+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: [Proposal] Treaty of the Sun (/showthread.php?tid=573)
RE: Treaty of the Sun - Imaginary - 01-30-2019
Thank you everyone for your input on the treaty. :)
Atlantica;5430 Wrote:That being said, however, I'm concerned that §2.3 of the Treaty, by proscribing mutual military operations, could potentially undermine the neutral foundation of the Lazarene Regional Guard as prescribed in §1.1 and §2.3 of the Lazarene Regional Guard. To that effect, I'd urge the Lazarene Government to consider approaching the Osiran Government about slightly amending §2.3 to say something to the effect of: "Notwithstanding both regions' domestic and constitutional legislation, and if planned and agreed upon by the governments and militaries of both signatories..."As others have mentioned, I think if the Laz government and military plans and agrees on doing military operations with Osiris, they will need to be doing this in accordance with the Laz Regional Guard already.
Cormac;5431 Wrote:This treaty is meant to lay the framework for expectations between Lazarus and Osiris. I think it's important that if an individual in Lazarus works maliciously against Osiris and is convicted of it that the expectation is not that we say, "Oh, that's fine. You can continue on with no repercussions here." (or vice versa)Roavin;5427 Wrote:Only thing I'd note: 4.3 is worded in an awkward manner.I support this treaty overall, but I can't support 4(3) regardless of its wording. The Pan-Sinker Security Pact had provisions that required the other signatories to take legal action against their citizens for participating in coups against the other signatories, and those provisions were ultimately what led to the unraveling of the PSSP and a lot of animosity between Balder and Osiris on the one hand and Lazarus and the Rejected Realms on the other. Since then, I've consistently opposed any provisions like those, because it's my firm belief a community will simply end a treaty before they will get rid of community members they like and value for something they did to another region, even an ally. I think that's asking too much. So I am against 4(3), and I won't be able to vote for this treaty if that wording remains in it. I think a provision like 4(3) is a poison pill (even if unintentional, as I'm sure was the case here) that seals the eventual destruction of an alliance from the beginning. I hope we'll just decide to remove that wording, because otherwise I have no issues.
Article 4(3) does not dictate that we are required to remove an individual from our region or even that we would need to punish an individual in any certain way. Any such decision would have to originate from our own government (in agreement with Osiris) or our courts. I don't think this part of the treaty will sow discord between our region and Osiris because it does not demand certain action; it demands consideration. And that's something treaty allies deserve from each other.
Legalist Zombal;5434 Wrote:3:3 allows either side to stay neutral... this is kinda good and kinda bad. If Osiris ended up at war with some region, lets say TCB for example, we are not required to go and help them but ALSO if we ended up at war with somewhere like TCB then Osiris isnt required to fight with us. Of course this would be good as well since it would mean if we had a treaty with TCB and Osi/TCB went to war then we could stay out of it.Ja, it might be nice to always be fighting together if we go to war, but since we can only declare war through the assembly we can't say we have to declare war in a treaty. I think it's better that way anyway since we might not always be interested in going to war with the same places as Osi. (and vice versa)
Legalist Zombal;5434 Wrote:3:4 though.. it seems to make a demand. If Osiris is under threat and needs a certain number of endorsements then the treaty here demands we show up with at least that number or MAKE that number happen... which seems a bit strange to me3(4) If one of the signatories does not possess any military forces and is called upon the other by the provisions set in Article 3, Sections 1 to 3, they must assemble a military force at the earliest opportunity.
"A military force" meaning like some amount of military force; not specifically enough to save the other region amount of military force. This is a commitment for sure, but I think we'll always be able to muster up at least some amount of military support for Osiris if they require assistance.
Legalist Zombal;5434 Wrote:the military bits though... I think it may need rewording so that it is known all of them are merely requests that both govts can agree upon (So if Osiris wanted to do something with Lazarus and Jo made sure it didn't contradict the military laws then we can, but if it does contradict we can deny) and that we are only required to show up to aid them when they are under major threat. If someone was trying to Coup, this treaty states we must support the government under Altino or her legal successor and if we were under coup threat then Osiris would support Imki or her legal successor.)The treaty says our governments+militaries will need to agree before they cooperate militarily, so they can (and presumably will >.>) deny cooperation during that stage of the game if our laws don't allow for whatever kind of military stuff they were considering doing.
