Comprehensive list of Prut Policies

[Neo Prutenia]

Amtliche Aussage der Meritokratischen Republik Neo Prutenia
Official Statement of the Meritocratic Republic of Neo Prutenia

This public archive is used as a reference guide and comprehensive list of all Prut policies, bilateral, multilateral, and international treaties, as well as laws and regulations that the Prut Meritocracy follows, respects, and/or is a party of. This is also the only legal reference Neo Prutenia will accept as a valid source for citing any violations, transgressions, crimes, or irregularities in regard to international law and international custom when Prut are concerned. In regard to international laws, the Prut are not a party to most if any at all treaties that are frequently cited and used as a reference in many disputes, and doesn’t accept any such accusations as valid in any context, nor is this nation accountable to treaties or any other documents it hasn’t officially signed and ratified. In regard to international custom, the Prut Meritocracy will honour them when appropriate, but in no way officially supports or legally defines its relation to them or holds itself accountable or bound by international custom. It is just a sign of goodwill.

Neo Prutenia does not hold other parties accountable to its own policies or treaties, nor do they in any way infringe upon other sovereign groups rights and ability to exercise their own sovereignty. The Prut, however, leave the possibility open for other nations to adopt these policies, with optionally forming bilateral or multilateral treaties around them. Should a party be interested in adopting our policies, seek assistance in the implementation, or just has questions or needs to inquire about specifics, the Prut Diplomatic Service (Prutischer Diplomatischer Dienst) is available to respond to any of these issues.

List of all policies:

- Die Lieblich-Erklärung / The Lieblich Declaration
- Doctrina D’Osca / Osca Doctrine
- Keun-Greiner Protokoll / The Keun-Greiner Protocol

List of all treaties:

- Vertrag von Wrangelburg / Treaty of Wrangelburg

List of defunct policies/treaties

- Lohenstein Grundsatz / Lohenstein Doctrine

[Neo Prutenia]

The Declaration of Lieblich

An essential component of Prut foreign policy, it is the main body of laws, regulations, and rules detailing Prut responses to violations from other parties. It exactly defines what the Prut Meritocracy considers violations of its sovereignty and how it will respond to such violations. The policy was implemented in the 1920s, and formalised in 1951, two years after the creation of the Prut Meritocracy, when the document was created and signed in the city of Lieblich, Neo Prutenia. This final and definite legal corpus has been respected and enforced by every Prut Administration since the formation of both the Republic and the Union.

Die Lieblich-Erklärung

The Declaration of Lieblich

Preamble

We, the Prut, recognising the need for

- a definite framework for handling violations
- creating a public document to specify what we consider violations
- promoting a coherent, comprehensive policy of retaliation and response
- protecting our own interest and sovereignty from external influences
- ensuring other parties are aware of the consequences of transgressions

Have hereby resolved to create and formulate a national policy regulating, detailing and determining all the mentioned issues and topics, in the city of Lieblich, Neo Prutenia, in a public assembly, and present this document officially to be known as the Declaration of Lieblich.

Article One: Declaration and Confirmation of Prut Sovereignty

The Prut Meritocracy has declared its sovereignty over a definite territory under control of the Prut and has been legitimately accepted by the residents, the Prut peoples, and considers itself a valid member of the international community. As such, the Prut Meritocracy’s Sovereignty, territorial or otherwise, is an inalienable fact, and any violations of Prut Sovereignty, external or internal, are a direct violation of the Prut peoples and will carry appropriate retaliation.

