Taijitu-TNP Treaty

Tomb

Tomb

TNPer
Esteemed members of the Regional Assembly,

I come forth to you today to present to you a treaty that aims at renewing the long and friendly relationship between The North Pacific and Taijitu. This was something that former Delegate McMasterdonia started, and it is with honor that the current Cabinet completes it. So after some discussion with Citizen-Diplomat Myroria(Minister of Foreign Affairs) regarding the treaty, I am pleased to bring forth to you a draft of the proposed treaty for you to critique it and debate on it as needed.

Here it is:

The Taijitu-North Pacific Alliance
A treaty renewing the alliance between Taijitu and the North Pacific.

Preamble
1. Aware of the long and special relationship between Taijitu and the North Pacific, the two regions’ shared commitment to freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the kindred ties between them, the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific and the Ecclesia of the Citizens’ Democracy of Taijitu formalize this alliance of mutual defense and cooperation.

Section One - Establishment

1. The signatories will recognize the constitutional governments in force at the time of ratification of this treaty, and any legally enacted successor governments, as the sole legitimate governments of their respective regions.
2. The signatories agree to maintain both on- and off-site embassies with each other.
3. The signatories agree to penalize willful violation of the other party’s rules for RMB posts on that party’s RMB should the other party allow embassy RMB posts.

Section Two - Security

1. If the sovereignty of either party is materially threatened, the other will respond with the implied or explicit consent of the aggrieved party.
2. The responding party will assist in coordination with the aggrieved party and in proportion to the grievance.
3. The signatories will collaborate militarily on request, according to established laws or policies.
4. 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.
5. The signatories will not in any way, direct or indirect, initiate or participate in espionage, subterfuge, or other clandestine operations against one another. For this purpose, a "clandestine operation" is one or more persons acting under false pretenses in one signatory's home region or regional forum at the direction of the other signatory's government without the knowledge of the affected signatory..
6. 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 delegate of Taijitu.

Section Three - Cultural Cooperation

1. The signatories will endeavor to organize cultural events on the regional off-site forums or regional message board of one or the other party, with the goal of mutually enriching both communities.

Section Four - Amendment and Dissolution

1. This treaty may be amended by mutual consent through the normal ratification processes of the two signatories.
2. Either party shall give a week’s notice prior to withdrawing from the treaty.
3. Either party shall exhaust all reasonable diplomatic options before withdrawing from the treaty.
Click to expand...


This is currently opened for your comments. Please note that the same draft of the treaty will be proposed to the Ecclesia, Taijitu's legislative body. Once both regions are content with the a version of this treaty, we will move for a vote.

Your Delegate,

~ Tomb
 
Our allies should be and are very important to us. I fully support this new treaty!
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I did read it. It seems to suffice. That is why I am asking what the differences are..I.E. why do we need a new one? Whats wrong with the current one?
Click to expand...

The new agreement is more in line with some of our other treaty commitments.

Some changes:

1. The preamble is adjusted for better wording.
2. There is a clause to cover cross-embassy RMB posting regulation.
3. There is a clause requiring onsite embassy exchange.
4. There is a clause for general military cooperation, above and beyond mutual defense.
5. Establishes clear intelligence sharing protocols.
6. Has a clause mandating cultural events.
7. Requires 2 weeks notice before dissolution takes effect.
 
Looks good from what I can see. Nothing that screams at me: "Raven: you need to correct it!"

You've got my support as it's a suitable amendment of the current document.
 
Well seeing the general satisfaction of most citizens with the treaty, I would like to put forth a motion for the bill to go for voting.

~ Tomb
 
This proposal is now in Formal Debate, which shall last for five days, after which it will be scheduled for a vote. The Formal Debate period may be shortened at Tomb's request.
 
RPI:
This proposal is now in Formal Debate, which shall last for five days, after which it will be scheduled for a vote. The Formal Debate period may be shortened at Tomb's request.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would like to put forth a motion to shorten the current Formal Debate period.

Thank you again,

~ Tomb
 
At the request of Delegate Tomb, Formal Debate on this proposal shall end now. This treaty will go to vote in two days. No changes can be made to the treaty henceforth.
 
I raise Objection to the reduction in formal debate period, for which no justification has been given. I see no reason for unseemly haste, and it sets a bad precedent - especially over the Easter period when many citizens may have more limited internet access and not be able to participate.
 
The days leading up to this were not the easter period, and saw no suggested changes from any citizen. Formal Debate exists solely to allow continued editing time in the leadup to a vote; when there are no edits suggested, it's not necessary or even important to retain it.

It's not like this was sprung on anybody. It's been sitting around for a while.
 
Furthermore, since the text has been fully negotiated between TNP and Taijitu already, no further amendments would be considered anyway. All that's left is to vote on it.
 
punk d:
Could we have this conversation in the private halls?
Click to expand...
I'd like to ask the speaker to respond to this.<br /><br />I'd prefer we discuss treaties in the private halls and not in view of everyone. You may not be aware but this sub-forum is viewable by those who have been banned from this forum and just about everyone else in between.<br /><br />If the decision is to not have conversations like this one in private that is fine, but I'd like the speaker to at least address the question.
 
punk d:
punk d:
Could we have this conversation in the private halls?
Click to expand...
I'd like to ask the speaker to respond to this.<br /><br />I'd prefer we discuss treaties in the private halls and not in view of everyone. You may not be aware but this sub-forum is viewable by those who have been banned from this forum and just about everyone else in between.<br /><br />If the decision is to not have conversations like this one in private that is fine, but I'd like the speaker to at least address the question.
Click to expand...
I'll speak with Bootsie.
 
It's worth noting that the same treaty was already under debate in public on Taijitu's forum before it was posted here. It is not as if the text of the treaty, or the fact that it was being negotiated, was a carefully guarded secret.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
It's worth noting that the same treaty was already under debate in public on Taijitu's forum before it was posted here. It is not as if the text of the treaty, or the fact that it was being negotiated, was a carefully guarded secret.
Click to expand...
I think it is more the principle of the thing.
 
The text of the treaty is not the primary issue. It's more the ability to speak freely without concern that other parties can view the conversation. This particular treaty was not very controversial, but others could be and I'd hate if something said here, read by others could be used to derail a treaty.
 
Previously, treaties have indeed been discussed in the private forum. Since it's generally the Delegate who starts such threads, I might suggest dropping a line in Tomb's ear. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top