Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The City State of Q102. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Q102 - Europa Alliance; For Europans' views
Topic Started: Apr 26 2006, 07:20 PM (2,367 Views)
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
Former Delegate of Q102
Member
Goddam Nev is smart. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rekamgil
Member Avatar

Diplomat
Nevareion
Jun 14 2006, 09:45 PM
Effectively this clause creates a unified legal code as the result of a verdict in one region is made binding on the courts of the other. As a Judge I would rather see an extradition clause of some sort where one region can request the expulsion of a member for crimes commited but must petition the courts of the other region in order to do so.

Right, okay, my concern (originally voiced by Orioni) is this: suppose Tag (sorry to keep beating up on you Tag) commits some aggregious offense here in Q102 and is put on trial, found guilty and expelled. A unified code would suggest that Europa is obliged to ban him also. In Tag's case, such expulsion would be a huge blow to our region and it would clearly not be in our best interests to expel him. Again, of course, this is an extreme example and I'm probably splitting hairs, but I want to be clear before moving ahead on Europa's treaty draft.

So your extradition idea works better for me. As we all know, we are not federating here... just allying. This suggests, as Nev quite rightly pointed out, that we retain our own legal systems. Our alliance should stipulate that we work collaboratively on such cases and, as I've suggested, share intelligence on potentially troublesome nations. But it is not absolutely necessary that either nation ban a member nation if convicted by the other partner nation (Alhough if we do not ban a nation found guilty by the other, we should be obliged to inform our ally that we have not banned them and offer some explanation as to why).

Our alliance, which should stipulate and necessitate the sharing of such information, should protect each other's interests even if we are not automatically expelling nations found guilty in our partner region. It is for the above reasons that I placed emphasis on intelligence sharing, as opposed to joint legal action, in my above post (of June 13).

Is Q102 in general agreement here? If so, we shall begin our draft. We are also discussing this in our Senate and have plans to draft our updated treaty version very soon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pacifist_Cowards
Member Avatar
Drunkard, orgy-loving part-slav and regional flirt
Member
Sounds fine to me lol. Maybe we can have a proper draft this time, that didn't take 10 minutes...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rekamgil
Member Avatar

Diplomat
Pacifist_Cowards
Jun 16 2006, 05:59 PM
Sounds fine to me lol. Maybe we can have a proper draft this time, that didn't take 10 minutes...

ya ya smart a$$ :P You must learn the value of saying things with verbosity; that is, trying to take the longest route possible to clearly say what it is you're trying to say so that eveyone involved can clearly understand what it is you mean; in this way one can more effectively (although perhaps not too efficiently) move forward and, in this case, go onto the next step in the treaty process.... he he B)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pacifist_Cowards
Member Avatar
Drunkard, orgy-loving part-slav and regional flirt
Member
I most humbly appologise for my lack of a verbose post. I hope your most courtious natured person would not be offended if I chose to take the short route in future, that is, the route by which I say what I say in as few words as possible, so less typing time intrudes upon my drinking of cool alcoholic beverages.

Sound like John Flippin' Presscott!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
Former Delegate of Q102
Member
I think it's fair to say Q102 is in agreement Rekamgil. Let's see the next draft!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevareion
Member Avatar
Bringing fabulousness closer

Well more a process to request to expel to the Rejected Realms for crimes commited/legal breaches in the other region is what I was thinking as actual extradtition would be very hard to enforce. It would mean that each region could have the right to have a case heard for crimes commited in their region by a resident of the other. It would also mean that each region would keep its legal independance - so you could be found guilty in one region but not the other if the law was different. It would mean that each region would have a fast track access to the courts of the other.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rekamgil
Member Avatar

Diplomat
Noted. Thanks for the clarification. Please check back mid-week for our draft.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zakaroo
Member Avatar
Priceless National Treasure
Administrator
looking forward to that, sounds like things are progressing well here which is a good sign ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Orioni
Member Avatar
Europa Delegate
Diplomat
(I loved my wireless connection, untill the modem fried.)

<insert draft here, writing...>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Haken
Member Avatar
Unofficial Belgian
Diplomat
Orioni
Jun 24 2006, 04:45 PM
<insert draft here, writing...>

I like it already. :popcorn:

edit: popcorn smiley suited.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
Former Delegate of Q102
Member
How about:

Quote:
 
Q102 and Europa promise to be the bestest chums ever.


