NationStates Jolt Archive

The Lantol Accord

Preamble:
Believing slavery, forced labour and human trafficking to be gross violations of the most basic human rights, the nation of Kampfers has seen fit to establish an international agreement concerning the abolition of slavery. All signatory nations hereby agree to the following articles and commit themselves to upholding the standards set within.

Definitions:
For the purposes of this document, slavery shall be defined as the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised. Furthermore, all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily, with the certain exceptions of: military service, convicted criminals, emergencies and minor community services. Additionally, servitude shall be defined as a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life. Finally, human trafficking is defined as the recruitment, transportation, harbouring, or receipt of people for the purposes of slavery, forced labor, and servitude.

Article I:
All humans are considered to have been born free, possessing an inalienable right of property in their own body.

Article II:
Contracts relinquishing some or all of an individual's property in his own body shall not be considered valid if extracted under duress, with the exceptions noted in the definition of forced labor.

Article III:
In signatory nations still having some form of slavery or servitude, all persons under such conditions shall be immediately freed and all contracts or conditions enforcing servitude voided.

Article IV:
The ban on human trafficking shall extend to each signatory nation's national airspace and territorial waters, however it is up to thee individual nation to police itself for such trafficking.

Article V:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. As such, discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude shall be prohibited

Signatory Nations:
KampfersindentWillinkindent1111United Solar Republics
PraetoniaindentPauldustllahindent101st Paratroopers
AnagoniaindentIsiraindent1111111Aissur
Allaneaindent1iQuestraliaindent1iUnkerlantum
PrestoniaindentChevrokiaindent11Defense Corporations
Kenavtindent1iiAprikaindent11111Jeuna
MondothindentiOtagiaindent11111Third Spanish States
Ordo DrakulindAlliance StarindentNew Kereptica
Zinaireindent1iWhiskeasyhuzzah!!Questers
AkimonadindenIsapolisindent1111Cazatania
GreenlandindeiCravanindent1111iWolfenhalle

gogogo mirite

The United Republic of Anagonia hereby signs this document acknowledging that slavery is a violation of an individuals free will and freedoms. We therefore are proud to declare that this Lantol Accord shall be enacted and enforced within our Domain.

Sincerely,
Caster Oblivion
Acting Chief Governor of the United Republic of Anagonia

101st signs

With God as my witness, the Republic of Isira hereby signs The Lantol Accord. Slavery is a clear breach of not just human rights, but the soul of humanity. To think another human would dare enslave their brothers is a truly evil act.

Signed ,
Prime Minister Jakob Segeb.
The Republic of Isira.

Yep yep.

(LOL you would destroy the entire dolphin hunting and sea world industry chazakain.)

pretty much and why would that be a bad thing?

Different thread please. Thanks for all the support so far!

The United Solar Republics shall deliver its full support to the terms of this document.

Official Message from the Aissurian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.





We wish to formally announce our signing of The Lantol Accord. Thank you.





Signed,
Auguste Aldridge
Current head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww7/Unker/UNKE.jpg


As Kaiser of the Divine Reich of Unkerlantum I herby sign the Lantol Accord, thus enacting its stipulations as Imperial law effective immediately.

Kaiser Harlin Delvius III
Kaiser, and Divine Ruler of the Divine Reich of Unkerlantum

Signed.

To: Kampfers
From: David Law, C. of DC
Re: Lantol Accord

While not a de jure state, but instead a consortium of corporations, we wish to nonetheless announce that we are Lantol-compliant.

The Scandinvan Empire does hereby officially refuse to sign this treaty as it violates the rights of sovereign nations to determine their own laws and the divinely protected right of God's people to hold slaves freely.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

Chevrokia will sign. o/

Aprika hereby endorses the position of The Scandinvan Empire, as we feel that this accord is an aggressive pact dedicated not entirely to human rights, but also to the stamping out of the right to national self determination, and that attempts to destroy national custom as such are barely above piracy and neoimperialism.

Signed,
President Hernando Perez Martin
The Republic of Aprika

Consider it signed.

The Scandinvan Empire does hereby officially refuse to sign this treaty as it violates the rights of sovereign nations to determine their own laws and the divinely protected right of God's people to hold slaves freely.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

Aprika hereby endorses the position of The Scandinvan Empire, as we feel that this accord is an aggressive pact dedicated not entirely to human rights, but also to the stamping out of the right to national self determination, and that attempts to destroy national custom as such are barely above piracy and neoimperialism.

Signed,
President Hernando Perez Martin
The Republic of Aprika

Kampfers notes that these positions are ill-researched, as this pact does nothing to form a coalition against nations that practice slavery, and nor is it being forced on any nation. Rather, nations choose to sign it on their own free will, exactly what you advocate. Next time, do better research.

Upon further review, Aprika must point out that it is not a slaveholding nation, and does not believe that there is an inherent right of white men to hold minority slaves or otherwise. However, Aprika stands by it's declaration that intervention against slaveholding nations is a criminal act.

Signed,
Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Keller
Republic of Aprika

Upon further review, Aprika must point out that it is not a slaveholding nation, and does not believe that there is an inherent right of white men to hold minority slaves or otherwise. However, Aprika stands by it's declaration that intervention against slaveholding nations is a criminal act.

Signed,
Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Keller
Republic of Aprika

Once more, Kampfers points out that this pact does nothing to forment such alliances against slaveholding states, and in no way endorses military intervention in said states.

HM Foreign Office

His Majesty wishes to state that, contrary to the position of the Kampferreich, he does indeed endorse military intervention against criminal slave holders and slavery enabling governments. He further endorses the judicial hanging of slave owners.

Taking into account your assurances, to end all confusion on our position, we have opted to became a signatory of the Lantol Accord.

Signed,
Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Keller
Republic of Aprika

Kampfers notes that these positions are ill-researched, as this pact does nothing to form a coalition against nations that practice slavery, and nor is it being forced on any nation. Rather, nations choose to sign it on their own free will, exactly what you advocate. Next time, do better research.May I point out that the Scandinvan Empire knows fully well that nearly any group of nations that seeks to condemn the practice of slavery usually ends up actively seeking to repress the slave trade by some form of coercion. Further, one need not look further then the attacks up the Doomani people and their continued use of slavery, to show that alliances designed to end eradicate the slave trade basically become organizations that take an immersionist policy in stamping out slavery.

So please do not deem my position a poorly research one, as my nation is merely looking upon earlier example of anti-slavery groups and their nearly always present willingness to intervene in nations that practice slavery.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

May I point out that the Scandinvan Empire knows fully well that nearly any group of nations that seeks to condemn the practice of slavery usually ends up actively seeking to repress the slave trade by some form of coercion. Further, one need not look further then the attacks up the Doomani people and their continued use of slavery, to show that alliances designed to end eradicate the slave trade basically become organizations that take an immersionist policy in stamping out slavery.

So please do not deem my position a poorly research one, as my nation is merely looking upon earlier example of anti-slavery groups and their nearly always present willingness to intervene in nations that practice slavery.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

Ah, but your position is poorly researched. You see, this is not an alliance. The nations of this are free to militarily do as they please. If this is to attack a nation that practices slavery, then that is their perogative. The nations of this Accord are not bound to then help the other one, and nor are they bound to mutual defence. This is only an agreement to outlaw slavery within the signatory nation. So yes, your position is quite flawed.

Ah, but your position is poorly researched. You see, this is not an alliance. The nations of this are free to militarily do as they please. If this is to attack a nation that practices slavery, then that is their perogative. The nations of this Accord are not bound to then help the other one, and nor are they bound to mutual defence. This is only an agreement to outlaw slavery within the signatory nation. So yes, your position is quite flawed.Truly, this is no alliance then? Sio why do you have a basic common goal of seeing the slave trade end in said countries that are part of the accord? Is an alliance not a group of interest who seek to advance their common goals? Does the group of nations who have signed the accord not want to see slavery abolished?

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

To: Imperial Steward, Lord Erida
From: David Law, C. of DC
Re: Lantol Accord

The Lantol Accord is no alliance. It is merely a treaty, expressing acceptance of certain standards of conduct; it has no means of, nor provisions for, bringing non-signing nations into compliance. It does demand an end to the slave trade within Lantol-compliant states, but nowhere else. Individual signers may wish for compliance to be universal, but the Accord does not promise that, nor does it include mechanisms to bring it about.

That is our interpretation, anyway.

To: Imperial Steward, Lord Erida
From: David Law, C. of DC
Re: Lantol Accord

The Lantol Accord is no alliance. It is merely a treaty, expressing acceptance of certain standards of conduct; it has no means of, nor provisions for, bringing non-signing nations into compliance. It does demand an end to the slave trade within Lantol-compliant states, but nowhere else. Individual signers may wish for compliance to be universal, but the Accord does not promise that, nor does it include mechanisms to bring it about.

That is our interpretation, anyway.

Why thank you for your most correct dissertation.

Why thank you for your most correct dissertation.Yet, the whole of the nations who have agreed to sign the treaty are against slavery correct? Thus, this treaty might well turn into the means by which an aggressive stance against slavery is taken. So, I shall see this treaty as an alliance till the treaty affirms that affirms the right of nations to decide the legality of slavery in their own borders and demands that all signatory nations of the treaty agree not to pursue aggressive action against states that continue to practice slavery.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

To: Imperial Steward, Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Lantol Accord

The Accord explicitly limits its ban on the slave trade to "each signatory nation's national airspace and territorial waters." (Lantol Accord, Article IV). Its author noted that it "in no way endorses military intervention in [slaveholding] states." Therefore, in answer to your query, I interpret the treaty to imply that signatory states are not required to oppose slavery in other states, merely to ban it in their own states. They need not even be "against" slavery, merely in opposition to its presence in their state.

You are seeing an aggressive treaty where I see an agreement about labor standards. Would a treaty that set standard practices for treating prisoners of war, or airline passengers, imply that signers should aggressively pursue action against non-signers?

As for your specific requests, the former is implied in Article IV, while the latter would impose upon the national sovereignty of signers. Surely, you would not argue that, in order to defend the sovereignty of slaveholding states to hold slaves, nonslaveholding states must give up their sovereign right to interact with other states as they see fit?

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/8/1/149955/Jeunese%20letterhead%20presidential.png
10 January, 2009

Dearest Ricky,
+++I have recently had the pleasure of reviewing this Lantol Accord of yours, and I must ask what prompted such a measure? Nevertheless I am as always unopposed and quite for the elimination of tyranny and human misery in this our world, and I have despatched with haste a minion—his name escapes me presently—to place his signature for Jeuna forthwith as such. I hope he will be given all due respect as an envoy of the Jeunese Republic, though I sincerely doubt he will not.

P.S.: Do try and be diplomatic with Erry, should he try to wax poetic upon "national sovereignty" with this as is his wont with so many other treaties. He is quite high-strung, but he means well, I think.

Most sincerely,
http://wikistates.outwardhosting.com/w/images/thumb/8/84/Fan_Banou-signature.jpg/80px-Fan_Banou-signature.jpg
Fan Banou

To: Imperial Steward, Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Lantol Accord

The Accord explicitly limits its ban on the slave trade to "each signatory nation's national airspace and territorial waters." (Lantol Accord, Article IV). Its author noted that it "in no way endorses military intervention in [slaveholding] states." Therefore, in answer to your query, I interpret the treaty to imply that signatory states are not required to oppose slavery in other states, merely to ban it in their own states. They need not even be "against" slavery, merely in opposition to its presence in their state.

You are seeing an aggressive treaty where I see an agreement about labor standards. Would a treaty that set standard practices for treating prisoners of war, or airline passengers, imply that signers should aggressively pursue action against non-signers?

As for your specific requests, the former is implied in Article IV, while the latter would impose upon the national sovereignty of signers. Surely, you would not argue that, in order to defend the sovereignty of slaveholding states to hold slaves, nonslaveholding states must give up their sovereign right to interact with other states as they see fit?I seek to protect the soverign rights of all peoples in all that I do. I seek to defend all people's right to property. I seek to protect all people from the threat of foreign swine who might intervene for the sake of outdated morals that defend the right of nations to forcibly take property from people, who have justly earned their property.

That is why I ask for these amendments to the articles. I seek to alter this treaty so that it affirms that no nation shall forcibly end the slave trade in soverign nations. By preventing nations who sign this treaty to cknowledge the rights of other nations, so they might not set up military blockades against other nations and so that they will not invade other nations. I have never though denied the right of any nation to regulate who they do business with, who they trade, and who they talk. All I ask is that slavery be recognized for what it is, a practice that individual nations must regulate and not a international body of fanatics.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

ooc: What was wrong with the Theeb Accords?

To: Lord Erisa
From: David Law
Re: Accord

You claim that your amendment supports "the sovereign rights of all peoples". Yet it restricts the sovereign rights of states to act as they see fit. You may not approve of aggressive opponents of slavery, yet their sovereign rights are the same as your own, and must be considered equally. International law is neutral to individual property, as it ought to be - it acts at the level of states, not of individuals.

The Accord, as it stands, permits states to blockade or not blockade, to invade or not invade. What do you want, sovereignty or slavery? The way you have positioned it, this is your choice - either a situation in which all states have their freedom of action preserved, or in which all states are required to limit their freedom of action.

OOC - thanks for this nice little debate.

To: Lord Erisa
From: David Law
Re: Accord

You claim that your amendment supports "the sovereign rights of all peoples". Yet it restricts the sovereign rights of states to act as they see fit. You may not approve of aggressive opponents of slavery, yet their sovereign rights are the same as your own, and must be considered equally. International law is neutral to individual property, as it ought to be - it acts at the level of states, not of individuals.

The Accord, as it stands, permits states to blockade or not blockade, to invade or not invade. What do you want, sovereignty or slavery? The way you have positioned it, this is your choice - either a situation in which all states have their freedom of action preserved, or in which all states are required to limit their freedom of action.

OOC - thanks for this nice little debate.I would have a world where nations respect the right to own human property. A world where man is civilized and understands that the Lord himself does give the right of people to own slaves or not to own them. Where nations are free from the efforts of abolitionists to make them adopt the principle that slavery is wrong and that they cannot own property.

All that you have shown me today that nations that believe in the right to own slaves have just as much right as nations that do not practice slavery to force other nations into accepting slavery as a legal institution.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

OOC: Your welcome, it is always good to give everyone a good old ruffling.

OOC - Lantol bans slave trade within signatory states, which Theeb has a general ban on the slave trade and slavery. Further, Theeb's article I ought to be part of its preamble - it's a general statement of principle, not actionable legal language. Also, Theeb's article V requires "periodic holidays with pay" among other general language about labor standards.
C. of DC would probably not sign Theeb - we'd be concerned, not only with Article I, but also with the definition of "just and favorable" used Article V.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Mutualismo.svg/120px-Mutualismo.svg.png
Anarchist Confederacy International

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3008/diplonettd1.jpg


From Cecily Lockhelm, Third Spanish head of States, to the nation of Kampfers, regarding the Lantol Accord

It is heartening to see that the agreement over certain facts are mostly beyond ideological differences, for it matters little whether the views of a nation regarding personal, economical and political freedoms are equal or not, to the fact that slavery is an abhorrent, inhuman act, and although we of the Confederacy of Third Spanish States believe in the existence of other forms of slavery beyond the explicit trade of human beings, and although we consider supposedly justifiable forced labor as much of slavery as that which is originated from pure savagery and might makes right, we still stand for many of the precepts stated over such accord, regardless of our ideological opposition to many of the Kampferian policies.

Thus, following its expression through a democratic referendum, I now represent the will of our people, which is to sign this accord on behalf of our ideals of true freedom. We still believe that actions speak louder than words, and as of now, our people struggle to fight against slavery in our regional and ethnic sphere. Nevertheless, we have hope that such words, such agreements and Accords might be inspiring for actions that shall cleanse the world from one of its greatest atrocities.

Finally, we suggest to the nation of Kampfers that the treatment given by totalitarian "communist" States against their people, their Gulags and their complete control over the individual fate, should be considered as another form of slavery, for in such countries, the State relinquish not only the right to speak freely, but the very individual's property in his own body becomes a property under total control of the State. The fact it is perpetrated by a government rather than by private organizations seeking profit from such crime against mankind does not make it less of slavery than what is practiced by traffickers of human beings.

Attentiously
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Cleyere.jpg
Cecily Lockhelm
Head of State, freelance vigilante and military advisor

I would have a world where nations respect the right to own human property. A world where man is civilized and understands that the Lord himself does give the right of people to own slaves or not to own them. Where nations are free from the efforts of abolitionists to make them adopt the principle that slavery is wrong and that they cannot own property.

All that you have shown me today that nations that believe in the right to own slaves have just as much right as nations that do not practice slavery to force other nations into accepting slavery as a legal institution.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

OOC: Your welcome, it is always good to give everyone a good old ruffling.

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Lantol

I would have a world in which states are permitted to act as they see fit; you would have a world in which states are legally limited in their interactions by the strongest of them.
As to your second point, that slaveholding states have as much right to attempt to force other states to accept slavery as nonslaveholding states have to attempt to force other states to abolish slavery, I agree. I am opposed to compulsory international law, which impacts all states, but in favor of consensual international law, which impacts only states that consent to those laws (or, as with the World Assembly, to the framework that creates those laws, with full right to resign at any time).

Slavery within our nation is a criminal sentence, not a condition into which one is born.There is no slave race per se, merely individuals who have been legally reclassified as property until a court-determined fee is met based on their crimes, and those who have suffered "Death of Personality" and serve on our road crews. How would signing this document affect these individuals?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Mutualismo.svg/120px-Mutualismo.svg.png
Anarchist Confederacy International

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3008/diplonettd1.jpg


From Cecily Lockhelm, Third Spanish head of States, to the nation of Kampfers, regarding the Lantol Accord

It is heartening to see that the agreement over certain facts are mostly beyond ideological differences, for it matters little whether the views of a nation regarding personal, economical and political freedoms are equal or not, to the fact that slavery is an abhorrent, inhuman act, and although we of the Confederacy of Third Spanish States believe in the existence of other forms of slavery beyond the explicit trade of human beings, and although we consider supposedly justifiable forced labor as much of slavery as that which is originated from pure savagery and might makes right, we still stand for many of the precepts stated over such accord, regardless of our ideological opposition to many of the Kampferian policies.

Thus, following its expression through a democratic referendum, I now represent the will of our people, which is to sign this accord on behalf of our ideals of true freedom. We still believe that actions speak louder than words, and as of now, our people struggle to fight against slavery in our regional and ethnic sphere. Nevertheless, we have hope that such words, such agreements and Accords might be inspiring for actions that shall cleanse the world from one of its greatest atrocities.

Finally, we suggest to the nation of Kampfers that the treatment given by totalitarian "communist" States against their people, their Gulags and their complete control over the individual fate, should be considered as another form of slavery, for in such countries, the State relinquish not only the right to speak freely, but the very individual's property in his own body becomes a property under total control of the State. The fact it is perpetrated by a government rather than by private organizations seeking profit from such crime against mankind does not make it less of slavery than what is practiced by traffickers of human beings.

Attentiously
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Cleyere.jpg
Cecily Lockhelm
Head of State, freelance vigilante and military advisor

To: Cecily Lockhelm on behalf of the Third Spanish States
From: David Law
Re: Lantol

Please note that Lantol limits its provisions to the territory of signatory states. As gulags generally involve internal 'enemies', rather than foreign slaves, and transport to gulags generally does not cross the territory of foreign states, the language you suggest would be meaningless in the context of Lantol.

Slavery within our nation is a criminal sentence, not a condition into which one is born.There is no slave race per se, merely individuals who have been legally reclassified as property until a court-determined fee is met based on their crimes, and those who have suffered "Death of Personality" and serve on our road crews. How would signing this document affect these individuals?

To: Ordo Drakul
From: David Law
Re: Lantol

Lantol explicitly establishes, among others, an exception of convicted criminals from the definition of slavery. Provided that "Death of Personality" is a crime for which road crew members have been convicted, or a form of military service akin to being drafted, you should be Lantol-compliant. If it does not fall under the exceptions listed in Lantol, and otherwise fits the definition of slavery (or servitude) found in Lantol, then signing would immediately end it and release those individuals who have suffered "Death of Personality," in accordance with Article III.

The Otagian Regency is amused that the Scandinvan Steward speaks of defending the property rights of all persons, yet openly endorses the refusal of property rights to those held as slaves.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/blaesa/PRA%20junk/OtagiaFlag.gif

The Imperial Regency of Otagia hereby ratifies the Lantol Accord, reaffirming Otagian laws currently in place against such barbarism.

Daniel Quetzal
Regent of Otagia

As Written, Mondoth finds this agreement to be wholly laudable and finds no reason to withhold our agreement with its strictures.

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Lantol

I would have a world in which states are permitted to act as they see fit; you would have a world in which states are legally limited in their interactions by the strongest of them.
As to your second point, that slaveholding states have as much right to attempt to force other states to accept slavery as nonslaveholding states have to attempt to force other states to abolish slavery, I agree. I am opposed to compulsory international law, which impacts all states, but in favor of consensual international law, which impacts only states that consent to those laws (or, as with the World Assembly, to the framework that creates those laws, with full right to resign at any time).As a I a gentleman I must say that you are truly a man of your convictions and shall not have his opinion altered by there mere arguments of a man who disagrees with your Mr. Law. Yet, I wish to state that I shall continue to defend the rights of my people, and our allies, to hold property, in any form, regardless of the opinions of those who disagree with us. Though, I shall commend you on defending the rights of nations to do as they see fit. Further, I thank you for not being a hypocrite on the matter of whether or not both slaveholding states and non-slaveholding have the same rights.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Lantol Accord

As a man whose duty it is to ensure that law is upheld, I could not do less than to support good law in opposition to bad law. Well-composed international law artfully manages the concerns of signatory and non-signatory states; poorly-composed international law weakens the reputation of international law itself, by being unenforceable or by unduly increasing tensions.
As a lawyer, I appreciate a good legal dispute. Contract law, the bulk of my work in the Confederacy, is rather dull. It pays well, but is often repetitive and always mundane. In contrast, international law is a fascinating, vibrant field, with unique challenges that must be overcome.
Therefore, thank you for an interesting argument.

