Jump to content

Clarification regarding the Möbius Accords


Cobalt

Recommended Posts

Little confusion regarding Section III.B of the Mobius Accords;

B – An attack on one signatory shall be considered an attack on all signatories and will be met in defense by all other signatories with all means of assistance available. This assistance is mandatory and may not be overridden or mitigated by any means, including but not limited to conflicting agreements.

The part in question is in bold.

Section III.B states that Military assistance must be given no matter the circumstances, and no treaty conflicts or anything can override that. Essentially, its a superiority clause, making the bloc's binds the most important in every signatory alliance. The confusion mounts when things such as the following are posted:

5. All of Valhalla's treaties with multilateral military obligations(meaning MDPs, MDoAPs, and MADPs) are hereafter suspended.

Clauses dealing with bloc treaties:

5a. In PEACE's case, Valhalla will not be able to partake in any actions pertaining to Articles IV and V of Posideon.(PEACE)

5b. For the Möbius Accords, Valhalla will not be able to participate in any actions covered by Article III. (Möbius)

Again, section in question in bold.

As I see it, you have the Mobius Accords saying that the defense clause cannot be overridden by anything... then a set of surrender terms overriding it. What course of action is being taken here, and whether Valhalla plans on keeping by their senior treaty (Mobius Accords) or breaking their signed commitment by allowing their surrender terms to override that which they agreed to never be overridden?

This strikes me as an important turning point in the way treaties are written/honored - if superiority is agreed upon, to what point is it acceptable to ignore the clause yet maintain signatory status?

Edited by Tungsten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treaty is suspended for Valhalla, the answer is in your post.

If there is no objection by the signatories involved, I don't see how this is an issue. Valhalla honored the superiority clause and there was no marginal utility of them staying in war any further.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much inside knowledge for you chief :P

*Cobalt tips his hat. Well played

- - -

[OOC] Seeing as the cancellation of the Mobius Accords makes this thread about as useful as Heath Ledgers's alarm clock.... Mods; can I request a lock?[/OOC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[OOC] Seeing as the cancellation of the Mobius Accords makes this thread about as useful as Heath Ledgers's alarm clock.... Mods; can I request a lock?[/OOC]

You, sir, owe me one cup of coffee due to the effects of your wit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, you have the Mobius Accords saying that the defense clause cannot be overridden by anything... then a set of surrender terms overriding it. What course of action is being taken here, and whether Valhalla plans on keeping by their senior treaty (Mobius Accords) or breaking their signed commitment by allowing their surrender terms to override that which they agreed to never be overridden?

This strikes me as an important turning point in the way treaties are written/honored - if superiority is agreed upon, to what point is it acceptable to ignore the clause yet maintain signatory status?

I think that your original point was correct (there's a conflict) and that this discussion isn't useless at all.

On the other hand, it isn't a "turning point", but just the old "going back to the basis": Valhalla's sovereignty justifies (and thus overrides) any treaty Valhalla agrees to.

It's Valhalla's call to decide which of their treaties is "superior" - and it is was the other Q signatories' call to decide if Valhalla is was breaking the Mobius Accords by that decision. They don't seem to think that Valhalla did anything wrong, by the way (and rightfully so, I might add).

[Edit:up-to-dating]

Edited by jerdge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to go into intent.

The intent of the clause was to prevent conflicting treaties from keeping the bloc from fighting in common cause, or worse, fighting each other. There was no consideration given to possible compliance with surrender terms, else that would have been stated. Therefore Valhalla fulfilled its commitments under the treaty.

Move over, the precedent as already been set for individual alliances to decide to cancel the treaty. A voluntary suspension by Valhalla in fact was a lesser action and was not prohibited by the Accords. Side note, in future bloc treaties of this sort, a clause covering suspension or cancellation of the treaty by individual members would probably be a good idea.

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...