[TREATY] The Pacifican Horticultural Arrangement (NPO & TEP)

The Magisterium
1

Good day Magisterium,

I’m presenting the rewrite of The Pacifican Horticultural Arrangement - The East Pacific - Tapatalk between The East Pacific and the New Pacific Order.

This rewrite obviously replaces / amends all of the old treaty.

To clarify - we used to have very similar treaty in past. However, Scar / Fedele replaced it with the linked one. Both us and NPO decided to pursue for rewritten “old” treaty.

— Begin quote from ____

The Pacifican Horticultural Arrangement

Preamble:

This treaty is created with the intent of promoting increased and close relations between the legitimate government of The Pacific and the government of The Confederated East Pacific. The signatories acknowledge their years of cooperation, their closeness, their similarity, and their capacity to achieve great things during cooperative efforts and have thus enacted this treaty.

This treaty shall concern The Pacific and The East Pacific in all of its clauses.

Article One: Legitimacy and Recognition

  1. The signatories to this treaty recognize as legitimate governments the government espoused by the authoritative representatives of each region and will not extend that recognition to any government otherwise represented in either signatory.

  2. The Pacific shall be represented by the Emperor in their function as authoritarian head of its governance, or in their absence by the Consul as the Emperor-appointed deputy of the Emperor. The East Pacific shall be represented by the government of the Confederated East Pacific as led by the legally elected and legitimate Delegate, both as dictated by the Concordat of The East Pacific and supported by the requisite democratic process.

Article Two: Intelligence

  1. The signatories agree to inform their counterpart’s sitting Delegate of threats to the counterpart’s in-game or off-site security immediately upon learning of it and/or being given reasons to be reasonably suspicious. If the Delegate is the problematic element, the signatory with intelligence shall contact the Viziers of The East Pacific or the Senate of the New Pacific Order respectively.

  2. The signatories agree that shared intelligence will not be passed on to external parties (with external being defined as parties who are not members of the signatory governments), or any parties having conflicting interests with the signatories’ intent and scope as to this treaty via non-signatory regions unless explicitly permitted by the government of the signatory in possession of mentioned intelligence.

2.1 This clause may be reevaluated in the instance that the intelligence being shared is withheld from a treaty ally to which the other signatory is pledged if it concerns their regional security and community safety. This is defined as knowledge or evidence of a coup attempt, awareness or support of an infiltration, or awareness of the presence of a dangerous entity in the region which has been withheld from the treaty ally in question.

  1. The signatories agree that the sharing of relevant intelligence dossiers is beneficial to both parties and shall seek to follow through on requests for them, and shall seek to inform each other where deemed appropriate, whether spontaneous or on request.

  2. The signatories agree not to promote, encourage, authorize, or engage in espionage against their counterpart signatory. If either of the signatories receives knowledge of espionage being committed against their counterpart by a member of their region or a foreign region, they shall immediately inform the other signatory.

Article Three: Military Cooperation

  1. The signatories agree to seek increased military cooperation.

1.1 The signatories declare to respect the military alignment and ideology of the other party, recognizing that such alignment promotes the specific interests of their respective regions, and noting that current alignments favor no ideology for the sake of ideology, and respect the merits of individual military operations. Signatories shall not engage in military operations violating the provisions of this treaty.

  1. The signatories agree not to sabotage their counterpart’s military operations. Sabotage in this context refers to acting against the other signatory’s military with knowledge of said operation obtained from the other signatory. The exception to this rule is if the other signatory intends to operate against the legitimate government of a region which is bound to that signatory by treaty or non-aggression pact.

  2. The signatories agree to promote the strengthening of each other’s militaries through sharing guides, techniques, and training methods.

Article Four: Mutual Defense

  1. The signatories shall defend each other from regions or organizations sabotaging, spying on, or engaging in military hostilities against the other signatory. Military hostilities are defined as the act of military invasions of the other signatory or sabotage of their operations by hostile parties.

  2. No signatory shall side with any third party in hostilities against the other signatory, except under the conditions as set out in Section 4 of this Article.

