Treaty With Europeia

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
Honourable Regional Assembly members, I introduce this proposal for your consideration;

TNP and Europeia Security Treaty:
Treaty of Friendship between The North Pacific and Europeia (2013)

WHEREAS, the Region of The North Pacific ("TNP") and the Republic of Europeia ("Europeia") have engaged in discussions about the natural alliance between the two regions, and how to deepen it; and

WHEREAS, TNP and Europeia wish to develop closer ties with one another through continued discussions, as well as the treaty undertakings set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, TNP and Europeia agree as follows:


1. Military Undertakings

(a) Neither TNP nor Europeia will engage in military hostilities against the other. Participation by TNP and Europeia on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either region shall not be considered "military hostilities against the other" for this purpose.

(b) To the extent practicable, TNP and Europeia shall provide the other defensive military assistance in case of an attack.

(c.) Both TNP and Europeia shall not cede their sovereign control over their respective military forces to any supraregional alliance. Sovereign control is interpreted as being able to make the ultimate decision with regards to the region's military resources participating in a military operation. Both regions may continue to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements for common defense.

(d) Europeia shall not engage in offensive military action against Game Created Regions, as defined below ("GCRs"), except that (i) Europeia may take any action reasonably related to its obligations to defend its allies; and (ii) Europeia may, in consultation with TNP, take any action reasonably related to the defense of indigenous communities in any GCR against outside aggression or improper influence. For purposes of this Section 1(d), the term "Game Created Regions" means the regions of The Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The West Pacific, The North Pacific, Lazarus, Balder, Osiris, and The Rejected Realms.

(e) TNP and Europeia shall aid each other in Delegacy transferrals when requested.

(f) TNP and Europeia will collaborate militarily for the combined benefit of both regions when practical.


2. Intelligence Undertakings

(a) Neither TNP nor Europeia will set spies on the other. For this purpose, a "spy" is a person acting under false pretenses in one region, without that region's knowledge, and at the direction of the other region's legitimate government.

(b) TNP and Europeia each shall provide information to the other if such information is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, or otherwise upon the other's reasonable request, unless the party in possession of such information reasonably believes that providing that information might violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or the region's forum provider, or when revealing that information would unduly compromise that party's source(s) of information. Both signatories shall endeavor to reveal as much as possible in such situations, but not more than they can under laws, terms of service or the need to protect sources.

(c.) TNP and Europeia will each make it a violation of their internal laws to spy on the other, if a similar or related law to the same effect does not already exist. To the extent permitted by each region's laws, this Section 2(c.) shall be deemed self-executing.


3. Diplomatic Undertakings

(a) TNP and Europeia shall establish and maintain in-game embassies (i.e., on the NationStates site) with one another.

(b) TNP and Europeia shall maintain off-site embassies (i.e., on their regional forums), consistent with facilities provided to other allies.


4. General Provisions

(a) This treaty shall take effect when it has been ratified by the duly authorized legislative bodies of both TNP and Europeia.

(b) Upon ratification, this treaty shall be the sole treaty between TNP and Europeia, superseding any prior written documents describing a relationship between the regions.

(c.) As soon as practicable following ratification, TNP and Europeia will collaborate to stage a cultural festival to celebrate this treaty.

Signed,

Cerian Basileus Rex Quilor Anacreoni-Anumia
President of Europeia


Jamie Anumia
Delegate of The North Pacific
Click to expand...
 
Well, first of all, I’d like to state this treaty has my full support and will vote for it when it comes to vote. There are a number of reasons why I support this treaty.

Europeia has been a valuable friend to The North Pacific for a significant time, which began under Delegate McMasterdonia and has become stronger from there. Europeia has proved to be a valuable assistance to our region consistently; for example, the support they provided during my own delegacy transition, and throughout the unendorsement campaigns that our region faced during delegate Eluvatar’s recall when Tim became acting delegate, was invaluable.

Europeia also offered valuable assistance during the recent liberations of The South Pacific and Osiris which I believe has brought our two regions closer and cemented the fact that Europeia will be a valued ally to our region.

Some of you may be concerned that this treaty could potentially come into conflict with our existing alliances and, while that concern is valid, I’d like to point out that the treaty contains a clause in regards to GCR unity, which means there will be no conflict with our existing treaties, nor will we come into conflict with any of our fellow GCRs.

