Feeder Agreement Document

Posul

Posul

TNPer
Well gentlemen, lets spell out exactly what we wish to put into this document.

I would therefore call upon each Feeder to say exactly what he believe the document should say.
 
I will be interested in seeing what the other feeders "want" before making any suggestions on behalf of The Pacific.
 
Although not the Delegate of the East Pacific, Gnidrah has asked me to represent the region at this table.

And Posul, I'm certain you meant to say "ladies and gentlemen". ;)
 
Yes, from TWP.

As for the document, we favour a purely diplomatic treaty. I've put together a draft idea of the sort of thing I think has been discussed in the other thread. I'm not too good at this sort of thing, and it is only a short draft, so feel free to rip it to shreds. ;)


The United Feeders Treaty

Preamble

We, the regions of The North Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The West Pacific, The Pacific and Lazarus, in recognition of the common ground between our regions do agree to the following treaty.


Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate and rightful governing body of their region.

Article II. This treaty reaffirms the sovereignty and independence of each signatory region.

Article III. In the event of a dispute between signatories of this treaty, the other signatories not involved in the dispute agree to remain neutral over the dispute and may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.

Article IV: In the event of a dispute between signatories of this treaty and other regions, the other signatories not involved may provide grounds for diplomatic talks and negotiators to try to resolve the dispute.

Article V: Each signatory region will place an embassy in the regions of the other signatories, in order to further communication between the signatory regions. The embassy will act as a voice of the region within the other, and will respect the laws of foreign soil. This will be done with due process and by request.

Article VI. The signatory regions entering into this treaty agree to encourage their nations to register and participate on each other's forum, so that all signatory regions can get to know each other and so our friendship may be strengthened. Additionally, members of every signatory region shall have an automatic invitation to all festive occasions in all signatory regions.

Article VII. To further facilitate communications between the signatory regions, they hereby agree to the creation of a permanently maintained summit hall. These halls shall provide common and neutral ground for discussion of issues between all signatory regions.

Article VIII. The summit halls shall be hosted by a different signatory region every six months.

Article VIIII. Amendments to this treaty can be tabled in the summit halls, where they shall be decided upon by the appointed representatives of each signatory region.

Signed:
Click to expand...
 
This has surprisingly little to do with advertisement limits and more to do with mandating how we engage in our diplomatic relations.
 
Indeed. As was discussed in the "purpose of the summit" thread.

To be honest, I'd forgotten about the ad limits thing. The question being, do we add that into the diplomatic treaty or have a seperate recruiting/adspam agreement- possibly linked to the Commrangers?
 
It will be interesting to see the responses from certain parties considering the ongoing "discussions" taking place elsewhere regarding certain actions of the sovereign government of The Pacific.
 
I'd rather we left ad space limits to another agreement. This draft outlines diplomtic processes, which I find far more amenable (woo-hoo, my 50 cent word for the day!)
 
RL has been a bear lately. Sorry for the long absence.

HC ... the treaty proposal does NOT include The RR because... ??? If I have missed something, please overturn my ignorance.
 
:ph34r:

I have the same queestion as TAO.....why is not the RR included?

And I agree that the ad should be in a separate agreement.

Other than that, this respects the soverignty of each region very nicely.
 
TAO & Moo,

The RR weren't mentioned, mainly because they haven't been involved in any of the discussions here so I didn't (don't) know what they think. They were invited and as far as I'm aware Kandarin has access to this forum to post should he want to. If the RR decide they want to sign they can be added in of course.
 
We don't believe any government is inherently the legitimate sovereign government of a region, because sovereignty rightfully rests with the people of a region. We further believe the government has an obligation to consider the views of all nations when formulating policy and should work to include all nations within the region in its functions, whenever possible.
 
So, does that mean you'd like Article I removed? Or perhaps altered:

"This treaty recognises the right of the nations in the feeder regions to self-determination in deciding their government."

It's a bit clumsy but something like that perhaps?
 
Eli:
We don't believe any government is inherently the legitimate sovereign government of a region, because sovereignty rightfully rests with the people of a region. We further believe the government has an obligation to consider the views of all nations when formulating policy and should work to include all nations within the region in its functions, whenever possible.
Click to expand...
You really did go full blown hippy didn't you? :lol:

The government in a feeder region is that which the Delegate supports. If the Delegate wishes to support a "democratic" form of government, like they now have in the north, then that is the legitimate government. The only concern I personally have, and have always had, with such a government form is that it allows for the possibility of outside corruption, intervention and possible control.

If the Delegate wishes to support a tyranny then that too is the legitimate government. The Pacific supported the west's right to such not too long ago and now have no desire to oppose their form once it has changed.

We have concerns over the hypocrisy displayed by those that would welcome our support for such arguments when it assisted them but will now cry foul when they have decided to change their own policies.

The Pacific supports this document.

We do not seek to usurp, contravene or unduely influence the government forms supported by the sitting Delegates in the other feeder regions and only seek the same treatment in return. To do anything else is to infringe on our sovereignty.
 
you're saying your government is a 'tyranny'?


I thought perhaps I may have misunderstood the intent of your statement sir.
 
Eli:
you're saying your government is a 'tyranny'?


I thought perhaps I may have misunderstood the intent of your statement sir.
Click to expand...
Interesting dodge of the true meaning. Perhaps I give you too much credit if you truly misunderstood.

I stated that a Delegate could chose tyranny as his or her choice of regional government. I did not state any region specifically.

That being said, I can neither confirm or deny the validity of your accusation at this time. ;)
 
Haor Chall:
Anyway. Can we please try to stick to the subject at hand?
Click to expand...
I am staying on-topic.

I have no opposition to the document as-is and propose that those that do only do so because they seek possible compromise of the regional integrity of their fellow feeders governance and would work against the spirit of any such treaty regardless of the wording.
 
I often choose to use understatement as a method of asking questions, just trying to make sure that I grasp the full intent of your statement. I do appreciate your answer, and I'm sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of this Ambassador or of our government.

We would prefer that Section I be wholly deleted.

We would prefer that Section II be re-worded thus:

"This treaty recognises that each signatory is the legal and legitimate government of their region."
 
Posul:
After consideration, I support this document.
Click to expand...
With this and the comment from the south it seems that the document has at least tacit support from three of the involved parties.

Before it is altered at the request of a single party I would request we await word from the north and east (and RR if they show up).

If a majority supports the document as-is I fail to see any reason for edits.
 
The West's counter proposal does not compromise any Pacific prerogative. The current wording requires tacit approval of all governmental activity of any signatory. We'd prefer the freedom to conduct foreign policy as we see fit, not have to honor the lowest common denominator's proclivities.
 
:ph34r:

Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate and rightful governing body of their region.
Click to expand...

I really don't see the problem with this at all. It simply states that we recognize the existing governments as legitimate, which in turn makes the signatories the rightful ones to speak for the regions. It doesn't say anything about approving of the said governments or their actions; it speaks only to recognition.

I believe your objection, Eli, has more to do with your abhorrence of our Delegate's actions. It would be helpful to this process to leave that at the door.
 
It has more to do with taking into consideration events that may occur further down the line that may bring us into conflict with a treaty that we would like to be a part of. Foresight in matters of foreign policy is important, and considering we are participating in forging foreign policy with this very document, we would prefer to make use of it at this time.

If this is to be a point of contention, I would like to ask for the following compromise:
Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate governing body of their region.

Article II. This treaty reaffirms the independence of each signatory region.
Click to expand...
 
:ph34r:

Article I. This treaty recognises all existing governments as the legitimate and rightful governing body of their region.

Article II. This treaty reaffirms the sovereignty and independence of each signatory region.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the words "rightful" and "sovereignty" remain, as they reinforce the rights of each region to act as they see fit for the best interests of said region.
 
actually it has more to do with the fact that any governmental takeover becomes pre-approved with this document. That it makes foreign policy decisions for each region in advance and doesn't allow for situational discretion.
 
Eli:
actually it has more to do with the fact that any governmental takeover becomes pre-approved with this document. That it makes foreign policy decisions for each region in advance and doesn't allow for situational discretion.
Click to expand...

I don't see how. It states that all existing governments are consider the legit ruling governments of their region, it doesn't say anything about any future governments. It may be better to add a point about how regime change should be dealt with, in the sense that the government which signed the treaty would no longer exist and would their signature be considered valid still? I'm not sure what the best way of dealing with that would be. EDIT: I think the best method would have to be the removal of that region from the treaty, and its return decided by unanimious vote of the existing signatories.

As for the wording brought up, I'm not sure how much difference those words make myself, I wouldn't have a problem with removing "rightful" but I think I'd like "sovereignty" kept in; I can't see why stating that is an issue.

None of this stops issuing statements concerning the actions of other signatories. RL governments do it all the time without it actually effecting relations between them (and in this case, I don't believe either TWP or TP have closed diplomatic relations or anything). Statements don't impinge upon the sovereignity of a region, they express the concern or even disagreement of one region with the actions of another. And if it did reach a more severe stage, that is the whole point of the treaty providing for arbitration and negotiation from the other signatories to resolve areas of dispute.
 
I honestly cannot see a problem with the Governmental Wording and lets face it, my region is the most likely to suffer this problem out of all the respective parties :P
 
:ph34r:

For clarification: Are we talking about every election that occurs in TNP or TWP, or delegate change that occurs in the regions, or are we talking about major government shifts where the structure changes?
 
moo-cows with guns:
:ph34r:

For clarification: Are we talking about every election that occurs in TNP or TWP, or delegate change that occurs in the regions, or  are we talking about major government shifts where the structure changes?
Click to expand...
Perhaps instead we should simply give the treaty a time duration for re-ratification and include something along the lines of suspending signatory regions during major government shifts until they ratify it again.

As well, I would like to point out that making a treaty supporting the sovereignty of all parties does not take into account the purpose of Article III. Should a dispute degress far enough that one's right to rule is brought into question, this treaty should not stand in the way, particularly to maintain it's namesake and purpose.
 
moo-cows with guns:
:ph34r:

For clarification: Are we talking about every election that occurs in TNP or TWP, or delegate change that occurs in the regions, or  are we talking about major government shifts where the structure changes?
Click to expand...

No, I meant more in terms of major governmental shifts. A change in delegate here (hopefully) wouldn't make any difference to our government, or rather form/method of government/constitution.

Shasoria:
Perhaps instead we should simply give the treaty a time duration for re-ratification and include something along the lines of suspending signatory regions during major government shifts until they ratify it again.

As well, I would like to point out that making a treaty supporting the sovereignty of all parties does not take into account the purpose of Article III. Should a dispute degress far enough that one's right to rule is brought into question, this treaty should not stand in the way, particularly to maintain it's namesake and purpose.
Click to expand...

I guess in part, should relations between two regions fall that badly one or the othe, or both, could leave the treaty. I mean, part of the basis of this is that all our regions are broadly friendly with each other. Should that change significantly then the treaty, in a sense, becomes a little pointless. I think it would be better left largely as is, I don't know what TSP or TEP think of the wording issues. But personally, there are provisions for making changes to the document and it might be best to leave it so in the case of any such situation arising, how to deal with it in the context of this treaty, can be discussed and decided then.
 
Haor Chall:
EDIT: I think the best method would have to be the removal of that region from the treaty, and its return decided by unanimious vote of the existing signatories.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This would greatly solve problems if, as has happpened several times, a feeder is taken over by a hostile force. After all, this treaty would bind us to currently existing feeder delegates, not new ones.

Shasoria:
Perhaps instead we should simply give the treaty a time duration for re-ratification and include something along the lines of suspending signatory regions during major government shifts until they ratify it again.
Click to expand...

I may be misreading this, but are we talking about suspending the region whose government has changed, or are we talking about suspending the treaty for all feedes until this is resovled? As said, it would make more sense to suspend the changed region while the other members discuss and vote upon the matter.


Haor Chall:
No, I meant more in terms of major governmental shifts. A change in delegate here (hopefully) wouldn't make any difference to our government, or rather form/method of government/constitution.
Click to expand...

That may be true in some regions, but in others its the change in delegacy hich will cause the most difficulty. Remember, all any region has done in respects to its off-site forum means little if the delegate decides otherwise. I believe we should read this as a change in delegacy.
 
I guess in part, should relations between two regions fall that badly one or the othe, or both, could leave the treaty. I mean, part of the basis of this is that all our regions are broadly friendly with each other. Should that change significantly then the treaty, in a sense, becomes a little pointless. I think it would be better left largely as is, I don't know what TSP or TEP think of the wording issues. But personally, there are provisions for making changes to the document and it might be best to leave it so in the case of any such situation arising, how to deal with it in the context of this treaty, can be discussed and decided then.
Click to expand...
Then what is the point of having provisions within this treaty for settling conflict between signatories and encouraging neutrality from the rest if as soon as there is a serious dispute, we find ourselves having to drop out of the treaty? It makes Article III rather moot and strips it of its purpose.
I may be misreading this, but are we talking about suspending the region whose government has changed, or are we talking about suspending the treaty for all feedes until this is resovled? As said, it would make more sense to suspend the changed region while the other members discuss and vote upon the matter.
Click to expand...
Not for all feeders; I meant as you did. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Haor Chall:
I mean, part of the basis of this is that all our regions are broadly friendly with each other.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We can be friends, but we don't have to agree everything our friends do is "rightful".

Should that change significantly then the treaty, in a  sense, becomes a little pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes. We could very easily attach our name to this while following none of the requirements (who's to check?), but we'd rather object to this now than sign our name to an ultimately toothless document we may have to squelch on (or be squelched on) later.

I think it would be better left largely as is, I don't know what TSP or TEP think of the wording issues.
Click to expand...
One of our larger concerns is that most of the treaty seems a non sequitor from the discussion which actually happened in the Summit. Articles V, VI, VII, VIII for instance.
 
My apologies for my absence. RL has been a bear this week.

WRT ad-spam, I'm in agreement that it should be dealt with separately.


QUOTE (Haor Chall @ Oct 12 2006, 08:30 PM)
EDIT: I think the best method would have to be the removal of that region from the treaty, and its return decided by unanimious vote of the existing signatories.
Click to expand...

Provided that this is the understanding under which we are working, I have no difficulties with the document. Provisions have been made for modifications as necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top