What's the oldest, still active, Treaty in CN?

[astronaut jones]

[quote name='BamaBuc' date='05 March 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1267799317' post='2214849']
This is ridiculous, for several reasons.

First of all, it specifically says "If either party BREAKS the treaty..." Do I need to make that any clearer? You still broke the treaty. It was a year ago and all, but at least call it what it is.

Second, if TPF had intended that clause as a loophole, they probably wouldn't have specifically stated that the attacker is breaking the treaty.

Third, while I have admittedly never seen such a clause used elsewhere, it's really common sense. When one side starts attacking the other, I'd say the treaty is torn to shreds and no longer exists at that point. PC may be different, but if TOOL were attacked by a treaty partner, I highly doubt that our milcom would tell us not to fight back until the cancellation clause ran out. Do you honestly believe that an alliance is still bound by a treaty once its treaty partner starts attacking it?

-Bama

EDIT:


You are incorrect. The wording is along the lines of "If either party breaks the treaty, it is null and void." It specifically states that it is voided by the treaty being broken, which is an illegal action. If it had said "If either party attacks the other, it's void", then perhaps a good e-lawyer could have made the case for attacking an NAP partner being legal (lol), but that is not the case. It's more along the lines of what Soccerbum said, though put into writing rather than being an unwritten rule as it usually is.

-Bama
[/quote]

You do know that you're not a real lawyer, right? You do realize that TPF had zero intention of upholding that treaty, right? You do know that the only reason TPF had PC sign it, forced them to sign it, is so they could keep them under their thumb, right? You do know that neither allianced liked each other, and neither alliance would have had any sort of treaty between them if one weren't forced upon one of the parties by the other party, right?

And you're still going to sit there and claim that TPF was wronged? $%&@ me. I hate this place so much these days, people are too blinded by their allegiances to admit when their friends were !@#$@#$ ***** to begin with, and maybe if they weren't ***** then this wouldn't have been an issue.

edit: self censorship.

Edited March 5, 2010 by astronaut jones

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 March 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1267801558' post='2214875']
You do know that you're not a real lawyer, right? You do realize that TPF had zero intention of upholding that treaty, right? You do know that the only reason TPF had PC sign it, forced them to sign it, is so they could keep them under their thumb, right? You do know that neither allianced liked each other, and neither alliance would have had any sort of treaty between them if one weren't forced upon one of the parties by the other party, right?

And you're still going to sit there and claim that TPF was wronged? $%&@ me. I hate this place so much these days, people are too blinded by their allegiances to admit when their friends were !@#$@#$ ***** to begin with, and maybe if they weren't ***** then this wouldn't have been an issue.

edit: self censorship.
[/quote]

You're being ridiculous. If TPF was in a position to force PC to sign a NAP (which they were), and they had no intention of honoring the NAP, why the hell would they bother with a fake treaty? TPF could have rolled PC if they wanted to; they didn't. They wanted to bury the hatchet, so they signed a NAP in an attempt to prevent future war between the two. PC of course had no desire to do so, but went along with it until they had a better chance to defeat TPF. There's nothing wrong with that of course; PC took advantage of TPF's mercy, to do otherwise would have been foolish. But the idea that TPF forced the NAP in some kind of twisted plot to surprise attack PC at a later date is absurd.

It is you who are blinded by your allegiances. I found PC's cancelation of the NAP and simulataneous declaration of war to be pretty funnny, however it cannot be denied that the treaty was [i]broken[/i], not canceled legally.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 March 2010' post='2214141']Seeing as the original MHA-Grämlins MDP [b]did[/b] have a cancellation clause and was superseded by Harmlins, I would say that the above announcement included it.[/quote]
The first MHA-Grämlins treaty (Nov 5th 2006) had already been upgraded at the beginning of 2008, and it was this second version that was upgraded with the Härmlins Accords (Nov 5th 2008).

If treaties that were upgraded count for the purpose of this thread, the MHA-Grämlins MDP dates back to Nov 5th 2006 (it was a MDP since the beginning, and ITT it was the first military treaty for The Grämlins).

[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]syntax][/size]

Edited March 5, 2010 by jerdge

[Lusitan]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 March 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1267796950' post='2214820']
So, you're saying that things said under duress, when you have no other choice but to say those things and sign whatever they put in front of you, must be upheld.

Please see my other statements in regards to the kind of person who would be appalled at the cancellation of such a treaty.
[/quote]


Cancellation would be fine. Breaking the treaty wasn't. Again as in, divorce would have been fine, cheating wasn't.

As for upholding things signed under duress... I am not saying it was right, I am saying it happened and that you could have done things the right way, saving your honour, but you didn't.

