Treaty Interpretation

[Icewolf]

I've been lurking on these forums, and I've been reading the treaties that are signed between alliances. One thing I have noticed is that they are all fairly non-specific. As a Law Student, this immediately brings forward the issue of how to interpret them. So I was wondering how the community as a whole interprets treaties in the following situations (or if there have been examples in the past regarding these interpretations.)

Please note, I am not criticising the authors of these treaties. This thread is purely so that I can educate myself about the workings of CN.

[u]Scenario 1[/u]
Almost all treaties have a cancellation clause, which states that it remains in effect for a certain amount of time (2 or three days) after the cancellation is notified. What happens if an alliance (A) is attacked during this period? Does this mean that the treaty remains in force until that war ends, or does the treaty only provide an obligation to fight for the first two or three days of that conflict and expire as normal? After which the non-attacked alliance is free to back out.

If the answer is the former (so it lasts till the end of the conflict) and the alliance first declared (A) upon is declared upon 4 days later (after the expiration date but with the oligated alliance fighting to defend their ally) would the fact the treaty is extended oblige the other alliance (B) to fight that alliance as well?

[u]Scenario 2[/u]
This relates to intelligence clauses that are often in these treaties, generally providing that there is an obligation to share intelligence that is of relevance to the other alliance. What happens in the following scenario.

Alliance A knows Alliance C will be attacked. Alliance B has an intelligence Treaty as part of an MDP with Alliance A, and do a lot of tech trading with alliance C, and have an intelligence clause as part of an ODP with them.

Obviously the attack on C matters to B, so A is bound to share information with them. However, B then becomes bound to share it with C, meaning C gets notified of the attack. Under what circumstances can A not inform B, or B not inform C, and is the treaty capable of being interpreted to include a no-chaining clause (so information shared cannot be passed on)


I'm sorry if there are obvious answers and I am just wasting peoples time, but this is a matter that has been bugging me for a while now.

[Deimos27]

I believe the generally accepted interpretation of Scenario 1 is for the treatied alliance(s) to fight for the duration of the conflict - the treaty is still in effect during the cancellation period, meaning it is activated and all its effects applied regardless of the cancellation period expiring. So the obligation would kind of get extended until the conflict ends.

Keep in mind however, CN is much more a social than a political game. That and the fact we have no world authority or limitations (like the UN) means treaty interpretations will vary wildly, with moral condemnations and backroom deals developing beyond the text. Though some things are more or less frowned upon universally at least on the surface (bandwagoning, spying, etc), those are purely moral sanctions.

Intelligence clauses like in Scenario 2 would likely fall too deep into that subjectivity and vary too much from alliance to alliance for a definite answer that emcompasses generally accepted customs. But really I don't know, I've never been high gov, just a regular grunt.

Keep in mind these are amateur impressions like yours, people who are actually in high gov and make this game actually work would answer more precisely.

[MrMuz]

There seems to be nothing saying that anyone is bound to fight for a certain period of time to honor a treaty. You could technically just honor the agreement and fight for 12 hours and then surrender, whether or not the treaty was canceled, though that would certainly get your treaty canceled either way.

As for Scenario 2, I don't think it's that important, because people do tech trading with everyone. If tech trading was considered relevant in treaties, then everyone is bound to inform each other. But if alliance B had a chaining MDP+ with alliance C, alliance A would have to inform them. If alliance B had an ODP with alliance C, I'd say information would also be kinda optional. Depends on how deeply the intelligence clause runs.

Also, yeah, there's no real legal enforcement of these things, so it doesn't really matter. You'd probably be shunned for treaty lawyering if it doesn't apply in context.

[Prodigal Moon]

Regarding Scenario 1: I'm struggling to come up with a time when that issue actually came up. If an alliance were planning on dropping an ally right before a possible attack, this would probably get communicated to the attackers so that they could wait a few days and not have to deal with fighting another alliance that doesn't even want to fight. I think that clause is more to make sure you have some notice that your ally is leaving, and to make sure they can't instantly cancel and attack you all at once, and some treaties will specify that there is only a NAP in place during the cancellation clause, rather than the full treaty being in effect.