As for what kind of assistance should be required or voluntary, right now we would be required to help out militarily during the following:
-invasions or similar crises
-legitimate delegacy transitions
-cases of emergency
I think all of these are good times for us to be required to support Osi (et vice versa) because they are times when the region is most unstablish (is THAT a word Ryccia?).
(let me know if that doesn't address your concerns x.x sorry, it's kinda late here so some of the stuff I say might be braindead)
RE: Treaty of the Sun - McChimp - 02-02-2019
I, and I think many others, am really set on this treaty being a success. That said, I cannot support it in its current state and it would be a terrible shame to see this opportunity for a special relationship with Osiris frustrated by small, easily fixed problems. The Assembly's input must be taken into account if this treaty is going to achieve the majority it requires.
First and foremost I think it needs to be borne in mind that this treaty has legal weight, that this is more than just a set of expectations we hope to live up to. We are making commitments here and the mechanisms for upholding them must be clearly defined.
I am going to post an edited draft that I hope you will consider.
Quote:Article 1: Recognition
Treaty of the Sun
A treaty to define the fraternal and amicable relationship between Lazarus and Osiris.
(1) The Osiris Fraternal Order and its legal successors shall recognize the government established by the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus and any of its legal successors as the legitimate government of the region of Lazarus.
(2) The government established by the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus and its legal successors shall recognize the Osiris Fraternal Order and any of its legal successors as the legitimate government of the region of Osiris.
(3) Should the government of a signatory voluntarily disband while in exile, the other is freed from the commitments of Article 1, Sections 1 and 2. Additionally, if the new government refuses to recognize this treaty, it shall be automatically dissolved.
Article 2: Pact of Non-Aggression
(1) Both signatories hereby pledge not to invade, raid, or commit other such acts of aggression within the other’s region or any possessions they may have, nor aid any faction, government, or party in doing so.
(2) Both signatories affirm that the deployment of their co-signatory's military forces in any region that is a not possession of theirs does not constitute aggression against them.
(3) Both signatories affirm that the deployment of their co-signatory's military forces in any region that is a possession of theirs does not constitute aggression against them so long as the governments and military forces of both signatories have agreed upon said deployment in advance.
Article 3: Mutual Defense
(1) Both signatories pledge to defend one another militarily against any invasions or similar crises they may suffer.
(2) Both signatories pledge to send any military forces they possess at the request of the other in order to facilitate legitimate delegacy transitions, or in cases of emergency.
(3) Both signatories pledge that they shall not aid any region at war with the other.
(4) If one of the signatories does not possess any military forces and is called upon the other by the provisions set in Article 3, Sections 1 to 3, they must assemble a military force at the earliest opportunity.
Article 4: Protection Against Infiltration
(1) Both signatories pledge to inform the other’s government and any relevant intelligence services of any evidence they may have of espionage, infiltration, subversion, manipulation, or conspiracy against the other. They shall also inform the other of any conspiracies to commit any crimes in the other’s jurisdictions.
(2) Both signatories pledge to cooperate on matters of intelligence and security.
(3) The governments of both signatories pledge to seek the punishment of any of their citizens convicted by their co-signatory of committing espionage, infiltration, subversion, manipulation, or conspiracy.
(4) Both signatories shall condemn any acts of espionage, infiltration, subversion, manipulation, or conspiracy against and confirmed by their co-signatory.
(5) Both signatories pledge to never commit acts of espionage, infiltration, subversion, manipulation, or conspiracy against the other, or aid any faction, government, or party in doing so.
Article 5: Cultural Cooperation
(1) The relevant cultural authorities of both signatories shall actively cooperate on matters of culture, which may include festivals, games, roleplays, mafia, newspapers, radio shows, podcasts, graphic design, and others. At least one of these must be done annually as a bilateral event, unless in times of emergency. Furthermore, the relevant cultural authorities of both signatories are encouraged to do more than the required one bilateral event per year.
(2) The relevant cultural authorities of both signatories are encouraged to plan and cooperate on a festival celebrating the passage of this treaty.
(3) Citizens of Lazarus and Osiris are welcome to visit the other’s region and engage in events of cultural significance and to have fun with the other’s community.