[General Gabriel]

I've got absolutely no idea how this got turned into a thread about PC, but it seems there's a lot of people with a chip on their shoulder here... Fact of the matter is PC didn't see TPF as their friends so they exploited a loophole. I don't know the ins and outs of it but many alliances have done MUCH worse.

Now let us compare what happens when PC deal with someone they see as a friend: PC & \m/ are friends. \m/ got declared on by an alliance several times bigger than them. PC could very easily have done what other alliances would and left us to it. But they didn't, because they're good allies.

You lot can argue all you want about whether PC are good allies. It honestly doesn't matter to the people who consider PC friends. We've seen their loyalty first hand and we will not forget it.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='General Gabriel' date='05 March 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1267813117' post='2215007']
I've got absolutely no idea how this got turned into a thread about PC, but it seems there's a lot of people with a chip on their shoulder here... Fact of the matter is PC didn't see TPF as their friends so they exploited a loophole. I don't know the ins and outs of it but many alliances have done MUCH worse.

Now let us compare what happens when PC deal with someone they see as a friend: PC & \m/ are friends. \m/ got declared on by an alliance several times bigger than them. PC could very easily have done what other alliances would and left us to it. But they didn't, because they're good allies.

You lot can argue all you want about whether PC are good allies. It honestly doesn't matter to the people who consider PC friends. We've seen their loyalty first hand and we will not forget it.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree absolutely that basing an opinion of PC being bad allies on the fact that they broke a NAP held with an enemy is foolish. That doesn't change the fact that the NAP was broken.

[flak attack]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='04 March 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1267738600' post='2214008']
What can I say, we at MCXA make good allies.
[/quote]
Yeah, NpO speaks so well of you guys as allies.

[quote name='Hombre de Murcielago' date='04 March 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1267747715' post='2214227']
The =LOST= / MK MDP was signed Aug 10 2007 [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=80131"]link[/url].

Not the oldest but pretty close.
[/quote]
Wasn't that cancelled post UJW then resigned?

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='04 March 2010 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1267753735' post='2214365']
Because you can commit aggresion without a DoW. If PC attacked a TPF ally the terms of the treaty would be broken and TPF could attack and not have to wait 10 days to defend its ally. They did not trust you so they needed that term so PC would not try and use the NAP as a weapon. In the end they were right.
[/quote]
Well if we're going that route, DT broke it, not PC.

[General Gabriel]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='05 March 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267813536' post='2215011']
Oh, I agree absolutely that basing an opinion of PC being bad allies on the fact that they broke a NAP held with an enemy is foolish. That doesn't change the fact that the NAP was broken.
[/quote]

Hmm possibly, as I said I don't know enough about that as I left the game after the UJW and only came back a few months ago as. But even if they did, I don't really see how it's relevant. I understand your just arguing the technicality behind it now, but Damsky only mentioned it to contradict and (try to) embarrass PC in an attempt to paint them as bad allies.

I think that there has been too much focus on the second (and ultimately less important) half of his argument, as opposed to his main point that PC are disloyal & unreliable. I don't think anyone who knows PC would agree with this point.

[Devilyn Caster]

[quote name='Hombre de Murcielago' date='04 March 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1267747715' post='2214227']
The =LOST= / MK MDP was signed Aug 10 2007 [url="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=80131"]link[/url].

Not the oldest but pretty close.
[/quote]


[quote name='flak attack' date='05 March 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1267814216' post='2215018']
Wasn't that cancelled post UJW then resigned?
[/quote]

It was reinstated November 16th, 2007, ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=7711"]Linky[/url]) somehow miraculously becoming an MADP. How'd we ever get tied to you losers?

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Choader' date='04 March 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1267752678' post='2214347']
Might want to wipe some of that froth off your mouth.


Is that last sentence something you've seen in any other treaty of any sort? Why would it be there?
[/quote]
So that if one party breaks the treaty, the other party is still not obligated by the treaty.

The treaty very clearly states that attacking the other BREAKS the treaty, which renders it null and void. It's null and void immediately after being BROKEN.

[Valerius]

[quote name='BamaBuc' date='06 March 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1267799317' post='2214849']
You are incorrect. The wording is along the lines of "If either party breaks the treaty, it is null and void." It specifically states that it is voided by the treaty being broken, which is an illegal action. If it had said "If either party attacks the other, it's void", then perhaps a good e-lawyer could have made the case for attacking an NAP partner being legal (lol), but that is not the case. It's more along the lines of what Soccerbum said, though put into writing rather than being an unwritten rule as it usually is.

-Bama
[/quote]
Good, that makes more sense. As I said it was hard to tell from the original post.

[Lord Razzia]

I'm glad to know that I am a member of the oldest existing bloc. Hurray for CDT!

[mdnss69]

[quote name='flak attack' date='05 March 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1267814216' post='2215018']
Yeah, NpO speaks so well of you guys as allies.
[/quote]

Way to shoot yourself in the foot...

[Hyperbad]

Unless a DoN has a consistent signatorie besides the originator I wouldn't count them. Either they're simply statements of intent or NAPs openly stated to be an option to anyone should they show a desire to sign it.

[quote name='BamaBuc' date='05 March 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1267799317' post='2214849']
You are incorrect. The wording is along the lines of "If either party breaks the treaty, it is null and void." It specifically states that it is voided by the treaty being broken, which is an illegal action. If it had said "If either party attacks the other, it's void", then perhaps a good e-lawyer could have made the case for attacking an NAP partner being legal (lol), but that is not the case. It's more along the lines of what Soccerbum said, though put into writing rather than being an unwritten rule as it usually is.[/quote]
Not just terminated or cancelled (void) but the last article essentially permits (decriminalizes or legalizes) the illegal act of breaking a contract by saying if you do it to this one then we'll consider the contract to have never existed (null). Thus there is no legal fall out from breaking the treaty because while it did exist laws wouldn't consider it to be binding upon breach.

The only fall out is that of the opinions in the community that feel it a terrible thing to do. That the agreement is to be treated as if it never existed was said in it has me personally indifferent to the manner in which it was cancelled. However at the time I must admit I found it a despicable act myself. Now, I don't know the purpose of that clause but who ever wrote it should have sat back and reconsidered it. If you rely too heavily on what the community thinks and feels then you'll get burned by someone that doesn't conform to that standard.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='07 March 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1267997696' post='2217188']Not just terminated or cancelled (void) but the last article essentially permits (decriminalizes or legalizes) the illegal act of breaking a contract by saying if you do it to this one then we'll consider the contract to have never existed (null). Thus there is no legal fall out from breaking the treaty because while it did exist laws wouldn't consider it to be binding upon breach.

The only fall out is that of the opinions in the community that feel it a terrible thing to do. That the agreement is to be treated as if it never existed was said in it has me personally indifferent to the manner in which it was cancelled. However at the time I must admit I found it a despicable act myself. Now, I don't know the purpose of that clause but who ever wrote it should have sat back and reconsidered it. If you rely too heavily on what the community thinks and feels then you'll get burned by someone that doesn't conform to that standard.[/quote]
You're ignoring the wording that one party has to [b][i][u]BREAK[/u][/i][/b] the treaty for the treaty to become null and void. That means that the breaking occurs, and immediately following the breaking, the treaty is gone. You can't reverse causality.

"Null" doesn't mean "never existed in the past".

Edited March 7, 2010 by Aeternos Astramora

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267997914' post='2217197']
You're ignoring the wording that one party has to [b][i][u]BREAK[/u][/i][/b] the treaty for the treaty to become null and void. That means that the breaking occurs, and immediately following the breaking, the treaty is gone. You can't reverse causality.

"Null" doesn't mean "never existed in the past".
[/quote]
I'm not ignoring anything and never insinuated that the treaty never actually existed. I'm stating that while the treaty existed, legally it isn't treated as such. It possess no legal weight regardless of what happened.


[b]Edit to add:[/b] hmm, I think it's just coming down to semantics and it obviously wasn't clarified in their treaty what they meant - which would override either of our interpretations. I see it like a marriage being annuled where as the opposing perspsective is that it's null and void only at that point and anything prior is treated as "valid" until it was "voided". The problem is that it became voided at the very moment it was breached, not right after but simultaneously.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='07 March 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1267998170' post='2217203']
I'm not ignoring anything and never insinuated that the treaty never actually existed. I'm stating that while the treaty existed, legally it isn't treated as such. It possess no legal weight regardless of what happened.


[b]Edit to add:[/b] hmm, I think it's just coming down to semantics and it obviously wasn't clarified in their treaty what they meant - which would override either of our interpretations. I see it like a marriage being annuled where as the opposing perspsective is that it's null and void only at that point and anything prior is treated as "valid" until it was "voided". The problem is that it became voided at the very moment it was breached, not right after but simultaneously.
[/quote]
The causality is still there. The breaking of the treaty directly caused the treaty to be canceled. No matter what interpretation you can possibly think of, the treaty was broken quite clearly by PC.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 March 2010 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1268000838' post='2217242']
The causality is still there. The breaking of the treaty directly caused the treaty to be canceled. No matter what interpretation you can possibly think of, the treaty was broken quite clearly by PC.
[/quote]
I'm not disputing that they broke it.

