TREATY: TSP - TEP

[Rebel-topia]

This was ironed out between Bachtendekuppen (Delegate of TEP) and Hileville,
Escade, and Sandaoguo. This text, I assume per Cabinet discussions, has been brought to TEP's Magisterium. Unless they come back with changes, or we revise it and forward to them, I would like this to go to vote no later than February 10th, 2014.

 

TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND MUTUAL DEFENSE


The Coalition of The South Pacific and The Confederated East Pacific, wishing to strengthen our existing regional ties and bounds of friendship, recognizing our shared history as free, open and democratic Game-Created Regions, declare and proclaim the following articles as a Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Defense.

Section I - Recognition


1. Both parties recognize the other as the sole legitimate government of their region.

2. Both parties recognize each other as the sovereign and independent native communities of their region.

3. Both parties shall extend such recognition to all subsequent governments that are formed by the provisions of the current established constitution of their region.

Section II - Mutual Defense


1. Both parties shall defend the established government of the other to the best of their abilities upon request by the Head of State or the highest military or diplomatic official.

2. Defense entails supplying in-game endorsements in the other's region and/or public declarations of support by the Heads of State or highest diplomatic official.

3. The parties agree not to invade, raid or perform any other military action in the other region, except in accordance to the above provisions.

Section III - Intelligence sharing


1.The signatories agree to inform their counterpart's Head of State or equivalent Intelligence Officials of any threat to the signatories' in-game or off-site regional security.

2.The signatories agree that any shared intelligence will be kept confidential.

3. Neither signatory will in any way, directly or indirectly, initiate or participate in espionage against the other region.

Section IV - Amendments and dissolution


1. Both parties may amend or otherwise supersede this treaty with the consent of the other party.

2. Either party may dissolve this treaty by means of public notification by the Head of State on the other's off-site forum, taking effect exactly one week after receipt.

[Punk D]

Overall, I think this looks good. I do have a question on this part

 

1. Both parties may amend or otherwise supersede this treaty with the consent of the other party.

 

How does this work? Are amendments just consented by the Heads of State or are there other legislative processes that must occur?

[Belschaft]

At TSP's end any alterations under that provision would have to be passed by the Assembly - no idea what the procedure for TEP is.

[Kris Kringle]

I think it's pretty obvious. Both parties consenting means through their regular ratification processes. Otherwise the "amended" treaty would be illegal. Let's remember that the parties are not only the delegates of each region.

How does the Coalition consent to treaties? Through the Assembly. It's that simple.

[Escade]

Bach is a great person to work with and I'm really happy to have this treaty brought to the the Assembly.

 

Any changes in TSP would be done via assembly and from what I recall of TEP's laws, their magesterium works similarly.

[Geomania]

This looks great! I love when we have cooperation between feeders.

[Sandaoguo]

I can't take credit for this! Hileville negotiated the treaty. :-)

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Lord Ravenclaw]

Escade is correct.

 

The Magisterium is the legislature for the Sovereign East and it works the same way, for the most part as the Assembly here, only that I believe you need to apply for the Magisterium.

[Punk D]

Alright, if the process makes sense for everyone, then looks good to me. If we do pass this treaty, will there be a cultural event to follow?

[Sandaoguo]

There obviously isn't a requirement for one in the treaty, unlike with the Kantrias treaty. But if TEP is interested in holding a similar event, we are of course open to that.

[Sparaxis]

Escade is correct.

 

The Magisterium is the legislature for the Sovereign East and it works the same way, for the most part as the Assembly here, only that I believe you need to apply for the Magisterium.

In TEP, citizenship comes with ratification of the concordat.  Citizens can speak in the Magisterium but not everybody qualifies to be a Magister, and you have to apply for that over and above citizenship, and only the Magisters have a vote on legislation.

 

In TSP, it's different, for example, I can always vote here because I'm a citizen in perpetuity.

 

That being said, I will abstain on the vote in both regions due to the inherent conflict of interest.

 

Back to Escade's point, yes, treaties are made by the executive and ratified by the legislature, that would be the same for both regions and for amendments too.

[Unibot]

I will also be abstaining due to the CoI, but I support the treaty.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

You're here as well Babiana? *shakes head*

 

And you say that I'm bad for the amount of regions I'm in.

[Escade]

"Section III - Intelligence sharing

3. Neither signatory will in any way, directly or indirectly, initiate or participate in espionage against the other region."

 

Bach mentioned that the Magesterium in TEP discussed how the above quoted clause might affect a citizen of both regions (TEP and TSP) who inadvertently spilled information. If it was by accident then it wouldn't be espionage is what they seem to be discussing.

 

This is a replacement suggested:

 

"Neither signatory will initiate or participate in espionage against the other region."

 

I think the replacement is clearer, however I haven't dealt with espionage. What is the general standard example of it in NS?

[Cormac]

I think the amended text is fine. The thing about treaties in NationStates is that if a region is going to be inclined to violate the spirit of a treaty, it doesn't matter what the letter of the treaty says. The East Pacific has demonstrated that it is a trustworthy region that will honor its commitments in good faith, so I think the amended language -- while perhaps a little less strong than the original -- is fine given who the signatories are.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

While I will obviously vote against this, the treaty is well written and I can't see any real problems in its interpretation.

[Cormac]

While I will obviously vote against this, the treaty is well written and I can't see any real problems in its interpretation.

 

You have every right to vote against it, so this is more out of curiosity: If you believe the treaty is well written and don't see any real problems in its interpretation, why are you "obviously" voting against it? Is there something I'm missing?

[Vibrant Coconuts]

 

Is there something I'm missing?
 

My extreme antipathy to anything having to do with TEP.

[Kris Kringle]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cormac" data-cid="116032" data-time="1391770018">
Is there something I'm missing?

My extreme antipathy to anything having to do with TEP.</blockquote>


I hardly think that was obvious for most people here. Why that antipathy may I ask?

[Hileville]

I am of course in full support of this treaty and the suggested changes.

 

I also feel that someone should tell the Assembly of that TEP has passed a resolution declaring them a defender region.  While this doesn't change how I will vote I feel everyone here should be aware of it.

 

I wouldn't mind having a clause similar to that of our Treaty with Europeia though.

(a) Neither TSP nor Europeia will engage in military hostilities against the other. Participation by TSP and Europeia on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either region shall not be considered "military hostilities against the other" for this purpose.

[Belschaft]

Agreed. Due to the nature of military gameplay in NS it is not just possible, but probable, that we'll accidentally run into them on the battlefield or find ourselves as supporting parties to other groups operations. Making it clear that both parties are aware of that and accept it is a good idea. May I suggest the following wording;


"Neither party shall engage in military hostilities against the other, either directed at the others home region or against forces led by the other party in third party regions. Both parties being on opposing sides in a third party region as supporting forces does not constitute "military hostilities against the other" for this purpose; nor shall engagement in a third party region where the identity of one or both parties was not known at the time of the incident."

[Sandaoguo]

The suggested changes have been relayed.

[Tim]

I'f a fan of the treaty, assuming that Hileville's changes go through. Those seem like a necessary thing, for two R/D regions that are on different sides of the spectrum at times.

[Cormac]

Aye, I agree with the suggested changes. I don't see TEP going defender as an impediment to a treaty though, provided they find those changes acceptable.

[Hileville]

After reading the thread in TEP discussing this treaty I have no desire to support this when it comes to a vote.  I was hopeful that we could have a long and rewarding relationship with TEP but do not believe this to be the case anymore.  As the person who initially negotiated the Treaty I feel it was not only a waste of my time but waste of this bodies time as well.