[PASSED] Ban on Secret Treaties

[Imperium Anglorum]

It says the treaties will be published. Would you like to a change to say that the treaties will be published in full?

Yes, please.

Done.

---

OOC: So a misleading title then?

Misleading titles are different. Does the resolution ban secret treaties, or because people apparently don't understand how words work, treaties which are secret? Yes, it does.

[Wallenburg]

If you wish to raise a suggestion for change of the organisation responsible, do so. I already explained the reason why I selected the selected committee. Similar real world legislation in the UN only notes submission to 'the Secretariat', which in this case, would not work, since the Secretariat is not an organisation in-character.

Make a new committee. Delegate these powers and duties to a committee already in charge of publications or archives. Almost literally any committee would work better than the Compliance Commission.

Another question: how does this affect preexisting "secret treaties"? Must those be registered as well? If so, what if one or more parties signing the treaty refuse to have it registered? GAR #2 requires member states "to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly." If member states cannot register preexisting treaties and if you require them to do so, then you are forcing them to violate GAR #2 by breaking the treaty.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Are we really trusting the Compliance Commission to publish Word Assembly resolutions in full? After all, resolutions are international agreements with the force of law entered into by member states as per GA #2, and I don't trust those shifty-looking gnomes.

Neville: Honestly, it's such an obvious idea that I'm surprised that it took the World Assembly this long to get to it!

Fairburn: Anyway, our Delegation will consider how this proposal affects our interests before making a decision.

OOC: I don't know if you're allowed to call this collection of published material 'RexisQuexis' but if you are allowed and if you do, you'll have my support for sure.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Another question: how does this affect preexisting "secret treaties"? Must those be registered as well? If so, what if one or more parties signing the treaty refuse to have it registered? GAR #2 requires member states "to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly." If member states cannot register preexisting treaties and if you require them to do so, then you are forcing them to violate GAR #2 by breaking the treaty.

All treaties and international agreements with the force of law, entered into by member nations, shall be registered with the Compliance Commission, which shall then publish in full those treaties and international agreements.

Make a new committee. Delegate these powers and duties to a committee already in charge of publications or archives. Almost literally any committee would work better than the Compliance Commission.

Done. And of course the language is based off that found in Wm 4 c 41.

[Wallenburg]

Another question: how does this affect preexisting "secret treaties"? Must those be registered as well? If so, what if one or more parties signing the treaty refuse to have it registered? GAR #2 requires member states "to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly." If member states cannot register preexisting treaties and if you require them to do so, then you are forcing them to violate GAR #2 by breaking the treaty.

All treaties and international agreements with the force of law, entered into by member nations, shall be registered with the Compliance Commission, which shall then publish in full those treaties and international agreements.

Answer the questions.

Make a new committee. Delegate these powers and duties to a committee already in charge of publications or archives. Almost literally any committee would work better than the Compliance Commission.

Done. And of course the language is based off that found in Wm 4 c 41.

1) That's still the Compliance Commission.
2) The powers it has are administrative, not judicial.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Answer the questions.

What part of the word 'all' do you need clarification on?

1) That's still the Compliance Commission.
2) The powers it has are administrative, not judicial.

Yup.

[Wallenburg]

Answer the questions.

What part of the word 'all' do you need clarification on?

Another question: how does this affect preexisting "secret treaties"? Must those be registered as well? If so, what if one or more parties signing the treaty refuse to have it registered? GAR #2 requires member states "to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly." If member states cannot register preexisting treaties and if you require them to do so, then you are forcing them to violate GAR #2 by breaking the treaty.

1) That's still the Compliance Commission.
2) The powers it has are administrative, not judicial.

Yup.

So you admit that you lied?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
It's official, the Compliance Commission is taking over the world.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If member states cannot register preexisting treaties and if you require them to do so, then you are forcing them to violate GAR #2 by breaking the treaty.

You need to be more clear. I think the interpretation of this that you're looking for is if there exist provisions in preexisting treaties requiring concealment thereof, the requirement for registration would break those provisions. That is already solved, section 3 states that those treaties are not parts of law. Though, if you seek clarification of that provision in the aforementioned section, I would be happy to provide.

Clarification has been effected.

[Excidium Planetis]

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 mandating secrecy or non-disclosure of the text of past treaties and international agreements shall no cease to have effect as if those provisions did not exist upon passage.

"I believe you mean to say 'now cease' in the third section." Blackbourne corrects. "However, I don't believe this clarification allows you to escape contradiction with GA#2.

"Consider, for example, a hypothetical treaty consisting of this:

1) When this treaty is invoked, Zaziland and Marxtopia shall declare war on Ferantz.
2) This treaty shall not be disclosed.
3) If this treaty must be disclosed, it shall be invoked beforehand.

"Your resolution would require disclosure of the treaty, and the treaty would then require the treaty to be invoked before it is disclosed. But your resolution would prohibit this, even while GA#2 requires nations to adhere to their treaty obligations. This might be a rather unlikely situation, but some secret treaties out there will inevitably be invoked prior to disclosure, and a conflict between GA#2 and this proposal will begin."

[Thyerata]

Ambassador, I have just consulted my copy of Satow's Diplomatic Practice - Thyerata's leading guide to the world of international diplomacy - and there is no definition of the term "secret treaty". We say again that without a definition of what secret treaties are , we stand opposed.

[Araraukar]

I have to wonder, what all counts as a "treaty" for the purposes of this? Because there are some dealings between nations that should not be made public, especially if said nations are in conflict with a third party, who would also have access to said files.

OOC: Like joint military operations á la Normandy landings.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: If we're going to define 'secret' and 'treaty' then we might as well define a 'ban'.

