06-12-2020, 11:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2020, 11:57 AM by New Rogernomics.
Edit Reason: Corrected for legal clarification
)
If we did an armistice, then that is still half way towards a peace agreement with the NPO, as it is a negotiated diplomatic and military stance through a third party i.e. TWP. For that reason I would argue that a Non-Aggression-Pact with the NPO is the more feasible alternative, as if the regional government declares that it will suspend military operations against the NPO it kinda undemines the point of being at war in the first place. Not to mention operations would risk being suspended just because a TWP citizen is on the other side.
Though an armistice also may have no basis in Lazarene law, and could be challenged as reneging on the war resolution passed by the assembly*. So I'd suggest against using a term that may have no legal basis. The Regional Guard may pause/suspend all operations against the NPO informally though and communicate that, whereas signing an armistice could be a binding diplomatic agreement contradicting the war resolution - which is going to make us look awful silly at mininum.
I no doubt disagree with Roavin on the NPO-Lazarus war resolution, though I'd prefer a debate and vote on repealing the NPO war resolution to something half-way like an armistice, as partly recognizing peace is possible makes us look pretty silly continuing the war.
*As any government in the future could hypothetically side-step/defy a war resolution passed by the assembly through a negotiated armistice. I don't know anywhere in the mandate or associated laws that provides such a power. I have asked for legal clarification on this matter.
Though an armistice also may have no basis in Lazarene law, and could be challenged as reneging on the war resolution passed by the assembly*. So I'd suggest against using a term that may have no legal basis. The Regional Guard may pause/suspend all operations against the NPO informally though and communicate that, whereas signing an armistice could be a binding diplomatic agreement contradicting the war resolution - which is going to make us look awful silly at mininum.
I no doubt disagree with Roavin on the NPO-Lazarus war resolution, though I'd prefer a debate and vote on repealing the NPO war resolution to something half-way like an armistice, as partly recognizing peace is possible makes us look pretty silly continuing the war.
*As any government in the future could hypothetically side-step/defy a war resolution passed by the assembly through a negotiated armistice. I don't know anywhere in the mandate or associated laws that provides such a power. I have asked for legal clarification on this matter.