Zog's Blog

I've written a number of treaties and have never used this article. In fact, aside from minor wording changes, a couple clauses here and there, and the difference between mutual and optional treaties, they've been mostly the same since I wrote the Invicta/IAA MDoAP.

What do I win?

A pleasantly surprised expression.

I suspect it has an origin/rationale that is lost to history. Perhaps in the past their were monstrous, oppressive alliances that used FA as a weapon against underlings...

Or maybe the phrase was a precursor to the "oA" concept, and has simply been regurgitated mindlessly because it sounds cool, and because all treaties are 90% boilerplate anyway. I can only tell them apart by the "clever" name at the top and the signatures at the bottom. The middle is largely irrelevant.

Or it could be any number of other reasons, I suppose. But these things tend to get created for a reason, then echoed endlessly.

-Craig

It's a tradition, I guess.

I guess it's necessary to keep alliances from being a puppet to their allies. The signatures at the bottom could just be them signing away their sovereignty, like how a contract selling your soul would need your signature. It was probably some check to keep people from using an ODAP to control an alliance.

This probably falls under the guise of "The forms must be obeyed". Perhaps it lends legitimacy by leaning on history. Either way, I can't disagree with the stupidity of the continued inclusion.

It's a justification to cancel treaties, the breaching of the sovereignty clause. While it's implicit alliances are both sovereign, an interference from either on the other's sovereignty can be used as suitable excuse and labeled as treaty breaching.

Usual interferences on sovereignties mean either reparations or war.

If given the chance to write a treaty, I'd write in a clause that recognized the illegitimacy of the cosignatories just for you.

Yeah, I don't like it either. It's dumb.

very good point

It's a justification to cancel treaties, the breaching of the sovereignty clause. While it's implicit alliances are both sovereign, an interference from either on the other's sovereignty can be used as suitable excuse and labeled as treaty breaching.

Usual interferences on sovereignties mean either reparations or war.

Nobody would actually do that, because it's such a broad term to try to cancel on. What does it really mean? Asking for an ally's warchests? Asking for their help with a war? Asking them to not enter the war on the opposite side? Asking them not to sign treaties with certain people?

It's always been seen as a valid justification to cancel a treaty for those reasons.

It's a justification to cancel treaties, the breaching of the sovereignty clause. While it's implicit alliances are both sovereign, an interference from either on the other's sovereignty can be used as suitable excuse and labeled as treaty breaching.Usual interferences on sovereignties mean either reparations or war.

Nobody would actually do that, because it's such a broad term to try to cancel on. What does it really mean? Asking for an ally's warchests? Asking for their help with a war? Asking them to not enter the war on the opposite side? Asking them not to sign treaties with certain people?

It's always been seen as a valid justification to cancel a treaty for those reasons.

The reason treaties exist is to give form to common conventions. It is common convention that subordinating an ally by trying to force them into something they do not wish (without legal justification, anyways) is a reason to cancel, and it is for that reason it was put into treaties, just as all other terms of treaties are. The reason why it doesn't make sense to include is because this should be obvious with or without a treaty as merely the way all alliances operate, rather than simply between those who call each other allies.

It makes me cringe, too. I think it's just become so standard that to not include it might seem even more odd to some people.

I think the same thing about every other PIAT-type clause that shows up in an MDP. If your defense partner is not sharing crucial intel, not aiding when you need them to, or even (lol) attacking you, then just cancel the damn treaty.

To be honest, next treaty I write up, instead of a sovereignty clause I'll write a clause that is contained in on sentence: "If we don't like you anymore, the treaty is canceled." Pretty much sums up the point of a sovereignty clause that people cite for cancellation reasons anyways.

It makes perfect sense because irl there are concerns with sovereignty when a nation enters into a treaty. When CN started, many of those norms were carried over (to the extent that there were NAPs and ToAs, which have almost no applicability within the realm of a game, but make sense irl). As time has gone on, we've realised that treaties do not infringe on sovereignty but because we copy and paste old treaties the clauses stick.

If you need a treaty clause to give you a reason to cancel a treaty, you've forgotten that you're sovereign.