United Democratic pacifics

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Eli of the Westpac was talking with Haor during the last administration about an accord/alliance/agreement between the West Pacific and the North Pacific. He and I have today carried on those discussions.

One idea that has been raised is, instead of starting from scratch, reviving the old United Democratic Pacifics, which one TNP, TSP and TWP were signatories of.

The forum of the UDP can be found HERE (CLICKY).

The charter states:

Treaty of the United Democratic Pacifics
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the NationStates and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in their respective regions. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this Treaty of the United Democratic Pacifics:

[edit]Article 1
The Parties undertake to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the ideals of liberty.

[edit]Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being.

[edit]Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

[edit]Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

[edit]Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of the member regions shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the member regions. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the heads of state of the member regions. Such measures shall be terminated when the heads of state have taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

[edit]Article 6
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

[edit]Article 7
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defense committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

[edit]Article 8
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of each member region. The Treaty shall enter into force between the regions, which have ratified it as soon as the ratification process is complete.
Click to expand...

Cathyy took us out of the UDP, if memory serves. There was something about the word "democratic" that she did not like.

What do people think of the charter? If TWP and TSP were game, is there scope for reaffirming it, or using it as the basis for a new agreement?

F.
 
If memory serves me right, the NPC took the position that cahtyy did not have the constitutional authority to withdraw from the United Democratic Pacifics treaty, and that it was still in force. I recall using it in preparing something during the NPC era, but I'd have to see if I have the draft somewhere, or whether it can be found at old blue.

And wouldn't this be a treaty that goes to vote in the RA?
 
I am in love with this charter.

I was under the impression that TNP struck all alliances under the NPC null and void under this current Constitution? Can't really remember to be honest.
 
John Ashcroft Land:
I am in love with this charter.

I was under the impression that TNP struck all alliances under the NPC null and void under this current Constitution? Can't really remember to be honest.
Click to expand...
That would be a (and I know how everyone just loves this term ;) ) a de facto presumtion and a logical conclusion.

Since it is recognized that the NPD was not a legitimately constituted government and therefore illegal, we would not be bound by any law or constitutional provision to recognize anything done by the NPD as being legal or legitmate.

The NPC, OTOH was, because of it's success in ousting the NPD, and as a legitimate 'provisional government' to which this government is a successor, it might lend some weight to actions under the NPC.

But, anything conducted under the NPC would have to probably be revived by the current government since the NPC was dissolved by the new constitution.

It's an interesting question, though.
 
I checked at "Old Blue" and I was able to come up with the thread about the UDP treaty here.

The NPC government did recognize the UDP treaty as valid; I remember that the final version was re-posted as the NPC negotiators were citing it in negotiations with the NPD. However, I'm having problems finding that thread because archival access was limited before departing "Old Blue" and there's no real way of showing how specifically, the treaty was cited.
However, I would be inclined if TSP and TWP desired renewal, to submit it anew for ratification under our current procedures.
 
In reviewing the UPD tresty text posted by Flemingovia, and looking at TNP Law 12 and Article II Section 4 of the Constitution:

The UDP treaty contains provisions concerning commitment of military forces under certain circumstances. see Treaty srticle V; and provisions that restrain the region;s ability to enter into any treaty that might be contrary to the UPD treaty- see srticle VI, which amounts to a provision that enacts law for TNP.

Thus, TNP laws would require endorsement by the MoD, approval by the Security Council, and ratification by the regional assembly.

Of course this is a quick read of both the treaty and TNP law, so if anyone sees something I missed, please feel free to point it out.
 
The treaty looks like a fairly good piece of work to me. I can't find any pressing issues with it.
 
Just to let you know that discussions have moved on a bit.

I have been talking to the Merit about a possible treaty, and with The West Pacific. Westpac have also been talking with the Merit, so the idea has arisen for more formal, tripartite talks in the near future. It seems likely that myself and Gross will soon be invited to more formal talks.

Just to keep you all in the loop.
 
flemingovia:
Just to let you know that discussions have moved on a bit.

I have been talking to the Merit about a possible treaty, and with The West Pacific. Westpac have also been talking with the Merit, so the idea has arisen for more formal, tripartite talks in the near future. It seems likely that myself and Gross will soon be invited to more formal talks.

Just to keep you all in the loop.
Click to expand...
Since this is private...

oh god the merit? ewwwww. They're so frickin pompous all the time. >.<
 
LOL. That's so true. The most worrying thing is that the Merit was really quite open about their imperialism in TWP early this year.

But at the same time, they have some very good players among them.... The pro-imperialism faction was tossed from power a while ago when Blackbird defeated Mammothistan in the Consul race. I think I'd like to see what they have to offer.
 
Two Three things.

Is there any reason why this treaty can't simply be renewed with TWP (whether TSP is in on ir or not)?

What is the rationale for adding the Merit to this? I'd like to understand the thinking behind that.

Third, can we have something (either the UDP treaty or this new proposed treaty) for the RA to vote on in January? (The Speakerdoes not plan to put anything further to a vote until the 28th, after the holiday (and I suspect things will be slow until after New Year's, but we'll see about that).
 
TSP does not seem to be interested in international relations at the moment. Certainly the gentle approaches I and TWP have made do not seem to have come to much.

The only reason for opening the talks up is that:

I have been talking to the West Pac
West Pac has been talking to the Merit
The Merit has been talking to me.

And there seemed to be a certain logic in getting us all round the table together. I am bringing dorritos, the West Pacific is bringing beer, the Merit is bringing a smuggly superior attitude. :fish: :P

I jest.
 
See what comes out of it. I have no objections to approving any treaties that might require MoD approval as per these regions.

Frankly, genuine pomposity can be refreshing. Poltsy just has erzats pomposity. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top