05-29-2019, 12:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2019, 01:03 PM by The Pharcyde.)
Reading it a bit more closely and echoing the comments made by Arlo...
Saying that we are the legal government as a consequence of being "current" begs the question of what "current" means. It sounds like it can be interpreted as saying that Mandate 12 is legal because of who currently has the delegacy. I would feel better about things if it said "current and thus legal governments." As it is presently written, clause A guarantees recognition of "the current government" and of "any legal government that follows", while clause B defines a "legal government" as one which is current.
As far as Lazarus is concerned, I think "current and legal" > "current and thus legal".
Or how about even "legal and thus current"? That seems to strike the best balance between our philosophy and what'll make this treaty valuable for us in practice.
I don't have any idea about this right now but it is a very important point to discuss.
Quote:A. The members of this treaty recognize the independence and sovereignty of the current government of each region and agree to recognize any legal government that follows."Current and thus legal" is a very specific way of phrasing this. Did that wording come from us or from TWP?
B. The current and thus legal governments as of the time of the signing of this treaty are the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus, ruling over Lazarus, and the Delegate of the West Pacific, ruling over the West Pacific, as per The Manners of Governance.
Saying that we are the legal government as a consequence of being "current" begs the question of what "current" means. It sounds like it can be interpreted as saying that Mandate 12 is legal because of who currently has the delegacy. I would feel better about things if it said "current and thus legal governments." As it is presently written, clause A guarantees recognition of "the current government" and of "any legal government that follows", while clause B defines a "legal government" as one which is current.
As far as Lazarus is concerned, I think "current and legal" > "current and thus legal".
Or how about even "legal and thus current"? That seems to strike the best balance between our philosophy and what'll make this treaty valuable for us in practice.
Arlo;6192 Wrote:The bigger problem would be if the situation happened the other way around -- if there is a coup in TWP it is unclear who we would be obligated to support.
I don't have any idea about this right now but it is a very important point to discuss.