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

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 March 2010 - 10:33 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]
actually in some legal jargon "null and void" does mean never existed in the past. In many european legal systems we differentiate between "ex nunc" (from now on, basically you do something and it changes the legal situation from that point onwards) and "ex tunc" (from then on, meaning the contract/treaty is voided in such a way as if it had never existed). The translation into english for the latter is "null and void" according to my legal dictionary, but i am decently sure that there is another phrase more commonly used in the USA for this distinction which i sadly neither remember nor can find on the internet.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Tungsten' date='07 March 2010 - 08:38 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.

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.
[/quote]
We were discussing a treaty, which is generally considered a binding law agreed to by the signatories. I would have thought that was obvious. I'm not sure why you thought I was trying to insinuate that we have overreaching courts or laws in CN.

Agreed with the second part. Morals and beliefs often change like the wind here. But I'm not sure how that relates to the debate on whether or not PC broke that treaty.

-Bama

[Mixoux]

[quote name='BamaBuc' date='08 March 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1268088152' post='2218391']
Agreed with the second part. Morals and beliefs often change like the wind here. But I'm not sure how that relates to the debate on whether or not PC broke that treaty.

-Bama
[/quote]

I see it as politics more than anything else. Long standing treaty partner A ends up getting close to an alliance you would rather not be allied to (be it for that alliance's morals or previous conflicts or what have you), what was once seen as an agreement in ideals becomes tested, and soon you find yourself on a totally different track than that treaty partner. Amplify this in regards to war time, and a schism grows. Wars however are often where the belief differences become apparent; fighting on the same front with a very different idea of how it's going to end.

As much as I hate seeing the vague, overused, "we have been going down different paths" as a cancellation reason, it really does hold water most of the time.

[drugsup]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='04 March 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1267739236' post='2214025']
VE and Loss disbanded at one point, their treaties don't count.
[/quote]

LOSS has never disbanded

Also as for the changing our AA to NAAC about 4 of the 10 members of LOSS at the time changed their AA, I was one of them. I believe NAAC asked us to keep out of the war as they did not want LOSS to personally get involved in the conflict, but i believe some agreement was reached that members of LOSS were welcome to change their AA to NAAC if they wanted to help in the war efforts.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Drugsup

[IronSoldier820]

[quote name='President Kent' date='04 March 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1267764128' post='2214555']
A Non-Aggression Pact which is considered legally canceled by a Declaration of War. Um, are you kidding?
[/quote]
Haha, I suppose you were not around for the era of "Joke Treaties". Before the Moderators started cracking down on it, we had a few alliances sign treaties with each other called "OSNAPs". Otherwise known as "Optional Subordinate Non-Aggression Pacts", or at least I believe that's what the 'S' stood for. After a while the moderators started cracking down on these and it kinda stopped. Was pretty funny while it lasted though.

On another note, let's talk semantics. There are four different classifications for an "oldest treaty".

[list=1][*]Continuous - Absolutely unchanged and has always been in effect since it was signed/
[*]Overridden - Still in effect, but was upgraded at some later point in time from a PIAT to a MDP, etc.
[*]Suspended - Peace terms suspended the effectiveness of the treaty, but treaty was not explicitly canceled.
[*]Interrupted - One or more of the signatories disbanded and then reformed at some later period in time to resign the treaty.[/list]
Now, from what I'm reading, most people are considering Overridden as Continuous. For example, TTK's NAP with RIA is still in effect, but both TTK and RIA are members of the Chestnut Accords. Considering how the Chestnut Accords function as a MDP, it effectively overrides the NAP in regards of precedence. However, if the Chestnut Accords where to be canceled, the NAP would still be in effect. The key to Overridden treaties is that they always underlie the treaties they were overridden by. Thus, Overridden treaties are the less disputable in terms of "what treaty is the most continuous."

Suspended treaties, on the other hand, are a bit more ambiguous. The reason is that most alliances don't consider some Suspended treaties as canceled. The main reason for this is, regardless of the outcome of the war, several friendly alliances will always consider each other allies regardless of whether or not their peace terms demand for the cancellation of their treaties. Hence, why a lot of alliances main a "de facto" relationship with friends during peace terms until they can reinstate their treaty. The main issue here is whether or not we consider the Victor's point of view valid and label Suspended treaties as nullified, or if we consider the Signatory's point of view valid since it was their treaty to begin with.

Lastly, we have Interrupted treaties. These are the least legitimate in that for all points and purposes, they were legitimately considered canceled. The only disputable part about these treaties are the methods to which a Signatory came to its end. For example, some alliances have "disbanded" if only for a day or two due to internal conflict. The only issue here is to remember that sometimes the spirit of a treaty lives on even though its original signatories have gone on.

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Mansa Musa' date='12 March 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1268432296' post='2223622']
Haha, I suppose you were not around for the era of "Joke Treaties". Before the Moderators started cracking down on it, we had a few alliances sign treaties with each other called "OSNAPs". Otherwise known as "Optional Subordinate Non-Aggression Pacts", or at least I believe that's what the 'S' stood for.
[/quote]

IIRC it was "Semi-", not Subordinate. So Optional Semi-Non Aggression Pact

[warlordnazrag]

[quote name='SiCkO' date='05 March 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1267755246' post='2214392']
our MDoAP with UPN is pretty old
[/quote]

True that.

Also our treatynet with Invicta is starting to put on a few years...