[Passed] Treaty Translation Act

[Pallaith]

In light of the Court's recent decision to declare nearly any agreement the executive makes with another region a treaty, and therefore eroding an important element of the Delegate's foreign policy decision making, we must now put down in our legal code an official definition for what a treaty is. Ten years of understanding what a treaty is evidently pales in comparison to trying to parse something that isn't a treaty into something that legally is. This nonsense will go no further. I present the Treaty Translation Act (I considered naming it something like the Definitional Unravelment Help Act but I don't care much for the acronym stuff).

Chapter 1 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

3. No player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

Chapter 7 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

45. The Delegate may choose to designate a region or organization to be prohibited from creating in-game embassies and forum embassies, hosting cultural events together or other formal collaborations with The North Pacific with a majority of the Regional Assembly confirming such.
46. These prohibitions may be repealed with a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
47. Regions exempted by the Regional Assembly from the restrictions on the North Pacific Army will automatically have the diplomatic restrictions imposed on them.
48. The Delegate may establish agreements with other regions that are not treaties.
49. "Treaty" is defined as a formal agreement made between The North Pacific and one or more regions which binds all signatories to the terms in that agreement until it is formally revoked consistent with those terms; which is presented to and approved by all signatories' governments consistent with their own law's procedure for treaties; and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws.

Spoiler: Markup

Chapter 1 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

3. Specifically, nNo player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

Chapter 7 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

45. The Delegate may choose to designate a region or organization to be prohibited from creating in-game embassies and forum embassies, hosting cultural events together or other formal collaborations with The North Pacific with a majority of the Regional Assembly confirming such.
46. These prohibitions may be repealed with a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
47. Regions exempted by the Regional Assembly from the restrictions on the North Pacific Army will automatically have the diplomatic restrictions imposed on them.
48. The Delegate may establish agreements with other regions that are not treaties.
49. "Treaty" is defined as a formal agreement made between The North Pacific and one or more regions which binds all signatories to the terms in that agreement until it is formally revoked consistent with those terms; which is presented to and approved by all signatories' governments consistent with their own law's procedure for treaties; and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws.

Spoiler: Version 1

Chapter 1 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. "Treaty" is defined as a formal agreement made between The North Pacific and one or more regions which binds all signatories to the terms in that agreement until it is formally revoked consistent with those terms; which is presented to and approved by all signatories' governments consistent with their own law's procedure for treaties; and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws.
34. Specifically, nNo player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
45. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Balder, Equilism, Europe, Europeia, Greater Dienstad, International Democratic Union, Lazarus, Stargate, Taijitu, The East Pacific, The Pacific, the Rejected Realms, the South Pacific and the West Pacific.
56. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

There it is, as cleanly as I can articulate it - a definition for treaty that describes what we all understand treaties to be, and which contemplates the broad array of potential agreements that can be made between regions without the formal treaty ratification process or RA approval. As an incidental note, I removed the word "specifically" from the provision about players in regions or organizations at war with TNP not being able to have a nation here - I am not sure why that was phrased that way and it stands out compared to the other clauses. I don't believe removing the word changes the meaning in a significant way, but if I'm missing something there let me know.

The goal is to make clear that treaties are binding on all governments in the respective regions, unless the government utilizes the treaty's own terms and its legal process for treaties to bring it to an end. This is to differentiate other agreements which rely only on the agreement of the current government and which survive only to the extent subsequent governments decide to continue to maintain those agreements. If the agreement can end because whoever happens to run the region at the time decides to end it, then it is not a treaty, because they would have had to go though a lot more to get that done. This strikes me as rather obvious and is probably something we all already know, but at least now no one can say they have any doubt about where something "technically" is or is not a treaty - it's spelled out in black and white. The trick is spelling it out clearly enough that it can't still be twisted into some unforeseen shape. Hopefully you can provide some feedback as to whether this bill checks off all those boxes.

 

[Lord Dominator]

Looks good to me, can’t think of anything right now that removing the specifically would change.

My only possible suggestion would be to accommodate the possibility of treaties with organizations (multi-regional or non-regional), though I will admit that is not particularly a concern at present due to the lack of such.