Sounds very official. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Orioni
Member Avatar
Europa Delegate
Diplomat
There you go. :P
Quote:
 
Treaty of Alliance and Friendship Between the two Great Regions of Q102 and Europa

Article I – This alliance is ratified by the people of both regions, and as such should only be dissolved by the same and that henceforth the aforementioned regions are to be considered in alliance, and declared as such wherever necessary.
If either region ceases to exist, for any reason, this treaty should be considered irrelevant and should be dissolved.

Article II - Citizens of either region should be considered the equal of citizens in the other, though their running for political office may be restricted by laws already existing or made henceforth. They should obey the laws of the region they are currently in, and should be free to move between the same. This article does apply to puppet nations.

Article III – With consideration for, and authority over, Article II, any nation from either region, who, in any way shape or form, is thought to be disruptive, discourteous or disregarding towards either region or the laws present there, is to be tried in his home region using the procedures in place. The outcome of that trial is to be final in both regions. Puppet nations should be tried in the nation they reside in. The ruling still stands in both regions. If a nation is banned from either of the aforementioned regions, they should be banned from the other as well. However, a pardoned nation does not have its pardon extended to both regions.

Article IV – The signatory regions agree to consider assistance for the defence of regions unfairly attacked. However, each region reserves the right to refuse to assist in the endeavours of the other region, whether it be in helping liberate invaded regions or in participating in war in other regions. Both regions will agree to defend one another in the event of a military attack and/or a crashing or griefing invasion. The signatory regions agree to consider assistance for the defence of regions unfairly attacked. Both partners agree to cooperate in the sharing of necessary intelligence information deemed pertinent to their ally's well-being.

Article VI – No alliance or similar document, past or future, should interfere with this document or its contents without express permission by the governing bodies of both regions. This document does not interfere with, nor grant any other region (including the two named ones) the right to interfere with, the others laws, customs, traditions or style of government. Each region is responsible for their own running.

Article VII - Reinforcing Article VI, this document does not grant either government the authority to interfere with the others’ running of day-to-day affairs. However, it may be advantageous to run any mutually affecting documents through the parliamentary system of the other region.

Article VIII – If a nation is seen to be publicly insulting towards, or otherwise derogatory to, either this treaty or either of its named regions, they are to be reported to their home region and sanctioned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe Bobs
Member Avatar
Former Delegate of Q102
Member
I preferred mine. :P joke!

Brilliant Orioni. I have one, tiny niggle:

Article I will need altering. If, for example, one of the regions had a dramatic change in direction, like they became Nazis or something, then the other region would want to pull out. So it shouldn't require both regions to break up the alliance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevareion
Member Avatar
Bringing fabulousness closer

On the whole I really like the way it is going.

Now I wil be difficult, sorry :)

ARTICLE I
The Q102 constitution treats alliance as an Act of Parliament so Parliament can repeal them - to do otherwise would need a change of Constituional Law. However one region repealling it . Can I suggest:

"..should only be dissolved following the Constitutional processes of the regions. Withdrawal require a one calendar month notification of intent to do so to allow both regions time to take into account the effects of disoloving the alliance..."

Article II
I really like this one.

Article III
Same point I raised previously. This means that each region is bound by the laws of the other. For example Q102 currenlty does not legally recognise the concept of a state secret. If Eurpoa does (does it? I've no idea!) and someone is found guilty of doing so how can the outcome of a trial apply here unless the Courts are unified?
I would rather see a right for the Government of each region to have a hearing by the Courts of the other in order to request the application of the same sentence. That way the laws of each region could be separate but the regions could be confident of their case being heard whether or not a specific law applied.

Article IV
"The signatory regions agree to consider assistance for the defence of regions unfairly attacked"

Until or if the Free Port Act is repealed we are unable to fulfill this part.

Article VI
Seems fine.

Article VIII
We would need to pass a separate law to cover this. Also I am a little worried about the freedom of speech aspect here. It would be very hard to judge. Previously we had a law that regarded breaching our neutrality and that issue came up. We decided that we could only really apply it to Government officials, ambassadors or others holding public office. I would prefer to see that here and add puppets. Something like:

"If a nation holding public office in either region is seen to be publicly insulting towards, or otherwise derogatory to, this treaty or either of its named regions whether with a nation resident in the regions or with a puppet, they are to be reported to their home region and sanctioned in accordance with the law of their home region."

I hope this isn't too awkward but I would also be keen to hear other thoughts on these points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Lobby · Next Topic »
Add Reply