Article 6: Provisions of Ratification, Amendment and Repeal
(1) Both signatories shall activate their legal mechanisms relevant to ratify a treaty after they agree to do so.
(2) If a signatory wishes to amend this document, they must negotiate with the other to do so. After this, the same legal mechanisms in each region relevant to ratify a treaty shall be activated to adopt these agreed amendments. If one region refuses these amendments, they are to not be adopted.
(3) If a signatory wishes to dissolve this treaty, they must notify, by any means of communication available and possible, their intention to dissolve said treaty to the other. After this, the legal mechanisms relevant to dissolve a treaty shall be activated in the region of the requesting signatory.
(4) The signatories may dissolve this treaty by mutual consent. The legal mechanisms relevant to dissolve a treaty must be activated, and if at least one region decides to repeal, the treaty is declared null and void with immediate effect.
The most major edits here are an adjustment of the language regarding each other's military operations and rewriting 4:3 so that it cannot possibly be interpreted as a pledge by the region as a whole to definitely punish those who Osiris has convicted of those crimes. Instead, it is a promise that our executive shall seek that outcome through an appropriate constitutional institution (the Court or the Council) and therefore be subject to the regulations of those institutions.
I hope that the spirit of these edits can be taken into consideration during further negotiations and that a new draft can come of it.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - Ryccia - 02-04-2019
I shall comment on this proposal as a private citizen. Do not take this as an opinion of the government as a whole.
First off, Article 2's amendments have this specific wording for a reason: the word "possessions" was written there due to the Islamic Republics of Iran, an illegally-occupied Osiran possession. I do not believe that we could raid Osiran claims, nor viceversa. To utilize sovereign territory as practice grounds would be disrespectful in my opinion, even if we agree on that exercise, but perhaps it is just me and this is not an issue.
In 3.3, the option to only stay neutral or aid Osiris was written so, even if we are not helping a war enemy of the other, we do not give them any moral support whatsoever. The same with Osiris: even if they cannot aid our war adversaries, not even a statement of support shall be permitted by opportunists.
In 4.3, your amendment potentially removes the option for a trial. I initially interpreted this "seeking punishment" wording as just punishing any such citizens, and that may be a cause for confusion in my opinion (Or perhaps my mind is stupid and I am wrong, who knows? If so, I must offer my most sincere apologies for my ignorance).
Also, even if we seek a trial and the defendant in question results to be non-guilty, I would forsee that any lack of punishment would break our treaty (for example, could you imagine that Osiris sheltered someone who was plotting Lazarene Civil War 2.0? We would be beyond furious, would we not? Same with Osiris: if we had, for instance, Feux as a Lazarene citizen, Osiris would be enraged).
4.6 was added to offer an official apology (and these, in a way, have diplomatic force), as well as to provide a failsafe: a last chance to save the treaty and make up for wrongdoing, or apologize for the inefficiency of a signatory to relay intelligence vital to the other's security. It might be "redundant" or "unnecessary" for some, but I would prefer to keep it (also, I find it a tad funny that, technically by 4.4, if, for example, we spied on Osiris, we would be obligated to condemn the espionage, but not issue an apology, which would be...odd, to say the least. It is virtually impossible for this to happen, as we would rather deny or add an apology than to just condemn ourselves, but it is theoretically possible).
Please, pardon me that we do not see the same on the wording of the treaty. I hope that I have constructively criticized your proposal, and if I seem harsh or hostile in my tone, I plea for your forgiveness in advance. And if I have misinterpreted you, been ignorant or just stupid in my reasoning, do tell and point it out.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - New Rogernomics - 02-11-2019
I think we can pass as written. Though, given the complexities of 4:3, it should be easy enough to discuss issues with 4:3 through diplomatic channels, should it pose a problem to both regions.
Intent is also important within treaties, and it doesn't need to necessarily be present within the text itself. Certainly, it holds some legal weight, but Lazarus is nevertheless still bound by constitution and previously passed law. There is plenty of basis for accommodation, and neither Osiris nor Lazarus would seriously suggest compromising each other's legal systems or procedures.
OOC offenses are pretty easily dealt with also, through administration/moderation on this forum and discord, which just leaves IC issues with nations.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - New Rogernomics - 02-11-2019
Edited
RE: Treaty of the Sun - treadwellia - 02-11-2019
Edited here as well per ongoing discussion.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - McChimp - 02-11-2019
In accordance with section 2 subsection 3 of the Assembly Procedure Act (August 2018), this motion (which has since been deleted by its author) is not legal.
