It has recently been brought to the attention of some of us that there is a multilateral treaty called the Aegis Accords that lists the South Pacific as a member, alongside 10000 Islands, Spiritus, and the Union of Democratic States. This treaty contains provisions for mutual recognition, non-aggression, mutual defence, and military and cultural cooperation. We already have bilateral agreements with all signatories, so no new commitment is being signed here, but the fact remains that there is a treaty out there that lists us as a member and the Assembly is none the wiser.

I would like to know if the Cabinet is aware of this. If so, then why was the Assembly not informed or given a chance to vote on it. If not, then I would ask what steps the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will take to address the situation.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

See this.

Reply

Here is the latest draft of the Aegis Accords. The current parties to negotiation are us, TRR, XKI, UDS, and Spiritus. Some regions just got their new governments settled in, so they're currently reviewing wording and seeing if they want to make suggestions. I'd like to open the floor in the Private Halls to read the draft text and discuss the alliance as a whole.

----------
 
The Aegis Accords

We, the Parties of this treaty, striving for greater cooperation between our regions, recognizing our shared commitment to defender values, and acknowledging our longstanding, interconnected friendship and collaboration that encompasses an amalgamation of preexisting treaties and alliances, agree to establish the Aegis Accords.

Article 1: Mutual Recognition

1. The Parties to this treaty recognize the government of each region, based upon their constituting instruments and laws, as legitimate and will not extend that recognition to any government that comes to power through means not prescribed by law.

2. The Parties declare that they share the general goal of protecting the sovereignty of NationStates regions and self-identify as Defender regions.

3. The Parties shall maintain in-game embassies and exchange diplomats with all other Parties to this treaty. When applicable, Parties shall also maintain off-site embassies or the equivalent thereof.

Article 2: Non-Aggression and Mutual Defense

1. The Parties vow to never attack the home region or Protectorates of another Party, nor participate in any action with the intent to overthrow a Party’s legitimate government or conspire to the same.

2. The Parties will not undertake a military attack against regions that share embassies with any other Party, including assisting another military organization attempting as much, unless the region in question has declared war on or attacked any of the Parties to this treaty.

3. The Parties will refrain from conducting clandestine operations, espionage, or any other forms of spying against another Party.

4. The Parties agree to provide military assistance in the event of a military attack, which includes but is not limited to a coup d’état, an invasion, or a raid, against the home region of another Party or a Protectorate thereof.

5. The Parties agree to aid each other against illegal attempts to overthrow the in-game delegate of their respective home regions and Protectorates.


Article 3: Intelligence Sharing

1. The Parties agree to provide each other intelligence on the acts or intentions of any region engaging in military hostilities, a coup d’état, or any acts of subversion against the home region, Protectorates, or legitimate government of a Party to this treaty. Failure to provide any qualifying intelligence shall constitute a violation of this section.

2. Intelligence shall be shared with the relevant security organization or other entity per each Party’s wishes, as recognized in Treaty Annex I.

3. The Parties agree to maintain the classified nature of sensitive information regarding military affairs that concerns the other Parties or their defensive military operations, unless they are authorized to share the information by the Party whom the information concerns.

Article 4: Cooperation

1. The Parties to this treaty shall strive for closer cooperation in defensive military operations and liberations of innocent regions across NationStates.

2. The Parties shall also cooperate to counter quorum raiding, the tactic of disrupting the quorum of a proposal in the World Assembly by raiding regions whose Delegates have approved it, when it is being committed against regions not espousing hateful ideologies or otherwise posing a threat to other NationStates communities.

3. The Parties agree to provide reasonable military assistance during lawful transitions of power between World Assembly Delegates, if requested.

4. The Parties to this treaty will endeavor to conduct communal cultural activities with one or more of the other Parties to benefit the people of all Parties and strengthen the institutions of peace, liberty, and the defender cause, when reasonably feasible to do so.

5. The Parties to this treaty will share strategies and techniques to further develop the endorsement culture of their respective regions and to increase the number of endorsements of their respective World Assembly Delegates.

6. The Parties to this treaty agree to develop communal strategies to improve the quality and superiority of potatoes above all other foods, as is right and proper.

Article 5: Representative Meeting and Voting

1. Should a region request to ratify this treaty, a Party request to expel another Party, recognize a region as a Protectorate of a Party, or a Party propose an amendment to this treaty, a temporary Council shall be held.

2. Every Party shall send one representative to the Council. The Council shall officially begin once 75% of all Parties declare attendance. If a Party refuses to send a representative to the Council, they must provide an explanation as to why.

