The Bethany Accords

[The Church of Satan]

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.

[Eluvatar]

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?

[The Church of Satan]

I believe the phrasing I suggested in my previous post might be sufficient.

[bigbaldben]

I think CoS's change is well worded - emphasizes the importance without holding us or them to a standard that is difficult to measure.

[Eluvatar]

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."

[Cormac]

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.

[The Church of Satan]

Cormac's right. I change my mind completely. The clause should not be there.

[Eluvatar]

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 Church of Satan]

If either party is dissatisfied with the other in any way, they can simply enact one of the applicable clauses of Article 4.

[Delfos]

or break it.

[Cormac]

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.

[The Church of Satan]

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.

[Dyr Nasad]

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

[Red Mones]

I didn't even read the treaty, but I already agree with it after reading Myroria's post. 

[Cormac]

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.