Jump to content

Oceanic Union: Bloc Council


iamthey

Recommended Posts

OOC: Open only OU members and those that would join us.

IC:

[quote][b]Oceanic Unification Pact[/b]

In the interests of provincial stability, common defense, and unity, the peoples of Oceania come together in ratifying this pact as a symbol to themselves and a message for the world of the underlying paradigm shift which has occurred. From this moment forward Oceania asserts itself as a concrete sphere solidifying its rightful place among the world powers. Its armies, its economies, and peoples will live and exist in cooperation with one another and it is with this spirit and intention that the Oceanic Union is hereby established.


[u]Article I: Sovereignty[/u]
Each signatory recognizes the individual sovereignty of every other and in doing so pledges to refrain from any and all forms of aggression and interference which would be directed at any union member.


[u]Article II: Supremacy[/u]
This pact will preclude any and all other treaties and agreements including those with similar superseding language.


[u]Article III: Governance[/u]
The Bloc will be governed by a council of signatories, each signatory will be granted a single vote, and the final decision of the vote will rest with the sovereign of each signatory. Member states are permitted to delegate the vote however they see fit. The council will be given several core powers.

1) The council may amend the treaty with a favorable vote carrying unanimous consent.

2) The council through a majority may interpret the casus belli of a conflict, and thus determine the respective defenders and aggressors within the conflict. The decision would set the official interpretation for every signatory.

3) The council through a majority may eject a signatory.


[u]Article IV: Mutual Defense[/u]
An attack on sovereign territory of one signatory, or an unprovoked attack on any asset belonging to a signatory shall be considered an attack on all.


[u]Article V: Optional Aggression[/u]
Signatories are encouraged to cooperate as a coalition in all conflicts including those which are not defensive in nature. However, aggressive action on the part of a signatory does not oblige any other signatory to provide assistance in the effort.


[u]Article VI: Military Cooperation[/u]
Member nations agree to coordinate militarily and establish a central military advisory command drawing its leadership from all nations, and answering to the established council.


[u]Article VII: The Asgeirsson Doctrine[/u]

Map of The Asgeirsson Doctrine

1) An Oceanic Nation will be defined as having their capital and what is considered their homeland fall within the boundaries of the Asgeirsson Doctrine. All nations falling under this definition of Oceania are thereby offered into the Union as signatories.

2) Should a signatory fall, the fate of the territory will be decided by a majority of the bloc council.

3) Should a nation within the oceanic sphere collapse, the union will take priority in deciding its fate. Prior to a majority decision a bloc led protectorate will be automatically established.

4) Only Oceanic Central Powers may exist as signatories of this bloc. To become an Oceanic Central Power, a nation's capital must exist within the boundaries of the Asgeirsson Doctrine. Land inside the Asgeirsson Doctrine, belonging to a power other than an Oceanic Central Power, will be deemed colonial.

5) Outside political influence is detrimental to the Oceanic region and as such, further outside influence will not be tolerated. While present areas exist which are not governed by Oceanic Central Powers, this treaty is not a declaration of war against them. Their territory in Oceania ONLY will be defended by the bloc against foreign influence as per its location inside the Asgeirsson Doctrine.

[u]Article VIII: Economic Cooperation & Rights of Passage[/u]
1) Each signatory agrees to an internal policy of free trade and economic cooperation, the abolishing of tariffs and trade restrictions of the Union.

2) Each member grants free right of passage to all civilian and military marine vessels and air traffic belonging to their fellow signatories.


[u]Article IX: Termination and Disbandment[/u]
1) Any signatory may opt to withdraw from this pact at any point, all articles will remain in effect for a period of 48 hours thereafter.

2) Any signatory who violates Article I, IV, and VIII will be first notified of their violation, and if the violation continues.

3) A supermajority of the council (3/4’s) may move to dissolve the union.

[b]Signed for the Queendom of Australia,[/b]
[i]HRH Hannah I Asgeiersson, Queen of Australia
HG Anthony Harlem, Grand Duke of Australia[/i]

[s][b]Signed for Alvonia,[/b]
[i]Director Markus Wilding
Minister of Foreign Affairs Erik Kunze[/i][/s]

[b]Signed for The Unified Commonwealth Of Tanelorn,[/b]
[i]Thomas Grimshaw, Monarch
Rikke Edith, Chief Legislator
Bishop Earnhardt, Chief Diplomat[/i]

[b]Signed for Selenarctos,[/b]
[i]Antonio Pilar, Second Economic Director
Marcelo Bonifacio, First Security Director
Pacita Arellano, First Popular Director[/i]

[b]Signed for Greater Pacifica,[/b]
[i]H.M Ryn Atrevier, King of Greater Pacifica[/i]

[b]Signed for the Royal Republic of Minilla Island,[/b]
[i]HRH King Raymond II, Ruling Monarch and Head of State
Albert Ezekiel Grant, Prime Minister
Joseph Paul Gualtieri, Foreign Minister[/i]

[b]Signed for New South Wales,[/b]
[i]Iestyn Conway, President
Siriol Bowen, Prime Minister[/i][/quote]

As a first order of business in this session of the bloc council...

It has come to the attention of the legal and political scholars of the Pacifican Ministry of State that a glaring flaw exists within the Bloc treaty of the Oceanic Union. Under the current text of the treaty it is now possible for each member to hold foreseeable contradictory foreign policies amounting ultimately to conflicting contradictory efforts at war.

An example scenario. Signatory A holds a particular set of treaty partners, Signatory B holds a conflicting set. The members of the two sets ultimately end up at war with one another. Set A honors their treaties entering with their own partners while B honors theirs. The treaty partners of A or conceivably their partner's partners invade B activating the OU. The same occurs with B and his partners. The OU is thus activated and EVERYONE is forced to fight both sides repelling both invasions. Meaning signatory A would have to help their enemies in the war while B would also have to do the same. Moreover it should be noted that both two signatories in this case are already indirectly at war a disagreeable eventuality to say the least. This clearly is an issue which needs to be addressed. While currently no such issue is foreseeable, it nonetheless should be corrected. We propose a treaty amendment which would state.


*This assumes the subsequent bump of every further article after that down one roman numeral as well.*

[quote][u]Article: III: Compatibility[/u]

No signatory to this pact may make war upon the military allies of another, except under cause of substantial violation to the integrity of Oceania. Substantial Violation, here defined as the activation of Article IV or breach of the Asgeirsson Doctrine.[/quote]

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Are you suggesting, then, that we abandon all other allies in the event of a potential conflict of interests? As long as the Asgeirsson Doctrine is not violated, we should be free to continue to do as we see fit. And if the doctrine is violated, it trumps all other treaties, thus putting on hold any other military actions we may have been participating in. Aside from which, as long as no one here signs a Mutual Defense AND Aggression Pact, we really do not see this issue occuring."

"So...no."

The Australian delegate looked at his papers. "Also, we have another issue to settle...the application for membership by the Malay Federation. Austrlia has been keeping tabs on this new nation within the Union's protectorate, and we have no onjection to their application. Therefore, we support it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='10 June 2010 - 01:30 AM' timestamp='1276129833' post='2330876']
"Are you suggesting, then, that we abandon all other allies in the event of a potential conflict of interests? As long as the Asgeirsson Doctrine is not violated, we should be free to continue to do as we see fit. And if the doctrine is violated, it trumps all other treaties, thus putting on hold any other military actions we may have been participating in. Aside from which, as long as no one here signs a Mutual Defense AND Aggression Pact, we really do not see this issue occuring."

"So...no."
[/quote]

Not at all, I am saying that if we hold the OU to be our highest interest, then one side of the block under cutting the diplomacy of the other is infeasible, and problematic. There should be a resolute and absolute state of compatibility, and a hole of this kind should not be left open. I would consider it harm against myself to engage your own military allies in war, just as much as I would consider it wrong for you to engage mine.

While no one at this time holds an MADP, many of his hold MDoAP's. Under the present rules I could optionally aggressor against your allies in war just as you could mutually defend your allies against mine. And in such a case you would be unable to defend your allies from me... in fact if they were to invade my homeland you would be compelled to defend me against them. If there is no limitation on action and we are truly free to progress as we desire, then this eventually will occur sooner or later, and surely you can see how it is a problem we would rather avoid. If our foreign policies and interests are to be one then we must respect eachothers' foreign policies mutually with some sort of pledge of non-aggression.


As for the malay federation, who are they? We have heard very little of them.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='iamthey' date='09 June 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1276140689' post='2331160']
Not at all, I am saying that if we hold the OU to be our highest interest, then one side of the block under cutting the diplomacy of the other is infeasible, and problematic. There should be a resolute and absolute state of compatibility, and a hole of this kind should not be left open. I would consider it harm against myself to engage your own military allies in war, just as much as I would consider it wrong for you to engage mine.

While no one at this time holds an MADP, many of his hold MDoAP's. Under the present rules I could optionally aggressor against your allies in war just as you could mutually defend your allies against mine. And in such a case you would be unable to defend your allies from me... in fact if they were to invade my homeland you would be compelled to defend me against them. If there is no limitation on action and we are truly free to progress as we desire, then this eventually will occur sooner or later, and surely you can see how it is a problem we would rather avoid. If our foreign policies and interests are to be one then we must respect eachothers' foreign policies mutually with some sort of pledge of non-aggression.


As for the malay federation, who are they? We have heard very little of them.
[/quote]
"If that is your primary concern--well, the Queendom makes it a policy not to sign anything above Mutual Defense Pacts outside of the Oceanic region. The solution to preventing a conflict of interest of this sort is simple...to not sign any treaty calling for or allowing you to join an offensive war with outside allies. Or if you must insist on a modification of the charter, just word it thus."

[quote]No signatory to this pact may make [b]aggressive[/b] war upon the military allies of another[/quote]

"And the Malay Federation..." The rep gave the Pacifican an odd look "...is one of the two nations the Union helped to stabilize on the island of Borneo."

OOC: You need to pay more attention to our protectorate. :P

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=86853&st=0&p=2322178&fromsearch=1&#entry2322178"]The DoE[/url]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=86909&st=0&p=2323538&fromsearch=1&#entry2323538"]The News Thread]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I would say," The Welsh representative chipped in, "that putting such things into legislation is pointless bureaucracy at best, and a foolish error of judgement at worst. While I have no doubt of the honour of our current signatories, that is no guarantee that such an amendment could not be abused at a later date. Seeing as this council works so closely with one another in any case, I would rather hope that we would discuss such things beforehand, rather than rashly rushing into a war without thought for the consequences. We pride ourselves on being forward thinking and reasonable, and this sort of legislation is restrictive and needless. In its current format, no."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Foreign Minister of the Malay Federation, Bayan Dompok, approached the microphone...

''on behalf of the Malay Federation I wish to thank the OU for allowing us to present our case for application. As a new nation we face the challenge of establishing a coherent economic and social policy and will require the help and expertise of the far more advanced OU member states. We see the OU as a strong stabilizing factor in large portions of SE Asia and the Pacific and believe the future prosperity of our people is best served by membership within the OU. We are fully prepared to answer any doubts any OU members may have about our application.'

Edited by Cataduanes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In that case we support the application of the Malay Federation."

"On the other issue. The point is the current treaty is a half measure, and is insufficient. Something needs be done to resolve the potential conflicts, if its not a restrictive policy like this then what? The alternative is giving the bloc the authority to halt intervention, but as that has the potential to be abused in an even greater scope then I would not consider it preferable. In either case is everyone here really alright with the bloc being a potential shield and licence for any bloc member to pillage and invade another member's allies? How can such a situation under any circumstances be favorable?"