 

[Owenstacey]

I have no issues with the amendment, it makes sense in reaction to the Court's decision. Full support

 

[Elfnotonashelf]

It would seem to me that in effect your actions which precipitated the courts decision were akin to an executive action which could be honoured or not by the executive at their discretion and as such would not constitute a treaty perse despite its terminology as such. Now I must confess, I'm not completely up to date on the powers of the executive however from my understanding the executive does indeed have a right to use executive actions therefore surely the executive does have this power already.

 

[Dreadton]

What’s the reasoning for putting it in the legal code and not after article 3 section 3 of the constitution?

Outside of that the definition is the effectively same the court used but with some added fluff.

 

[Pallaith]

What’s the reasoning for putting it in the legal code and not after article 3 section 3 of the constitution?

Outside of that the definition is the effectively same the court used but with some added fluff.

Yes. That “added fluff” as you put it is my attempt to make crystal clear to your Court and any future Court why certain agreements the executive makes aren’t treaties. The Court’s definition certainly seemed reasonable enough at first glance, and honestly should have been enough on its own. I would have read that definition and concluded that the sanctions weren’t a treaty, and would have read it as a good description of what we understand treaties to be. Even just the first part of my definition should be enough. But the Court still managed to come to a conclusion that called something a treaty when it clearly wasn’t, and it did that with its definition being available. I want to erase all doubt and limit treaties to what we traditionally understand them to be.

I hope that our two definitions are substantially similar, because we have a lot of the same ground to cover. I just have to cover additional ground given my very recent experience with the Court’s definition being tested. It may be that this Court applied their definition incorrectly (a matter for a future Court to weigh in potentially, but something I personally believe to be the case) but that’s not the problem really. The fact the Court has a definition and made a call on something is precedent. Future situations that may come up will have to build on this foundation, and we cannot rely on a hope that a different Court will interpret those words differently. If we write as clearly and comprehensively as we can, we reduce scenarios where interpretation has to do more of the work. It should be simple to glance at the definition and then see if it matches the situation. I believe my definition does that, and I hope that if any of you have concerns that it doesn’t, you let me know.

We didn’t have a definition for a treaty before and now we do. Not having a definition is off the table - the Court has placed one before us. I believe that whenever possible, the RA should be the one establishing matters of this nature, and not rely on Court precedent alone. As for what I chose the legal code over the constitution - the legal code is where we craft the specifics of our government and law that the constitution establishes in broad strokes. The legal code is where we get into the nittty gritty of things, and flesh out the details. It’s full of our definitions for terms - this seems to me to be the natural fit.

 

[Namwenia]

I fully support the definition of treaties provided here and will vote in favor when brought to a vote.

That said, I would not be opposed with instead inserting this into the Constitution for the Region. Treaties are referenced in the Constitution in Article 3, Section 3 without a Constitutional definition. This may strengthen future attempts to challenge what is/is not a treaty.

However, I defer to all of your knowledge of regional law.

 

[Pallaith]

I think it would be best to move this one along soon, so if there's any other thoughts or suggestions on the language before I move forward?

 

[Attempted Socialism]

Being brought up in Civil Law I acknowledge that it is better for the Regional Assembly to legislate and create statutory law than for judges to create case law. I hope the RA takes an active interest in the topic.
However, I have two points against the draft as currently written. First, the placement. I can't see why the definition of treaty should be placed in Chapter 1 (The Criminal Code) Section 1.1 (Treason). Section 7.7 (Diplomacy), Chapter 6 (The Regional Assembly) or the Constitution seem more appropriate.
Second, and more substantively, I see a public policy concern in the definition as presented. The last part of the definition reads "and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws." This has the effect of making TNP law partially dependent on the understanding that other regions have of signed agreements, which can be difficult to ascertain for voters (or judges) and which may change. Further, because there is no failsafe for treaties in the formulation put forward, future governments can be bound to uphold treaty obligations even if another signatory openly flaunts it, until the RA can get through a debate and vote to formally abrogate the treaty on our end.

