[GA, Passed] Ban on Secret Treaties [Complete]

Sil Dorsett

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum
Onsite Topic

Whereas secret diplomacy has been observed to

     A. cause national decision-makers to be left out of the loop of their own government's obligations during wartime, meaning that their decisions are fundamentally irrespective of the actual facts on the ground,

     B. force other nations to miscalculate their intentions, the balance of power, their obligations, and their rewards, increasing the chances of widespread conflict, and

     C. create misunderstandings between a government and the various factions of another government, leading to many disputes between governments which believe they have different or even contradictory obligations:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :

     1. There shall be formed a committee of the Compliance Commission, styled the 'Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission', to oversee the publication of all laws, treaties, and international agreements, and those other tasks that may be assigned to it from time to time.

     2. All treaties and international agreements with the force of law entered into by member nations shall be published by those members and registered with the Judicial Committee of Compliance Commission, which shall promptly publish in full those treaties and international agreements.

     3. Member nations may not invoke treaties or international agreements that have not been so registered in pursuance with the second section to this resolution. Provisions relating to mandates for secrecy or non-disclosure of the text or existence of past treaties and international agreements shall cease to have effect as if those provisions did not exist upon passage.

     4. The words 'secret treaty' and all variant capitalisations thereof, excluding pluralisations, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!



[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_09_28_ban_on_secret_treaties[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2017_09_28_ban_on_secret_treaties[/wavote]
 
Secret treaties lack promulgation and ratification, by their nature. Moreover, these tend to be of precarious value, because they are closed or quasi closed political treaties. The resolution at vote promotes the creation of a dedicated committee, which will keep monitoring the publication of all laws, treaties and international agreements. These actions would contribute to the formal follow-up of diplomatic agreements. However, GAR#323, "No Penalty Without Law", specifies that such treaties, laws or judicial precedents must be of a public nature, which leads us to reconsider the actual contribution of the committee that is intended to create under this resolution, since it would be redundant.

The Ministry of WA Affairs asks voters to take these points into consideration when casting their vote.
 
A few things, but first, a note:

There are no instances in which the words 'secret treaty' or 'secret treaties' occur in the resolution text outside of section 4. Furthermore, the definition for 'secret treaty' does not apply to the words 'secret treaties' as the definition explicitly excludes the plural, and therefore, does not apply to the title.

This is the telegram I dispatched to delegates.
Campaign telegram by IA:
TO: Foreign Secretary, %NATION%
FROM: Foreign Office, Greyhall, Imperium Anglorum

Within the last 14 hours, we submitted a proposal entitled 'Ban on Secret Treaties' to the the World Assembly. It would require that treaties entered into by government be published by two organisations: an WA printing agency and your nation.

The fundamental problem with secret treaties and agreement is that they would make decision-makers unaware of their own government's obligations. This means that they would make bad decisions in planning for conflicts and in reacting to crises.

Moreover, during a crisis, it would mean that nations would have internal divisions based on different conceptions of the facts, weakening any ability to coordinate between parts of the government. (Well, unless one were to tell everyone in the government, which would quickly make the treaty public anyway.)

[ OOC: To take a historical example, the UK parliament before the First World War did not know that Britain had a secret obligation to defend France in the course of a European war. Thus, no preparations were made to that effect. ]

Second, not publishing treaties is bad diplomacy and only increases instability on the world stage. In defence, publishing of a defensive pact makes sense: opponents are deterred in the knowledge that they will be opposed by more foes.

It is only in the offence in which secret treaties would be useful, and not only has the World Assembly spoken out repeatedly against offensive war, there are no compelling moral reasons to continue to permit nations to plot the coordinated murder and destruction of the thousands of civilians and livelihoods necessary in such a conflict.

You can approve our legislation at the link below.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1506475988

I beg to remain, your Excellency's obedient servant,

Lady Lauren Conrad MP
@Imperium_Anglorum, Foreign Secretary
Click to expand...
Below is my draft IFV in Europe.

> Secret treaties are ineffective instruments of defensive policy whilst also dividing portions of a government such that it cannot effectively coordinate military policy as a whole. This is because (1) there is no deterrent effect when one keeps a coalition's military strength necessarily unknown and (2) the government would have different priorities which badly deploy resources absent knowledge of the secret obligations.
>
> The only real use of secret treaties is to engage in offensive wars or to force others to miscalculate intentions, increasing the chance of conflict. The World Assembly has long considered it its moral duty to decrease the chance of conflicts which necessarily kill great numbers of of civilians and soldiers while causing great pain. It has also long condemned offensive wars. The WA has long called for disputes to be settled not on the battlefield, but by peaceful negotiation. Passage of this resolution would aid in that mission.
 
Against.

The last line is ridiculous.

Secret treaty is only used once within the actual enforceable text.

In any case, bilateral secret treaties and the like may need to be entered into in certain circumstances and the like. Total ban does not help.
 
Let me explain my reasoning.

Though under many circumstances secret treaties are bad, there are also many in which they are beneficial, as stated by Secretary to The Committee.

Additionally, many regions and nations will not publish treaties regardless and doing so would be infringing upon the sovereignity of nations and regions who use secret treaties.

Secret treaties among small regions and nations also are beneficial as knowledge of certain treaties can be a threat to them.

It's nothing personal Imperium, I simply can't support this resolution.
 
Secretary to The Committee:
Against.

The last line is ridiculous.

Secret treaty is only used once within the actual enforceable text.

In any case, bilateral secret treaties and the like may need to be entered into in certain circumstances and the like. Total ban does not help.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point about the last line. IA was getting heat from other members of the NS forum for not actually defining a "secret treaty" despite the term not being used in the actual resolution text. That last line is only in there as a joke to spite the people who threw a fit over the term "secret treaty" in the title.

I'm curious what your "certain circumstances" are that justify a secret treaty. As IA stated in the telegram to the delegates, the only potential benefit for a treaty to be secret is when the nations involved are planning an offensive war, which the World Assembly strives to prevent. So, what other uses can you think of?


EDIT: Additionally... the resolution "No Penalty Without Law" also already requires nations to promulgate laws. Treaties are considered laws. So, the effective result from this resolution is that it creates a WA committee that compiles treaties and becomes a one-stop shop to be consulted. Given the mild strength of the resolution and what I would predict to be minimal overhead, I believe this is reasonable.
 
Well, the IFV is just wrong. There is something that occurs beyond the scope of publication, as required in No Penalty Without Law. It's also the subject of most of section 3.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top