It is my pleasure to present this to the Assembly after unanimous approval from the Cabinet. For everyone's information, the initial three members would be us, TRR, and XKI. It is my belief this is a key part in us continuing to strengthen the ties within the Defender community as we move forward. I would ask this treaty be ratified. 

 

 

CHARTER OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR SOVEREIGNTY

The signatories, committed to the values of self-determination, regional sovereignty, and respect for the World Assembly and its members, hereby enter into the Partnership for Sovereignty

Article I. Statement of Principles

Section 1- Self Determination. The Partnership for Sovereignty stands in support of the right of natives of a region to determine the status of their own region.
a. The Partnership for Sovereignty supports Security Council liberation proposals when natives in the target region have consented to the passage of the liberation, especially when the target region is at imminent risk of destruction. 
b. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes Security Council liberation proposals when natives in the target region are opposed to the passage of the liberation, except when the target region supports fascism or hateful ideologies and/or where the region has regularly launched unprovoked attacks against other regions.
c. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes the practice of approval raiding. Signatories will act against it, including through diplomatic and defensive military action, as each region considers appropriate in the circumstances.

Section 2- Positive Community. The Partnership for Sovereignty stands in support of positive contributions to the building of a better NationStates.
a. The Partnership for Sovereignty supports well-written Commendations for nations or regions which have made significant contributions to defending except where the target nation or region declines their own Commendation. 
b. The Partnership for Sovereignty supports well-written Commendations or Condemnations for nations or regions which have made significant contributions to roleplaying, Issue writing or answering, region-building, interregional diplomacy, trading cards, and/or other parts of NationStates except where the target nation or region declines their own Commendation or Condemnation.


Section 3- Respect. The Partnership for Sovereignty stands in support of the stated goals, institutions, and processes of the World Assembly and opposes bad-faith efforts to undermine or circumvent them.
a. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes not only approval raiding, but any and all bad-faith efforts or proposals that manipulate, mislead and/or subvert the intentions of the World Assembly’s voters, and will endeavor to counteract such disinformation.
b. The Partnership for Sovereignty opposes efforts to manipulate the Security Council to directly harm signatory regions and defenders.

Article II. Setting Vote Recommendations.

Section 1. Each member region may appoint a delegation to participate in private discussions about voting with other member regions of the Partnership for Sovereignty. Each delegation shall have one vote in decisions of the Partnership for Sovereignty. 

Section 2. Any representative to the Partnership for Sovereignty may request that the Partnership set a recommendation on a vote for any Security Council proposal prior to on site voting based on the idea such a vote recommendation will fulfill the values in Article I. 

Section 3. After discussion, any representative may motion for a vote on a vote recommendation, such a vote will last 24 hours or until all members have voted. A vote recommendation includes the option preferred by the parties and the reasoning published for the recommendation. In order to issue a recommendation, 60% of voting representatives must support the recommendation. If the proposed vote recommendation does not reach this threshold, the Partnership will not issue a vote recommendation on that Security Council proposal.

Section 4. After a vote recommendation is issued, the recommendation will be published in a NationStates Dispatch for public viewing. Members are encouraged to further distribute the recommendation through appropriate methods to ensure the citizens of the member region are made aware of the vote recommendation.

Section 5. Once the relevant Security Council proposal reaches a vote, the Delegates and World Assembly residents of member regions are strongly encouraged to vote in line with the Partnership’s recommendation.

Article III. Voting Activation Network

Section 1. Delegations to the Partnership for Sovereignty may coordinate advocacy regarding drafting and voting on Security Council proposals. 

Section 2. Delegations to the Partnership for Sovereignty shall maintain a list of contacts with other friendly regions to contact when a voting recommendation is issued by the Partnership for Sovereignty. 

Article IV. Membership Guidelines.

Section 1. Any region that wishes to join the Partnership for Sovereignty must contact the responsible authority in a member region to request entry to the Partnership. The member region’s delegation must present the question of the region’s admission to the Partnership for Sovereignty. By requesting admission to the Partnership, a region agrees to abide by the terms of this Charter if admitted. 

Section 2. Following discussion of the application, a 72 hour vote will be held and, if three-fourths of voting delegations concur, the region shall be admitted. 

Section 3. An existing member of the Partnership shall be automatically expelled if they declare a formal raiding alignment. 

Section 4. An existing member of the Partnership may be expelled for any reason if three-fourths of voting delegations concur in a 72 hour vote. A member region may not vote on its own expulsion. 

