Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tenages

Statement Regarding Sovereignty and the WA

55 posts in this topic

rK7C7.png

"Together We Stand"

Statement Regarding Sovereignty and the World Assembly

I. Affirmation of Sovereignty

The Seven Kingdoms claims complete sovereignty over itself. It is sovereign in all matters, both internal and international. It relinquishes no rights, and rejects all claims by any body or organization to authority over it. It recognizes no ‘international laws’ or claims to international authority.

II. Declaration of Non-Recognition

The World Assembly represents an obvious, direct threat and challenge to the sovereignty of the Seven Kingdoms. It clearly falls afoul of the Affirmation of Sovereignty in Section I of this document. It offends the most dearly held principle of our alliance.

As such, The Seven Kingdoms withdraws from the World Assembly. We will not be participating in it any longer. Furthermore we do not acknowledge the legitimacy of any decisions taken by the World Assembly. Any such decisions are not binding on The Seven Kingdoms and shall be ignored.

Furthermore, military (“Peacekeeping”) operations of any kind undertaken by the World Assembly against The Seven Kingdoms shall be considered an act of war. Any nations or alliances that participates in such measures shall from that moment forward be at war with The Seven Kingdoms and shall be responded too as such.

Sanctions of any other type, whether economic or otherwise, shall also be considered as overt hostile acts against The Seven Kingdoms. Any nation or alliance participating in such sanctions will be considered an enemy of The Seven Kingdoms. Such acts constitute a valid casus belli. These acts will be responded to with any measures The Seven Kingdoms deems appropriate, up to and including war.

III. Statement of Support

The Seven Kingdoms also declares our support for our friends The Meritocracy of Guardian in the position they have taken on this issue. It takes courage to be the first alliance to step forward and make such a proclamation. We further support the absolute sovereignty of every alliance, and encourage all to proclaim their independence from any external apparatuses of control.

Signed

KzG9B.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with people here and refusing to recognize the WA based on what it is when even the WA doesn't know what it is yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the WA is fast becoming irrelevant, just like in real life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like the WA is fast becoming irrelevant, just like in real life...

Kinda more than a little annoying, since if people would stop splitting completely to "It doesn't have enough power" and "It has too much power," it could actually be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it with people here and refusing to recognize the WA based on what it is when even the WA doesn't know what it is yet?

As I stated in my statement of exiting the WA... this phrase... killed it:

"*All Member states should carry out diplomacy with respect to international laws and with the recognition that

international laws reign supreme over national ones."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it with people here and refusing to recognize the WA based on what it is when even the WA doesn't know what it is yet?

It's because we don't care what the WA is, it still infringes on our sovereignty. Honestly we don't expect the WA to amount to much. But we're making our official policy known so that no matter what happens with the WA, we're on record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I stated in my statement of exiting the WA... this phrase... killed it:

"*All Member states should carry out diplomacy with respect to international laws and with the recognition that

international laws reign supreme over national ones."

Yah, I don't personally support most of the stuff that Mahaj says. It annoys me that he has so much influence.

It's because we don't care what the WA is, it still infringes on our sovereignty. Honestly we don't expect the WA to amount to much. But we're making our official policy known so that no matter what happens with the WA, we're on record.

You're assuming what it is is something that infringes on your sovereignty. Personally, I'd like to see the WA evolve into something that only steps in when needed.

Giant alliance stepping on little ones, or even unaligned nations, that can't defend themselves. WA steps in.

Alliance is pumping pollution into the oceans and atmosphere. WA steps in.

Maybe other situations too, but the point is that the WA should only step in and take any real action when the alliances/nations on any side of any type of conflict can't handle it themselves. (Unless it's the initial instigator that can't handle it.)

As of res. 4, nations have absolute sovereignty. Alliances should get that same sovereignty, and there's still a chance they could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I stated in my statement of exiting the WA... this phrase... killed it:

"*All Member states should carry out diplomacy with respect to international laws and with the recognition that

international laws reign supreme over national ones."

Yah, I don't personally support most of the stuff that Mahaj says. It annoys me that he has so much influence.

It's because we don't care what the WA is, it still infringes on our sovereignty. Honestly we don't expect the WA to amount to much. But we're making our official policy known so that no matter what happens with the WA, we're on record.

You're assuming what it is is something that infringes on your sovereignty. Personally, I'd like to see the WA evolve into something that only steps in when needed.

Giant alliance stepping on little ones, or even unaligned nations, that can't defend themselves. WA steps in.

Alliance is pumping pollution into the oceans and atmosphere. WA steps in.

Maybe other situations too, but the point is that the WA should only step in and take any real action when the alliances/nations on any side of any type of conflict can't handle it themselves. (Unless it's the initial instigator that can't handle it.)

As of res. 4, nations have absolute sovereignty. Alliances should get that same sovereignty, and there's still a chance they could.

Well in that case, the WA is just like a giant alliance. And we'd be treating it the same way we do any other alliance, which is kind of the point of this statement. We don't recognize any other alliances decisions as binding on us. If that alliance wants to try to enforce them militarily or in some other way, they're more than welcome to do so, but we'll respond in kind. We reject the idea that they are an internationally binding organization or have any more legal or moral authority than any other alliance.

And unless I misunderstand Res 4, it only applies to internal sovereignty. Our declaration specifically states that we claim sovereignty in our international actions as well. We don't recognize anyones authority to regulate our alliance in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much a regular alliance as an umbrella over-alliance, since entire alliances would be inside it.

Internal affairs of alliances, including international affairs between members of the alliance, should be out of the WA's jurisdiction.

External affairs would fall under the WA's jurisdiction, but no action would be taken in most cases. To give a particular example of when action would not be taken, if a member of an alliance attacks a non-member, the WA will look that direction. If the alliance in question takes action against the attacking nation, or if the attack is justified due to treaty violation or some such, the WA should not act. The WA should only act if there is no justifiable cause for the attack and the alliance sits on its hands and lets it happen.

Should a big alliance be free to wreck smaller ones? Do you see your alliance doing that in the future? Cause to be honest, if the WA turns out how it should, that'd be one of the few real reasons to reject it outright.

Now if the WA goes the way Mahaj wants it too, I'll reject it outright too. But it hasn't gone any way yet.

You're making an official statement regarding something that isn't officially anything yet. Ridiculously premature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who support the World Assembly are missing the point.

The WA, by its very nature, needs to have the cooperation of every alliance in order to not infringe on anyone's sovereign rights. I can speak for Guardian when I say we will not come to the WA to negotiate with any other alliance for any purpose. We simply have no interest in being part of any sort of World Assembly. Period. I'm sure this announcement is essentially saying the same thing of SK.

If Guardian wishes to cooperate, coordinate or negotiate with other alliances, we will do so with their leadership, not some feature coded into the game and forced upon us by Admin and the mods who lead it strictly to serve their own egos. That is what this comes down to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It (ideally) infringes on your sovereignty exactly as much as being in alliance in the first place does.

It's one thing to opt out of the WA just because you don't want a part in it. That's just like not being in an alliance cause you don't feel like it.

My issue is that you're both refusing to recognize it completely and accusing it of being a threat, when it's not anything yet. It's a potential threat, yes, but only so much as any unknown!

Honestly, you guys are so gung ho about sovereignty, if the issue really were sovereignty rather than not feeling like it, then I'd personally love to have you lot involved in the WA so you can help make sure it doesn't grow to infringe on sovereignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who support the World Assembly are missing the point.

The WA, by its very nature, needs to have the cooperation of every alliance in order to not infringe on anyone's sovereign rights. I can speak for Guardian when I say we will not come to the WA to negotiate with any other alliance for any purpose. We simply have no interest in being part of any sort of World Assembly. Period. I'm sure this announcement is essentially saying the same thing of SK.

If Guardian wishes to cooperate, coordinate or negotiate with other alliances, we will do so with their leadership, not some feature coded into the game and forced upon us by Admin and the mods who lead it strictly to serve their own egos. That is what this comes down to.

Exactly this. The WA by it's nature. claims to possess some degree of power over alliances. We reject that claim outright. We will never negotiate or participate with it in any form, because we don't recognize that any organization has power above the alliance level. We will negotiate with alliance's directly. Period.

Not so much a regular alliance as an umbrella over-alliance, since entire alliances would be inside it.

Internal affairs of alliances, including international affairs between members of the alliance, should be out of the WA's jurisdiction.

External affairs would fall under the WA's jurisdiction, but no action would be taken in most cases.

Again, this is why we reject the WA. No organization has jurisdiction over any affairs we are involved in, besides us and the other other alliance(s) directly involved.

It (ideally) infringes on your sovereignty exactly as much as being in alliance in the first place does.

Then it is absolutely unnecessary and should be scrapped. The fact is by it's very nature it does more than that. The WA is an over-arching organization above the alliance level. It claims there are "international laws" and it interprets (by whatever means, it doesn't matter) who has violated those or whose "external actions" are wrong. No alliance does that. It maintains it's own laws and doesn't say they are "international" in some way.

To call the WA an alliance is ridiculous. If it's a World Assembly it's more than that. And if it isn't more than that then it should be scrapped as being an irrelevancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All 23 nations! :panic:

But, um, seriously, that one clause in resolution 3 got complaints, but nobody has tried, y'know, amending it.

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly this. The WA by it's nature. claims to possess some degree of power over alliances. We reject that claim outright. We will never negotiate or participate with it in any form, because we don't recognize that any organization has power above the alliance level. We will negotiate with alliance's directly. Period.

For the most part, that's how it should be, even with the WA in existence. Even if you're a part of it.

Not so much a regular alliance as an umbrella over-alliance, since entire alliances would be inside it.

Internal affairs of alliances, including international affairs between members of the alliance, should be out of the WA's jurisdiction.

External affairs would fall under the WA's jurisdiction, but no action would be taken in most cases. To give a particular example of when action would not be taken, if a member of an alliance attacks a non-member, the WA will look that direction. If the alliance in question takes action against the attacking nation, or if the attack is justified due to treaty violation or some such, the WA should not act. The WA should only act if there is no justifiable cause for the attack and the alliance sits on its hands and lets it happen. Inter-alliance affairs will not be touched unless one of the alliances in question was attacked without provocation and cannot defend itself due to difference in size.

Again, this is why we reject the WA. No organization has jurisdiction over any affairs we are involved in, besides us and the other other alliance(s) directly involved.

Went ahead and over-emphasized the more important point in the nested quote, and extended my statement with what I thought was obvious.

It (ideally) infringes on your sovereignty exactly as much as being in alliance in the first place does.

Then it is absolutely unnecessary and should be scrapped. The fact is by it's very nature it does more than that. The WA is an over-arching organization above the alliance level. It claims there are "international laws" and it interprets (by whatever means, it doesn't matter) who has violated those or whose "external actions" are wrong. No alliance does that. It maintains it's own laws and doesn't say they are "international" in some way.

To call the WA an alliance is ridiculous. If it's a World Assembly it's more than that. And if it isn't more than that then it should be scrapped as being an irrelevancy.

Again, what does an alliance do, simply? It provides protection for member nations and requires military assistance in return.

What should the WA do? It should provide protection for member alliances and unaligned nations and require military assistance in return.

Alliances do claim international laws pertaining to members. If one member attacks another, what happens? They're regarded as a rogue, expelled from the alliance, and attacked. I'd say alliances exactly do interpret who has violated their laws and who's external actions are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, um, seriously, that one clause in resolution 3 got complaints, but nobody has tried, y'know, amending it.

Cause the WA is still a jumbled mess of not really anything yet. As I've said over and over as being the main reason to not judge it prematurely.

Also, it seemed to me part of the intention of res. 4 was to clarify that international laws of the WA do not reign supreme concerning nations' internal affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alliances do claim international laws pertaining to members. If one member attacks another, what happens? They're regarded as a rogue, expelled from the alliance, and attacked. I'd say alliances exactly do interpret who has violated their laws and who's external actions are wrong.

Sure they do. Within their alliance they regulate member actions. But most alliances (and we certainly) reject the idea that any body other than the alliance itself can tell its members what to do. The WA claims the right to do that. More than that, it claims the right to regulate alliance behavior as a whole. Our position is and always will be that no one can tell the SK or SK members what to or regulate their actions except the SK itself. Not the WA, not anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alliances do claim international laws pertaining to members. If one member attacks another, what happens? They're regarded as a rogue, expelled from the alliance, and attacked. I'd say alliances exactly do interpret who has violated their laws and who's external actions are wrong.

Sure they do. Within their alliance they regulate member actions. But most alliances (and we certainly) reject the idea that any body other than the alliance itself can tell its members what to do. The WA claims the right to do that. More than that, it claims the right to regulate alliance behavior as a whole. Our position is and always will be that no one can tell the SK or SK members what to or regulate their actions except the SK itself. Not the WA, not anybody.

Please read and process my entire post. It'll make this discussion go a lot faster.

The WA, in it's final form, should not tell alliance members what to do. Alliance members are under the jurisdiction of their alliance, which should trump the WA within alliance borders. An alliance's internal affairs should be handled by the alliance.

As I've said, the WA should only stop massive alliances from crushing smaller ones without provocation, just as it should stop massive, unaligned nations from slaughtering small, unaligned nations. In the eyes of the WA, alliances should appear as super-massive nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I understand what you're saying. Summed up, you say alliances regulate their nations and the WA regulates alliances (albeit in your view in very limited circumstances.)