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Hajime Sugiyama arrived in Darwin with a map for the Oceanic Union.

[URL=http://img822.imageshack.us/i/southchinaseaclaims.jpg/][IMG]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7959/southchinaseaclaims.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

"Australia has notified us that the islands of the South China Sea are under the protection of the OU, so I have come to Darwin to use the Queen's good offices. Neo Tokyo, despite its name, is a Chinese country, and we are looking to reunify the island that have been historically Chinese. The map I have brought shows what I have in mind. The red line is approximate border of the Asgeirsson Doctrine. The Yellow circles are the islands we claim, and the brown is what the states of OC may claim, since they are occupied by them the last time we checked the records.

In the wish for ethnic unification, I hope the Union may be far and allow us, the true relatives of the Chinese in those islands, to be able to claim the area."

Edited by Szent Korona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Charter Ammendment

"Your statement ignores one critical thing...Australia's conter-proposal to simply limit [i]offensive[/i] wars. What is Pacifica's stance on that? It would allow for you to defend your allies if they are the defenders. I refer to Article III: section 2). [i]'The council through a majority may interpret the casus belli of a conflict, and thus determine the respective defenders and aggressors within the conflict. The decision would set the official interpretation for every signatory.[/i]' Since the Union as a whole would determine the respective aggressor and defender, there would in the end be no conflict of interest with the modification we have proposed."

----

On the South China Sea Islands

"While we respect the desires of Neo Tokyo for ethnic unity, I remind the council it is not the only ethnically Chinese nation to have come to us for this land. Another of the ethnically Chinese nations, Articuno Islands, has come to us and asked, not for the whole thing, but the Paracel Islands exclusively. Considering their history, their claim also has merit. So...while Australia has no problem with releasing the undisputed, non-Oceanic islands to Neo Tokyo, we believe the council's earlier decision (OOC: Rare moment on IRC and messages where enough answered/OOC) should stand--the Paracel Islands should go to Articuno Islands."

Edited by Subtleknifewielder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If that had been the prior decision of the Oceanic Union, Neo Tokyo will accept it. On the other hand, we would like to have clear and undisputed rights tothe entirity the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank, and the Scarborough Shoal. Would that be enough?"

Edited by Szent Korona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record Greater Pacifica endorses the territory going to Neo Tokyo. Otherwise we would rather the OU retain the islands for the time being. The Articuno Islands remain technically at a state of war with one of Pacifica's allies, such a hand over would not sit well with us.

OOC: Keshav and triyun have an armistice, not a peace treaty. Its basically like north and south Korea.


[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='12 June 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1276348753' post='2334893']
On the Charter Ammendment

"Your statement ignores one critical thing...Australia's conter-proposal to simply limit [i]offensive[/i] wars. What is Pacifica's stance on that? It would allow for you to defend your allies if they are the defenders. I refer to Article III: section 2). [i]'The council through a majority may interpret the casus belli of a conflict, and thus determine the respective defenders and aggressors within the conflict. The decision would set the official interpretation for every signatory.[/i]' Since the Union as a whole would determine the respective aggressor and defender, there would in the end be no conflict of interest with the modification we have proposed."[/quote]

So this would basically extend the voting clause to determine whether one could enter a war or not. Except rather than an explicit power, you would simply utilize the power to determine the aggressive and defensive sides of the war. As we stated before we would be opposed to this. The point being this vastly extends the power of a majority of the bloc and gives them essentially the arbitrary power to restrain members. Our proposal is a simple universally effecting clause which prevents members from attacking the allies of other members. The point being the bloc should not be a license under any circumstances for a member to destroy the allies of another member.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Szent Korona' date='12 June 2010 - 06:38 AM' timestamp='1276349912' post='2334903']
"If that had been the prior decision of the Oceanic Union, Neo Tokyo will accept it. On the other hand, we would like to have clear and undisputed rights tothe entirity the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank, and the Scarborough Shoal. Would that be enough?"
[/quote]


The Pratas Islands, Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands* are the property of Selenarctos. If you wish to lease rights on these islands, you are more than welcome to send representation to discuss details but the transfer/sale of these islands is not an option at this time.