The Declaration of Lieblich regulates what is considered a violation and where a violation can occur. It is de facto and de jure in effect in all territories under Prut Sovereignty and Jurisdiction, including, but limited to:

- Neo Prutenia
- Hesperia
- Raion no kuni
- Veleslavia
- Mag Mell

- 40 kilometres of national, territorial waters, as measured from the coastlines of any of the five mentioned territorial areas, or any other territorial areas under Prut Sovereignty

- the airspace above the mentioned territories, or any other territories under Prut Sovereignty, up to the Thermosphere

Article Two: Definition of a violation

The Lieblich Declaration defines as a violation of Sovereignty any act that

- disregards or disrespects a Sovereign groups right to act as it pleases without interference within its own domain
- directly prevents a Sovereign group from exercising its right to act as it pleases within in own domain
- actively harms or damages a Sovereign group or members of it within its own domain
- indirectly or directly threatens the existence or survival of a Sovereign group

The Lieblich Declaration uses the working definition of Sovereignty, i.e. ”the quality of supreme, independent authority over a geographically defined area”, as a reference. Under Prut political theory, a Sovereign group is any group voluntarily living and acting together, and exercising sovereignty over a geographic area. For the purposes of the Declaration of Lieblich, the Prut peoples are the Sovereign group exercising Sovereignty over the geographically defined area mentioned in, but not limited to, Article One of the Declaration of Lieblich.

Article Three: Specifications of violations and the consequences

The Declaration of Lieblich specifies three types of violations, defines them, and determines the appropriate responses and retaliations. By type, those are Direct violations, indirect violations, and deliberate provocations.

I - Direct violations

Defined as any deliberate, physical and/or legal violation of Prut Sovereignty by a another party. Direct violations are considered as declarations of war by the Prut Meritocracy. Direct violations include:

- Official and unofficial declarations of war
- Deliberate violations of Prut borders, territory, waters, and/or airspace
- Intervening in Prut internal affairs without explicit consent of the Prut
- Deliberately violating and/or harming an accredited Prut Diplomat
- Refusal to compensate the Prut for any harm inflicted deliberately or damage caused due to negligence

II - Indirect violations

Defined as any involuntary and/or accidental violations of Prut Sovereignty, or threatening Prut Sovereignty by deliberate, unilateral acts. Indirect violations are considered a casus belli, i.e. a cause for war by the Prut Meritocracy, but some leniency is shown to prevent an escalation due to accidents or misunderstandings. The Prut will always issue a concern first, and a warning second, in case another party is considered to be threatening the Prut by some action. The Prut Meritocracy is not accountable if the other party chooses to ignore the warning and continues to act in a provocative, unilateral manner. Indirect violations include:

- Accidental and/or involuntary violations of Prut borders, territory, waters, and/or airspace
- Any form of unilateral behaviour or act that is a valid threat to Prut Sovereignty
- Any form of ultimatum
- Espionage
- State-sponsored terrorism aimed against Prut and Prut interests
- Piracy and Privateering aimed against Prut and Prut interests
- False Flag operations implicating the Prut as the offending party
- Deliberate economic warfare
- Embargos
- Blockades
- Unilateral violations of treaties, agreements, or any other contracts
- Helping or aiding any group which has committed or intends to commit any violations defined under section I and section II of Article Three of the Declaration of Lieblich

III – Deliberate provocations

Defined as any actions which are harmful to Prut and Prut interests, or the relations between the Prut and the offending party, but are not violations of Sovereignty. It is considered an “Other” category, and does not carry implicit or explicit possibility of conflict or war. It does have the potential to be considered an undeclared war, and it is certainly considered as unfounded and/or irrational hostility towards Prut and Prut interest. Deliberate provocations will be reciprocated in the same manner, or might result in a punitive expedition. The following acts are considered deliberate provocations:

- Deliberately committing crimes, especially crimes against humanity or war crimes, outside of Prut sovereign territory with the aim to specifically harm Prut and Prut interests, or declaring the intent to pursue such actions
- Unilaterally harming Prut and Prut interests within the offending party’s sovereign territory without legal justification
- Any official condemnations, insults, or similar declarations by legitimate representatives of the offending party aimed against Prut and Prut interests
- Black and grey propaganda, or any other acts of defamation aimed against Prut and Prut interests
- Supporting any groups which have committed any action mentioned in section III of Article Three of the Declaration of Lieblich

Article Four: Retaliation and Response

The Prut will respond to violations as defined per type, in Article Three of the Declaration of Lieblich, but reserve the right to respond in a lighter manner, or forgive transgressions according to judgement of the Prut Administration and/or Prut Parliament. The Prut will, if necessary, inform the offending party about the action and retaliation that will follow violations. The offending party has the possibility and option to request bilateral talks and a peaceful resolution to any conflict at any moment. The Prut, however, are not required to offer this option, and will customary offer it only once before continuing with the proper response.

