Following a recent series of letters on Atamara, I'm curious how other players deal with treaties. Do you put much work into the wording or do you leave it more open-ended and fill in the gaps as time goes?
My style has always been to write a treaty as deliberately as possible, planning for the future and the present all at once. It's rare to not have an agenda when making a treaty. Even so, it's not possible to see every application or possible conflict and various improvisational choices have to be made. To me, that's where creativity and roleplaying kick in: Finding that loophole and trying to exploit it make for perfect opportunities to not only start a flurry of character interactions, but also for personal character development. Of course, the downside to this is that the arguments sound like lawyers speaking- an event which few find fun.
Another style I commonly see is just working off the "spirit" of the treaty. This approach may also plan for the future and present, but often the wording is just semantics and the wording is meant to convey a general idea, not necessarily the hard-and-fast ruling. When a conflict comes up, the two sides often just agree on a way to handle it that seems most in-line with the original intent of the treaty. This makes the treaty easier to deal with because it is much more adaptable to various situations that arise.
For a more concrete example, let's use the common passage rights clause. (This is only an example, I don't want to drag the Atamara case to the forums. This is intended to be more general and obvious.) Realm A and Realm B write in a treaty: "Realm A and Realm B shall not allow troops to attack over their respective borders." In my style, I might claim a loophole is to allow travel through my realm (let's say Realm A) into Realm C and from Realm C, those troops can attack. Technically, with the wording, this is valid. On the other hand, I'll admit, it probably defeats the purpose of the treaty. A more fluid approach to treaties might suggest that when this issue arises, Realm A and Realm B mutually agree to force troops to circumnavigate their realms if they would like to attack the other signatory.
Maybe your style is completely different. A hybrid? Do you treat military treaty clauses differently than trading treaty clauses? (For example, are you more lenient when setting prices between realms?) Do your styles differ by character (mine do, but only one has been involved in interpreting/writing treaties)?
As I said, I would rather this not develop into various discussions about specific incidents or situations. I'm much more interested in the perception of treaties on a macro OOC level.
IC: For a vast majority of my characters that I've played. I interpret treaties by the word of the treaty...unless it benefits me to not do so. Then I'll argue about the spirit of the treaty.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on December 24, 2012, 10:33:12 AM
IC: For a vast majority of my characters that I've played. I interpret treaties by the word of the treaty...unless it benefits me to not do so. Then I'll argue about the spirit of the treaty.
Same here. More or less comes down to what the most beneficial way of interpreting is.
This really depends IC on the situation and the character. And just why any Treaty may fall short. You can follow the spirit of the Treaty if your characters desire it, you also can call anyone that doesn't dishonourable bastards. It also depends on how other Realms interpret the Treaty. And you get a situation where both sides think they are in the right for the other breaking the Treaty, good times :)
This is just very situation-sensitive depending on relations between both Realms, diplomatic stance on the Continent, character, and how and why the Treaty was written etc. etc. etc.
Depends on if you want the treaty to last.
If you do, you might want a more elaboate but flexible one, whereas if you don't, you might want a simpler and more rigid (which won't make people feel bad for breaking) or vague (which people will feel like they can do whatever without breaking) one.
When I made peace treaties with Mesh, Sint, Heen, and Hetland, as ruler of Enweil (I may not have personally signed all of these treaties), I intentionally left some tings out, made others vague, and made other points very explicit. Because long-term peace was not my objective.
Wow, you are all much bigger snakes than Ravendon. :P
In any case, a treaty is only as useful or important as people care for it. The Treaty of the Maroccidens, for example, has a lot of articles, a lot of flexibility, but most importantly, paved the way for a guild to be created. An official vessel of communication, combined with a privileged channel for concertation, goes a long way to consolidate an alliance.
If your big alliance treaty is something people never have to refer to, people will gradually forget about it and not care for it.
I think we did a fine job. Too strict and people grow to dislike it. Too vague and people never need to consult it.
Quote from: Chénier on December 24, 2012, 10:03:22 PM
In any case, a treaty is only as useful or important as people care for it. The Treaty of the Maroccidens, for example, has a lot of articles, a lot of flexibility, but most importantly, paved the way for a guild to be created. An official vessel of communication, combined with a privileged channel for concertation, goes a long way to consolidate an alliance.
