I am very much in favour of a treaty with Osiris, though I am not sure about some of the specifics of this one.
This is contradictory with the Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard (December 2018) 2:3.
4:3 isn't binding seeing as no Lazarene punishment cannot be vetoed by our Delegate, so there is no circumstance in which we would be legally required to punish somebody. I am not sure whether treaties have the authority to permit people to be punished "outright", even if it doesn't grant this power to any specific official. Were it legally binding, it would be a violation of our regional sovereignty. Even leaving it at the Delegate's discretion creates a whole foreign mechanism by which the Delegate may eject citizens without check.
4:6 also seems unnecessary, though I suppose its inclusion does no harm. If either signatory has violated the other obligations of article four, all of which are less trivial then this one, and still aren't feeling apologetic then I doubt that they would feel compelled to obey this section.
Quote:Article 2: Pact of Non-Aggression
(1) Both signatories hereby pledge to not invade, raid, or otherwise attack the other’s region or any possessions they may have, nor aid any faction, government, or party to do so.
(2) Both signatories agree that the deployment of military forces on the opposite side of the other in another region that is not the possession of either does not constitute aggression against either of the signatories.
(3) If planned and agreed upon by the governments and military forces of both signatories, both military forces may engage in offensive raiding or defending action against each other for training purposes, or for their mutual pleasure.
This is contradictory with the Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard (December 2018) 2:3.
Quote: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) Both signatories pledge to punish any of their citizens convicted by the other of acting against the other signatory through espionage, infiltration, subversion, manipulation, or conspiracy. They may choose to hold a trial for any of these crimes, or punish the individuals outright. In the latter case, both governments must negotiate any punishments to be given to the individuals in question.
(4) Both signatories shall condemn any acts of espionage, infiltration, subversion, manipulation, or conspiracy against the other if the target of these acts confirm it.
(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 to do so.
(6) If the government of any of the two signatories fail to fulfill the obligations of Article 4, Sections 1 to 5, they must formally and publicly apologize for this.
4:3 isn't binding seeing as no Lazarene punishment cannot be vetoed by our Delegate, so there is no circumstance in which we would be legally required to punish somebody. I am not sure whether treaties have the authority to permit people to be punished "outright", even if it doesn't grant this power to any specific official. Were it legally binding, it would be a violation of our regional sovereignty. Even leaving it at the Delegate's discretion creates a whole foreign mechanism by which the Delegate may eject citizens without check.
4:6 also seems unnecessary, though I suppose its inclusion does no harm. If either signatory has violated the other obligations of article four, all of which are less trivial then this one, and still aren't feeling apologetic then I doubt that they would feel compelled to obey this section.