[PASSED] Ban on Secret Treaties

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

Neville: You forgot 'for the purposes of this resolution'.

Harold: Wouldn't that definition also include big cats and extinct species?

[Ecumenopolis-V]

As a matter of policy, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that confidentiality of a treaty is the prerogative of parties to a treaty to determine. However, as a member of the World Assembly, His Majesty's Government understands that there needs to be a level of openness between members in order to fulfil the true purpose of the World Assembly.


Accordingly, His Majesty's Government seeks that the scope of the proposed resolution is reduced to treaties between members of the World Assembly. Further, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that there ought to be certain exemptions to the general rule of openness. Accordingly, His Majesty's Government proposes that the resolution is reworded to incorporate the amendments consequent to the policy of His Majesty's Government in this aspect. The reworded Resolution is enclosed with this communique.

Yours Faithfully

His Majesty's Envoy to the World Assembly

Treaties (Openness of Communication) Act.

It is the view of the World Assembly, that States may enter into agreements and treaties which may have ramifications on States that are not Parties to the same;. Accordingly, it is hereby resolved that there is a need for the World Assembly to address the issue; Consequently;


BE IT ENACTED by the 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:—

Section 1: This Act may be cited as the Treaties (Openness of Communication) Act.


Section 2: (1)In this act the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them under this Section 2.

(2) "enforcement" or "enforcement" shall mean seeking redress in the event of a breach of a right or obligation either by way of instituting proceedings or making a complaint in this aspect to any person.

(3) "treaty" or "treaties" means an agreement concluded between two or more states States in written form or by way of conduct and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation and includes exchange of diplomatic notes that constitute an agreement to create any right or obligation on behalf of one party towards or against the other;

(4) "Register of Treaties" shall mean the register at Section 3(1)

(5) "Register of Treaties" shall mean the person referred to at Section 3(1)

Section 3: (1)There is hereby established a Register of Treaties which shall be overseen by a Registrar General appointed by the World Assembly.

(2) Parties to any treaty may transmit an authenticated copy of each Treaty to the Registrar General.

(3) All treaties between member states of the World Assembly shall be transmitted by the member states concerned within seven days of the said treaty being ratified unless the said treaty is one that relates to:

(a)Treaties which in the opinion of a party to any treaty would prejudice its national security if registered.

(b) Treaties which in the opinion of a party to any treaty would prejudice its relations with states who are not members of the World Assembly if registered.

Section 4: No enforcement action may be brought in relation to a right or obligation arising out of a Treaty unless the said Treaty has been registered under Section 3.

Section 5: Within thirty days of the commencement of this Act, States shall be required to register all treaties which are liable to be registered under this Act with the Registrar General

[Excidium Planetis]

snip

OOC:
It's generally considered bad form to post your own proposal in someone else's proposal thread.

[Ecumenopolis-V]

snip

OOC:
It's generally considered bad form to post your own proposal in someone else's proposal thread.

OOC:

Apologies if I have caused anyone offense (am new). The topic on this thread was a ban on secret treaties. This is not my proposal. I merely agreed with it and differed on a few aspects. I've incorporated it into a draft and posted it. It's the OP's proposal merely now being updated as the discussions proceed. Members may veto my draft or take from my draft and incorporate it in the original draft or use my draft. Whatever it may be the proposal is still that of OP's and if it fails, I don't plan on moving it.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:

Apologies if I have caused anyone offense (am new). The topic on this thread was a ban on secret treaties. This is not my proposal. I merely agreed with it and differed on a few aspects. I've incorporated it into a draft and posted it. It's the OP's proposal merely now being updated as the discussions proceed. Members may veto my draft or take from my draft and incorporate it in the original draft or use my draft. Whatever it may be the proposal is still that of OP's and if it fails, I don't plan on moving it.

OOC:
If it is your draft, post it in a new thread. This is not the OP's draft updated, it is a new draft on the same topic. You even gave it a different title ("Openness of Communication Act") and changed every section of IA's draft. It resembles IA's draft very little, and you aren't going to fool anyone into thinking it is his proposal. Post it in a new thread if you want, but people are here to discuss IA's draft, not yours, and it will cause confusion if people debate two different drafts in the same thread.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Whilst searching for a telephone, K-9 rolls into the debate chamber. After obtaining a copy of the draft and reading through, he comes across the fourth clause.

4. 'Secret treaty', and all variant capitalisations thereof, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

<We do not understand this definition. What do weapons and cats have to do with international agreements? We cannot offer support while this definition stands.>

[Imperium Anglorum]

<We do not understand this definition. What do weapons and cats have to do with international agreements? We cannot offer support while this definition stands.>

Madsons: Ah! I see! A feline hater! It's your kind we are fighting against! We see this conspiracy put forth by these kay-nines! Trying to undermine our society! Destroy our people!

[United Massachusetts]

'Secret treaty', and all variant capitalisations thereof, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

Since when does secret treaty mean cats and military weapons?

[Excidium Planetis]

'Secret treaty', and all variant capitalisations thereof, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

Since when does secret treaty mean cats and military weapons?

OOC:
Since IA wrote that in to address concerns that secret treaty was not defined.

[United Massachusetts]

'Secret treaty', and all variant capitalisations thereof, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

Since when does secret treaty mean cats and military weapons?

OOC:
Since IA wrote that in to address concerns that secret treaty was not defined.

Ah, I see.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This will be submitted with the clause defining secret treaty removed, in somewhere around three days, should Pride and Prejudice fail to meet quorum in the next 1 day and 18 hours.

[Excidium Planetis]

This will be submitted with the clause defining secret treaty removed, in somewhere around three days, should Pride and Prejudice fail to meet quorum in the next 1 day and 18 hours.

OOC:
I protest. The clause should be included.

[Thyerata]

This will be submitted with the clause defining secret treaty removed, in somewhere around three days, should Pride and Prejudice fail to meet quorum in the next 1 day and 18 hours.

OOC:
I protest. The clause should be included.

We concur. There must be a definition clause. Our support is conditional on that.

[States of Glory WA Office]

This will be submitted with the clause defining secret treaty removed, in somewhere around three days, should Pride and Prejudice fail to meet quorum in the next 1 day and 18 hours.

OOC: Keep the definition. Make Legislation Funny Again!

[Imperium Anglorum]

In a few minutes, probably, there will be a resolution at vote. Due to its being at vote, I will delay submission of this proposal. Also, given the addition of the explanatory notes in the second post, I see no real need to remove the last clause.

[Tzorsland]

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

I think that rates 5.0 on the Kennite Treaty Elements scale(*).

(*) Where 10.0 requires a "think of the children" clause.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think that rates 5.0 on the Kennite Treaty Elements scale(*).

(*) Where 10.0 requires a "think of the children" clause.

It'll have to be published!

[Nessuna-Arma]

How is this not a "joke" proposal and illegal under the rules? A previous proposal was declared a joke simply because it dealt with IBS. Now this one defines a "secret treaty" as "military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats." I implore the powers at be to declare this illegal, unless that clause is removed by the author prior to submission.

[Excidium Planetis]

How is this not a "joke" proposal and illegal under the rules? A previous proposal was declared a joke simply because it dealt with IBS. Now this one defines a "secret treaty" as "military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats." I implore the powers at be to declare this illegal, unless that clause is removed by the author prior to submission.

OOC:
I don't agree with the previous ruling, however, proposals are not joke proposals because they make jokes in them. Proposals are joke proposals when they are not meant to be actual WA laws. Proposals meant to be serious laws, even with jokes in them, are legal.

See GA#8 and GA#368 for examples.

[Nessuna-Arma]

OOC: Incorrect. This is a definition clause, not a throwaway clause. If you replace every occurrence of the concept of "secret treaty" with "weapons and felines" then the proposal in its entirety is nonsensical, and a joke. That said, thank you for replying, I was beginning to wonder if I needed to learn a secret handshake or something like that to get a reply here.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Incorrect. This is a definition clause, not a throwaway clause. If you replace every occurrence of the concept of "secret treaty" with "weapons and felines" then the proposal in its entirety is nonsensical, and a joke. That said, thank you for replying, I was beginning to wonder if I needed to learn a secret handshake or something like that to get a reply here.

OOC:
What other occurrences of "secret treaty" are there? The term is only used in the definition.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you replace every occurrence of the concept of "secret treaty" with "weapons and felines" then the proposal in its entirety is nonsensical, and a joke.

Really?  Do it. Then explain to me what we should trust what you have to say when you clearly didn't read the proposal.

(Edited to increase size, then to add italics, then to correct spacing, then to add this message.)

[Auralia]

If you replace every occurrence of the concept of "secret treaty" with "weapons and felines" then the proposal in its entirety is nonsensical, and a joke.

Really?  Do it. Then explain to me what we should trust what you have to say when you clearly didn't read the proposal.

(Edited to increase size, then to add italics, then to correct spacing, then to add this message.)

IA is correct. The term "secret treaty" is not used in the proposal. The term "secret treaties" is used in the title, but the definition explicitly excludes pluralizations.

IA, for what it's worth, I think you should remove the definition. I'm not a huge fan of jokes in proposals.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Nessuna-Arma]

Challenge Accepted. For brevity's sake I'll use shorthand, "weapons and kittens," instead of "military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats." If that's not sufficient then just replace the phrase in your head when you come to it.

Ban on Weapons and Kittens
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

I know I'm new but thanks to encouragement from my region mates in Forest (especially Uan aa Boa and our delegate Ransium) and from Araraukar, I took a couple days to read all the rules before posting here. And so far, if I'm reading the category rules right, then if you're going to ban secret treaties, AKA weapons and kittens, you probably have the wrong category. It must be global disarmament. Unless, of course, this is a joke.

Whereas weapons and kittens have been observed to

See, because "undisclosed to the public" means "secret," so "treaties undisclosed to the public" means "weapons and kittens." Unless, of course, this is a joke.

Then we get to a bunch of preamble that reads like it was written by a hoity toity law student trying to sound impressive, and some clauses about what the committee does, and then:

[*]All treaties and international agreements with the force of law, entered into by member nations, shall be registered with the Judicial Committee of Compliance Commission, which shall promptly publish in full those treaties and international agreements.

Well, that doesn't say anything about secret treaties, so, that actually seems okay! But, not in a proposal that purportedly bans weapons and kittens. Unless, of course, this is a joke.

[*]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'll grant you this one might be a little bit of a stretch, but I'm guessing that your intention here is to ensure that nations cannot invoke secret treaties. Excuse me, weapons and kittens. Unless, of course, this is a joke.

[*]'Secret treaty' and all variant capitalisations thereof, excluding pluralisations, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

Definition. Which renders the entire proposal a joke.

when you clearly didn't read the proposal.

And that, too, is a joke. Of course I read the proposal. In its entirety. Guess what? It's a JOKE.

I can tell already, I'm going to like this place.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie: I don't think you understand how definitions work. When the law does what the law says, that doesn't mean that it does anything beyond what the law says. Otherwise, it would be a very strange world, how these invisible clauses keep popping in out of nowhere. Perhaps that is what your world appears to you, Ambassador. If that is the case, please tell me exactly what you are smoking – Military Intelligence may want to test it for merits in interrogations.