If your big alliance treaty is something people never have to refer to, people will gradually forget about it and not care for it.
I think we did a fine job. Too strict and people grow to dislike it. Too vague and people never need to consult it.
Which island is this on? I'm curious to how it reads and how it affects the interactions between realms.
I'd like to think I've been pretty clever in wording my treaties (actually to gain things or keep doors open much further down the road hidden inside the treaty), but I often wonder if going so far makes it less fun for other players. After all, you really shouldn't need to be a lawyer to play BM... Though, I suppose you're not forced to, either. Just declare war or find some other way to fight it.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 24, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
I'd like to think I've been pretty clever in wording my treaties (actually to gain things or keep doors open much further down the road hidden inside the treaty), but I often wonder if going so far makes it less fun for other players. After all, you really shouldn't need to be a lawyer to play BM... Though, I suppose you're not forced to, either. Just declare war or find some other way to fight it.
That's the thing. There isn't some higher legal power enforcing treaties. It depends quite a bit on the attitudes of the other treaty participants and the other realms on the island. If they decide to hold you to what they see as the "spirit" of the treaty, no amount of weasel-wording is going to save you from fifty thousand CS on your border. 'Tis why I don't much care for peace treaties except in extraordinary circumstances. Kill them, colonize them, or convert them, but no treaty terms will stand longer than it takes for them to gather allies and gold.
Treaties should be simple and straightforward. They shouldn't be too explicit. This allows the greatest possible room for misinterpretation, or alternative interpretation. Thus, more righteous conflict!
Quote from: Bedwyr on December 24, 2012, 10:57:01 PM
That's the thing. There isn't some higher legal power enforcing treaties. It depends quite a bit on the attitudes of the other treaty participants and the other realms on the island. If they decide to hold you to what they see as the "spirit" of the treaty, no amount of weasel-wording is going to save you from fifty thousand CS on your border. 'Tis why I don't much care for peace treaties except in extraordinary circumstances. Kill them, colonize them, or convert them, but no treaty terms will stand longer than it takes for them to gather allies and gold.
Which is why such treaties should be made with short-term in mind. Don't sign a peace treaty that involves a tribute over 10 months, for example. Concessions should be made relatively quickly, before the defeated party has a chance of rebuilding. Non-action can be spread over longer, but don't plan on it being enforced too well past 5 months or so.
But yea, a key factor in a treaty that favors one side is having that side actually able to swoop in and claim compensation if it isn't respected. Themselves or via allies.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 24, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
Which island is this on? I'm curious to how it reads and how it affects the interactions between realms.
I'd like to think I've been pretty clever in wording my treaties (actually to gain things or keep doors open much further down the road hidden inside the treaty), but I often wonder if going so far makes it less fun for other players. After all, you really shouldn't need to be a lawyer to play BM... Though, I suppose you're not forced to, either. Just declare war or find some other way to fight it.
The Treaty of the Maroccidens is public and can be found on the wiki. It binds Terran, D'Hara, and Barca, on Dwilight. It led to the creation of the Véinsørmoot guild. So far, it has survived all crises and strains that were exerted upon it, and the federation stands united. Here's another hint for a successful alliance treaty: make it extremely clear that while all parties are obligated to help each other against unprovoked attacks, in no way are they forced to help in a war initiated by one of the members.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/V%C3%A9ins%C3%B8rmoot/Treaty_of_the_Maroccidens
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/V%C3%A9ins%C3%B8rmoot/Charter_of_the_V%C3%A9ins%C3%B8rmoot
Quote from: Bedwyr on December 24, 2012, 10:57:01 PM
That's the thing. There isn't some higher legal power enforcing treaties. It depends quite a bit on the attitudes of the other treaty participants and the other realms on the island. If they decide to hold you to what they see as the "spirit" of the treaty, no amount of weasel-wording is going to save you from fifty thousand CS on your border. 'Tis why I don't much care for peace treaties except in extraordinary circumstances. Kill them, colonize them, or convert them, but no treaty terms will stand longer than it takes for them to gather allies and gold.
Wonderfully written! I very much agree. Even when I don't have the power to deal with it, I try to stick to the wording of my treaty, though. To me, it's a character thing... But that same character is also willing to fight that 50k CS for his beliefs (though, in this case, I'd be surprised if 3k CS showed up at our door).
