NationStates

 

 

Ban on Secret Treaties
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

---

Whereas secret diplomacy has been observed to

1. cause national decision-makers to be left out of the loop of their own government's obligations during wartime, meaning that their decisions are fundamentally irrespective of the actual facts on the ground,
   
2. force other nations to miscalculate their intentions, the balance of power, their obligations, and their rewards, increasing the chances of widespread conflict, and
   
3. create misunderstandings between a government and the various factions of another government, leading to many disputes between governments which believe they have different or even contradictory obligations:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

1. There shall be formed a committee of the Compliance Commission, styled the 'Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission', to oversee the publication of all laws, treaties, and international agreements, and those other tasks that may be assigned to it from time to time.
   
   
2. All treaties and international agreements with the force of law entered into by member nations shall be published by those members and registered with the Judicial Committee of Compliance Commission, which shall promptly publish in full those treaties and international agreements.
   
   
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.
   
   
4. The words 'secret treaty' and all variant capitalisations thereof, excluding pluralisations, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

Why is there a definition of secret treaty?
Because it was asked for, notably in the post below this one. Never mind the fact that nowhere in the text are the words 'secret treaty' actually used; it was consistently asked for by people, it seems, who did not pick up on that subtlety.

What does the definition of secret treaty do, when it has nothing to do with secrecy or treaties?
Literally nothing. It isn't used in the text of the resolution. GA convention also states that definitions in resolutions do not apply outside that resolution. Thus, a future resolution can talk about a secret treaty all day without having to mention anything to do with tabby-coated felines.

What about the international treaty faith clause in GA 2?


Why the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission?
Two things: first, it has a badass name; second, it tests whether a bureaucratic agency, under the interpretation of Frisbeeteria, before the institution of this newer adjudicative council, is separate from a 'committee' and its effects on the (probably unnecessary) category rule. Also, as an aside, such a judicial committee could also be granted further oversight powers in the future, which may be relevant. The reason why it is directly referred to as the Compliance Commission is due to the provision in GA 390, of a secondary name for the Wacc, through the 'hereafter referred to as the Compliance Commission' clause.

Does this apply to the negotiations which nations conduct?
No. It applies to the treaties which they sign.

Why shouldn't nations be permitted to have secret treaties?
For reasons in the preamble. Furthermore, for reasons I stated in the campaign telegram, excepted below,



Does this apply to the publication of domestic laws?
No. The JCCC has the ability to publish laws – which treaties happen to be – but it would have to have those laws in hand to actually do anything with them. And it is not granted the power to do collect those laws. However, this objection is quite irrelevant: even if the JCCC were doing so, it wouldn't matter. The resolution No Penalty Without Law already requires governments to publish all of their domestic laws.

(30 Sept 2017, 03:30) Edited in a title to the post: 'The FAQ'.

1) Define secret treaty.
2) Explain why the Compliance Commission is involved with legitimate, law-abiding treaties with foreign governments.

OOC: How is this not a committee-only violation?

Wallenburg wrote:1) Define secret treaty.

Secret treaty.

Wallenburg wrote:2) Explain why the Compliance Commission is involved with legitimate, law-abiding treaties with foreign governments.

It isn't involved in them.

---

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: How is this not a committee-only violation?

You should take a look at what you just wrote and think.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: How is this not a committee-only violation?

You should take a look at what you just wrote and think.

Thinking done. I still don't see how this isn't a committee-only violation.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Thinking done. I still don't see how this isn't a committee-only violation.

I'll be honest. No changes will be effected to 'remedy' this non-problem. If you want to petition for a solution to the question, I'd certainly welcome it – that would clarify a question on the rules.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:1) Define secret treaty.

Secret treaty.

Define secret treaty.

Wallenburg wrote:2) Explain why the Compliance Commission is involved with legitimate, law-abiding treaties with foreign governments.

It isn't involved in them.

Your proposal would make it so.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: How is this not a committee-only violation?

You should take a look at what you just wrote and think.

Do you intend on actually drafting this?

"What if secret treaties are your collective tactic against the enemy? Also the WACC is not very functional as a publishing arm."

Wallenburg wrote:Define secret treaty.

Secret treaty. It isn't a used term, it isn't relevant.

Wallenburg wrote:

It isn't involved in them.

Your proposal would make it so.

No, it wouldn't.

Do you intend on actually drafting this?

I see a draft in the original post. Do you see it as well?

---

Bakhton wrote:"What if secret treaties are your collective tactic against the enemy? Also the WACC is not very functional as a publishing arm."

That tactic doesn't make any sense. Creation of a network of secret treaties to organise collective defence would both be (1) pointless, since the nation against whom defence is organised wouldn't actually hear of the coalition being built against them meaning they wouldn't be deterred, and (2) ineffective, as members of the coalition itself would be unable to adequately cooperate with other members of the coalition without giving up the secret.

I think it would certainly be up for debate what would be the publishing arm or organisation best suited towards the publishing of such materials. I originally considered the ULC and the Compliance Commission. The former because it is a document, the latter because treaties are binding agreements. What organisation would you suggest be most relevant?