  3. In the case that the third party declaring war on one signatory is a treatied ally or bound to a non-aggression pact of the other signatory, both signatories will respect their counterpart’s obligation to respect any pre-existing treaty or non-aggression pact with that ally. This treaty does not mandate in any way that any signatory with treaty conflicts is required to violate pre-existing treaties or non-aggression pacts with another region.

3.1. Should any such third party be determined through sufficient evidence to have attempted to directly or indirectly overthrow the legitimate government of the a signatory, the defense of said signatory will be made priority by the other party, including a re-evaluation of neutrality due to pre-existing treaties.

  1. Should a signatory attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of a treatied ally of the other signatory, Section 2 will not apply and the defense of said treatied ally shall never be considered a violation of the provisions of this article or considered an act of hostility.

Article Five: Culture and Kinship

  1. The signatories shall share in-game and off-site embassies as a symbol of diplomatic unity.

1.1 If an illegitimate takeover of a signatory region leads to the closure of the in-game embassy between the signatories, embassies shall be restored immediately following the restoration of the government described in Article 1 Section 2 of this treaty.

  1. The signatories shall pursue closer friendship by engaging each other’s members on their counterpart signatory’s forums, chat rooms, and Regional Message Boards.

  2. The signatories will strive to build a shared cultural heritage by engaging in joint games as well as cultural events and festivities with each other.

  3. The signatories are encouraged to actively pursue mutual interest in cultural affairs when circumstances permit.

Article Six: Protocol for Nullification

  1. The parties that ratified this document shall reserve the authority to render it null and void as set out in this article. Each signatory shall for the purposes of this article always be represented as determined by their regional laws.

  2. When a signatory is in breach of any of the provisions of this treaty, signatories agree to engage in private talks for a period of time mutually decided upon, no less than seven (7) days. If these talks conclude that a continuation of this alliance is no longer in the interest of a signatory, the treaty shall be rendered null and void immediately.

  3. The requisite government officials of each signatory are required to inform the other signatory’s government directly, privately, and before any other party if they feel that the alliance is no longer beneficial. If the signatories agree without reservation to mutual desire to terminate this treaty, the treaty shall be cancelled without further discussion.

  4. Either signatory may, by due process within the legal means of their respective regions, initiate cancellation of the treaty. Should there be no reconsideration by said party within a period of three (3) days, the treaty will be rendered null and void.

— End quote

2

On the whole I think the treaty looks good, but I have a question on Article 6, Section 3, the sunset clause. Is this something that is typical in these kinds of treaties, or something that our historical treaty with The Pacific had?

Personally, I’m not big on sunset clauses, I think they add bureaucratic complication with no gain. The treaty already allows for many different ways in which the treaty can be amended or dissolved if it no longer suits the signatories. Adding “this treaty will automatically expire in a year unless renewed” presents a risk that forgetting to do so could terminate the treaty accidentally. I would propose that the sunset clause be removed.

3

Agreed w/ Acronis. The intent is good, but TEP sucks (SUCKS) at deadlines. If not next year, it’ll be forgotten the next. And if NPO doesn’t remind us, then oop goes the treaty.

4

Well written, undoing Fedele’s mischief, and promoting further cooperation with the NPO? What’s not to like?

One small thing, Article III’s clauses are misnumbered as 1, 1.1, 2, and then 4. I have no preference regarding the sunset clause, and will go with the general majority of the Magisterium regarding it.

5

It’s much more nicely written than our current treaty. I always was confused on why it felt so vague. I didn’t even know whom the treaty was referring to.

The Sunset Clause… I have no preference to. While it is true that we already have many ways to amend or check on the treaty without it having to expire, I personally believe that by having a sunset clause, we can pretty much force ourselves to check on the other party periodically.
In the end, I’ll also go with the majority on this one.

6

Whilst New Pacific Order seems to be okay with removing the Sunset Clause, I am actually in favor of keeping it.