Also, I find it interesting how pretty much everyone assumed a treaty for an alliance. The case that led me to this curiosity actually involves two nations at peace, but with a long history of working together. It's been a rocky road...
Quote from: Eirikr on December 25, 2012, 09:05:42 AM
Wonderfully written! I very much agree. Even when I don't have the power to deal with it, I try to stick to the wording of my treaty, though. To me, it's a character thing... But that same character is also willing to fight that 50k CS for his beliefs (though, in this case, I'd be surprised if 3k CS showed up at our door).
Also, I find it interesting how pretty much everyone assumed a treaty for an alliance. The case that led me to this curiosity actually involves two nations at peace, but with a long history of working together. It's been a rocky road...
I just gave examples of that, and of ceasefires, because that's what I have the most experience with. I've seen a bunch of general friendship treaties, but they tend to be so vague and meaningless that people forget them after a while.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 25, 2012, 09:05:42 AM
Even when I don't have the power to deal with it, I try to stick to the wording of my treaty, though. To me, it's a character thing...
Bear in mind that if you think about things on a suitably long term it becomes more important to keep to treaty terms. If you have major ambitions, people
have to trust your word, at least to a certain point, or you'll never get anything done. But the problem is there is
always a way around a treaty where you can claim you are justified, and if you win then your interpretation becomes predominant. Either you claim they weren't holding to the spirit or the terms, and produce suitable evidence to back it up, and you haven't broken your word. I've lost track of the number of times Jenred has done that, for instance, and the interesting thing is that he isn't lying. What he says is perfectly true, assuming his interpretation of events, and his point of view generally had a few thousand swords to back it up.
The more interesting trick is to know the people/realms/institutions you are dealing with, and how they interpret things. Make a treaty with, say, Riombara, and you'd better expect things to turn on the strict wording. Make a treaty with a Zonasan, and expect things to turn on the "honorable spirit" of the treaty. And often times it's even more complicated than that. Maybe you make a treaty with Ohnar West with Galiard leading it, but then Ohnar West goes through several upheavals, spawns Toupellon, then Toupellon collapses into Sorraine and Cathay, and you can pick up some of the bits of the treaty with Galiard, but the Ohnar West you originally signed the treaty with doesn't have any resemblance to the Ohnar West that exists now besides base geography and the name.
Or, maybe you make an alliance between Papania, Ohnar West, and Arcaea, where all three agree to help the other out in both defensive and offensive wars, but Ohnar West and Papania go to war over something that was Papania's fault but probably doesn't justify a war. Yeah, you
could have written a treaty to cover that, but no one would have dreamed it necessary because they were good friends...Then.
Everyone can always find generally true and probably legitimate ways of interpreting treaties how they need to, and they will be quite (genuinely, often) offended if you try to say they are breaking their word. They don't see it that way, because they are looking at the situation completely differently than you are. Treaties only work when you can get enough people on all the sides to
want them to work.
I'm not sure how the two are mutually exclusive. I guess your point is more that you should adapt to the other realm rather than try to impose your way of doing things?
I was saying that my character in this position (Ravendon) has always been pretty strict on words and such. I've spent several days working on how to reword a very common treaty clause to essentially add a loophole for much farther down the road. For example, I wrote in a "diplomat clause" (that is, a clause that makes a realm mediate for peace when one of its allies is attacked by the other signatory... I'll give a more concrete explanation when my character recovers and I can see it) a loophole that allows us to not necessarily mediate for peace and also provides an option for renegotiating the treaty. (Of course, this was done to allow us to declare war on said ally with the other signatory's help. ;) ) That case is a little more cut and dry, though. It has everything right there in the treaty, whereas the treaty that caused a problem doesn't mention the issue being debated at all.
Maybe we should rename Coria to "Riocoria"?
Quote from: Eirikr on December 26, 2012, 11:39:30 AM
I'm not sure how the two are mutually exclusive. I guess your point is more that you should adapt to the other realm rather than try to impose your way of doing things?
