Osiris Fraternal Order

Posted: **Thu May 15, 2014 3:48 pm**

I can agree in regard to the seven days notice, but if it's a problem for The East Pacific it's not a deal breaker, for me at least.

Article V, Section 2 should be seen as binding on the signatory governments. By agreeing not to disclose intelligence provided by the other party, it is the governments that are agreeing. Should the Pharaoh or intelligence official then disclose the information to the rest of the Hedjet, for example, and a Scribe then discloses it to someone he should not, that would fall under Unlawful Disclosure in our Criminal Codex and would in fact be punishable. So, essentially, if the Pharaoh violates this provision there is no legal recourse here (besides recall) but the legal recourse for TEP would be withdrawal from the treaty. If the Pharaoh discloses it to his Hedjet and a Scribe discloses it, that is in fact covered by our laws. I don't see this provision as at all legally problematic, for that reason.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 3:24 pm**

I think Treize is more concerned with TEP's laws.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 4:12 pm**

I would like to state my support for this treaty.

Historically, relations between Osiris and the East Pacific have been contentious due to our past membership and government including Empire members, several events in the past such as the "Osiris Empire", (which was, I'm told intended to be permanent but the reaction that the Government got from The East Pacific and others put paid to that plan) and their concern at the influence that Biyah and co had within the system.

As a region whose system is built from the ruins of the Empire occupation in 2008, they were extraordinarily concerned at the damage displayed in the region from December 2012's Empire coup, plus the constant open battles after those events between the Government and Empire. I held frequent discussions with members of their government during 2013, and A Mean Old Man explained his reasoning quite thoroughly (and politely, which was a surprise after seeing the exchanges between him, Earth and Biyah). Later on in the year after Bach's first electoral victory when the OFO was established, both Venico and I spoke to Bach to explain the state of Osiris and the reasons for the breakaway, Brotherhood of Malice enforced border control and the subsequent creation of the OFO.

When The East Pacific became aware that Osiris was now free of Empire influence, relations immediately took an upturn, as did our relations with The West Pacific, showing just how damaging their influence had been on our foreign policy and greater feeder-sinker cooperation that previous governments had hoped to achieve.

Before long, we reopened in-game embassies with the East Pacific, after they recognised the OFO almost instantly upon its foundation, and I am happy to call Bach a good friend of mine and one of the true neutral diplomats that I have had the pleasure of working with, both as a Diplomat in NationStates but also as a member of the Osiran Government, past or present.

In the last few months alone we have already seen unheard of cooperation between our military and the EPSA. That alone is substantial as I do not recall us ever working together under the Kemetic Republic, coupled with their concerns about undue influence in our regional government it explains a lot about which impeded our relations in the past.

So as a member of the Deshret, it would give me great pleasure to vote aye to this treaty, and as someone who has served Osiris both as Pharaoh and Minister of Foreign Affairs, it delights me that we are finally seeing two natural allies, survivors and conquerors of Empire being united in friendship, and unity is not before its time.

Posted: **Sun May 18, 2014 1:58 am**

Looks good to me. The only thing I don't like is in 4.1 and 4.4 having the other in between any provision.

1. The signatories agree that they will respect the sovereign right of each signatory's official military forces to undertake any military operation that does not violate any other provision of this treaty.

4. The signatories agree to recognize that the military forces of each signatory are independent forces, and may engage on opposite sides of a military operation. Such opposing operations shall not be construed as acts of hostility or aggression unless resulting in a violation of any other provision of this treaty.

Posted: **Sun May 18, 2014 2:05 am**

If I might inquire, what is your objection to the word "Other"?

Posted: **Sun May 18, 2014 2:19 am**

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Thu May 15, 2014 10:50 amI definitely like the idea of a treaty with TEP, just a couple of quibbles with the language here.

First of all the guarantee to maintain ingame embassies in II-2 might be a problem if the region is invaded and the delegacy taken(on either side). Dissolution of the ingame embassy, which could be outside our power to prevent shouldn't be a treaty violation. That should probably read "2. The signatories agree to open and make a good faith effort to maintain in-game and off-site forum embassies with each other."

Second, and this problem comes up in almost any treaty outlining intelligence sharing and the problems with leaks. There is nothing guaranteeing a prosecution by our laws if someone shares Intelligence from TEP with an outside source. There is some legal mumbo jumbo we could muster saying the government official responsible for authorizing the intel being distributed is the TEP source... but really it oughta be explicit in the treaty(like in the TNI treaty).

It's going to be difficult to get the language right since TEP and us probably have espionage defined differently... but even just guaranteeing that "the appropriate laws will be applied" is probably good enough.

