Non-aggression pact with Kantrias

[Southern Bellz]

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">I was recently approached by Kantrias saying they feel that they have a lot in common with The South Pacific, and wish to strengthen ties with us, hoping it will lead to us being close allies.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">As a first step, I suggest the below non-aggression pact.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

Treaty between The South Pacific and Kantrias

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Wishing to strengthen our regional ties, we join together in an non-aggression pact.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
Pledge:

1) To engage in no act of war with one another, nor to attempt to undermine the legitimate regime of the other region.
2) To give no support to an act of war aimed at the other party. nor an attempt to undermine the legitimate regime of the other region.
3) To share intelligence that is relevant to the other party unless said intelligence would violate agreements with other entities. 

Signed;


 

 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

[Awesomiasa]

Shall I send this to them? They PMed me and mentioned something about joint defense exercises as well

 

 


Its going to make scheduling IRC time a bit harder...

 

Anyway, well, we can start here.

 

The first thing to ask, I suppose, is where TSP stands on Kantrias, and where we can start to work together. I was thinking some joint military exercises in the warzones could be a good start, but that's just one possibility.

[Southern Bellz]

Yes, please propose this to them.

[Awesomiasa]

Sent the pact as a proposal to them and they've had the following to say

 

 


Seems perfect. Only issue I see is if TSP and the RKA ever did war games in the warzones or whatever, we might accidentally violate this. Which may or not may be a problem. I find the idea worthwhile, but they're pretty hard to schedule at times, true. So the only comment I would make would be to maybe add in a provision saying that the above (clauses one and two, specifically) wouldn't apply in the situation of mutually agreed upon war games. apart from that, I think its a perfect start. 

 

 

So, what improvements can we make based on the above comments?

[Minbaric Federal Zones]

Pulling out my lawyer hat for legalese wording.... 

 

Please forgive me in advance. Also, I did make suggestions for substantial additions that was not asked to be addressed in red. I think the rationale for most of them is evident, while my proposed article 5 is in direct response to Kantrias' espousal of "Strong, Assertive and Aggressive" foreign policy.

 

My proposed response to the Minister of Foreign Affair's question is in purple. Feel free to completely ignore my rearranging and additions. I was bored when I wrote it and avoiding writing about Snowden.

 

 

Treat of Amity and Non-Aggression between The South Pacific and Kantrias

 

Recognizing the common commitment to stable representative rule and wishing to express and strengthen the natural ties between the regions, The South Pacific and Kantrias hereby:

 

1) Recognize as the legitimate government of either party only such government as may be formed in accordance with the democratic principles espoused by both regions and freely elected by the citizens.

 

2) Declare that the parties shall refrain from any and all acts of war against one another, except that nothing in this present agreement shall be construed as to prevent either region from engaging in war games or other exercises the parties may mutually agree upon.


 

3) Agree
to give no support to any entity engaged in hostile offensive acts against the legitimate government of either party.

 

4) Pledge to share intelligence related to the security of the other party, insofar as such sharing does not violate any other agreement or jeopardize the security of the party in possession


 

5) Understand that this treaty shall not operate as to bind the actions of the parties in regards to any acts wherein the other party has initiated the use of force against a third party


 

6) This treaty may be amended by subsequent agreement, except no derogation or abridgement of its first article shall be permitted.

[Sandaoguo]

I think MFZ's version is very well-written. With regards to intelligence sharing, what kind of intelligence would that entail? For what operations, in other words?

[Rebel-topia]

Usually, intel-swapping is in regards to plots against the other region.

 

An example:

If TWP is planning an attack on Kantris, and its known by TSP, then TSP is obligated by this treaty/pact to inform Kantris of said plot, unless we are bound by a treaty with TWP to not divulge that information...

 

 

EDIT: Spelling...

[Sandaoguo]

Shouldn't the pact specify that, then? Under the proposed terms, the TSP intelligence community would have discretion in what intelligence it shares. As a private citizen, I would prefer that discretion to be greatly narrowed, though.

[Rebel-topia]

Its worded in such a way that we have discretion on whether it needs to be brought to their attention or not.

 

A lot of this wording is "standard" for GP.