 

[Pallaith]

Being brought up in Civil Law I acknowledge that it is better for the Regional Assembly to legislate and create statutory law than for judges to create case law. I hope the RA takes an active interest in the topic.
However, I have two points against the draft as currently written. First, the placement. I can't see why the definition of treaty should be placed in Chapter 1 (The Criminal Code) Section 1.1 (Treason). Section 7.7 (Diplomacy), Chapter 6 (The Regional Assembly) or the Constitution seem more appropriate.
Second, and more substantively, I see a public policy concern in the definition as presented. The last part of the definition reads "and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws." This has the effect of making TNP law partially dependent on the understanding that other regions have of signed agreements, which can be difficult to ascertain for voters (or judges) and which may change. Further, because there is no failsafe for treaties in the formulation put forward, future governments can be bound to uphold treaty obligations even if another signatory openly flaunts it, until the RA can get through a debate and vote to formally abrogate the treaty on our end.

What do you mean by failsafe? Treaties contain language for ending the treaty, just as they contain terms that both sides are expected to abide by. One side openly flouting a treaty is more than enough reason for the other side to initiate proceedings to end the treaty. Are you suggesting the definition of treaty also has to include a clause for getting out of a treaty? I don’t see why that’s necessary and anything less than going above and beyond spelling out the obvious.

As for your concern about the last part of my definition - that was concerned with what I felt was a rather common sense notion, that if both parties understand the obligations to be binding only on the current government or successor governments that agree to abide by them, and that what they are agreeing to is not a treaty, then it’s…not a treaty. Typically this wouldn’t have to be spelled out because we relied upon an understanding had by all that the executive could make non-permanent agreements with other regions that clearly weren’t treaties. If you have a better way to phrase this common sense notion that we can codify so the Court can’t label non-treaties treaties again, let me know, I would happily consider it.

I placed this language where the matter of treaties was addressed in the legal code. I always assumed treaties were addressed in that section because that was relevant to the potential violation of our law against treason. It would strike me as strange to talk about treaties in section 1 but not define them until section 7. Generally you want to introduce terms before you start using them. Prior to this recent Court case, we just assumed we knew what treaties were and relied on their reference in the constitution.

Ultimately, I have to accept that I will have a philosophical difference with some about what the appropriate nature of the constitutional vs the legal code is - I don’t think getting into the weeds with definitions and processes is what you should be doing with the constitution, which should be broad strokes and establishing the framework while everything else is built and defined in the legal code.

 

[Comfed]

I think the definition of a treaty could probably just be written in such a way that just makes clear that a treaty is only a document that is ratified by the RA as a treaty. I also don't think it needs to be in the Constitution, which really already makes pretty clear what a treaty is in Article 3.3. The Court's illogical definition of a treaty means to me that this bill should just serve as a legally binding clarification on what should be an obvious meaning.

 

[St George]

The definition of a treaty should really go into the Constitution, though I could guess at the reasons why the Legal Code was chosen instead.

 

[Vivanco]

Allow me to intercede, since it's been something that in this thread has been repeated over and over

The Court's illogical definition of a treaty

The problem that the people are having is not from the definition but from the interpretation of such definition, so this claim of the definition being illogical can be summarized as, well. Illogical.

The proposed definition differs from the Court's definition in the following:
- Wording, as is evident as they come authored by different people and with different intents
- The Court's definition defines it as
"an agreement signed, ratified, or adhered to between the North Pacific and one or more foreign sovereigns, that will remain in effect indefinitely until either formally revoked or irreparable breached, and which outlines binding obligations and responsibilities of the signatories."

The Delegate's proposal, as seen above, is the following
"a formal agreement made between The North Pacific and one or more regions which binds all signatories to the terms in that agreement until it is formally revoked consistent with those terms; which is presented to and approved by all signatories' governments consistent with their own law's procedure for treaties; and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws."

We see here, to begin, the exchange between a normal agreement and a formal agreement, which is just a limiter of what a treaty is.

The actors of a treaty are the same between them, TNP and one or more regions, both of them in effect and binding until formally revoked.

The other difference I see between the Court's definition and the RA's proposed definition, is simply the consistence of this proposed definition about the need of presentation and approval by the signatories within their legal procedures.

Other than that, intent discourse appart, since that's completely personal since we each can have our own interpretation, the definitions are pretty similiar. Which is, well. Fair and obvious.

So, to defend this definition, while calling the Court's definition as "illogical" is by nature, illogical.

 

[Vivanco]

Other than that, I would suggest, if adding the definition of a Treaty, I wouldn't add it in the Criminal Code section. The Legal Code has a structure and a logic to it. This could have a better service somewhere else in the Legal Code, like Section 7.7; Diplomacy

 

[Pallaith]

The definition of a treaty should really go into the Constitution, though I could guess at the reasons why the Legal Code was chosen instead.