Only if you want the treaty to last. I started by saying that the best outcome is always just to eliminate or colonize, after all. But if you want it to last, you have to know how the Ruler, the two or three most likely successors, and the realm at large would react to things, not to mention the same for all the other potentially interested realms, which usually means a big chunk of a continent, if not the whole thing. Big case in point, right before I had to pause, Jenred signed a peace treaty with Arcachon. Then my life went a little south and I paused, and Velax got elected, and immediately tore up the treaty with the support of the vast majority of Arcaea. Just knowing how Jenred felt about something wouldn't have been enough to know whether the treaty was workable.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 26, 2012, 11:39:30 AM
I'm not sure how the two are mutually exclusive. I guess your point is more that you should adapt to the other realm rather than try to impose your way of doing things?
It's not so much that you have to adapt to every other realm, as that you need to be willing to
compromise with any realm you want to have any real chance of having a relationship with.
All relationships (all healthy ones, at least) are built on compromise. Any party in a relationship who insists that the other party do it their way and only their way is likely either soon to be out of the relationship, or powerful enough that the relationship is built on fear of them. (Well, or the other party to the relationship isn't very smart.)
Ah, I wasn't talking about the actual content of the treaty, but how it works day to day. Most treaties require compromise to exist in the first place, but I don't think it makes any sense to compromise where one term of the treaty is done by the word and another is done in the spirit of the clause. If you mean the way specific violations are dealt with, then I can see where you're coming from; maybe one side decides that passage from one border is okay, but for both realms to agree, they have to ban any nobles that break the treaty on the other border. (Just an example.)
I don't think there really is a way to compromise on going by the spirit of the treaty versus the word of it.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 27, 2012, 03:47:34 AM
Ah, I wasn't talking about the actual content of the treaty, but how it works day to day. Most treaties require compromise to exist in the first place, but I don't think it makes any sense to compromise where one term of the treaty is done by the word and another is done in the spirit of the clause. If you mean the way specific violations are dealt with, then I can see where you're coming from; maybe one side decides that passage from one border is okay, but for both realms to agree, they have to ban any nobles that break the treaty on the other border. (Just an example.)
I don't think there really is a way to compromise on going by the spirit of the treaty versus the word of it.
He is referring to the terms of the treaty, as in when making the treaty the two parties must compromise on the terms.
Of course. Foreseeing probably violations and acceptable consequences is also a good way to make a treaty work.
For example, if the treaty demands a tribute by the first, what happens if on the third, you get a letter saying it will take a few more days still? If there's a no-travel zone, do you declare war just to kick the tresspasser out? If he is supposed to send you military support, and he failed to gather the required strength, what do you do? Etc, etc. By agreeing beforehand what the consequences of not respecting treaty clauses are, you give the treaty more flexibility and likelyhood to succeed. Otherwise, good luck agreeing on what is appropriate or not as a consequence after the fact.
Quote from: Chénier on December 27, 2012, 03:56:04 AM
Of course. Foreseeing probably violations and acceptable consequences is also a good way to make a treaty work.
For example, if the treaty demands a tribute by the first, what happens if on the third, you get a letter saying it will take a few more days still? If there's a no-travel zone, do you declare war just to kick the tresspasser out? If he is supposed to send you military support, and he failed to gather the required strength, what do you do? Etc, etc. By agreeing beforehand what the consequences of not respecting treaty clauses are, you give the treaty more flexibility and likelyhood to succeed. Otherwise, good luck agreeing on what is appropriate or not as a consequence after the fact.
Wow, that is a great point that I should probably address in the treaty on Atamara that's about to go through.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 27, 2012, 03:47:34 AM
I don't think there really is a way to compromise on going by the spirit of the treaty versus the word of it.
Sure there is.
"We will accept absolutely no violations of our borders by troops!" (but, in reality, compromise to make allowances for new nobles, and "new" can be a bit fuzzy especially with younger players)
"Tribute must be in our capital by the first day of Summer!" (We really mean it, I kid you not one day late and we will burn your realm to the ground)
"All nubile young women of the alliance must pay homage to the Emperor!" (It says women, but if we have an Empress then we expect all of the rugged, Han Solo types to show up instead, alright?)
"All surplus (being defined here as more than a thousand bushels than needed to feed the realm through Winter) must be sold at 20 gold per 100 bushels before Winter begins!" (We will send Traders to inspect, and if we find a thousand and one bushels we will burn your pitiful realm to the ground)
You now have a mix of things that have greater and lesser degrees of going by the "spirit" vs the "wording" of the treaty.