3. Upon the start of a Council, a discussion period shall begin which shall last at maximum two weeks.

4. At any time, a representative may move the matter to vote with a specified timeframe no longer than one week.

5. Votes require a 75%+ majority of all voting representatives to vote in favor in order to pass, with abstentions not counting towards the determination of a majority.

6. Once the vote closes and the results are announced, the procedures as listed in Articles 6 or 7 for each specific matter shall be followed and the Council shall disband.

7. If a Council is called to expel a Party from this treaty or to remove recognition of a Protectorate of a Party, the Party in question may discuss in the Council but cannot vote and the Party’s attendance will not impact the presence of a quorum.

8. The Representative of the Party who called the Council shall be held responsible by default to monitor the discussion time, opening votes, closing votes, and announcing vote results.

Article 6: Ratification, Expulsion, Withdrawal, Protectorates

1. Any region interested in acceding to the treaty must make a formal request to a representative of any Party to this treaty. Any Party that receives such a request shall call together a Council to discuss and vote on the request.

2. Should the request pass a vote of Party representatives and should the treaty afterward be ratified by the applying region following its constituting instruments and laws, the applying region shall become a Party to this treaty.

3. In cases where a Party violates this treaty or otherwise shows concerning behavior, another Party may call a Council to discuss expelling the Party in question. If a Council vote passes in favor of the expulsion, the region in question shall no longer be a Party to this treaty.

4. A Party can withdraw from the treaty, providing at least seven days advance notice to the other Parties. Such withdrawal will not constitute an act of war or hostility by the withdrawing Party in and of itself.

5. A Protectorate shall be defined as a region that a) is a subsidiary of a Party, following the laws and customs of both the Party and the other region, and b) has been recognized as such by a vote of this Council.

6. Any Party may call a Council to remove recognition of a Protectorate for any reason.

Article 7: Amendments

1. Any Party interested in amending the treaty shall call a Council to discuss and vote on the proposed amendment.

2. If such an amendment passes Council vote, the proposed amendment shall then go through the legal ratification process of each Party.

3. The moment more than 75% of all existing Parties ratify an amendment, all Parties who have not yet considered the amendment at that point shall have a month to either formally ratify or reject the amendment. After said month passes, the amendment shall go into full effect if no Party has formally rejected the amendment.

4. If all Parties ratify the amendment, it shall go into immediate effect.

5. All Parties who failed to formally ratify or reject the amendments shall be eligible for expulsion due to inactivity once the amendment goes into full effect.

Article 8: Deposition and Annexes

1. The Parties shall publicly record the complete text of this treaty in their respective appropriate record-keeping places.

2. Alongside the complete text of the treaty shall be placed any annexes.

(annexes not yet written)

Reply

2. The Parties will not undertake a military attack against regions that share embassies with any other Party, including assisting another military organization attempting as much, unless the region in question has declared war on or attacked any of the Parties to this treaty.

I am curious to know whether this clause was brought forward by us or by another party? This seems to automatically enter us into some sort of non-aggression pact with any region that establishes embassies with a signatory. Would that be sensible? Wouldn't that partially strip the Assemblies right to decide on whether bilateral or multilateral treaties are to be ratified or not?
 

1. Should a region request to ratify this treaty, a Party request to expel another Party, recognize a region as a Protectorate of a Party, or a Party propose an amendment to this treaty, a temporary Council shall be held.

Should there be some sort of either a hard cap (ie. maximum of 3 'protectorates') or a soft cap (ie. have no more than 3 'protectorates' compared to the average number of 'protectorates' of all signatories)? These recognitions happen through Council per the draft with a 75%+ majority required, but still. 

Further, maybe an additional clause that if a party wants to establish a 'protectorate', other parties who have more 'protectorates' recognized by the signatories than the party trying to establish a new 'protactorate' can not vote 'nay' during the Council? (ie. XKI has 4 'protectorates'. TSP has 1. Spiritus has 2. UDS has 2 as well. If UDS wants to establish a new protectorate, and to do so, calls the Council, XKI can not vote no because they have more than what UDS has. TSP and Spiritus can vote however they want.)

Reply

3. The moment more than 75% of all existing Parties ratify an amendment, all Parties who have not yet considered the amendment at that point shall have a month to either formally ratify or reject the amendment. After said month passes, the amendment shall go into full effect if no Party has formally rejected the amendment.

(annexes not yet written)

What happens if more than 75% agree on an amendment but the remaining reject? Are they expelled from the agreement? That would be correct if it is a major amendment like affecting the sovereignty of the region but for minor cases, how is the differences of opinion solved?