Where and why? Seems like it’s down to that philosophical difference I mentioned earlier. You don’t need to guess though I’ve explained the reasoning.

Other than that, I would suggest, if adding the definition of a Treaty, I wouldn't add it in the Criminal Code section. The Legal Code has a structure and a logic to it. This could have a better service somewhere else in the Legal Code, like Section 7.7; Diplomacy

Vivanco, I think we agree on the analysis in your post before the one I quoted. The problem is entirely one of interpretation - the Court’s definition of treaty should have been sufficient. My issue with the Court’s definition (and I believe it’s shared by Comfed) stems mostly from the fact that the Court applied that definition to its reasoning, thereby showing people that such a reading could be applied to that definition. And if that means the definition says what the Court concludes, it’s a bad definition. I believe it’s safer for us to take this into our own hands so there can be no mistake.

As to the specifics in the quoted post: you have echoed a suggestion as to where to place the treaty definition. I have already explained why I put it where I did. Do you have any answer to that explanation? Because I also believe that logically, it makes sense to define terms before we engage with them, and you would have the definition be moved well after any language that actually deals with treaties.

 

[Vivanco]

Do you have any answer to that explanation?

I placed this language where the matter of treaties was addressed in the legal code.

You see, this is a tricky thing, when you have a whole compendium of codified laws in a single document or code instead of different codes for different things as we can see in the diferent continental/european-based legal systems.
Placement doesn't really have much weight since it's all inside a single block, but still, people can find confusing why, for example, a Treaty is defined there, because that's mentioned in the crime of Treason, and not add the definition, for example, of the Speaker or of the Regional Assembly, whos definitions appear later in the legal code in their own parts while they are mentioned first as well within the Criminal Code.

Allow me to illustrate with an example of how would this look like with the crime of Treason as well within the proposal placing, since the role of the Speaker is of importance as well due to the last part of the section, and does not have a proper definition either, but what the constitution and the legal code establish as their functions

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. "Treaty" is defined as a formal agreement made between The North Pacific and one or more regions which binds all signatories to the terms in that agreement until it is formally revoked consistent with those terms; which is presented to and approved by all signatories' governments consistent with their own law's procedure for treaties; and which is mutually understood to be inseverable through any action but the aforementioned terms and regional laws.
4. No player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
5. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Balder, Equilism, Europe, Europeia, Greater Dienstad, International Democratic Union, Lazarus, Stargate, Taijitu, The East Pacific, The Pacific, the Rejected Realms, the South Pacific and the West Pacific.
6. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
7. "Speaker" is defined as [insert whole definition that I can't be bothered to write right now]

I, myself, because of the law I have studied, am biased towards the fact of the need of these definitions such as the definition of what a Treaty is to avoid these kinds of conflicts in the future, definitions that of course, if times change, need to be changed as well.

 

[Vivanco]

And if that means the definition says what the Court concludes, it’s a bad definition

I think what we are being witnesses right now with this past R4R is the clear conflict of not only Court and Government, but of different schools of law; A positivist rule and a iusnaturalist rule.
We are, as a region, reaching a natural conclusion of law, of interpretation, which does not make it bad or worse by definition, but by diferent perspectives. We can't throw at each other the sword of might and unlimited power or claim to the heavens in the name of all that is right that the other person is wrong or not, because if I'm not wrong, nobody is perfect.

It saddens me deeply to see how the hostilities between parties has but risen almost to the point of personal insult, when this is a pure filosophical conflict regarding law; An overly positivist view, where the main point is the will of the government, and an iusnaturalistic view regarding variable values hard to distinguish in a concrete world due to the simple fact of that laws are meant to be interpreted

I'll go with a real life scenario ust for explanation, let's think of this example, from the guatemalan legal author Luis Pedro Alejandro Recaséns Siches;
In a tram, there is a metallic plaque, in which it's transcribed an extract of the Rules of say "The Transport Police". In such rules, there's a rule that says it's prohibited to travel with dogs.
One day, one man carrying a goat enters into the tram. And a discussion ensues; The man with the goat, according with the literality of the text, thinks he's in the right, it's not a dog, it's a goat. However, the conductor, is against, because it doesn't matter whenever it's a dog or a goat, it's the intent of the law.

