| Renegotiating the Galapagos Accords with the East Pacific |
|
Hello there, the Magisterium of the East Pacific has asked to renegotiate part of the Galapagos Accords. AMOM, the Magisterium's provost, stated of Article V, Section 2 of the treaty, "This rendered the treaty functionally useless, in my opinion, as treaties tend to be tested during times of need and 30 days is just long enough to complete [one’s] coup d'état."
As such, they've requested to strike that clause from the treaty, which I bring before the Assembly for consideration. This is also an opportunity to discuss or consider what else to change or introduce in the Galapagos Accords. Quote:
It does seem like a strange clause. I can support this.
(09-20-2020, 07:10 PM)Qaweritoyu Wrote: Why are they requesting that change? (09-20-2020, 07:02 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: AMOM, the Magisterium's provost, stated of Article V, Section 2 of the treaty, "This rendered the treaty functionally useless, in my opinion, as treaties tend to be tested during times of need and 30 days is just long enough to complete [one’s] coup d'état."
Maybe I'm stupid, but could someone interpret AMOM's words? I'm just not getting them.
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
I'm opposed to this. Suspension of treaties is a standard feature of our alliances and has been for years. Suspensions serves as a middle point between mild diplomatic admonishments and full rescinding of a treaty, especially when it comes to actions we find unacceptable of an ally. It's useful if there is still an opportunity to convince them to change course, or if not, to renegotiate our formal relations in response.
Treaty suspension has nothing to do with coups. We don't recognize illegitimate governments, which means we don't recognize coups as governments at all. If TEP were to be couped, our treaty would be in full force with the legitimate government, not the coup government, and we wouldn't recognize any claim by the coupers to have invoked any portion of the treaty. Has the Ministry already engaged in renegotiation with TEP, and you're presenting this as a final product? Did the Ministry attempt to clarify the purpose of suspensions and explain that they're a standard feature of our treaties? (09-20-2020, 07:13 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Maybe I'm stupid, but could someone interpret AMOM's words? I'm just not getting them. I believe they're essentially saying that one party could suspend the treaty before or during a coup, overriding elements such as the mutual defense for fighting the coup. (09-20-2020, 07:25 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Has the Ministry already engaged in renegotiation with TEP, and you're presenting this as a final product? Did the Ministry attempt to clarify the purpose of suspensions and explain that they're a standard feature of our treaties? This is at best a preliminary discussion between two regions and not a final product. I am just conveying what I received from the Magisterium in terms of what they wish to amend in the Galapagos Accords and receive feedback from the Assembly. With that in mind, I'd like to ask permission from the Chair to convey the wishes of the Assembly in this thread with the appropriate officials in TEP.
I can see how this could be exploited by malicious actors but I'm not sure what solution to offer.
Тифона «Тифонька» Кузнецова Typhona "Typhonka" Kuznetsova Come and Vacation In Austerager, Pearl of Keylian Ocean! [Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SMUCMn_BQ] |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |