We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

[PASSED] The January Accords
#1

Howdy Legislators,

Your faves the FA Team have been burning the midnight oil on a great treaty that should see even more success in solidifying the The South Pacific's stability and inter-regional friendships. In The Rejected Realms we already have an existing ally, one of our most reliable, and in The East Pacific we have a region that we've been flirting with for a while. We're really confident that this multilateral TSP/TRR/TEP treaty will be a positive step forward for all three regions, and hope the Assembly will ratify it.

Thanks,
Tim and the crew

 
Quote:The January Accords

Preamble

The South Pacific, The Rejected Realms, and The East Pacific venturing to promote the ideals of democracy, unity and peace amongst GCRs; to ensure positive relations and cooperation between our three fine regions, and recognize the legitimate governments of the named, have agreed to the following terms:


Article I - Diplomatic Relations

1. The signatories of this Treaty will recognize each other's constitutional governments, and any successors established according to each region's domestic legal standards, as the sole legitimate governments of their respective home regions.
2. The signatories will ensure continuing diplomatic relations with each other, in the form of NationStates and forum embassies.

Article II - Non-Aggression

1. The signatories will not invade each other's home region or territories, nor participate in any action with the intent to overthrow their legitimate governments as recognised in this Treaty.
2. The signatories will not engage in clandestine, espionage or other spying operations against one another, including their regional military forces.
3. Military operations where the signatories are involved in opposite sides shall not be construed as acts of hostility or aggression unless they result in a violation of a provision of this Treaty.

Article III - Mutual Defense

1. The signatories will defend each other against military threats or attempts to overthrow their legal governments, at request of the officials of the threatened region.
2. The signatories will assist each other during lawful delegate transitions.

Article IV - Intelligence Sharing

1. The signatories will share any information relevant to the security of the other signatories, provided it does not directly threaten their own security. This includes information relating to both regional and forum security.

Article V - Cultural Cooperation

1. The signatories shall endeavor to conduct communal cultural activities, to the benefit of members of all signatory regions.

Article VI - Final Provisions

1. This Treaty will come into effect upon its ratification by the duly authorized individuals or bodies of all the signatory regions.
2. The signatories may not invoke another international agreement to refrain from complying with their mutual obligations under this Treaty.
3. Any signatory may withdraw from this Treaty with a notice on the forums of the other signatories, effective after seven days.


[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"
#2

Regarding Article 1.1, what defines the region's "domestic regional laws"? I recognize that it was meant to prevent a Lazarus-type situation, but I don't feel that it's specific enough. How could we judge what is legal and what isn't legal based on another region's laws?

[Image: W9Gx775.png?2]
Wintreath Thane of Diplomatic Officers

Fmr. Local Councillor (9/9/15 - c. 10/15)


Discord:Katie#3933
#3

(01-19-2018, 01:40 PM)Rikutso Wrote: Regarding Article 1.1, what defines the region's "domestic regional laws". I recognize that it was meant to prevent a Lazarus-type situation, but I don't feel that it's specific enough.

I think it's pretty clear, and am not sure what more specifics we would need there.

Domestic Regional Laws pretty clearly implies each regions individual legal codes, legal systems, and other assorted legal documents which may dictate how their region is administrated.
[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"
#4

So what happens if TEP decides to ban our FA officials, so that they can't post notification of treaty withdrawal? We should probably protect ourselves against Balderite tactics, and say that withdrawal just requires posting a public notice, rather than specifically of the forums of the region that probably is now hostile to us if we're trying to repeal the treaty Tounge
#5

(01-19-2018, 01:44 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: So what happens if TEP decides to ban our FA officials, so that they can't post notification of treaty withdrawal? We should probably protect ourselves against Balderite tactics, and say that withdrawal just requires posting a public notice, rather than specifically of the forums of the region that probably is now hostile to us if we're trying to repeal the treaty Tounge

I don't think either The Rejected Realms or The East Pacific would pull such a dirty tactic, given that they're regions of a higher class and caliber than Balder in my opinion. However, given the healthy amount of citizen overlap that we have in both The Rejected Realms and The East Pacific, I don't think there will ever be a moment in which we would have nobody able to post a treaty termination.
[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"
#6

(01-19-2018, 01:43 PM)Tim Wrote: I think it's pretty clear
I reworded my question. I feel like I worded it wrong the first time

[Image: W9Gx775.png?2]
Wintreath Thane of Diplomatic Officers

Fmr. Local Councillor (9/9/15 - c. 10/15)


Discord:Katie#3933
#7

(01-19-2018, 01:50 PM)Tim Wrote:
(01-19-2018, 01:44 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: So what happens if TEP decides to ban our FA officials, so that they can't post notification of treaty withdrawal? We should probably protect ourselves against Balderite tactics, and say that withdrawal just requires posting a public notice, rather than specifically of the forums of the region that probably is now hostile to us if we're trying to repeal the treaty Tounge

I don't think either The Rejected Realms or The East Pacific would pull such a dirty tactic, given that they're regions of a higher class and caliber than Balder in my opinion. However, given the healthy amount of citizen overlap that we have in both The Rejected Realms and The East Pacific, I don't think there will ever be a moment in which we would have nobody able to post a treaty termination.

I doubt anybody thought Balder would do it when we originally passed the treaty with them, either. It should be standard to not leave TSP open to that kind of stuff again.
#8

This is a very sensible suggestion from Glen. As much as we would hope that such a provision would prove unnecessary, it would be prudent to cover our backs.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk
Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.
Salma 145:8
#9

(01-19-2018, 01:53 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(01-19-2018, 01:50 PM)Tim Wrote:
(01-19-2018, 01:44 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: So what happens if TEP decides to ban our FA officials, so that they can't post notification of treaty withdrawal? We should probably protect ourselves against Balderite tactics, and say that withdrawal just requires posting a public notice, rather than specifically of the forums of the region that probably is now hostile to us if we're trying to repeal the treaty Tounge

I don't think either The Rejected Realms or The East Pacific would pull such a dirty tactic, given that they're regions of a higher class and caliber than Balder in my opinion. However, given the healthy amount of citizen overlap that we have in both The Rejected Realms and The East Pacific, I don't think there will ever be a moment in which we would have nobody able to post a treaty termination.

I doubt anybody thought Balder would do it when we originally passed the treaty with them, either. It should be standard to not leave TSP open to that kind of stuff again.

That's pretty fair honestly. I've relayed the matter to the TRR and TEP Diplomatic Staff and I'm hoping we'll have an answer on the change as soon as possible. I can't imagine it's one anybody would oppose, especially given TSP's circumstances for desiring it.
[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"
#10

(01-19-2018, 01:40 PM)Rikutso Wrote: Regarding Article 1.1, what defines the region's "domestic regional laws"? I recognize that it was meant to prevent a Lazarus-type situation, but I don't feel that it's specific enough. How could we judge what is legal and what isn't legal based on another region's laws?

By using proper judgement and reading their laws if needed. I don't know what other answer could possibly be given to this, tbh.

But really, the likelihood of us having to interpret the other region's laws is pretty much 0.
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .