[DRAFT] Peace Negotiations

[Milwalkiee]

Additionally,

It isn't ready, so I wouldn't suggest submitting yet. Though what do I care, I oppose anyway. Once again, if I don't want to arbitrate for two random nations, I shouldn't have to. The World Assembly can do that

I am sorry to hear that. Is there any way I can revise to avert this issue?

This isn't something you get to write yourself, nor does that resolution description text exist. The description text is added by the game and it depends on the category this is submitted as.

Sorry I didn't know. Thanks!

How does this reduce military and police spending?

Because some negotiations are necessary and hopefully successful, there would therefore be less need for a massive military.

Leave this out, you don't want to accidentally put it in the submitted form, as that'll make it illegal for Branding. Plus it's your proposal, you don't really need to put your name on it anyway.

Thank you!

As was already pointed out, "striving" needs to be capitalized and this should probably end with a semicolon like the other sentences. Also, would you consider using "alleviate" instead of "abate"?

Noted-is this the format because I have been told both ways by multiple people. Also, noted and believed to be a better word choice. Thank you.

Thank you for all the help!!!

[Araraukar]

How does this reduce military and police spending?

Because some negotiations are necessary and hopefully successful, there would therefore be less need for a massive military.

OOC: Unless those negotiations involve the end of a war/disarmament, I doubt it. Remember that "diplomatic negotiations" doesn't mean "peace talk".

As was already pointed out, "striving" needs to be capitalized and this should probably end with a semicolon like the other sentences. Also, would you consider using "alleviate" instead of "abate"?

Noted-is this the format because I have been told both ways by multiple people.

Which ever you choose, be consistent with it.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

BELIEVING that diplomacy is still a nessesity during times of armed conflict;

"Unfortunately, it is not always an option." Says Seretis, who had bothered to keep his uniform in regulation now that he actually had something to do besides paperwork. "There also appears to be a typographical error within this clause, you will wish to rectify that."

1. Member nations must attempt a reasonable level of diplomatic talks with the other party/parties involved in the impending conflict, to attempt to arrive at a negotiated solution before any military confrontation;

Much to Seretis' chagrin, he had once more been burned by not prereading the document, and he steps aside, allowing Rehlan to take the front of the Delegation, "You seem to be under the impression that warfare is agreed upon by the involved states. I... don't have anything to say about the naivety of that position that would be acceptable within this forum. Regardless, this clause would require the Imperium to allow an invading power to freely attack and take control over the Imperial Territories while prohibiting the Imperium from defending itself or engaging in counterattacks until the invading power consents to diplomatic contact. Further, it would prevent the Imperium from taking preventative or preemptive military actions against hostile and potentially hostile powers that cannot be appeased without significant and unacceptable loss to the Imperium. This requirement would pose an existential threat to the Imperium and an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of the Imperium and it's citizens."

2. Diplomatic talks should continue between the warring member nations, even during times of armed conflict when there is little to no threats to the lives of the diplomats;

Seretis immediately took his opportunity to be relevant again, "During an armed conflict, the threat to the lives of diplomats is far from 'little-to-none'. Formal Ceasefires exist for a reason, you understand. In any case, continuing in pointless posturing and 'debate' while a war that both sides are aware no will come to no peaceful or mutually agreeable conclusion is entirely pointless and indeed dangerous."

3. All diplomatic talks shall be held within a neutral third-party nation when lives are threatened in either country involved in the conflict. These talks shall be attended by diplomats from the warring member nations, when doing so is not endangering the lives of the diplomats. If no nation is willing to host, the talks may be held at the World Assembly Headquarters;

"The Imperium will not send its personnel to any ostensibly uninvolved foreign nation, regardless of any claims of neutrality. If there is diplomacy to be had, it will be within the ability of the Imperium to defend itself, or not at all."

4. Allows for the continued movement of diplomats from third-party nations to nations near the conflict if the third-party nations are not involved in the conflict so long as the conditions are not life-threatening;

"I must admit, I am not entirely certain whether this clause is incomprehensibly flawed, or merely incredibly foolish; I have no idea what this is intended to achieve.

In any case, the Imperium cannot support this legislation; the absolute removal of the Imperium's ability to utilize military force as necessary is entirely unacceptable and extremely dangerous. As good-intentioned as this legislation is, it would simply be a disaster should it pass into law."

