Hello! I may be the Provost of the Magisterium, but I am also a Senior Diplomat, and we recently finished writing a treaty with UDS (Union of Democratic States). Tbh, Idk what else to put here…sooo here’s the traty, for your consideration:
— Begin quote from ____
Article 1: Mutual Recognition
The signatories recognize the government of The East Pacific (“TEP”), as established by the Concordat, and the government of the Union of Democratic States (“UDS”), as established by the Constitution of the same, as the legitimate governments of the respective signatories.
The signatories recognize any legitimate legal successors to the recognized signatory governments.
Article 2: Diplomatic Relations
The signatories shall maintain in-game embassies and off-site embassies on their respective regional forums with each other.
The signatories shall exchange diplomatic representatives with each other to the best of their ability.
Article 3: Cultural Exchange
The signatories shall allow and encourage each other’s residents and citizens to participate in their cultural and social activities when appropriate, subject to the adherence of the rules of the host region, the event itself, and the relevant platform.
The signatories shall strive to conduct periodic communal cultural and social activities when appropriate.
Article 4: Military Obligations and Cooperation
Neither signatory shall attack the other signatory, conspire to overthrow or destabilize the legitimate government of the other signatory, or conduct clandestine operations, espionage, or other forms of spying against the other signatory.
The signatories agree to aid each other against attempts to unseat their legitimate governments, attempts to overthrow the lawful in-game Delegates of their respective home regions, and military hostilities against their home regions.
Both signatories of this treaty are encouraged to bilaterally promote military cooperation, including but not limited to assistance in major operations, assistance in the training of new recruits, and friendly military events between their forces, known as War Games.
Article 5: Intelligence Sharing
Should either signatory possess intelligence pertinent to the safety and security of the other signatory they shall, in a timely manner, share it with the same, unless doing so would violate applicable laws, the terms of NationStates, or the terms of relevant communications platforms, or unduly compromise that signatories source or sources of information.
Aforementioned intelligence shall be delivered to the Delegate of The East Pacific or the President of the Union of Democratic States respectively by the other signatory. Should the subject of intelligence concern the Delegate of The East Pacific, the intelligence shall be delivered to the Grand Vizier of the same. Should the subject of intelligence concern the President of the Union of Democratic States, the intelligence shall be delivered to the Vice President of the same.
Article 6: Ratification, Deposition, Termination, and Amendment
This treaty shall be ratified upon completion of the respective lawful ratification processes of both signatories.
This treaty shall be deposited in a publicly-accessible area of the community forum of both signatories.
Should either signatory wish to abrogate this treaty, it shall first notify the other signatory, and participate in a timely negotiation period of no less than 72 hours. During this period the signatories may, by mutual agreement, adopt pending amendments to be submitted to the lawful processes of ratification. No amendment shall come into force without being first lawfully ratified. The abrogating party may terminate the treaty following the conclusion of the negotiation period.
Should a signatory wish to amend this treaty, it shall notify the other signatory, after which the signatories may discuss and, upon mutual agreement, produce an amendment that shall require lawful ratification by both parties.
Neither signatory shall consider the termination of this treaty an act of war or a military hostility.
The term signatory should be defined before hand as “the legitimate governments as established by the constitution or concordat as appropriate” or something of that sort so there can’t be any finicky loopholes.
I am not the sponsor of this bill and have some bias, but seeing as I have expertise on the Union as Citizen and Minister there + our ambassador to them, I’ll respond to Bach & Stool for now.
UDS is a reviving democratic Defender region with very strong ties to TSP, Europeia, and XKI (some of our own allies). It’s a small-mid sized UCR that we’ve had relations with for over two years since June 2018. They were upgraded to an embassy approximately eight months ago. Their former President and current MoFA has been their diplomat to us since right after Fedele’s coup. They’ve been consistent with foreign updates since March of this year when they became an embassy.
As for cooperation, recently EPSA + UDSAF (the Union’s military) have been cooperating in recent liberations. UDSAF was also a massive proponent in the liberation of South Pacific with sending over 10 updaters. UDS was also one of the regions who helped us with our Delegate transfer to Marrabuk after the coup, despite the fact that their government was pretty much frozen due to an on-going constitutional convention at the time.
There has not been much cultural cooperation between UDS & us, but in my experiences as Ambassador to there, our communities are remarkably similar. Both have a lot of memery, tight-knit communities, and ideals of regional sovereignty i.e. not letting them be influenced by other regions or NSGP, as well as ideals of sticking to their way-of-thinking (TEP=unalignment, UDS=Defender).
[hr]
I am heavily biased here due to my involvement in UDS, but I do believe a treaty would be mutually beneficial for both them and us. Both regions share similar values (like a heavy emphasis on not being influenced by anything) and we’ve had extensive military cooperation in the past, as well as good relations.
UDS is a reviving democratic Defender region with very strong ties to TNP, Europeia, and XKI (some of our own allies).
— End quote
That’s not quite right. TNP doesn’t have any relations with UDS other than the minimum of a forum embassy. Perhaps the region you were thinking of is TSP, which does have a treaty with UDS?
UDS is a reviving democratic Defender region with very strong ties to TNP, Europeia, and XKI (some of our own allies).
— End quote
That’s not quite right. TNP doesn’t have any relations with UDS other than the minimum of a forum embassy. Perhaps the region you were thinking of is TSP, which does have a treaty with UDS?
The term signatory should be defined before hand as “the legitimate governments as established by the constitution or concordat as appropriate” or something of that sort so there can’t be any finicky loopholes.
— End quote
I don’t see how this is an issue. We’ve been using it for ages and so have a lot of others, to my knowledge. Not once has there been an exploitation of this wording, and at this point precedence defines it more than we ever could.
But the dealbreaker for me is that signatory is a normal word and is defined in basically every dictionary. A simple google search leads to a strong definition:
“a party that has signed an agreement, especially a country that has signed a treaty.“
It would be redundant and unnecessary in my opinion. We might as well define legitimate, constitution, government, etc. since they are all similarly important words that theoretically could be a loophole by the same logic.
I don’t see how this is an issue. We’ve been using it for ages and so have a lot of others, to my knowledge. Not once has there been an exploitation of this wording, and at this point precedence defines it more than we ever could.
— End quote
I should have explained my logic in the original post (I’ll keep note of this for the future.
I’m ignorant of TEP’s precedents since I’m new so correct me here.
First, and this is key to my point, my thinking is that treaties are signed between regions and not governments of regions (like they are IRL with countries).
IF a coup occurs, embassies and diploamtic relations have to continue for at least 3 days before the treaty is scrapped because not doing so would technically violate this treaty.
I don’t see how this is an issue. We’ve been using it for ages and so have a lot of others, to my knowledge. Not once has there been an exploitation of this wording, and at this point precedence defines it more than we ever could.
— End quote
I should have explained my logic in the original post (I’ll keep note of this for the future.
I’m ignorant of TEP’s precedents since I’m new so correct me here.
First, and this is key to my point, my thinking is that treaties are signed between regions and not governments of regions (like they are IRL with countries).
IF a coup occurs, embassies and diploamtic relations have to continue for at least 3 days before the treaty is scrapped because not doing so would technically violate this treaty.
— End quote
It is between the governments, because the entire regions are just instruments of the government ICily, like the land upon which a country is formed. Or at least that’s how I interpret it, because it’s all this role play and it wouldn’t fit ICily.
