|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
| Office of Treaties and Alliances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 2 2013, 07:20:55 PM (3,722 Views) | |||||
| Prussia | Nov 10 2013, 07:45:06 PM Post #61 | ||||
|
Secret Cylon Agent
|
I like the read of it. | ||||
|
PrussianEmpire Former Delegate of The East Pacific | |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Richard Alexander | Nov 11 2013, 07:46:28 PM Post #62 | ||||
|
One of Us
|
Thank you, and congratulations on your election. |
||||
Coat of Arms
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 11 2013, 08:09:12 PM Post #63 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
I served in this Ministry at the request of the previous Delegate, AMOM. I offer my resignation from this Ministry, if needed by the new Delegate, Bachtendekuppen, so that he may restructure the Foreign Affairs organization in a style of his own choosing. |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Bachtendekuppen | Nov 12 2013, 02:26:23 PM Post #64 | ||||
|
The Puffin
|
All current Ministers are indeed discharged, so I accept your resignation. Some major FA reform is going to happen first, after which people can again apply to the available positions. ASBS, if you want you can of course join in again too. PS: To ease the blow, you'll get a nice severance package, including a framed picture of a Puffin. Edited by Bachtendekuppen, Nov 12 2013, 02:27:42 PM.
|
||||
![]() Bach for TEP
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 12 2013, 02:29:47 PM Post #65 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
|
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Bachtendekuppen | Nov 12 2013, 02:33:25 PM Post #66 | ||||
|
The Puffin
|
Isn't that just lovely. | ||||
![]() Bach for TEP
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Bachtendekuppen | Nov 15 2013, 10:08:53 AM Post #67 | ||||
|
The Puffin
|
All offers concerning treaties can be posted here and will be administered by The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the relevant ambassadors and the Delegate, as well as any appointed Advisors to this office. (More details, look at the first post.) | ||||
![]() Bach for TEP
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Bachtendekuppen | Nov 22 2013, 03:44:13 AM Post #68 | ||||
|
The Puffin
|
This is the treaty between TEP and Lazarus as it already existed. I've made some minor modifications. I'm posting it here for some input before it's introduced to the Magisterium.
Edited by Bachtendekuppen, Nov 22 2013, 11:07:02 AM.
|
||||
![]() Bach for TEP
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Prussia | Nov 22 2013, 09:00:26 AM Post #69 | ||||
|
Secret Cylon Agent
|
Looks solid | ||||
|
PrussianEmpire Former Delegate of The East Pacific | |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 22 2013, 01:04:58 PM Post #70 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
I will make my usual comment. Once a treaty is done, it's over. You can specify a time period, but it is unenforceable. As an extreme example, if Laz invaded TEP, we would not wait a week before invalidating the treaty. It would be dead. |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| unibot | Nov 22 2013, 01:23:35 PM Post #71 | ||||
|
Never Cruel or Cowardly
|
I disagree. A week's notice can be used to save some face politically. |
||||
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 22 2013, 04:20:23 PM Post #72 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
A week's notice can be used to save some face, but it is unenforceable. As I tried to illustrate in the example, if Laz invades TEP, the treaty is over. We're not going to wait a week. I've suggested keeping the language of diplomatic solutions, as that will also allow time and face saving, but I don't see a practical way to include a fixed time in the treaty. | ||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Old Federalia | Nov 23 2013, 01:57:52 AM Post #73 | ||||
![]()
Professor F
|
This treaty would be signed in good faith. The one week waiting period is an extension of that good faith, and is proper "due diligence" because this treaty could potentially be canceled in haste without it. If you think they are going to attack us, then we shouldn't sign the treaty. If you do not think that, then please do not make up inane circumstances. (The WA has a rule against that, because it's not possible to legislate for every imaginable possibility.) A better circumstance would be if either of the regions attack or spy on the other's ally--but then would the one week period be unbearable? Now don't get me wrong, it goes without saying that during that one week period, the allies are more than likely not going to enforce the terms. Instead, it is meant to force the two sides to step back and contemplate a solution. Edited by Old Federalia, Nov 23 2013, 01:59:21 AM.
|
||||
![]() ![]()
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Bachtendekuppen | Nov 23 2013, 06:27:15 AM Post #74 | ||||
|
The Puffin
|
Both Unibot and Old Federalia have elaborated on different aspects of this and I'm inclined to agree. One has to keep in mind that, de facto, none of these treaties are 'enforceable'. They signal indeed good faith, but we can never force one party to actually keep their obligations, apart from some political pressure. A weeks waiting time is an expression of said good faith, but excluding it solely on the basis of it not being enforceable, we might as well scrap the whole treaty-business for the same reason. ASBS, you're surely right that in such case of invasion, this will certainly not be relevant nor complied with. However, I don't think we can state that the enforceability is the main reason or requirement of existence of such clauses. |
||||
![]() Bach for TEP
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 23 2013, 03:42:54 PM Post #75 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
Just to be clear, I completely understand about "good faith" and "face saving." I am in no way confused as to the goals of the one week waiting period. I will not vote against a treaty because it has an unenforceable and unnecessary clause in it. I am simply arguing for rational judgment and logic.