Section 5. An existing member of the Partnership may withdraw at any time. 

Article V. Amending the Partnership for Sovereignty Charter

Section 1. Any delegation may propose an amendment to the Partnership for Sovereignty Charter. After discussion, the delegations must unanimously support an amendment to the Partnership for Sovereignty Charter. 

Section 2. After the delegations pass an amendment to the Charter, it shall only take effect after it completes the treaty amendment process in all of the signatory regions.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 01-23-2021, 01:12 AM by Purple Hyacinth. Edit Reason: Added [PASSED] )

Reply

I believe this treaty is a step in the right direction, and I may suggest a few changes later when I can thoroughly review it, but I noticed that the UDS won't be part of the treaty. Could the MoFA elaborate on the decision process there? I ask because they are our third-largest defender ally behind XKI and TRR.

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

My History

Reply

I believe this treaty is a step in the right direction, and I may suggest a few changes later when I can thoroughly review it, but I noticed that the UDS won't be part of the treaty. Could the MoFA elaborate on the decision process there? I ask because they are our third-largest defender ally behind XKI and TRR.

The plan agreed to by the three parties involved was to pass this and then allow others to join. UDS is a partner we hope to involve early on.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

Now, I have a question about approval raiding. Under the current language of the treaty, it appears that the PfS will take a hardline stance against the practice of approval raiding. Would the PfS oppose all uses of approval raiding? There are circumstances where approval raiding could prove useful, such as the unthinkable idea of commending a region like CCD. I imagine if such a proposal was close to reaching quorum, however unlikely, regions such as TNP, NPO, and TWP would certainly engage in approval raiding against the proposed commendation. Where would the PfS stand under such circumstances?

Since the treaty covers an area where our relationship with XKI and TRR is not as formalized – the World Assembly – it's not a surprise that the treaty appears to be a single issue. However, the WALL treaty is also a single-issue treaty that has since stagnated and settled under dust, and the Consortium's Convention of Lausanne – which we have yet to actually read – appears to be a multi-faceted treaty covering issues other than WA cooperation. Would it make sense to add additional provisions to the treaty covering military cooperation between PfS members? I would imagine that adding military provisions would allow for enforcement of some of the positions stated in the Charter. What's more, active military cooperation between PfS members under the Charter, as opposed to the informal multilateral alliance we have forged with XKI and TRR, could keep the spirit of the PfS alive and in better shape than the WALL.

Another thing that Glen proposed in a SPINN article once was the use of summits or cultural festivities to keep an organization like the PfS alive. It's for this reason that I think we should include cultural provisions in the Charter. I think we could commit ourselves to annual or biannual events with other PfS members to make sure that we don't let this treaty become stagnant.

Lastly, I propose the following formatting: Section 1 – Self Determination

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

My History

(This post was last modified: 01-03-2021, 07:17 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

[not a MoFA spokesperson]
 

Now, I have a question about approval raiding. Under the current language of the treaty, it appears that the PfS will take a hardline stance against the practice of approval raiding. Would the PfS oppose all uses of approval raiding? There are circumstances where approval raiding could prove useful, such as the unthinkable idea of commending a region like CCD. I imagine if such a proposal was close to reaching quorum, however unlikely, regions such as TNP, NPO, and TWP would certainly engage in approval raiding against the proposed commendation. Where would the PfS stand under such circumstances?

I do not think there are any situations where approval raiding -- literally disrupting uninvolved, innocent regions because they took an action (approving a proposal) that they have the right to self-determine -- is or should be acceptable. Whether we like the proposal or not, whether the raiders are our allies or not. If you don't like a proposal, try to persuade delegates with campaign telegrams. Pushing small regions around by approval raiding isn't cool.
 

Since the treaty covers an area where our relationship with XKI and TRR is not as formalized – the World Assembly – it's not a surprise that the treaty appears to be a single issue. However, the WALL treaty is also a single-issue treaty that has since stagnated and settled under dust, and the Consortium's Convention of Lausanne – which we have yet to actually read – appears to be a multi-faceted treaty covering issues other than WA cooperation. Would it make sense to add additional provisions to the treaty covering military cooperation between PfS members? I would imagine that adding military provisions would allow for enforcement of some of the positions stated in the Charter. What's more, active military cooperation between PfS members under the Charter, as opposed to the informal multilateral alliances we have forged with XKI and TRR, could keep the spirit of the PfS alive and in better shape than the WALL.

