[PASSED] Ban on Secret Treaties

[Wrapper]

OOC: So cats and guns are banned now?

Only military-grade cats.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So cats and guns are banned now?

Only military-grade cats.

OOC: Which is any cat whose tail you've just stepped on.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Which is any cat whose tail you've just stepped on.

Those claws are sharp!

[Araraukar]

Those claws are sharp!

OOC: But usually attached to soft adorableness. However, it's still a stupid thing to put into resolution.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

OOC: I thought it was funny. (EDIT: Actually, looking back on it again, make that hilarious, especially in light of the comments here). Fortunately my repeal can be read both to be supportive and opposed to the notion. IC:

"The Aestorian Commonwealth would like to apologize, especially to the representatives of the Imperium Anglorum, for failing to air our opposition earlier, and filing our repeal, which can be found and should be discussed elsewhere.

We would, however, like to note here, first that we maintain that secret clauses may exist for the preservation of peace, and second, for such preservation of peace, the following loopholes:"

"The Aestorian Commonwealth would like to note the loophole whereby member nations may maintain, and automatically reissue, secret treaties on the understanding that they will resign from the WA to invoke them. While this is not a perfect fix, since it requires trust, it will do to smooth over the short term.

The Aestorian Commonwealth also notes the loophole whereby the provision of treaties with passages disguised, for instance by code or use of unknown languages, has not been banned by the resolution. While this is not a perfect fix, as it requires intelligent use of courts, this loophole may be used for future treaties. To ensure people cannot determine where such clauses are present, all future Ausitorian treaties while this ban is in force will have random gobbledigook.

For alternative loopholing, the national sport of the Aestorian lawyer, we have also filed with the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission an infinite treaty, containing all words in this common tongue in every combination and permutation. Since this contains all secret treaties and everything else that will ever be written, this treaty suffices to ensure that WA members are free to invoke their own secret treaties as necessary. We do hope the committee will not press control p, or they will use up the entire WA budget, and still not be able to get enough ink.

We note that the existence of these three loopholes also ensures that the current ban is severely compromised, and we will seek to close these loopholes in our replacement, which will operate to straightforwardly ban any secret diplomacy which requires a participant to commit to warlike or suchlike acts, except in certain exceptions, which we continue to consult on.

In the meantime the Aestorian Commonwealth would also like to unilaterally guarantee all reasonable secret clauses for a month or until a repeal comes into effect, whichever is sooner, to maintain the international peace as secured by secret treaties; and to invite nations unable to maintain their secret treaties to apply to us if they will need protection within or beyond this period."

[Tzorsland]

OOC: But usually attached to soft adorableness. However, it's still a stupid thing to put into resolution.

OOC: Eternal Spoil Sport. I really miss the days when this was a real festering snake pit ... won't anyone think of the children? How can we cure cancer?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: This is, ultimately, the intellectual weakness of the NatSov position. Not that the argument for reduced interference of supranational governance is without merit, but because without greater specificity in goals or delineation of policies, the term is, as you say, meaningless. The "NatSov" groups have never been able to agree on a more specific metric of what constitutes an international issue, which is why I haven't considered myself a NatSov in quite some time.

If it necessarily involves two or more nations, and thus cannot reasonably be settled by domestic legislation, it's an international issue. In this way, warfare is an international issue because one nation cannot regulate the acts of war of another through domestic regulation, abortion is not an international issue because any nation can address abortion within its borders by its own regulation.

To explain it differently, Excidium Planetis can adequately deal with abortion on its own, because it doesn't need to worry about abortion in other countries and can deal with abortion in its own borders however it sees fit. But Excidium Planetis must rely on the WA to regulate warfare because Excidium Planetis must worry about other nations conducting war (since it may be a target of those wars itself) but cannot deal with it on its own (not having any control or authority over other nations).

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This is, ultimately, the intellectual weakness of the NatSov position. Not that the argument for reduced interference of supranational governance is without merit, but because without greater specificity in goals or delineation of policies, the term is, as you say, meaningless. The "NatSov" groups have never been able to agree on a more specific metric of what constitutes an international issue, which is why I haven't considered myself a NatSov in quite some time.

If it necessarily involves two or more nations, and thus cannot reasonably be settled by domestic legislation, it's an international issue. In this way, warfare is an international issue because one nation cannot regulate the acts of war of another through domestic regulation, abortion is not an international issue because any nation can address abortion within its borders by its own regulation.

To explain it differently, Excidium Planetis can adequately deal with abortion on its own, because it doesn't need to worry about abortion in other countries and can deal with abortion in its own borders however it sees fit. But Excidium Planetis must rely on the WA to regulate warfare because Excidium Planetis must worry about other nations conducting war (since it may be a target of those wars itself) but cannot deal with it on its own (not having any control or authority over other nations).

