"We think this would be one of the best possibilities that the two organization would have to try to maintain, in the future, the peace and the stability between them and we support it"
+7
New Atanea
UK of Zackalantis
Australian Eltebena
Ienara
New Tarajan
Eurasia
Federation of Antanares
11 posters
Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
Federation of Antanares- Global Force
- Posts : 349
Join date : 2014-08-13
Age : 29
Location : Jordan
- Post n°51
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by Federation of Antanares Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:34 am
New Atanea- Global Force
- Posts : 207
Join date : 2014-10-07
"The Atanosian delegates advise Tarajani representatives not to resort to imprudent speech involving profane terms if both personal and political relations between individual members of UPS and SECURS are to remain positive.
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°53
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:36 am
"Here, the ones talking about war and aggression are not us, but you. Please, don't patronize us, and keep calm instead.
Relations between UPS and SECURS will be positive when all members of the UPS will share the ideal of peace, and not that of unprovoked aggression.
Or maybe we have misunderstood your previous words?
If so, we would be glad to accept a clarification about that.
By the way, we still remain supportive of this Treaty, and we are ready to sign it."
Relations between UPS and SECURS will be positive when all members of the UPS will share the ideal of peace, and not that of unprovoked aggression.
Or maybe we have misunderstood your previous words?
If so, we would be glad to accept a clarification about that.
By the way, we still remain supportive of this Treaty, and we are ready to sign it."
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"Firstly, we demand that you show the same amount of courtesy and respect for the Atanosian delegate that we have allotted to you. Your previous comments were extremely offensive to the UPS delegates, and we would request an apology before we will proceed any further with these negotiations. Further, we would remind the Tarajani representative that we have diligently stayed as a part of this conference even when the Tarajani representative tried to use it for his own political gain in the supranational governance.
The UPS will sign the treaty, but we agree with the Zach delegate in that Article 4 is unnecessary. However, as I have previously stated, we will only do so after the Tarajani representative apologizes for his extremely rude remarks towards the Atanosian representative. Thank you."
The UPS will sign the treaty, but we agree with the Zach delegate in that Article 4 is unnecessary. However, as I have previously stated, we will only do so after the Tarajani representative apologizes for his extremely rude remarks towards the Atanosian representative. Thank you."
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°55
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:06 am
"We must say this is deeply embarassing.
We fear to have completely misunderstood the first statement from Atanosia, interpreting it as a refusal to sign the Treaty. Thus, our consequent remarks were natural, following this misinterpretation."
OOC: This is deeply embarassing, really. I read wrong the statements by Atanosia o.O
We fear to have completely misunderstood the first statement from Atanosia, interpreting it as a refusal to sign the Treaty. Thus, our consequent remarks were natural, following this misinterpretation."
OOC: This is deeply embarassing, really. I read wrong the statements by Atanosia o.O
New Atanea- Global Force
- Posts : 207
Join date : 2014-10-07
"It would be against our interests to sign the contract as it is now but if the majority of our bloc is in favor of the treaty, we will follow as such.
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°57
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:11 am
"We wish to understand your position on this point: why do you think so?"
New Atanea- Global Force
- Posts : 207
Join date : 2014-10-07
"The treaty would easily be broken due to tensions among the SECURS and UPS, which in turn carries the constant risk of an armed confrontation between the two organizations."
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"Indeed. The focus right now needs to be on ending the war. Tensions are still to high to try anything more.
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°60
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:25 am
"But this treaty is a good compromise. We need to build trust and to compromise between our respective interests, and this treaty would allow us to do exactly this, without compromising our freedom of movement."
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"No, it would not. Tensions are still to high and the mutual distrust to raw for any sort of treaty to be signed. Perhaps later, but as I said, we need to focus on an end to hostilities."
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°62
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:28 am
"The Treaty itself, as designed by Europe, provides for the end of hostilities.
But what is a new crisis should erupt immediately after? We need a framework which could help us to manage it. And we need it immediately.
Although we are not so keen in adding a new Commission, we recognize such a need."
But what is a new crisis should erupt immediately after? We need a framework which could help us to manage it. And we need it immediately.
Although we are not so keen in adding a new Commission, we recognize such a need."
United States of Europe- Global Force
- Posts : 134
Join date : 2014-08-03
Location : Latina,Lazio (Italy)
- Post n°63
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by United States of Europe Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:12 pm
"The primary goal here is not only to end the hostilities in progress,but also and above all to prevent new conflicts in the future. Sure,we could get away with saying "The war is over,we are now in peace!",but without a clear commitment by the two organizations to give up armed confrontation for future disputes,a new war is inevitable. That is why Article 4 is vital,without it the entire Treaty loses meaning and utility. Both organizations can safely pursue their interests without unleashing dozens of world wars. So I ask again: is in the interest of all the prevention of new conflicts? Because if not,I repeat,we have only lost time."
Australian Eltebena- Ascendancy
- Posts : 69
Join date : 2014-08-10
Age : 27
Location : Australia
- Post n°64
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by Australian Eltebena Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:47 pm
"The Democratic Republic of Australian Eltebena supports this treaty and is ready to sign it."
