There is an inherent flaw in introducing morals into this argument when it is more or less an issue of classification. Whether you like it or not, the debate is about how we define a tech raid. If it were about what sovereignty implies, then we could and should be discussing whether or not Athens and FoB have the right to attack an isolated alliance (irrespective of alliance members). However, because the issue at hand is entirely about how we classify this conduct, we should not at all be concerned with the political ramifications (at least in this thread). Rather, it should be the focus of debate to determine the legality of coordinated raiding.
As many of you know (possibly even firsthand), raiding is a risky affair, particularly when your nation is in the higher nation strength ranges. You run the risk of someone calling for backup, nuking, or even hanging around for a wasteful seven days of no peace. The rewards however, are obvious. Tech is the most valuable, and land has it's purposes as well. In essence, the key to raiding is to maximize your gains and make the most efficient use of your slots/time.
Therefore, efficient raiding tactics will yield the most return. For example, sending peace immediately after doing your raid makes it possible for the raider to maybe free up that slot the same day. It also makes sense to stick to ground attacks only, because destroying your target to any extent greater than necessary will also limit the possible return for the raid. As many of you know, raiders will often use cautious attacks to avoid high casualty counts that threaten to put a target in anarchy, or limit tech return.
The point I'm getting to here is that if Athens and FoB stick to ground attacks (assuming there is no retaliation from KoNi), it is an entirely legal tech raid, regardless of how many are involved. That said, you can also see that many of the aggressor nations are doubling or tripling up on raids. It's risky, but it shows to demonstrate that there isn't some kind of reckless curb-stomping going on here. At the time of posting there are 55 wars for some 39 members. Compared to full alliance warfare, that is nearly negligible. Does it suck for KoNi? Yes, of course it does. The obvious response is, "why in the world did you form an alliance with no ability to protect itself from this sort of thing?". I'm not blaming the victim. This can happen to ANY non-treatied alliance. And it's legal too.
On the point of the Athens charter. It is not their responsibility to tell you that their charter has changed. Do not presume to be in control of their internal affairs, or their rights to change that charter.
Finally, on the sentiments of "global morality". Who is "everyone"? When I see people say that things are 'generally' not done the way demonstrated by the alliances in mention, it forces me to ask myself, "who is in charge of that supposed morality"? The fact of the matter is, you have no avatar to speak for this supposed global mentality. In fact, does this event not set a separate precedent to challenge said morality? Because the event we are speaking of is in fact a tech raid, it is one hundred percent legal. At this point, you are arguing semantics and history. But at the end of the thread, who are you trying to speak for outside of your alliance? Why should individual alliances submit to what you think is right just because of your standing in Bob?
Realistically, there is a fundamental difference between what is considered a broken social more, and an outright taboo. The real question that needs to be answered by those decrying the actions of FoB and Athens, is what kind of sanctions will you impose? Will you even bother?
If you have no intention of doing something about it, you are merely fighting for the sake of fighting, and have no place in this thread.
tl;dr
Because the wars are tech raids by terms of combat, and because the charters of both alliances allow it, the raids are legal.
Moral bawwing doesn't accomplish anything unless you're willing to do something about it.