Emphasis added. There is dispute over whether such laws are, in fact, reasonably settled by domestic regulation. There is an obvious exception for human rights written into most NatSov philosophies, which is why even NatSovs support bans on torture or genocide. Which opens the door (practically nails it to the wall) to questions about to what degree that goes.


This is no longer on topic, and is dangerously close to creating a threadjack.

[Araraukar]

OOC: But usually attached to soft adorableness. However, it's still a stupid thing to put into resolution.

OOC: Eternal Spoil Sport.

OOC: Hey, two of my nations started as GA forum jokes. Still, putting those jokes into resolutions is silly/stupid. We have a separate joke proposal thread.

[Tzorsland]

OOC: Hey, two of my nations started as GA forum jokes. Still, putting those jokes into resolutions is silly/stupid. We have a separate joke proposal thread.

OOC: There is a vast difference between a resolution that is a total joke and putting a joke in a resolution.
WAR#8 is a good example of one with a whole lot of jokes ... "Declaring, nonetheless, that it would be nice for these inmates to have an asylum to run;"

[Araraukar]

OOC: There is a vast difference between a resolution that is a total joke and putting a joke in a resolution.

OOC: GA #8 doesn't try to redefine words as something completely unrelated, nor is its title completely misleading. This piece of crap that just passed is a do-nothing promotion of WA publication with an inappropriate (as in, nothing to do with the rest of it, or even the language of it) "joke" tacked on the end.

EDIT: The category and what the defenders of this thing talk about, should have the thing affect national stuff, but the actual language of the proposal talks about international stuff.

[Tzorsland]

EDIT: The category and what the defenders of this thing talk about, should have the thing affect national stuff, but the actual language of the proposal talks about international stuff.

perhaps I'm a little confused because I'm used to American Constitutional law but a treaty between two nations becomes the national law of both nations, likewise a treaty among X nations becomes the national law of those nations. "American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law."

Moreover "All treaties and international agreements with the force of law entered into by member nations shall be published by those members" is an element of national law. That's not an "international" one since it only impacts the "member nation" and only compels disclosure by the member nation.

As a concept I fail to see how the equivalent of a "freedom of information" resolution in and of itself is a "joke."

Secret treaties makes as much sense as secret laws, because treaties are, in effect, law.

[Araraukar]

As a concept I fail to see how the equivalent of a "freedom of information" resolution in and of itself is a "joke."

OOC: I don't think I ever said it was. If anything, I've said that it doesn't do enough.

Secret treaties makes as much sense as secret laws, because treaties are, in effect, law.

And if the resolution actually did anything about "secret treaties", you might have a point, but it doesn't. The title and joke are completely misleading, which I've been complaining about all along.

[Thyerata]

Since the Secretariat ruled this proposal illegal as a violation of the Committee rule, we consider it void and of no force and effect.

[Bananaistan]

Since the Secretariat ruled this proposal illegal as a violation of the Committee rule, we consider it void and of no force and effect.

OOC: The Secretariat did not rule this resolution illegal as a violation of the committee rule. We ruled a previous draft illegal. There was a substantial change thereafter which made this version legal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I don't think I ever said it was. If anything, I've said that it doesn't do enough.

Ah, yes, the ridiculousness that is 'too mild' strikes again. I really wish you had challenged this proposal on that basis, but I presume you were unwilling to do so because both you and I know that concept is ridiculous and you only keep pulling it out of your arse to frighten new players.

And if the resolution actually did anything about "secret treaties", you might have a point, but it doesn't. The title and joke are completely misleading, which I've been complaining about all along.

OOC: Fortunately, qualifications were imposed such that any definition for the words 'secret treaty' do not apply in the plural. I see no reason to believe that one could conceive that 'secret treaties' would not mean something along the lines of 'treaties that are secret'. If you truly desire that all texts are dictionaries, there is a Wiktionary project which you can join to fulfil your desires.

I believe that in practically all legal traditions, treaties are laws, be they civil in France or common in the United Kingdom or the United States. The other thing having to do with some kind of imposed separation between international and national, I ask, what about the European Union? They impose regulations that affect one's life nationally – I know some Brexiteers that would be happy to hand you a whole book of international regulations which affect 'national stuff'.

Since the Secretariat ruled this proposal illegal as a violation of the Committee rule, we consider it void and of no force and effect.

MORTIMER WELLESLEY: And the Secretariat also ruled Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined" illegal. Since I've never written or passed a proposal, I'm going to take it on faith that both this proposal and that other proposal are the same proposal and pretend they are illegal. What fantastical reality-defying statements are further forthcoming from the vexatious litigants of Thyerata?