition, many Taijituans including (in no particular order), Eluvatar, Gulliver, Church of Satan, St. Oz, and myself have been active over there since the legitimate government's restoration. St. Oz in particular devoted a great deal of his time to creating a map for their first-ever RP community and helping to foster it as it grows.
I strongly urge the Ecclesia to look over the following treaty carefully, and hope you endorse it.
The Bethany Accords
A treaty of friendship between Taijitu and Lazarus
Preamble
The sovereign regions of Taijitu and Lazarus, as governed democratically by the open legislatures of the respective regions, are independent and sovereign. The two regions share citizens, political and military interests, and directly-democratic forms of government. Recognizing these similarities, as well as the friendship between the two regions’ peoples, they hereby enact the following treaty of amity and friendship.
Article One
1. The parties agree to maintain a mutual embassy relationship, onsite and offsite.
2. The parties agree to penalize willful violation of the other party’s rules for RMB posts on that party’s RMB, should the other party allow embassy RMB posts.
3. From time to time, the parties will organize cultural events on the regional offsite forums or RMB of one or the other party.
Article Two
1. If the sovereignty of a party’s legitimate government is threatened, the other party will assist proportionately in coordination with and by the consent of the threatened party.
2. Military activity in another region does not constitute extension of the region’s sovereignty.
3. The parties will collaborate militarily on request when their forces are not otherwise needed.
4. Cooperation may only be requested for operations consistent with Article Three, other agreements entered into by the requested party, and the requested party’s regional law.
Article Three
1. The parties, recognizing the overriding principles of respect for regional sovereignty, diplomatic integrity, and interregional cooperation, pledge to one another to hold faith with all their treaties and behave honorably with their diplomatic partners.
Article Four
1. Any violation of this treaty is grounds for immediate termination.
2. Either party may withdraw from the treaty with seven days’ notice.
Article Five
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent, through the normal ratification processes of the two parties.
-
Let's put it up for vote, sounds good to me
-
/me is saddened that the oldest taijituan lazarene was not mentioned :(
I've already added my input to these Accords and support them in their current form. I also support a vote once the requisite time has passed.
-
I support this treaty in principle, but I think 3.1 is ill-advised language that shouldn't be included here or replicated in future treaties. Was this in our recently ratified treaties? If so, it slipped by me, but I firmly believe that diplomatic relations of ours that don't affect Lazarus, or diplomatic relations of Lazarus' that don't affect us, should have no bearing at all on our bilateral alliance.
So, while supporting this in principle, if 3.1 is still in the treaty when it goes to vote, I'll unfortunately have to vote against. I can easily see that language coming back to bite us, or Lazarus, and especially if this language becomes standard in our future treaties as well.
-
I support this treaty in principle. It is a logical follow up of the policy we decided on in our relation to Lazarus.
As for §3.1, I understand its meaning, but as Cormac just stated, I think the way it is formulated, it can be misunderstood in the future (when being interpreted under new circumstances) and so I must agree with Cormac on either deleting it or rephrasing it.
-
I support this treaty in principle, but I think 3.1 is ill-advised language that shouldn't be included here or replicated in future treaties. Was this in our recently ratified treaties? If so, it slipped by me, but I firmly believe that diplomatic relations of ours that don't affect Lazarus, or diplomatic relations of Lazarus' that don't affect us, should have no bearing at all on our bilateral alliance.
The intent of this section was to punish either region for being jerks in their foreign relations - in my opinion, it is important that Lazarus, or any region we're allied with, is not dishonorable in their foreign relations that don't concern us. It forces both of us to think about the consequences of our actions abroad, and slows us from following a course with another region that may be destructive. "Grounds for termination" does not mean the treaty will be terminated, just that it may if either party is bothered enough by what happened.
That being said, I understand there have been some issues with this clause in Lazarus' legislature as well. I would not be heartbroken if it was removed. If a diplomatic partner was being especially belligerent abroad we could always terminate the treaty under clause 4.1.
Also there were two typoes in article four I corrected - the list skipped from 1 to 3, skipping 2, and I added a closing period to 4.1.
-
take the time to make the previous "liberation manifesto" obsolete.
-
take the time to make the previous "liberation manifesto" obsolete.