Should a violation result in an international incident and no peaceful resolution can be reached, the current Prut Administration will resolve the conflict in such a manner that the original violations has been redeemed, the threat removed, or the violators have been held accountable. The Prut will not be responsible for any escalation in such a conflict and will pursue such policies to the bitter end, if required. Prut never start fights, but Prut end them, rather thoroughly and if necessary permanently.

[Neo Prutenia]

Doctrina D’Osca / Osca Doctrine

The legal corpus complementing Prut reaction and retaliation policies, the Osca Doctrine determines and legally defines how Prut interact with other sovereign groups in an official capacity on a national level; in essence, it elaborates on Prut interaction with third parties that isn’t reactive, retaliatory, or in any other manner provoked by the other party, but is based either on mutual interest or mutual consent.

The Osca doctrine was written and declared in the Hesperian city of Osca, in 1969, one year after Veleslavia legally joined the Prut Meritocracy. It is a product of the previously signed Tractat de Tarragona, as well as the experiences made during the Hesperian Civil War and Veleslav Question, and substantially helps other parties and the Prut Meritocracy to cooperate on a national, bilateral or multilateral level without violations or misunderstandings.

While by no means exclusive, the Osca Doctrine forms the basis of Prut foreign policy, and is the most valid legal reference for requesting an intervention of the Prut Meritocracy by another party. Any intervention of the Prut Meritocracy will be done in accordance with the Osca Doctrine, to ensure no violations of other parties’ sovereignty or Prut dignity and reputation can occur.

Doctrina D’Osca

Osca Doctrine

Preamble

We, the Prut, acknowledge that as a sovereign nation state we have a duty towards ourselves and our peers to participate in the international community, be it in unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral manner. It is the obligation of every participant to respect the sovereignty and dignity of the other members of the international community, and therefore we’ve decided, in an assembly in the city of Osca, Hesperia, in the Prut Meritocracy, to formulate a clear, comprehensive policy of direct intervention and interaction with other sovereign groups, a policy which shall be known as the Osca Doctrine, and include the following articles:

Article One: Recognition of Sovereignty of other Parties

The Prut Meritocracy legally obligates itself that it will respect the internal and external sovereignty of every recognised nation state and will not deliberately violate it, by applying the same standards of violation as detailed in the Lieblich Declaration, and will only intervene in another party’s affairs when requested and given consent to do so.

Any eligible party can request a Prut intervention, as long as the request is valid and legal according to international custom and law, and as long as the requesting party is not in violation of the Lieblich Declaration. The Prut Meritocracy reserves the right to not respond to a request if such a course of action is deemed appropriate by the current Prut Administration and/or Prut Parliament, but in doing so the Prut Meritocracy forfeits the validity and legitimacy of a direct intervention at a later point, unless the same party makes another formal request. In order for an intervention to be legal in the context of the Osca Doctrine, the Prut Meritocracy must officially accept a request by an eligible party.

Article Two: Eligibility for Requesting

Another party is considered eligible for requesting an intervention only if it fulfils the following legal requirements:

I – a) The request must come from a legitimate government and/or representative of a recognised sovereign group, or

I – b) The request must come from a sufficiently large percentage of the population requesting it, and must be in a legally valid, legitimate form, e.g. requested via referendum, plebiscite, or similar manner.

II – The request for an intervention must be of a temporal nature and/or have a clearly defined goal and/or purpose, and must be aimed at preserving, or restoring, the integrity and sovereignty of the requesting party.

III – The intervention will be done according to Prut customs and laws, with non-binding respect to international customs and laws, which means that no crimes according to Prut law can be deliberately committed by either party, nor can the requesting party require the intervening Prut to violate their customs and laws; e.g. no crimes against humanity, war crimes, acts of perfidy, and/or similar violations will be requested from or tolerated by the Prut,

IV – The requesting party is not currently in violation of the Lieblich Doctrine in any form or manner.