[nutkase]

[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 March 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1267757711' post='2214445']
It was TPFs fault for forcing them to sign it in the first place. If TPF put any stock at all in that treaty, they were, at best, very misguided. But, you and I both know that the only reason TPF ever !@#$%*ed about the way that treaty was cancelled is because they were out manuevered, very simply and very easily, by an alliance they viewed as inferior.
[/quote]

Owwww the humanity, how dare TPF force them sign a NAP. So much undue stress and control over PC with that treaty.


[quote name='astronaut jones' date='05 March 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1267801558' post='2214875']
You do know that you're not a real lawyer, right? You do realize that TPF had zero intention of upholding that treaty, right? You do know that the only reason TPF had PC sign it, forced them to sign it, is so they could keep them under their thumb, right?
[/quote]

Also you do relise you being hypothetical, I could sit here all day and rumble on about situations that could of happened but didn't. Keep them under their thumb??, find it hard to believe with signing a NAP that TPF could try and control them with that. Also the fact you get angry at him because he does not see it as the same way as you is laughable, If you don't like it...leave

Edited March 8, 2010 by nutkase

[Cobalt]

[quote name='BamaBuc' date='05 March 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1267799317' post='2214849']
illegal
[/quote]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='07 March 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1267997696' post='2217188']
illegal
[/quote]

Not picking sides here... but:


il·le·gal
   /ɪˈligəl/[ih-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1.forbidden by law or statute.
2.contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Someone please show me these laws we apparently now have for CN, I'm sure they'll be a great read.

Seriously, unless no one's noticed the only constant here on Planet Bob is that [i]everyone will do what they think they can get away with to better themselves and/or their allies[/i]. There are no laws, there are no courts, there is no higher authority. There is only what you can do without getting yourself smashed to bits by everyone else, and the standards of what that seems to mean tend to change along with the political climate.

All that being said... back on topic. I think its interesting that so few treaties from back before the UJP War still exist, if you think about it, between GW II/III, the UJP War, and the WotC - the tiles of CN have shifted several times; it would surprise me if the goals/beliefs/attitude of most alliance pairs (takes two to [s]tango[/s] treaty) could withstand to many of those types of political pole shifts unscathed.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Tungsten

[nutkase]

[quote name='Tungsten' date='08 March 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1268016214' post='2217484']
Not picking sides here... but:


il·le·gal
   /ɪˈligəl/[ih-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1.forbidden by law or statute.
2.contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Someone please show me these laws we apparently now have for CN, I'm sure they'll be a great read.

[/quote]

[quote]A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. ...[/quote]

Could you not say that a treaty in a form is a law since a treaty is a formal written document signed by the government of each respective party?

curious is anything, though I may have read that definition incorrectly

Edited March 8, 2010 by nutkase

[NoFish]

Edit: Nevermind, I somehow missed five pages.

Edited March 8, 2010 by NoFish

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Tungsten' date='07 March 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1268016214' post='2217484']
Not picking sides here... but:

il·le·gal
   /ɪˈligəl/[ih-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1.forbidden by law or statute.
2.contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Someone please show me these laws we apparently now have for CN, I'm sure they'll be a great read.

Seriously, unless no one's noticed the only constant here on Planet Bob is that [i]everyone will do what they think they can get away with to better themselves and/or their allies[/i]. There are no laws, there are no courts, there is no higher authority. There is only what you can do without getting yourself smashed to bits by everyone else, and the standards of what that seems to mean tend to change along with the political climate.[/quote]
There isn't any and I don't believe he was refering to that but rather the standards held in signing documents of the sort making it a violation or offense against the other signatorie. You're reading too much into this exchange.

[commander thrawn]

[quote]Someone please show me these laws we apparently now have for CN, I'm sure they'll be a great read.
[/quote]


Assuming that CN users follow a form of Common Law at least for contracts (ie treaties, tech deals, other agreements) where we agree to [i]pacta sunt servanda[/i] Agreements shall be kept. Then yes, actions that break treaties, or defaulting on tech deals, donation deals etc are illegal actions. Plus there can be actions contrary to individual alliance codes,charters etc. Which would be illegal for members of said alliance. Not to mention the TOS and rules admin imposes. So it would seem that CN is full of forms of law, some better written and clearer than others, some agreed on more than others, but law nonetheless.

[jaaku]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='04 March 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1267739236' post='2214025']
VE and Loss disbanded at one point, their treaties don't count.
[/quote]
LOSS has never disbanded. They've been forced into neutrality, but never disbanded.

NAAC on the other hand...