The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Cormactopia Prime]

Out of curiousity Cormac, are you going to demand Osiris and TWP make similar comments/do similar things re: This Lazarus situation as you are leveling on Balder and the NPO?

If you look back, you'll see I've already said all four GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories should disavow The Black Hawks and decline to work with them. Replies have come from the Pacific and Balder, not Osiris and the West Pacific. But yes, I am saying all four of them should disavow The Black Hawks.

[Falapatorius]

Of course you're not under any obligation to do anything. It would be in your best interests, and the best interests of Feeder and Sinker security, to do what I'm suggesting, if you're serious about rebuilding trust and restoring the consensus that all Feeders and Sinkers will uphold each other's sovereignty.

Honestly, I think Pierconium only cares about Pierconium's interests. Yes, he has made some inroads being apologetic, but I'm not sure that will gain traction with people who are in the know. Rebuilding trust this way only serves insofar as setting up the next coup.

If you look back, you'll see I've already said all four GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories should disavow The Black Hawks and decline to work with them. Replies have come from the Pacific and Balder, not Osiris and the West Pacific. But yes, I am saying all four of them should disavow The Black Hawks.

Why disavow TBH? They love that crap. 'Bad boys' and all that rot. I do see the point of educating the GCRs though. TNP is under TBH sway imo. Big army with nothing to do.

*edit* Oh fug. Didn't even comment on the OP (apologies). I posit that multilateral treaties are to be avoided. The biggest issue I see is that signatories will overlook an act that contradicts the ideology of a particular region's mission statement (or some approximation thereof).*

[Pierconium]

Of course you're not under any obligation to do anything. It would be in your best interests, and the best interests of Feeder and Sinker security, to do what I'm suggesting, if you're serious about rebuilding trust and restoring the consensus that all Feeders and Sinkers will uphold each other's sovereignty.

Honestly, I think Pierconium only cares about Pierconium's interests. Yes, he has made some inroads being apologetic, but I'm not sure that will gain traction with people who are in the know. Rebuilding trust this way only serves insofar as setting up the next coup.

If you look back, you'll see I've already said all four GCR Sovereignty Accords signatories should disavow The Black Hawks and decline to work with them. Replies have come from the Pacific and Balder, not Osiris and the West Pacific. But yes, I am saying all four of them should disavow The Black Hawks.

Why disavow TBH? They love that crap. 'Bad boys' and all that rot. I do see the point of educating the GCRs though. TNP is under TBH sway imo. Big army with nothing to do.

*edit* Oh fug. Didn't even comment on the OP (apologies). I posit that multilateral treaties are to be avoided. The biggest issue I see is that signatories will overlook an act that contradicts the ideology of a particular region's mission statement (or some approximation thereof).*

Your assessment is accurate. My interests are maintaining the independence and sovereignty of the GCRs from the undue influence of outside Userite-led groups. This means I have done what many see as deplorable acts in several different GCRs in order to see that accomplished.

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

The best thing to be done here is to listen and sort things out.

Rather than accusing one another of fallacies and whatnot, continuing to argue about former problems, we should all agree to disagree. Yes, there's always going to be the sensitive parts, but you don't just argue history to war - you work with others to sort out history and use that work to find a solution for all regions, no matter their type.

This is about finding solutions. Not acting aggressive and pointing out every crack on the other side, but working with others.* We do not need, nor do we want, another Cold War between the major regions of NationStates.**

*...EXCEPT for The Pacific. We just need to go shoot down the NPO at this point. There's no other words for this.
**The Major Regions don't necessarily include GCRs.

[Pierconium]

The best thing to be done here is to listen and sort things out.

Rather than accusing one another of fallacies and whatnot, continuing to argue about former problems, we should all agree to disagree. Yes, there's always going to be the sensitive parts, but you don't just argue history to war - you work with others to sort out history and use that work to find a solution for all regions, no matter their type.

This is about finding solutions. Not acting aggressive and pointing out every crack on the other side, but working with others.* We do not need, nor do we want, another Cold War between the major regions of NationStates.**

*...EXCEPT for The Pacific. We just need to go shoot down the NPO at this point. There's no other words for this.
**The Major Regions don't necessarily include GCRs.

You're funny.

[Solorni]

Also, I feel like Lazarus could alleviate any remaining tensions and bad feelings by apologizing for their purges of Balder citizens.

Found a list, probably not the full one but going through old forums sucks Vik, NES, Charles and Apollo Anumia. We could apologize to them (there were attempts made with Vik) but i still fail to see why Lazarus should ever apologize to Balder

Well, if you feel Lazarus should apologize to them then that would also make me happy.

[Akillian]

I think Balder is the only region still trying to make a big deal over PRL. Lazarus views it as a humorous bump in the road that we call a bumpy history.

Please note, The LKE continues to see this as serious matter. In fact, we referred to it in our recent foreign update: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=249427&start=525

[Unibot III]

The biggest issue I see is that signatories will overlook an act that contradicts the ideology of a particular region's mission statement (or some approximation thereof).*

Hah, Falapatorius! I'm not sure what you mean by this... do you mean military ideology? Like, if a defender coups TEP, TRR and Lazarus would resist intervening? Or if an independent/invader couped TRR or Lazarus, TNP or TEP would resist intervening? To some extent, I think that kind of resistance is plausible in some cases without treaties (that is to say, we've seen examples of that), but all of these GCRs have a fairly strong record of observing international law and obeying their treaties - and in that respect, I can't see any of them forgoing responsibilities because of politics. That's part of why a multilateral pact is an advisable route in these circumstances - law for law abiding regions carries with it order and obligations.

[Drop Your Pants]

Well, if you feel Lazarus should apologize to them then that would also make me happy.

Vik was apologized to but ignored it, NES was going to be banned eventually anyway just depended when so he's not getting an apology (also that FRA thing ). Charles and Apollo, probably deserve something.

[Falapatorius]

Your assessment is accurate. My interests are maintaining the independence and sovereignty of the GCRs from the undue influence of outside Userite-led groups. This means I have done what many see as deplorable acts in several different GCRs in order to see that accomplished.

Fwiw, I do see your point of view. However, off-site control of regions persists (for better or for worse) to this day. Kudos for owning up though. Consistency is an honorable attribute.

Hah, Falapatorius! I'm not sure what you mean by this... do you mean military ideology? Like, if a defender coups TEP, TRR and Lazarus would resist intervening? Or if an independent/invader couped TRR or Lazarus, TNP or TEP would resist intervening? To some extent, I think that kind of resistance is plausible in some cases without treaties (that is to say, we've seen examples of that), but all of these GCRs have a fairly strong record of observing international law and obeying their treaties - and in that respect, I can't see any of them forgoing responsibilities because of politics. That's part of why a multilateral pact is an advisable route in these circumstances - law for law abiding regions carries with it order and obligations.

Not necessarily, but that would be part of it. Political ideology (democratic, authoritarian, etc) could also be a factor. I think the GCR Sovereignty Accords' signatories are relatively like-minded, and their pact seems to function thus far. I'm not sure the same can be said for the rest of the feeders and sinkers. Too many chefs with their own recipes.

Heh, coups are beyond the scale I was thinking. I think a signatory would be foolish to refuse to help in that situation. I just think a pact of the magnitude you suggest sounds good in theory, but is it practical? Times change, new governments form, and grudges are held on to dearly in some quarters (as I'm sure you might attest to). I would say implosion along these lines is possible.

Moreover, the legal drafting of any such treaty would be monumental imo. The legal systems/legislatures of various feeders and sinkers are dissimilar at best, downright contentious (as in TNP) at worst. I'm personally against it (I'm a cynic when it comes to these types of initiatives) but if it could be pulled off to everyone's satisfaction (and it functions adequately), more power to the signatories.

[Unibot III]

I'm not sure the same can be said for the rest of the feeders and sinkers. Too many chefs with their own recipes.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for a pact between all the GCRs, just the remaining ones.

[Consular]

Well, if you feel Lazarus should apologize to them then that would also make me happy.

Vik was apologized to but ignored it, NES was going to be banned eventually anyway just depended when so he's not getting an apology (also that FRA thing ). Charles and Apollo, probably deserve something.

I'm pretty sure Charles does not care.

[Cerian Quilor]

And is Apollo even arround anymore?

[Drop Your Pants]

So no apologies needed? Sweet. Rach you have to keep your word now...but you won't

[Falapatorius]

I'm not sure the same can be said for the rest of the feeders and sinkers. Too many chefs with their own recipes.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for a pact between all the GCRs, just the remaining ones.

Yup, that's why I said the rest of them.

To clarify, I may be personally opposed to this initiative (like that matters anyway), but I wouldn't begrudge it's implementation and/or success.

[Consular]

So no apologies needed? Sweet. Rach you have to keep your word now...but you won't

But then she'd have to come up with something new and equally silly to hold against you, and that frankly sounds exhausting.

[Wickedly evil people]

So why should we disavow the Black Hawks?

[Cormactopia Prime]

So why should we disavow the Black Hawks?

They invaded Lazarus.

[Revall]

So why should we disavow the Black Hawks?

They invaded Lazarus.

BREAKING NEWS: Raiders now raiding?! Are your GCRs safe? More at 11.

[Wickedly evil people]

So why should we disavow the Black Hawks?

They invaded Lazarus.

yawns

[Deladara]

So why should we disavow the Black Hawks?

They invaded Lazarus.

Oh noes, somebody get the admins in on this

[Elegarth]

Interestingly enough, had the Lazarus Government been a signatory of the GCR Sovereign Accords, their government could have easily had all signatories engaged in their defense against the raiding... And surely, this would have NOT been affected by their democratic tendencies.

How come, then, that the GCR SA are a "threath" to democracies?

[Sygian Supremum]

Interestingly enough, had the Lazarus Government been a signatory of the GCR Sovereign Accords, their government could have easily had all signatories engaged in their defense against the raiding... And surely, this would have NOT been affected by their democratic tendencies.

How come, then, that the GCR SA are a "threath" to democracies?

I agree.

On multiple occasions, the citizens of Lazarus - including Sovereign Kowasatti - have stated that they have no wish to join the Accords and they would gladly reject any invitation to join. There's a reason that they haven't joined - or been invited - and that is because the government has blatantly expressed their dislike for it.

[Unibot III]

Interestingly enough, had the Lazarus Government been a signatory of the GCR Sovereign Accords, their government could have easily had all signatories engaged in their defense against the raiding... And surely, this would have NOT been affected by their democratic tendencies.

How come, then, that the GCR SA are a "threath" to democracies?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Interestingly enough, had the Lazarus Government been a signatory of the GCR Sovereign Accords, their government could have easily had all signatories engaged in their defense against the raiding... And surely, this would have NOT been affected by their democratic tendencies.

How come, then, that the GCR SA are a "threath" to democracies?

Why would they trust the signatories to defend their sovereignty just because a document requires it? The NPO was obligated by treaty to defend the People's Republic of Lazarus and perpetrated a coup against it instead. Balder has a history of selectively meeting its treaty obligations. The West Pacific has traditionally remained neutral in regard to coups because they insist upon the supremacy of game mechanics and the right of the game-side Delegate, whoever that may be and whatever he or she may be doing, to govern the region. Whether the West Pacific would act differently because of a treaty obligation has not yet been tested. How Osiris would respond under its new government is also largely untested, though I will note that Osiris did meet its treaty obligation to assist The East Pacific during the recent crisis regarding its Delegacy.

You can't expect anyone to trust the signatories of the GCR Sovereignty Accords without it first being demonstrated that they can be trusted. Based on history, there is no reason for anyone to trust at least two of the signatories, and there is valid reason for some to be skeptical of the remaining two. "Sign the treaty and see if you can trust us" is not a practical way forward.