Treaty of Aarhus
We, the Realm of Balder and the Government of The East Pacific, as established by the Concordat, hereafter jointly referred to as “the signatories” do enter into the following treaty in order to cement the relationship between our two regions.
Section I - Mutual recognition
The signatories recognize one another as the sole, legitimate, and sovereign governments of their respective NationStates regions.
Both signatories recognize each other as independent sovereign entities.
Section II - Diplomatic relations
The signatories agree to ensure continuing diplomatic relations with each other.
The signatories shall maintain in-game embassies (i.e., on the NationStates site) and off-site embassies (i.e., on their regional forums) with one another.
Section III - Mutual Defense
The signatories agree not to engage in any military hostilities against one another. 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.
The signatories will not attempt to overthrow each other or give any form of support to any parties, foreign or domestic, in an attempt to overthrow the legitimate recognized government of the other in their home region.
The signatories shall provide one another defensive military assistance in case of a military attack, either internal or external, targeting the other signatory’s home region, to the best of their ability.
Section IV - Intelligence sharing
The signatories shall provide to their counterpart’s Delegate any intelligence related to the other signatory’s in-game or off-site security, unless the signatory in possession of such intelligence reasonably believes that doing so would violate applicable laws, or violate the terms of service for NationStates or said signatory’s forum provider, or unduly compromise said signatory’s sources of information. If this intelligence relates to actions of the other signatory’s Delegate, then it will be provided to the Vice Delegate for Balder, or to the Viziers for The East Pacific.
The signatories will keep confidential all intelligence provided to them under this Section, unless the other signatory consents to the release.
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, regional forum or Discord, without that signatory’s knowledge, and at the direction of the other signatory.
Section V - Termination of Treaty
A party that has decided to terminate the treaty must notify the other of their decision.
There will be a three-day period after the other party has been notified of this decision before the treaty cancellation is considered final. Should both parties agree to cancel the treaty, the termination of the treaty will be immediate.
Termination of this treaty shall not be seen as an act of war or hostility by either side.
This looks like a solid, good treaty to me. I was especially positively surprised by III.1
However, this is the first treaty I have ever read, so I do not have comparison material.
I don’t have anything against it though, just a question:
Didn’t we already have a treaty with Balder in the past? If so, when and why was it withdrawn?
I have no comments on the treaty itself. Its pretty damn standard and in all honesty, well supported seeing how fast Balder reacted to the coup.
However, I would like clarification on something (I am addressing [mention]Marrabuk[/mention] specifically:
— Begin quote from ____
The signatories shall provide one another defensive military assistance in case of a military attack, either internal or external, targeting the other signatory’s home region, to the best of their ability.
— End quote
When the treaty is saying that signatories will provide defensive military assistance to the best of their ability, this does mean as fast as possible in any situation, no matter their principals? If we’re signing on to this treaty, I want the assurance that the other signatory will react as fast as their governmental legislation will allow them too.
I take the liberty of responding before Marrabuk has done so, with full deference to what his answer might be.
The section in question only holds that we shall provide each other military assistance. For the section to have any meaning at all, such assistance should be delivered within a useful time frame. This may differ depending on the situation. The section does not leave any room for objections based on internal principles.
Myself, I would suggest that the preamble mention “government of The East Pacific, as established by the Concordat,” instead of “Region of The East Pacific”. I ask the Delegate to see if this can be altered at this stage?
Indeed, my answer would be similar to what Bach has said. I will talk to Balder regarding the changing of government of The East Pacific, as established by the Concordat," instead of "Region of The East Pacific. Theirs is still on debate and haven’t went to vote much like ours. So I believe, it’s not too late to change.
Balder has confirmed they have incorporated the amendment(government of The East Pacific, as established by the Concordat) on their end. So it’s good to go on our end too.
I don’t have anything against it though, just a question:
Didn’t we already have a treaty with Balder in the past? If so, when and why was it withdrawn?
— End quote
Can’t help but notice no one has answered this question yet. I’m curious as well if that is the case.
I don’t have anything against it though, just a question:
Didn’t we already have a treaty with Balder in the past? If so, when and why was it withdrawn?
— End quote
Can’t help but notice no one has answered this question yet. I’m curious as well if that is the case.
— End quote
As far as records show, there has been no treaty between our two regions.
Not to say we haven’t had relations before, I have no clue if we did but I assume we have as they are a fellow GCR.
But ye, our treaty records (which can be very easily found in the law subforum, if you back out of this thread and go straight up), indicate no repealed nor any existing treaty between us and Balder.