[Min Foreign] Treaty with Talossa and Carcosa

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

As per El lex
2.6.4. Any Treaty or agreements with any nation, micronation or organisation, that
a) has the force of law in Talossa;
b) relates to the official recognition of a foreign nation; or
c) relates to forming or joining any sort of alliance with another nation or micronation,
will only be valid upon ratification by the Ziu.

I present to the Ziu the agreed treaty between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Kingdom of Carcosa for ratification. So I ask that the Secretary of State @Sir Lüc to include this in the July (or next) Clark with the exact text as follows for the Ziu to ratify the treaty.

The treaty is as follows:-

"Be is resolved by our joint respective governments, that The Kingdom of Talossa and the Kingdom of Carcosa by ratification in our respective governments do hereby declare in this joint treaty:-

1. The kingdoms of Talossa and Carcosa (from now on referred to as Talossa and Carcosa respectively) do formally recognise each others sovereignty for as long as our respective governments consent
2. Each nation of Talossa and Carcosa shall set up "Embassies" and appoint ambassadors to represent our nations, and to create a point of contact for each nation. Whilst formally maintaining diplomatic relations
3. Talossa and Carcosa shall look into mutual projects and cooperation on a case by case basis, and shall present such agreements to our respective governments approval

Be it resolved that this is ratified upon passage of both our respective governments.


Signed on behalf of Talossa by:-

His Majesty King Txec of Talossa
Txec R

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Talossa

On behalf of Carcosa:-

Hastyr Aldebaran
His Majesty the King in Yellow of Carcosa

Cormac KT
Secretary of State of Carcosa"


Should the Ziu ratify this treaty, and Carcosa's government does the same, the treaty shall come into force.

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Minister of Foreign Affairs

(As this is not legislation and isn't something that can easily be amended without reopening negotiations, I do not believe under the law this needs to go to the hopper, but it is something that requires a vote in the Ziu hence asking the SoS to Clark this on the next available Clark)

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

2. Each nation of Talossa and Carcosa shall set up "Embassies" and appoint ambassadors to represent our nations, and to create a point of contact for each nation. Whilst formally maintaining diplomatic relations

I'm unable to find a website for Carcosa just a Discord link. Where would the embassies be located?

[King Txec]

https://carcosa.cc/

-Txec R

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

https://carcosa.cc/

-Txec R

Perfect, thanks.
Edited to add, it is a bare but beautiful site.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

2. Each nation of Talossa and Carcosa shall set up "Embassies" and appoint ambassadors to represent our nations, and to create a point of contact for each nation. Whilst formally maintaining diplomatic relations

I'm unable to find a website for Carcosa just a Discord link. Where would the embassies be located?

This is something that we shall discuss with Carcosa once this treaty is ratified (should it be ratified)

And as per their operations this is a quote from their Mandator (head of government) on their operations for transparency

" I'd like to clarify that our micronation is not solely represented by our Discord server—it serves more as an outreach platform. Our true governance, territory, and land management take place within the core of our micronation. Please understand that any inactivity you might observe on the server doesn't reflect the full scope of our operations, as we focus on real-world matters that demand our attention."

So location of an embassy would need further discussion as I have earlier stated

[Sir Lüc]

I do not agree that "items that are not legislation" should skip the Hopper. The Hopper does contain items that do not have the force of law - Senses of the Ziu are the easiest example of a resolution that doesn't seek to make or amend legislation.

In any case, this is not even a nonbinding resolution, as its passage is not inconsequential (on the contrary, it is required) for the treaty to take effect.

As such, a simple resolution adopting the treaty will need to be Hoppered, same as any other item on the Clark. It might skip the CRL according to Lexh.H.2.1.2.2, depending on its interpretation.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

I do not agree that "items that are not legislation" should skip the Hopper. The Hopper does contain items that do not have the force of law - Senses of the Ziu are the easiest example of a resolution that doesn't seek to make or amend legislation.

In any case, this is not even a nonbinding resolution, as its passage is not inconsequential (on the contrary, it is required) for the treaty to take effect.

As such, a simple resolution adopting the treaty will need to be Hoppered, same as any other item on the Clark. It might skip the CRL according to Lexh.H.2.1.2.2, depending on its interpretation.

The reason I believe that this is something that is something that shouldn't need to be hoppered isn't because it "isn't legislation" but due to the section of law I quoted at the start. The treaty only requires ratification from the Ziu. Which is a different process than senses of the Ziu or legislation. Also I have already stated that this isn't something that the text of the treaty can be changed one sidedly. But yeah all that i understand that needs to happen is that the Ziu approves of the treaty by a ratifying the treaty. As it is specifically mentioned in a section of its own in law. Which only says it needs to be "ratified" by the Ziu, which is the reason I believe it is legally different than items than need to be hoppered,

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

However if after my above explaination the SoS still thinks it needs to be hoppered, although I personally would disagree, I will hopper it as the SoS asks (although I also think that getting an objective legal advice from the Cort on this might be useful for the future so we have a clear answer on what is required by law) and hopper this as asked.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If this treaty needs ratification, then it must legally have "force of law," right (Lexh.D2.6.4)?  So then Sir Luc would definitely be right that this should be Hoppered.  If it's not possible to amend it, then you could simply decline to approve any proposed changes, and try to get it through anyway.

It is pretty unclear, though.  Our legislative system was designed almost exclusively with legislating in mind, and so almost everything is treated as a "legislative proposal," even when that doesn't make sense.

[Sir Lüc]

Yeah, I think I was a little unclear in my answer, or rather, I answered a different question.

The main point here is that only Resolutions of the Ziu (RZs, or the rare RS/RC) can go on the Clark. RZs are essentially a vehicle for everything from legislation to nonbinding resolutions to nominations. Other macronational
legislatures treat all of these separately - the US has bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, a whole separate legislative/executive session system for the Senate to handle nominations, etc, which are all treated and numbered separately.

We don't have that - we only have RZs. The treaty cannot be Clarked as it is not a RZ, but all it takes is a simple resolution acknowledging it and stating the Ziu resolves to ratify it. Such a RZ would, of course, need to be Hoppered as with any other. Note that the treaty itself would probably be unamendable, and doesn't strictly need to be a part of the resolution itself.

Whether our system needs to be changed to explicitly handle different kinds of items is not the point here, though I would disagree anyway because it is simple enough for our needs and works reasonably well; the point is that, having estabilished what our current system is, we need to follow it and not bend it for this one exception.

[Sir Lüc]

(Apologies for the delay - I've been traveling for work and attempted to type this response on mobile earlier, but I accidentally lost all work midway through and didn't have time to re-type it again anymore. I chatted with the King earlier so, by the presence of the resolution I suggested in the Hopper, he may already have communicated my full stance to the MinFor anyway.)