[Thyerata]

Fairburn: If we're going to define 'secret' and 'treaty' then we might as well define a 'ban'.

I don't think so. Everyone knows what a treaty is. This, on the other hand, is a very specific type of treaty that no one's heard of before. Hence the need for a definition.

[Bananaistan]

"If a member state negotiated a legally valid treaty with a non-member state which included one of these secret provisions, what authority does the WA have to void said treaty? Is that not effectively legislating on non member nations?"

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Provisions mandating secrecy or non-disclosure of the text of past treaties and international agreements shall no cease to have effect as if those provisions did not exist upon passage.

ARI: "Shall no cease"? Wad Ahume, check our translators please, they appear to be malfunctioning again.

[Excidium Planetis]

Ambassador, I have just consulted my copy of Satow's Diplomatic Practice - Thyerata's leading guide to the world of international diplomacy - and there is no definition of the term "secret treaty". We say again that without a definition of what secret treaties are , we stand opposed.

"As has been said, 'secret treaty' does not not need to be defined because it isn't necessary for following the mandates of this resolution. It isn't used in any of the active clauses." Blackbourne points out.

I don't think so. Everyone knows what a treaty is. This, on the other hand, is a very specific type of treaty that no one's heard of before. Hence the need for a definition.

"No one has heard of mnenomic electrometer before, either, but it doesn't need to be defined in the resolution."

OOC:
In fact, "secret treaty" is not used even one time in the resolution. "Secret treaties" is, one time at the beginning of the resolution.

[Fauxia]

I would establish a separate entity to receive treaties, such as the World Assembly Treaty Depositary or the World Assembly Depositary for International Agreements. I don't think a responsibility of this nature falls within the mandate of the Compliance Commission, which should only deal with matters relating to World Assembly law.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Agreed, although I don't really think this is the WA's business and likely oppose anyway."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would establish a separate entity to receive treaties, such as the World Assembly Treaty Depositary or the World Assembly Depositary for International Agreements.

A book depository? But what about the grassy knoll?!

"If a member state negotiated a legally valid treaty with a non-member state which included one of these secret provisions, what authority does the WA have to void said treaty? Is that not effectively legislating on non member nations?"

It isn't legislating on non-members. It simply leaves the realm of international law.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We recommend adding a 'timely fashion' requirement to the publication provision in Clause 2."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We recommend adding a 'timely fashion' requirement to the publication provision in Clause 2."

Added the word 'promptly'. Also edited the word 'no' out, it used to say 'not have effect', but it was changed based off the style of repeal clauses used in the Statute Laws (Repeals) Act 1997.

---

OOC: Like joint military operations á la Normandy landings.

The appointment of Eisenhower as Supreme Commander (what a title!) was done at some conference. And the Germans knew about it too. That doesn't mean that literally every command he dispatched was an international agreement. The international agreement upon which his command authority was based was already promulgated.

Same thing with Foch and the Hundred Days' Offensive in 1918. The various powers decided to agree to put powers in the hands of some person. Similarly, when Parliament passes an Act authorising its commencement at some time a Secretary of State may see fit by statutory instrument, that doesn't mean that Parliament itself made the instrument.

[Cedoria]

So is a secret treaty secret if it's only known to it's signatories? Or is it secret by some other definition? I don't know how it's possible for a treaty to be kept secret from the people who sign it, so it can't be that.

And if a bilateral treaty is signed between two nations, it's terms are only binding on them, why then should they not have the right to keep it from other nations, if they choose? It has nothing to do with others if two signatories sign a treaty and bind themselves to it's terms and agree not to speak of it publicly. In practice that's the only real use of this legislation, and I can't honestly see why that would be a problem. 'Secret' treaties in that sense are part and parcel of international diplomacy and it's not really something the WA has business in trying to stop, especially when said treaties are often completely innocuous and/or commercial in nature.

[Cedoria]

"If a member state negotiated a legally valid treaty with a non-member state which included one of these secret provisions, what authority does the WA have to void said treaty? Is that not effectively legislating on non member nations?"

It isn't legislating on non-members. It simply leaves the realm of international law.[/quote]
This counter-argument literally doesn't make sense. It's goobledegook.

[Excidium Planetis]

So is a secret treaty secret if it's only known to it's signatories? Or is it secret by some other definition? I don't know how it's possible for a treaty to be kept secret from the people who sign it, so it can't be that.

"It doesn't matter." Blackbourne states. "And there was no need for you to bring this up."

And if a bilateral treaty is signed between two nations, it's terms are only binding on them, why then should they not have the right to keep it from other nations, if they choose? It has nothing to do with others if two signatories sign a treaty and bind themselves to it's terms and agree not to speak of it publicly. In practice that's the only real use of this legislation, and I can't honestly see why that would be a problem. 'Secret' treaties in that sense are part and parcel of international diplomacy and it's not really something the WA has business in trying to stop, especially when said treaties are often completely innocuous and/or commercial in nature.

"Firstly, if the terms are binding only on those two nations but are such terms as, for example, agreement to declare war on an aggressor if one nation is attacked, treaties which are known to only the signatories do not deter war," Blackbourne explains, "for they cannot deter war of the aggressor is not aware of them, and they merely broaden the scale of conflict by including other nations. It is such secret treaties that create global conflicts without warning. Treaties should be made openly so as to deter aggression and conflict rather than promote it.

"And if the treaty is one of trade and really only affects two nations, citizens of those nations have a right to know and not be kept in the dark about the treaties their own nation is signing."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elise Mortimer Wellesley, "We have caved to pressure and defined 'secret treaty'."