Scenario 2 probably happens all the time and reflects how ridiculously careless people are with signing multiple treaties. Back in the AA Silence, we had a situation in which our MDP allies attacked our other MDP allies, and didn't inform us that this was about to happen because they didn't want us leaking the info to the target. In this case it's just a matter of balancing the benefit of surprise against the cost of pissing off an ally. I don't really know what the right thing to do would be in that case: they violated our treaty but of course they're not going to tell their target's ally that the target is getting hit. This was our fault for not being able to form a cohesive foreign policy.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1339255841' post='2979879']
[u]Scenario 1[/u]
Almost all treaties have a cancellation clause, which states that it remains in effect for a certain amount of time (2 or three days) after the cancellation is notified. What happens if an alliance (A) is attacked during this period? Does this mean that the treaty remains in force until that war ends, or does the treaty only provide an obligation to fight for the first two or three days of that conflict and expire as normal? After which the non-attacked alliance is free to back out.[/quote]

From what I've seen thus far, most treaties being cancelled are usually announced as such once the 2 or 3 days have passed. Since I don't remember any public arguments around the above situation, the parties must work this out one way or another quietly.

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1339255841' post='2979879']
[u]Scenario 2[/u]What happens in the following scenario. Alliance A knows Alliance C will be attacked. Alliance B has an intelligence Treaty as part of an MDP with Alliance A, and do a lot of tech trading with alliance C, and have an intelligence clause as part of an ODP with them.[/quote]

By "common practice" (that's kind of like legal precedent but on a cultural level as opposed to a court system), treaties that are "mandatory" > than "optional" ones. Thus my guess is that IF alliance A chooses to follow both treaties in a legalistic fashion, it would not say anything to alliance C because the treaty with alliance B is a "higher" one. And if alliance C ever finds out that alliance A knew about the attack, that's the excuse. Will that make the leaders of alliance C feel any better? No.

So what really happens is a lot more messy.

The smart thing is for alliance A to do is just to keep it's plans from alliance B in the first place and don't count on alliance B helping. In fact, leaders from alliance B may end up helping the war end by putting pressure on A and C to work it out.

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1339255841' post='2979879']I'm sorry if there are obvious answers and I am just wasting peoples time, but this is a matter that has been bugging me for a while now.
[/quote]

All leaders of Lander Clan are legally trained, so I get why it bugs you. My advice in reading treaties is to view them as an informal contract between the alliances who signed them. They can be changed at any time if the signers agree (not everyone would agree with me here, but that's how I see it) and what keeps them "binding" is not that a formal court process but the value of maintaining a good reputation and the natural consequences (aka: other alliances will be less likely to sign treaties with an alliance that doesn't keep it's "promises" to others) of breaking them.

Having said all that, there is only one ultimate law here - might (which includes both military power but also reputation and the power of persuasion) makes right.

Edited June 9, 2012 by White Chocolate

[SpacingOutMan]

Legalese is a dead art in CN. People will interpret treaties however they deem best at the time.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1339262309' post='2979929']
Scenario 2 probably happens all the time and reflects how ridiculously careless people are with signing multiple treaties. Back in the AA Silence, we had a situation in which our MDP allies attacked our other MDP allies, and didn't inform us that this was about to happen because they didn't want us leaking the info to the target. In this case it's just a matter of balancing the benefit of surprise against the cost of pissing off an ally. I don't really know what the right thing to do would be in that case: they violated our treaty but of course they're not going to tell their target's ally that the target is getting hit. This was our fault for not being able to form a cohesive foreign policy.
[/quote]

I disagree, it may well have been partly your fault for incoherent FA but that's not the whole of it. The attacking allies had an obligation to tell you, whether or not that would have blown their surprise has absolutely nothing to do with it. They probably should have cancelled on you before it reached that point, that would have been the smart thing, but either you honor your word or you dont, and in this case they clearly did not.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1339271037' post='2979951']
By "common practice" (that's kind of like legal precedent but on a cultural level as opposed to a court system), treaties that are "mandatory" > than "optional" ones. Thus my guess is that IF alliance A chooses to follow both treaties in a legalistic fashion, it would not say anything to alliance C because the treaty with alliance B is a "higher" one. And if alliance C ever finds out that alliance A knew about the attack, that's the excuse. Will that make the leaders of alliance C feel any better? No.[/quote]

This is just ludicrous. Again, you either keep your word or you dont. Unless that ODP has a clause that explicitly says any obligation under it is null and void when conflicting with a 'higher' treaty, it does not.

This does mean that you can put yourself in a position where it is impossible to keep your word. Not my fault! Dont make obligations you cannot or will not keep, it's that simple.

[Monster]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1339283393' post='2979998']
I disagree, it may well have been partly your fault for incoherent FA but that's not the whole of it. The attacking allies had an obligation to tell you, whether or not that would have blown their surprise has absolutely nothing to do with it. They probably should have cancelled on you before it reached that point, that would have been the smart thing, but either you honor your word or you dont, and in this case they clearly did not.