I'd rather see a whole framework of treaties connecting us to our defender allies in different ways than try to stuff unrelated material into a single document. That way, if one element fails, the whole thing doesn't come crashing down. I'm not thinking of this as the one and only defender bloc. It's a defender WA group.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

(This post was last modified: 01-03-2021, 07:16 PM by Somyrion.)

Reply

Agree with Somy regarding approval raiding. I don't think it's ever okay to engage in the practice, for a few reasons. Mainly, as Somy said, I think it fundamentally goes against our approach to defending. If we believe that the right to native self-determination about WA proposals is a good thing, then regardless of what we think of the proposal, we should honor their right to do the same.

However, principled opposition aside, on balance I'd still be in favor of the current language. Approval raiding is one of the simplest forms of raiding to engage in; literally move on a tight trigger, bump the delegate (either to one of your own or a different native), and leave. It's even less work than tag raiding. However, defending against it is one of the most mechanically difficult things to do as a defender. In the same amount of time as a normal chase takes, where you just follow the raiders into a region, you have to follow them, make a split-second decision on whether to endorse the current delegate or someone else, and make at least two more keypresses in the correct order, hoping that you get the endorsement off in time. I mention this because raider organizations absolutely love how easy it is and gleefully engage in the practice when it suits their interests. Defenders, even orgs like TGW that like to raid the raiders, almost never do. So even just taking a general "raiders bad defenders good" stance, sovereignty principles notwithstanding, I'm still very strongly against the practice and I wish the admins would do something about it. >_>

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 01-04-2021, 05:29 AM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

I do not think there are any situations where approval raiding -- literally disrupting uninvolved, innocent regions because they took an action (approving a proposal) that they have the right to self-determine -- is or should be acceptable. Whether we like the proposal or not, whether the raiders are our allies or not. If you don't like a proposal, try to persuade delegates with campaign telegrams. Pushing small regions around by approval raiding isn't cool.

This form of raiding is hardly damaging to regions. Not that I’m saying we should ignore it, but I think exceptions should be made to keep fascists out of the WA.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

I have very serious issues in surrendering our regional sovereignty in such a manner, and giving foreign regions as much - if not more - say in how we vote in the WA than our own citizens. Whilst Article II has clearly been written to try and make this less blatant that is the clear intention of the treaty. If you want me to vote for this you will need to persuade me of the benefits of the treaty and how they outweigh this infringement on our sovereignty and the prerogatives of TSP citizens.

Assuming I am persuaded of this, I also have concerns about the vote weighting.

I don't particularly object to an equal weighting between the three regions currently proposed to be involved; whilst TSP has significantly  more endorsements on our Delegate than either TRR or 10KI - and more endorsements than them combined (TSP 713 | 10KI 437 | TRR 203) - the other two are of similar importance & NSGP standing as TSP - even if 10KI is an icky UCR.

However, the Minister has stated that expansion is intended and named the UDS as a target region; this is where my concerns come up. UDS has 66 endorsements on their Delegate, and certainly is not of equal standing to TSP. As currently written smaller, less influential regions will be given the same say in how TSP votes in the WA as ourselves. The 66 endorsements of a region like UDS should not be weighted the same as our 713 votes.

Assuming that UDS did join the treaty (and that WA endorsements had the current ratio) TSP would be providing 50.2% of the voting power with 25% of the vote; UDS would be providing 4.6% of the voting power with 25% of the vote. This is clearly a problem.

I would suggest that the Minister go back to TRR and 10KI and discuss this issue. I have a few thoughts for how a fairer ratio could be calculated if it is of help.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I am strongly against allowing other regions to make a recommendation on behalf of TSP. I am also against allowing this recommendation to "strongly recommend" how the delegate votes - I don't care if it's compulsory or not, because if it was meant to have no real effect it wouldn't be there. I am against a 60% majority, I think a much larger majority (on the scale of 3/4 or similar) would be appropriate. Either way it is a violation of TSP sovereignty

Section 2. Delegations to the Partnership for Sovereignty shall maintain a list of contacts with other friendly regions to contact when a voting recommendation is issued by the Partnership for Sovereignty. 

Against this for reasons stated above.

Following discussion of the application, a 72 hour vote will be held

if three-fourths of voting delegations concur in a 72 hour vote.

This seems like too little time. There is no rush to admit new regions.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

I think Bel raises some useful questions, but I suppose the idea is that we'd essentially already be in alignment with the regions in the treaty, no? Do we have any stats on how frequently we've voted differently?

Also, is a "recommendation" is binding or could we go against it, if we like?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply