Embassies and Consulates

Formerly, the establishing of an Embassy required regions to sign an agreement with us, and Consulates required a statement to be posted by the region's representative.

In regions where I've been elsewhere, I found it troublesome that I had to sign an agreement just to open an embassy. I don't see the need for it, though I understand the reasons it was put into place previously.

I would like to replace this policy.

Openning of relations should be by Embassy, unless there is a request by the petitioning region/organization that it be a Consulate.

Consulates otherwise, should be used as a tool of interregional leverage.

If we have a concern with the actions of a particular region, we can lower their Embassy to a Consulate, as a first step in showing our displeasure. We don't have to move directly to closing relations in this way.

Or if we have reason to be concerned about opening relations with a particular region, we can grant them a Consulate as a means of simply establishing communications with them.

In order to be clear that Embassies do not represent any sort of political or military agreement with regions or organizations, we should pin a standard statement of intent.

Embassies and Consulates exchanged with The North Pacific do not represent an agreement of Political or Military Alliance or relationship.  Embassies and Consulates may have their status upgraded or downgraded, and they may be closed by TNP Interregional Affairs at any time, and for any reason.

Establishment of an Embassy or Consulate in The North Pacific, signifies and understanding and agreement with this statement of intent.

Click to expand...

Thoughts ? Ideas ? Comments ? Questions ?

Ah, those agreements!! I never paid attention to them, so effectively the policy of not signing a special agreement for every embassy/consulate is already in place.

I would also be in favour of having more alliance treaties with other regions. More involvement, more cooperation.

I'm not opposed to treaties and agreement.

However, the treaty process is a bit unclear. Interregional Affairs and the Delegate are charged with negotiating and signing them. They then must be introduced to the RA.

5. Any agreement or treaty signed with a foreign region or organization must be introduced to the Assembly by the Minister of External Affairs or Delegate.

Click to expand...

I does not say what happens in the RA.

Perhaps we should let the RA vote on what they think they should do with it?

I presume that is the intent, but it seems a bit odd to have a treaty signed prior to the RA passing it.

Well, this isn't the only vague issue with the new Constitution.

I suspect the thought was analogous to RL where a treaty is signed and then ratified by the legislative branch before it become effective.

We need to clarify the treaty approval process as it pertains to the RA vote. We could get a proper piece of legislation through easily and quickly to facilitate this and without any objection.

The easiest way (and to set a procedural precedent in re to practice and tradition, that is) is for the Delegate to either:

A: request an RA member to draw up the legislation to that affect;

B: have the CLO submit it (should this be imperative and time dependent) as a legislative form - bypassing the time constraints of informal/formal discussion;

C: Just ask the Speaker of the RA to submit it for a vote after a brief informal/formal discussion.

A combination of A and/or C would work best as I can't see any cause for contention on this item.

I think it's clear that the Delegate, or Interregional Affairs, presents agreements or treaties to the RA. But no requirement is placed upon the RA to approve it, give advise and consent, or any such thing.

What the RA does once it's been 'introduced' to the RA is what's in question. Which respectfully is really is a matter for the RA to decide, not the Cabinet.

I'd certainly encourage the CLO to recommend a proposal to the RA.

Embassies and Consulates exchanged with The North Pacific do not represent an agreement of Political or Military Alliance or relationship.  Embassies and Consulates may have their status upgraded or downgraded, and they may be closed by TNP Interregional Affairs at any time, and for any reason.

Establishment of an Embassy or Consulate in The North Pacific, signifies and understanding and agreement with this statement of intent.

Click to expand...

Would you post and pin this in you Office fourm VZ ? And unpin the Consulate and Embassy agreements please.

Thank you for posting the statement, but you forgot to unpin the those two thread.

You mean the stuff in the Diplomatic documents subforum?

Well, it will still appear in the IrA forum, as it is a subforum on its own.

No, I mean this one:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=2120

Why do you say agreement when you mean request!?

'twas a frigging work to unpin all the diplomatic documents!

Anyway, where should the foreign ambassadors request their embassies now??

Probably because I confused myself.

Just start a new thread for Embassy requests, with the new policy. Just say something like -

Welcome to The North Pacific, please Post all Embassy requests here.

There are no guidelines for applying for an Embassy other than an understanding of our Statement of Intent. Simply create a new post in this thread with your request.  While not required, the following information about your region or organization would be helpful for our consideration:

- Region or Organization Name
- A link to your regional or organizational forum
- Name of the (possible) future Ambassador from your region
- A little bit about your region, what it stands for and how it is governed. This doesn't need to be anything elaborate.  Just a couple of sentences to introduce yourself.

After you have posted your request, please be patient while your request is reviewed by Interregional Affairs.

Click to expand...