Actually, the enforcement of all other matters in the treaty is the continuation of the treaty. If one side fails to meet their obligations, the other side can void the treaty. That's all the enforcement that is needed. The one-week clause is a different matter since it prohibits one side from ending the treaty when the other side has failed to keep their part of the bargain. This is very different from the rest of the treaty as it impacts the process of discontinuing the treaty. There appears to be a lot of support for this clause, but don't justify it by suggesting that it is as unenforceable as the rest of the treaty. |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Old Federalia | Nov 23 2013, 05:37:10 PM Post #76 | ||||
![]()
Professor F
|
Milograd canceled the Laz-TSP treaty because Belschaft said something mean to him. Then, Laz and TSP issued some sort of joint statement of friendship or something, because TSP didn't want to cancel the treaty. If they had the waiting period, that wouldn't have happened. Edited by Old Federalia, Nov 23 2013, 05:37:30 PM.
|
||||
![]() ![]()
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 24 2013, 08:49:02 AM Post #77 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
Maybe. Maybe not. If someone gets angry and cancels a treaty, they may not wait even if there is a waiting period. What is the current status of the Laz-TSP treaty? How did this particular episode end after the joint statement of friendship? |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Prussia | Nov 24 2013, 10:30:15 AM Post #78 | ||||
|
Secret Cylon Agent
|
A non aggression pack and a Laz sending a a gift over the sp. | ||||
|
PrussianEmpire Former Delegate of The East Pacific | |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 25 2013, 01:18:35 AM Post #79 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
So, I don't exactly understand this sentence. I assume a non aggression pack is really a pact (or a treaty). So, is there still is a treaty between Laz and TSP? And I have no idea about the gift or what "over the sp" means? Given my limited understanding, it seems like no harm was done even though Belschaft said something "mean" and Milograd got upset. I apologize, I'm not really following the thread of this argument. And I've already accepted that if all of you want to put a waiting period in the treaty, I'm not going to do anything to oppose that. |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Old Federalia | Nov 25 2013, 11:20:40 AM Post #80 | ||||
![]()
Professor F
|
A nonaggression pact means Laz and TSP agree not to militarily support a coup. It is not a treaty, whereas they would agree to fight a coup. I don't know what a gift over the SP is either. Harm was definitely done by two individuals because their actions weren't motivated by the greater good, but instead by egos. Why won't you oppose it? Just because everyone else disagrees with you doesn't mean your point is invalid. Has everyone disagreeing with me ever stopped me? |
||||
![]() ![]()
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 25 2013, 11:48:35 AM Post #81 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
I haven't conceded that my point is invalid. My point is that the clause is unnecessary and unenforceable. It causes no harm or risk to The East Pacific, therefore I do not oppose it. | ||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Milograd | Nov 25 2013, 04:08:51 PM Post #82 | ||||
|
Fishmonger Extraordinaire
|
I'd like to clarify. What happened was that Belschaft telegrammed me stating TSP's intention to end the treaty, so I ended up dissolving it before he could. Then, I received a telegram from another TSP cabinet member saying that Bel had illegally circumvented the entire TSP system in doing so. If you wish to alter the line, the State Council of the People's Republic has no objections. |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Nov 25 2013, 06:48:59 PM Post #83 | ||||
|
What stripe?
|
Milo - Thanks for the clarification. (I still don't know what "a gift over the sp" means.) It's the Delegate's decision on any changes. A draft was posted with comments solicited and I offered my suggestions. |
||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Aelitia | Nov 26 2013, 12:39:13 PM Post #84 | ||||
|
The Fluffy Horde
|
Have we any treaties on education sharing? | ||||
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Old Federalia | Nov 26 2013, 01:04:17 PM Post #85 | ||||
![]()
Professor F
|
We have one treaty. It's with Lazarus from July 2009. It's in Bach's pdf list. | ||||
![]() ![]()
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Aelitia | Nov 26 2013, 02:34:55 PM Post #86 | ||||
|
The Fluffy Horde
|
Oh okay- I do see this now. Unfortunately this does my address learning or universities, but does speak about intelligence. Hopefully this is something we could talk about in the future. | ||||
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Old Federalia | Nov 26 2013, 02:52:36 PM Post #87 | ||||
![]()
Professor F
|
Now is the time. We are rewriting said treaty. | ||||
![]() ![]()
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Aelitia | Nov 26 2013, 03:30:43 PM Post #88 | ||||
|
The Fluffy Horde
|
Quite opportune I must say, then! I would like to see a clause in there which states a mutual dedication to the advancement of education and universities. Something not too definitive, yet which gives a context for any further talks. |
||||
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Aelitia | Nov 26 2013, 03:54:26 PM Post #89 | ||||
|
The Fluffy Horde
|
I would offer a suggestion, but I don't know the language of the treaty very well | ||||
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| Bachtendekuppen | Nov 27 2013, 12:08:53 PM Post #90 | ||||
|
The Puffin
|
I guess that something vague like it could be added to the treaty, along the lines that both parties will support their learning facilities working together. It's not something that changes anything to the core of the treaty, so I suspect this should be okay. I wouldn't go any further than that though. | ||||
![]() Bach for TEP
| |||||
![]() |
|
||||
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |||||
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Executive · Next Topic » |











7:27 PM Jul 10