This is just ludicrous. Again, you either keep your word or you dont. Unless that ODP has a clause that explicitly says any obligation under it is null and void when conflicting with a 'higher' treaty, it does not.

This does mean that you can put yourself in a position where it is impossible to keep your word. Not my fault! Dont make obligations you cannot or will not keep, it's that simple.
[/quote]


No, in a war, the priority is to do what's in the interests of the side you're on. Giving away intel that will benefit the enemy camp is selling out your co-combatants. The instance I think he's referring to is CSN attacking STA despite Silence being treatied to both. No one with a brain will do that and coalition warfare will take precedence over individual one-off treaties any day.

The issue, however, is a dated system of individual treaties exists despite wars never being an affair where it's just you and that particular treaty partner. It should either be that you're willing to roll with a certain group of alliances at any turn rather than having one-off ties all over the place.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Roquentin

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1339283393' post='2979998']
I disagree, it may well have been partly your fault for incoherent FA but that's not the whole of it. The attacking allies had an obligation to tell you, whether or not that would have blown their surprise has absolutely nothing to do with it. They probably should have cancelled on you before it reached that point, that would have been the smart thing, but either you honor your word or you dont, and in this case they clearly did not.[/quote]
I don't mean to make it sound like they didn't violate our treaty - they did (as far as I can recall). Roquentin has a good memory and helped add some of the contextual nuances. What I was trying to get across is that I wouldn't expect an alliance to engage in completely contradictory/self-defeating behavior like indirectly alerting their target before an attack - especially when the attack is in fulfillment of another treaty obligation. Just like I think it's silly for an alliance to declare war on both sides of a conflict. Once the treaties are in place and the conflict arises, they're going to have to betray one side or the other, so they might as well chose only one (not both) and deal with the consequences. Again, it's not admirable, but it is probably the most sensible long-term strategy for them to take.

Another example would be MHA canceling their "eternal" treaty with Gremlins. They violated the treaty and got some bad PR, but I doubt many people care about that now. To have continued to honor that treaty would be self-defeating well beyond the consequences of violating it.

Edit: and of course I am completely on board with Roq's last statement there about forming independent/cohesive groups, rather than having a piecemeal foreign policy.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Prodigal Moon

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1339283393' post='2979998']This is just ludicrous. Again, you either keep your word or you dont. Unless that ODP has a clause that explicitly says any obligation under it is null and void when conflicting with a 'higher' treaty, it does not. [/quote]

I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but in general that's the argument I've heard made when you have conflicting treaties and one is optional while another isn't. Also, if there is an optional military clause (at least in the treaties I've written) then the intelligence sharing part is optional too. Problem solved.

In reality, OP, with the treaty web how it is, it's extremely rare to have just two alliances involved in a war and, that being the case, rumors abound and alliance C in your hypothetical probably has numerous sources giving the leaders information about the threat. In fact, the counter attack may already be planned and then what happens after that. In the last war, I had at least three people say "I heard you're going to be attacking alliance C" before we even finished with our 24 hour vote on the matter.

Edited June 9, 2012 by White Chocolate

[Icewolf]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1339283393' post='2979998']
This is just ludicrous. Again, you either keep your word or you dont. Unless that ODP has a clause that explicitly says any obligation under it is null and void when conflicting with a 'higher' treaty, it does not.

This does mean that you can put yourself in a position where it is impossible to keep your word. Not my fault! Dont make obligations you cannot or will not keep, it's that simple.
[/quote]It depends how common the practice is. If everyone in CN understands the order to be "Bloc-MADP-MDP-ODP-PIAT" then the statement may be implied rather than needing to be inserted into the treaty. In which case the only time a statement was needed was when it went against the ordinary meaning as understood by the people signing it.

Of course it is generally good practice to avoid leaving things as implications, however that does not change the fact that it may be a valid interpretation of the treaty to say it is superseded by MDP allies.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339283598' post='2980001']
No, in a war, the priority is to do what's in the interests of the side you're on. Giving away intel that will benefit the enemy camp is selling out your co-combatants. The instance I think he's referring to is CSN attacking STA despite Silence being treatied to both. No one with a brain will do that and coalition warfare will take precedence over individual one-off treaties any day. [/quote]

Again, you either keep your word or you dont, and if you arent prepared to do what the treaty says you shouldnt sign it.

I understand, and agree with, the logic of coalition warfare. What I dont agree with is the implication that this or anything else excuses breaking your word.