We, in The East Pacific, per survey that was held recently, perceive New Pacific Order as the best of our allies. In addition, NPO preceives us well too. Such clause would be a real test to our relations, and that is main reason why I’d support it.

7

Again, against those clauses. TEP and deadlines do not match. Infact, we have Arbiter tenures because Delegates often forget to nominate Arbiters again.

I like the reasoning for it, but TEP is simply not a punctual region. Our relations should’nt rest on the chance of us having a lazy or busy Delegate who simply forgets. Which, mark my words, will happen eventually.

8

— Begin quote from ____

We, in The East Pacific, per survey that was held recently, perceive New Pacific Order as the best of our allies. In addition, NPO preceives us well too. Such clause would be a real test to our relations, and that is main reason why I’d support it.

— End quote

I… really don’t think “testing” our relations is what we want to do with a treaty, ESPECIALLY if it’s our closest treaty ally. We want our relations with our best ally to be smooth and uncomplicated. I mean, isn’t a treaty something we enter into BECAUSE a relationship has already been tested?

I am strongly opposed to the sunset clause, especially considering it isn’t something the NPO feels is necessary. If this is our best ally, we want to reduce the number of possible fuckups to as close to 0 as possible. A sunset clause can be a MAJOR MAJOR fuckup.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

9

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

We, in The East Pacific, per survey that was held recently, perceive New Pacific Order as the best of our allies. In addition, NPO preceives us well too. Such clause would be a real test to our relations, and that is main reason why I’d support it.

— End quote

I… really don’t think “testing” our relations is what we want to do with a treaty, ESPECIALLY if it’s our closest treaty ally. We want our relations with our best ally to be smooth and uncomplicated. I mean, isn’t a treaty something we enter into BECAUSE a relationship has already been tested?

I am strongly opposed to the sunset clause, especially considering it isn’t something the NPO feels is necessary. If this is our best ally, we want to reduce the number of possible fuckups to as close to 0 as possible. A sunset clause can be a MAJOR MAJOR fuckup.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

— End quote

Yeah, I feel like testing a treaty ally in this way would almost be like bluffing about leaks. Not exactly the kind of conduct you want from an ally.

I’m personally not a big fan of sunset clauses. We’re bound to just forget about them.

10

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

We, in The East Pacific, per survey that was held recently, perceive New Pacific Order as the best of our allies. In addition, NPO preceives us well too. Such clause would be a real test to our relations, and that is main reason why I’d support it.

— End quote

— End quote

I… really don’t think “testing” our relations is what we want to do with a treaty, ESPECIALLY if it’s our closest treaty ally. We want our relations with our best ally to be smooth and uncomplicated. I mean, isn’t a treaty something we enter into BECAUSE a relationship has already been tested?

I am strongly opposed to the sunset clause, especially considering it isn’t something the NPO feels is necessary. If this is our best ally, we want to reduce the number of possible fuckups to as close to 0 as possible. A sunset clause can be a MAJOR MAJOR fuckup.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yeah, I feel like testing a treaty ally in this way would almost be like bluffing about leaks. Not exactly the kind of conduct you want from an ally.

I’m personally not a big fan of sunset clauses. We’re bound to just forget about them.

— End quote

That’s the only thing I’d change

11

Echo chamber: We should get rid of the sunset clause.  It doesn’t make sense to keep it considering one year is a LONG time to be in discussions about something

12

Terrible title. Just horrible. Also, there seems to be a lot of work to be done on streamlining the text, this is far from finished. I don’t have the time to propose edits line by line now, but this should be done before voting.

13

I have contacted NPO about removal of Sunset Clause.

14

Just so you know, I’m not voting in favor of anything titled “horticultural”.

15

— Begin quote from ____

Just so you know, I’m not voting in favor of anything titled “horticultural”.

— End quote

bro you got something against horticulture?

16

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Just so you know, I’m not voting in favor of anything titled “horticultural”.

— End quote

bro you got something against horticulture?

— End quote

Bach took too many losses in Plants vs Zombies.

17

I’m motioning this to vote.

18

Seconded.

19

Horrible name.