(This post was last modified: 04-22-2022, 01:33 AM by Killer.)

Reply

2. The Parties will not undertake a military attack against regions that share embassies with any other Party, including assisting another military organization attempting as much, unless the region in question has declared war on or attacked any of the Parties to this treaty.

I am curious to know whether this clause was brought forward by us or by another party? This seems to automatically enter us into some sort of non-aggression pact with any region that establishes embassies with a signatory. Would that be sensible? Wouldn't that partially strip the Assemblies right to decide on whether bilateral or multilateral treaties are to be ratified or not?

I believe it was included at our request, but I'm not particularly attached to it. There's debate among the negotiators at the moment about whether or not to remove it. As defender regions, we aren't likely to go around attacking other regions in the first place.
 

1. Should a region request to ratify this treaty, a Party request to expel another Party, recognize a region as a Protectorate of a Party, or a Party propose an amendment to this treaty, a temporary Council shall be held.

Should there be some sort of either a hard cap (ie. maximum of 3 'protectorates') or a soft cap (ie. have no more than 3 'protectorates' compared to the average number of 'protectorates' of all signatories)? These recognitions happen through Council per the draft with a 75%+ majority required, but still. 

Further, maybe an additional clause that if a party wants to establish a 'protectorate', other parties who have more 'protectorates' recognized by the signatories than the party trying to establish a new 'protactorate' can not vote 'nay' during the Council? (ie. XKI has 4 'protectorates'. TSP has 1. Spiritus has 2. UDS has 2 as well. If UDS wants to establish a new protectorate, and to do so, calls the Council, XKI can not vote no because they have more than what UDS has. TSP and Spiritus can vote however they want.)

I think this should be left up to the diplomatic and political process. Multiple parties have already indicated they're overall skeptical of Frontiers, but I also think this is an area of the game that can easily evolve in ways we don't know, and I'd rather future governments flexibility there.

3. The moment more than 75% of all existing Parties ratify an amendment, all Parties who have not yet considered the amendment at that point shall have a month to either formally ratify or reject the amendment. After said month passes, the amendment shall go into full effect if no Party has formally rejected the amendment.

(annexes not yet written)

What happens if more than 75% agree on an amendment but the remaining reject? Are they expelled from the agreement? That would be correct if it is a major amendment like affecting the sovereignty of the region but for minor cases, how is the differences of opinion solved?

The amendment article is being rewritten for clarity. The way it will work is is that amendments fail if at least 1 party specifically rejects it. Parties have 1 month to either ratify or reject. Those who don't do either aren't counted towards a requirement that "all parties ratify" and are eligible for removal from the alliance for inactivity.

Reply

Article 3, Section 2 makes mention of a Treaty Annex I, yet there are no annexes written apparently. Can the MoFA clarify what Annex I is as it relates to its mention?

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

The annexes have no content and likely won't be written until after ratification and the first Council of Parties is called.

There are two annexes provided for in the latest draft: one for intel sharing (naming which bodies a region wants to designate for intel sharing, if any), the other for the Protectorates/Frontiers/territories/whatever you want to call them. None of the parties so far has indicated they're going to name any entity other than their regular security body when it comes to intel sharing. And the territory annex won't come into play until Frontiers do.

Reply

Broadly in support of this. I maintain my earlier skepticism that this is a fix all or magic bullet that will greatly strengthen defending, but I don't think it's a bad idea, I think including a framework for Protectorates after F/S happens is a good thing, and if good work is eventually put in this could be a longer term infrastructure for cultural and political cooperation. 

I'll join being a little skeptical of Article 2(2) and (broadly) finding it a bit unnecessary. Given the diversity of perspectives and approaches to defending and foreign affairs more broadly in these signatories, there are rare circumstances this could present issues and no circumstances where it could provide a benefit, so I see little reason to include it. 

I think the Council system is a good solution to the issue of addressing Protectorates. I was wondering if we could crisp up the language to say that recognition of a Protectorate by the Treaty must also include recognition of what and how the legitimate government of that Protectorate is decided? I would hate to find ourselves in situations where we are unclear on who or what is the legitimate government of a Protectorate we had agreed to defend, which I think is increasingly likely given Protectorates could become tools or pawns in regions' inevitable internal schisms and political systems.

I'm also curious why the Council isn't permanently convened and how/why the quorum requirements were decided upon? I'm not opposed, per se, but I want to understand the reasoning.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

I have to agree with HS on their final point. I think it would serve us well to have a permanent working group, possibly on Discord, to have continuous discussions on how we can improve the treaty, expand the alliance, or handle emergency situations.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 04-24-2022, 03:50 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply