NationStates Jolt Archive

The Alliance

Articles of Rights, Privileges and Authority

"]• All Citizens have the right of free speech and expression, provided such speech and expression are provable as fact, stated as opinion, or do not bring physical harm to another.

• All Citizens have the right to worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring unwilling physical harm to another, or are illegal within the jurisdiction of the host nation.

• All Citizens have the right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance

• All Citizens have the right of assembly and peaceful demonstration

• All Citizens have the Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship.

Note: This privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. If a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

• No Signatory Nation of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Member Nations, save for an Alliance issued I.D., whose acquisition will be controlled by the individual Signatory Nation.

• The Alliance Signatory Nations agree to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders.

Note: Drugs, substances, items, practices or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation

• The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Signatory States, whose laws are sacrosanct within their jurisdiction.

• Any Signatory Nation that enacts a war of aggression without unanimous Alliance approval will not be aided in any way by The Alliance or by any other Signatory Nation. Such war acts will be grounds for immediate expulsion from The Alliance.

• The Alliance has no jurisdiction over War Crimes, which is an issue that falls solely within the purview of individual member nations.

The Alliance Council

• All Signatory Nations will provide one representative Councilor to The Alliance Council. These Councilors shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations assigns them. A Councilor may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Council.

Note:The Speaker of The Alliance Council will be on a rotational basis. Starting with Alversia, Neo Kirisubo, Nova Nippon, Tanara, Xiscapia, then any newly joined Signatory Nation, in the order in which they joined. The Speaker for The Alliance shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Speaker for The Alliance will serve a ten year term, but can be removed from his position by a 75% + 1 from the position, resulting in returning him to simply a Representative. Upon such a vote of No Confidence the next in line Councilor will become the Speaker for The Alliance

1) The Alliance Council will act as the civilian oversight - creating its structure, and providing funding - for the Alliance Defense Force.

2) The Alliance Council will creatw, fund and operate shared spaces & create the laws under which such operates.

3) The Council will create and fund the Alliance Law Enforcement Organization.

4) The Council will oversight and fund the Judicial Corps.


The Judicial Corps

The JC will be composed of one Judge Advocate from each Signatory Nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, and adequate staff to handle the duties of the JC as required. Each Signatory Nation will govern it's members as per their legal system.

1) The JC will oversee the Alliance Law Enforcement Agency.

2) The JC will maintain and distribute, as of such when requested.

3) Maintain a list of properly trained and accredited amicus curie for instances when one is needed.

4) In instance of disputes between Signatory Nations, the JC will act as the Judicial Panel - the Panel consisting of the Judge Advocate from each of the Signatory Nations involved and a Judge Advocate from an uninvolved Signatory Nation who will act as President of the Panel and will cast the deciding vote in any locked decision.

5) The Alliance Council will act, in instances of allegations of Judicial Incompetence or Corruption, as the Presiding Judicial Panel. Any Judge Advocate or staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetence will be removed from the JC.

The Alliance Defense Force

• All Signatory Nations commit to the creation of the Alliance Defense Force - A military organization solely for the common defense of The Alliance, and the Signatory Nations.

Note: Any Signatory Nations that have been aggressed upon may request that no aid be provided to them.

Note: This commitment from the Signatory Nations may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three.

Note: The Alliance Defense Force has no authority over any Signatory Nations' forces save for units specifically loaned to aid the Alliance Defense Force and that command authority terminates when the units are recalled

1) The Command Staff will be officers accredited by the Signatory Nations, and that the Supreme Command will rotate on an ten year basis, followed by the Officer who has been the second in command. The rotation will begin with Neo Kirisubo, Nova Nippon, Tanara, Xiscapia, Alversia, then any newly joined Signatory Nations in the order in which they joined.

The Voivode read over the document carefully, amending as he saw fit. Dere are pointzzez we will want to addrezzzz." he said simply, adjusting the document and sending this copy to the others.
Bill of Rights & Privileges

• Freedom of Speech and Expression, as long as it knowingly harms none.
"Harm" is too ambiguous a term-Freedom of Speech and Expression so long as it is provable or obviously labeled as opinion. Further, while slander and libel are actionable, such action will fall upon those quoting the material without mentioning it as opinion as opposed to the source material.
• Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring harm unto another.
Again, harm is too ambiguous a term-does muri Holy Week truly harm the Days of Decadence, or vice versa-too many will seek to abolish all religions under this unless it is phrased more accurately

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.


• Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.
I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

• Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.
If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.


• Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.
This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.
abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

• From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.
I should like a set term for the Chairman, as well as some mechanism for removal from office.

• Neither The Alliance, nor any of the Signatory Nations, may start a war of aggression without a unanimous vote of the Board of Representatives. However a defensive war needs no vote.
This would seem to fly in the face of not surrendering sovereignty. It is our right as a nation to war as we please. However, we would agree that any war not so voted on should not be backstopped in the event it goes badly for the aggressor nation, other than protecting Alliance territory, and such poorly executed wars should be grounds for expulsion from the Alliance

• The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID.
The idea of Alliance identification is actually a good one, especially for our merchants as will want to claim their exemption, and an Alliance issued card would be easier for all concerned over National IDs that would have to be coordinated through a central office

• The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders. Save that drugs or substances, items, or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation. Except for Powzie!, which is acknowledged as the joy of the muri and necessary to well-being, though it is highly toxic to non-trolls.
The Voivode looked about the room, "Alzzo, azz we will not zzacrifizz zzovereignty, it is proffered we call ourzzelvezzez 'De Interstellar Confederacy', as we are a confederation of zztatezzez over an Alliance."

OOC: OD's are in Green, NN's are in purple. Might I suggest that Xis use Blue, and Alversia Brown with Tanara retaining black.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indigo looked over the bill and comments added by the Voivode - then appended her own.

• Freedom of Speech and Expression, as long as it knowingly harms none.

"Harm" is too ambiguous a term-Freedom of Speech and Expression so long as it is provable or obviously labeled as opinion. Further, while slander and libel are actionable, such action will fall upon those quoting the material
without mentioning it as opinion as opposed to the source material.

I agree with your comments Bruno, but could you suggest a rewording that is as short and simple as the original?

• Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring harm unto another.

Again, harm is too ambiguous a term-does muri Holy Week truly harm the Days of Decadence, or vice versa-too many will seek to abolish all religions under this unless it is phrased more accurately

I believe that what is intended physical harm to another, or decisive mental anguish. Could you suggest alternative wording? As I will certainly not allow a religion into the Imperia that practises / advocates such as child sacrifice or such - yes I know that is an extreme example of harm.

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.


• Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it. Sorry Bruno, I won't have my government officials hung and it be gotten away with by having the Muri in question claim it was free speach.

• Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

• Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event./COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement

If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

• From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.

I should like a set term for the Chairman, as well as some mechanism for removal from office.

I can agree that there needs to be a set term of office, but it appears to me that the 75+1 rule applies to the Chairman as well. His position does not make him immune.

• Neither The Alliance, nor any of the Signatory Nations, may start a war of aggression without a unanimous vote of the Board of Representatives. However a defensive war needs no vote.

This would seem to fly in the face of not surrendering sovereignty. It is our right as a nation to war as we please. However, we would agree that any war not so voted on should not be backstopped in the event it goes badly for the aggressor nation, other than protecting Alliance territory, and such poorly executed wars should be grounds for expulsion from the Alliance

I agree completely with you on this Bruno. Start wars all you wish, but if it is without the agreement of the Alliance by unanimous vote, it's yours alone, and you will be expelled from the Alliance. Harsher than what you suggested Bruno, but I feel that if you start a war, all by your lonseome, you get to deal with it all by yourself.

• The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID.

The idea of Alliance identification is actually a good one, especially for our merchants as will want to claim their exemption, and an Alliance issued card would be easier for all concerned over National IDs that would have to be coordinated through a central office

I can see the value of a Alliance ID - but funding the issuing office, conducting the background checks and such - paying for all that - or would it be that your national ID gets you an Alliance one?

I also have to add a question to Xiscapia. By law only Foxfire Rose and his immediate family can have last names. On a level of national ideentity and security - how in Heavens name do you manage to function? Is every one barcoded, or are all genetically scanned?**

• The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders. Save that drugs or substances, items, or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation.

Except for Powzie!, which is acknowledged as the joy of the muri and necessary to well-being, though it is highly toxic to non-trolls.

Yes, but is it illegal?

I do not like the potential for Federation forming from Confederacy. I think an Alliance keeps us further away from loss of independance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And an OOC for Xis: It's fun to say that your people are allowed only one name - but seriously - it's unworkable in actual practise and is not just a security but legal nightmare - John signs a contract and defaults - but which of 100,000 Johns is he? ( Identity Theft much?)

The Alversian Diplomat sent to the meeting on behalf of the Republic took a look at the bill as well as the comments made by the other Representatives. He gave a sigh and began to scribble


• Freedom of Speech and Expression, as long as it knowingly harms none.

"Harm" is too ambiguous a term-Freedom of Speech and Expression so long as it is provable or obviously labeled as opinion. Further, while slander and libel are actionable, such action will fall upon those quoting the material
without mentioning it as opinion as opposed to the source material.

I agree with your comments Bruno, but could you suggest a rewording that is as short and simple as the original?

I agree with the above statements

• Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring harm unto another.

Again, harm is too ambiguous a term-does muri Holy Week truly harm the Days of Decadence, or vice versa-too many will seek to abolish all religions under this unless it is phrased more accurately

I believe that what is intended physical harm to another, or decisive mental anguish. Could you suggest alternative wording? As I will certainly not allow a religion into the Imperia that practises / advocates such as child sacrifice or such - yes I know that is an extreme example of harm.

The term harm applies to physical harm to another as opposed to simply mental stress or is that inclkuded in the term? Alversia already permits all religions that do not conflict with her BIll of Rights

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

• Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it. Sorry Bruno, I won't have my government officials hung and it be gotten away with by having the Muri in question claim it was free speach.

I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime

• Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

• Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event./COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement

If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

We would prefer if this was was arranged to be more of a defensive arrangement. That way we are not all dragged into an aggressive war started by another member nation. Alversian Soldiers will not die to expand the borders of another but she would be willing to defend an Ally under attack

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

• From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.

I should like a set term for the Chairman, as well as some mechanism for removal from office.

I can agree that there needs to be a set term of office, but it appears to me that the 75+1 rule applies to the Chairman as well. His position does not make him immune.

• Neither The Alliance, nor any of the Signatory Nations, may start a war of aggression without a unanimous vote of the Board of Representatives. However a defensive war needs no vote.

This would seem to fly in the face of not surrendering sovereignty. It is our right as a nation to war as we please. However, we would agree that any war not so voted on should not be backstopped in the event it goes badly for the aggressor nation, other than protecting Alliance territory, and such poorly executed wars should be grounds for expulsion from the Alliance

I agree completely with you on this Bruno. Start wars all you wish, but if it is without the agreement of the Alliance by unanimous vote, it's yours alone, and you will be expelled from the Alliance. Harsher than what you suggested Bruno, but I feel that if you start a war, all by your lonseome, you get to deal with it all by yourself.

I agree that an aggressive war should result in expulsion from the Alliance as it goes against the rest of this constitution.

• The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID.

The idea of Alliance identification is actually a good one, especially for our merchants as will want to claim their exemption, and an Alliance issued card would be easier for all concerned over National IDs that would have to be coordinated through a central office

I can see the value of a Alliance ID - but funding the issuing office, conducting the background checks and such - paying for all that - or would it be that your national ID gets you an Alliance one?

I also have to add a question to Xiscapia. By law only Foxfire Rose and his immediate family can have last names. On a level of national ideentity and security - how in Heavens name do you manage to function? Is every one barcoded, or are all genetically scanned?**

Agreed on the use of Alliance ID's to help merchants and citizens of each memeber, it could also be used as a national ID by member states

• The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders. Save that drugs or substances, items, or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation.

Except for Powzie!, which is acknowledged as the joy of the muri and necessary to well-being, though it is highly toxic to non-trolls.

Yes, but is it illegal?

Agreed, only medical drugs and, in some cases, Powzie

I do not like the potential for Federation forming from Confederacy. I think an Alliance keeps us further away from loss of independance

• Freedom of Speech and Expression, as long as it knowingly harms none.

"Harm" is too ambiguous a term-Freedom of Speech and Expression so long as it is provable or obviously labeled as opinion. Further, while slander and libel are actionable, such action will fall upon those quoting the material
without mentioning it as opinion as opposed to the source material.

I agree with your comments Bruno, but could you suggest a rewording that is as short and simple as the original?

I agree with the above statements
"This agreement acknowledges the right of any individual to speak his mind, even against the policies of this concordat, provided such views are A) provable as fact, or B)stated as opinion. It is the right of no government to decide how an individual may speak or think, but a matter between the individual and his god(s)"
I believe this phrasing will aid, but it can be further revised.

• Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring harm unto another.

Again, harm is too ambiguous a term-does muri Holy Week truly harm the Days of Decadence, or vice versa-too many will seek to abolish all religions under this unless it is phrased more accurately

I believe that what is intended physical harm to another, or decisive mental anguish. Could you suggest alternative wording? As I will certainly not allow a religion into the Imperia that practises / advocates such as child sacrifice or such - yes I know that is an extreme example of harm.

The term harm applies to physical harm to another as opposed to simply mental stress or is that inclkuded in the term? Alversia already permits all religions that do not conflict with her BIll of Rights
Mental anguish is not a concept I want ever mentioned again-it is unprovable, and thus beyond the purview of this body. I will accept that the Zorak Zorani will have to come to Pamaltela to join the Order, and that Karrg's Sons will have to return to Pamaltela for their ritual annual eating of a family member, and that those cultures as practice child sacrifice-which I and my culture condemn as abominations, should also restrain their worship to their planets, but if it doesn't involve the death of a sentient, it isn't our business. Just because the little old lady next door doesn't like the nude fire-dancing doesn't mean we should come down on it.

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

• Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it. Sorry Bruno, I won't have my government officials hung and it be gotten away with by having the Muri in question claim it was free speach.

I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime
Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. And, the lynching of public officials is only considered free speech when fifteen or more constituents are involved-your officials would be considered assassinations unless fifteen or more of their constituency bought them a weekend on Pamaltela for the lynching. I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

• Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."
Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.

• Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy
No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement

If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

We would prefer if this was was arranged to be more of a defensive arrangement. That way we are not all dragged into an aggressive war started by another member nation. Alversian Soldiers will not die to expand the borders of another but she would be willing to defend an Ally under attack
I think the defense of common areas and member nation craft as enter our space is adequate-if we want to pitch into a war, we may cause more headaches than solutions, as well as encourage aggressive outsiders to also kick in-to force members to aid a futile effort to grab land or to encourage a more powerful body to regard us as foes is the deepest folly. There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally, no matter what this agreement says, but to require it will pit us against more powerful entities who will destroy all of us, while simply protecting vessels of member nations will not be regarded as an act of war save by the most psychotic of nations, who we should be destroying anyway.

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

• From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.

I should like a set term for the Chairman, as well as some mechanism for removal from office.

I can agree that there needs to be a set term of office, but it appears to me that the 75+1 rule applies to the Chairman as well. His position does not make him immune.
Then that should be spelled out, as well as the vote to remove him from his position without removal from Representative status.

• Neither The Alliance, nor any of the Signatory Nations, may start a war of aggression without a unanimous vote of the Board of Representatives. However a defensive war needs no vote.

This would seem to fly in the face of not surrendering sovereignty. It is our right as a nation to war as we please. However, we would agree that any war not so voted on should not be backstopped in the event it goes badly for the aggressor nation, other than protecting Alliance territory, and such poorly executed wars should be grounds for expulsion from the Alliance

I agree completely with you on this Bruno. Start wars all you wish, but if it is without the agreement of the Alliance by unanimous vote, it's yours alone, and you will be expelled from the Alliance. Harsher than what you suggested Bruno, but I feel that if you start a war, all by your lonseome, you get to deal with it all by yourself.

I agree that an aggressive war should result in expulsion from the Alliance as it goes against the rest of this constitution.

• The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID.

The idea of Alliance identification is actually a good one, especially for our merchants as will want to claim their exemption, and an Alliance issued card would be easier for all concerned over National IDs that would have to be coordinated through a central office

I can see the value of a Alliance ID - but funding the issuing office, conducting the background checks and such - paying for all that - or would it be that your national ID gets you an Alliance one?

I also have to add a question to Xiscapia. By law only Foxfire Rose and his immediate family can have last names. On a level of national ideentity and security - how in Heavens name do you manage to function? Is every one barcoded, or are all genetically scanned?**

Agreed on the use of Alliance ID's to help merchants and citizens of each memeber, it could also be used as a national ID by member states
Pamaltela would certainly accept Alliance ID cards

• The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders. Save that drugs or substances, items, or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation.

Except for Powzie!, which is acknowledged as the joy of the muri and necessary to well-being, though it is highly toxic to non-trolls.

Yes, but is it illegal?

Agreed, only medical drugs and, in some cases, Powzie
Powzie! is medicinal-it keeps trolls from hospitalizing aliens-lol

I do not like the potential for Federation forming from Confederacy. I think an Alliance keeps us further away from loss of independance [/QUOTE]

The loss of independence is for each member nation to decide-a universal currency for example, which would certainly make things simpler-but the entangling engagements in which each nation might embroil others-let's face it, Nova Nippon and Tanara just want an excuse to attack Calveras and justify Woodrow Wilson's phrase "crimes against humanity", while Pamaltela is just a time-bomb hoping to go off on someone-to entangle us in mutual defense pacts will complicate matters with the first civil war one of us experiences, as we scrabble to defend "our side". Alliance has too many connotations of mutual defense-perhaps Accord would be more suitable despite the Pamaltelan preference that Confederacy would secure our individual identities, and allow us to publicly denounce each other.

OOC: Christ this is a mess.
IC:
The Emperor looked over what had been written so far, shaking his head. In general he had no conflict with the document, but as things changed he would have to watch intently.

• Freedom of Speech and Expression, as long as it knowingly harms none.

"Harm" is too ambiguous a term-Freedom of Speech and Expression so long as it is provable or obviously labeled as opinion. Further, while slander and libel are actionable, such action will fall upon those quoting the material
without mentioning it as opinion as opposed to the source material.

I agree with your comments Bruno, but could you suggest a rewording that is as short and simple as the original?

I agree with the above statements

"This agreement acknowledges the right of any individual to speak his mind, even against the policies of this concordat, provided such views are A) provable as fact, or B)stated as opinion. It is the right of no government to decide how an individual may speak or think, but a matter between the individual and his god(s)"
I believe this phrasing will aid, but it can be further revised.

• Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring harm unto another.

Again, harm is too ambiguous a term-does muri Holy Week truly harm the Days of Decadence, or vice versa-too many will seek to abolish all religions under this unless it is phrased more accurately

I believe that what is intended physical harm to another, or decisive mental anguish. Could you suggest alternative wording? As I will certainly not allow a religion into the Imperia that practises / advocates such as child sacrifice or such - yes I know that is an extreme example of harm.

The term harm applies to physical harm to another as opposed to simply mental stress or is that inclkuded in the term? Alversia already permits all religions that do not conflict with her BIll of Rights

Mental anguish is not a concept I want ever mentioned again-it is unprovable, and thus beyond the purview of this body. I will accept that the Zorak Zorani will have to come to Pamaltela to join the Order, and that Karrg's Sons will have to return to Pamaltela for their ritual annual eating of a family member, and that those cultures as practice child sacrifice-which I and my culture condemn as abominations, should also restrain their worship to their planets, but if it doesn't involve the death of a sentient, it isn't our business. Just because the little old lady next door doesn't like the nude fire-dancing doesn't mean we should come down on it.

Xiscapia has always been tolerant of other religons, and I believe that only actual murder of another being in accordance with their religon should be banned. As it has been made clear, "harm" blankets far too many actions to be effective. For example, certain tribal religons here require ritualistic blood letting on the passage to adulthood for it's members. This does harm, yes? But the members choose this as their rite of passage, and I know they would be very angry if we removed their religon because it "caused harm" to their members.

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

• Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it. Sorry Bruno, I won't have my government officials hung and it be gotten away with by having the Muri in question claim it was free speach.

I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime

Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. And, the lynching of public officials is only considered free speech when fifteen or more constituents are involved-your officials would be considered assassinations unless fifteen or more of their constituency bought them a weekend on Pamaltela for the lynching. I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

I support the Voivode's views.

• Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.

• Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement

If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

We would prefer if this was was arranged to be more of a defensive arrangement. That way we are not all dragged into an aggressive war started by another member nation. Alversian Soldiers will not die to expand the borders of another but she would be willing to defend an Ally under attack

I think the defense of common areas and member nation craft as enter our space is adequate-if we want to pitch into a war, we may cause more headaches than solutions, as well as encourage aggressive outsiders to also kick in-to force members to aid a futile effort to grab land or to encourage a more powerful body to regard us as foes is the deepest folly. There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally, no matter what this agreement says, but to require it will pit us against more powerful entities who will destroy all of us, while simply protecting vessels of member nations will not be regarded as an act of war save by the most psychotic of nations, who we should be destroying anyway.

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

• From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.

I should like a set term for the Chairman, as well as some mechanism for removal from office.

I can agree that there needs to be a set term of office, but it appears to me that the 75+1 rule applies to the Chairman as well. His position does not make him immune.

Then that should be spelled out, as well as the vote to remove him from his position without removal from Representative status.

• Neither The Alliance, nor any of the Signatory Nations, may start a war of aggression without a unanimous vote of the Board of Representatives. However a defensive war needs no vote.

This would seem to fly in the face of not surrendering sovereignty. It is our right as a nation to war as we please. However, we would agree that any war not so voted on should not be backstopped in the event it goes badly for the aggressor nation, other than protecting Alliance territory, and such poorly executed wars should be grounds for expulsion from the Alliance

I agree completely with you on this Bruno. Start wars all you wish, but if it is without the agreement of the Alliance by unanimous vote, it's yours alone, and you will be expelled from the Alliance. Harsher than what you suggested Bruno, but I feel that if you start a war, all by your lonseome, you get to deal with it all by yourself.

I agree that an aggressive war should result in expulsion from the Alliance as it goes against the rest of this constitution.

Xiscapia supports these statements.

• The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID.

The idea of Alliance identification is actually a good one, especially for our merchants as will want to claim their exemption, and an Alliance issued card would be easier for all concerned over National IDs that would have to be coordinated through a central office

I can see the value of a Alliance ID - but funding the issuing office, conducting the background checks and such - paying for all that - or would it be that your national ID gets you an Alliance one?

I also have to add a question to Xiscapia. By law only Foxfire Rose and his immediate family can have last names. On a level of national ideentity and security - how in Heavens name do you manage to function? Is every one barcoded, or are all genetically scanned?**

Agreed on the use of Alliance ID's to help merchants and citizens of each memeber, it could also be used as a national ID by member states

Pamaltela would certainly accept Alliance ID cards

Not by law is it that I and my family are the only ones who use last names. It is custom from the ancient days before the Long Voyage, to distinquish the ruler. Though they are not used in commonplace, your average Xiscapian does have a last name: Simply examine the blade of their sword, near the hilt. There is a symbol carved there by the family representing that family, and serves as the last name for that kitsune. On official documents the symbol engraved on the sword is filled with ink, which is made solid into a stamp of sorts, and the symbol is stamped onto the document after the first name. The stamp from the symbol is then destroyed, because even within the same family no two last name symbols are exactly alike, and they serve as a personal authentic signature for the kitsune.

• The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders. Save that drugs or substances, items, or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation.

Except for Powzie!, which is acknowledged as the joy of the muri and necessary to well-being, though it is highly toxic to non-trolls.

Yes, but is it illegal?

Agreed, only medical drugs and, in some cases, Powzie.

Powzie! is medicinal-it keeps trolls from hospitalizing aliens-lol

I do not like the potential for Federation forming from Confederacy. I think an Alliance keeps us further away from loss of independance.

The loss of independence is for each member nation to decide-a universal currency for example, which would certainly make things simpler-but the entangling engagements in which each nation might embroil others-let's face it, Nova Nippon and Tanara just want an excuse to attack Calveras and justify Woodrow Wilson's phrase "crimes against humanity", while Pamaltela is just a time-bomb hoping to go off on someone-to entangle us in mutual defense pacts will complicate matters with the first civil war one of us experiences, as we scrabble to defend "our side". Alliance has too many connotations of mutual defense-perhaps Accord would be more suitable despite the Pamaltelan preference that Confederacy would secure our individual identities, and allow us to publicly denounce each other.

Between Xiscapia and Alversia, we have always been simply "The Alliance" or "The Allies." To Xiscapia what we are called it not particularly important: As long as we uphold the same ideals and truths we always have, whatever Pact we enter will remain strong and undivided.
OOC: I really only mantain the whole "last name for a few people" thing because I'm terrible at coming up with last names. This way, they have them which prevents exactly what you were talking about, but in such a way that I don't have to use them.

These ones we are all in agreement on at this time:

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders.Save that drugs or substances, items, practises or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation


Now contested, disputed, wished to be, need to be altered changed which ever...

Alterations will be in orange

From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.
-The Chairman of the Board will serve a 12 year term, but can be removed from his position by a 75% + 1 from the position, resulting in returning him to simply a Representative. Upon such a vote of No - Confidence a new Chairman of the Board will be elected
----------------------------------------------------------

Each individual has the right of free speech or expression, provided such views A) provable as fact, or B) stated as opinion, C) Do not bring physical harm to another.

The first part is modified from The Voivodes suggestion - I believe while this is more compact it holds essentially the same meaning -

However -The underlined section I added because of these issues:

1) Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.
2) Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
3) Fighting words doctrine:"insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
4) Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
5) Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government

4 & 5 - I'm iffy on- I think they should be included - because this goes beyond open and honest ( or even insane paranoid ravings and crackpot idealest) critizn of any and all of the governments and the articles of this Alliance...
------------------------------------------------

Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring UNWILLING harm unto another.

I agree mental anguish is bunk and It ws not intended that mental anguish is part of the meaning of Harm

Note: If a member agrees to - informed consent is the operative phrase - being harmed that is their choice.

Now you see here is where National Sovereignty comes into play - if it's legal on Pamaltela, or Xiscapia, or else where in the Alliance, then it's still legal there ( ie eating a relative to join the order, or as a yearly obligation ) you just can't do it within the boundries of a nation where it is illegal.

This is the defining factor on that:

The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders.Save that drugs or substances, items, practises or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation

Example: Prostitution is illegal in Xiscapia. In Tanara it is not with the proper liscensing. A Tanaran prostitute may go live in Xiscapis, but if she practises her trade in the Xiscapian Empire she is acting illegaly ( in violation of their laws ) and can be arrested and tried in Xiscapia. Once she returns to the Tanaran Empire she is once again allowed to ply her trade.

---------------------------------------------------

Any Signatory Nation that enacts a war of aggression without unanimous Alliance approval will not be aided in any way by the Alliance or by any other Signatory Nation. Such war acts will be grounds for immediate explusion from the Alliance.

---------------------------------------------------

The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID, or an Alliance issued I.D.

A National I.D. may be exchanged for an Alliance I.D. BUT to aquire an Alliance I.D. one must already have a National ID. I don't want some one my national Security has not vetted claiming to be some one from my nation. Yes it's a double check, but I believe worth the trouble.

-----------------------------------------------
______________________________________________

Here are the difficult ones:

A) • Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

OD: I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

OD2: Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. ~SNIP~ . I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

NN - No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it.

Alv) I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime.

XIS: I support the Voivode's views.

Here I have to agree with NN and ALV - if one of my citizens commits a crime in another nation, they should be tried in that nation by that nations system and laws. Ignorance of the law is not excuse, nor is exile suffecient enough punishment for some crimes.

For example: Eating sentients may be legal on Palmatela, it's not in the Phoenix Empire unless specific voluntary permission is given by the one eaten priorly - and I don't care how old a Muri custom it is, doing it in the Phoenix Empire is not going to happen.

It's three to two at this point on this point - more discussion is needed I believe

--------------------------------------------------
________________________________________

Here is another contentious point:

All Signatory Nations commit to the common defenseof The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

OD: abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement.

OD2: I think the defense of common areas and member nation craft as enter our space is adequate-if we want to pitch into a war, we may cause more headaches than solutions, as well as encourage aggressive outsiders to also kick in-to force members to aid a futile effort to grab land or to encourage a more powerful body to regard us as foes is the deepest folly. There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally, no matter what this agreement says, but to require it will pit us against more powerful entities who will destroy all of us, while simply protecting vessels of member nations will not be regarded as an act of war save by the most psychotic of nations, who we should be destroying anyway.

NN - If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

ALV ) We would prefer if this was was arranged to be more of a defensive arrangement. That way we are not all dragged into an aggressive war started by another member nation. Alversian Soldiers will not die to expand the borders of another but she would be willing to defend an Ally under attack.

This is not meant for aggression - Please note what I underlined above in the original -The Common Defense. I believe that this defense must be extended to all member nations - if we do not defend one another what good is all of this?

And I included this precisely so we don't have to rely on the iffy propostion of "There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally," Thats nice in theory, but in practise it's best to have it in writing.

Once again - This is not about wars of aggression - but for defense, and yes that includes anti-piracy.

---------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

OD: This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

OD2: No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.


NN- Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

I think this is an issue of Now you see here is where National Sovereignty, and beyond the scope of this Alliance.

Alversia, Xiscapia, we haven't heard from you two on this - please weigh in

-----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________

Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

OD: If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

OD2: Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.


NN -"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

I do not see it as social engineering, but the basic right to to travel to another nation and suddeny find oneself unmarried

Again: Alversia, Xiscapia, we haven't heard from you two on this - please weigh in

OOC: You think this is a mess- It took me 2 hours to put this post together...

Example: Prostitution is illegal in Xiscapia. In Tanara it is not with the proper liscensing. A Tanaran prostitute may go live in Xiscapis, but if she practises her trade in the Xiscapian Empire she is acting illegally ( in violation of their laws ) and can be arrested and tried in Xiscapia. Once she returns to the Tanaran Empire she is once again allowed to ply her trade.
Forgive me, but such an example has been used before, and once again I must stress that, while at one time Prostitution was illegal in the Kitsune Empire, it is now legal on Xiscapia, and has been for over a decade. It is government regulated of course, but it is legal. Perhaps another, different opposite is in order.

A) • Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

OD: I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

OD2: Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. ~SNIP~ . I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

NN - No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it.

Alv) I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime.

XIS: I support the Voivode's views.

Here I have to agree with NN and ALV - if one of my citizens commits a crime in another nation, they should be tried in that nation by that nations system and laws. Ignorance of the law is not excuse, nor is exile sufficient enough punishment for some crimes.

For example: Eating sentients may be legal on Palmatela, it's not in the Phoenix Empire unless specific voluntary permission is given by the one eaten priorly - and I don't care how old a Muri custom it is, doing it in the Phoenix Empire is not going to happen.

It's three to two at this point on this point - more discussion is needed I believe
Upon further consideration I must retract my support from the part of the Voivode's views concerning capital punishment. Xiscapia continues to carry capital punishment for the Three Great Atrocities, and we will not simply exile a rapist, slaver or mass murderer because of what is written here.However, I continue my support of trying civilians by the laws of their own nation, rather than the laws of the nation they were committed on. Here, though, I must bring up the subject of war crimes. Perhaps a court staffed by judges from all nations represented in this Treaty is in order to try those military beings guilty of war crimes and crimes against sentients? Xiscapia has had much difficulty with war crimes in the past, and more often than not those guilty of them are simply executed without trial. Maybe it is time for the appropriate legal system to be put in place in this area.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

OD: This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

OD2: No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.


NN- Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

I think this is an issue of Now you see here is where National Sovereignty, and beyond the scope of this Alliance.
The Kitsune Empire does have a network of spies and informants in place as an early warning system to guard against terrorist attacks, threats of undeclared war, and the like. Our citizens are watched-publicly. Cameras, scanners and other information collecting devices have been installed in government institutions, schools, military areas, starports, and other places which require heightened security. I believe "Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy." should remain in this document.

Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

OD: If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

OD2: Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.

NN -"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

I do not see it as social engineering, but the basic right to to travel to another nation and suddeny find oneself unmarried
First let me make clear that neither I nor the Kitsune Empire approve of vendettas or feuds. They are not legal anywhere in Xiscapian borders. I see the points of both parties, even if I do not agree with the Voivode's. To the rest of us, it may not seem like "social engineering", but to the Muri it very much is. However, I disagree with the statement proclaiming it "has no grounding in establishing peace" and will vehmently protest if it is stricken from the document. Perhaps some sort of compromise will need to be reached when Pamalta is concerned. For now this is a matter of society and law which must be addressed before this document is made official. I do not have a solution. Wiser minds than mine will need to come up with one.

OOC:
Tanara:
From Post Number 3 in my Factbook:
13 - Prostitution - Heavily government regulated and controlled
It's been there for some time now. If I somehow gave the impression otherwise, my apologies.

My apologies Xiscapia, I did not check that at all ( huge blush )

It was merely the first yes/ no ( and my assumption made a fool of me ) I tend to come up with as my nation allowing and many not.

my deepest apologies for an stain or aspersion cast upon your nation.

Quote:
• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

OD: This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

OD2: No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.

NN- Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

I think this is an issue of Now you see here is where National Sovereignty, and beyond the scope of this Alliance.

The Kitsune Empire does have a network of spies and informants in place as an early warning system to guard against terrorist attacks, threats of undeclared war, and the like. Our citizens are watched-publicly. Cameras, scanners and other information collecting devices have been installed in government institutions, schools, military areas, starports, and other places which require heightened security. I believe "Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy." should remain in this document.

I have the same thing that Xiscapia does. I can see the nat sov side where this is solely a national privacy issue, and I can see how one can worry about foreign governments crowding in and disrupting my peoples privacy.

____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________

A) • Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

OD: I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

OD2: Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. ~SNIP~ . I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

NN - No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it.
Alv) I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime.

XIS: I support the Voivode's views.

Upon further consideration I must retract my support from the part of the Voivode's views concerning capital punishment. Xiscapia continues to carry capital punishment for the Three Great Atrocities, and we will not simply exile a rapist, slaver or mass murderer because of what is written here.

However, I continue my support of trying civilians by the laws of their own nation, rather than the laws of the nation they were committed on.

**Here, though, I must bring up the subject of war crimes. Perhaps a court staffed by judges from all nations represented in this Treaty is in order to try those military beings guilty of war crimes and crimes against sentients? Xiscapia has had much difficulty with war crimes in the past, and more often than not those guilty of them are simply executed without trial. Maybe it is time for the appropriate legal system to be put in place in this area.

Here I have to agree with NN and ALV - if one of my citizens commits a crime in another nation, they should be tried in that nation by that nations system and laws. Ignorance of the law is not excuse, nor is exile sufficient enough punishment for some crimes.

For example: Eating sentients may be legal on Palmatela, it's not in the Phoenix Empire unless specific voluntary permission is given by the one eaten priorly - and I don't care how old a Muri custom it is, doing it in the Phoenix Empire is not going to happen.

It's three to two at this point on this point - more discussion is needed I believe.

Added note: This is almost a deal breaker for me. The only thing I will say is if this goes through as 'tried by their nations laws' then the neither criminal and or their family will never again be allowed to enter the Tanaran Empire, or operate or own businesses with in the Empire. And it is quite possible that bounties would be put on their lives.

_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

OD: If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

OD2: Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.

NN -"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."


I do not see it as social engineering, but the basic right to to travel to another nation and suddeny find oneself unmarried. I agree with Xiscapia - I am not saying that Muri society must change their marriages, < that would indeed be social engineering > but they should recognise that our forms of marriage are just as valid as theirs.

First let me make clear that neither I nor the Kitsune Empire approve of vendettas or feuds. They are not legal anywhere in Xiscapian borders. I see the points of both parties, even if I do not agree with the Voivode's. To the rest of us, it may not seem like "social engineering", but to the Muri it very much is. However, I disagree with the statement proclaiming it "has no grounding in establishing peace" and will vehmently protest if it is stricken from the document. Perhaps some sort of compromise will need to be reached when Pamalta is concerned. For now this is a matter of society and law which must be addressed before this document is made official. I do not have a solution. Wiser minds than mine will need to come up with one.

OOC: I'll only comment on the two I have yet to express an opinion about, Alversia maintains her opinion of the other matters in this treaty.

• Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

In this, Alversia maintains the same opinion as the Phoenix Empire and the Kitsune Empire, we have our own systems in place to ensure national security. However, we do mainain the right of privacy in private domains unless there is suffecient cause for concern about threats to national security. To that end, we would prefer that this Right is maintained and decisions about dangers to other Nations should be taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of local intelligence forces.

Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

If this is more to ensure that a valid marriage in Alversia is then valid in the Phoenix Empire then there should be no reason why it could not be accepted into this constitution. Vendetta's are in no way tolerated within the Republic however, as they are a danger to the safety of both victims and innocents. Therefore, I move that this be amended to state the acceptance of familial unions across the Alliance providing there is no danger to either spouses or those they will be in contact with.

As it stands at this time

These ones we are all in agreement on at this time:

• The Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship. However this privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. Given that it is of long standing that all Signatory Nations allow the knowledgeable custody of weapons, if a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

Right of Assembly and Peaceful Demonstration.

• No Signatory Nations of The Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• All members will provide one delegate to the Board of Representatives of The Alliance. These Representatives shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations chooses for them to do so. Though a Representative may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Board.

The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders.Save that drugs or substances, items, practises or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation

From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position. The Chairman of the Board will serve a 12 year term, but can be removed from his position by a 75% + 1 from the position, resulting in returning him to simply a Representative. Upon such a vote of No - Confidence a new Chairman of the Board will be elected

Each individual has the right of free speech and expression, provided such views A) provable as fact, or B) stated as opinion, C) Do not bring physical harm to another.

Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring UNWILLING physical harm to another, or are illegal within the jurisdiction of the host nation

Any Signatory Nation that enacts a war of aggression without unanimous Alliance approval will not be aided in any way by the Alliance or by any other Signatory Nation. Such war acts will be grounds for immediate explusion from the Alliance.

The Member Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Member Nations, save for an Alliance issued I.D., whose acquisition will be controlled by each Member Nation.

The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States, whose laws are sacrosanct within their jurisdiction.

The accused has the right to legal counsel from the Nation of Citizenship, in any criminal proceeding where the accused might face a lethal punishment. Such judicial proceedings must allow an observer, an Amicus Curiae, from a mutually agreed upon neutral Signatory Nation.

The Signatory Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Council to provide neutral observation of such cases, as well as disputes involving Signatory Nations, Such disputes include but are not limited to matters of extradition and legal qualifications for non-citizens observing a foreign court.
The JOC will maintain records of all Signatory Nations statutes and laws.

The JOC will be responsible for the duties and maintence of the legal system for mutually controlled territories such as but not limited to -shared satellites, colonies, trade routes. The court system will be comprised of a Judicial Panel composed of one JOC Advisor from each Signatory Nation involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.

The JOC will be compsed of one Advisor from each Signatory Nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, and adequate staff to handle the duties of the JOC as required. Each Signatory Nations will govern it's members as per their legal system. Any staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetance to be removed by a 75% majority, but the actual Advisor requiring 75%+1.

All Signatory Nations commit to the creation of the Alliance Defense Force - a military organizations solely for the common defense of The Alliance, and the Signatory Nations; save in instances in which the attacked Signatory Nation(s) request that no aid be provided to them. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. The Alliance Defense Force has no authority over any Signatory Nations' forces save for units specifically loaned to aid the Alliance Defense Force and that command authority terminates when the units are recalled

Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

As it stands at this time

These ones we are all in agreement on at this time:












Suggested changes: Please make note if changes meet or do not meet your approval :

Alterations will be in red

From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.
-The Chairman of the Board will serve a 12 year term, but can be removed from his position by a 75% + 1 from the position, resulting in returning him to simply a Representative. Upon such a vote of No - Confidence a new Chairman of the Board will be elected
----------------------------------------------------------

Each individual has the right of free speech or expression, provided such views A) provable as fact, or B) stated as opinion, C) Do not bring physical harm to another.

The first part is modified from The Voivodes suggestion - I believe while this is more compact it holds essentially the same meaning -

However -The underlined section I added because of these issues:

1) Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.
2) Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
3) Fighting words doctrine:"insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
4) Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
5) Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government

4 & 5 - I'm iffy on- I think they should be included - because this goes beyond open and honest ( or even insane paranoid ravings and crackpot idealist) citizen of any and all of the governments and the articles of this Alliance...
------------------------------------------------

Under Discussion

Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring UNWILLING harm unto another.

I agree mental anguish is bunk and It was not intended that mental anguish is part of the meaning of Harm

Note: If a member agrees to - informed consent is the operative phrase - being harmed that is their choice.

Now you see here is where National Sovereignty comes into play - if it's legal on Pamaltela, or Xiscapia, or else where in the Alliance, then it's still legal there ( ie eating a relative to join the order, or as a yearly obligation ) you just can't do it within the boundaries of a nation where it is illegal.

This is the defining factor on that:



---------------------------------------------------

Any Signatory Nation that enacts a war of aggression without unanimous Alliance approval will not be aided in any way by the Alliance or by any other Signatory Nation. Such war acts will be grounds for immediate expulsion from the Alliance.

---------------------------------------------------

The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID, or an Alliance issued I.D.

A National I.D. may be exchanged for an Alliance I.D. BUT to acquire an Alliance I.D. one must already have a National ID. I don't want some one my National Security has not vetted claiming to be some one from my nation. Yes it's a double check, but I believe worth the trouble.
Pamaltela doesn't have National IDs, but we will allow the Alliance to place an embassy/office at Big Rubble for our citizens as wish to wander Alliance territory to gain their Alliance ID card, for travel, mercantile ventures, etc. Members of each Order will vouch for the identities of the citizen there, and those Orders as maintain heraldry records will be on hand to comply with this office. I'm sure something will be worked out, but it's a niggling point at best.


-----------------------------------------------
______________________________________________

Under Major Discussion


A) • Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

OD: I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is countervened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

OD2: Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. ~SNIP~ . I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

NN - No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it.

Alv) I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defence if it is not a serious crime.

XIS: I support the Voivode's views.

Altered/ Added: Upon further consideration I must retract my support from the part of the Voivode's views concerning capital punishment. Xiscapia continues to carry capital punishment for the Three Great Atrocities, and we will not simply exile a rapist, slaver or mass murderer because of what is written here.

However, I continue my support of trying civilians by the laws of their own nation, rather than the laws of the nation they were committed on.

***Please see an additional / new sub - subject listed at the end

Here I have to agree with NN and ALV - if one of my citizens commits a crime in another nation, they should be tried in that nation by that nations system and laws. Ignorance of the law is not excuse, nor is exile suffecient enough punishment for some crimes.

For example: Eating sentients may be legal on Palmatela, it's not in the Phoenix Empire unless specific voluntary permission is given by the one eaten priorly - and I don't care how old a Muri custom it is, doing it in the Phoenix Empire is not going to happen.

It's three to two at this point on this point - more discussion is needed I believe.

Added note: This is almost a deal breaker for me. The only thing I will say is if this goes through as 'tried by their nations laws' then the neither criminal and or their family will never again be allowed to enter the Tanaran Empire, or operate or own businesses with in the Empire. And it is quite possible that bounties would be put on their lives.
Perhaps we should state that by traveling to another nation, each citizen accepts the nation's laws as dominant as well as their own, which they agreed to as citizens. I certainly don't want criminals of your nations bringing their victims to Pamaltela for the legal murder and eating of the remains that occurs there, any more than you would want muri to wander your regions bound only by our laws. Perhaps in those cases where execution is a possible sentence, we should allow a three judge system, one judge from the nation in which the crime occurred, one judge from the nation of citizenship, and a third judge to be a neutral arbitrator. Our societies have vastly different views on law and criminality, and we should preserve this as well as try to coexist amicably.

--------------------------------------------------
________________________________________

B) All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

OD: abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement.

OD2: I think the defense of common areas and member nation craft as enter our space is adequate-if we want to pitch into a war, we may cause more headaches than solutions, as well as encourage aggressive outsiders to also kick in-to force members to aid a futile effort to grab land or to encourage a more powerful body to regard us as foes is the deepest folly. There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally, no matter what this agreement says, but to require it will pit us against more powerful entities who will destroy all of us, while simply protecting vessels of member nations will not be regarded as an act of war save by the most psychotic of nations, who we should be destroying anyway.

NN - If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

ALV ) We would prefer if this was was arranged to be more of a defensive arrangement. That way we are not all dragged into an aggressive war started by another member nation. Alversian Soldiers will not die to expand the borders of another but she would be willing to defend an Ally under attack.

This is notmeant for aggression - Please note what I underlined above in the original -The Common Defense. I believe that this defense must be extended to all member nations - if we do not defend one another what good is all of this?

And I included this precisely so we don't have to rely on the iffy propostion of "There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally," Thats nice in theory, but in practise it's best to have it in writing.

Once again - This is not about wars of aggression - but for defense, and yes that includes anti-piracy.
Pamaltela will agree to defend any member nation, but some mechanism of diplomacy and investigation must occur to ensure the war is legal under this charter. Also, limits on the Appointed Commander have yet to be addressed.

---------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________

C) • Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.

OD: This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

OD2: No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.

NN- Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

The Kitsune Empire does have a network of spies and informants in place as an early warning system to guard against terrorist attacks, threats of undeclared war, and the like. Our citizens are watched-publicly. Cameras, scanners and other information collecting devices have been installed in government institutions, schools, military areas, starports, and other places which require heightened security. I believe "Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy." should remain in this document.

ALV) In this, Alversia maintains the same opinion as the Phoenix Empire and the Kitsune Empire, we have our own systems in place to ensure national security. However, we do mainain the right of privacy in private domains unless there is suffecient cause for concern about threats to national security. To that end, we would prefer that this Right is maintained and decisions about dangers to other Nations should be taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of local intelligence forces.

I think this is an issue of Now you see here is where National Sovereignty, and beyond the scope of this Alliance.

Added/ Altered :I have the same thing that Xiscapia does. I can see the nat sov side where this is solely a national privacy issue, and I can see how one can worry about foreign governments crowding in and disrupting my people's privacy.

Tanara must stand with Alversia, Nova Nippon and Xiscapia on this issue
Pamaltela doesn't believe in it one bit. Even the defenders of this right are admitting there are circumstances under which this right is waived, but no one is willing to put into writing the mechanism under which the right is waived. I am certain that if illegally obtained information were to be offered up, we would all act on it and not enforce this right. This is merely "feelgood" legislation that would never be given teeth. If any of you can prove to me this would be respected in any way other than it's breach, I will reconsider.

-----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________

D) Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

OD: If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

OD2: Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.

NN -"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marriges recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also Bruno it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

Xiscapia --First let me make clear that neither I nor the Kitsune Empire approve of vendettas or feuds. They are not legal anywhere in Xiscapian borders. I see the points of both parties, even if I do not agree with the Voivode's. To the rest of us, it may not seem like "social engineering", but to the Muri it very much is. However, I disagree with the statement proclaiming it "has no grounding in establishing peace" and will vehemently protest if it is stricken from the document. Perhaps some sort of compromise will need to be reached when Pamalta is concerned. For now this is a matter of society and law which must be addressed before this document is made official. I do not have a solution. Wiser minds than mine will need to come up with one.

If this is more to ensure that a valid marriage in Alversia is then valid in the Phoenix Empire then there should be no reason why it could not be accepted into this constitution. Vendetta's are in no way tolerated within the Republic however, as they are a danger to the safety of both victims and innocents. Therefore, I move that this be amended to state the acceptance of familial unions across the Alliance providing there is no danger to either spouses or those they will be in contact with.

I do not see it as social engineering, but the basic right to to travel to another nation and suddenly find oneself unmarried.

Added/ Altered: I agree with Xiscapia - I am not saying that Muri society must change their marriages, < that would indeed be social engineering > but the Muri should recognize that our forms of marriage are just as valid as theirs.
Does this tenet also mean muri females can demand sex from any Alliance male, as is their traditional right, and be considered married if the union produces children? I think you are all so intent on forcing your own concepts you forget this tenet would also enforce ours. I note every one is on the bandwagon that feuds and vendetta are not familial obligations, which makes this tenet a matter of inheritance issues exclusively. Pamaltela will recognize a citizens' right to leave their property to whomever they wish, under the laws of their nation of citizenship, but to force us to call whatever union your culture identifies as a marriage is social engineering. I do not believe any of us wish to badger the others into accepting their own societal mores, but if the language is softened, this can be reconsidered.

______________________________________________________

*******************************************

New Sub - subject brought up by Xiscapia earlier in an earlier post:

Here, though, I must bring up the subject of war crimes. Perhaps a court staffed by judges from all nations represented in this Treaty is in order to try those military beings guilty of war crimes and crimes against sentients? Xiscapia has had much difficulty with war crimes in the past, and more often than not those guilty of them are simply executed without trial. Maybe it is time for the appropriate legal system to be put in place in this area.

I find that very acceptable.
Pamaltela agrees that a composite judiciary would be most beneficial to the Alliance, especially to work out compromises between legal systems, and perhaps some of our points of contention can be swept under such a judiciary to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

OD - I do see you post but in order to get things cleared as expeditiously as possible...

This point here:

From among the Representatives one will be elected, through open voting, to act as Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Chairman of the Board will act as Speaker for The Alliance or may chose another to that position.

The Chairman of the Board will serve a 12 year term, but can be removed from his position by a 75% + 1 from the position, resulting in returning him to simply a Representative. Upon such a vote of No - Confidence a new Chairman of the Board will be elected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If every one will just post a quick yes or no ANDif No your suggested alterations

The Alversian answer to this is Yes

Xiscapia votes Yes.

The Calaverian Observed Systems is interested in this Alliance and joining it, seeing as we are sort of under Xiscapia's watch.

The Calaverian Observed Systems are thanked for their interest, but that nation is not welcome in this Alliance as far as the Phoenix Empire of Tanara is concerned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My vote on the question at hand is yes.

Yes on the Representative thingie

Nova Nippon votes yes.

The Calaverian Observed Systems are thanked for their interest, but that nation is not welcome in this Alliance as far as the Phoenix Empire of Tanara is concerned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My vote on the question at hand is yes.

We believe if we have to be under Xiscapian Observation we are to be allowed into this Alliance, if this is deackwnolegded we may assume that the Xiscapian's don't have the interest in helping us in our defense, which they have yet to send help in the finding off certain terrorists.

Next up:

Each individual has the right of free speech and expression, provided such views A) provable as fact, or B) stated as opinion, C) Do not bring physical harm to another.

The first part is modified from The Voivodes suggestion - I believe while this is more compact it holds essentially the same meaning -

However -The underlined section I added because of these issues:

1) Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.
2) Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
3) Fighting words doctrine:"insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

This is where the harm in the original sentece came from, and I believe that it needs to stay in there.

Next up:

Each individual has the right of free speech and expression, provided such views A) provable as fact, or B) stated as opinion, C) Do not bring physical harm to another.

The first part is modified from The Voivodes suggestion - I believe while this is more compact it holds essentially the same meaning -

However -The underlined section I added because of these issues:

1) Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.
2) Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
3) Fighting words doctrine:"insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"

This is where the harm in the original sentence came from, and I believe that it needs to stay in there.
Agreed-yes on this proposition

My vote is yes for this as it has been amended.

The Neo Kirisuban representative had liked what was being talked about so far so had agreed with the items as they came up. They had a diplomatic balance to keep but they doubted the Federal Union would war against an Alliance member.

Again she gave her 'aye' to the vote.

The Alversian Republic votes yes on the amendment to the rights for free speech

And Now -

Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring UNWILLING harm unto another.

I agree mental anguish is bunk and mental anguish was not intended to be part of the definition of Harm

Note: If a member of a religion ( or even a non member ) agrees to - informed consent is the operative phrase - being harmed that is their free choice.

Also, you see here is where National Sovereignty comes into play - if it's legal on Pamaltela, or Xiscapia, or else where in the Alliance, then it's still legal there ( ie eating a relative to join the order, or as a yearly obligation ) you just can't do it within the boundries of a nation where it is illegal.

This is the defining factor on that:

The Alliance agrees to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders.Save that drugs or substances, items, practises or services considered illegal in a Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within that Signatory Nation.

Example : Substance xyz is illegal in the Xiscapian Empire but not the Republic of Alversia. You can use it, buy it, sell it, ignore it in Alversia, but you can not use it, bring it into, buy or sell, etc in Xiscapia. Go back to Alversia and you can do all those things again.

Xiscapia votes yes on both the tenant of freedom of speech and expression, and on the freedom of worship under their amended clauses.
OOC: NC, you have a TG.

Alversia votes yes for this

And Now -

Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring UNWILLING physical harm to another, or are illegal within the jurisdiction of the host Nation.

I agree mental anguish is bunk and mental anguish was not intended to be part of the definition of Harm

Note: If a member of a religion ( or even a non member ) agrees to - informed consent is the operative phrase - being harmed that is their free choice.

Also, you see here is where National Sovereignty comes into play - if it's legal on Pamaltela, or Xiscapia, or else where in the Alliance, then it's still legal there ( ie eating a relative to join the order, or as a yearly obligation ) you just can't do it within the boundries of a nation where it is illegal.

This is the defining factor on that:



Example : Substance xyz is illegal in the Xiscapian Empire but not the Republic of Alversia. You can use it, buy it, sell it, ignore it in Alversia, but you can not use it, bring it into, buy or sell, etc in Xiscapia. Go back to Alversia and you can do all those things again.
As amended, Pamaltela agrees-it occurs to us we have all agreed to the amended term, but never placed it in the wording of the document.

LOL OD< you are quite correct. It's storming here and I keep losing power so I'm a little frazzeled...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEXT:

Any Signatory Nation that enacts a war of aggression without unanimous Alliance approval will not be aided in any way by the Alliance or by any other Signatory Nation. Enacting of a war of aggression without said approval will be grounds for immediate explusion from the Alliance.

This is good by me.

Just a reminder : This covers solely wars of aggression. Wars of, and acts of, defense is something we are discussing seperately.

Alversia ratifies this part of the treaty.

Agreed on War, pending other members approving the amended Freedom of Worship

OD< I think that every one agreed on the freedom of religion as ammended

Yes, but it's only fair that the wording gets approved-who knows what psychotic rhetoric the Voivode slipped in? As most of our members approved the measure before the amending, they may not agree with the new wording, and members should be aware it was amended and post their arguments against or vote for the new version. Still yes on the current War resolution, however.

You're right so lets double check on this issue - please vote yes or no for this wording:

Worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring UNWILLING physical harm to another, or are illegal within the jurisdiction of the host nation

Please yes / no and if no why/ alternatives

Kirisubo votes yes to the proposal as it stands.

Alversia votes yes to the amended proposal

Xiscapia votes yes to all points that have been brought up so far which it has not previously answered to.

We all seem to be all onboard so far-what's next?

The Signatory Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Signatory Nations, save for some form of secure National ID, or an Alliance issued I.D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A National I.D. may be exchanged for an Alliance I.D. BUT to aquire an Alliance I.D. one must already have a National ID. < I don't want someone my National Security has not vetted claiming to be someone from my nation. Yes it's a double check, but I believe worth the trouble for us.>

I vote yes on this.

I believe that an Alliance ID should be required for such freedom of movement, but each nation should be permitted it's own restrictions on acquiring such an ID. Thus modified:
The Member Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Member Nations, save for an Alliance issued I.D., whose acquisition will be controlled by each Member Nation.
In this manner, each Nation may assume some measure of responsibility for it's citizens, and protect the Sovereignty of each individual Nation. Quite frankly, as Pamaltela has no National ID card program nor any drug laws, I should not like smugglers hiding beneath the umbrella of this tenet by acquiring an admittedly lax Pamaltelan ID while being citizens of another nation entirely, and as only trolls, aldryami, and ducks will have legal Pamaltelan IDs, the others acquiring those through their respective governments, we may sidestep the issue in the most cost-effective way.
We now yeild the floor for debate...

I like that!

Lets take it and run with it.

The Member Nations of The Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Member Nations, save for an Alliance issued I.D., whose acquisition will be controlled by each Member Nation

I vote yes for this altered resolution.

I vote yes for this measure

I also vote yes for this.

Okay all here is where we come down to the hard ones, that have provoked much discussion, and still need more.

A) • Right to Justice before the law and a fair trial as determined by the legal system of the Signatory Nation where in the offense was committed. One has the Right to not incriminate oneself before a court of law.

OD: I would amend this, that citizens of one nation should be tried under their nations' laws, with the maximum penalty exacted by a foreign nation being exile, with an addendum allowing for execution in the event exile is contravened, i.e., the exiled party knowingly enters the prohibited territories. Further, I should like to see Alliance Tribunals involving the member nations of any dispute between members and a neutral third party agreed upon by both contesting members

OD2: Your statements are as regards YOUR laws and their violation-would you want your citizens tried under OUR laws? Again, perhaps the establishment of an independent court is the solution. ~SNIP~ . I would prefer to have Alversians judged by Alversian law, Novans judged by Novan law, etc.-the ability of a court to rule an alien is no longer permitted in certain jurisdictions with an immediate death penalty for violation should be adequate for all. The fact they have been exiled by a member nation is enough, as they can no longer commit their crimes on that nation's soil. I would assume you would want your criminals returned home with shame over execution, especially if they commit what your culture does not consider a crime. If a crime is serious enough, and a breach of both society's laws, a joint trial would be preferred over one nation willy-nilly executing another nation's citizens.

NN - No to this flat out. Someone commits a crime in the Imperia, I am going to demand they be tried in the Imperia and by our laws. And I refuse to give up the death penalty. Some crimes are deserving of it.

Alv) I cannot agree to this, if someone commits a crime in Alversia then we would prefer to have them tried by Republican Laws. In the same vein we would always prefer to have an Alversian tried on foreign soil providing he is offered Alversian representation for his defense if it is not a serious crime.

XIS: I support the Voivode's views.

Altered/ Added: Upon further consideration I must retract my support from the part of the Voivode's views concerning capital punishment. Xiscapia continues to carry capital punishment for the Three Great Atrocities, and we will not simply exile a rapist, slaver or mass murderer because of what is written here.

However, I continue my support of trying civilians by the laws of their own nation, rather than the laws of the nation they were committed on.

Here I have to agree with NN and ALV - if one of my citizens commits a crime in another nation, they should be tried in that nation by that nations system and laws. Ignorance of the law is not excuse, nor is exile sufficient enough punishment for some crimes.

For example: Eating sentiments may be legal on Palmatela, it's not in the Phoenix Empire unless specific voluntary permission is given by the one eaten priorily - and I don't care how old a Muri custom it is, doing it in the Phoenix Empire is not going to happen.

Added note: This is almost a deal breaker for me. The only thing I will say is if this goes through as 'tried by their nations laws' then the neither criminal and or their family will never again be allowed to enter the Tanaran Empire, or operate or own businesses with in the Empire. And it is an almost certainty that bounties would be put on their lives.

How's this-
The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States. Member States will accept the laws of whatever territory whose domain they currently reside in. However, to protect the citizenry, cases where capital punishment is a possible outcome will be tried with legal counsel from the nation of citizenry and observers from a mutually agreed upon third party.
To preserve peace, the Member Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Advisory to oversee such cases as well as disputes involving Member States-e.g., territorial obligations. Further, this Advisory shall maintain justice in mutually controlled territories-shared satellites, colonies, trade routes, using a panel of each Member State involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.
I believe this protects our sovereignty, and will keep disputes to a minimum, especially if we simply permit our various judiciaries to work out the details for themselves. I would suggest requiring judges and lawyers to pass an exam issued by the governing Member Nation required to involve oneself in cases in that Member Nation's jurisdiction be the standard, but this is an opening proposal.

The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States. Member States will accept the laws of whatever territory whose domain they currently reside in. However, to protect the citizenry, cases where capital punishment is a possible outcome will be tried with legal counsel from the nation of citizenry and observers from a mutually agreed upon third party.
To preserve peace, the Member Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Advisory to oversee such cases as well as disputes involving Member States-e.g., territorial obligations. Further, this Advisory shall maintain justice in mutually controlled territories-shared satellites, colonies, trade routes, using a panel of each Member State involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.

I am concerned 'Protect and preserve' sounds like merely a sop - as it does not say one word about enforcing.

Now the second sentence is basically a restatement of: You commit a crime in one nation you will be tried in that nation under that nations laws - am I correct or not?

I have no problem with the cases with capitol punishment -with them being repsresnted by a lawyer from their nation - but will it really serve justice to have a lawyer who is unfamiliar with a nations laws representing a client charged with a death penalty crime?

On the second part concerning a JOA, I have no problem.

I am concerned 'Protect and preserve' sounds like merely a sop - as it does not say one word about enforcing.
We do not feel the Alliance is needed to enforce our laws, but the responsibility of each individual government. The Alliance must respect our individual legalities, but the enforcement is ours and ours alone. If the Alliance is enforcing our laws, of what need are our individual governments?

Now the second sentence is basically a restatement of: You commit a crime in one nation you will be tried in that nation under that nations laws - am I correct or not?
Yes, you are correct.

I have no problem with the cases with capitol punishment -with them being represented by a lawyer from their nation - but will it really serve justice to have a lawyer who is unfamiliar with a nations laws representing a client charged with a death penalty crime?
Again, this is a matter for each individual nation to address-Pamaltela will make certain it's legal counsel is conversant in the proceedings of a foreign government judging it's citizens, I assure you. Part of acknowledging a nation's legal tenets would be qualifying to represent a citizen in court, and the formation of the Judicial Oversight Advisory would aid in generating a communal pool of legal talent to draw on.

Again the Neo Kirsuban delegate had a few Space Credits of her own to add to the pot.

"We of the Space Federation don't see this as much of a problem given a local lawyer will be supplied.

The principle remains if you commit a crime in one part of the Alliance you get tried by the host nations laws. I would also agree that an archive of each nations laws should be maintained so the Judical Oversight committee will be able to do its job and keep member nations informed."

The Voivode listened, and pulled out his stylus and data pad. "I haff not dought dizz drough-bod off you raizze ffalid pointzzez, and me did not dink to include extradition. Let me amend:"
The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States, whose laws are sacrosanct in their jurisdiction. However, to protect the citizenry, cases where capital punishment is a possible outcome will be tried with legal counsel from the nation of citizenry and observers from a mutually agreed upon third party.
To preserve peace, the Member Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Advisory to oversee such cases as well as disputes involving Member States, including matters of extradition and legal qualifications for non-citizens observing a foreign court. This Advisory shall maintain records of all Member States statutes and laws. Further, this Advisory shall maintain justice in mutually controlled territories-shared satellites, colonies, trade routes, using a panel of each Member State involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.
However, other than reducing an alien's sentence to exile to it's nation of citizenry rather than execution upon pain of death, this Advisory's decisions must be ratified by a unanimous vote of the Alliance Directorate.
Further, while membership on the Judiciary Oversight Advisory will be an equal number of representatives selected by each Member Nation, those individuals may have their actions called into question by any Member Nation, requiring a 2/3 majority of the Alliance Directorate to maintain membership.
Members of the Judicial Oversight Advisory who are removed from office must have every case they were involved in ratified by unanimous vote of the Directorate or the case must be retried.
"Number of memberzzez izz zzomething to dizzcuzz-me zzuggezzt 1/100,000 population off our zzmallezzt nation-enuff to perform dey dutiezz, and me dinkzz de limitzzez will keep zzome madman from uzzing our goodwill azz a padway to power."

Dominique looked over the Voivodes new proposal, and began to comment bit by bit:

"Acceptable:

The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States, whose laws are sacrosanct in their jurisdiction.

"However might I suggest this as an alaternative - it gives the accused the right to also waive this option should they choose."

The accused has the right to legal counsel from the Nation of Citizenship, in criminal proceeding where the accused might face a lethal punishment, and the judicial proceedings must allow as, Amicus Curiae, observers from a mutually agreed upon neutral Signatory Nation.

"On this however - are you saying that a death penalty case, while my mation's laws might apply, my judicial system WILL NOT be the one trying it, but this JOA? She shook her head on that "No. That is not acceptable"

To preserve peace, the Member Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Advisory to oversee such cases

"This is acceptable to me."

as well as disputes involving Member States, including matters of extradition and legal qualifications for non-citizens observing a foreign court. This Advisory shall maintain records of all Member States statutes and laws. Further, this Advisory shall maintain justice in mutually controlled territories-shared satellites, colonies, trade routes, using a panel of each Member State involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.

"I am uncertain of what you mean by this Bruno; wat do you mean - that on a death penalty case the voting is allowed to be other than unanimous? Or that it must be unanimous ? Again I repeat my strenuous objection of having this JOA try a nations death penalty cases for them."

However, other than reducing an alien's sentence to exile to it's nation of citizenry rather than execution upon pain of death, this Advisory's decisions must be ratified by a unanimous vote of the Alliance Directorate.

and shook her head vehemently at the last part.

"I have the same proposal with part of this one that I did with the now defunct UFG. I detest tieing how many to population. I have the population of almost all of you combined, if you don't add in the Celestial Imperia. And why should I get the most potential say so? Might I strongly recommend that we have a set number from each Signatory Nation. That way my population does not trump card it."

She frowned, then added, slightly confused -

"You suggest 1 per 100,000 of population - how can that be equal numbers of representatives.?

Further, while membership on the Judiciary Oversight Advisory will be an equal number of representatives selected by each Member Nation, those individuals may have their actions called into question by any Member Nation, requiring a 75%+1 majority of the Alliance Directorate to maintain membership. Members of the Judicial Oversight Advisory who are removed from office must have every case they were involved in ratified by unanimous vote of the Directorate or the case must be retried.

--Damned language barrier--the Voivode grumbled along with other unsavory phrases that wouldn't translate well, as he pulled a small stone mask out of his pocket and tapped it--Wake up, I have need of you--
The mask yawned, and began to speak:
The accused has the right to legal counsel from the Nation of Citizenship, in criminal proceeding where the accused might face a lethal punishment, and the judicial proceedings must allow as, Amicus Curiae, observers from a mutually agreed upon neutral Signatory Nation.
"The phrasing is acceptable."
On this however - are you saying that a death penalty case, while my mation's laws might apply, my judicial system WILL NOT be the one trying it, but this JOA? She shook her head on that "No. That is not acceptable
"The exact phrase is they shall oversee the case, not they shall try it-the Judicial Oversight Advisory will record the case and vouch for it's validity under the host nation's laws, and supply a report to the nation of Citizenship should such be required. This is more of a peacekeeping and goodwill function, to assure all sides are satisfied with the legality of the proceedings, as well as the impartiality we cherish in our judiciary. Should a magistrate clear the courtroom for whatever reasons, the Judicial Oversight Advisory officials will remain for purposes of record-keeping.
"There will be cases of an extraordinary nature that will crop up, and the Judicial Oversight Advisory will suggest alternative punishments, which must be approved by unanimous consent of the Directorate, or the standard sentence will apply. The most common cases where this power will be invoked is in cases of muri Low Justice, which calls for the execution and/or mutilation of shoplifters, merchants who overcharge, vandals, and other crimes deemed menial by your various systems. This power of the Judicial Oversight Advisory is truly flammable, as Tanara proves, hence unanimous consent for it's use."
You suggest 1 per 100,000 of population - how can that be equal numbers of representatives.?
"My exact words were-1/100,000 population of our smallest member-this would keep from taxing the legal resources of our smaller nations, and ensure equal representation."

The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States, whose laws are sacrosanct in their jurisdiction.

The accused has the right to legal counsel from the Nation of Citizenship, in criminal proceeding where the accused might face a lethal punishment, and the judicial proceedings must allow as, Amicus Curiae, observers from a mutually agreed upon neutral Signatory Nation.

The Signatory Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Councilt provide neutral oversight of such cases, as well as disputes involving Signatory Nations, including matters of extradition and legal qualifications for non-citizens observing a foreign court. This Council shall maintain records of all Signatory Nations statutes and laws. Further, this Council shall maintain justice in mutually controlled territories-shared satellites, colonies, trade routes, using a panel of each Member State involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.

The above is all good by me.

Now to the rest:

The Judicial Oversight Council has the right, in cases involving a punative death penality, to propose alternative punishments, which must be approved by unanimous consent of the Directorate, or the standard sentence will apply However, other than reducing an alien's sentence to exile to it's nation of citizenry rather than execution upon pain of death, this Councils decisions must be ratified by a unanimous vote of the Alliance Directorate.

Okay I am still up in the air about the above - sorry - I guess I am just dense today - are you basically saying that ALL JOC decissions must be unanimous? Or are you saying that their decissions must be voted on by the Board of Representatives ? By the Judicial Oversight Committie? some other group? ( the use of the term "Alliance Directorate" is confusing me - I am unsure of whom you mean )
and

And why don't we just say that the Judicial Oversight Committie shall be composed of set number, instead of tieing it to population of any member?

Say 100 from each nation - that's be NN, Tan, Xis, Alv, Muri, and NK - that's 600 - I'd think that would be enough and we can always raise the number if it turned out to need raising.

The Voivode calmly tapped his bolongo, "By Directorate, I refer to the panel of one representative from each nation who will address most Alliance concerns-they must ratify every Judicial Oversight Advisory decision by unanimous consent-the body must have no authority on it's own, or it's power will grow unchecked. As far as actual numbers, given their duties, would 100 per member be enough?
"We are embarking on a rather immense project, and our laws are precious to us all-your assumption no more than 300 cases will involve members with non-citizens under the Alliance blanket will be tried at any given time seems unfeasible-not to impugn anyone here, but we all have criminals, and all will pour into new territory, plus oddities of our individual laws. Nudity is perfectly acceptable to the Xiscapians, save in art, while use of fire is strictly forbidden on Pamaltela, save to a few Orders who hold it by tradition. Slavery is forbidden on Xiscapia, is a legal classification to the status of property on Pamaltela, and deeply ingrained in the culture of Nova Nippon. If a man were to kill a slave, we would try him for vandalism, not murder. All trolls are bound by the laws of First Mom-if a Sacred Mother removes a troll's citizenship, reclassifying him as property on Xiscapian soil, does this then make her face the death penalty for slavery?
"Perhaps the Advisory should hold one advisor from each member nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, who will also supply adequate staff to handle the duties of the Advisory as required, each nation policing it's members as their laws require, and any staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetance or as a matter of political expedience removed by a 2/3 majority, but the actual Advisors requiring the more difficult 75%+1 Tanara suggests.
"Bear in mind, the duties of the Advisory are two-fold-maintaining records of all our laws as Neo-Kirisubo so wisely suggested, and observing trials of our citizens performed by other members to ensure no ill-will, on occasion mitigating the draconian justice some of us hold dear. There are nations that forbid the death penalty, though I am unaware if any are represented here today, but if any should join at a later time, they would take a dim view of us executing their citizens, and may well keep the criminals in their prisons under a life sentance rather than have us slay them.
"Life is sacred, even when it is ruled forfeit by another, and this is something we must all respect-to do less would strip us of the Man rune."

"Perhaps the Advisory should hold one advisor from each member nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, who will also supply adequate staff to handle the duties of the Advisory as required, each nation policing it's members as their laws require, and any staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetance or as a matter of political expedience removed by a 2/3 majority, but the actual Advisors requiring the more difficult 75%+1 Tanara suggests

That is acceptable to us

The Neo kirisuban was able to give her assent as well. They were tackling a huge project after all since the twin worlds laws were different again from her fellow members.

However she was sure it wouldn't be a big problem especially with 600 people on the case.

"Perhaps the Advisory should hold one advisor from each member nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, who will also supply adequate staff to handle the duties of the Advisory as required, each nation policing it's members as their laws require, and any staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetance or as a matter of political expedience removed by a 2/3 majority, but the actual Advisors requiring the more difficult 75%+1 Tanara suggests

The only problem I have with this is the :

or as a matter of political expedience removed

That makes me feel that just because you don't like some staffers politics - you can campaigne and get them removed even if they are still doing a fair, unbiased, competant job. I think that phrase should be removed - ones politics - or political expediency - should never be grounds for removal.

The Voivode bowed, but his bolongo spoke calmly enough. "Of course-remove the offending phrase, by all means. We trolls are sometimes suspicious of the motives of others, but we know the public officials of all our worlds are wise, just sentinents dedicated to public service who would never stoop to playing political games with something as sacred as the Justice system."
He kept his expression totally bland, and not one drop of sarcasm carried in his words.

He didn't need to - Dominique gave him a gilet eye, and snorted silently. She knew sarcasm when it fell on her ears - bland tone or not. But damn it politics weren't supposeed to have a place in Justice, and if she could do even one thing to keep it out she'd go for it.

The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States, whose laws are sacrosanct within their jurisdiction.

The accused has the right to legal counsel from the Nation of Citizenship, in any criminal proceeding where the accused might face a lethal punishment. Such judicial proceedings must allow an observer, an Amicus Curiae, from a mutually agreed upon neutral Signatory Nation.

The Signatory Nations agree to the formation of a Judicial Oversight Council to provide neutral observation of such cases, as well as disputes involving Signatory Nations, Such disputes include but are not limited to matters of extradition and legal qualifications for non-citizens observing a foreign court.
The JOC will maintain records of all Signatory Nations statutes and laws.

The JOC will be responsible for the duties and maintence of the legal system for mutually controlled territories such as but not limited to -shared satellites, colonies, trade routes. The court system will be comprised of a Judicial Panel composed of one JOC Advisor from each Signatory Nation involved in such legal disputes and one neutral Chairman to decide in cases of a locked decision.

The JOC will be compsed of one Advisor from each Signatory Nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, and adequate staff to handle the duties of the JOC as required. Each Signatory Nations will govern it's members as per their legal system. Any staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetance to be removed by a 75% majority, but the actual Advisor requiring 75%+1.

Alversia votes yes on this amended term

Xiscapia votes yes on this amended term.

And Now:

B) All Signatory Nations commit to the common defense of The Alliance, and to the Signatory Nations; save in instances in which the attacked Signatory Nation(s) request that no aid be provided to them.This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. A properly experienced professional Military Officer will be hired to command The Alliance’s Military Forces.

OD: abandon the phrase "and to the Signatory Nations" As individuals, we may engage in warfare that doesn't involve the other nations, but we should agree to defend common areas. However, member nations should also extend their protections should a vessel of a member nation come under attack in their territory, and perhaps a Diplomatic Corps assigned to keep member nations out of such entanglements when they occur. Also, the limits on the power of such a mercenary officer need to be established-remember the Gaius family seized Rome under such an arrangement.

OD2: I think the defense of common areas and member nation craft as enter our space is adequate-if we want to pitch into a war, we may cause more headaches than solutions, as well as encourage aggressive outsiders to also kick in-to force members to aid a futile effort to grab land or to encourage a more powerful body to regard us as foes is the deepest folly. There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally, no matter what this agreement says, but to require it will pit us against more powerful entities who will destroy all of us, while simply protecting vessels of member nations will not be regarded as an act of war save by the most psychotic of nations, who we should be destroying anyway.

NN - If we don't defend one another, then how are we anything resembling an Alliance much less a Confederacy. Defending one another is a basic agreement and if we don't defend one another then we are all just left to twist in the wind.

ALV ) We would prefer if this was was arranged to be more of a defensive arrangement. That way we are not all dragged into an aggressive war started by another member nation. Alversian Soldiers will not die to expand the borders of another but she would be willing to defend an Ally under attack.

This is notmeant for aggression - Please note what I underlined above in the original -The Common Defense. I believe that this defense must be extended to all member nations - if we do not defend one another what good is all of this?

And I included this precisely so we don't have to rely on the iffy propostion of "There are damned few of us who won't come to the aid of an ally," Thats nice in theory, but in practise it's best to have it in writing.

Once again - This is not about wars of aggression - but for mutual defense.

The Red line was added at the Vivode's request, as this does need to be spelled out. We have had some of us make this specific request of late.

The Voivode read carefully, then tapped his bolongo with his stylus, prompting it to begin:"This is acceptable, so far as it goes, but we also requested limitations placed on this Military Officer, and none have been specified.
"I ask you, assembled representatives-are any of your histories without individuals who have exploited such a position to seize power? While I agree, no one wins a war by committee, the powers held by a Commanding Officer are great enough that seizing power is a simple matter for a clever or ambitious man. Let us not forget that, ever.
"War weakens us all, and should such a cunning and ambitious individual ever be assigned the command of our forces, the weakened state we should be left in after a major conflict would leave us ripe for the picking, especially by the man who controls our military.
"As little as I should like politics to intrude upon matters of war, I would like to open the floor to suggestions on the limits of such an Officer, and such safeguards as make us all secure the Officer's power ends with the engagement..."

"I understand the concern over falling prey to a cult of personality. However our experience with coups has not been by our military, so maybe it is our inexperience speaking." Dominique replied, then added "He's, or she, is not going to have an unlimited force, or budget, or support. I think that would be hinderance enough.

"However I would say that if the Alliance troops were so disillusioned as to fall under the sway of a hired military commander then perhaps we have such severe problems that no limitation we could put upon this officer would suffice."

"Not unlimited?" the Voivode was a deep grey. "What cost freedom, or independance? We will spare no expense to protect ourselves, and the Alliance will enjoy this benefice, certainly. The Officer must have controls to keep him from seizing power, but still permit him to perform."

"The cost of Freedom is always to be borne, but none of us have a completely unlimited military budget. It would ruin greater economies even than ours. And while quanity may be a power in its own right I certainly would prefer us to look to quality first."

Might I suggest - Number 1 - do not have the military be a part of anti piracy operations - militaries are there to break people and things - not enforce laws and having to train them for two tasks dillutes theri effectiveness at both.

And instead of hiring a Mercinary - we have a rotational Commander. Lets say a six to eight year term, with his second in command being the next commander, and the next in commands simply be officers from the other Signatory Nations.

For example I send Vice Admiral Lord Harkano to the Alliance Military - it is Tanara's time to provide the Commander - Admiral White - he's been there as understudy for 8 years already and steps in as commander. Lord Harkano is his second in command and has 8 years to understudy, just as Admiral White did. As far as choosing which nation provides our first commander , I was inclinded to say alphabetically, but no insult indended both nath nations at either end have just ended extended periods of warfare, and are still rebuilding."

So might I suggest - Nova Nippon, Pamaltela, Tanara, Xiscapia, Alversia and Neo Kiritsubo

"The cost of Freedom is always a bargain." The Voivode observed, considering the proposal. "Most of the time, we aren't going to be engaged in conflict, one would hope, but in the event we are, it might be wiser for each of us to send a Liaison Militant to assist the Commander-it this way, should we be engaged in a war during an office change, our leadership will not face the difficulties of a new administration stepping into odd policies of their predecessor, and these Liaisons Militant can aid in joint efforts as we put forth.
"And, when not engaged in war, they can pin medals on each other-I understand your military officers enjoy that activity in peacetime."

The Emperor nodded at the Voivode's words. "I was going to suggest something like that. However, I want to make sure I perfectly understand things, and to that end I have a question. What, exactly, is the role of this Military Officer? Yes, he or she commands Alliance forces during wartime, but how does this apply in the field? Allow this example: On some world outside the Alliance Master General Dom is fighting a campaign to rid that world of the last of military opposition. Does the Military Commander allow the Master General his own campaign and troop movements, does he ration and decide reinforcements and supplies, what, in the grand scheme, does he exactly do? Is he, or she, an authority figure, a figurehead, a instructor to newer or lesser commanders? And where does his or her command end? Does it encompass all the military forces of every Alliance nation, or only the public ones? We all have our own special forces, does this apply to them to? Do the Xiscapian Black Guards, Alversian Democratic Guards, NK and NN Samurai or Tanaran Hands fall under their own commands, or that of this Military Commander? Furthermore, not to slight you or your people," he nodded to the Voivode, "but exactly which Order would this apply to? There are many warriors belonging to different Orders, would this apply to all warriors, or only those members of a certain Order or Orders? We must know and define exactly how this will work before we implement it."

"With regards to anti-Piracy campaigns," The Alversian Ambassador decided to ask, "Is there a possibility of co-operation between various Customs forces were available and perhaps limited Naval assistance in order to quickly remove these threats from our space as soon as possible. Then, in terms of Military Commanders, we agree with the concerns of the Xiscapian Emperor, does the Military Officer assume the role of Commander-in-Chief for all Alliance Armed Forces or do we promote our own Generals and assign our own reinforcements?"

"The Alliance Military was to my thoughts purely for fighting defensive wars inside the Alliance. That the forces-money, men and material were purely for that effort, and entirely seperate from our national militaries, not to subsume them, or control them. I would not want in any way the Alliance military to have any control over the Tanaran military.

"That those officers would command only the Alliance military. One of the historical problems with multiple nations having a defensive force is that each nation has different equipment, different training methods, different strategies and tactics." Dominique consulted her data padd for a moment then continued.

"Having a single unified defensive force will set those problems aside. Tanaara's economy is strong, and we are willing to gift the Alliance with a core fleet as a starting point."

"Oh and to address one more thought- if the Alliance Military was in a war where more military strength was needed, each nation would 'chip in' part of their national militaries, but those would then, for the course of the war effort, come under the command of the Alliance military. And once that war effort was over, back to their home nations they would go."

The Voivode smiled-a leering of his fangs, before his bolongo spoke:"I believe it is to each government to protect it's borders, and as pirates are incapable of overthrowing a power, quite beyond the ascribed powers of this Alliance-however, I will suggest several mercenary companies who operate legally within our borders as well as offer our own aid to any anti-piracy activities from Alliance members-I believe this falls under the powers of the proposed Liaisons Militant, but can easily be subsumed into our own various diplomatic agencies, bolstered by the goodwill of this concordat.
"Our own private or elite forces must remain strictly under our own governments, save as loaned as mercenaries to the Alliance-we must allow for extraordinary circumstances, after all.
"The final points are Xiscapia's, with which we are in wholehearted agreement-the powers of this Commander must be strictly spelled out and thus limited.
"As to Tanara's most generous offer, it must be refused-either a donation given equally by us all must be accepted, or it must be refused-we will certainly give proportionate to our ability if tested, but a preponderance of troops from any donor nation is too much an invitation to seize power-and we will all be free."

"My Lord Viovode, My Lord Emperor - I was NOT speaking of the Commander - or any officer of the proposed Alliance Military -having ANY authority over our national militaries." Dominique said carefully, hiding her anger.

The answer is NO - they, the Commnader and officers of the Alliance Military, would have No powers over any of our national military save when extra national military units were added on to strengthen the Alliance Military during times of war. And that command would end when the war did."

"This has nothing to do with a nations individual wars of fall upon the nation of Barria, the Alliance Military would have nothing to do with that, and could not, indeed must not command your troops. You would be using your own nations troops anyways."

"And as far as my offer went - it did not include personel, but merely the ships- but yes, with out personel the ships are useless - so I would toss in training in how to use the vessels properly."

The Emperor held up his hands, palms out, in an almost defensive gesture. "I understand, Dominique, there is no need to take such a tone." he said pleasantly. "This is why things must be clear, and now that such is, I entirely agree. A coalition to respond to threats to the Alliance as a whole is a good idea, and the Kitsune Empire will happily contribute. As to the vessels, Tanara has gifted my nation five craft and they are, at the moment, being quite expertly utilized in kitsune hands after instruction from Tanaran officials. However, I agree with the Voivode: We all put in our, ah, share, as equally as possible. You will not find any ships or soldiers of the Xiscapian military in wanting, nor, I know for a fact, any of the others represented in this meeting. Should anyone request it, of course, by all means such should be supplied. But I do not believe Tanara's donation of a core fleet is necessary, not at the moment." The Emperor smiled politely.

"Mistress Dominique," The Alversian Ambassador chipped in, "if I may? Perhaps rather than one Nation contributing a fleet of vessels to the Alliance Defence Forces, and therefore associating that Force with that nation, perhaps it would make more sense to create a specific and a new class of multi-purposes vessels that would be associated specifically with the Alliance and not require extensive periods of retraining for most of the crew who would operate these vessels? It could also promote inter-planetary relations between mixed crews on these vessels."

"Please, ladies and gentlemen-it would behoove we poor natives of Pamaltela little to perceive your ways, we who only luckily happened upon FTL." this response brought titters from the crowd, as Pamaltelan ships had outflown everything they'd come up against, while the Nova Nippon representative had heard their Emperor withdraw funding from research he personally disproved, and the Xiscapian had heard that Pamaltela's Lord Morga had expounded quite eloquently on how to spot advanced tech and guard against it-however, to call an ally a liar was as forbidden as to call the face to an Emperor's lies, so both remained silent-"It would be best we put x number of ships forth, and agree upon a common commander, with a staff provided by us all, with limits on his term as commander. We can easily provide among ourselves for policing, allowing us to 'up the ante', as it were, in times of war. Mingling our troops would serve little purpose, other than hamstringing us by forcing retroengineering. We all have little to gain from such uniformity, and much to lose.
"Let me fall back upon my Liaisons Militant to provide the best use for our various troops to the Alliance, as well as joint operations among us as may not call for the entire Alliance. Combining our troops may well involve sharing such information as Xiscapia, for example, may not wish widespread, as it's fleet is scavenged from several worlds-it may well have garnered such information as it does not wish to divulge, as yet.

Dominique was tired and cross that she had to admit but she was beginning to think this was not an alliance being forged, but merely a treaty being worked out.

"Designing whole new classes of ships is a waste of funds – because it is not just one type of ship but multiple types of ships - It takes years for such ships to come on line." She frowned shaking her head at the Alversian Ambassadors suggestion. She had offered the ship since they had already been built - all that was required were training the personnel to use them

“Then I vote that we leave any sort of mutual defense out of this and just rely on the good nature of the other Signatory Nations in case one of us is attacked, and decides to request aid."

"And just for the record" she said wearily "I wasn't suggesting combining our troops, I wsa suggesting creating a whole new military."

She stood shaking her heasd. "If you will excuse me Ladies, Gentlemen. I am taking the rest of the day off.

"Of course," The Alversian Ambassador nodded, in acceptance of the rebuke of his own idea and looked on at Dominique, "And I was also hoping to create a new combined military for the Alliance, a Defence Force as it were. Hence my suggestion, however, if this is not possible then we would be willing to commit a fleet to the authourity of the Alliance and so aid in it's Defence" He smiled at the thought, "The use of new vessels was merely a long-term suggestion, not an immediate one" He smiled again, "And I believe Mutual defence would be a benefit to us all, not just a call for aid but an immediate and effective force that can instantly be called to the scene of conflict."

OOC: Given that I am on my third new keyboard in as many months and that this is the fifth time I've tried to get this posted today...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I was also hoping to create a new combined military for the Alliance, a Defence Force as it were.

"Ambassador thank you for saying what I have been trying to get across, but obviously failing to. This is NOT some pool of our militaries sent willy nilly but a whole new military. Funded by ther Alliance and not answerable to anyone BUT the Alliance."

"An Alliance Defense Force. And it can not tell any Signatory Nations military what to do - Unless those forces have been put under it's command for a specific mission."

Vice Admiral Nagisa Aio replied "If we're going to have a whole defence force like a combined starfleet I'd agree it'll be a long term project. However its a worthy one and a start can be made fairly quickly.

Between us we have a good range of ships and abilities. Our cloaking device technology could be adapted to any alliance ship thats not supersized for example. Joint crews shouldn't pose a problem even with our cultural differences.

I suggest a Neo Kirisuban defence force wing could be the test bed for this. They fly the powerful Samurai class cruisers and theres four of them in a wing. They only need 60 crew per ship and this would be a good chance to mix genders, species and nationalities in a new combined starfleet. "

"A joint fleet is probably a good idea, and mixed crews can aid us in achieving the friendship and understanding we desire." the Voivode conceded, inwardly groaning at the thought of muri helmsmen dealing with human officers, "However, many of our approaches towards different technologies are vastly different. The Ordo Rokagi will loan a fleet appropriate to this endeavor, and the Ordo Gadbladdi shall send a delegation to aid in the building of Alliance specific craft."

"The Kitsune Empire, unless it is agreed on by every other Signatory Nation, will not be building Alliance-specific craft, nor will we be constructing new classes of vessels. I believe our current models are more than adequate, and as it is, as the Voivode pointed out, our technologies are so wildly variant any vessel class used by all would take much time and finances to build to incorporate all these. For another, how many ships will be committed per nation? We, and, forgive me if I am incorrect, Neo Kirisubo both have relatively small Navies. Neither could afford to loan fifty vessels: For the Kitsune Empire, that's about half our entire Navy. In any case," the Emperor cocked his head and looked at the Voivode, "I wonder, Lord Voivode, why you change your mind so quickly on the subject of mixed crews. While Xiscapians and Alversians have, quite successfully, mixed crews in areas, I doubt it would go so well for the entire Alliance, especially if we receive new members. Your points were valid; may I be so bold as to enquire what has persuaded you to switch your opinion?"

The Voivode looked solemnly at the Xiscapian Emperor, then risked a small wink to that worthy. "My initial objections were due to the poorly limited Mercenary Commander-however, I believe each of us has career officers intend on protecting us, and uniting them will give us all a look at our various preferred tactics and stratagems.
"I do know recent collusion between your people and mine resulted in much confusion, and we do not think like you, nor approach War in the same way. I know the Sultan of Doraddi has supplied you with a thumbnail view of muri tactics against various threats, but his failure to commit treason by listing specific examples of our strategies, while patriotic, also stymied you when those tactics were employed.
"Space is large, my friends, even Known Space-and those Realms Beyond even larger. We will need to know each other well to survive as an Alliance, and we will require a uniting of our forces on occasion. If our militaries can use the Alliance OverGeneral and his Liaisons Militant as a first step, greater commity may be found, and the Alliance grows stronger.
"Alversia's proposal that Alliance-specific ships be used, while a pleasant enough thought, is unfeasible-Xiscapia tends to scavenge it's ships off failed aggressors, our ships could accomodate little of your technology, and vice versa-and we have ancient strictures against sharing technology you may not be ready for-and the gods themselves could only guess at the unholy union of any technology and a Tanaran Gun Orb.
"However, a combined fleet is a commendable idea, as Xiscapia has proven-should one ship not be up for a specific action, another may take up the slack, making the Alliance stronger for it's diversity.
"Also, the idea of combined crews will allow our professional warrior castes interaction-they will bring stories home, and our children will be able to understand each other better, and the Alliance grows stronger by that understanding. This is good, I think-the mindset of our warriors is similar enough to allow minimal conflict,and lay the groundwork for further expansion.
"In fact, since Alversia's suggestion for mixed crews is such an excellent one, I would further propose an Alliance-wide intelligence think-tank, that our various intelligence gathering agencies may enjoy similar interaction, and such shared information and means of interpreting it may expand our understanding of the wider universe, and each other.
"Of course, this is a separate issue-muri tradition is that our intelligence operatives are largely independant, and I would suggest the same, with a unanimous vote required to consult such a think-tank, but will happily table it for further evaluation and discussion.
"On the subject of an Alliance army, I can only state it is necessary, each of us providing ships according to our ability and other resources as available certainly being acceptable-the suggestion of a rotating system of career officers offsets most of my initial objections, and should the Commander prove charismatic enough to turn our fleet against us-well, a man who sacrifices Freedom for Security deserves neither, and in for a penny, in for a pound.
"We trust this explanation meets Xiscapian favor."

All this did sound good and promising to the Neo Kirisuban vice-admiral. She could visualise an Alliance crewed ship easily but they still had to start somewhere.

"Since it looks like we all think this is a good idea the Neo Kirisuban Federation can play its part. We can divert some of our samurai class cruisers from home defence duty where they can be re-designated as Alliance vessels. Then the newest ships can join them as they're built and enter service.

Now we need to agree how we'd put together an Alliance admiralty and a starfleet. Ranks, procedures, starbase locations, standard communications frequencies as well as codes could be determined so we can hit the ground running even with this being a long term project."

"I think the structure of the Military is not something that needs to be ratified by this doccument, this foundation. I'd leave all of that up to the Board of Directors as advised and expanded by the officers of the Alliance Military."

"I happen to know that the Celestial Imperia is probably going to lose a sizeable percentage of our officers to this undertaking. They are very excited about this, and all ready the Shogun has requests to 'retire and transfer'." The Novan representative chuckled. "What can I say, they like the thought of being part of defending our friends."

"Our starcraft and those of the Tanaaran's both start from the same foundations and while our tactics and doctrines are differnent in many points they also have many major similarities. We look forward to working with all of our Allies." Inwardly she wondered if any of them really realised how unusual for the Celestial Imperia to call any one friend or ally. But she thought it a good thing. And knew that it was just what her young Empress wanted.

The Emperor nodded at the Voivodes explanation. "I see. All these are good ideas which, with a little work, can be implemented and utilized fully. I am initially uncertain about the melding of troops and crews, but I suppose time will prove me correct or incorrect, though there will certainly be friction at the start. Such a intelligence think-tank as the one you mentioned would greatly increase our coordination and cooperation on combined missions undertaken by operatives of that nature. However, I agree with the delegate from Nova Nippon on the subject of the Alliance military: Such details as structure and location can be ironed out by others later. At the moment we still have other issues and un-ratified tenants to address."

Let me put this amended proposal up for vote then:

All Signatory Nations commit to the creation of the Alliance Defense Force - a military organizations solely for the common defense of The Alliance, and the Signatory Nations; save in instances in which the attacked Signatory Nation(s) request that no aid be provided to them. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. The Alliance Defense Force has no authority over any Signatory Nations' forces save for units specifically loaned to aid the Alliance Defense Force and that command authority terminates when the units are recalled .

Dominique looked up “We can delineate, when the Board of Directors creates the ADF's structure, that the Command Staff will be officers dispatched by our various nations, and that the Command will rotate on an 6-8 year basis, followed by the Officer who has been the second in command. - this. as the Neo Kirisubans noted necessary organization butit is all matters that should be left for the BOD to spell out, not nit picked to death here."

"We'll vote yes for that term," The Alversian Ambassador agreed, "We can work out the smaller details at a later date"

The Emperor nodded. "We vote yes for this too."

Vice Admiral Aio also said "we agree as well".

It looked like the start of a new age for her. One which would give protection for all of them since a pack was a lot stronger than a lone wolf was.

"I vote yes on this"

Dominique looked over at the Voivode, to see what he thought of the ammended wording and thoughts behind the proposal.

"We all have the best intentions, but the devil lies in the details." The Voivode finally pronounced. "I think as our combined crews work out the difficulties of each ship's command structure, the BOD will come to light. For now, I would suggest we simply implement the host ship's command structure until we're a little more familiar with each other. I know my people will howl if 'Shipmother' is not used for the officer in charge, but to be called 'Mother' in my culture is the greatest honor one may bestow.
"Pamaltela agrees to this, and humbly requests a shared intelligence agency be considered later."

Dominique smiled at the Voivodes comment about the term 'ship mother'. She diden't think that the Tanaran's would have a problem with that.

"I will gladly note the request for a shared intellegence agency. That can not but benefit all of us"

and now to one of the last few subjects:

C) • Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy.


OD: This would never be agreed to-the right to privacy is surrendered once one begins to interact with others. If this is a tenet of shared territories, not affecting independent national holdings, it may be nodded to, but the Blue Moon would never adhere to this in any event.

OD2: No such animal exists-we're still going to spy on each other, and individuals as we deem merit such attention. Claiming we won't is just hypocracy. This tenet would be ignored by everyone as a practicality, it is unenforcable, and the muri have the distinction of being the only race to ignore it as a nod to honesty-if any of you can honestly claim you don't have spies working the private sector, or the homes of prominent individuals, please speak up, so I can laugh in your face and call you a liar.

NN- Again I think a miscommunication - I believe that what is being spoken of is privacy within ones own home- I may have to live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen should have the right to go home and not have the worry that the government - or others -have littered his house with surveilance equipment. A person had the basic right to personal privacy

The Kitsune Empire does have a network of spies and informants in place as an early warning system to guard against terrorist attacks, threats of undeclared war, and the like. Our citizens are watched-publicly. Cameras, scanners and other information collecting devices have been installed in government institutions, schools, military areas, starports, and other places which require heightened security. I believe "Right to Personal and Domestic Privacy." should remain in this document.

ALV) In this, Alversia maintains the same opinion as the Phoenix Empire and the Kitsune Empire, we have our own systems in place to ensure national security. However, we do mainain the right of privacy in private domains unless there is suffecient cause for concern about threats to national security. To that end, we would prefer that this Right is maintained and decisions about dangers to other Nations should be taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of local intelligence forces.


Added/ Altered :I have the same thing that Xiscapia does. I can see the nat sov side where this is solely a national privacy issue, and I can see how one can worry about foreign governments crowding in and disrupting my people's privacy.

Tanara must stand with Alversia, Nova Nippon and Xiscapia on this issue

The Voivode nodded, solemnly. "This tenet-how would it be enforced or honored? If you would have me agree to it-and I do not feel it exists-you must tell me that.
"Nova Nippon states she must live in a fishbowl, but Ruri Cohen must not. If Ruri Cohen is torturing children to death in the privacy of his own home and videotaping it for the pleasure of your prominent and powerful sadists, how many of you will hamstring yourselves with legalities dealing with this issue, or will you simply do nothing under this law?
"For a law to have meaning, it must be enforcable or have teeth. Either give this some teeth, and let Ruri Cohen perform his acts unhindered, or admit this is something you agree to just to make yourselves feel superior.
"You must at the very least amend this with three simple words-'Except for Pamaltela'. We will never adhere to it, and if I lie on this tenet, the rest is equally invalid."

Dominique looked at the Viovode "In the Phoenix Empire our law enforcement follow our laws and obtain a judiciary release. And by that I mean they must present evidence of such crimes. Simply bugging a persons residence - on a whim or presumption of wrong doing - is not legal."

She looked around at the others "I have done more thinking and I do see the Viovodes point. I do believe that it is something each nation must retain the right to individually handle as they see fit."

She turned back to the Muri "And if I find the Blue Moon surveilling my citizens, within the boundries of the Phoneix Empire, I will just have them arrested and charged with their crimes."

"My vote is that this needs to be dismissed from the articles of Alliance"

The Emperor snorted. "All nations within the Alliance must ratify this, or none at all. This tenant loses all validity if even one nation does not adhere to it, and then what is the point? Spies are spies, no matter who they belong to. If Pamalta will not agree to ratify this section, then Xiscapia will not either. We second the motion of dismissing this article from the Treaty."

I must vote that this be removed from the articles for the same reasons that Xiscapia and Tanara hold.

"I would also agree with leaving this out this article" Vice Admiral Aio said adding her few space credits to the debate.

Spies were a part of everyday life and privacy was also an issue to be decided by each government.

Alversia also rejects this term in the treaty.

This is the last of the original issues...

D) Right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance.

OD: If this includes the vendetta, which is legal on Pamaltela, such should be spelled out.

OD2: Vendetta and feud are familial commitments on Pamaltela. Marriage is a matter of inheritance so far as the government is concerned, as well as survivor benefits. In the event a same-sex couple without children were to own property on Pamaltela, there are legal pathways to secure the inheritance, and were they an alien couple, we would adapt. You cannot force a culture to recognise a marriage it doesn't wish to, any more than you could force a stubborn and elderly relative to accept an unwanted coupling. Since this tenet is an attempt at social engineering with no grounding in establishing peace, I hereby move it be stricken from the document.

NN -"I think that this is not about Vendetta - which isn't legal in the Imperia - but the right to marry whom one pleases and to have said marrige recognised by all member nations - remeber, in some backwards nations the only recognised marriages are between one male and one female. Also, Bruno, it makes the Muri recognise that not every marriage produces children, and preserves a married couples legal standing without there being children. This is very personal Bruno, cause if Kyger Litor tries to come down from the Castle of Lead and tell me that I am not married to Gerrak..."

Xiscapia --First let me make clear that neither I nor the Kitsune Empire approve of vendettas or feuds. They are not legal anywhere in Xiscapian borders. I see the points of both parties, even if I do not agree with the Voivode's. To the rest of us, it may not seem like "social engineering", but to the Muri it very much is. However, I disagree with the statement proclaiming it "has no grounding in establishing peace" and will vehmently protest if it is stricken from the document. Perhaps some sort of compromise will need to be reached when Pamalta is concerned. For now this is a matter of society and law which must be addressed before this document is made official. I do not have a solution. Wiser minds than mine will need to come up with one.

If this is more to ensure that a valid marriage in Alversia is then valid in the Phoenix Empire then there should be no reason why it could not be accepted into this constitution. Vendetta's are in no way tolerated within the Republic however, as they are a danger to the safety of both victims and innocents. Therefore, I move that this be amended to state the acceptance of familial unions across the Alliance providing there is no danger to either spouses or those they will be in contact with.

I do not see it as social engineering, but the basic right to to travel to another nation and suddeny find oneself unmarried.

Added/ Altered: I agree with Xiscapia - I am not saying that Muri society must change their marriages, < that would indeed be social engineering > but the Muri should recognise that our forms of marriage are just as valid as theirs.


I believe that the viovode brought up a traditional right of Muri females, the 'rigth to demand sex' - this is NOT about that right - it is about marriage, legal unions -

The Voivode pssshted. "Stuff and nonsense-this is social engineering at it's most blatant-the rephrasing to exclude the familial commitments of my people while including whatever perverse pairing you deem a marriage be forced down our throats is proof enough of that.
"Of course, it will bother us little for aliens to insist their livestock be addressed as 'good lady wife' and permit your odd couplings privacy where they need not be observed and offend our sensibilities, and I should should prefer our vendettas occur on our lands, where they are seen for the commitment to Family they are-you will see more than enough anyway, but all within your own legal frameworks. Besides, we received much by your capitulations to the last tenet, and cooperation always involves some give-and-take.
"Pamaltela accepts this tenet.
"However, Tanara's implication the right of our females to procreate with whom they wish as not being legal and binding is somewhat offensive, as we have not mocked your own courtship rites nor declared them invalid."

However, Tanara's implication the right of our females to procreate with whom they wish as not being legal and binding is somewhat offensive, as we have not mocked your own courtship rites nor declared them invalid.

Dominique looked bewhildered at Bruno's commentary.

"Okay" She said slowly "I think there are some fundamental cultural disconnects here." She sighed and pinched the bridge of her nose.

"Bruno, please understand that I am not trying to be insensitive or offensive. But much of Muri culture is a great unknown to us. Could you please enlighten us,..."

"Do Muri have sex only for purposes of procreation?"
"Does a male have the equal right to refuse the female?"

"You see Bruno, among Tanarans, males and females often engage in sexual activity purely for the " She blushed faintly, and then half chuckled "the fun of it. Not only with no thoughts of a child resulting but activly intending that no child result."

Her voice firmed, and even went a little cold "And for any one - no matter their gender - to Demand sex from some one unwilling, and that demand to be translated in to force - that's rape."

"No, dear Empress, you are not trying to be offensive-you are succeeding." The Voivode's voice was flat and emotionless. "Do I question your custom of seppuku, ask if you kill yourself for more than one reason, admit my people do this for reasons other than honor, then snidely dismiss it as Murder?
"I do not, Madame-I respect you and your customs, as well as this body and what it may hold, far more than to be contentious for pure contentiousness' sake.
"This line of inquiry is more suited to a Red Temple than the diplomatic forum unless it is your intention to remove the muri from it."

"My Lord Viovode, I don't think that Tanaran's practice seppuku. I believe that she is trying to ascertain is - is it an equation of sex equals pregnancy equals marriage."

The Novans had had more interaction - much more interactions - than the Tanaran's had. Anfd fortunately their Empress, Indigo Noor, was married by both nations customns - to the Viovodes own heir, the Sultan of Doraddi.

The Novan representative flashed the Tanaran Empress a look.

"My apologies, then, Empress-apparently my information was faulty." The Voivode bowed, claws spread in a gesture of submission.
"Perhaps I should explain-on Pamaltela, our marriage laws evolved from our need to preserve our culture, our society, and to provide for our young." The Voivode smiled. "Our males die soon-used up in warfare and the happenstance deaths as involve the young. Our females endure, with the burden of children. Thus, all a marriage requires on Pamaltela is an underage child and the testimony of the mother regarding the child's father. Property passes through the female line, to preserve our Clans and Tribes. For us, marriage is merely a securing of property rights-you may regard it differently on your worlds.
"Of course, Tanara's words are still reprehensible, despite my misinformation, and I do not believe I am out of place in demanding an apology."

"I will gladly apologise, but I am not certain what I am apologiseing for, and so it feels so terribly false" She spread her own hands helplessly "I did not mean to imply in any way that, or call your courtship rituals, rape. I apologise if my wording caused offense, or insult. It was certainly not intended,

"What I said -and meant -that forcing anyone to have sex against their will is rape. And that is solely what I meant."

The Voivode chuffed irritably. "Then You cannot apologise, and We withdraw Our Demand.
"Only a fool takes offense at children playing during the Sacred Rites, and Our Shame at Our Sad Maligning of Your Culture knows no bounds. We humbly request a Protocol Minister from Tanara be assigned to the Voivodate to correct such egregious errors.
"Further, to show no Ill Will, We Personally will sponsor You for membership in the Ordo Vaneekara. You need not take Final Vows, but when You are deemed worthy of such, We will ask again if You consider Our Customs Rape."
Few if any of those assembled had ever heard the intensely formal tones used by the Voivode from any troll, and those familiar with the muri wondered at this odd development...

"We will gladly assign a protocol minister to you. But I am honestly sorry, and do apologize for my lack of clearer understanding of your culture.. I will gladly study for admittance into Ordo Vanekeera, and I am humbly honored for your sponsorship.” Dominique replied with equal formality.

Inwardly she blushed at having offended the Muri. It had been completely unintentional, and she still wasn’t certain how to resolve the issue on marriages. [i]In the Empire Any one can get married to any one – or ones -they want as long as there is informed consent all around, and some assuredly look far stranger than Muri marriage customs – well look that way to outsiders – but I know if one of my citizens is suddenly declared married to a Muri just because she claims the child is his…”Madam, I require a paternity test” “You what?” Oh my now our lawyers will need to be gladiators as well…and the fact that the genders are utterly equal in Tanaran society, where as among the Muri females are supposedly superior. .Oy Vey! Cultural accommodation classes are going to become not just suggested, but required. I don’t want my people eaten for innocent mistakes. Fortunately dueling is legal in the Empire..”

She looked over at the Voivode and the others “I hope none of us thought this was going to be easy.”

"That which is easily gained is less esteemed." the Voivode pronounced. "Let me also extend requests to each of you for protocol ministers. I would not offend again.
"Now, then-the social engineering attempts are on the table-Pamaltela has acquiesed to them. What say the rest of you?"

Vice admiral Nagisa Aoi was ready to move on and she had no objections to protocol ministers. The better they understood each other the better the Aliance would work.

"The Kirisuban Federation agrees" she simply replies finding nothing wrong with them,

"The Kitsune Empire accepts these terms," the Emperor nodded. "Before hearing from the other delegates, however, I would like to remind my esteemed colleagues of the matter concerning the name of this organization still must be cleared up." He smiled. "Best not to forget what we will call ourselves."

"The esteemed ambassador from Xiscapia is reminded this body agreed upon either 'Ambassador Vorn Sux'! or 'Screw that goddamned Vorn anyway' as nomenclature for this body." The Voivode offered. "Of course, he was deep in his cups at the time, or, as Holy Week was upon us, 'at one with the Gods'."

Alversia accepts these terms and suggests a slightly less...insulting name

(OOC:And that's your longest standing ally-lol)

(OOC:It was much funnier before you editted)

"Bruno, be nice, he was getting engaged. If we name it after him, Marisol might rescind the offer. And that might be a Very Bad Thing" Dominique grinned "Oh and we third the request for protocol officers, and thanks the Viovode for pointeing out this need. We definitely could all benefit from them."

Might I suggest as Titles

"The InterStellar Alliance" ( TISA )
"The Alliance" ( TA )
"Six Civilized Nations" ( Alversia, Muri, Nova Nippon, Neo Kirisubo, Tanara, Xiscapia) ( 6CN )
The Stellar Accord (TSA / SA )
The Concordiat (TC / C )
The Interstellar Concord ( TIC / IC )

Edited to add in:

New Sub - subject brought up by Xiscapia earlier in an earlieri post:

Here, though, I must bring up the subject of war crimes. Perhaps a court staffed by judges from all nations represented in this Treaty is in order to try those military beings guilty of war crimes and crimes against sentients? Xiscapia has had much difficulty with war crimes in the past, and more often than not those guilty of them are simply executed without trial. Maybe it is time for the appropriate legal system to be put in place in this area.

I find that very acceptable.

Editing in - No I don't think we can deal with this - we have a small problem in that none of us define war crimes in the same wqay, nor are we likely to - I think that this is a matter that must be left up to the individual nation.

Example: The Muri eat their foes. The Tanarans do not but I do not consider the eating of ones foes a war crime. Under the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) & Hague Conventions of Terra of the late 19th & 20th centurys, eating ones opponents certainly seems to qualify as a war crime.

"However" Dominique "I think trying to work this in to the chater is likely to really truly be social engineering, and must be left up to each nation - Though I can cerrtainly see a nations judiciary requesting the presecnt of JOC sdtaff to act as impartial observers"

"Six Civilized Nations?" The Voivode harrumphed. "Do we get new uniforms and change the flags when a new member joins? We'll have to suspend communications during new applications so we can do a head count.
"Interstellar Concord sounds like a wine exporter-which is a lucrative field, should we decide to make money outside of taxation. I still prefer the Interstellar Confederacy, but I suppose I'm just looking for a reason to paint the Stars and Bars on my ships and mortally offend all the politically correct races out there."

Nagisa Aoi chuckled and replied "the simpler the name the better it'll be. I'd go for The InterStellar Alliance since it'll probally be shortened to The Alliance anyway.

New uniforms once a joint starfleet is created might well be a strong possibility but thats something for future Admirals to look at"

"I like it simple -The Alliance - myself and according to the Scroll, the only other The Alliance out there is defunct, so we're not stepping on any ones toes" Dominique said thoughtfully.

But I noticed that neither of you have mentioned the other subject I brought up.

"As I have said before, I support the TA, or simply the Alliance, for our name. Many older records bear this name for joint operations between Xis-Alvo forces, as do some for actions regarding the other nations here, so it is a labeling matter as much as a face image for us." he shrugged. "Anyway, I suppose you are correct, the treatment of enemies or prisoners under Muri, and, excuse me, Novan terms is radically different from that under Xiscapian or Alversian, and such would present huge problems and many unnecessary cases."

Alversia prefers the TISA title, herself. Makes it sound important. Plus people on Alversia would confuse the TA with the Territorial Army, our reserve force.

Vice Admiral Aoi knew exactly how her people would treat prisoners. When fighting againt in space Neo Kirisuban ships generally destroyed an attacking ship.

Firstly they never took many prisoners in the first place but those they did were treated well even although they were dishonoured people.

"I apologise for missing the honoured Empresses point but we also support the ideas she has about a court to try them in. War crimes happen all over the galaxy and having a standard way of deaing with them would be a good idea" she replied.

"The issue of war crimes is a sticky one." The Voivode became very solemn. "We will all make war as we see fit, in keeping with the family recipe. The muri rely on deception and ambush, which some of you consider despicable, but it permits us to prevail against larger numbers. Poisons are also favored, as they limit an enemy's food supply, while we may eat anything, even if it has been poisoned.
"As far as our culinary pursuits, we eat only the fallen-our own as well as the foe's, though we sing our own to Wonderhome as well as a respected enemy. Eating POWs is bad form, as is eating the living, unless we know they serve Chaos, or possess valuable intelligence we need.
"The Xiscapians do not torture their enemies to obtain information, while others among us are known to do so. They use laser weaponry, which is abhorrent to my people.
"We would have to define a war crime most completely to rule against one. We are all of different species, with different needs and values. I believe the muri are alone in considering abortion infanticide, our worst crime, while denying a prisoner food is also abhorrent to us. However, we will give a hated foe rocks and dung, which is undigestable to many of you, but rocks are valued for their contribution to digestion, so no cruelty would be intended.
"I think the definition of a war crime has to be cruel intention-genocide carried out to rid one of an undesired community, for example, is very much a war crime, but genocide of a species given over to Chaos is a sacred tenet, and any untainted members would surely be spared.
"I believe we should bring up our definitions of cruelty, and what would constitute a war crime.
"Among my people, starving a prisoner is second only to infanticide, and using prisoners of war for medical experiments, or slave labor, is a very serious crime. Forced breeding to improve the stock is criminal. Torturing those not in possession of information, merely to assuage one's sadistic leanings, is criminal, but torture to obtain information is not, even if the tortured is mistakenly thought to hold that information.
"Despite Tanara's desire to hold up our culture as the example of every considered crime, eating the living IS a crime, unless no other food is available, and even then, this must be proven before a court or the transgressors will be handed over to the families for justice.
"Weaponry with long duration effects is vicious, and should be considered a crime, but that is a personal opinion. The muri rule of thumb is, if you can't occupy an area immediately after deploying a weapon, it shouldn't be used. Why use a nuke when a concentrated oxygen detonation has the same effect?
"I believe if we all give our definitions of what a war crime is, we can evolve a simple enough agreement not to do these things, allowing for cultural peculiarities. After all, telling a Xiscapian in public they've worn white shoes after Labor Day is hardly cruel, but telling a Novan the same is, since they'll slash themselves up to atone.
"Let us begin on the basics, and evolve from there."

My preferance is for the simplicity of the Alliance.

And as far as war crimes..."We generally don't take prisoners, and we seldom prefer to live to become prisoners. Seppuku is an honorable alternative to the disgrace of capture."

However...

"Among my people, 1) starving a prisoner is second only to infanticide, and using prisoners of war for 2) medical experiments, or 3)slave labor, is a very serious crime. 4) Forced breeding to improve the stock is criminal. 5) Torturing those not in possession of information, merely to assuage one's sadistic leanings, is criminal, but torture to obtain information is not, even if the tortured is mistakenly thought to hold that information.

Might I suggest this:

1) Wilfull witholding of such food and water as necessary for that species to sustain life.

2) Prisoners or captive populace must Not be used for medical experimentation.

3) We Novan's do not consider this a crime, though we do not allow such to be worked to exhaustion, much less to death. We do not consider it cruel for psisoners to be required to work. Our own judicial prissoners are required to do hard labor, to repay for their crimes. Prisoners of war are treated no differrently.

4) that brings a shudder across my soul. Absolutely a crime!

5) that we agree with whole heartedly with. Torture for pleasure is a crime, torture for information is not.

Weaponry with long duration effects is vicious, and should be considered a crime, but that is a personal opinion. The muri rule of thumb is, if you can't occupy an area immediately after deploying a weapon, it shouldn't be used.

6) We also agree with this

The Emperor sighed. "You were right, of course. Our differences some in how we view POWs. For example,"

1) We are not above starving a prisoner to gain information. Give them no solid foods, only fluids enough to sustain life, but nothing more. Draw out critical data with the promise of real food, of more food.

2) We entirely agree with both representatives from Pamalta and Tanara on this. Old wounds still bleed.

3) We condemn slavery under any conditions at all.

4) Again, same as the others who have spoken on this.

5) Here we again agree entirely. Our methods of torture are not as...savage, if you'll excuse the term, as others. If a prisoner is suspected of holding information we need, we have ways. Starvation. Non-lethal electricution. Isolation. VR immersion. I don't know how you extract information, but I assure you it is not unheard of within our borders in some cases.

6) We use and deploy biological and nuclear weapons extensively, especially in space combat.

"Here's where it gets difficult," The Alversian Ambassador thought sadly.

"One of the Alversian Military Orders laid down by the Founders of the Alversian People's Army and creators of our free nation, forbids torture in any way, shape or form. It is not our right to withhold food for our own gains. We will not agree to any forms of torture at all. It is their Right as a Sentient to withhold information if they so desire. This one of the Alversian Military Orders, Alversian Troops accept it as a chance when they make their Oath's to the state. We will not agree to Alliance-wide torture and all Prisoners taken by the Alversian Army in any wars shall be under the full protection of our Armed Forces."

Vice Admiral Aoi was next to speak up.

"We share part of the Nova Nippon warrior viewpoint. We rarely take prisoners because we believe a prisoner is a dishonoured person. Death in battle is a prefered option for us and death at ones own hand if capture is imminent is our usual course of action. That as well as self destructing our ships if they look like they'll be captured.

We don't use torture but there are ways of extracting information without using it. We do feed our prisoners and make sure they're kept in good health for as long as they're in our care. "

"And so this presents a problem," the Emperor gazed at the Alversian diplomat. "Say, hypothetically, the Alversian People's Republic took a POW who is withholding vital information, fleet or troop movements or that of the deployment of certain weapons against civilians. Under oath, no Alversian soldier or officer can force a prisoner to reveal information. One of us, the Kitsune Empire, the Imperia or the Muri, would have to take this prisoner for ourselves, to gain this information. Once you are a Prisoner of War, you have significantly less rights than as a citizen of most nations. What is worse, Ambassador, the pain of a captured enemy, or the deaths or injuries of any given number of allied soldiers or innocent civilians? We would have to set up a program, for officers and those of high ranking to be sent to nations willing to take their information, from Alversia. At least three," he gestured to indicate himself, the Voivode and the delegate of Nova Nippon, "of us are willing or do torture prisoners for their data. I know the Muri have probably been doing it for many millenia at least, and while I cannot think to speak for the Imperia, I know we have engaged in this practice since before the Long Voyage. Torture is something we would abandon only if every other nation in this Alliance also did so. It might be cruel, it may be harsh, but it is necessary."

"While we do little physical torture, we have never been averse to scaring a prisoner out of the information he or she may possess. We also use psionic mind probes. None of which we are willing to give up.” Dominique said adding her voice to those of Fox Fire Rose and the others.

“I think we need to ask the question: “What is torture? Some would claim that asking questions in a loud aggressive voice is torture. Is Chinese water torture where a drop of water is regularly dropped on the forehead of the one being questioned torture? It gives no physical harm but is very effective in breaking down mental resistance. Or is only physical actions that cause damage torture? A set definition of this might be needed as well” Dominique looked about catching the eyes of the other delegates before continuing.

“And like the others we believe that starving prisoners is wrong, but like the Novans we do believe they must work for their supper. We have strict accountability as to the menial, hard but not hazardous, work they are set to doing. They may not be spuriously punished or denied human treatment – water and rest breaks, adequate clothing, medical oversight and such. But we do not just pen them up and let them sit idle.”

“Nuclear weapons in space – vessel to vessel combat is not unknown to us, and I don’t consider such actions to be the same as when used on a moon, planet or habitat. We also use nanotech weapons but we, unlike some, do not consider them WMD’s

"Alversia's view is most civilized, and bears a respect for the individual we can appreciate." The Voivode cackled like a hyaena. "I can admire their adherence to this principle, and would never seek to alter their views. However, Alversia will not torture, and this must be respected. Alversia will not permit it's prisoners to be tortured, and this, too, must be respected.
"The question here is whether or not Alversia considers such torture to fall under the heading of a war crime. The concensus would seem to be that it is not, provided it is purely for the obtaining of information.
"The Zorak Zorani possess certain necrotic techniques that permit them to extract information from a dead mind,which no longer has the will to resist them, and the Blue Moon is the Blue Moon, with a mastery of the workings of the mind brutal in it's efficacity. I have seen Muritan break a prisoner with a gaze, tell me all I needed to know and leaving a gibbering husk that had to be tended and fed until it was re-educated and socialized. These are extreme measures, but the Zorak Zorani will swear they found the individual already dead-quite possible, given the nature of their god, while the Blue Moon answers only to Annilla, and can be moved to such measures only by her command.
"If Alversia rules that torture is, indeed, a war crime, the muri cannot but support that view-it is grounded in Freedom of the Individual, a value the muri hold dear. While we may not agree entirely, the base principle is one we will not argue. As for the proponents of torture, let me remind you the words of a great philosopher from the Heart of Chaos-'Expedience is no excuse for Evil.'"

"It might be cruel, it may be harsh, but it is necessary."
"That, Emperor, is the excuse of every dictatorship in history, I'm afraid" The Alversian Ambassador smiled sadly, "We will question a Prisoner, we will hook him up to a Lie Detector to see if he is telling the truth or if there is information he may wish to give us."

"We have always considered torture a war crime. We have, in the past, persecuted POW's for torturing our own troops or Civilians, however, I note that some of our Allies are willing to perform these same actions 'for the greater good'. We cannot accept torture and we will not accept torture. We will not hand over Prisoners for Torture as that is a breach of Military Order 23:
POW's taken in war by any branch of the Armed forces shall be given the full and total protection of the capturing Branch, from any seeking bodily or mental harm upon them for any reasons, until such that they can be safely transported to a Facility for them."

The Ambassador gave a sorry shrug,
"The right of the Individual is one of Alversia's core beliefs. We cannot give that up, even for this Alliance. We would also frown upon not taking Prisoners if they are trying to lay down their arms. WMD's on the other hand, can be used in space, have been used in space. However, we refuse to use them on anything other than isolated military targets were the threat of Civilian losses are minimal to none"

"The question of what is torture still has not been answered. And yes it is a fine line to walk. But I'd rather have torture on my hands than dead people who trusted me to keep them safe. I can look after my own kharma" Dominique reasserted her thoughts that they needed to define torture. She looked at the Alversian ambassador "Does Alversia have a codified legal definition of torture that they can provide us for study?"

The Voivode huffed. "We all know what torture is-the application of pain to bring compliance. Those of us without Alversia's high moral standard will find ways around any law we make-the Blue Moon is most adept at asking questions that will bring the desired answers bobbing to the surface where they may be easily plucked by telepathic eavesdropping, and I'm certain we all have psychologists who can do the same. While not torture, it certainly violates Alversia's principles, and while they will not allow it, the rest of us will simply have to adapt-though I can see enemy units surrendering to Alversia over the rest of us as a result.
"As far as the weapons of mass destruction, I will drop the point as it seems contentious. The first time our people deploy a Death Cloud it will rear it's head again, but that first time should be adequate for our foes to know fear, and we can heartily engage in the debate at that time."

"Yes Bruno, we all 'know' what torture is, I wanted to see if they had a working, legal definition for us to view and ponder over ...This is why I felt that trying to apply war crimes across the board is not going to fly. I am not going to have my people be brought up for what are not war crimes by Tanara's accounting but are by Alversias.

Some times the good of the one trumps the whole, but that goes equally round the other way."

This was a point of contention that she felt as strongly on as the Alversian's did. She was not going to surrender her people to another nations overly nice conscience.

Dominique was willing to let the questions of mass destructions slide. Tanara used ones that didn't leave behind messes that took years to be habitable.

"Why is it when I have to stop doing something, we just flat-out speak in simple terms, while when you have to stop doing something, we need it alphabetized and codified?" The Voivode irritably arched an eyebrow. "I'm already seeing Tanaran ambassadors coming forth with the argument electricity applied to the genitalia is torture, while their officers applied it to the cerebral cortex, which isn't in the definition.
"Torture is a simple and fast way to obtain what we want, but we're all advanced enough to use drugs and telepaths to obtain vital intelligence. If not, Pamaltela will provide mind-sifters to any Alliance members who desire them, including Alversia to ensure the device is painless with no lasting effects.
"Besides, it's good PR. Field work might be hamstrung by lack of equipment, but I've got people who'll take a war crime tribunal over permitting unnecessary casualties.
"None of us are going to adopt Alversia's high moral standard-I wish I could, but the gods keep making bastards, and I get to deal with them. We'll ban torture, but not questioning, save for Alversia, and I can live with Alversia not questioning it's prisoners nor allowing anyone else to. In fact, I'd like to set aside a few inhospitable but inhabitable worlds for Alversia to oversee as interment centers for our first wars. I know we're not planning any, but they'll come anyway, and best to be prepared.
"We all know a captured prisoner is only good for so long, before plans and codes are changed, and once they cannot provide intelligence, I'd as soon keep them under Alversia's protection than hand them off to someone who'll brutalize them in the name of Justice, or save a few credits by offing another mouth to feed."

I'd as soon keep them under Alversia's protection than hand them off to someone who'll brutalize them in the name of Justice, or save a few credits by offing another mouth to feed."

"Since none here have advocated the last two you lobbed around, I am going to guess that was simply your irritation speaking." Dominique's blue green eyes were snapping. And there wasn't an ounce of concession in her voice.

"I have stated that Tanaara uses little enough of it, and we never use it wholesale. We can officially ban torture, but we will never forego questioning; and if people believe that prisoners will have such a hard time under the Phoenix Empire, Alversia is welcome to take charge of them."

She seriously wished the question of war crimes had never come up, and she was still profoundly of the opinion that it was something best left to each individual nation.

"With all due respect, Empress, Alversia is the only one here who hasn't advocated brutalizing their POWs, while Nova Nippon and Neo Kirisubo have both put forward not taking them in the first place.
"I think we can all agree that if our people get taken in war, we'd want them taken by Alversia, and we should extend that courtesy to our foes as well. It justifies the moral high ground we'd all like to assume."

"Moral high ground," the Emperor almost sneered the words. "Anyone we fight I can almost guarantee will not show us the same respect. Take a look at any nation or organization in the history of combat concerning Alversia and Xiscapia, for example: Korr, Danaversians, Calaverians, Imitators, Rebels, that horrible incident with the Greali, any and all elements of Chaos. Most of these were known for their brutality against prisoners of war. We hold the moral high ground in these situations merely because we only torture for information, and not for the 'fun' of inflicting pain. If you rule out torture, you will only be tying our hands in an area that any given foe will gleefully exploit. I can accept, when we are fighting one who would show us the same courtesy, not torturing any prisoners at all, but when we capture any of those mentioned above, and undoubtedly many others, we know that if any of our people have been taken they are suffering horrible fates. If this is the case in a conflict, Xiscapia will not discontinue torture, nor will we hand over our prisoners to Alversia."

"I find myself in agreement with Tanaara. I think that this wole mess concerning war crimes was a poor idea to bring up and does not need to be a part of this Alliances frame work. It is a subject best left to each nation to deal with."

"and since you did not bother to ask for a fuller explaination. We seldom take prisoners since they are seldom alive for us to take. And yes we allow seppuke, just as we hope it is allowed for us. And requiring them to work for their food is not brutalising them. There are regulations in place to see that they are not over worked, or under fed if they work, they recieve health care, housing, and adequate clothing."

"Nor are we going to allow Alversia to dictate to us"

"Pardon me," It was the Alversian Ambassador who spoke up, "We are not trying to dictate to anyone. We have made our position with regards to Prisoners and torture clear, that is all. If you follow a seperate system then that is completely within your right. I agree that the standardisation of what we regard as 'War Crimes' is not something that we are going to agree upon. I therefore suggest that the notion and definition of a warcrime should be dealt with individually and at the discretion of each Government."

"Forgive me." the Voivode tapped his bolongo with his stylus. "Do I take it correctly, then, that the Alliance shall have no jurisdiction when it comes to war crimes?
"If that is indeed the case, I'd like it put into the document for later reference. I doubt any of us should want some jingoistic gadfly buzzing about the gap."

"I believe so," the Emperor answered the Voivode. "I did not know there would be such division in this matter. Please, add your statement into the document."

Dominique added the last bit concerning war crimes and sent the document to the other representatives.

"There I think this is complete to every ones approval. Please peruse this carefully and note any saection or wording you disagree with, or feels needs changing, or adding to. This is not a doccument to be taken lightly, and we should be proud of all our hard work."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OOC: TG's going out to all of you - the first post of the thread contains the finished work.

PLEASE read it thoroughly and carefully, and don't hesitate to speak up if you think there needs to be changes...

Alversia approves the Alliance treaty and she will sign it, thus entering the Alliance.

"We can be agreeable to all of this and will enter the Alliance" Vice Admiral Aoi replied. She had the authority to sign it on behalf of her people.

The Voivode read carefully, perching a pince-nez on his great snout and clucking occasionally. "We haggled somewhat long and hard on the limitations of the OverGeneral and the Liaisons Militant, and that somewhat strenuous agreement has found no place in this document. That was agreed to, and should be in the final draft, just as the limitations on the Judicial Oversight Advisory have been placed here, though I note you did not include ratification of the Advisory's decisions by the Directorate, as was stipulated, nor did you adhere to the agreed 2/3 majority for non-Advisors, instead trying to force a calcification upon the Council-even your renaming shows you intend it to become a place of power, when this was NOT agreed to. This must be restored to what was agreed-I am willing to see this lapse as weariness, but this must revert to it's original intention, or you have built a place of power-and nothing attracts Evil like Power.
"We also have yet to hammer out the details on shared intelligence-is that to be in the document, or something we agree to but do not impose upon new members? I should much prefer to place it as an obligation of membership within the core document, and thought we would get to it before a final accord.
"Barring these observations, the document is sound, and I feel Pamaltela will not object to our entering this Alliance."

"We haggled somewhat long and hard on the limitations of the OverGeneral and the Liaisons Militant, and that somewhat strenuous agreement has found no place in this document. That was agreed to, and should be in the final draft,

I don't remember off of the top of my head if there was anything specific - I'll go through the thread again but if any one knows the post # that would be appreciated...

just as the limitations on the Judicial Oversight Advisory have been placed here, though I note you did not include ratification of the Advisory's decisions by the Directorate, as was stipulated, nor did you adhere to the agreed 2/3 majority for non-Advisors, instead trying to force a calcification upon the Council


Again I am not ure what you are refering too and will rereasd, again if you remember the post #'s it would be appreciated.

-even your renaming shows you intend it to become a place of power, when this was NOT agreed to. This must be restored to what was agreed-I am willing to see this lapse as weariness, but this must revert to it's original intention, or you have built a place of power-and nothing attracts Evil like Power.

I can promis you that no oversights were intentional, and if you think they are I'll gladly drop the hell out...

"We also have yet to hammer out the details on shared intelligence-is that to be in the document, or something we agree to but do not impose upon new members? I should much prefer to place it as an obligation of membership within the core document, and thought we would get to it before a final accord."
"Though I agree it would be nice to make such a requirement for membership, I would not add it into the document unless it is felt such is truly necessary." said the Emperor seriously. "Better any of those who come after us agree, outside of this document and of their own accord, to choose to share their own intelligence with us and in return gain our knowledge. I would not wish to alienate any potential candidate nations by requiring them to open their Intelligence agencies or sectors up to us when they may not be willing to. Of course, though, the matter is up for debate if others feel strongly about this. I am not opposed to the idea, I simply do not feel we need to put it into this document."

"Anyway, Xiscapia will agree to become a member of the Alliance on my signature once such matters have been cleared up."

IS this one of the things you were questioning the missing of / loss in discussion of?

Members of the Judicial Oversight Advisory who are removed from office must have every case they were involved in ratified by unanimous vote of the Directorate or the case must be retried

I found it in one of your posts, and not elsewhere so I think it was my oversight from earlier -

Also for clarification: by Directorate do you mean the Alliance Board of Directors ( BoD ) or the Judicial Oversight Committie ( JOC )?

Okay I found this in oned of your later posts -

By Directorate, I refer to the panel of one representative from each nation who will address most Alliance concerns-they must ratify every Judicial Oversight Advisory decision by unanimous consent-the body must have no authority on it's own, or it's power will grow unchecked.

Okay - So you are indeed talking about the BoD ratifying the JOC's decission by unanaimous consent

I think - NO, I know - we never adequately discussed this.

And I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying that if the JOC tries a case it's verdict must be then voted on by the BoD?

for example...( please just example no one get their knickers in a twist )...

One of the shared spacestations / trading posts - Captain X is going to trial for smuggling in an illegal animal species. The verdic is guilty - are you saying that then the BoD must vote to uphold that verdict?

Please I may just be dense today but this is what it sounds like - if I am wrong / mistaken, please clarify.

Let me put this amended proposal up for vote then:


All Signatory Nations commit to the creation of the Alliance Defense Force - a military organizations solely for the common defense of The Alliance, and the Signatory Nations; save in instances in which the attacked Signatory Nation(s) request that no aid be provided to them. This commitment may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three. The Alliance Defense Force has no authority over any Signatory Nations' forces save for units specifically loaned to aid the Alliance Defense Force and that command authority terminates when the units are recalled.

Dominique looked up “We can delineate, when the Board of Directors creates the ADF's structure, that the Command Staff will be officers dispatched by our various nations, and that the Command will rotate on an 6-8 year basis, followed by the Officer who has been the second in command. - this. as the Neo Kirisubans noted necessary organization but t is all matters that should be left for the BOD to spell out, not nit picked to death here."

Post #87

We'll vote yes for that term," The Alversian Ambassador agreed, "We can work out the smaller details at a later date"

Post #88

The Emperor nodded. "We vote yes for this too."

Post #89

Vice Admiral Aio also said "we agree as well".

It looked like the start of a new age for her. One which would give protection for all of them since a pack was a lot stronger than a lone wolf was.

Post #90

"I vote yes on this"

Post #91

Dominique looked over at the Voivode, to see what he thought of the ammended wording and thoughts behind the proposal.

Post #92

We all have the best intentions, but the devil lies in the details." The Voivode finally pronounced. "I think as our combined crews work out the difficulties of each ship's command structure, the BOD will come to light. For now, I would suggest we simply implement the host ship's command structure until we're a little more familiar with each other. I know my people will howl if 'Shipmother' is not used for the officer in charge, but to be called 'Mother' in my culture is the greatest honor one may bestow.
"Pamaltela agrees to this, and humbly requests a shared intelligence agency be considered later."

Post # 93

Every one voted yes on this - as per the posts quoted and listed above.

"We also have yet to hammer out the details on shared intelligence-is that to be in the document, or something we agree to but do not impose upon new members? I should much prefer to place it as an obligation of membership within the core document, and thought we would get to it before a final accord.
"Barring these observations, the document is sound, and I feel Pamaltela will not object to our entering this Alliance."

"Though I agree it would be nice to make such a requirement for membership, I would not add it into the document unless it is felt such is truly necessary." said the Emperor seriously. "Better any of those who come after us agree, outside of this document and of their own accord, to choose to share their own intelligence with us and in return gain our knowledge. I would not wish to alienate any potential candidate nations by requiring them to open their Intelligence agencies or sectors up to us when they may not be willing to. Of course, though, the matter is up for debate if others feel strongly about this. I am not opposed to the idea, I simply do not feel we need to put it into this document."

I agree with Foxfire Rose. I do not feel that it needs to be put into this document as foundation materiel. But then again I am not opposed to it being In the document either. I am flexible. If the majority of us decide it would be best across the boards and written in I'lll gladly go with such.

Alversia too, is flexible in this manner. Either way will be good for us

OOC:I found it!
The Voivode calmly tapped his bolongo, "By Directorate, I refer to the panel of one representative from each nation who will address most Alliance concerns-they must ratify every Judicial Oversight Advisory decision by unanimous consent-the body must have no authority on it's own, or it's power will grow unchecked. -SNIP-
"Perhaps the Advisory should hold one advisor from each member nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, who will also supply adequate staff to handle the duties of the Advisory as required, each nation policing it's members as their laws require, and any staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetance or as a matter of political expedience removed by a 2/3 majority, but the actual Advisors requiring the more difficult 75%+1 Tanara suggests.
"Bear in mind, the duties of the Advisory are two-fold-maintaining records of all our laws as Neo-Kirisubo so wisely suggested, and observing trials of our citizens performed by other members to ensure no ill-will, on occasion mitigating the draconian justice some of us hold dear. There are nations that forbid the death penalty, though I am unaware if any are represented here today, but if any should join at a later time, they would take a dim view of us executing their citizens, and may well keep the criminals in their prisons under a life sentance rather than have us slay them.
"Life is sacred, even when it is ruled forfeit by another, and this is something we must all respect-to do less would strip us of the Man rune."
OOC:Also, an earlier post:
"There will be cases of an extraordinary nature that will crop up, and the Judicial Oversight Advisory will suggest alternative punishments, which must be approved by unanimous consent of the Directorate, or the standard sentence will apply. The most common cases where this power will be invoked is in cases of muri Low Justice, which calls for the execution and/or mutilation of shoplifters, merchants who overcharge, vandals, and other crimes deemed menial by your various systems. This power of the Judicial Oversight Advisory is truly flammable, as Tanara proves, hence unanimous consent for it's use."
OOC:The JOA could easily become the first step to an Evil Empire without the check of requiring unanimous consent from the Directorate, and the text seems to indicate this matter HAS been addressed-repeatedly-but this function of the Alliance has always been poorly understood. While the JOA will observe and report, any actual ruling passed down from them has always required unanimous consent of the Directorate, from the second proposal of it's formation on, as well as the reasoning behind it.
*sigh* Now I'm digging through the military argument-there was a rotating plan involving career officers, but I'm having trouble finding it...

"-SNIP- instead of hiring a Mercenary - we have a rotational Commander. Lets say a six to eight year term, with his second in command being the next commander, and the next in commands simply be officers from the other Signatory Nations.

-SNIP-

So might I suggest - Nova Nippon, Pamaltela, Tanara, Xiscapia, Alversia and Neo Kiritsubo

Further amended by :Most of the time, we aren't going to be engaged in conflict, one would hope, but in the event we are, it might be wiser for each of us to send a Liaison Militant to assist the Commander-it this way, should we be engaged in a war during an office change, our leadership will not face the difficulties of a new administration stepping into odd policies of their predecessor, and these Liaisons Militant can aid in joint efforts as we put forth.
OOC: I know this has been a grueling process, and my own predilection for jumping between Devil's Advocacy and actual negotiations hasn't helped, but I am very leery of sovereignty issues and the possibilities of this body's power growing out of hand. Not that it's likely in this forum, where we can pack up and leave at the drop of a hat, but this is ROLE-PLAYING, and I am trying to represent my nation.

Post # 151 & 86

Dominique looked up “We can delineate, when the Board of Directors creates the ADF's structure, that the Command Staff will be officers dispatched by our various nations, and that the Command will rotate on an 6-8 year basis, followed by the Officer who has been the second in command. - this. as the Neo Kirisubans noted necessary organization but t is all matters that should be left for the BOD to spell out, not nit picked to death here."

and about the JOC - Please read post 150 and advise me if that is the issue you think is missing and please adise if my example is wrong.

Getting very frustrated that I have asked for clarification in two post but have not seemed to have gotten it.

OOC: I am signing off for the night before I lose my temper

OOC:Three posts in a row-this is an endurance run...
IC:"We are going to have to thrash out some sort of a framework for joint intelligence, and I should prefer we do so before the Directorate is in place. However, it does not need to be in the founding document, I agree. I will state, unlike a Jump Gate system between our worlds, this is not a matter I would leave to the Alliance Directors, as intelligence is somewhat dicier an arrangement than free trade and freedom of movement."

OOC: Thank you for your explaination via tg OD, however...

**************************

"No I don't see any need for the Board of Directors to waste it's time validating every damn verdict. I don't want my Director's time wasted voting on wether Captain John Q Smitts is guilty or not of smuggling belted green tree lizzards or not. That just makes them a captive jury in my estimation. That just second guesses the JOC and renders it nil, and unnecessary."

"So do we need it or not?" Dominique looked at each deligate waiting on their answer.

And if you will note earlier that we voted unanimously on for the Defensive Military... have people changed their minds?

Please anwer to BOTH of these questions.

Alversia agrees that the use of the BoD as a second jury is a rather needless endevour. However, we could suggest that perhaps a high-priority appeal case could be directed through the BoD rather than the JoC. Therefore, the highest authourity of the Alliance could make a decision based on wither or not the original verdict was the correct one. This should only be for high profile cases only though.

Yes, Alversia also agrees on a Defensive Military, although perhaps sometimes the Military may be needed to take offensive action on behalf of the Alliance, such as against Pirates. Wars of Aggression should not be made as part of the Charter unless, in unique circumstances, the Alliance itself is threatened. In this, I feel it would be better be left to the discretion of the ADF Commander rather than sealed in stone by us.

"We haven't changed our minds about a Defensive Military" Vice Admiral Aoi replied.

"We also don't need a JOC or BoD that has to look at every legal decision. I see it working best as a court a case could ultimately end up in once it goes past a nations supreme court. High profile cases as my Alversian colleague has suggested" she added.

"Neither my position nor my stance towards the military of the Alliance has changed," said the Emperor quietly. "However, I believe the military of the Alliance were to be involved in purely military operations, and we would let Customs, Port Authority, the police or our own seperate local military forces deal with pirates, smugglers and other outlaws, yes?" he raised an eyebrow.

"As for the BOD, I too, like honorable Empress Dominique, feel they are entirely unnecessary. For them to take on 'high profile cases' is a waste of time when the JOA is in place, why could the JOA not also take on such cases? What special powers or wisdom would a BOD have that the JOA would not possess? Again, to take words from Dominique's mouth, it is only second-guessing the JOA."

HOLD ON THE PLAY

This whole notion of a JACcame about because of the insistance by some that criminals be tried by their home nation not by the nations who's laws they had broken.

I am going to ask this very bluntly, very plainly,

Please answer yes or no

Are you willing to have a criminal tried and punished within the nation who's laws they broke, by that nations legal system?

IE - if a citizen of Alversia comes in to the Kitsune Empire of Xiscapia, are you willing to have them tried and punished by Xiscapain law and the Xiscapian legal system?

Ah, then yes to both questions, my bad

No.

"Goodness." the Voivode said. "As far as the Military, agreed readily. The legal question is, of course, agreed to-if one is visiting, it is the duty of a good guest to abide by the host's rules.
"The JOA is intended to accomodate the occasional misunderstanding, permitting our peoples legal representation within the borders of a foreign land, especially as certain of us have odd legalities.
"The Directorate must ratify any ruling handed down by the JOA, to protect the legal frameworks of us all from interference. Let's face it-the feud and vendetta are legal familial commitments on Pamaltela, and we will not be changing that, only limiting it to our world, and it will spill over sadly, as your legal systems allow.
"If one of your citizens should come to Pamaltela, apply for a vendetta, then invite their hated foe to our world to kill and devour them, this would be legal. However, your own nation will want to prosecute for murder, and as it is their citizen, this would be acceptable, once the citizen enters their home nation's territory. However, we would not extradite such an individual as they have broken no laws under our system. The JOA would permit such extradition, preserving both our cultures.
"Because we are attempting to allow six separate legal systems to interact, our legal networks can hammer out an agreement, but our representatives must ratify any such agreement or it is they, not the JOA, who are redundant.
"Tanara argues it is a waste of the Director's time to protect and preserve the legal system of Tanara. It is not a waste of Pamaltela's Director to protect and preserve the Laws of the First Mother, but we all have cultural differences.
"When we begin shared colonies and satellites, we will encounter greater problems. While trolls are used to the idea one crosses an imaginary line and the law changes-our Clans, Tribes, and Orders all have their own laws and codes of conduct, enforced in their own regions. This gives us an advantage when crossing between territories. I wish to smooth over these difficulties as we can, but without slighting any given legal code."

"we have no problem in letting our people being tried and punished by others laws. Its to be expected that the host nation has the right to enforce their laws just as a Neo Kirisuban court would have to enforce our laws" Vice Admiral Aoi replied. Crime was unknown at a domestic level on the twin worlds and would only be an issue for visitors.

"I will repeat again I will not alow the the Alliance - or through it the JOC to have any control over the legal system of the Phoenix Empire. The JOC is there soley to provide the accused an supposedly neutral observer in cases where the punishment might include a lethal one.

The JOC might maintain a data base of Tanaaran laws but they have no say over said laws or how they are enforced within the Empire or the Empires holdings.

Look as far as I can tell we do not need a JOC - the original intent was to have a neutral observer - or one from the nation of the accused - present at such trials / criminal proceededings as mentiond above.

I don't believe we really need a JOC for that, and as to the matter of maintaining a registry of each nations laws, a JOC is not needed for that, the BoD can do that, and make it available to all who enquire.

So very strongly I urge that we drop the concept of a JoC, and just agree that when such cases occur, that the nation the criminal hails from send a properly trained amicus curie.

I am going to lay out what I see as a very simple and straight forward concept

That each nation takes care of their own laws, within the boundry of their own nation. ***(See below )

and...

I think the board of directors (BoD), comprised of one representative from each nation, should handle these things:


Their duties –

1) To act as the civilian oversight for the alliance military.

2) To handle the operation of shared spaces & create the laws under which they operate– trading posts, etc.

3) To maintain records of every signatory nations laws, and provide copies when requested.

4)To oversee the Alliance Law Enforcement Agency ( here is your anti piracy stuff ) which is not done by the Alliance Military ( using a military as a LEO is not smart nor effecient )

5) Maintain a list of properly trained and accredited ( by each individual nation ) amicus curie for instances when one is needed.

*********************************

And I am pretty much of the opinion that if citizen x gets tricked into going some where where there is a bounty on his head, well thats their look out.

The Voivode considered, then tilted his head, his attention drawn to the bracer on his right wrist. "Pamaltela withdraws from this. It seemed a good idea, but we find ourselves reconsidering."
With that, he rose and made his way to the docking bays, where he and his entourage boarded their Spitters and made way to the great Battlecrab, which floated dormant until the last Spitter attached, then shimmered into nonexistance.

I am going to lay out what I see as a very simple and straight forward concept

That each nation takes care of their own laws, within the boundry of their own nation. ***(See below )

and...

I think the board of directors (BoD), comprised of one representative from each nation, should handle these things:


Their duties –

1) To act as the civilian oversight for the alliance military.

2) To handle the operation of shared spaces & create the laws under which they operate– trading posts, etc.

3) To maintain records of every signatory nations laws, and provide copies when requested.

4)To oversee the Alliance Law Enforcement Agency ( here is your anti piracy stuff ) which is not done by the Alliance Military ( using a military as a LEO is not smart nor effecient )

5) Maintain a list of properly trained and accredited ( by each individual nation ) amicus curie for instances when one is needed.

*********************************

And I am pretty much of the opinion that if citizen x gets tricked into going some where where there is a bounty on his head, well thats their look out.

We can agree with this.

OOC: I just lost two hours worth of work but here I go again: I forgot that any law enforcement agency needs a judiciary to over sight it - as some one very wise mentioned, that without such what one has is a police state...so...

****************************************************

Already agreed on with no alterations needed:

• All Citizens have the right of free speech and expression, provided such views are provable as fact, or stated as opinion, or do not bring physical harm to another.

• All Citizens have the right to worship as one chooses; unless the acts and tenants of worship bring unwilling physical harm to another, or are illegal within the jurisdiction of the host nation

• All Citizens have the right to Commit to Familial Unions and to have that Familial Commitment recognized across The Alliance

• All Citizens have the right of assembly and peaceful demonstration

• All Citizens have the Privilege to own and carry weapons should one choose to, or be required by ones nation of Citizenship.

Note: This privilege can be lost as penalty for irresponsible or criminal use of said weapons. If a Citizen loses the privilege of weapons in one Signatory Nations that privilege is suspended across The Alliance without specific permissions from individual Signatory Nations.

• No Signatory Nations of The Interstellar Alliance shall be asked, or required, to renounce any form of national sovereignty, policy, government, or military.

• The Member Nations of The Interstellar Alliance agree to require no passports for Citizens of Member Nations, save for an Alliance issued I.D., whose acquisition will be controlled by each Member Nation.

• The Interstellar Alliance Member Nations agree to have no taxes or tariffs on goods or services crossing borders.

Note: Drugs or substances, items, practices or services considered illegal in one Signatory Nation may not be brought into or practiced within said nation, but must be surrendered / ceased at the border to be reclaimed/ retaken up when the citizen has returned from said nation

• The Alliance agrees to protect and preserve the legal tenets of all Member States, whose laws are sacrosanct within their jurisdiction.

• Any Signatory Nation that enacts a war of aggression without unanimous Alliance approval will not be aided in any way by the Alliance or by any other Signatory Nation. Such war acts will be grounds for immediate expulsion from the Alliance.

• The Interstellar Alliance has no jurisdiction over War Crimes, which is an issue that falls solely within the purview of individual member nations.

Here are some changes – Pleases note that I have spoken here-in of creating and funding etc of an Alliance Law Enforcement Agency, but I have not tried to lay out it’s structure ( I do not believe that it is needed in this document – if you feel it is please suggest what you think is needed.

I have added some of the priorly agreed upon, but were forgotten to included on the ‘front page’ stuff for the military.

Also I have also proposed a couple of changes in the governing body of the Alliance - among other things - after much reflection I felt that 'Board of Directors' sounded too much like some mere trade alliance, and this is a much more unifying agreement, a true alliance of nations


The Alliance Council

• All member nations will provide one representative Councilor to the Alliance Council. These Councilors shall serve as long as their Signatory Nations assigns them. A Councilor may be expelled for just cause by 75%+1 vote of the Council.

Note:The Speaker of the Alliance Council will be on a rotational basis. Starting with Alversia, Neo Kirisubo, Nova Nippon, Tanara, Xiscapia, then any newly joined Signatory Nation, in the order in which they joined. The Speaker for the Alliance shall have the privilege of casting the tie breaking votes in such voting that ends up in a tie. The Speaker for the Alliance will serve a ten year term, but can be removed from his position by a 75% + 1 from the position, resulting in returning him to simply a Representative. Upon such a vote of No Confidence the next in line Councilor will become the Speaker for the Alliance

1) The Council will act as the civilian oversight - creating its structure, and providing funding - for the Alliance Defense Force.

2) The Council will handle the creation, funding and operation, of shared spaces & create the laws under which they operate.

3) The Council will create and fund the Alliance Law Enforcement

4) The Council will oversight and fund the Judicial Corps.


The Judicial Corps

The JC will be composed of one Judge Advocate from each Signatory Nation, assigned by that nation's judiciary, and adequate staff to handle the duties of the JC as required. Each Signatory Nations will govern it's members as per their legal system.

1) The JC will oversee the Alliance Law Enforcement Agency.

2) The JC will maintain and distribute, as requested, records of every Signatory Nations laws, and provide copies when requested.

3) Maintain a list of properly trained and accredited amicus curie for instances when one is needed.

4) In instance of disputes between Signatory Nations, the JC will act as the Judicial Panel - the Panel consisting of the Judge Advocate from each of the Signatory Nations involved and a Judge Advocate from an uninvolved Signatory Nation who will act as President of the Panel and will cast the deciding vote in any locked decision.

5) The Alliance Council will act, in instances of allegations of Judicial Incompetence or Corruption, as the Presiding Judicial Panel. Any Judge Advocate or staff member found guilty of corruption or incompetence will be removed from the JC.

The Alliance Defense Force

• All Signatory Nations commit to the creation of the Alliance Defense Force - A military organization solely for the common defense of The Alliance, and the Signatory Nations.

Note: Any Signatory Nations that have been aggressed upon may request that no aid be provided to them.

Note: This commitment from the Signatory Nations may be either in the form of funds or materiel or personnel, or mixture of all three.

Note: The Alliance Defense Force has no authority over any Signatory Nations' forces save for units specifically loaned to aid the Alliance Defense Force and that command authority terminates when the units are recalled

1) The Command Staff will be officers accredited by the Signatory Nations, and that the Supreme Command will rotate on an ten year basis, followed by the Officer who has been the second in command. The rotation will begin with Neo Kirisubo, Nova Nippon, Tanara, Xiscapia, Alversia, then any newly joined Signatory Nations in the order in which they joined.

Xiscapia approves of the formation of the Alliance Council, the Judicial Corps and the Alliance Defense Force, and therefore all tenats inscribed within these proposals. As it stands now, the Kitsune Empire is prepared to accept the Treaty.

Alversia approves all of the above

(OOC: And if someone disagrees, I'm gonna cry, lol)

"Nova Nippon has discussed this doccument, and it tenants thoroughly and agrees with them. The Empress has enpowered me to sign the document on her behalf" The Novan delegate, Lady Kaminari Kitirchiba noh Yamato, bowed solemnly.

Admiral Aoi could still agree with this and said "we can still agree with this and will sign it."

Okay the first post has been edited to reflect the end result of our deliberations.

How I have a question - how are we going to fund this little project?

Might I suggest 10% of each nations 'waste'?

If you look at this tracker (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=) - or use any tracker you prefer - for your nation, the bottom left hand $ is gov't waste - How about 10% what ever yours is, and say that is what you are giving The Alliance as dues to cover a one year period.

For Tanara that would be 214 billion +/- a bit

OOC: I can't use NS Tracker as my nation is in a region too big to search through. Can I just estimate at slightly less waste than Tanara?

Actually Al, that tracker can do your nation...

Alversia (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=Alversia)

and your waste is: $414 billion so 10% of that would be: 41 billion

OOC: Ah, cool ^^

10% of 705 billion is 70.5 billion, so that's my my funds towards this.
However, I also control NC as a vassal state, so...
10% of 203 billion is 20.3 billion, ten percent his national waste, so about 90 billion, closer to 91 billion, yes?

I'm going to ask bluntly - are we allowing NC to join? Currently they are not and I have objections to them joining.

No, we are not allowing him to join. NC is a vassal state: I control his military, economy and administration, so I reserve the right to use the his resources.

I feel that if they are not a part of The Alliance, even if they are your vassal state, they should not be required to contribute to it, unless you feel that you can claimn those are a sort of war reperation and choose to use them to benefit The Alliance rather than purely your own nation.

Ah, but NC wants to be in the Alliance, no? Even if it is remotely, I do not think he would object to helping us, even if it is though funds and not materials or personnel. Besides, NC is under my protection at the moment: Anything that helps the Alliance will ultimately come around to help him if he is ever attacked.

He may want it all he wants but if he's not, he's not. And no if he's not a paort of The Alliance, then he's not protected by The Alliance.

He is protected by me, I will be a part of the Alliance, therefore he is protected by the Alliance. I am not asking anyone else to supply him or come to his aide, I don't need the help of any other members to protect him. Why do you object to something that only helps us?

Because it feels unequal/ unfair - we are in effect taking advantage of him - you have just said that
I am not asking anyone else to supply him or come to his aide, I don't need the help of any other members to protect him

He's paying for something ( ie monies to The Alliance ) but getting nothing in return - he's not being protected by the Alliance - only Xiscapia is.

As I percieve it - if NC were attacked then Xiscapia is bound to protect him ( as he is a vassal state)- but no other member of The Alliance would be, as NC is not a member of the Alliance. His vassal status to Xiscapia does not make NC a member of The Alliance, nor does his vassal status to Xiscapia does not extend to him the protections of The Alliance.

Now if because of their defense of NS, Xiscapia was attacked then every member of The Alliance is required to come to Xiscapia's aid ( unless Xisapia requests that it not happen ) but Not NC's

And speaking of wars... and The Alliance...

Are Xiscapia, Alversia etc calling on The Alliance for this war with the Danaversian Empire? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567017)

Because it feels unequal/ unfair - we are in effect taking advantage of him - you have just said that
He's paying for something ( ie monies to The Alliance ) but getting nothing in return - he's not being protected by the Alliance - only Xiscapia is.
Funds which help the Alliance help strengthen myself, which is good for NC because I'm the one protecting him, remember? Think of it as tribute: I'm not going to protect him for nothing, so I am merely using what he pays me to help the Alliance.

And are absolutely correct in you perception of who has to defend who, ect.

As for the Danaversian War, I don't think the Alliance will be involved unless Alversia calls for it.

Okay, I guess I can go with that.

and as for the Danaversian War, it's our honor to help if you all want it. Just yell. :)

Same goes for the Neo Kirisuban Federation

Like I said, ask paddy if you really want to be in it, he's the thread creator after all. Otherwise, I don't think we'll be needing help, unless he says otherwise.
So, uh, what next? Has everyone agreed to provide ten percent of their government waste for funds to the Alliance?

"That amount sounds most suitable to me." Lady Kaminari Kitirchiba noh Yamato nodded. "But I will inquire, does that cover donations to The Alliance Military as well, or is that seperate?"

The Kirisubans could easily live with this idea. They had a good economy and the more capital the Alliance had the better the organisation would be.

So she nodded her assent.

"I think," the Emperor mused, "that the Alliance Military should be covered under the funds each member nation contributes, if only to secure it for the future. Though I'm sure we would all be most generous when donating, better to have a fixed rate rather than relying on the economical condition of the donators to dictate the amount donated."