[Sandaoguo]

Its worded in such a way that we have discretion on whether it needs to be brought to their attention or not.

 
The discretion isn't limited to whether or not intelligence should be shared, but also what kinds of intelligence are shared and who has the authority to authorize sharing. I don't think it's a good idea to give the intelligence community that kind of discretion. Even if the expectation is that the only intelligence shared is that which is relevant to security threats, the language of the pact is much broader. If that's the expectation, the language should reflect that.
 
Also, TSP should have in place measures that determine who can authorize intelligence sharing. Is it the Cabinet? Is it the CSS? Is it the MoFA or MoA or the General Corps? Our laws don't explicitly grant any of those offices the authority to share intelligence, though the MoA is responsible for gathering intelligence. Who has oversight over what kinds of intelligence is shared? What happens when intelligence is shared regarding things other than regional security, such as intelligence Kantrias may find useful for a raid? That could very well violate Article 4, Section 5 of the Code of Laws, but I imagine the MoA isn't going to be telling the Assembly what intelligence they're sharing.
 
This is all way too unstructured, if you ask me.
 

A lot of this wording is "standard" for GP.

 


I imagine it is, but that doesn't mean it's okay. We should strive for quality, rather than relying on gentlemen's agreements and unspoken understandings.

[Southern Bellz]

I appreciate all the input in what is good 'legal' writing, this is my number one weakness in NS.

 

Awesome, I would bring the MFZ draft to them and see if we can move this to the voting floor if they agree with it.

[Rebel-topia]

As a (fairly) active player, and active in TSP, if I hear that a region we don't have a treaty with is going after a region we're allied/treaty'd with, I'm sure as hell going to tell them. That has nothing to do with any past, present or future government positions I hold. I do it as a citizen of TSP.

So, in regards to your question about who has the right to relay inelegance, its at the discretion of the person with said intel, imo. Now, if somehow, I come to that info thru some NSA mission, then I answer to the MoA, who in turn answers to the TSPCSS. Its worded in such a way that revisions are not needed as our governments change. Three months ago, the CSS didn't exist. Intel was under the MoS. If we had our treaties worded to include specifically the MoS, all our treaties would have to be reworked, as the MoS doesn't exist any more, and the CSS has taken that over.

[Minbaric Federal Zones]

To throw my two cents in, what I was thinking when I worded was that TSP and Kantrias presumably have some sort of domestic system for dealing with intelligence that would apply its internal rules. At least I hope we have some sort of intelligence gathering hierarchy and procedures in place for what gets done with it.

[Sandaoguo]

As a (fairly) active player, and active in TSP, if I hear that a region we don't have a treaty with is going after a region we're allied/treaty'd with, I'm sure as hell going to tell them. That has nothing to do with any past, present or future government positions I hold. I do it as a citizen of TSP.

So, in regards to your question about who has the right to relay inelegance, its at the discretion of the person with said intel, imo. Now, if somehow, I come to that info thru some NSA mission, then I answer to the MoA, who in turn answers to the TSPCSS. Its worded in such a way that revisions are not needed as our governments change. Three months ago, the CSS didn't exist. Intel was under the MoS. If we had our treaties worded to include specifically the MoS, all our treaties would have to be reworked, as the MoS doesn't exist any more, and the CSS has taken that over.

 

What intelligence you can share depends on where you got it from. Otherwise you could easily run afoul of the espionage law. If the intelligence originates on the forums, then you cannot share it without express permission from the Cabinet. I would assume, then, that the Cabinet has to authorize any intelligence sharing under this pact, should it come into force. If that doesn't make sense, then we need to include changes into the Code when this pact is brought up for a vote.

 

I'm not sure that the CSS has any role to play here, beyond determining whether intelligence can't be shared because it would harm TSP internal security. The CSS's role, as written in the Charter, is purely internal security. Intelligence sharing doesn't deal with our security, but with Kantrias's.

 

I'm also not proposing that all of this be put into the pact. That wouldn't be appropriate. The only thing the pact should outline is what types of intelligence we have the option or obligation to share. Everything else should be done by domestic law.

[Rebel-topia]

After going through our current treaties, the only one having extensive wording in the intel is Euro, which states:

( TSP and Europeia each shall provide information to the other if such information is pertinent to the other region's security or well-being, or otherwise upon the other’s reasonable request, unless the party in possession of such information reasonably believes that providing that information might violate applicable laws or contravene the terms of service for NationStates or the region’s forum provider.

As wordy as this is, I think its more vague in terms of what I think you're looking for. I would support either the above quoted text, out the original. I'm not sure over-defining things is the way to go here.

[Awesomiasa]

Kantrias had just gotten back to me and said that they were okay with the MFZ draft. So what shall our next course of action be?

[Southern Bellz]

Put it to vote in the assembly and let the citizens of the region speak!

[Awesomiasa]

Seconded. Somebody poke Belschaft on this! I'm ecstatic!

[Sandaoguo]

The Chair has been asked to put the following version of this treaty to vote, following the ratification by Kantrias. Because it has been a considerable amount of time since this was last debated, I am instead opening this for a second reading, to ensure that all voices are heard.

 

 

Treaty of Amity and Non-Aggression between The South Pacific and Kantrias

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Recognizing the common commitment to stable representative rule and wishing to express and strengthen the natural ties between the regions, The South Pacific and Kantrias hereby:

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">1) Recognize as the legitimate government of either party only such government as may be formed in accordance with the democratic principles espoused by both regions and freely elected by the citizens.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">2) Declare that the parties shall refrain from any and all acts of war against one another, except that nothing in this present agreement shall be construed as to prevent either region from engaging in war games or other exercises the parties may mutually agree upon.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">3) Agree to give no support to any entity engaged in hostile offensive acts against the legitimate government of either party.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">4) Pledge to share intelligence related to the security of the other party, insofar as such sharing does not violate any other agreement or jeopardize the security of the party in possession

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">5) Understand that this treaty shall not operate as to bind the actions of the parties in regards to any acts wherein the other party has initiated the use of force against a third party

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">6) This treaty may be amended by subsequent agreement, except no derogation or abridgement of its first article shall be permitted.

 

---

 

Treaties are very important documents in NationStates, and I feel that a lot of regions have been rushing into them without due consideration. The failure of the PSSP was due to Balder not being truly committed to their obligations, so I believe we should not ratify this treaty unless we are truly committed to it. Treaties are the ultimate form of credibility.

 

Additionally, I believe it necessary for the Assembly to consider the privacy implications in the intelligence sharing clause. While the time to change the treaty language has long passed, we can ratify the treaty with a privacy reservation or pass a broader law regarding intelligence sharing by the Coalition government. Right now, I'm not even sure which ministry or agency even has the authority to share intelligence.

[Hileville]

Treaty of Amity and Non-Aggression between The South Pacific and Kantrias

 
Recognizing the common commitment to stable representative rule and wishing to express and strengthen the natural ties between the regions, The South Pacific and Kantrias hereby:


 
1) Recognize as the legitimate government of either party only such government as may be formed in accordance with the democratic principles espoused by both regions and freely elected by the citizens.


 
2) Declare that the parties shall refrain from any and all acts of war against one another, except that nothing in this present agreement shall be construed as to prevent either region from engaging in war games or other exercises the parties may mutually agree upon.


 
3) Agree to give no support to any entity engaged in hostile offensive acts against the legitimate government of either party.


 
4) Pledge to share intelligence related to the security of the other party, insofar as such sharing does not violate any other agreement or jeopardize the security of the party in possession


 
5) Understand that this treaty shall not operate as to bind the actions of the parties in regards to any acts wherein the other party has initiated the use of force against a third party


 
6) This treaty may be amended by subsequent agreement, except no derogation or abridgement of its first article shall be permitted.

After discussion with Kantrias and Escade I would like to motion this version of the text to vote.  I believe it has been available for discussion here long enough.  There was support for this here and Kantrias has already passed this.  I personally support this and would like to move forward with it so we can move to other matters.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

I second.

[Awesomiasa]

Seconded

[Escade]

Thirded

[StGeorgie]

nthed

[Sandaoguo]

Well, we're kind of in an odd situation, here. I can bring this up for vote now or tomorrow, straying from the weekend voting practices. If we want to wait for a weekend, there's a chance we won't have a Chair for a while.