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"We will sign if Article 4 is removed."
United States of Europe- Global Force
- Posts : 134
Join date : 2014-08-03
Location : Latina,Lazio (Italy)
- Post n°67
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by United States of Europe Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:03 pm
Europe and Asia wrote:"We will sign if Article 4 is removed."
"You have not responded to our question. Why Article 4 is useless to your eyes? Your real concern is the prevention of new conflicts,or you want to delete this Article only to continue to wage war without opposition? Without Article 4 the entire Conference will have been completely unnecessary,since a new war could break out again also tonight."
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"On the contrary. The use of non-aggression is guaranteed via the other articles. Should we all agree to recognize each other's organizations and put aside strategic rivalry and to pursue peaceful means, then we are agreeing to peace.
Our concern is the avoiding of new conflicts, and this article does nothing to further that. All it says is that we can never use arms against each other, which is a dangerous notion. What if one of us is attacked by the other? There is no mention of a right to national self-defense in the treaty.
More, it is evident by other articles in the treaty that the issue of non aggression is already in effect. Article 2 states that both organizations agree to stay out of each other's spheres of influence. Is that not tantamount to agreeing to not use violence?
Lastly, I find the suggestion by the European Representative, and moderator, highly offensive. Are you accusing us of wanting more war? When the majority of UPS casualties are Eurasian? "
Our concern is the avoiding of new conflicts, and this article does nothing to further that. All it says is that we can never use arms against each other, which is a dangerous notion. What if one of us is attacked by the other? There is no mention of a right to national self-defense in the treaty.
More, it is evident by other articles in the treaty that the issue of non aggression is already in effect. Article 2 states that both organizations agree to stay out of each other's spheres of influence. Is that not tantamount to agreeing to not use violence?
Lastly, I find the suggestion by the European Representative, and moderator, highly offensive. Are you accusing us of wanting more war? When the majority of UPS casualties are Eurasian? "
United States of Europe- Global Force
- Posts : 134
Join date : 2014-08-03
Location : Latina,Lazio (Italy)
- Post n°69
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by United States of Europe Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:12 am
Europe and Asia wrote:"On the contrary. The use of non-aggression is guaranteed via the other articles. Should we all agree to recognize each other's organizations and put aside strategic rivalry and to pursue peaceful means, then we are agreeing to peace.
Our concern is the avoiding of new conflicts, and this article does nothing to further that. All it says is that we can never use arms against each other, which is a dangerous notion. What if one of us is attacked by the other? There is no mention of a right to national self-defense in the treaty.
More, it is evident by other articles in the treaty that the issue of non aggression is already in effect. Article 2 states that both organizations agree to stay out of each other's spheres of influence. Is that not tantamount to agreeing to not use violence?
Lastly, I find the suggestion by the European Representative, and moderator, highly offensive. Are you accusing us of wanting more war? When the majority of UPS casualties are Eurasian? "
"We do not think that we were disrespectful to your regads. We simply asked a question,that there arose spontaneously given the adversity with regard to Article 4. As they say,ask is duty,answer is courtesy. We are not accusing you of anything,and we deeply respect your fallen,like those of any other nation here present. So, we apologize for the misunderstanding.
So,about your doubts. The right to self-defense,in this Treaty,is given for granted: it is part of the fundamental rights of nations,contained in the Regional Constitution. And the Treaty is,of course,subordinate to Constitution itself.
Our goal is to make sure that there is no need that a nation makes use of that right. The goal of the Article 4 is to prevent further escalation,avoid the possibility of happening of new acts such as to force a nation to the use of self-defense. Then will no longer be acts such as to force a nation to the use of the sacred rights of self-defense. If no one attacks first,no one will be forced to defend himself. That's why it is important to avoid the use of weapons in relations between SECURS and UPS,that's is why it is important to settle disputes exclusively by diplomatic means.
Moreover,in the other articles of the Treaty there aren't clear references to a requirement to peacefully resolve future disputes. This is only specified in Article 4. It is true,in the other articles there is a commitment to recognize each other's right to exist,putting aside rivalries strategic,setting clear zones of influence. But if there were any future disputes between the two organizations? There would be the risk of new armed escalation. And it is here that comes into play the Article 4, that contains a commitment,for both sides,to not use the weapons,and resolve the issue through diplomatic dialogue.
Finally,Article 4 is critical because it indicates a specific channel for dialogue between UPS and SECURS,which is not indicated anywhere in the articles of the Treaty."
So,about your doubts. The right to self-defense,in this Treaty,is given for granted: it is part of the fundamental rights of nations,contained in the Regional Constitution. And the Treaty is,of course,subordinate to Constitution itself.
Our goal is to make sure that there is no need that a nation makes use of that right. The goal of the Article 4 is to prevent further escalation,avoid the possibility of happening of new acts such as to force a nation to the use of self-defense. Then will no longer be acts such as to force a nation to the use of the sacred rights of self-defense. If no one attacks first,no one will be forced to defend himself. That's why it is important to avoid the use of weapons in relations between SECURS and UPS,that's is why it is important to settle disputes exclusively by diplomatic means.