I don't know what you mean by this.
-
I'll support this as is.
-
take the time to make the previous "liberation manifesto" obsolete.
I don't know what you mean by this.
I can't find it but I thought we had a sort-of-treaty with the Underground Government, like we'd support them or something...
-
Oh, we pledged support informally but we never concluded a formal treaty.
-
Oh, we pledged support informally but we never concluded a formal treaty.
in that case disregard my edit proposal. It's fine, well written and all
there's no way to salvage this treaty, not because of the writting, because of the feeble elevation of random regions that don't mean that much to Taijitu collectively...take away those who are personally invested in that place (deny are you're a traitor baby) and...nothing...silence, maybe some whispers...same old problem. Instead of collective investment there's few self-centered pseudo-politicians making excuses to play around with NS politics. I feel nothing for the place, why would I do anything for it? Why do we need this treaty? Oh yeah, friends, "our very own Funkadelia". I'm ok with that, lets pass this. If they love that place so much, how about investing in improving Taijitu's collective feelings for the place instead of assuming it's a great place because...Funkadelia and some others are personally invested in there? The treaty doesn't need it, but maybe they could visit our IRC channel once a month and we'd do the same to theirs, share our trolling stories...and joke with Myro's beverage poor taste.
I expect this treaty to pass with standing ovation. :clap:
-
there's no way to salvage this treaty, not because of the writting, because of the feeble elevation of random regions that don't mean that much to Taijitu collectively...take away those who are personally invested in that place (deny are you're a traitor baby) and...nothing...silence, maybe some whispers...same old problem. Instead of collective investment there's few self-centered pseudo-politicians making excuses to play around with NS politics. I feel nothing for the place, why would I do anything for it? Why do we need this treaty? Oh yeah, friends, "our very own Funkadelia". I'm ok with that, lets pass this. If they love that place so much, how about investing in improving Taijitu's collective feelings for the place instead of assuming it's a great place because...Funkadelia and some others are personally invested in there? The treaty doesn't need it, but maybe they could visit our IRC channel once a month and we'd do the same to theirs, share our trolling stories...and joke with Myro's beverage poor taste.
(http://i.imgur.com/C868sfH.gif)
-
I actually think article 3 serves an important purpose, consistent with our policy on expecting honorable behavior from our friends.
One example of our region stating such expectations in the past is our decision not to open relations with Europeia (http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/europeia-8928/).
I think it would be entirely necessary for us to question the worth of an alliance with Lazarus if Lazarus were to willfully violate another alliance or invade a diplomatic partner.
-
I actually think article 3 serves an important purpose, consistent with our policy on expecting honorable behavior from our friends.
One example of our region stating such expectations in the past is our decision not to open relations with Europeia (http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/europeia-8928/).
I think it would be entirely necessary for us to question the worth of an alliance with Lazarus if Lazarus were to willfully violate another alliance or invade a diplomatic partner.
There's a huge difference between denying the embassy request of a brand new applicant and cancelling a treaty alliance, so this really is completely different from the Europeia situation.
This looks reasonable under the very specific circumstances you've mentioned, but would be less reasonable under other circumstances. What if Lazarus closes their embassy with The North Pacific, our ally, for what we consider frivolous reasons but Lazarus doesn't? What if Lazarus publishes something insulting about TNP in its media? Those are also potential grounds for invocation of this clause, and I could see it being frivolously invoked in this way either here or in Lazarus. Not even to mention if we keep using this language in future treaties.
-
Actually I have to agree with Cormac on this one. Article 3.1 I feel in itself violates the sovereignty of both parties. A treaty should not dictate how a region approaches others. A code of conduct is a good concept for a treaty but it should not be legally binding. That said, here in Taijitu I'll be abstaining on the vote because as FA Minister of Lazarus there would be a conflict of interest for me.
I could support this though if it were changed to say:
1. The parties, recognizing the overriding principles of respect for regional sovereignty, diplomatic integrity, and interregional cooperation, pledge to one another to hold faith with all their treaties and encourage one another to behave honorably with their diplomatic partners.
-
I am quite certain that the language is not intended to interfere with freedom of speech, or even the termination of relations (absent treaty commitments).
I agree, however, that the way it is worded ("behave honorably with their diplomatic partners") could be misinterpreted.