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Lantol Accord

As a man whose duty it is to ensure that law is upheld, I could not do less than to support good law in opposition to bad law. Well-composed international law artfully manages the concerns of signatory and non-signatory states; poorly-composed international law weakens the reputation of international law itself, by being unenforceable or by unduly increasing tensions.
As a lawyer, I appreciate a good legal dispute. Contract law, the bulk of my work in the Confederacy, is rather dull. It pays well, but is often repetitive and always mundane. In contrast, international law is a fascinating, vibrant field, with unique challenges that must be overcome.
Therefore, thank you for an interesting argument.Mr. Law (OOC: lolz for the name and being a lawyer),

Good sir, you are good at at your chosen profession and I would like to ask have you ever considered embarking upon a career as a member of a foreign diplomatic staff?

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

ooc: I remember the golden age of slavery. There were at least 5 incredibly large scale wars from that. I almost started one myself as a newb. Let's hope this treaty doesn't so that again.

Mr. Law (OOC: lolz for the name and being a lawyer),

Good sir, you are good at at your chosen profession and I would like to ask have you ever considered embarking upon a career as a member of a foreign diplomatic staff?

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

OOC - the name is in keeping with C. of DC naming practices (as seen in my factbook - see my signature for details), as David Law is the sole owner of the David Law legal firm, which employs himself and 10-15 associates. It's a legal fiction that makes his firm the smallest 'member' of the Confederacy of Defense Corporations; he's neutral to all other member companies. And very overworked.

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law

I am too well paid and too well treated by the Confederacy to wish to be employed by another, and too settled to want to leave.

ooc: I remember the golden age of slavery. There were at least 5 incredibly large scale wars from that. I almost started one myself as a newb. Let's hope this treaty doesn't so that again.

Who were you before Ventares? In 2005, I was The Beltway.

ooc:I was red baron and later 1st peacekeepers

[OOC:Would you please edit my name to Aissur? I don't really go by Soviet Aissur anymore.]

OOC - the name is in keeping with C. of DC naming practices (as seen in my factbook - see my signature for details), as David Law is the sole owner of the David Law legal firm, which employs himself and 10-15 associates. It's a legal fiction that makes his firm the smallest 'member' of the Confederacy of Defense Corporations; he's neutral to all other member companies. And very overworked.

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law

I am too well paid and too well treated by the Confederacy to wish to be employed by another, and too settled to want to leave.Mr. Law,

Very well, so be it. I am quite certain we could have come to some sort of arrangement that would have paid a good deal higher then you already get.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Job inquiry

And allow me to still work from my home here in Singapore? Regardless, I couldn't give up my responsibility to the Confederacy. I do appreciate the offer.

Apoligies for not putting my full diplomatic effort into these posts, but the number of posts to reply to is a bit overwhelming.

ooc: What was wrong with the Theeb Accords?

OOC - Lantol bans slave trade within signatory states, which Theeb has a general ban on the slave trade and slavery. Further, Theeb's article I ought to be part of its preamble - it's a general statement of principle, not actionable legal language. Also, Theeb's article V requires "periodic holidays with pay" among other general language about labor standards.
C. of DC would probably not sign Theeb - we'd be concerned, not only with Article I, but also with the definition of "just and favorable" used Article V.

DC largely has it correct. I was a signatory of Theeb and was a close friend of the person who wrote it, but I knew a number of people who would not sign it due to conflicts with what they believed. In reality, Theeb took the anti-slavery premise too far. For example, Article 5 of the Theeb Accords enforced a minimum wage and other workplace standards on the signatories. People such as Praetonia would refuse to sign Theeb because of this, as libertarian thinking believes that companies will be forced to make competitive wages for there employees if there is no minimum wage law, and that a minimum wage law actually lowers the wage they would receive if such a law is absent. Furthermore, it goes on to discuss criminal punishment in article 6, which really should not be broached in an anti-slavery agreement. Lantol is supposed to be a new, modernized, updated Theeb.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Mutualismo.svg/120px-Mutualismo.svg.png
Anarchist Confederacy International

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3008/diplonettd1.jpg


From Cecily Lockhelm, Third Spanish head of States, to the nation of Kampfers, regarding the Lantol Accord

It is heartening to see that the agreement over certain facts are mostly beyond ideological differences, for it matters little whether the views of a nation regarding personal, economical and political freedoms are equal or not, to the fact that slavery is an abhorrent, inhuman act, and although we of the Confederacy of Third Spanish States believe in the existence of other forms of slavery beyond the explicit trade of human beings, and although we consider supposedly justifiable forced labor as much of slavery as that which is originated from pure savagery and might makes right, we still stand for many of the precepts stated over such accord, regardless of our ideological opposition to many of the Kampferian policies.

Thus, following its expression through a democratic referendum, I now represent the will of our people, which is to sign this accord on behalf of our ideals of true freedom. We still believe that actions speak louder than words, and as of now, our people struggle to fight against slavery in our regional and ethnic sphere. Nevertheless, we have hope that such words, such agreements and Accords might be inspiring for actions that shall cleanse the world from one of its greatest atrocities.

Finally, we suggest to the nation of Kampfers that the treatment given by totalitarian "communist" States against their people, their Gulags and their complete control over the individual fate, should be considered as another form of slavery, for in such countries, the State relinquish not only the right to speak freely, but the very individual's property in his own body becomes a property under total control of the State. The fact it is perpetrated by a government rather than by private organizations seeking profit from such crime against mankind does not make it less of slavery than what is practiced by traffickers of human beings.

Attentiously
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Cleyere.jpg
Cecily Lockhelm
Head of State, freelance vigilante and military advisor

If you pay close attention to the wording of Lantol, you will notice that communist nations are frankly forbidden from signing this pact. According to the definitions, servitude is a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life. In communist states, the people lack such a choice, being consigned to industrial/agricultural/etc work.

Slavery within our nation is a criminal sentence, not a condition into which one is born.There is no slave race per se, merely individuals who have been legally reclassified as property until a court-determined fee is met based on their crimes, and those who have suffered "Death of Personality" and serve on our road crews. How would signing this document affect these individuals?

To: Ordo Drakul
From: David Law
Re: Lantol

Lantol explicitly establishes, among others, an exception of convicted criminals from the definition of slavery. Provided that "Death of Personality" is a crime for which road crew members have been convicted, or a form of military service akin to being drafted, you should be Lantol-compliant. If it does not fall under the exceptions listed in Lantol, and otherwise fits the definition of slavery (or servitude) found in Lantol, then signing would immediately end it and release those individuals who have suffered "Death of Personality," in accordance with Article III.

Once again, DC has it pretty much down. Your case falls more under forced labor than slavery, and you will note that one of the exceptions to forced labor is criminals. However, I would believe that if someone tried to shoplift, and you sentenced him to a lifetime of slavery, then you would be breaking the spirit of Lantol, if not the law. Sentencing convicted felons to work sentences is not bad, however, I even have that in some measure (haven't worked it out completely).

To: Lord Erida
From: David Law
Re: Job inquiry

And allow me to still work from my home here in Singapore? Regardless, I couldn't give up my responsibility to the Confederacy. I do appreciate the offer.Sadly then, any employ would be full time and as such we cannot employ due to your current job.

Signed,
Imperial Steward,
Lord Erida

Once again, DC has it pretty much down. Your case falls more under forced labor than slavery, and you will note that one of the exceptions to forced labor is criminals. However, I would believe that if someone tried to shoplift, and you sentenced him to a lifetime of slavery, then you would be breaking the spirit of Lantol, if not the law. Sentencing convicted felons to work sentences is not bad, however, I even have that in some measure (haven't worked it out completely).

Once again, largely for purposes of clarity, there are two forms of slavery existing in our culture. The first, and most common, is a legal classification wherein the individual, usually a career criminal, is classified as property in the eyes of the State. This form is only used on citizens, stripping them of the right to vote and hold public office, until a court determined fine is paid. While under this sentence, the maximum reprisal under the law for anyone attacking or even murdering the slave would be vandalism of property valued at the "slave price".
The second form is those cases where an individual is considered to be a continued threat to society(serial killers, rapists, terrorists, etc.) and are sentenced with "Death of Personality"-lobotomy and forced labor in the road crews.
If these are acceptable under the Accord, we will happily sign.

Once again, largely for purposes of clarity, there are two forms of slavery existing in our culture. The first, and most common, is a legal classification wherein the individual, usually a career criminal, is classified as property in the eyes of the State. This form is only used on citizens, stripping them of the right to vote and hold public office, until a court determined fine is paid. While under this sentence, the maximum reprisal under the law for anyone attacking or even murdering the slave would be vandalism of property valued at the "slave price".
The second form is those cases where an individual is considered to be a continued threat to society(serial killers, rapists, terrorists, etc.) and are sentenced with "Death of Personality"-lobotomy and forced labor in the road crews.
If these are acceptable under the Accord, we will happily sign.

As far as I understand the definition of forced labor, your nation is acceptable.

The Imperium condemns the despicable breach of human rights that is the Lantol Accord.

The Imperium condemns the despicable breach of human rights that is the Lantol Accord.

The Fuhrer thanks Maximus for his compliment and inquires when Maimus will be coming over for tea and to get that DVD he left the last time he visited.

We sign on.

bump ^_^

The Allied States of New Kereptica would like to sign the Lantol Accord.

The Republic of Zinaire hereby signs the Lantol Accord.

The Commonwealth of Whiskeasy has decided to sign the Lantol Accord.

I will sign!

Isapolis despises slavery in every form. We shall be glad to sign this accord.

David Sörös, Foreign Minister, Fiefdom of Isapolis

Cazatania signs.

Akimonad signs. o/

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/Retro_1989/QuestralianCommuniqueSmall.png

Following the diligent lead of our Allies, Questralia wishes to give the Lantol Accord her full support, and does hereby sign this noble treaty for the good of all men.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/Retro_1989/LQuinn.png
Lachlan Quinn,
Prìmhaire na Co-fhlaitheas na Questràilia
(Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Questralia)

Say what? we never signed this vile document, we feel you do not protect sentients and infact are condemning quite a few of them to a life of servitude because only "humans" deserve to live free, to own their own destinies *rants* ...

Whatever, I misread your post. And you hold the dumbest postion I have ever heard. Are animals self-conscious? Can animals make moral judgements? Can animals fulfill their obligation to society? To quote Judge Richard Posner, "Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition," or supposed sentience, "much is lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument."

Whatever, I misread your post. And you hold the dumbest postion I have ever heard. Are animals self-conscious? Can animals make moral judgements? Can animals fulfill their obligation to society? To quote Judge Richard Posner, "Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition," or supposed sentience, "much is lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument."OOC: He wonders why people hate furries.

For Greenland

X President Rurik Jager of the Federal Republic of Greenland

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c381/crave22/Cravanian%20Flags/newflagsizedown.png

Office of the First Minister of Cravan
Official Communique of Her Majesty's Government


By permission of the Parliament of the Eastern Kingdom, and Royal Assent from Her Majesty Alice of Cravan, the Eastern Havenic Kingdom does hereby swear itself to and ratify the aforementioned articles of the Lantol Accord, and does declare itself to be in full compliance with the ideals and stipulations of the Accord. May Liberty's Light shine eternally.

Signed,

http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk333/herebeawesomestuff/Signatures/annadale-signature.png
The Right Honorable Elizabeth M. K. Annadale, Ph.D., OCE
First Minister of the Eastern Havenic Kingdom

By Order of the Wolfenhaller Federal Assembly,

The Liberal Democratic Republic accepts the agreement.

Signed,
Wolfram Kessler
President of The Senate
The Liberal Democratic Republic of Wolfenhalle

Official Statement of the Armed Republic, State Department

The Armed Republic cannot in good conscious, become a signatory of this document. General Consul to the Republic has decreed that several articles of the Lanto Accord violate Ennuisian Law.

Article I violates several anti-"furry" statues and court rulings on the matter. The choice of the word "human" is unfortunate, as "furries" and other genetic aberrations are considered to have a mutation of the human genome that must be eradicated for the benefit of mankind. While no furries are known to exist in the Armed Republic any longer, should one exist, their "rights" would be conceivably protected by this article.

Article II is a violation of the fundamental right to contract, and would require that several communist agitators held in various faciliites be released.


Article III presents an imminent threat to national security, if ratified.

Article IV presents an imminent threat to national security and the state of preparedness for the Ennuisian Army/Navy.

Article V violates the ban (in the biblical sense) on Furries, steps taken against communist agitation, and would nullify the peace treaty of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Ennuisian Civil War.

Yours Most Truly,
Klara Mykhaila
Director, State Department
"Fear Ensures Loyalty!"
"All Glory to the Hypnotoad!"

Federation of Cukarica hereby signs "The Lantol Accord" as i despises slavery in every form,and our moral and ethical reasons allow us so.

Yours truly,
President Srecko Ilic