EDIT: *All of the Spratly Islands with 200nm of Selenarctos.

Edited by iKrolm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='iamthey' date='12 June 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1276363177' post='2335145']
For the record Greater Pacifica endorses the territory going to Neo Tokyo. Otherwise we would rather the OU retain the islands for the time being. The Articuno Islands remain technically at a state of war with one of Pacifica's allies, such a hand over would not sit well with us.

OOC: Keshav and triyun have an armistice, not a peace treaty. Its basically like north and south Korea.
[/quote]
OOC: it'd be nice if things like this were made more clear... <_<

[quote name='iamthey' date='12 June 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1276363177' post='2335145']So this would basically extend the voting clause to determine whether one could enter a war or not. Except rather than an explicit power, you would simply utilize the power to determine the aggressive and defensive sides of the war. As we stated before we would be opposed to this. The point being this vastly extends the power of a majority of the bloc and gives them essentially the arbitrary power to restrain members. Our proposal is a simple universally effecting clause which prevents members from attacking the allies of other members. The point being the bloc should not be a license under any circumstances for a member to destroy the allies of another member.
[/quote]
"You misrepresent the proposal. If it is to restrain members...it would only be to prevent certain members from attacking the military allies of another member, should it be determined those allies are the defenders in a war, rather than the aggressors."

OOC: IAT, aren't you and I the only members to have anything above an ODP outside the Union anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=%26%2339%3BiKrolm%26%2339%3B date='12 June 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1276387455' post='2335529']
The Pratas Islands, Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands* are the property of Selenarctos. If you wish to lease rights on these islands, you are more than welcome to send representation to discuss details but the transfer/sale of these islands is not an option at this time.


EDIT: *All of the Spratly Islands with 200nm of Selenarctos.
[/quote]

Sugiyama felt his jaws tighten when he saw the transcript from Selenarctos. He had expected them to be a problem, but it was not as much as he thought. He made adjustments to the map.

[URL=http://img508.imageshack.us/i/southchinaseadivision.jpg/][IMG]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5641/southchinaseadivision.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

"Applying the current territories and claims of Selenarctos, I have made this map. Orange is Articuno Islands, Brown is Selenarctos, and Yellow is Neo Tokyo. The Spratly Islands that are under Selenarctos are within 200nm from all the main territories of Selenarctos.

Is the Oceanic Union now satisfied? I hope that there is no filibustering now."


OOC: iKrolm, I've actually given you more than 200nm, so please don't complain about the map being small and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: Nah, map looks about right. We've been discussing it by PM, waiting on some replies though. Also, the Malay Federation isn't a member nation yet (correct me if I'm wrong?), so he should be consulted with separately until he becomes a member.
IC:

"Until now, the water surrounding these islands have, by and large, been handled as international waters will all the applicable laws and regulations. If the area of the South China Sea in question were to be surrendered to the control of the Neo Tokyo, and I repeat if with neither support for or criticism against such a transfer, an agreement would need to be reached allowing Selenarctan and, I would assume, other nearby nations' commercial and military vessels to carry on actions as they previously have within said areas."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Neo Tokyo does not wish to be a burden to anyone by closing off the waters to any commerical or military vessels, as long as the vessels in question are not a direct threat to us. We can assure you that we still continue custom and allow the waters to be free for innocent passage."


OOC: The Malay Federation doesn't own any of the islands, unlike your claims. So, I see no reason why I would have to consult with him, unless he brings up the issue in OU directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...