TNP-TSP Mutual Security Pact

Dalimbar

Dalimbar

Your Friendly Neighbourhood Despot
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Cassiars
We the Government of the South Pacific and the Government of The North Pacific sign in to act a Mutual Protection Pact between our regions, to assist each other in times of need.
Either region may request military assistance in the spirit of this treaty by message of an authorized representative of the regions' government in case one of the following conditions occurs within the region:

I. Invasion by a hostile Party who attempt to take the Delegate's seat
II. A rogue Delegate who breaks the trust of the people of the region and breaks the constitution of the region

Any assisting troops will remain under control of the assisting government.

Neither region is bound by this pact in the case that the stability of the assisting region will be in danger by doing so.

This treaty will be cancelled under any of the following conditions:

I. If any party wishes to exit treaty for any reason
II. The breaking of trust of The South Pacific or The North Pacific by calling in troops with out need
III. Disbandment of the charter or constitution* of either the South Pacific or The North Pacific
We Sign this in to action on the 10th of September in the year 2005

Signed by appropriate parties,

*=Or equivilent Document
Click to expand...

Please feel to make any changes you feel fit within reason :P I'm wanting to go back to TSP to present what TNP wants out of the deal pretty soon, if we are interested that is.
 
Thoughts:

a. The definition of Rogue Delegate may need to be tightened. I can hear Cathyy and Nikovakia now: "the constitution was suspended when the bannings took place ....... there were several of the people of the region who supported ...... there are 7000 nations in the region and the forum is only representative of a small proportion ......etc etc etc.

b. Shoud there be a time limit to this treaty? I do not like them (since we always seem to forget when they are up for review :P ) but I have seen them in similar documents.
 
Personally I can never understand the need for a mutual security pact between two feeders.

Although this reminds me...

EDIT: However, unless I'm mistaken we don't have an Embassy Agreement with TSP as yet. I'd suggest that we put foward that agreement or something similar rather than defense treaty.
 
Why would feeders need a defense pact? We're big enough we can probably avoid most of the problems as long as we pay attention to things. The system we currently have set up makes it very difficult for a rogue delegate to come into power, and no invader force could possibly gather enough endo's quickly enough to take one over.

And as HC pointed out, if we don't have an embassy with them yet, I don't see why we're discussing a treaty already.
 
Its a gesture of good will and cooperation between out two feeders. The document I was presented was a MSP, if we want to change it then fly at it. I'll post more in detail when I get some stuff cleared up in RL.
 
As a goodwill gesture, it's a giant leap forward. Anyone wanting to place the North Pacific back into regional affairs will see this as an easy way into that. But first off, Flem's concerns are valid but it will be easy to follow since the South Pacific is rather isolationist and rarely at war (I have yet to hear of one, or even a single diplomatic tiff.)

All in all, I like it. It's bold, works into our foreign agenda, and legally, I think we're covered with that foreign treaties being decided as an executive privillege bill so isolationist wonks making a major fuss.
 
mr_sniffles:
As a goodwill gesture, it's a giant leap forward. Anyone wanting to place the North Pacific back into regional affairs will see this as an easy way into that. But first off, Flem's concerns are valid but it will be easy to follow since the South Pacific is rather isolationist and rarely at war (I have yet to hear of one, or even a single diplomatic tiff.)

All in all, I like it. It's bold, works into our foreign agenda, and legally, I think we're covered with that foreign treaties being decided as an executive privillege bill so isolationist wonks making a major fuss.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I obviously misunderstood the foreign policy agenda I was elected on. I stand corrected.


Placing TNP back into inter-regional affairs, doesn't (in my book anyway) mean signing on the dotted line of every treaty or other peice of paper that happens to be dropped in front of us. And I'm sorry but if you think that a mutual security treaty with TSP is the catalyst for placing TNP in international affairs then you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

With the changes currently afoot in TSP this seems a strange time to take this sort of step, especially as it isn't building on any existing relations. I'd much prefer to get an embasy agreement in place with them, start actually having some diplomatic relations and discussions before we look at defense pacts. I mean, they don't even have an embassy here and we want to jump into this sort of agreement with them? I really don't see it.

And if I'm going to be ignored on this, can I at least ask that someone re-writes the damn thing so that it doesn't contradict itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top