And this isn't new either; in roman law; Ulpian, in the Digesto 9, 1, 1, in the Law of the 12 Tables of Rome, an action for dogs action; if "quadrupes pauperiem fecisse". However, once in Rome, some african ostriches caused so much havoc that Paulo updated such thing as "haec actio competit et si non quadrupes sed aliud animal pauperiem facit". For those who don't know latin, basically what does this is makes the ostriches, for the effects of this action, "quadrupeds", even if they only have two legs.

The interpretation of the law is something purely and strictly personal, and nothing is set in stone. One can be more literal, other can be more naturalist, but there's always something else, a mens legis, an "spirit of the law".

So, from this little point, I would like to call everyone in this discussion to bear these things in mind, that a Court annalysis is not an easy thing to do, even if you're in the right or in the wrong, and we cannot let ourselves lose temper against each other. Even if we're super angry at something, or we just got told we're wrong, or whatever. People deserve respect.

So. I believe we are owed a proper respectful debate on this topic.

 

[Vivanco]

(For clarity, I didn't mean Pallaith's message was personal insult, but other persons' reactions)

 

[Comfed]

I think this debate has been pretty civil? There has been some harsh criticism of the Court's decision but I don't really think that it has been out of line.

 

[Vivanco]

I think this debate has been pretty civil? There has been some harsh criticism of the Court's decision but I don't really think that it has been out of line.

Not here, that's for certain, but in other places of the region it has, so, this has been more of a point of reminding to keep things as they are being in this thread

 

[Pallaith]

Well, I have made a tweak to the bill. Following our discourse on placement, I did decide there was merit in choosing a new location for the definition of treaties, and have moved it to the diplomacy section. I still maintained my slight tweak in the treason section because I see no reason not to make a reasonable correction that I already noticed. The definition remains as the same as before, just in a new spot, but I have added a preceding clause because I felt it was strange for a definition to just suddenly appear in that section. I added a clause stating the obvious, that the delegate may make non-treaty agreements with other regions. This introduces treaties to that section and lets us easily shift gears into the definition.

I hope this is more satisfactory to those of you unsure of how it was set up, and that we can move forward with this soon.

 

[Lord Dominator]

My only extant thought is still that the treaty definition should accommodate treaties with entities other than regions (that is, multi-regional orgs where we’re not having a treaty with every region at once ala the old FRA). I’m not saying we will at any point, but it seems prudent to allow for the possibility. Unless you would argue the current “one or more” accommodates such, in which case I’m satisfie.

 

[Comfed]

I am repeating myself here, but I don't think the definition needs to mince so many words as to the other signatories. The purpose of this act in my eyes is to clarify that a treaty is only a foreign agreement ratified in accordance with the constitutionally defined process (i.e. article 3.3) and could probably be better written to explicitly say that rather than defining certain attributes of a treaty.

 

[Pallaith]

I am repeating myself here, but I don't think the definition needs to mince so many words as to the other signatories. The purpose of this act in my eyes is to clarify that a treaty is only a foreign agreement ratified in accordance with the constitutionally defined process (i.e. article 3.3) and could probably be better written to explicitly say that rather than defining certain attributes of a treaty.

How about some language that would convey that then?

 

[Pallaith]

My only extant thought is still that the treaty definition should accommodate treaties with entities other than regions (that is, multi-regional orgs where we’re not having a treaty with every region at once ala the old FRA). I’m not saying we will at any point, but it seems prudent to allow for the possibility. Unless you would argue the current “one or more” accommodates such, in which case I’m satisfie.

I would argue that every organiation I can think of in this game has a region to call home, and organizations set up by multiple regions would qualify under the terms of this definition. Adding "or organizations" to the first part of the definition is simple enough, though it might require additional tweaks on the other parts, and I'm just not convinced that's necessary.

 

[Simone]

I am in favour of a more presidential system, and since we elect our delegates through a direct democracy, I am fine with it. The less cumbersome the legal process, the better.

 

[Lord Dominator]

I would argue that every organiation I can think of in this game has a region to call home, and organizations set up by multiple regions would qualify under the terms of this definition. Adding "or organizations" to the first part of the definition is simple enough, though it might require additional tweaks on the other parts, and I'm just not convinced that's necessary.

