View Topic

On behalf of His Royal Majesty Wintermoot I of Wintreath, I hereby introduce The Rejected Realms - Wintreath Pact to the Underhusen for debate.

Text of The Rejected Realms - Wintreath Pact

The Rejected Realms - Wintreath Pact

We the sovereign regions of The Rejected Realms and The Frozen Realm of Wintreath in order to strengthen relations between our two regions agree to the following terms outlined in this document.

During our correspondence at the 2014 Regional Sovereignty Conference, The Rejected Realms was impressed with the diplomacy of Wintreath's representative and acting chair, Wintermoot - remarking that Wintreath had presented itself as a respected, well positioned diplomatic voice in interregional affairs. Likewise, recognizing the stability, prominence, and achievements of The Rejected Realms as a cultural, diplomatic, and military power as well as the many syngergies we share as regions, Wintreath believed that formal relations would enable both regions to better reach their mutual goals and aspirations as partners.

Article I - Sovereignty and Legitimacy

1 § The parties to this treaty recognize the government of each region, based upon its constitutions and laws, as legitimate, and will not extend that recognition to any government that comes to power through means not prescribed by law, which shall be determined by the legitimate government in question.

2 § Both signatories agree to recognize each other as sovereign entities with the sovereign authority to govern themselves.

Article II - Non-Aggression

1 § The signatories vow neither to attack the home region of the other party nor participate in any action with the intent to overthrow their legitimate government.

2 § The signatories will refrain from conspiring, either directly or through a third party, to destabilize or overthrow the legitimate government of either party.

3 § The signatories will refrain from conducting clandestine operations, espionage, or other forms of spying against either party.

4 § Both signatories will, in good faith, report any known threat or concern related to the other party's security, to the appropriate security organs.

Article III - Mutual Defense

1 § Both signatories agree to provide military aid to defend the security and sovereignty of the other party’s region. They will provide this military aid at the request of the other party, or if the signatory believes that a state of emergency exists in which the other party is unable to request military aid.

2 § Both signatories also agree to defend each others' delegacies in times of war.

3 § A signatory is always at liberty to refuse receiving military aid.

Article IV - Cultural, Military and Intelligence Cooperation

1 § Both signatories agree to promote cultural diffusion and exchange between their two regions, such as through interregional conferences, discussions, or ventures, at the discretion of their governments.

2 § Both signatories agree to miltiary cooperation on joint missions, at the discretion of their respective military commands.

3 § In pursuing cooperation in military operations, both signatories agree that participation on the opposite sides of a military engagement does not automatically constitute hostility or an attack on either signatory.

4 § Both signatories agree to provide intelligence information at the request of the other party, as long as this information does not harm their own security or jeopardize ongoing intelligence gathering operations.

5 § Both signatories are obliged to provide intelligence information to the other party if it refers to an immediate security concern to said signatory.

Article V - Diplomacy

1 § Both signatories shall maintain open embassies (in-game and out-of-game) with one another.

2 § This treaty shall be deposited in a publicly accessible area of the community forums of both parties.

Article VI. Suspension of Terms and Termination of the Treaty

1 § Either signatory may terminate the treaty with five days' notice, posted publicly in the forum of deposit in both regions, after which the terms of treaty are no longer binding on either party.

2 § Both signatories agree to attempt to seek a diplomatic solution before the termination of this treaty.

Just so I'm clear - Article IV, Section 3 states that Wintreath and TRR could oppose each other in war, but that wouldn't violate the treaty or be seen as a hostile act?

Just so I'm clear - Article IV, Section 3 states that Wintreath and TRR could oppose each other in war, but that wouldn't violate the treaty or be seen as a hostile act?

Just to be clear, I wasn't the one that wrote it. But it certainly seems as if that's the case, yes.

At the request of Hugsim to clarify the question...

Let's say that The Rejected Realms and Wintreath enter into alliances which come to oppose each other...that section basically means that in such a case it would not constitute hostility or violate the treaty, at least as long as neither of us directly attacked the others' home region, which would violate other provisions of the treaty. It could also apply to warzone missions, where lines between the various alignments tend to blur due to their purpose of military training. In reality, the odds of this actually happening are very low. Defender regions tend to not attack each other directly even in warzones. Still, it's good that the language is there as a precaution.

I didn't write most of the treaty either, to be honest...The Rejected Realms forwarded the draft and gave us the opportunity to make changes of our own, but other than some changes to the preamble we didn't see anything that needed changing. It's a fairly standard treaty.

I hope that clarifies that article.

To be honest, I have no problem with the treaty, however there is an issue legally. Technically speaking the Storting has violated the Fundamental Laws once already by legislating the forums in the Lazarus - Wintreath treaty, in the form of a forum masking...although at the time it was passed due to the fact that I'm sure everyone wanted us to form a treaty and the fact that it was the first Underhusen...


However I've come to read the Fundamental Laws as more literal. This leads to the fact that mandating that this is placed on the forum technically violating, Article VI, section 5 in a sense, and more directly with the Wintreath - Lazarus Treaty with the Liaison masking. Although seeing as I do not oppose the treaties themselves, I won't actually request a case, because of the fact that I find the treaties helpful and I do not object to either of these.

I would argue that, since the Monarch has presented the treaty to the Storting, he has passively affirmed the authority of the Storting to enact it. More specifically, that would mean that the Storting has been declared (again, passively) a "subordinate administrative official" under Article VI, thus giving the Storting the constitutional authority to affect the organization of off-site property.

My interpretation might be a little out of the box, but in my opinion, there is no legality issue surrounding the treaty, other than we might have to motion for extended debate to keep this discussion going.

I so motion to extend debate for another 48 hours.

I second the motion to extend debate.

Motion Passed

anywho

I would argue that, since the Monarch has presented the treaty to the Storting, he has passively affirmed the authority of the Storting to enact it. More specifically, that would mean that the Storting has been declared (again, passively) a "subordinate administrative official" under Article VI, thus giving the Storting the constitutional authority to affect the organization of off-site property.

First it's not the Monarch that gives the authority, but The Winter Nomad(Whom is the same person as the Monarch at this time, although your phrasing was incorrect and off.)

Since I was around during the drafting, for those who say that the Storting is allowed to regulate the forums, the purpose of the Article VI, section 5 was to prevent the Storting from regulating the board, and since the Storting is made up of Citizens, we are, then Article VI would apply to us Skrifa and the People in the Overhusen, and would extend to the Storting since we aren't allowed to legislate the forums...


However I do interpret the usage of that clause having to be 'passed' by The Winter Nomad, since it would be non-binding if passed by the Storting.

since we aren't allowed to legislate the forums...

...unless we were "subordinate administrative officials."

Semantics aside, the intent of the section in question, as you state, is to prevent the Storting from mandating the shape and form of the forums.  You'd know this better than I could assume, but I'm thinking the reasoning behind that rule was to give the admin the power to define the forums once and for all, instead of allowing each Underhusen to overhaul the entire forum, which would be a nightmare for the admin. 

There's a reasonable government interest in placing the treaty in a publicly accessible place of the forum - the desire for government transparency extends to foreign affairs.  This interest is compatible with the intent of the law. 

Also, we're not actually "maintaining, organizing, securing, or technologically developing" the forums, we're just dictating something be put somewhere public.

Also, we're not actually "maintaining, organizing, securing, or technologically developing" the forums, we're just dictating something be put somewhere public.

Technically we are organizing a part of the forums, and maintaining it as well.

Although again I have no issues with this treaty, I'm merely acting as a way to point out it could be considered to violate the Fundamental Laws.

Also, we're not actually "maintaining, organizing, securing, or technologically developing" the forums, we're just dictating something be put somewhere public.

Technically we are organizing a part of the forums, and maintaining it as well.

Although again I have no issues with this treaty, I'm merely acting as a way to point out it could be considered to violate the Fundamental Laws.

I'm really curious as to what definitions of "organizing" and "maintaining" you're using...

I'm really curious as to what definitions of "organizing" and "maintaining" you're using...

Hrm....I forgot the organizing, but maintaining being that it has to be held and any updates to the treaty must be added as well.

The time for debate has ended, Skrifa may now motion to extend debate, bring this to a vote, or table this.

I motion to vote.
I feel that we don't need to change anything, and therefore motion to vote.

Do we have a second?