You complain about the treaty web, but then you provide the ideological support for it! If people didnt expect to see such weak, lame misdirection accepted as somehow excusing such behaviour, they would have an incentive to be more careful what they sign.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1339283598' post='2980001']
No, in a war, the priority is to do what's in the interests of the side you're on. Giving away intel that will benefit the enemy camp is selling out your co-combatants. The instance I think he's referring to is CSN attacking STA despite Silence being treatied to both. No one with a brain will do that and coalition warfare will take precedence over individual one-off treaties any day.
[/quote]

I personally have always maintained a policy of do not attack allies of allies. I'm sure several other people have done that in the past, we just don't here about it that much. Usually it's the ally of both that's so angry. (VE during the FIST thing is a good example from history)

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1339295515' post='2980060']
I personally have always maintained a policy of do not attack allies of allies. I'm sure several other people have done that in the past, we just don't here about it that much. Usually it's the ally of both that's so angry. (VE during the FIST thing is a good example from history)
[/quote]

Sparta/ODN/MHA is a more recent example as well.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1339295625' post='2980061']
Sparta/ODN/MHA is a more recent example as well.
[/quote]

Yes indeed.

[Deimos27]

Even so, Sigrun, conflict is doomed to arise. How would you solve it after prevention failed?

Edited June 10, 2012 by Deimos27

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1339295625' post='2980061']
Sparta/ODN/MHA is a more recent example as well.
[/quote]

Don't forget about Umbrella/MHA and KoFN.

[Freddy]

Opinion is the highest court of law here. And treaties are like locked doors - they only keep honest people out. You can interpret and adhere to them according to public and private opinion. There's a risk in doing an ally wrong.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1339300097' post='2980086']
There's a risk in doing an ally wrong.
[/quote]

Not really. If you've got other, more important friends behind you who are in power, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want.

examples:

Legacy cancelling on SF, turning around and attacking them later. Ragnarok doing the same. Sparta/ODN wasn't even really that publically scandalous. Poison Clan directly attacking TPF, violating their NAP during Karma.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Emperor Whimsical

[Freddy]

The risk is it may be publicly scandalous. It will most likely turn the wronged alliance against you. Possibly other alliances will lose trust in you. It depends on how it is spun. Short term political and military advantages are the objective of underhanded actions, so you would expect your back to be covered short term. But the reputation gained from stabbing an old friend in the back for a new friend will follow you.

[Hereno]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1339273277' post='2979960']
Legalese is a dead art in CN. People will interpret treaties however they deem best at the time.
[/quote]

Yep, pretty much this. Which interpretation works out in the alliance's best favor in the both short and long term - or what they perceive to be the case - is what they'll argue.

[Icewolf]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1339309416' post='2980154']
Yep, pretty much this. Which interpretation works out in the alliance's best favor in the both short and long term - or what they perceive to be the case - is what they'll argue.
[/quote]
But given there is a backlash from breaking treaties then surely how the treaty is interpreted will impact on how that backlash arises. If an alliance pulls out after a 48 engagement arguing the expiration of the treaty that was announced before the war, then how the CN community reads that action will depend on how they read what the alliance agreed to.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1339273277' post='2979960']
Legalese is a dead art in CN. People will interpret treaties however they deem best at the time.
[/quote]
Pretty much this ^. The new art is ignoring whatever treaty makes the most sense to you and your side of the conflict

[Hereno]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1339332675' post='2980221']
But given there is a backlash from breaking treaties then surely how the treaty is interpreted will impact on how that backlash arises. If an alliance pulls out after a 48 engagement arguing the expiration of the treaty that was announced before the war, then how the CN community reads that action will depend on how they read what the alliance agreed to.
[/quote]

Right. "Whether or not they'll buy our !@#$%^&*" is certainly a factor in deciding which course of action is best.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1339332675' post='2980221']
But given there is a backlash from breaking treaties then surely how the treaty is interpreted will impact on how that backlash arises. If an alliance pulls out after a 48 engagement arguing the expiration of the treaty that was announced before the war, then how the CN community reads that action will depend on how they read what the alliance agreed to.
[/quote]

Hence the "deem best at the time" portion of my statement. When it's all said and done, when an alliance makes a decision, it is making a decision that it supposes is the best. Whether or not it is objectively the best decision is irrelevant. In your example, if an alliance pulls out after 48 hours then they are exercising their own sovereign right to do so. Some might view it as cowardly, others might applaud it as being smart, but the overwhelming majority of the community will likely not give two !@#$% (unless the alliance backing out is widely hated).