In anticipation of any further legal motion with affairs in the state they are in, however, I am not going to beat around the bush. I am extremely disappointed by this motion. This treaty seems to have been proposed on the basis of shaky assumptions that provisions will never actually be used and the idea that Lazarus and Osiris will always be able to solve disagreements regarding this treaty diplomatically. 4:3 in particular is an entirely unnecessary stumbling block that has the potential to bring this all down about our ears in the future. Our constitution is clear that there are two ways in which a citizen may be punished and signing a treaty that gives a false indication that other arrangements are possible is dangerous. The very notion of convicting our citizens at the whim of a foreign power, no matter how friendly with either party we may be, is frankly shameful.
Arguments that current governments would not instigate the issues foreseen in this thread do not hold weight-these institutions are not static and in the future new officials may regard the treaty differently and divide our regions. The text must be clear if it is to be enforced then as it is now.
I can't see how changes to or the removal of such a controversial and extraordinary provision could cause such dismay in Osiris that they would be unwilling to ratify a treaty without it. Why should we vote in favour of an inadequate treaty just to avoid inconveniencing our partner? Especially considering that both parties will have to undergo the ratification process anyway if you intend later amendments to bring it up to standard after we ratify the original proposal.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - New Rogernomics - 02-12-2019
Imaginary posted this clarification via Discord:
Imaginary Yesterday at 7:03 PM
so mike dude, fa minister of Osi, dmed me today and idk if it should affect what we're going to do with the treaty but it's def relevant so please read over it yous and voice your thoughts ^^
Quote:Comrade BolandToday at 4:00 PMWe intend to discuss and amend 4:3 after we vote for the treaty, which is a lot more palatable to Osiris than them having to repeal and replace the whole thing.
Hey Sylv, when'd y'all actually put the treaty to vote? Or is it not quite at that stage yet and still in discussion?
Sylven RazeduskToday at 4:06 PM
It's still in discussion. It needs the delegate to motion it to vote and Imki hasn't done that yet... not sure if that's because she wants to address concerns citizens have about the treaty (there are a few people who don't agree we should include 4:3) or because she's too busy IRL. >_< Sorry.
Comrade BolandToday at 4:07 PM
It's all good.
Was wondering, explicitly because of 4:3. If y'all pass now, it will be easier for us to amend the treaty than it is currently where Lazarus is currently looking to be in a similar position where governments of former allies were in. I can't guarantee a passage of an amendment while we are the only ones who passed it.
Sylven RazeduskToday at 4:24 PM
Meaning that if we need to fix some things then it would be best if we do that after we pass the treaty so it can actually be like an amendment not a screwed up renegotiation/amendment mess because the treaty will then be in the same stage in both our regions?
Comrade BolandToday at 4:26 PM
Aye. That and the rest of the Guardians should feel more welcoming to a true amendment than repealing and replacing the treaty. I know I certainly will be more welcoming to just amending it.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - Imkihca - 02-13-2019
I am very sorry for my unscheduled absence lately and the confusion and delay it has caused with the processing of this treaty.
It is entirely my fault this has taken so long and I offer my sincere apologies to you the citizens, the cabinet who have had to try and handle things without me, and Osiris, for this. I believe we have exposed a number of problems in this process and the next treaty will be done very differently to avoid these issues again in the future. While these teething troubles are frustrating we can now rectify things to insure it doesn't happen again and I hope Osiris will understand this as they have been very patient and understanding so far.
I think we should pass this treaty in it's current form.
It is nobodies fault but mine that things have stalled as they have and please do not think that I blame anyone else for this, but once passed we can work with them much easier to amend the treaty instead of being stuck in this current limbo. I dropped the ball here, things should have been presented to you all before they got so far and that is how we will do things from now on. I will learn from this and again, I am terribly sorry.
Please do not hold my mistakes against Osiris and keep in mind that things can be changed after the vote. Your voices have been heard and your opinions noted, we will work together to get a treaty we are all happy with.
With that, I would like to motion the original Treaty of the Sun to vote please Speaker.
RE: Treaty of the Sun - Constie - 02-13-2019
I second the motion