GCR Sovereignty Accords

[Pierconium]

GCR Sovereignty Accords

Preamble
We, the signatories of this, the GCR Sovereignty Accords (hereinafter – the Accords), state our devotion to the principles of regional sovereignty within the GCR community. Through the adoption of these Accords we declare that our nations and regions vow to protect the sovereign rights of each member state to govern their lands as they see fit, to protect those lands against outside aggressors, and to support one another against all adversaries.

Article I
The legal and legitimate government of each member region shall be that form of government initiated by or adhered to by the sitting World Assembly Delegate at the time of ratification. If the sitting World Assembly Delegate changes the form of government, the remaining members of the Accords will hold a referendum on said region's continued membership.

Article II
Should any region, group of regions, alliance, or entente of regions threaten a member region of the Accords with military force each region will be asked to assist in the defense of said threatened region.

Article III
Should any region, group of regions, alliance, or entente carry out such threat as to invade said region then all member regions of the Accords will be asked to contribute whatever means available to assist in the repelling of said invasion and to assist in any counter-offensive, if deemed necessary.

Article IV
All military involvement in the Accord’s affairs is voluntary. It is based on the good faith of those signatories of this document that if a member is subject to actions stated in Articles II and III all available military forces will come to the member region’s aid.

Article V
All member regions are expected to share intelligence that is pertinent to the sovereign safety of other members in a timely fashion. No member will be asked to reveal the source of said intelligence but it can be freely provided. All member regions are expected to share intelligence in regards to imminent invasions, espionage, or subversion within another member region.

Article VI
Member regions are not obligated to vote together on World Assembly resolutions. Each member region has the right to vote as they see fit according to the laws of their region. It is based on the good faith of those signatories of this document that if a member region is the subject of a specific World Assembly resolution that members will support the decision made by that region in regards to their regional vote. Member regions can solicit votes for and against specific resolutions from other members of the Accords and the opinions of fellow signatories should place due weight on any voting decision made.

Article VII
The Accord’s signatory regions may use their collective military forces to defend those regional governments that seek out our assistance. At no time will the Accords interfere with the internal affairs of a region without either specific requests from the regional government to do so or just cause. No unilateral action can be undertaken in the Accord’s name without a prior vote of approval with unanimous approval of sitting member regions.

Article VIII
Each member region of the Accords will have three (3) designated representatives to the Governing Council. The Governing Council will handle primary inter-regional communications and will vote on the admission of new members. Each member region will select its representatives in the manner it deems most fitting.

Article IX
Each member region (or potential member region) will decide on the ratification of these Accords according to the laws of their region.

Article X
New members will be added to the Accords only at the invitation from a sitting member and only after all sitting member regions vote on admittance. Each member region will hold a vote among their Governing Council members, this will be the official vote of that member region. All voting members of the Accords must vote positively for approval before an additional region will be admitted

Article XI
These Accords can be amended with a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of sitting member regions.

Article XII
Upon petition by any representative of the Accords regarding the unsuitability of another region’s representative or the ejection of another member region of the Accords for actions of subversion against a fellow member, for actions of espionage against a fellow member, or for actions in assistance of those that would contribute to subversion or espionage within a fellow member region, the Governing Council will convene a hearing to allow for the presentation of evidence and/or arguments for and against expulsion of the accused representative or region. At the conclusion of this hearing (which under no circumstances will last more than 72 hours) the Governing Council (excepting the accused region's representatives) will vote for or against the replacement or expulsion of the accused representative or region respectively. The voting members of the Governing Council must reach a unanimous decision in the affirmative before a representative or region can be removed from the Accords.

Signed (in order of ratification),

The Pacific by
Ivan Moldavi
Ruler of Pierconium
Emperor and Delegate of the Pacific

The West Pacific by
Elegarth
Dragon Delegarth of The West Pacific
On behalf of The West Pacific and the Guardians of TWP

Balder by
Rach Eriksen
Ruler of Solorni
Queen and Delegate of Balder

[Queen Yuno]

Yay alliance stuff

[Evil Wolf]

SovCon take two?

[Pierconium]

SovCon take two?

Not quite. I believe SovCon was a 2012-2013 creation, correct?

This is more in line with the Union of Sovereigns from c. 2005.

[Cormactopia II]

This is an interesting and positive development. Osiris looks forward to opportunities to work with the member regions of these Accords in securing and advancing the sovereignty of our regions.

SovCon take two?

As one of the architects of SovCon, this is really nothing like SovCon in either structure or dynamics between the involved regions. SovCon's structure was much more centralized than this structure, and the bureaucracy of SovCon had much more power than the bureaucracy of this alliance. Probably more importantly, the dynamics between these regions significantly differ from the dynamics between the SovCon regions. The SovCon regions barely knew each other, were ideologically dissimilar, and had rarely worked together; in some cases, they never worked together before SovCon. The three regions thus far involved in this alliance have worked together in the past, their leaders and communities know each other, and they're ideologically similar. They're much more likely to get along than the SovCon regions ever were.

SovCon was an idea with noble intentions, but ultimately a terrible idea insofar as throwing regions that barely know each other and are very different from each other into an extremely centralized alliance is always a terrible idea. As an outside observer with no vested interest in or bias regarding this GCR Sovereignty alliance, I think it is leaps and bounds more likely to succeed than SovCon ever was.

[Solorni]

This looks awesome

[Sandaoguo]

The legal and legitimate government of each member region shall be that form of government initiated by or adhered to by the sitting World Assembly Delegate.

Hard to reconcile this with the actual notion of GCR sovereignty. You guys are required to defend each other, but what happens when you fail? You just accept a rogue or invader Delegate as "legal and legitimate"?

[Pierconium]

The legal and legitimate government of each member region shall be that form of government initiated by or adhered to by the sitting World Assembly Delegate.

Hard to reconcile this with the actual notion of GCR sovereignty. You guys are required to defend each other, but what happens when you fail? You just accept a rogue or invader Delegate as "legal and legitimate"?

I can't speak for the other regions, but the Pacific has no concept of 'rogue' Delegate.

[Ikania]

The legal and legitimate government of each member region shall be that form of government initiated by or adhered to by the sitting World Assembly Delegate.

Hard to reconcile this with the actual notion of GCR sovereignty. You guys are required to defend each other, but what happens when you fail? You just accept a rogue or invader Delegate as "legal and legitimate"?

You have to understand the NPO's concept of legitimacy. Whoever sits on the iron throne Delegacy is the legitimate Delegate. It's the policy that dictates their foreign affairs. Given that it's nigh impossible to unseat the NPO, it's the most convenient way for them to maintain their relations with new governments of regions, and in some cases, help out like-minded Delegates. You can assume that if they fail in defending another region, then they'll recognize the new government just the same. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't try to install a different, equally legitimate government that's friendlier. Speaking from personal experience only, of course. A bit of a 'some animals are more equal than others' kinda thing.

[East Jesus No where]

I am very happy to see constructive attempts at unification in establishing boundaries occurring between the GCRs. I wish you luck in your quest in achieving these goals. That being said, I would like to ask and comment about some aspects of this document.

Article I
The legal and legitimate government of each member region shall be that form of government initiated by or adhered to by the sitting World Assembly Delegate.

Article II
Should any region, group of regions, alliance, or entente of regions threaten a member region of the Accords with military force each region will be asked to assist in the defense of said threatened region.

First of all, would this apply to successful invasions by foreign governments? I know this is not as common, especially with the GCRs being so well established, but it has happened in the past. If so, would the signers of this treaty have to respect that foreign institution as a signatory and therefore as being protected under this act? If so, would the attempts to liberate the region be considered threats and would therefore require aid from the other signatories under Article II?

I understand, given the past of some delegates, the reluctance to designate anything but the delegate-imposed government as sovereign, but I would strongly urge the signatory regions to revise these articles to include additional points about what is considered the legitimate government of the GCR.

These Accords can be amended with a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of sitting member regions.

That is to say that the regions themselves, or the delegation from the regions will vote? If the regions, how will they vote? By process of their government? By referendum?

I hope someone will aid me in finding answers to these questions. Thank you.

[Belschaft]

This seems like a logical agreement between TP, TWP and Balder, but I doubt it has much chance of gaining wider participation among the GCR's with its adoption of control of the Delegacy as the sole determining factor of sovereignty - whilst this is in keeping with the decade old traditions of TP and TWP, it is incompatible with the traditions and constitutional structures of the democratic GCR's.

[Solorni]

This seems like a logical agreement between TP, TWP and Balder, but I doubt it has much chance of gaining wider participation among the GCR's with its adoption of control of the Delegacy as the sole determining factor of sovereignty - whilst this is in keeping with the decade old traditions of TP and TWP, it is incompatible with the traditions and constitutional structures of the democratic GCR's.

Well, Balder is a democratic GCR it's just that in our case we have adopted a founder type model to ensure stability and democracy. It's basically the model of a democratic UCR with its founder, which has proven very successful with many regions. Of course, this model we have in Balder has proven to be quite attractive as it was adopted by Osiris albeit in a more violent minor. So it's not set in stone that other GCRs won't eventually settle for the founder type option or the more delegate focused option. Our legislature did vote for the treaty to pass it.

That is to say that the regions themselves, or the delegation from the regions will vote? If the regions, how will they vote? By process of their government? By referendum?

This would be determined by each individual region. In Balder's case, our elected executive would be the ones dealing it. Although it may have to go to our elected legislature for confirmation.

[The Church of Satan]

Belschaft is right. This particular agreement directly conflicts with the laws and ideas of the other GCRs so there won't be anymore signatories than the three that have adopted this already.

[Solorni]

Belschaft is right. This particular agreement directly conflicts with the laws and ideas of the other GCRs so there won't be anymore signatories than the three that have adopted this already.

I'm going to save this for hilarious "famous last words".

[Cormactopia II]

This seems like a logical agreement between TP, TWP and Balder, but I doubt it has much chance of gaining wider participation among the GCR's with its adoption of control of the Delegacy as the sole determining factor of sovereignty - whilst this is in keeping with the decade old traditions of TP and TWP, it is incompatible with the traditions and constitutional structures of the democratic GCR's.

Belschaft is right. This particular agreement directly conflicts with the laws and ideas of the other GCRs so there won't be anymore signatories than the three that have adopted this already.

I would appreciate non-Osirans not continuing to speak for Osiris as though we are lumped into some group of "democratic GCRs" over which you have some input. Thank you.

[The Church of Satan]

I never said I was speaking for any region, especially Osiris since I have no history or standing in it. I simply stated my conclusion on this agreement. Chill out Cormac, geez. >_>

[Tim-Opolis]

I never said I was speaking for any region, especially Osiris since I have no history or standing in it. I simply stated my conclusion on this agreement. Chill out Cormac, geez. >_>

I mean, I'm not sure where the following assumption even comes from in regards to Osiris:

This particular agreement directly conflicts with the laws and ideas of the other GCRs

In fact I'd love to hear the specifics on that assumption, if you wouldn't mind. Sure you're allowed to state conclusions, but this isn't TRT anymore so we like seeing some basis for the conclusions.

[Cormactopia II]

I never said I was speaking for any region, especially Osiris since I have no history or standing in it. I simply stated my conclusion on this agreement. Chill out Cormac, geez. >_>

When you say that none of the other Feeders and Sinkers would join these accords, you do seem to be attempting to speak for all of the Feeders and Sinkers that haven't yet joined these accords. At the very least, you're making irresponsible predictions about the policy preferences of other Feeders and Sinkers, predictions that aren't well informed.

Given that you and Belschaft stated that none of the other Feeders and Sinkers would join these accords, as the actual representative of one of those regions, it makes sense for me to point out that you don't speak for Osiris. Balder is our longtime ally, we have positive relations with the Pacific Order and the West Pacific, and we are ideologically compatible with these accords. If Osiris were invited to join these accords, we would give them serious consideration, so it's important to note that your casual dismissal of these accords on our behalf isn't reflective of our actual view.

[The Church of Satan]

Osiris' legal code clearly outlines a line of succession for the pharaoh, who by the way serves as delegate and head of state. So I've done my homework Tim.

The line of succession in Osiris' legal code conflicts with this agreement. I'm sure Osiris wouldn't just let any yahoo steal the delegacy and usurp all power from it's government.

[Ikania]

So who does speak for Osiris? The government that ignored the Osirans, or the Osirans that stayed when you did so? And certainly, if you're the only voice left to speak for Osiris, it's not a voice worth listening to.

[Cormactopia II]

Osiris' legal code clearly outlines a line of succession for the pharaoh, who by the way serves as delegate and head of state. So I've done my homework Tim.

The line of succession in Osiris' legal code conflicts with this agreement. I'm sure Osiris wouldn't just let any yahoo steal the delegacy and usurp all power from it's government.

Do you imagine that the Pacific Order, the West Pacific, or Balder would "just let any yahoo steal the delegacy and usurp all power from it's (sic) government"? You're not even reading these accords right. The point is that these regions accept rule by the sitting Delegate of a region, not that they're going to sit idly by and just do nothing while some domestic or foreign force attempts to usurp their Delegacy. The West Pacific resisted DEN when their Delegate handed his nation over to DEN. More importantly, these regions all take the necessary steps to ensure that the possibility of such a coup is minimal, which is why these are three of the most stable Feeders and Sinkers in NationStates. The Pacific Order and Balder have never experienced a successful coup, by any definition of that ill-defined term.

You're also missing the point of these accords in another respect. The accords don't require every Feeder or Sinker that joins them to have identical governments. Osiris has a line of succession in our legal code because the Delegate of Osiris, yours truly, gave his assent to that line of succession. That is the government to which I, as Delegate, have voluntarily chosen to adhere. There would be no conflict between such a government and these accords, anymore than there would be a conflict between Balder's government and these accords, as Balder also has succession laws. The point is not the form of government, the point is respecting the central and authoritative role of the sitting Delegate in any form of government.

Osiris isn't even part of these accords, I just gathered all that from, you know, reading them. Perhaps you should try reading them again.

So who does speak for Osiris? The government that ignored the Osirans, or the Osirans that stayed when you did so? And certainly, if you're the only voice left to speak for Osiris, it's not a voice worth listening to.

This thread isn't about Osiris or your grievances with us, it's about the GCR Sovereignty Accords. Please stop following me from thread to thread, derailing each thread with your grievances. It's disrespectful to those who started the thread and the actual topic of the thread. We have a thread if you would like to continue airing your grievances, but I have no more intention of addressing them now than I did in April.

[Ikania]

Am I the one who brought up the topic? No. This is perfectly on the rails considering you've kept it going this far. But go ahead, get back on track. You've given me all the answer I need.

[The Church of Satan]

The agreement does however place the in-game delegacy above the governmental structure of any signatory that doesn't already. If Osiris were to ratify this agreement, it would be allowing anyone that takes the delegacy to become legitimate despite the laws it has in place. That's all I'm saying. If Osiris wanted to ratify this, by all means do so. It's your decision. I'm speaking to the applicability (or lack thereof) of this agreement to GCRs whose governments conflict with it. That's all. This isn't in any way a criticism of Osiris. I know you get a lot of flac for the whole new government thing in Osiris, but I'm not criticizing you or Osiris. Y'all are just fine in my book, so chill out Cormac. It's all good.

[Cormactopia II]

The agreement does however place the in-game delegacy above the governmental structure of any signatory that doesn't already. If Osiris were to ratify this agreement, it would be allowing anyone that takes the delegacy to become legitimate despite the laws it has in place. That's all I'm saying. If Osiris wanted to ratify this, by all means do so. It's your decision. I'm speaking to the applicability (or lack thereof) of this agreement to GCRs whose governments conflict with it. That's all. This isn't in any way a criticism of Osiris. I know you get a lot of flac for the whole new government thing in Osiris, but I'm not criticizing you or Osiris. Y'all are just fine in my book, so chill out Cormac. It's all good.

It's not that I felt you were criticizing Osiris, if that were the case I would probably just ignore it because this isn't the thread for that. I appreciate your respect for our form of government. It's just that I don't feel it's proper for you -- or Belschaft -- to say that six other Feeders and Sinkers wouldn't join these accords because of your perception of their laws and governments.

As Osiris is one of the six Feeders and Sinkers you and Belschaft said wouldn't join these accords, I simply thought it important, as the actual head of state of Osiris, to point out that isn't representative of our regional views.

[The Church of Satan]

And I wouldn't dream of speaking for a region I have no right to speak for. I believe I've interpreted this agreement correctly with regards to the remaining GCRs, who aside from Osiris have democratically elected leaders but including Osiris have governmental structures that are incompatible with these accords. I never intended to speak for anyone but myself and if the other GCRs felt I was attempting to speak on their behalf, you have my sincerest apology.