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

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think it would certainly be up for debate what would be the publishing arm or organisation best suited towards the publishing of such materials. I originally considered the ULC and the Compliance Commission. The former because it is a document, the latter because treaties are binding agreements. What organisation would you suggest be most relevant?

OOC: What's wrong with a good old-fashioned self-serving press release?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Define secret treaty.

Secret treaty. It isn't a used term, it isn't relevant.

Where is its commonly accepted definition?

Wallenburg wrote:Your proposal would make it so.

No, it wouldn't.

Yes, it would.

Do you intend on actually drafting this?

I see a draft in the original post. Do you see it as well?

I don't know. Is it a draft? Or are you just going to ignore everyone who doesn't extend blind support?

Wallenburg wrote:Where is its commonly accepted definition?

Beyond the fact that secret treaties are self-evidently treaties which are secret, I already told you it isn't relevant. The reason why is because it isn't a term of any import. Otherwise, I should ask you in your next draft to define the word 'neoantidisestablishmentarianism' even if it has nothing to do with new thoughts on the removal of state control in the Church of England.

Wallenburg wrote:Yes, it would.

No, it wouldn't. The Compliance Commission would have nothing to do with the contents of the treaties freely entered into. Nations would simply have to register those treaties with the Commission. On second glance, since your initial response could be interpreted a different way, if you mean why I chose the Compliance Commission rather than any other committee, then I point you to the post you just quoted.

Is it a draft? Or are you just going to ignore everyone who doesn't extend blind support?

I think it is quite clearly a draft. I don't really care all that much about your 'support' or vote, since I am quite confident that I have enough of them already. Rather, the purpose of this thread is for review of issues with the proposal. You haven't named any.

Very minor grammatical changes have been effected in the proposal itself.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Where is its commonly accepted definition?

Beyond the fact that secret treaties are self-evidently treaties which are secret,

Secret to whom? In what way?

I already told you it isn't relevant. The reason why is because it isn't a term of any import.

That is a circular argument.

Otherwise, I should ask you in your next draft to define the word 'neoantidisestablishmentarianism' even if it has nothing to do with new thoughts on the removal of state control in the Church of England.

How does a draft titled "Ban on Secret Treaties" have nothing to do with secret treaties?

Wallenburg wrote:Yes, it would.

No, it wouldn't. The Compliance Commission would have nothing to do with the contents of the treaties freely entered into. Nations would simply have to register those treaties with the Commission.

The contents of the treaties =/= the treaties. They are involved with the treaties in that they publish them and have member nations register treaties with them. You know that, now stop pretending that you do not.

On second glance, if you mean why I chose the Compliance Commission rather than any other commission, then I point you to the post you just quoted.

You offer no explanation there.

Is it a draft? Or are you just going to ignore everyone who doesn't extend blind support?

I think it is quite clearly a draft. I really don't care about 'support' or votes or whatever. I am quite confident that I have enough of them already.

I think it's quite clearly an excuse to shitpost, and that you have no intention of posting in good faith.

Rather, the purpose of this thread is for review of issues with the proposal. You haven't named any.

Yes, I have. In my first post.

The term is not used in the proposal beyond a single mention in the preamble. I suppose you should raise the same question of OMGTKK in their resolution asking for definitions of crime and punishment. In the substantive portions of the proposal, there is no use of 'secret treaty' or its plural.

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.

Wallenburg wrote:How does a draft titled "Ban on Secret Treaties" have nothing to do with secret treaties?

Because this draft is entirely about changing the Committee only rule. Nothing to do with Secret treaties.

Aclion wrote:Because this draft is entirely about changing the Committee only rule. Nothing to do with Secret treaties.

Oh, it's also about that – what, I can't do two things at once? There is no use for the term secret treaty, since it isn't used at all in the proposal's substantive portions. In fact, definition of the term would do literally nothing, because the substantive portions simply don't have anything to do with what is or is not a secret treaty.

OOC: Might it be worth saying that secret clauses within otherwise-public treaties are covered by this as well?

I'm thinking about the category.
'Furtherment of Democracy' is justifiably legal I think, because this would reduce government's ability to keep secrets from the governed... However, I could potentially see it -- with only a slight change to the preamble -- fitting as 'Global Disarmament (Mild)' instead because 'public' treaties of mutual defence [hopefully] would deter possible enemies from starting wars.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Might it be worth saying that secret clauses within otherwise-public treaties are covered by this as well?

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

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Might it be worth saying that secret clauses within otherwise-public treaties are covered by this as well?

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.

IA, Wallenberg makes a good point. You expect nations to deposit a specific kind of treaty with the WACC. Other than telling us the name of these treaties, you don't actually define what they are. Given your arrogant refusal to provide such a definition (indeed your general pig-headedness thus far, opposed.

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, that

"Our support is contingent on removing this bilge."

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Secret treaty.

Define secret treaty.

OOC: Why would he waste space defining a word whose definition is not only plainly obvious, but which isn't even used in an operative clause? The only reason to ever, ever define a word in a resolution is if it is both ambiguous and if that ambiguity makes some operative clause ambiguous. Neither of those circumstances apply here.

Sciongrad wrote:but which isn't even used in an operative clause?

OOC: So a misleading title then?