TPF MADP Treaties

[Sigrun Vapneir]

This started as a reply in Elyat's thread in alliance announcements, however after spending some time composing it I decided it was worthy of its own thread here, instead of being buried between all the hasty trolls which lengthens that thread more quickly than I can read it.

The claim was made by several posters that TPFs partners were all, without exception and regardless of the truth or falsehood of the accusations which form the basis for this war, obligated to intervene militarily for them anyway. Mention was made of anti-espionage clauses, for instance, and one poster said he had just reviewed Zenith's treaty and there was no such clause. I decided to take a look myself and it turned into a bit of a project. I have NOT at this point completed analysis of all their active treaties, and in fact I cannot promise I will, but I have finished the analysis of the treaties which are listed on the wiki as MADP at this point, and thought the results were worth sharing.

I have made one assumption in this analysis, because it is unavoidable. To make the difficulty clear I will attempt to explain it concretely rather than abstractly.

Let us say we have a very simple treaty (the for-the-sake-of-argument treaty, or FTSOA) with only 3 articles, between you and I. The first says we will not conduct espionage against each other or any third party. The second says if one is attacked the other will come to their aid. The third says that if one party wishes to terminate they may do so with 48 hours notice, and in that case the other two articles still apply until that 48 hours have passed. This is slightly simpler than most actual treaties but otherwise quite typical.

What none of those articles explain is what, exactly, is the consequence of a violation. And this is why, however hard I try, I find I simply cannot provide any reasonable interpretation of a treaty like this without making assumptions that do not exist in the text. If I violate article 1 by spying, what are the consequences of that violation?

The most extreme reply would be that there is no consequence at all, unless the other party decides to impose one by activating the cancellation clause. One immediately apparent problem is that the same logic, if held true, would then apply to article 2 as well. So you are attacked, and I violate article 2 by declining to come to your aid - there is likewise no consequence at all, unless you decide to invoke article 3 in response, in which case that is your sole remedy.

It should be obvious that accepting this logic would effectively render any such treaty meaningless null and void, and one of the fundamental rules in the interpretation of contracts (of which treaties are a type) is that any interpretation that does this cannot be correct.

The solution to this problem is to posit that there is an implied remedy of some sort. Implying rules that do not exist in the black and white of the contract are to be avoided whenever possible, but it is allowed when it has to be done to avoid rendering operative language null, as is clearly the case here.

Given the difficulty I have explained above, I have chosen to proceed under a conservative interpretation. I will assume that violation of a treaty which does not explicitly state a penalty for violation simply frees the other party of military obligations that would otherwise result in the innocent party becoming a party to the violation themselves.

This much effect, at minimum, MUST be read into such an agreement. Otherwise, while article 1 prohibits espionage, the lack of consequence for its violation, combined with article 2, means that I can commit espionage anytime I like *and force you to become a party to it* by defending me when it is discovered!

That said, the main event, the analysis of the TPFs current MADP treaties as they apply to the question of whether or not they actually obligate military entries from the opposite parties.

NEW

This is advertised as a MAD Pact, and reads that way. And the anti-espionage clause clearly only applies to espionage by one signatory against the other - espionage against innocent third parties isnt mentioned at all.

Unlike the other treaties analysed below, this one *does* specify consequences for violations of certain clauses. The consequences specified are that the treaty *immediately* becomes null and void, without the normal cooling down period. This is an unusual arrangement. I think I understand the reason it is there historically but that is really not relevant to this analysis. Technically this treaty can be voided in a word, by simply 'declining' the request mhawk made here recently. Technically it has also been void for many months now, as a result of the failure of TPF to inform NEW of the ZH project a minimum of 72 hours before launching it, assuming they were indeed not informed.

I have argued back and forth over this one for a bit myself. The case can be made to treat this treaty in that way, but I will not be the one to make it. Therefore:

CONCLUSION: NEW does appear to be obligated to intervene.

FEAR

Again, billed as a MAD Pact and reads like one. This one, however, has quite a different espionage clause labeled Article 5, ruling out the use of such tactics without reservation. The crimes TPF has been accused of would seem clearly to constitute violation of this treaty on their part. As explained above, I will assume this means they may refuse to defend TPF against attacks that result specifically from that violation, leaving the treaty otherwise intact until and unless one of the parties chooses to cancel it.

If FEAR cancels, the cool-down period is 72 hours. Also this treaty may be dissolved without notice, but only if both parties agree, which is clearly not happening.

CONCLUSION: FEAR has good and reasonable cause to decline to answer TPFs request in this case, as well as to cancel the treaty if they choose to. If they choose to cancel this will stay in effect for 72 hours. They will be obliged to intervene, however, should they come to the sincere belief that TPF is innocent of the charges.

Zenith

Article 4 of this treaty is another standard espionage clause, which again clearly prohibits the use of the tactics TPF is roasting for. (Contrary to what was asserted in the other thread.) As in the case of FEAR, the treaty does not appear to be self-cancelling or to have any sort of enforcement mechanism beyond termination. Additionally, this treaty has a very long cooling-down clause, 120 hours. And unlike FEARs treaty, this one has no provision for cancelling it more quickly, even with consent of the other party.

CONCLUSION: Zenith also has good cause to decline TPFs request for assistance, as well as to cancel their treaty if they so choose. In this case it will stay in effect for 120 hours. They remain, in any case, obliged to defend TPF if they come to a sincere belief that TPF is innocent of the charges.

I believe this analysis alone, without going into the MDoAPs, has already demonstrated that several popular memes being bounced around are simply incorrect. At least 2 of the 3 MADP partners TPF can claim *do* have good and proper justification to decline to aid them at the present time, without cancelling treaties, and without being in violation of said treaties.

Also note that a very good argument can be made for NEW having the same option, although I personally reject it, they are in a better decision to make that judgement than I am. My analysis should not be read as claiming precedence over their own.

Note that I am taking no position on what they *will* do or even what they *should* do - simply pointing out that these treaties do not say what many posters are endlessly claiming they say.

Discuss.

[Kalabac]

NEW's case to not help seems pretty stretched, if i were them id help

[doctorrodders]

You also have the case of whether the alliances believe TPF to be good enough freinds to help them, even if they believe that they are guilty of the charges. I'm not here to pass judgement on TPF, but I feel that if the alliances were close enough to form these pacts in the first place, then they should defend TPF regardless of blame.

Just my two cents, and not at all indictive of my alliance

[Bob Janova]

An interesting analysis which will undoubtedly be ignored by the people shouting the loudest. This is exactly why it's important to write treaties carefully and make sure the obligations enshrined in them are what you actually want to be obliged to do.

[Nobody Expects]

Its also worth noting that not one of these treaties or indeed the other MDoAPs TPF hold specify a timeframe for action.

[JWConner]

It's all conjecture. Everyone knows treaties are just made for show. Nobody holds to them these days.

[Goldie]

A good read for sure, but I do think that TPF's allies will answer the call more in many more cases than they won't for this matter, so the purpose moot.

[James I]

I disagree that NEW is under an obligation to come in.

There's no reason to suggest that NEW has rejected TPF's request to enter the war (Article 4). I know we've seen mhawk call for help in public, but who says he hasn't withdrawn that privately?

Clearly TPF's attempted espionage falls under Article 5 - it is undoubtedly an organized offensive maneuver. But there is no wording in there to suggest NEW must come in immediately or even that TPF must tell NEW (as it certainly doesn't fall under Article 2), just that NEW may be given 72 hours of notice. If TPF fails to request military aid, NEW is under no obligation to provide it.

NEW-TPF MADP

I don't expect NEW to e-lawyer their way out of this way, by the way.

[Dochartaigh]

Its also worth noting that not one of these treaties or indeed the other MDoAPs TPF hold specify a timeframe for action.

so essentially TPF's treaty partners could wait until they know TPF is at the table and then jump in and be like "We helped"....... seriously, you are gonna bring up the fact that most treaties have no timeframe in order to somehow justify the lack of response by any of TPF's allies? man, if i were TPF, i would be looking for new allies. you could organize a war plan within a day.

[Augustus Autumn]

People likely won't answer because 1) The Phoenix Federation looks to be at least partially in the wrong and through its own means and via proxies has escalated this war outside of realms pertinent to the 'verse (read: OOC issues), 2) manpower is likely low due to the current time of year and 3) preparations for this conflict were likely not in place considering the alliances that would be rushing to defend.

That being said, it would be interesting to see forces moving to the rescue. However, with this being the third upcoming update since assaults were launched the reenactment of the Coalition of Cowards will likely result in the same eggs being thrown. You'd also have to ask yourself if its worth sacking multiple alliances on the losing end of a war in which The Phoenix Federation was arguably the initiator and/or aggressor.

[Dochartaigh]

People likely won't answer because 1) The Phoenix Federation looks to be at least partially in the wrong and through its own means and via proxies has escalated this war outside of realms pertinent to the 'verse (read: OOC issues), 2) manpower is likely low due to the current time of year and 3) preparations for this conflict were likely not in place considering the alliances that would be rushing to defend.

That being said, it would be interesting to see forces moving to the rescue. However, with this being the third upcoming update since assaults were launched the reenactment of the Coalition of Cowards will likely result in the same eggs being thrown. You'd also have to ask yourself if its worth sacking multiple alliances on the losing end of a war in which The Phoenix Federation was arguably the initiator and/or aggressor.

from what i can tell, many of TPF's allies do not see anything wrong with what TPF did. thus, if they see nothing wrong with it, why have they yet to come to TPF's aid? simply, there is no reason other than fear that i can see.