Finally... I'm not sure I'm a fan of a 7 day notice for dissolution of a treaty. If we have cause to dissolve the treaty... it's probably an immediate thing. There's no virtue to a delay.

Anyway, that's my two cents on it. Ultimately I really hope we pass this treaty... I just want to make sure we get it right.

Treize, to your first point, the signatories are the official governments, so during a coup if the embassies are closed, it's not a violation of the treaty.

To your second point, There is a criminal code being drafted in TEP, but I will suggest that change.

To your final point, I feel like the 7 day thing is a good faith effort to try to save the treaty if at all possible through diplomacy. Is that a deal breaker for you?

Posted: **Sun May 18, 2014 2:35 am**

Added Article V.3

The East Pacific - Osiris Treaty of Amity wrote:Foreword

Recognizing the potential for a great and lasting bond and affirming their belief in common understanding and respect between Feeders and Sinkers, The East Pacific and Osiris, hereafter referred to as "the signatories", agree to and declare the following treaty;

Article I - Mutual recognition
1. The signatories recognize the governments established by the Concordat of The East Pacific and the State Code of Osiris, and any legally enacted successor governments, as the legitimate governments of The East Pacific and Osiris.
2. The signatories recognize each other’s legitimate governments as sovereign entities.
3. The signatories recognize the Sekhmet Legion as the official independent military of the region of Osiris, and the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army as the official independent military of The East Pacific for the purposes of this treaty.

Article II - Diplomatic Relations
1. The signatories guarantee continuing diplomatic relations with each other.
2. The signatories agree to open and maintain in-game and off-site forum embassies with each other.

Article III - Mutual Defense
1. The signatories agree not to invade signatory home regions nor to undertake any military action aimed at the overthrow of the signatories' legitimate governments.
2. The signatories agree to provide mutual defense to each other, when requested by either the chief executives or the most senior military officials of the signatories' legitimate governments.
3. Defense may include providing in-game World Assembly endorsements to the signatories' legitimate Delegates, Vice Delegates, and/or The East Pacific’s Viziers or Osiris’ Guardians of Atef, as applicable and whenever possible, as well as verbal declarations of support by the chief executives or the most senior foreign affairs officials of the signatories' legitimate governments.

Article IV - Military Cooperation
1. The signatories agree that they will respect the sovereign right of each signatory's official military forces to undertake any military operation that does not violate any provision of this treaty.
2. The signatories agree in principle to military cooperation, provided that such cooperation does not violate their own laws or established executive and/or military policies and provided that the operation is deemed mutually beneficial by the relevant executive and/or military official(s) of both signatories.
3. Neither signatory is obligated to participate in any operation, excluding mutual defense operations as described above, that includes other military forces.
4. The signatories agree to recognize that the military forces of each signatory are independent forces, and may engage on opposite sides of a military operation. Such opposing operations shall not be construed as acts of hostility or aggression unless resulting in a violation of any provision of this treaty.

Article V - Intelligence
1.The signatories agree to inform the chief executives or most senior intelligence officials of the signatories' legitimate governments of any threat to the security of the in-game regions or off-site forums of the signatories, immediately upon becoming aware of the threat.
2. The signatories agree that any shared intelligence will be kept confidential unless permission to disclose the information is explicitly granted by the chief executive of the signatory relaying the information.
3. Signatories will ensure that any violators of Article V Section 2 will be held accountable to the applicable laws in their respective regions.
4. Neither signatory will, directly or indirectly, initiate or participate in espionage against the other signatory.

Article VI - Culture
1. The signatories agree to allow the in-game and off-site promotion of the signatories' cultural events, including but not necessarily limited to role play, games, and educational activities.
2. The signatories agree to cooperate in organizing and hosting joint cultural events.

Article VII - Dissolution
1. Either signatory may withdraw from this treaty after providing notice in the embassy maintained on the other signatory's off-site forum at least seven days prior to the withdrawal.
2. The signatories agree to undertake all reasonable effort to seek diplomatic solutions to problems that may arise between the signatories before withdrawing from this treaty.

Article VIII - Officials
1. Upon ratification of this treaty, the signatories will provide a list of the various officials noted in this treaty and will promptly notify each other when new officials are elected or appointed.

Posted: **Sun May 18, 2014 1:07 pm**

Severisen wrote:Sun May 18, 2014 7:05 amIf I might inquire, what is your objection to the word "Other"?

Fore me it is an English language thing with my professional background. In this case it would be best to use just any instead of any other. When you use any other it separates the provision from the rest. It would in my opinion be best to have all provisions be inclusive.

This is really just a pet peeve of mine.

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2014 6:02 am**

Hile's Edit was now included. Can we move on this then?

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2014 7:28 am**

I motion this to vote.