[PASSED] Ban on Secret Treaties

[Excidium Planetis]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in confusion over this proposal. Basically, it boils down to one question:
If two nations were intent on conspiring against a third, why would they care what the Compliance Commission thought of the legality of their conspiracy?

"I do not believe that is the aim of this proposal." Blackbourne replies. "Rather, this proposal seeks to prevent two nations from forming a trade agreement which their own citizens are not aware of."

OOC:
The category of political freedoms makes this pretty clear, I think. The proposal would only increase political freedoms if it primarily prevented governments from hiding agreements from their own citizens, rather than hiding them from other nations, which would probably be Global Disarmament or something.

In this case, it requires nations to be transparent with their own citizens, and nations are less likely to refuse compliance for a law that benefits their citizens because those citizens would potentially be angered by such an action.

[Alekseandrea]

So, if I read this correctly military-grade weapons and felines with tabby coats are warmongering entities who spread misinformation and create misunderstandings.

Isn't that speciesist?

[Uan aa Boa]

Just as Freedom of Religion was shot down for having 4 clauses that all said the same thing, surely this deserves to be defeated for that definition in clause 4.

#makelegislationfunny - or possibly not.

[Imperial Polk County]

"Before I vote on this, can I have a rational explanation on why clause 4 is included?"

"Still waiting for the author to respond to this before I vote. I know I probably represent the smallest nation here and one vote won't make a difference in the outcome, but I would appreciate a response, please."

Just as Freedom of Religion was shot down for having 4 clauses that all said the same thing, surely this deserves to be defeated for that definition in clause 4.

"Sadly," says Drane with a hint of a smile, "we don't always get what we deserve."

[Darlago]

I'm gonna keep this short.
No one should support this, as it will give the WA power over whether we make treaties or not and who we make them with. This isn't a human rights issue, this is a move towards a new world government.

[Darlago]

I'm gonna keep this short.
No one should support this, as it will give the WA power over whether we make treaties or not and who we make them with. This isn't a human rights issue, this is a move towards a new world government.

[Heyliges Teutsches Reich]

TTIP, TPP and CETA ought to be annihilated.

[Kingdom of Shamrock]

I am against this treaty because of the simple fact it violates the sovereignty of every nation and right to conduct diplomacy in the best intrest of their nation, if this passes its a slippery slope to the WA controlling every aspect of national government.

[Wallenburg]

"It's truly a shame that so many ambassadors have chosen to vote without even reading the text of the resolution," says Ogenbond as he casts his vote. "We are against this, still, but at least we understand what this resolution does."

[Bears Armed]

"New Waldensia opposes this measure, for several reasons. Foreign policy is exclusively the realm of each independent nation."

"In any cases hwhere a treaty involves an agreement between the signatory nations about how they intend to treat a non-signatory nation, for example if a non-aggression pact between two or three warlike nations also includes a secret clause about their plans to partition Poland some other nation which has the misfortune to be situated between them, then I would say there is a clear case that that treaty is not exclusively in the signatories' 'realm'."

"Acting in accordance with instructions from home, hwhich agree with my own opinion on the matter, I have voted FOR this proposed resolution."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[North Arkana]

I'd rather not have to give access of classified diplomatic documents to some committee of foreign state actors.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Just as Freedom of Religion was shot down for having 4 clauses that all said the same thing, surely this deserves to be defeated for that definition in clause 4.

Fairburn: Hear, hear!

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, if I read this correctly military-grade weapons and felines with tabby coats are warmongering entities who spread misinformation and create misunderstandings.

You're not reading it correctly. Read the FAQ and the note at the top of the OP.

"Before I vote on this, can I have a rational explanation on why clause 4 is included?"

Read the FAQ.

Just as Freedom of Religion was shot down for having 4 clauses that all said the same thing, surely this deserves to be defeated for that definition in clause 4.

The other possibility is that because NS is mostly on the left side of things, it just doesn't like religion.

I'm gonna keep this short.
No one should support this, as it will give the WA power over whether we make treaties or not and who we make them with. This isn't a human rights issue, this is a move towards a new world government.

Read the FAQ.

I am against this treaty because of the simple fact it violates the sovereignty of every nation and right to conduct diplomacy in the best intrest of their nation, if this passes its a slippery slope to the WA controlling every aspect of national government.

Read the FAQ.

I'd rather not have to give access of classified diplomatic documents to some committee of foreign state actors.

Read the FAQ.

[Lands That Are Free]

You're not reading it correctly. Read the FAQ and the note at the top of the OP.

Read the FAQ.

Read the FAQ.

Read the FAQ.

Read the FAQ.

Hey your resolution might need some narrowing in scope or clarification if you have to say "Read the FAQ" five times in one post

[Tinfect]

Hey your resolution might need some narrowing in scope or clarification if you have to say "Read the FAQ" five times in one post

OOC:
Or maybe you should read the FAQ.

[Fauxia]

Hey your resolution might need some narrowing in scope or clarification if you have to say "Read the FAQ" five times in one post

OOC:
Or maybe you should read the FAQ.

[Wallenburg]

You're not reading it correctly. Read the FAQ and the note at the top of the OP.

Read the FAQ.

Read the FAQ.

Read the FAQ.

Read the FAQ.

Hey your resolution might need some narrowing in scope or clarification if you have to say "Read the FAQ" five times in one post

Alternatively, you could read the FAQ. Or the resolution text for that matter...

[States of Glory WA Office]

Hey your resolution might need some narrowing in scope or clarification if you have to say "Read the FAQ" five times in one post

Alternatively, you could read the FAQ. Or the resolution text for that matter...

Fairburn: Says the guy who insisted on defining a term that wasn't used in the active clauses.

[Jean-Luc Picardia]

I question how this is even remotely tolerable or legal.

1) Requiring all countries to let a committee of foreign nations glare at every diplomatic agreement is a violation of national sovereignty if ever I saw one
2) Show me a proper definition of Secret Treaties, for god's sake. Without one, this whole thing is a black hole of fuzziness.
3) AS has been pointed out, this thing comes in conflict with GA #2

[Fauxia]

I question how this is even remotely tolerable or legal.

1) Requiring all countries to let a committee of foreign nations glare at every diplomatic agreement is a violation of national sovereignty if ever I saw one
2) Show me a proper definition of Secret Treaties, for god's sake. Without one, this whole thing is a black hole of fuzziness.
3) AS has been pointed out, this thing comes in conflict with GA #2

1) Lord, why do I always have to explain this? The entire purpose of the GA is to breach national sovereignty. No one cares about that complaint
2. I don’t think it’s actually super necessary, people know what secret and treaty mean, put the two together.
3. In what way?

Bonus, I voted for again.

[Belshekistan]

just so we're clear, does this affect undisclosed agreements between the nations within a region? To clarify, an agreement between all nations located in the same region that is not disclosed to countries outside that region?

[Fauxia]

just so we're clear, does this affect undisclosed agreements between the nations within a region? To clarify, an agreement between all nations located in the same region that is not disclosed to countries outside that region?

Any treaties involving WA member states

[Jean-Luc Picardia]

I question how this is even remotely tolerable or legal.

1) Requiring all countries to let a committee of foreign nations glare at every diplomatic agreement is a violation of national sovereignty if ever I saw one
2) Show me a proper definition of Secret Treaties, for god's sake. Without one, this whole thing is a black hole of fuzziness.
3) AS has been pointed out, this thing comes in conflict with GA #2

1) Lord, why do I always have to explain this? The entire purpose of the GA is to breach national sovereignty. No one cares about that complaint
2. I don’t think it’s actually super necessary, people know what secret and treaty mean, put the two together.
3. In what way?

Bonus, I voted for again.

1) Like with the real-life UN, there is a fine balance. I'm not sure what is said in the forums here, but I vote against egregious violations of sovereignty like this one on principle
2) In this case, it's actually not necessary. Do you know why? Because the title's subject is in none of the operative clauses (except Section 4.)
[Tab=]That actually brings up another issue: Section 4 is just complete bull[/Tab]
3) GA #2 requires nations to abide by treaties. If two nations have a treaty whose terms include secrecy, then they would have to either disclose it (violating GA #2), or hide it (violating this proposed resolution).

[Deropia]

1) Like with the real-life UN, there is a fine balance. I'm not sure what is said in the forums here, but I vote against egregious violations of sovereignty like this one on principle
2) In this case, it's actually not necessary. Do you know why? Because the title's subject is in none of the operative clauses (except Section 4.)
That actually brings up another issue: Section 4 is just complete bull
3) GA #2 requires nations to abide by treaties. If two nations have a treaty whose terms include secrecy, then they would have to either disclose it (violating GA #2), or hide it (violating this proposed resolution).

OOC:
1. In general, natsov, isn't a well respected argument here.

2. Section 4 was added because, people kept on asking for a definition of a term that doesn't actually appear in the resolution text itself. It's a joke dude, chill.

3.

Member nations may not invoke treaties or international agreements that have not been so registered in pursuance with the second section to this resolution. Provisions relating to mandates for secrecy or non-disclosure of the text or existence of past treaties and international agreements shall cease to have effect as if those provisions did not exist upon passage.

I've highlighted the relevant section for you, which makes this not contradict GAR 2, but if you feel so strongly that it's illegal, file a legality challenge.

EDITs: Formatting difficulties...ugh,...

[Fauxia]

1) Lord, why do I always have to explain this? The entire purpose of the GA is to breach national sovereignty. No one cares about that complaint
2. I don’t think it’s actually super necessary, people know what secret and treaty mean, put the two together.
3. In what way?

Bonus, I voted for again.

1) Like with the real-life UN, there is a fine balance. I'm not sure what is said in the forums here, but I vote against egregious violations of sovereignty like this one on principle
2) In this case, it's actually not necessary. Do you know why? Because the title's subject is in none of the operative clauses (except Section 4.)
[Tab=]That actually brings up another issue: Section 4 is just complete bull[/Tab]
3) GA #2 requires nations to abide by treaties. If two nations have a treaty whose terms include secrecy, then they would have to either disclose it (violating GA #2), or hide it (violating this proposed resolution).

1) How is this so egregious?
2.) What are you even talking about?
3.) Even if you are correct about what GA 2 says, what this does is prevent nations from putting secrecy clauses in treaties in the first place. No violation. Plus, GenSec agrees with me, probably at least 4-0 if not 5 (and CD would agree too if he wasn’t inactive)