[Augustus Autumn]

from what i can tell, many of TPF's allies do not see anything wrong with what TPF did. thus, if they see nothing wrong with it, why have they yet to come to TPF's aid? simply, there is no reason other than fear that i can see.

I'm going to go ahead and make the lofty presumption that the public stance taken by some/all of The Phoenix Federation's allies may not be the actual stance being taken in private. What you see someone say within these forums probably isn't what they're really thinking but they're not about to be so kind as to tell all of us that.

[Ejayrazz]

I take the opposite approach of Bob Janova.

Treaties and friendship shouldn't be too technical. It has become so technical because too many people are apart of the ongoing issue of mass-entanglement.

I believe an MDP should mean, in all cases, "If you are attacked, we defend you."

You mine as well stamp on everyone's forehead, as I've stated numerous times: "We are your friend when you're right, but not when you're wrong."

[Nobody Expects]

so essentially TPF's treaty partners could wait until they know TPF is at the table and then jump in and be like "We helped"....... seriously, you are gonna bring up the fact that most treaties have no timeframe in order to somehow justify the lack of response by any of TPF's allies? man, if i were TPF, i would be looking for new allies. you could organize a war plan within a day.

That's Hyperbole. 3 days in the context of a war is very little. It's actually quite amusing watching you and others whining about the lack of a response, and losing sleep each night that passes. It will or won't happen, not when you choose, but when we choose.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Nobody Expects

[James Maximus]

from what i can tell, many of TPF's allies do not see anything wrong with what TPF did. thus, if they see nothing wrong with it, why have they yet to come to TPF's aid? simply, there is no reason other than fear that i can see.

Admin forbid that they take the time to organize themselves before getting curbstomped. Its not a hard concept to understand.

[JWConner]

from what i can tell, many of TPF's allies do not see anything wrong with what TPF did. thus, if they see nothing wrong with it, why have they yet to come to TPF's aid? simply, there is no reason other than fear that i can see.

This is a wise man. Listen to him. It's almost as if he has someone reading our private discussions...almost...

[Lord Boris]

the sadist in me hopes they attack tomorrow just to see how many people in the CnG/SF coalition get their New Year's plans !@#$ on.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Lord Boris

[Dochartaigh]

I'm going to go ahead and make the lofty presumption that the public stance taken by some/all of The Phoenix Federation's allies may not be the actual stance being taken in private. What you see someone say within these forums probably isn't what they're really thinking but they're not about to be so kind as to tell all of us that.

so you have mhawk basically calling out his allies in public, while making them look like cowards in private. yes, that makes TPF look that much better........

[Dochartaigh]

This is a wise man. Listen to him. It's almost as if he has someone reading our private discussions...almost...

your attempt at sarcasm is noted. not that good as i am going by visible evidence only. going on the third update as stated before. i would say that in most wars we saw a first wave by the first update. the only war i cannot remember if that happened is the SPW when almost all, if not all, of Polaris's allies were preemptively struck thus preventing the need really of a first wave of defenders.

[Augustus Autumn]

so you have mhawk basically calling out his allies in public, while making them look like cowards in private. yes, that makes TPF look that much better........

I never said he was being smart. Also, this would make them look like cowards in public. But hey, shame is a really effective method of motivation. Hell, I use it all the time.

[Ejayrazz]

so you have mhawk basically calling out his allies in public, while making them look like cowards in private. yes, that makes TPF look that much better........

Whether he called them out in public or not is irrelevant. Maybe some can consider it a bad move, but nonetheless, lets not add another argument on this table which has too many at this point in time.

What matters is: Where are their allies?

[lonewolfe2015]

Thanks for the wall of text, but it really summed down to you think that TPF's allies don't need to come and it is your opinion they won't.

But it is more reasonable to assume they are just waiting than that they won't come.

[Dochartaigh]

I never said he was being smart. Also, this would make them look like cowards in public. But hey, shame is a really effective method of motivation. Hell, I use it all the time.

dangit. this is what i get for replying after only being awake for a short time. well, let's see how motivated their allies are then.

@Ejay- that is my point... i am wondering where their allies are since most seem very vehement about TPF being in the right regardless of their actions.

[Augustus Autumn]

dangit. this is what i get for replying after only being awake for a short time. well, let's see how motivated their allies are then.

Frankly I give it a 50/50 - coming to the rescue now is dumb, especially with the possibility of this whole mess turning into some sort of stupid SF/CnG/FB beatdown on Citadel and the Hegemony leftovers. Nobody really wants a global war over something this dumb, especially with all the 'verse-irrelevant (read: OOC) garbage tossed in. Just put the Phoenix back in the oven and be done with it.

[Ejayrazz]

dangit. this is what i get for replying after only being awake for a short time. well, let's see how motivated their allies are then.

@Ejay- that is my point... i am wondering where their allies are since most seem very vehement about TPF being in the right regardless of their actions.

Good point then. Whether TPF was right OR wrong, they should be there.