This treaty with Europeia is the next logical step in our continued friendship and would enshrine what I believe to be an invaluable alliance.
 
It looks pretty good, and pretty standard to me - just a couple things.

(b) TNP and Europeia each shall provide information to the other if such information is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, or otherwise upon the other's reasonable request, unless the party in possession of such information reasonably believes that providing that information might violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or the region's forum provider.
Click to expand...

I think it might make sense to include a clause, "or when revealing that information would unduly compromise that party's source(s) of information". As written, this would require both signatories to sacrifice key informants or operatives even when the information relevant to the other party's security is relatively minimal, and gives no discretion in terms of what parts of the information are revealed or not.

(c.) As soon as practicable following ratification, TNP and Europeia will collaborate to stage a cultural festival to celebrate this treaty.
Click to expand...

If this doesn't happen - and cultural clauses in treaties do so often go unfulfilled - will that invalidate the treaty? :P
 
I am not sure what the bolded section of the following clause means:

take any action reasonably related to the defense of indigenous communities in any GCR against outside aggression or improper influence.
Click to expand...

Can an example be provided?
 
The OP has been edited with your suggestion SillyString. The culture event will go ahead and it doesn't put a time frame on it.

Improper purposes - could be to control their WA vote Gatesville style. Admittedly could be covered by the treaty allowing us to participate in the defence of other GCR communities when required.
 
I am in favor. This brings my favorite GCR and favorite UCR together and I will be supporting it from both sides.
 
The only potentially problematic issue I see is this:

(c.) Both TNP and Europeia shall not cede their sovereign control over their respective military forces to any supraregional alliance. Both regions may continue to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements for common defense.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is necessarily in need of revision, let alone that it's a reason to oppose the treaty. But I do think the Regional Assembly should be aware that this treaty would commit TNP to not joining this kind of supraregional alliance. That may not be a problem, and for me personally it isn't, but I do think it's worthy of being highlighted for discussion.
 
That has been raised to me as well recently, I think it may be wise to strike it, just in case we decide to go that way in the future. It keeps our options open.
 
Cede control is different than 'working with'. I can't see any situation where we in TNP would 'cede control' of our military to a multi-regional alliance.

Now, would we work with some or potentially join an org like the UDL or FRA? Possibly. But I would think that if we joined an org like that we would ensure that the treaty would allow us to opt out of any military action we didn't agree with.
 
I agree that the likelihood of us choosing to cede military control isn't particularly high given the current political climate (both in TNP and in the wider NS), but things could change in the future. If the 2/3 of the RA were to agree to ceding control, it seems a little silly that another region could then tell us no.

I agree with striking that particular clause.
 
Where this is concerned

(c.) Both TNP and Europeia shall not cede their sovereign control over their respective military forces to any supraregional alliance. Both regions may continue to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements for common defense.
Click to expand...

I propose the following change:

Both TNP and Europeia shall not cede their sovereign control over their respective military forces to any supraregional alliance. Sovereign control is interpreted as being able to make the ultimate decision with regards to the region's military resources participating in a military operation.. Both regions may continue to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements for common defense.
Click to expand...

Following a previous decision to allow the Ambassador from Equilism to respond to questions and the treaty discussion, I have placed this thread in the RA to allow the Ambassador from Europeia to have that same opportunity. If you have questions or concerns about this treaty that you would like him to respond to, you may ask them here.
 
I'm not sure that line changes anything, though it does perhaps stave off any confusion over interpretation - but it's already how I, personally, was reading that section.

If the RA were to be in favor of ceding such control... why would that be any of Europeia's concern?
 
I thank the Minister for his invitation. i will be posting as the Ambassador from Europeia.

The proposed amendment is also acceptable to Europeia, and indeed clarifies both the purpose and our interpretation of this clause.

This is not nearly as strict a restriction as it appears at first reading, and the purpose of the proposed amendment is to clarify and reinforce this. It is indeed a standard clause that we include in all of our treaties, and has never been invoked so far, despite several instances of our allies joining supraregional alliances. A good example would be our recent treaty with Albion. Albion has since then joined the United Imperial Armed Forces (UIAF), a very tight interregional military structure by most NationStates standards. Yet, as they still maintain final veto rights over participation of their regional military in operations, their UIAF membership does not constitute for Europeia a violation of the corresponding clause in our mutual treaty.

