As I noted in relation to the original Bill, I do consider there to be scope for further amendment to the clause. I do consider, however, that this proposal is the change that is needed.
There are a number of flaws with the proposal as drafted. First, as has already been noted, a mutual defence agreement is a considerable move away from the current wording of the clause.
Second, it is, in my view, a move that makes the clause substantially worse. I do not consider it likely, to say the least, that the region would ever end a war with an entity by moving into a mutual defence agreement with them, so I see no room for the practical operation of the amendment. Further, by replacing the existing language of "surrender terms or similar" it excludes any possibility for ending hostilities on a basis other than a treaty of peace or mutual defence agreement.
Third, while I think there is argument to be had about the constitutionality of the extant clause (in that surrender terms could amount to a treaty), it seems clear to me that any mutual defence agreement would, in fact, amount to a treaty. It would therefore be wholly subsumed into the operation of the first part of the clause and the part proposed to be amended would, one would think, be entirely inoperable due to its unconstitutional claim to allow a treaty to be effective without ratification by two-thirds of the Assembly.
As to improvements that I think could properly be made to the clause, there is the suggestion I made in relation to the original Bill, to replace "or similar" with "or some other end to a state of war". This would widen the language of the clause to clearly include the possibility of a war ending because the Assembly considers it to have ended. This, to my mind, has a clear advantage over to the arguable requirement at present for a war to subsist until some kind of agreed end, in that in NationStates we can never make our opponent surrender and, consequently, it is arguable that the present clause can create a perpetual state of war.
However, there is another matter which ought to be considered and which was raised by Eluvatar in discussion on Discord. Discussion of these matters thusfar appears to have been directed at the idea of a victory or, at least, a peace that does not disfavour The North Pacific. This clause can operate in the other direction and, in fact, permit a surrender by simple majority of this Assembly. I don't think that was the intention of the previous amendment, certainly it was not mine in supporting it (though I was aware of the point raised by Eluvatar). This could perhaps be resolved by inclusion of a clause to the effect of "No governmental authority of The North Pacific may negotiate any surrender of The North Pacific" or similar, I confess I have not put a great deal of consideration into the drafting and I would think that there will be a better way to do it. Nonetheless, it is something which I think requires further thought and which, hopefully, could be resolved by this Bill, should it proceed further.
