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!

Spiritus
#11

(03-01-2015, 12:40 AM)Unibot Wrote: The problem is Kringalia, that we might deter actual relationships from forming because we misunderstand other region's rituals surrounding treaties - for what we see as putting the cart before the wheel, they see as simply ensuring the relationship has some expectations to it, so they know it'll go places.

Just to sound off here, since I actually think it's important, treaties as only worth how much people will put into it. If people aren't actually willing to help out, the treaty isn't worth the server space it takes up. So, while I appreciate that others have a different relationship to treaties, we still need the friendship and connections.

Beyond that, the Rock Paper Scissors event does sound like it could be a good way to extend cultural situation
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#12

I'd like to present a treaty draft, as negotiated between myself and President The Salaxalans and his advisor, Rogamark of Spiritus. Kris has also been involved in the discussion regarding culture.

Sal wanted something unique in the treaty, so he and Kris collaborated to give us the latter parts of Article 3.

#13

I don't like the re-ratification period thingy, because our politics shifts so much in twelve months, I fear we could watch the treaty pass by the wayside because of political factions changing and preventing us from reaching the necessary 60% margin,

Quote:4.4 This treaty shall expire 12 months (one calendar year) from ratification by both parties unless it is renewed by both signatories within that time period following a gathering to discuss the relationship and ensure there is communication between both parties.

I'd prefer to see the agreement a "done deal" without a re-ratification period. I like the rest of the treaty though. Lovely formatting. 
#14

I'm definitely open to removing the re-ratification period. It seemed a good reason to once every 12 months to meet up, talk about what's going on and discuss the year that's just been. It also helps keep communication open and active as well as providing a venue to discuss problems but I'm fine with removing it.

Henn, Tsu, Pen and Kris, thoughts on the above?
#15

Two things that I don't like about the treaty:

1. Mentioning Salaxalans and Tsunamy by name. I understand why, but as a general rule I don't like having content in treaties that will eventually be outdated. Neither will remain as head of state forever, and having their names in the treaty will just be weird.

2. The twelve-month re-ratification. I understand the logic behind it, but I think treaties are meant to form long-term commitments, and subjecting it to review and potential repeal is not necessarily good for the stability of the alliance. Besides, I wonder under what criteria might the treaty be confirmed or repealed, since the benefits are not always evident, even if they are there.

One thing I am fine with, but feel is a bit lengthy, is the Clause 1 of Article 1. Maybe shortening it would be in order?
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
#16

Ditto on the 4.4. And I'm with Kris about including the names. Can we just make mention toward the Charter and Spiritus' document?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#17

The documents are already mentioned. The names are included because while this is another standard treaty for us, it is the first one Spiritus has ever signed with another region, not counting the Arnhelm Declaration. That is why I've included the names of the heads of state, because it is meant to be memorable. I would be against removing them.

I am not sure how I can shorten Article 1 without re-editing the entire article to add an extra subsection.

This style may be repeated with a draft for The Pacific-The South Pacific.
#18

There will already be a signing ceremony with the names of each head of state. Is including them in the text itself really necessary?
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
#19

I feel it is. Foreign Affairs is one part niceties, four parts flowery language and two parts politics.
#20

Looks good.

I already told Raven my idea for Article 3.6, but he chose to not add it in.




Users browsing this thread:





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .