Jump to content

New Treaty Charter


Read Below Before voting please  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Read Below Before voting please

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      1


Recommended Posts

Shall this Charter define the ideals of mutual defense and aid that this coalition is to stand for?

 

Please, if you are not willing to join this group, do not vote. That would only cause confusion and inevitably... another poll. As for you who are willing to join CECPA, or GETO or whatever we decide to call ourselves, please vote soon.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Article 1

 

The Parties undertake to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

 

Article 2

 

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

 

Article 3

 

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

 

Article 4

 

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

 

Article 5

 

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europa shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence and will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the area.

 

Article 6

 

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

 

On the territory of any of the Parties in Europa, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties.

 

On the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europa in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force.

 

Article 7

 

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

 

Article 8

 

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

 

Article 9

 

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other Europan State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of Founding Memeber. The Government of said Founding Memeber will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

 

Article 10

 

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible.

 

Article 11

 

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

Article 12

 

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of a Founding Memeber, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

 

Article 13

 

This Treaty shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Aristocratic Confederation. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

 

Edited by The Aristocratic Confederation (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it's some middle ground and the more alliances the merrier!

Perhaps, but there aren't enough active role-players for there to be so many large alliances. Smaller alliances between nations, perhaps, but not huge pacts...

 

Tamurin is right. There needs to be something vastly different and defining about a new alliance in order for nations to want to join it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Adaptus: I bumped it because I was spamming... felt good.

 

@Suv: Hush!

 

@Tag: I dunno. I put it here as it seemed to not be anything formal as of yet... It could be moved if it bugs you.

 

@Tam: Three is many? Hmm... Give it some time, This Charter can be revised to make it a better organization. As for the other groups. EOS Seems to reject anyone not close enough to the island (Novanya), Alliance is down to two active members. And LT is a bunch of commies banning together to further their vile ways (kidding... kinda).

 

Suv's right, the more alliances the better!

 

This Charter, as I mentioned, can and most liely will be revised to be a better whatsit. I figure more things needed to be added, but it was late last night and I just posted what I had. And can I ask who voted against? Just so I know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not complaining. I'm stating facts. One reason I am not in any huge alliance is because of Deltannia's historical isolationism. But, I also don't want to both get involved in alliance affairs and have to pick between them. You have to make something that truly stands out.

 

Of course, Aristocratic Confederation can go ahead and attempt to make an alliance, it won't matter a shred to Deltannia. But, if you want people to join, you need to make something stand out. You make a point that you think that the old alliances are crumbling in their own ways. If Deltannia were to join, why would it want to? That's what I want to know before I agree to it (I'll vote yes, but I wouldn't join. History and stuff tongue.gif )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pact doesn't seem so massive. Four of us isn't so much. And the Charter says (somewhere) that members must vote to decide if a organizational mobilization will be enacted. We could decide to leave the battles to that nation, and simply back them with aid and whatnot.

 

War isn't oibligatory, if we decide it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time, the CIS, by an analysis of its charter, appeared to be a viable extension of the Union's policy for policing and regulating individual nations within the two major alliances in the region at the time to ensure that trivial feuds between two individual nations who happened to be members of seperate alliances did not drag the rest of Europa into a region-wide conflict.

 

Once the CIS at large showed inaction, the Union has decided to remain a firm 'neutral' nation, prepared to enforce stable environment in the region, as one can see in the Tarragat scenario. Also note that the Union is not making claims of allegiance, as it views the Deltannians as equally likely to instigate a new conflict as the Renndians. Both parties are insisting on maintaining a permenant presence there, for two reasons; Rennd is motivated by nationalism, whilst Deltannia figures it needs the outpost there to maintain a strong naval presence on the other side of Europa.

 

By an analysis of these two nations, it is clear that both are motivated by expansionism, and the ability to project their power to the farther reaches of the region.

 

Anywho, my point is this: My nation is testing the waters with the various alliances in Europa to decide if any of them can provide an effective means to maintain peace and stability in the region, or if siding with any alliance will jeopardize the safety of the Mongol-Swede homeland, which has remained untouched by a foreign military since its independence.

 

And for the record, I voted that the treaty here written Aristo is generally a good one, and is very agreeable in that it does not limit its membership to certain sectors of Europa. The only thing that really bothers the Union about agreements is that, in the case with Europa, there are multiple such agreements that have effectively fragmented Europa as a whole, particularly the EOS, cutting itself off from the rest of Europa and pretending that what goes on in Europa really doesn't concern them. There have been a few fortunate exceptions to this rule, however, particularly the CSCE hosted by Tamurin, though that has been severely disrupted and will likely be the echo that becomes a tidal wave throughout the rest of the region if things don't get back on track there soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are interested in joing this you can offer a revision to better fit your ideals.

 

I based the Charter with the intent of protecting those who joined. The council thing is for debating when said incidents are considered grounds for whatever appropriate action we decide to take.

 

So far, the only scenario I can imagine starting a war between this group and another is Tagmatiums beligerence (take this lightly, it is IC after-all), coupled with Confederate sence of what's right. However, I doubt that a real war will occurr, this is rather more like a cold war.

 

(The north crusade thing I've decided to end. I anticipate busy times ahead, meaning less for the fourms.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite ironic, since it's Confederate underhanded-ness which started the whole "beligerence" thing in the first place.

 

And there definately is already a cold war in place. That canal my nation built is basically barred to Confed. shipping, and any ship that wishes to trade with/has its destination in the Confed. and wants to use that canal has to pay a large sum of money, larger than that for using the canal for other means.

 

It's to pay for upkeep of the canal, so don't worry (well, maybe to fund the HIN, but hey, that Tagmatium's business tongue.gif)

 

And MS, you did say that very well.

Edited by Tagmatium Rules (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. the Confederacy attack Tagmatium's ally, Rennd, on a piece of land Tagmatium considers (although for not much longer) a part of Rennd.

 

B. in the process of attacking Rennd, Tagmatium soldiers brought in to support Rennd were assaulted in an underhand and illegal way.

 

Therefore, Tagmatium considers the Aristocratic Confederacy to be an "enemy state", or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah! I ignore Geneva when it's convenient. And BTW, the napalm wasa slip of the fingers. I remember thinking I had used something else, until they had already dropped the bombs. By then it was too late.

 

I don't think I trade with any nation who would use that canal anyway. I know I trade with Suv, Miiros and someone else I can't remember at the moment. None of them, though, are situated up that way. So Tag has issued a mandate to watch for ships that don't pass through there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought that most nations trade with each other, anyway. Especially since the bigger nations provide such a huge market for most commodities. Trading and shipping companies, whether official or not, would be criss-crossing most Europan seas with their destinations in many other nations, even plots which don't have a proper (i.e. registered member in control) government.

 

Trade treaties, I also assume, are notifications of "official" trade, with recognised benefits between the governments, preferential treatment and reduced tolls and the like. It would be foolish for the merchants of a nation, especially a capitalist nation such as yourselves, to ignore the markets of Vocenae, Akiiryu, Deltannia, Adaptus in the north and all the others of the north, and even those in the south-east.

 

In effect, the mandate on the canal isn't so much aimed at "official" trade, but all of the same and large scale trade that would undoubtedly be happening anyway. It's basically an attempt to throw a spanner in the works of your economy as a whole, but more likely it would provide an annoyance at the fact that these shipping firms then have to go all the way around the Occident, rather than nipping through the short cut provided by the canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...