Article Three: Exceptions for Eligibility

A minority group, or a disenfranchised group, or any group which has the potential of sovereignty, but due to chance or circumstances isn’t sovereign by itself, can petition the Prut Meritocracy for aid. A petition has not the same weight as an official request, and likewise is not binding and can be ignored by the current Prut Administration and/or Prut Parliament, and is not considered as legally valid consent to intervene, but is considered as a morally binding obligation.

Petitioners who present valid concerns can expect diplomatic and political pressure to be applied to the offending party or cause of the petition, and can rely on indirect Prut support, or the Prut acting as mediators and/or representatives.

Individuals, or comparatively small groups, do not qualify for the right of petition, and can only request political asylum within the Prut Meritocracy.

Article Four: Types of Interventions

The following is a list of interventions which are considered valid and legal by Prut law and the Osca Doctrine. While the list is not exclusive and other forms of intervention can be requested, per bilateral or multilateral agreement, the Prut Meritocracy prefers the following scenarios, and other parties working within the context and frame of Article Four of the Osca Doctrine have a higher chance of having their request (or petition) being granted.

I – Police Action; requesting an intervention to restore order because of a humanitarian/political crisis due to a civil war, coup, insurgency, revolution, and/or similar event.

II – Military Co-Belligerence; requesting direct or indirect military aid to preserve or restore the political integrity of the other party, frequently a request for aid in materiel, supplies, and/or support, or a request for temporal occupation, liberation, or defence.

III – Financial Aid; request for direct or indirect financial and/or monetary help, frequently in the form of loans, development aids, bailouts, emergency funds for preventing bankruptcy, and/or subsidies for covering sudden expenses.

IV – Emergency Relief; requesting an intervention during a humanitarian/environmental crisis, like natural disasters and catastrophes, famines, epidemics, industrial spills, natural or man-made hazards, radiological disasters, or similar crises.

V – Diplomatic Mediation; request the Prut Meritocracy to act as a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, negotiator, or representative during a dispute with another involved party, or to act as an impartial host or neutral ground during mediations, arbitrations, conciliations, negotiations, or any other incidences of alternative, or peaceful conflict resolutions.

VI – Other type of Intervention; as per request and mutual consent.

Article Five: End of an Intervention

Once agreed upon in a bilateral manner, the Intervention is legally valid and binding and cannot be unilaterally ended by either party. A Prut Intervention ends when the original goal or purpose has been reached, or the agreed upon time has expired. The party that prematurely seeks to terminate the intervention is legally obliged to compensate the other party for any costs and losses which result from this termination and/or time and funds used, or wasted, prior to the termination.

Exceptions to premature endings of an intervention are allowed only in case of gross violation, extensive abuse, and/or serious misconduct by either or any involved party. If the original purpose of the intervention is being neglected, either party has the right to retreat from the bilateral agreement without legal repercussions and/or loss of face. The party that uses valid justifications to prematurely terminate the Intervention is entitled to compensation from the violating and/or neglecting party, in the same manner as if the other party prematurely terminated the agreement.

The Prut Meritocracy, however, reserves the right to prematurely end an intervention if conditions and circumstances arise which prevent or seriously inhibit Prut ability to carry out the original purpose and goals off an agreed upon Intervention. Should the Prut Meritocracy be placed into a position, either by others or due to national interests, where maintaining an intervention becomes a liability or impossible, it reserves the right to legally end the intervention due to inability to carry on with it in an efficient/effective manner. Valid conditions and circumstances for this type of termination include, but are not limited to: Declarations of War on the Prut Meritocracy by third parties and vice versa, a national crisis or incident occurring within Neo Prutenia, the Gemeinwohl duties of the nation requesting attention in a compelling matter, a valid multilateral request by third parties, and others.

[Neo Prutenia]

Reserved for Keun-Greiner Protokoll / The Keun-Greiner Protocol

[Neo Prutenia]

Reserved for Lohenstein Grundsatz / Lohenstein Doctrine