Entirely fair, no other comments to impede my support then

 

[Comfed]

How about some language that would convey that then?

"A treaty is a document negotiated by the Delegate with foreign powers and approved by two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly." which is basically what the Constitution says. You could also add "No other agreement with foreign powers is a treaty." if you want to drive the point home.

 

[Pallaith]

"A treaty is a document negotiated by the Delegate with foreign powers and approved by two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly." which is basically what the Constitution says. You could also add "No other agreement with foreign powers is a treaty." if you want to drive the point home.

I don’t think that would solve the problem though. Would that not potentially allow for actual treaties to be agreed without RA support simply because the Delegate didn’t present it to them?

 

[Comfed]

I don’t think that would solve the problem though. Would that not potentially allow for actual treaties to be agreed without RA support simply because the Delegate didn’t present it to them?

I don't see how it would. The language specifically only includes agreements approved by the RA.

 

[Pallaith]

I don't see how it would. The language specifically only includes agreements approved by the RA.

Yeah but if the Delegate makes a unilateral agreement with another region and doesn’t present it to the RA, your proposed definition would explicitly say that’s not a treaty. That’s true but right now Delegates wouldn’t essentially form alliances without a treaty vote. I’m worried this wording you proposed would allow them to do so and be compliant with the law as it’s not a “treaty” - of course, being an executive agreement it’s only as good as subsequent delegates agree to comply with it, but I wouldn’t want them to get too comfortable avoiding the treaty process. The fact is, we live in a world now where there’s a definition for treaties. So we have to get it right in all respects.

 

[Comfed]

Yeah but if the Delegate makes a unilateral agreement with another region and doesn’t present it to the RA, your proposed definition would explicitly say that’s not a treaty. That’s true but right now Delegates wouldn’t essentially form alliances without a treaty vote. I’m worried this wording you proposed would allow them to do so and be compliant with the law as it’s not a “treaty” - of course, being an executive agreement it’s only as good as subsequent delegates agree to comply with it, but I wouldn’t want them to get too comfortable avoiding the treaty process. The fact is, we live in a world now where there’s a definition for treaties. So we have to get it right in all respects.

If I'm, say the President of Region A and TNP is negotiating a treaty with my region, I would place substantially less value in a non-binding executive agreement than an actual treaty under our laws. I just don't think we should prohibit the Delegate from putting what can already be informal policies on virtual paper, because legally speaking they should be equivalent even though one seems more formal.

 

[Pallaith]

If I'm, say the President of Region A and TNP is negotiating a treaty with my region, I would place substantially less value in a non-binding executive agreement than an actual treaty under our laws. I just don't think we should prohibit the Delegate from putting what can already be informal policies on virtual paper, because legally speaking they should be equivalent even though one seems more formal.

I agree. My definition is trying to clearly outline what a treaty is to distinguish it from agreements that are mostly similar but are obviously not. The ship has sailed on not needing to use so many words I'm afraid - we have to draw the box that contains these things now.

The debate can continue, but I think it's time to move this forward. I motion for a vote @Sil Dorsett

 

[Comfed]

I agree. My definition is trying to clearly outline what a treaty is to distinguish it from agreements that are mostly similar but are obviously not. The ship has sailed on not needing to use so many words I'm afraid - we have to draw the box that contains these things now.

Yes, that is what both of our definitions are trying to do. I think your language accomplishes what you want it too anyways so I won't push my proposed wording.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

The debate can continue, but I think it's time to move this forward. I motion for a vote @Sil Dorsett

The bill is now in formal debate for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Formal Debate is over. A vote will begin at (time=1672767000).

 

[QuietDad]

A little late to the debate, but as written, every member of the NPA with a puppet taking action against a region we are at war with would be violating this and guilty of treason.

Section 1.1: Treason:
3. No player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

Not that it's a show stopper as it can be cleaned up later,

 

[Pallaith]

A little late to the debate, but as written, every member of the NPA with a puppet taking action against a region we are at war with would be violating this and guilty of treason.

Section 1.1: Treason:
3. No player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

Not that it's a show stopper as it can be cleaned up later,

I tend to doubt this oversight has existed since this clause was first written, and I certainly wouldn’t interpret it that way. But if by some bizarre chance your interpretation is true, I’m glad my minor edit to the clause brought it to your attention. Perhaps our Court Examiner can look into this.