What we are saying is that we utterly reject that idea that any group has the authority to regulate the behavior of alliances. If alliance behavior reaches the point that it's untenable, other alliances or a group thereof will organically rise up to stop them. If smaller alliances are afraid, they can seek the protection of a larger alliance.

The WA by it's very existence, claims the right to regulate to some degree the behavior of SK and every other alliance. We are stating the we don't recognize that authority and never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If alliance behavior reaches the point that it's untenable, other alliances or a group thereof will organically rise up to stop them. If smaller alliances are afraid, they can seek the protection of a larger alliance.

The WA should react more quickly than an as-yet-unformed group of alliances.

The pre-existence of the WA will serve as deterrent to, as another member put it, ass-hattery.

Smaller alliances shouldn't be required to seek protection from a larger alliance, especially because of the chance of payment requested for protection. The WA would protect for free.

All it is, or should be anyway, is the nations and alliances of Terra being ready to serve the good of the world as a whole when needed, instead of only being focused on themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it is, or should be anyway, is the nations and alliances of Terra being ready to serve the good of the world as a whole when needed, instead of only being focused on themselves.

And this is why we'll never agree. That is absolutely not the responsibility of alliances. They have no obligations to some undefinable, and arbitrary "good of the world as a whole." They serve their own "good" and needs. Should those coincide with the goals of other people, great. If not, too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it is, or should be anyway, is the nations and alliances of Terra being ready to serve the good of the world as a whole when needed, instead of only being focused on themselves.

And this is why we'll never agree. That is absolutely not the responsibility of alliances. They have no obligations to some undefinable, and arbitrary "good of the world as a whole." They serve their own "good" and needs. Should those coincide with the goals of other people, great. If not, too bad.

It's also not really your responsibility to help out your neighborhood. But is a neighborhood nicer if everyone takes it upon themselves to do a little community service? Absolutely.

Ever looked at evolution, both biological and societal? Notice the trend to bigger groups? Single cells to multi cells up to humans which are kinda like structures consisting of multiple alliances of different types of cells. You know, there's the liver alliance, the heart alliance, etc. Then it keeps going from individual humans to close families to clans to tribes to villages/towns/cities to metropolitan areas to counties to states to nations to - what's the next logical step? - continents! Then the world as a whole, so when the aliens come we are unified instead of bickering amongst ourselves.

Where does most of humanity get off being so hypocritical as to say to their group mates "We need to work together for the good of the group!" then looking at another group of human beings and saying "You suck! We're not gonna work with you, and we may even attack and try to kill you!"? Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it is, or should be anyway, is the nations and alliances of Terra being ready to serve the good of the world as a whole when needed, instead of only being focused on themselves.

And this is why we'll never agree. That is absolutely not the responsibility of alliances. They have no obligations to some undefinable, and arbitrary "good of the world as a whole." They serve their own "good" and needs. Should those coincide with the goals of other people, great. If not, too bad.

It's also not really your responsibility to help out your neighborhood. But is a neighborhood nicer if everyone takes it upon themselves to do a little community service? Absolutely.

Ever looked at evolution, both biological and societal? Notice the trend to bigger groups? Single cells to multi cells up to humans which are kinda like structures consisting of multiple alliances of different types of cells. You know, there's the liver alliance, the heart alliance, etc. Then it keeps going from individual humans to close families to clans to tribes to villages/towns/cities to metropolitan areas to counties to states to nations to - what's the next logical step? - continents! Then the world as a whole, so when the aliens come we are unified instead of bickering amongst ourselves.

Where does most of humanity get off being so hypocritical as to say to their group mates "We need to work together for the good of the group!" then looking at another group of human beings and saying "You suck! We're not gonna work with you, and we may even attack and try to kill you!"? Huh?

You're last paragraph basically outlines what will happen to the WA. Alliances will never agree on what to do and how to handle certain situations. There will be attempts in which certain Alliance's will try and control the WA. You act as if it is possible for every nation and Alliance in this game to drop differences and work together at all times. It's simply not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're last paragraph basically outlines what will happen to the WA. Alliances will never agree on what to do and how to handle certain situations. There will be attempts in which certain Alliance's will try and control the WA. You act as if it is possible for every nation and Alliance in this game to drop differences and work together at all times. It's simply not possible.

How'd you miss that I was saying it's that attitude that's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're last paragraph basically outlines what will happen to the WA. Alliances will never agree on what to do and how to handle certain situations. There will be attempts in which certain Alliance's will try and control the WA. You act as if it is possible for every nation and Alliance in this game to drop differences and work together at all times. It's simply not possible.

How'd you miss that I was saying it's that attitude that's the problem?

It's exactly that attitude that is the problem, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0