| The Rejected Realms Treaty |
Yes, they are more than that. Military cooperation is really quite ancillary to these treaties. There are two important goals, in my mind, with GCR treaties:
1. Enshrining the legitimacy of forum-based and constitutional governments, and consequently denying the legitimacy of governments created via coup or subjugation. 2. Creating a common agreement and binding legal obligation to defend legitimate GCR governments against coup and subjugation. As the quintessentially founderless regions, GCRs have always been a fighting ground for different ideas and gameplay styles. Some think the only thing that matters is who control the delegate seat, regardless of how the came to control it. Some think it is acceptable to coup or attack a GCR, whether they think that chaos breathes life into the game, or they just want a notch in their belt. I know that I want to fight back against that. "Pan-GCR alliance" is a misnomer. It's been tried many times, and it's clear that the current generation of players simply can't make a centralized alliance work. However, pan-GCR cooperation and pan-GCR security are still very much possible through these types of bilateral treaties. (06-30-2014, 12:01 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: That's awesome, but you are talking about pan-GCR alliances and I'm talking about upholding GCR sovereignty. Those are two different things. We haven't proposed a treaty with TEP, TWP and all other Game Created Regions. We are proposing a treaty with the Rejected Realms because we see value in such a relationship. You speak of how it's impossible to be allied with them because they "pick sides" in the R/D spectrum. I would argue that R/D stance is not the only thing we look into when considering a treaty. The possibilities of cultural cooperation were given great importance when we considered this treaty, and we have been talking with TRR's government about organising cultural events. We really need to stop viewing treaties as military alliances; they are so much more than that.Considering that the military alliance aspect of the proposed treaty is the part which is contentious, why not alter the treaty to be a NAP also covering issues of sovereignty and cultural exchange? It is quite possible to sign a treaty with TRR meeting those objectives, whilst avoiding producing conflicting treaty commitments? It also provides a foundation stone on which a closer relationship can be built, if none of the problems we are concerned about arise over the next six-to-eight months? Rushing into a military alliance when we know that there may be problems seems incredibly foolish to me, when we can build the relationship - which I agree may prove valuable - and support the principles of GCR sovereignty and constitutionality by a different form of treaty. I believe such a treaty would attract near unanimous Assembly support. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Belschaft, just to clarify, when you say "military alliance", do you mean the clauses referring to mutual defence obligations, military cooperation or both?
(06-30-2014, 06:12 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Considering that the military alliance aspect of the proposed treaty is the part which is contentious, why not alter the treaty to be a NAP also covering issues of sovereignty and cultural exchange? It is quite possible to sign a treaty with TRR meeting those objectives, whilst avoiding producing conflicting treaty commitments? Personally I don't see what part of the Treaty is objectionable. I've scanned through the Treaty one more time, and that way I see it:
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
(06-30-2014, 06:12 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Considering that the military alliance aspect of the proposed treaty is the part which is contentious, why not alter the treaty to be a NAP also covering issues of sovereignty and cultural exchange? It is quite possible to sign a treaty with TRR meeting those objectives, whilst avoiding producing conflicting treaty commitments? As I've already stated, the goals are pan-GCR cooperation and pan-GCR security. TRR is not hostile to us, nor will they likely ever be, so an NAP is pointless. Besides, I think it's very unlikely that you will support the military aspects of this treaty in six to eight months, when your opposition to it right now is due to the TNI alliance. Unless that alliance isn't going to exist six to eight months down the road, I imagine you will still be opposed to military cooperation and mutual defense for the same reasons.
There is nothing strictly speaking objectionable about the treaty itself - there's a couple of clauses I'd like to tweak but only minor ones, which I'll detail later - but it is the contradiction of maintaining military alliances with two regions at war with each other that I have issues with. It invites a situation where we will have to breach one or the other treaties. We simply should not be making commitments we can't keep. If we weren't allied with TNI I would be on board... but we are allied with TNI. We have to examine any proposed treaty in terms of its impact on existing relationships, and ensure that it neither damages or negates them. To put it simply, my concern is twofold;
1. That allying with TRR could in of itself damage our relationship with TNI, harming a well established and extremely fruitful alliance for no certain gain 2. That the contradictions of the two treaties will produce a situation where we have to breach one or the other, reducing our perceived reliability and de-valuing all our treaties A military alliance makes both of those a real risk. A NAP, or a NAP+, does not. Our treaties with Lazarus and Kantrias are the model I would look too in regards to this. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
(06-30-2014, 01:21 PM)Belschaft Wrote: It invites a situation where we will have to breach one or the other treaties.The only way this would happen is if TNI invites it on themselves by attacking the sovereignty of TRR. Like we've said, treaty or no, it would wholly unacceptable for TNI to directly attack another GCR. Protecting GCR sovereignty is certainly a commitment we can keep. If TNI feels different, that is their deal. TSP will remain committed to GCR sovereignty. (06-30-2014, 01:13 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:(06-30-2014, 06:12 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Considering that the military alliance aspect of the proposed treaty is the part which is contentious, why not alter the treaty to be a NAP also covering issues of sovereignty and cultural exchange? It is quite possible to sign a treaty with TRR meeting those objectives, whilst avoiding producing conflicting treaty commitments? It allows a period of time to see what happens, judge how well commitments to TRR and TNI can be combined, and work on developing a relationship with TRR - a relationship that is relatively new and unproven. Historically TRR has been hostile to us - it's government was utterly complicit in Sedge's coup, and attempted to cover it up. There is absolutely no reason to rush straight in to a military alliance that is both contentious and potentially disastrous, when we have a prudent alternative that can be pursued instead. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
(06-30-2014, 01:29 PM)Belschaft Wrote: It allows a period of time to see what happens, judge how well commitments to TRR and TNI can be combined, and work on developing a relationship with TRR - a relationship that is relatively new and unproven. I just don't see this a genuine idea. We already have cultural and military cooperation with TRR, and that has not been a problem. What's left is mutual defense, and that can't really be subject to a trial period. Either TNI directly attacks TRR, or they don't. If they do, that spells the end, for me, to the current alliance anyways. How many of our current treaties went through this path of first having an NAP to "prove" a relationship? (06-30-2014, 01:29 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Historically TRR has been hostile to us - it's government was utterly complicit in Sedge's coup, and attempted to cover it up. And we formed an alliance with the military group that attacked them and usurped control over their region, merely because they belong to a defender organization that liberated a region TNI took over... in what, 2006? If they are willing to let bygones be bygones, then why can't we? (06-30-2014, 01:26 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:Our region recognises the concept of war in our legal system. We expect others to recognize our right to wage war, and as such we must too recognize the right of others to do so. We can disapprove of a hypothetical TNI invasion of TRR and we have no legal duty to assist them - which we should not - but they have the undeniable sovereign right to wage war, and as our ally they have a right to expect us to not ally with their enemies.(06-30-2014, 01:21 PM)Belschaft Wrote: It invites a situation where we will have to breach one or the other treaties.The only way this would happen is if TNI invites it on themselves by attacking the sovereignty of TRR. Like we've said, treaty or no, it would wholly unacceptable for TNI to directly attack another GCR. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |