Welcome to Lazarus

Please register to view all features

Pax Poukai Treaty

Status
Not open for further replies.

Imaginary

Newbie
Verified
Joined
Jun 14, 2018
Messages
441
Feather
ƒ1,952
Shareholders of LazCorp,

As per Mandate 12, I would like to request you consider enacting the Pax Poukai treaty with The South Pacific.

Mandate Twelve said:
(4) The Assembly may enact, amend, or repeal treaties, at the request of the Prime Minister, by 50%+1 vote.

The South Pacific is a thriving region containing a professional and, I think, trustworthy community. Public Relations Director McChimp has worked with their officials over the last month to create this potential treaty for our region.

Introducing the Pax Poukai!

[align=center]Pax Poukai[/align]

Preamble

Desiring friendship and tranquillity between Lazarus and the South Pacific, both parties ratify this treaty and thereby affirm their mutual respect.

Section 1. Recognition of Sovereignty

(1) Both signatories recognize the government of the Coalition of the South Pacific as set forth in the Charter and the government of Lazarus as set forth in the Twelfth Mandate as the legitimate ruling bodies of their respective regions.

(2) Both signatories shall recognize each others' legal successors as the legitimate ruling states of their respective regions.

Section 2. Pact of Non-Aggression

(1) Both signatories pledge not to declare war against one another.

(2) Both signatories pledge not to endeavor, conspire or withhold knowledge of any third party's intentions to invade, raid or otherwise attack their counterpart's home region or possessions.

(3) Both signatories pledge not to direct or encourage any person to adopt false pretenses in their counterpart's on-site or off-site property.

(4) Both signatories reserve the right to deploy military forces to regions other than their counterpart's home region and possessions when on opposing sides in military gameplay.

Section 3. Cultural and Diplomatic Ties

(1) The governments of both parties pledge to seek cooperation on cultural matters.

(2) Both signatories will maintain in-game and off-site embassies with each other and will maintain diplomatic representatives in each other's regions.

Section 4. Amendment, Interpretation, Display, and Repeal

(1) All amendments to this treaty must be made bilaterally following negotiations between signatory governments.

(2) The parties to this treaty may clarify the terms of this treaty through memorandums of understanding, which shall be posted alongside the treaty.

(3) Should either signatory state voluntarily disband without leaving a legal successor or dissolve this treaty in accordance with their own laws, both parties shall be relieved of the commitments made herein.

(4) This treaty shall be displayed in a publicly accessible area of the community forums of both parties.

Please let us know if you think anything needs to be amended (or if it's a bad idea altogether)!


[/hr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I see this right, this treaty does not obligate signatories to defend each other?
 
joWhatup;8242 said:
If I see this right, this treaty does not obligate signatories to defend each other?

That appears to be the case.
 
McChimp;8244 said:
joWhatup;8242 said:
If I see this right, this treaty does not obligate signatories to defend each other?

It's an NAP, not a mutual defence pact. Hopefully it will lead to a closer partnership in the future.
 
(2) The parties to this treaty may clarify the terms of this treaty through memorandums of understanding, which shall be posted alongside the treaty.

Would the assembly be responsible for drafting or approving the memorandums?
 
Debussy;8247 said:
(2) The parties to this treaty may clarify the terms of this treaty through memorandums of understanding, which shall be posted alongside the treaty.

Would the assembly be responsible for drafting or approving the memorandums?
I would think by the equivalent public relations/foreign relations departments in each region.
 
This has gone unnoticed for a while it seems. We might as well get things moving, so are there any other concerns on this?
 
Personally, I have a slight issue with the word "shall", albeit I will admit it's more of a personal style thing, I don't particularly think "shall" should be used in Legal Documents and there is almost always a better word. Albeit there are only four instances of the word, but still.
 
McChimp;8276 said:
joWhatup;8273 said:
This has gone unnoticed for a while it seems. We might as well get things moving, so are there any other concerns on this?

We're waiting for TSP's elections to finish atm

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, I was wondering.
 
I am in favor of this treaty, as I feel that this could be the beginning of a promising inter-regional cultural exchange, which may in time blossom into a fully fledged military coalition. I am in favor of any resolution which furthers Lazarene hegemony and influence gameside, whether through an approach of official congeniality or otherwise, insofar as such an approach is consistent with the current state of foreign relations. The South Pacific is a friendly, mighty, and democratic region, and we should only be honored to stand in solidarity against factions promoting tyranny and oppression.
 
Considering the widespread approval from those that have commented, I now motion this treaty to vote.

In response to Chanku's mild concern over the use of shall; I don't know that shall is the best word to be using throughout the treaty myself, but it has certainly seemed to perform its legal purpose well previously and I don't think it will create any confusion in the document. For this reason I suggest we abide with its use, and find reading for the sake of beautiful word choice somewhere other than our Assembly's legislative counter.<3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top