- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
[Draft] Taijitu-TNP Treaty
- Thread starter mcmasterdonia
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
This is a draft of a renewed treaty with Taijitu. Please note that I am not yet happy with it. But I welcome your input and suggested amendments.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
5. The signatories will share any intelligence relevant to the defense of the other party. If this intelligence relates to the North Pacific, it shall be provided to the Security Council of the North Pacific. If this intelligence relates to Taijitu, it shall be provided to the Citizen-Delegate or Citizen-Initiator of Taijitu.
Same concern as with TSP's rewrite.mcmasterdonia:
Several issues here:
1) We usually enter treaties as the "Region of The North Pacific". Are we changing this? If we are going for a more generic designation, I would suggest either just "The North Pacific" or the "Government of The North Pacific".
2) Also, this looks like there are two preambles, "a treaty renewing..." and the one actually titled as a preamble. I would remove the former and scrap the "Preamble" title.
3) Finally, the term "special relationship" is odd. In RL, it's used to refer to the US-UK alliance. I don't think it fits the context here.
4) There's plenty of redundancy in the preamble, for instance between "long and special relationship" and "kindred ties", as well as in the repetition of the regional names.
5) There has to be a definition of who the "signatories" are. This is usually included in the preamble.
Here is a suggestion:
We, the Ecclesia of the Citizens’ Democracy of Taijitu and the [something] of The North Pacific, hereafter jointly referred to as “the signatories”, Aware of the long and kindred ties between our two regions and our shared commitment to freedom, liberty, and democracy, reaffirm our partnership by formalizing this treaty and agreeing to adhere to all of the commitments set forth therein.
I've made minor edits in-line. 1 and 2 are edited to agree with our previous treaties. Note that Asta has issues with 1. In 2, I think the definition of the two kinds of embassies is important.
The "sovereignty" is a very general concept. If a program like Brave Little Toaster is run against Tai, do we need to "assist" them? The wording from our other treaties is straightfoward and avoids such ambiguities:
1. The signatories will provide one another military assistance in case of a military attack, either internal or external, targeting the other signatory's home region, to the best of their ability, and at the request of the other signatory.
I don't understand what this means. It reads as if we have to collaborate every time the other signatory requests it. If it's meant as just a discretionary clause encouraging collaboration, I would remove it - we generally avoid such clauses.
Looks like this clause got partially cut off. It should read:
3. The signatories will not engage in any military hostilities against one another. Participation by the signatories on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either signatory's home region shall not be considered "military hostilities against one another" for this purpose.
All good here.
Why does all intelligence for our defense go directly to the SC? Also, we usually include provisions for violations of ToS or internal laws in this clause. We had spent a considerable amount of time fine-tuning the wording of this clause in our treaties with TEP and TSP, I'd suggest copying from there:
5. The signatories will provide to their counterpart's Delegate any intelligence related to the other signatory's in-game or off-site security, unless the signatory in possession of such intelligence reasonably believes that doing so would violate applicable laws, or violate the terms of service for NationStates or said signatory's forum provider, or unduly compromise said signatory's sources of information. If this intelligence relates to actions of The North Pacific's Delegate, then it will be provided to the Security Council for The North Pacific.
This seems to unnecessarily limit cultural events to forums. How about this:
1. The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events with the goal of mutually enriching both of their respective communities.
A few comments:
-Do we need 1? It seems redundant. I would remove it.
-We need an enactment clause.
-We need a clause repealing our previous treaty.
-Clauses 2 and 3 must be made endeavor clauses, as otherwise they arguably contradict our legislative process.
I suggest the following:
Section Four - Ratification and Dissolution
1. This treaty shall come into effect upon its ratification by the duly authorized individuals or bodies of both the signatories.
2. Upon ratification, this treaty shall be the sole treaty between the signatories, superseding any prior written documents describing a relationship between the signatories.
3. Either signatory shall endeavor to give a week's notice in the aforementioned embassies before withdrawing from this treaty
4. The signatories shall endeavor all reasonable efforts to seek a diplomatic solution before withdrawing from the treaty.
Here is my edited version, compiling together all of the above suggestions.
I have even bigger issues with r3n's edit to 1 than with the original, because under his wording the treaty is defunct next time the government changes hands.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
SillyString:
Alright.
I'm keen to move this forward with unanimity. Suggested amendment?