[Separatist Peoples]

Because some negotiations are necessary and hopefully successful, there would therefore be less need for a massive military.

"I don't get it. Why not have a massive military so you can always negotiate from a position of strength? People agree more readily with a big gun pointed at them."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Your new title doesn't match the contents. The contents of the proposal talk about diplomatic faff during a war, not before one. EDIT: And once more, "diplomatic negotiations" does not equal "talking about a peace treaty". If you want them to be negotiating a peace treaty, you have to actually say it in the text.

[Bears Armed]

"You seem to be under the impression that warfare is agreed upon by the involved states. I... don't have anything to say about the naivety of that position that would be acceptable within this forum."

OOC: Well, according to GAR#2, it is...

^_^

[Fauxia]

Additionally,

It isn't ready, so I wouldn't suggest submitting yet. Though what do I care, I oppose anyway. Once again, if I don't want to arbitrate for two random nations, I shouldn't have to. The World Assembly can do that

I am sorry to hear that. Is there any way I can revise to avert this issue?

This isn't something you get to write yourself, nor does that resolution description text exist. The description text is added by the game and it depends on the category this is submitted as.

Sorry I didn't know. Thanks!

How does this reduce military and police spending?

Because some negotiations are necessary and hopefully successful, there would therefore be less need for a massive military.

Leave this out, you don't want to accidentally put it in the submitted form, as that'll make it illegal for Branding. Plus it's your proposal, you don't really need to put your name on it anyway.

Thank you!

As was already pointed out, "striving" needs to be capitalized and this should probably end with a semicolon like the other sentences. Also, would you consider using "alleviate" instead of "abate"?

Noted-is this the format because I have been told both ways by multiple people. Also, noted and believed to be a better word choice. Thank you.

Thank you for all the help!!!

It may be possible to establish a WA Diplomatic Corps to arbitrate for these wars? That might be illegal for some reason, I don't know though.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Additionally,


I am sorry to hear that. Is there any way I can revise to avert this issue?


Sorry I didn't know. Thanks!


Because some negotiations are necessary and hopefully successful, there would therefore be less need for a massive military.


Thank you!


Noted-is this the format because I have been told both ways by multiple people. Also, noted and believed to be a better word choice. Thank you.

Thank you for all the help!!!

It may be possible to establish a WA Diplomatic Corps to arbitrate for these wars? That might be illegal for some reason, I don't know though.

Neville: Why do that when the International Mediation Foundation already exists?

[Separatist Peoples]

"I genuinely contest the notion that a mediation effort at the start of conflict will have sufficient deterrent power to be worthwhile. Any issue sufficiently important to create armed conflict is sufficiently important to ensure victory. Why, then, run the risk of less than a compete victory by arbitration? This would only be useful in conflicts between powers with parity, where the outcome is not assured. That is also, incidentally, exactly the kind of conflict where this would be least effective, as both sides risk much and are assured of little, and are inclined to use diplomatic efforts anyway.

"This would be useless in a dispute between say, the C.D.S.P. and Lilliputia, a small entity on our border. If we wanted to invade for some specific reason, victory is assured due to our numerical and technical superiority. We could either arbitrate on our own, without involving the WA, and get an especially favorable outcome, invade and get an especially favorable outcome, or go to the WA and risk a less favorable outcome. There is absolutely no reason to ensure diplomatic efforts succeed."

[Araraukar]

2. Diplomatic talks should continue between the warring member nations, even during times of armed conflict when there is little to no threats to the lives of the diplomats;

OOC: Conditional language like that in an active clause makes the clause non-active, as it's basically only powerless wishing like the preamble clauses.

[Fauxia]

It may be possible to establish a WA Diplomatic Corps to arbitrate for these wars? That might be illegal for some reason, I don't know though.

Neville: Why do that when the International Mediation Foundation already exists?

I didn't know it did. That said, the WA should not completely force nations to try to reach peaceful agreements.

[Separatist Peoples]

Neville: Why do that when the International Mediation Foundation already exists?

I didn't know it did. That said, the WA should not completely force nations to try to reach peaceful agreements.

"Why Not? War hurts the fabric of international relations and imposes external costs on the international community. That's exactly what the WA should be doing."

[Ecanya]

Because some negotiations are necessary and hopefully successful, there would therefore be less need for a massive military.

OOC: Unless those negotiations involve the end of a war/disarmament, I doubt it. Remember that "diplomatic negotiations" doesn't mean "peace talk".

Noted-is this the format because I have been told both ways by multiple people.

Which ever you choose, be consistent with it.

a massive military doesnt mean your the strongest it depends on how powerful your guns is or weapons

[Ecanya]

I didn't know it did. That said, the WA should not completely force nations to try to reach peaceful agreements.

"Why Not? War hurts the fabric of international relations and imposes external costs on the international community. That's exactly what the WA should be doing."

but if u think about its going to be a terrible idea

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why Not? War hurts the fabric of international relations and imposes external costs on the international community. That's exactly what the WA should be doing."

but if u think about its going to be a terrible idea

"Right. Preventing warfare and the many thousands of deaths to follow is a terrible idea." Bell rolls his eyes so hard it makes a noise. "I suppose next you'll tell me that casualties are unavoidable and it's just the cost of national governance? Fucking hell."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Unless those negotiations involve the end of a war/disarmament, I doubt it. Remember that "diplomatic negotiations" doesn't mean "peace talk".

a massive military doesnt mean your the strongest it depends on how powerful your guns is or weapons

OOC: I'm fairly sure you quoted the wrong person. In IC Araraukar doesn't have a military, and as for the gameside account...

[United Empire of Arevaan]

"His Imperial Majesty has expresssed his support for this draft. The ideas are agreeably with the United Empire of Arevaan and Her Colonies values. When time comes to vote, we will vote in favor."

Signed,
Faranor Delcre
UEA Ambassador to the WA
UEA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
His Imperial Majesty's Government
By the Right and Decree of
His Imperial Majesty
James I, Emperor of the
United Empire of Arevaan
Sovereign Ruler of Her Colonies

[Milwalkiee]

OOC: Unless those negotiations involve the end of a war/disarmament, I doubt it. Remember that "diplomatic negotiations" doesn't mean "peace talk".

Any suggestions of what it would be therefore?

Unfortunately, it is not always an option.

Which is why this is being proposed.

You seem to be under the impression that warfare is agreed upon by the involved states.

Nope. I know this, hence why I wish to have a nation have diplomatic talks before conflict so if the other state(s) doesn't wish to engage in conflict, it can hopefully be prevented.

little-to-none

Generally, though I will admit not always, an entire country does not have the entire country in constant warfare around the country. This does not just cover war, but also conflicts.

I must admit, I am not entirely certain whether this clause is incomprehensibly flawed, or merely incredibly foolish; I have no idea what this is intended to achieve.

It is to further enforce the fact that a nation uninvolved in conflict is allowed to continue diplomacy within one or more of the nations involved in the conflict.

In any case, the Imperium cannot support this legislation; the absolute removal of the Imperium's ability to utilize military force as necessary is entirely unacceptable and extremely dangerous

This legislation is to prevent unnecessary conflicts, therefore if desperately needed, it would not stop this. Just unnecessary conflicts.

People agree more readily with a big gun pointed at them

OOC: As this is a generalized statement, and would agree upon most occasions, I disagree in this case, and I know many willing to die rather than 'bow down' to their oppressor. As previously noted, if there is a better category this would fit into, please let me know!!!

This would be useless in a dispute between say, the C.D.S.P. and Lilliputia, a small entity on our border. If we wanted to invade for some specific reason, victory is assured due to our numerical and technical superiority. We could either arbitrate on our own, without involving the WA, and get an especially favorable outcome, invade and get an especially favorable outcome, or go to the WA and risk a less favorable outcome. There is absolutely no reason to ensure diplomatic efforts succeed.

The diplomatic talks would not have to be held without directly involving the WA, it would solely make it law to have Nations attempt some sort of negotiations before conflict, be it privately or through the WA.

the WA should not completely force nations to try to reach peaceful agreements.

It is not entirely forcing them to reach a peaceful agreement, just reasonably attempt to reach a peaceful agreement.

Any more comments, please let me know!!!

Thanks!!!!!

[Separatist Peoples]

[

People agree more readily with a big gun pointed at them

OOC: As this is a generalized statement, and would agree upon most occasions, I disagree in this case, and I know many willing to die rather than 'bow down' to their oppressor. As previously noted, if there is a better category this would fit into, please let me know!!!

OOC: I'm going to pretend this was IC.

IC: "Ambassador, the question isn't whether you'd rather die, but whether you'd rather see your people die than acquiesce to terms not innately contrary to your own existence. It's not a question of Die or Submit, but a matter of Others Die or You Give Up Your Wallet. As such, it's not really a question of whether it will work, but how much one can toe the line."

This would be useless in a dispute between say, the C.D.S.P. and Lilliputia, a small entity on our border. If we wanted to invade for some specific reason, victory is assured due to our numerical and technical superiority. We could either arbitrate on our own, without involving the WA, and get an especially favorable outcome, invade and get an especially favorable outcome, or go to the WA and risk a less favorable outcome. There is absolutely no reason to ensure diplomatic efforts succeed.

The diplomatic talks would not have to be held without directly involving the WA, it would solely make it law to have Nations attempt some sort of negotiations before conflict, be it privately or through the WA.[/quote]
"So you want sham negotiations? I understand now."

[Milwalkiee]

"Ambassador, the question isn't whether you'd rather die, but whether you'd rather see your people die than acquiesce to terms not innately contrary to your own existence. It's not a question of Die or Submit, but a matter of Others Die or You Give Up Your Wallet. As such, it's not really a question of whether it will work, but how much one can toe the line."

"I notice that, and I would like to point out that this helps my cause! Thank you! As you said, the people will want to open their wallets or some other sort of negotiation before they let their own people die! The point of this is to help these nations make the transition smoother."

"So you want sham negotiations? I understand now."

"Not in the least. I do not know how you concluded this, but however you did, this was not what I meant to portray."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I notice that, and I would like to point out that this helps my cause! Thank you! As you said, the people will want to open their wallets or some other sort of negotiation before they let their own people die! The point of this is to help these nations make the transition smoother."

"So you want to empower large-scale highway robbery, then. Gotchya."

"Not in the least. I do not know how you concluded this, but however you did, this was not what I meant to portray."

"Since you provide no incentive for the nation with the advantage to negotiate in good faith, that is the unavoidable conclusion."

[Deropia]

"I notice that, and I would like to point out that this helps my cause! Thank you! As you said, the people will want to open their wallets or some other sort of negotiation before they let their own people die! The point of this is to help these nations make the transition smoother."

"So you want to empower large-scale highway robbery, then. Gotchya."

"Not in the least. I do not know how you concluded this, but however you did, this was not what I meant to portray."

"Since you provide no incentive for the nation with the advantage to negotiate in good faith, that is the unavoidable conclusion."

"Ambassador Bell raises a valid point, what is to stop the nations with the more powerful military and economy from entering into negotiations with absolutely no intent on reaching a peaceful resolution? I think you underestimate how cold and calculating some leaders can be, as some would rather send people to their deaths if it would result in a greater net gain than negotiations." Jason takes a drink of water before continuing.

"Not saying this would be the case in all negotiations, but it certainly can happen.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador Bell raises a valid point, what is to stop the nations with the more powerful military and economy from entering into negotiations with absolutely no intent on reaching a peaceful resolution? I think you underestimate how cold and calculating some leaders can be, as some would rather send people to their deaths if it would result in a greater net gain than negotiations." Jason

"Frankly, it's not the cold, calculating leaders you have to worry about. Any decent leader who wants what is best for his or her people would go to war if their losses would be outweighed by the benefits derived. To do anything less is to, at best, deprive your people of a benefit, at at worst harm them at the expense of non-citizens."

[Milwalkiee]

"War can never be fully predicted. Sometimes unexpected strategies, weapons, hidden troops, etc. could change a war and its predicted outcome. I would think a strong leader who wants the best for his people would rather take at least something away then risking everything. But then again, how should I know as I am the newbie here"

[Araraukar]

"War can never be fully predicted. Sometimes unexpected strategies, weapons, hidden troops, etc. could change a war and its predicted outcome. I would think a strong leader who wants the best for his people would rather take at least something away then risking everything. But then again, how should I know as I am the newbie here"

OOC: I have to go OOC to give an example of what I think SP means. Think of the recent USA-Iraq war (not sure if you can still count it as ongoing). Do you really believe that around mid-way, before they had utterly crushed all significant resistance (not counting the guerilla terrorist attacks that hurt native civilians as much if not more than USA troops) and conquered all of Iraq, that the leaders of USA would've been willing to stop and negotiate fairly, rather than just forcing their Iraqi counterparts to accept whatever terms they wanted to lay out? USA had the advantage of technology, firepower and troops.