This may cause some [EDIT: such as the Deputy Speaker, who has ninja'd me] to ask, then, what is the use of the clause? The intent of clause 1(c.) is to prevent a situation where one signatory can attempt to excuse themselves from their end of military obligations under this treaty, by claiming that they no longer have final say over what operations their military may undertake, while still requiring that the other signatory live up to their end of the military obligations. We believe that it is a necessary safeguard to include in all of our treaties, and should not be interpreted as a sign of distrust in The North Pacific in particular. The North Pacific has a positive history of upholding all treaties and peace agreements, and we have every confidence that this will be a long-lasting and mutually beneficial alliance for our regions.
 
Because of the nature of the proposal, a motion to close formal debate early will only be entertained if it has the written support of our delegate and the Europeian president.
 
For whatever it's worth, I don't see 1c as a problem -- particularly now that we've clarified its interpretation. No supraregional org like this actually exists in NationStates; SovCon exercised no ultimate control over its member regions' militaries, nor does the FRA control its member regions' militaries. I can't imagine The North Pacific ever ceding final control over its own military to any organization.

I think Europeia's reasoning behind this clause is valid and in the interests of both regions.
 
There is a minor edit that needs to be made in 1(c.):
(c.) Both TNP and Europeia shall not cede their sovereign control over their respective military forces to any supraregional alliance. Sovereign control is interpreted as being able to make the ultimate decision with regards to the region's military resources participating in a military operation.. Both regions may continue to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements for common defense.
Click to expand...
Note the double full-stop after "operation".
 
I am satisfied with the closing of formal debate.

newsignature_zps6e8398de.png
 
I don't think this is quite the "standard" treaty that others are passing it off as - there are a few bits and pieces in here that aren't standard.

(d) Europeia shall not engage in offensive military action against Game Created Regions, as defined below ("GCRs"), except that (i) Europeia may take any action reasonably related to its obligations to defend its allies; and (ii) Europeia may, in consultation with TNP, take any action reasonably related to the defense of indigenous communities in any GCR against outside aggression or improper influence. For purposes of this Section 1(d), the term "Game Created Regions" means the regions of The Pacific, The East Pacific, The South Pacific, The West Pacific, The North Pacific, Lazarus, Balder, Osiris, and The Rejected Realms.
Click to expand...
While this is a term relating only to Euro, from a "Not wanting this thing to fall apart if we do agree to it" point of view, how wide ranging is this? Does it prevent Euro from doing anything to a region which a GCR is holding (or whatever), or is it purely referring to actions within the GCRs themselves?

(c.) Both TNP and Europeia shall not cede their sovereign control over their respective military forces to any supraregional alliance. Sovereign control is interpreted as being able to make the ultimate decision with regards to the region's military resources participating in a military operation. Both regions may continue to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements for common defense.
Click to expand...
Dare I ask why this clause is even present?
 
Regarding your first concerns, I would say that Europeia has a strong history of not getting involved militarily against GCR regions and they were strongly involved in the liberation of TSP and in assisting Osiris. I would say that clause means that Europeia will not take part in military action within GCRs themselves, though I can't envision a scenario where TNP and Euro are likely to go up against each other for a different region, but I do not think that would be enough to invalidate the treaty or to end it.

Abbey Anumia:
Dare I ask why this clause is even present?
Click to expand...

You may. R3n summarised our reasoning nicely, here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8107423&t=7087910
 
The Minister for Foreign Affairs is correct regarding 1(d). That clause is to be interpreted as military actions within GCRs, but does not cover, to use your example, other regions that are under the control of a GCR government.

Note that this is a unilateral commitment that Europeia is undertaking with regards to all GCRs. It is a demonstration of our long-standing stance in support of GCR sovereignty. Mutual non-aggression between TNP and Europeia in particular is covered more comprehensively under 1(a).

As for 1(c.), it has already been discussed extensively, so I will refer to the few previous posts.

President Cerian Quilor has authorized me to confirm his support for this treaty in its current form.
 
Formal Debate is scheduled to end tomorrow. Seeing the support of our delegate and the president of Europeia, I will entertain motions from McMasterdonia to end debate early, so long as no further amendments are made between now and then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top