NationStates Jolt Archive

After a surprise announcement in an interview today, Emperor Alexo (His local name) has offered a pact to the nations of Cotenshire and Cortellen. The Pact reads:

Friends,

We have had very good relations in the past. Now I feel we should formalize them. We shall protect each other and assist in invasions, if you wish. You may sign my agreement, and our friendship will remain the same. But I request that you sign my arrangement! Good Day Allies,

Emperor Alexo Vamirez of Laquasa

Code Bump on post number 2!

burmp....

To the Chancellor or other such Diplomatic Advisory of Emperor Alekso Vamirez of Laquasa,

It is with interest that I have received your petition for this Friendship Pact. Indeed, our nations have been friends, an odd position in this world where acquaintances are only measured in various degrees of enemies.

While I like the tenor of it, that being this proposition, it seems rather anemic. I would like to know several things:

I. Is this pact valid or void if for some reason Cortellen opts not to recognize it.

II. Are there ramifications should any of the Pact Members not recognize all terms or certain terms of the treaty?

III. Is the treaty as binding over maritime endeavours as by those over land?

IV. Are any past peaces, neutralities, claims, or disputes of third parties recognized by this treaty, and therefore should be restored upon the treaty's first application?

V. Does this treaty require past pretensions which may have formed to favour the claims of any party, involved in the signing of this treaty or not, to be abandoned?

VI. Contrarily, does this pact codify the pretensions of the lawfulness of any such claims?

If any of these points are officially adopted in any such way, I would suggest that they be notated in these positions which I have laid out.

I understand that, more likely than not, this pact is only intended as a codification of friendship. My only concerns, which I have expressed above, are the paradoxical situations that may be created should our three parties sign this pact and contract the call to arms of one of our allies, or by result of the entrance of a third party.

Know that, although I have served His Majesty, the King, for my entire life, this position as Chancellor has recently been bestowed upon me, which I have taken over from the now deposed Sir Arthur Rockingham. Therefore, if there are any points from my above queries that need to be sealed, I am sure the experienced diplomats from your own state or those of Cortellen will be able to supply the remedy.

Signed,
The Rt Hon. Jan Sebastien, Lord Chancellor

To: The Rt Hon. Jan Sebastien, Lord Chancellor

From: Jordan Ganglolaz Secretary of Foreign Relations


I. It is valid even if Cortellen does not agree to it.

II. Since the pact is small, they would be excluded.

III. Yes. It's basically an agreement stating that our states will help each other.

IV. No.

V. No, but we prefer they not exist.

VI. Err... yes?

Jordan Ganglolaz
Secretary of Foreign Relations

To Jordan Ganglolaz, Secretary of Foreign Relations of Laquasa,

I presume that this proposed pact was not created out of or as a result of any other pact. If this is not the case, then please correct me It then begs the query, why we should sign this. If none of us are planning on entering an engagement, then why must a treaty of this nature be signed?

Unless, of course, there is a conflict that either Laquasa or Cortellen is planning on entering, would it not be better for the peace if there be only declarations friendly relations instead of added declarations of mutual defense?

It is from the lessons of history that we learn that guarantees against neutrality cause the bloodiest wars due to opposing parties perceiving that the unification of powers puts their securities at risk.

Signed,
The Rt Hon. Jan Sebastien, Lord Chancellor

We wish to know if this will be an alliance or just a friendship pact.