Do you believe there is no room for expectations that our allies not invade regions they hold relations with (which we as a region find to be unacceptable, as far as I know), or do you have alternative wording which would more narrowly limit the expectation?
-
I believe the phrasing I suggested in my previous post might be sufficient.
-
I think CoS's change is well worded - emphasizes the importance without holding us or them to a standard that is difficult to measure.
-
Ultimately, it would in my opinion be a violation of the Treaty (in spirit, at least, which I view to be the more important lens) to terminate it for a cause which isn't allowed for by the Treaty. (I would oppose withdrawing from any treaty without cause, even given a withdrawal without cause with notice clause).
Having the treaty encourage something is, well, kind of meaningless.
How about "and observe the sovereignty of their diplomatic partners." ???
-
Ultimately, it would in my opinion be a violation of the Treaty (in spirit, at least, which I view to be the more important lens) to terminate it for a cause which isn't allowed for by the Treaty. (I would oppose withdrawing from any treaty without cause, even given a withdrawal without cause with notice clause).
We actually do have a withdrawal without treaty violation with notice clause, it's 4.2. 4.1 only applies to immediate termination, so treaty violations are only grounds for immediate withdrawal. Either signatory can withdraw for any reason with seven days notice, according to 4.2.
At least, that's how I read it and how I believe it was intended, but the wording is ambiguous.
"Without cause" is not the same thing as "without a cause which isn't allowed for by the treaty." We could still have cause even if it isn't allowed for by the treaty, and this would not be a violation of either the letter or the spirit of the treaty if there is a clause permitting withdrawal with notice for any reason. I'm very uncomfortable with making our diplomatic dealings, which should be our sovereign decisions, explicit grounds for the other signatory to accuse us of violating the treaty and terminating it.
I also don't support CoS's proposed language. The clause shouldn't be there at all; our diplomatic decisions are our own and I'm not going to knowingly vote for a treaty that cedes Taijitu's sovereignty to Lazarus or anyone else for no good reason.
-
Cormac's right. I change my mind completely. The clause should not be there.
-
I don't think it's a cession of sovereignty at all to have conditions attached to an alliance.
If you call such limitations cession of sovereignty, then commitments to defend the other region or even refrain from invading it are cessions of sovereignty as well.
-
If either party is dissatisfied with the other in any way, they can simply enact one of the applicable clauses of Article 4.
-
or break it.
-
I don't think it's a cession of sovereignty at all to have conditions attached to an alliance.
If you call such limitations cession of sovereignty, then commitments to defend the other region or even refrain from invading it are cessions of sovereignty as well.
The difference is that defense or invasion of the other signatory actually has some effect on the other signatory. Our relations with other regions -- particularly regions that aren't even allies of either signatory -- are, frankly, none of our allies' business as they're not affected by them.
There's a big difference between agreeing not to invade a region, or agreeing to defend it, and giving that region a veto over foreign policy decisions that are unrelated to them.
-
I agree. How one party conducts itself towards non-related parties is no business of the other short of invasion or declaration of war. Infringing on a region's right to conduct foreign policy as they see fit is a violation of its sovereignty. This has no business being in the treaty.
-
I agree. How one party conducts itself towards non-related parties is no business of the other short of invasion or declaration of war. Infringing on a region's right to conduct foreign policy as they see fit is a violation of its sovereignty. This has no business being in the treaty.
I know we seem to like the "omg we lose sovereignty" line, but lets look at what we're actually saying. There are no binding capabilities here. We can still do whatever we want. If, however, Lazarus decides to be complete idiots across all of NS and we no longer wish to be associated with them due to their new image, that clause shows that losing relations with us in a possibility (and the analogous statements about us becoming fools and Lazarus disapproving of our new image). Image and associations do matter
-
I didn't even read the treaty, but I already agree with it after reading Myroria's post. :clap: :taijitu: :heart: :heart:
-
I know we seem to like the "omg we lose sovereignty" line, but lets look at what we're actually saying. There are no binding capabilities here. We can still do whatever we want. If, however, Lazarus decides to be complete idiots across all of NS and we no longer wish to be associated with them due to their new image, that clause shows that losing relations with us in a possibility (and the analogous statements about us becoming fools and Lazarus disapproving of our new image). Image and associations do matter
But we could still terminate the treaty for the same reason under Article 4.2, which allows us to terminate the treaty for any reason at all with seven days notice.