Moreover,in the other articles of the Treaty there aren't clear references to a requirement to peacefully resolve future disputes. This is only specified in Article 4. It is true,in the other articles there is a commitment to recognize each other's right to exist,putting aside rivalries strategic,setting clear zones of influence. But if there were any future disputes between the two organizations? There would be the risk of new armed escalation. And it is here that comes into play the Article 4, that contains a commitment,for both sides,to not use the weapons,and resolve the issue through diplomatic dialogue.
Finally,Article 4 is critical because it indicates a specific channel for dialogue between UPS and SECURS,which is not indicated anywhere in the articles of the Treaty."
Federation of Antanares- Global Force
- Posts : 349
Join date : 2014-08-13
Age : 29
Location : Jordan
- Post n°70
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by Federation of Antanares Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:38 am
"We support the position of our other moderator, USE. The Treaty,like all the other treaties, are subordinate to the Constitution of the Esamir, that grants the right to self-defense. If one of the parts, or another nations, use the forces against another one, of course the second can defend itself.
We are for the treaty with the Article 4"
We are for the treaty with the Article 4"
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"The European Delegate has still failed to provide a convincing argument. Thus, Eurasia will remain in opposition to Article 4.
I would like to point out that this treaty holds no real legal authority. While we have the utmost respect for our European counterpart, this treaty is not authenticated by the Esamir Supranational Government, and thus carries no weight other than mutual consent, which is flimsy at best. We would be more willing to consider supporting Article 4 if there was some way this treaty was enforceable. As it is, it could be broken at any time with no repercussions. My cabinets legal advisors have confirmed that the Court of Justice has no way to enforce this treaty as it is not a legal part of supranational law. Should it be passed by Parliament, we would be willing to support the treaty in its entirety.
Lastly, while the European Representative has assured us that the right to self defense should be assumed to be part of the law, I can attest that if it isn't explicitly mentioned in the law, it isn't a part of it. Thank you."
I would like to point out that this treaty holds no real legal authority. While we have the utmost respect for our European counterpart, this treaty is not authenticated by the Esamir Supranational Government, and thus carries no weight other than mutual consent, which is flimsy at best. We would be more willing to consider supporting Article 4 if there was some way this treaty was enforceable. As it is, it could be broken at any time with no repercussions. My cabinets legal advisors have confirmed that the Court of Justice has no way to enforce this treaty as it is not a legal part of supranational law. Should it be passed by Parliament, we would be willing to support the treaty in its entirety.
Lastly, while the European Representative has assured us that the right to self defense should be assumed to be part of the law, I can attest that if it isn't explicitly mentioned in the law, it isn't a part of it. Thank you."
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°72
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:19 am
"This position is absurd, with all due respect, Your Excellency.
A treaty is legally binding at the moment of its signature, no matter if explicitly recognized by a supranational government or not.
We also sincerely hate such a definition: "supranational government", since this is very limitating for the freedom of every country.
We live in a world of States, Your Excellency. And in such a world, a treaty is binding under the clauses of customary international law.
In case of break of its obligations by one side or the other, we suggest to add a clause to the actual draft, adding the possibility of the Court of Justice to be called upon as arbiter.
But we wish to remind everyone that, for their own definition, States are fully independent. In theory, there is no way to enforce something upon a State. But this is the reason why International Law exists."
A treaty is legally binding at the moment of its signature, no matter if explicitly recognized by a supranational government or not.
We also sincerely hate such a definition: "supranational government", since this is very limitating for the freedom of every country.
We live in a world of States, Your Excellency. And in such a world, a treaty is binding under the clauses of customary international law.
In case of break of its obligations by one side or the other, we suggest to add a clause to the actual draft, adding the possibility of the Court of Justice to be called upon as arbiter.
But we wish to remind everyone that, for their own definition, States are fully independent. In theory, there is no way to enforce something upon a State. But this is the reason why International Law exists."
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"And is this an international law? No. It is a treaty. While I appreciate your point, it is incorrect. This treaty cannot be enforced by law."
New Tarajan- Supremacy
- Posts : 610
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 32
Location : Rome
- Post n°74
Re: Conference of Zumbrota on SECURS-UPS Relations
by New Tarajan Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:24 am
"International Law is not a single law, Your Excellency.
Put it simple: the only way to make this Treaty truly enforceable is allowing the supranational government to interfere with the policymaking of every signatory State, eventually imposing its view.
Do you really want such a blatant violation of any principle of national sovereignty?"
Put it simple: the only way to make this Treaty truly enforceable is allowing the supranational government to interfere with the policymaking of every signatory State, eventually imposing its view.
Do you really want such a blatant violation of any principle of national sovereignty?"
Eurasia- Supremacy
- Posts : 1030
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 49
Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan
"The Court of Justice interferes with national sovereignty on a regular basis. Indeed, so does the Regional Government. Are you saying those should not do so? If your concern is national sovereignty, why not do away with the entire supranational government?"
Similar topics
|
|
|