The difference is that explicitly including 3.1 in the treaty makes it a requirement "to hold faith with all [our] treaties and behave honorably with [our] diplomatic partners." What does hold faith mean? How about behave honorably? Invading the other signatory, refusing to defend the other signatory, those are objectively violations of the treaty. Holding faith, behaving honorably, those are subjective, and I don't think anything subjective should be a treaty violation. Either signatory can still terminate the treaty if they believe the other signatory hasn't kept faith with its other treaties or has behaved dishonorably with diplomatic partners -- without that being made explicit in the treaty as a treaty violation.
-
Holding faith with treaties = not breaking them. I'm not sure what other interpretation can be drawn.
-
Well, the phrase is ambiguous.
-
Holding faith with treaties = not breaking them. I'm not sure what other interpretation can be drawn.
It's not just a matter of interpreting "holding faith," but also interpreting when we are or aren't doing that. I really don't want our treaty allies interpreting our treaties with other regions; that's up to us and the other signatory.
Any word on the fate of this clause?
-
Holding faith with treaties = not breaking them. I'm not sure what other interpretation can be drawn.
Yeah what I said before was so cryptic. ::) They're just like contracts, you can break them, no more contract, I'm ok with the clause, Couldn't care less how it's written, not sure if it's necessary tho.
-
Holding faith with treaties = not breaking them. I'm not sure what other interpretation can be drawn.
It's not just a matter of interpreting "holding faith," but also interpreting when we are or aren't doing that. I really don't want our treaty allies interpreting our treaties with other regions; that's up to us and the other signatory.
Any word on the fate of this clause?
I will discuss it with Funkadelia, but I can say that personally, both of us support the treaty in its current form. But I'll see what we can do to ensure the treaty is acceptable to both of our regions' legislatures.
-
Holding faith with treaties = not breaking them. I'm not sure what other interpretation can be drawn.
It's not just a matter of interpreting "holding faith," but also interpreting when we are or aren't doing that. I really don't want our treaty allies interpreting our treaties with other regions; that's up to us and the other signatory.
Any word on the fate of this clause?
I'd say further that I think that it's only willful violations of a treaty which cause its end that should be treated as faithlessness.
-
Just want to repeat that I support Cormac's position on this! No need for me to add anything else.
-
Scrap the whole thing and just vote on a note saying "Tai n Laz frienz fo lyfe yo!"
-
Scrap the whole thing and just vote on a note saying "Tai n Laz frienz fo lyfe yo!"
:clap:
-
After discussion with Funkadelia and the External Affairs Ministry of Lazarus, we have jointly decided to present this version to our legislatures. The only change is the removal of the "honorable relations" clause.
The Bethany Accords
A treaty of friendship between Taijitu and Lazarus
Preamble
The sovereign regions of Taijitu and Lazarus, as governed democratically by the open legislatures of the respective regions, are independent and sovereign. The two regions share citizens, political and military interests, and directly-democratic forms of government. Recognizing these similarities, as well as the friendship between the two regions’ peoples, they hereby enact the following treaty of amity and friendship.
Article One
1. The parties agree to maintain a mutual embassy relationship, onsite and offsite.
2. The parties agree to penalize willful violation of the other party’s rules for RMB posts on that party’s RMB, should the other party allow embassy RMB posts.
3. From time to time, the parties will organize cultural events on the regional offsite forums or RMB of one or the other party.
Article Two
1. If the sovereignty of a party’s legitimate government is threatened, the other party will assist proportionately in coordination with and by the consent of the threatened party.
2. Military activity in another region does not constitute extension of the region’s sovereignty.
3. The parties will collaborate militarily on request when their forces are not otherwise needed.
4. Cooperation may only be requested for operations consistent with Article Two, other agreements entered into by the requested party, and the requested party’s regional law.
Article Three
1. Any violation of this treaty is grounds for immediate termination.
2. Either party may withdraw from the treaty with seven days’ notice.
Article Four
1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent, through the normal ratification processes of the two parties.
-
I move this to a vote.
-
I'll second that motion.