I hate complicated treaties. I dont sign complicated treaties. You trust me or you dont trust me. I think there is also cultural(real world) diffrences here. When there was Finnish rulers(and some others), we could have agreed things just verbally and we knew we can count on their word(and if not, treaty get null). Now there is these fancypants lawyers who put huge list of diffrent kind of possible paragraphs and cases... and then they do something and "Ha ha! Its not on that paper!" About then it is time to make them suck my socks :P
-Jaune
Quote from: jaune on December 27, 2012, 12:35:43 PM
I hate complicated treaties. I dont sign complicated treaties. You trust me or you dont trust me. I think there is also cultural(real world) diffrences here. When there was Finnish rulers(and some others), we could have agreed things just verbally and we knew we can count on their word(and if not, treaty get null). Now there is these fancypants lawyers who put huge list of diffrent kind of possible paragraphs and cases... and then they do something and "Ha ha! Its not on that paper!" About then it is time to make them suck my socks :P
-Jaune
Sordnaz is that way, he refused any actual document. Instead, Coria and the Barony are maintaining an unwritten treaty right now. Personally, I thought it was pretty cool. We've had no issue with it other than the random stray knight, which we've had a provision for.
Quote from: Eirikr on December 27, 2012, 09:57:29 PM
Sordnaz is that way, he refused any actual document. Instead, Coria and the Barony are maintaining an unwritten treaty right now. Personally, I thought it was pretty cool. We've had no issue with it other than the random stray knight, which we've had a provision for.
That is one of the most frustrating and one of the most dependable things about the Barony. Diplomacy with them will either work very well in your favor or go completely against you. If Sordnaz doesn't trust you then there is nothing you can say or do to fix it. However, once you've gained his trust if you can maintain it, then you can depend upon him as well.
That is what I feel is a very good RP of a ruler. Even those rulers with treaties only really depend upon their gut feeling. The treaty is just there as a reason for war or a sense of protection. In the end they'll do whatever they want.
As the author of many a heinously complex treaty... I LOVE detailed, rigorous legal wording.
Nothing satisfies me more than subheadings and convoluted reference systems.
And, I'll note– my treaties have tended to be pretty effective. As Chenier noted, the Treaty and the Charter that bind the Véinsørmoot have been very effective.
I generally like to write treaties that have some restrictiveness in them because it creates conflict.
That is– if you write a vague treaty, everybody ignores it until they break it, so the treaty is really just a dead-end for RP.
But if you make a treaty that requires you to send a letter to someone summarizing your actions of the last 30 days, and do so regularly, the treaty becomes a constant RP point, and a focal point for conflict. I like treaties that establish processes, actions, institutions– more tangible things with which other players can interact. Otherwise, treaties just became a kind of rulers-only game, whereas things like the Véinsørmoot make even minor players involved parties in treaty relations.
As Chénier said– treaties are as strong as the ties that bind them. But I'm a big believer that treaties can be used as a way to actually create connections, if you shape them right.
Quote from: Vellos on January 04, 2013, 08:05:04 PM
As Chénier said– treaties are as strong as the ties that bind them. But I'm a big believer that treaties can be used as a way to actually create connections, if you shape them right.
And I would argue the treaty was basically immaterial in the success of the 'Moot. The guild, the communication, the constant efforts of those in power in the different realms,
that is what got people to think that way. You could have had the fanciest treaty in the world, and it wouldn't have made any difference without those three things.
Quote from: Bedwyr on January 04, 2013, 08:52:50 PM
And I would argue the treaty was basically immaterial in the success of the 'Moot. The guild, the communication, the constant efforts of those in power in the different realms, that is what got people to think that way. You could have had the fanciest treaty in the world, and it wouldn't have made any difference without those three things.
Indeed. Many people in all realms care a lot for the treaty, and they made it thrive. A lot of care was put into making it as participative as possible, too, because even the 'moot is not invincible as an institution. Terran almost opted out, as did D'Hara, after Vellos and Machaivel were phased out for a while.
Which is part of what makes the 'moot fun. It's strong, the parties are united, and it'd take a lot to break it apart. But it's still people behind it all, and people can always be full of surprises. And the different attitudes between all of the parties sometimes create friction, but they mostly also make things a lot more enjoyable, and I believe make the 'moot stronger overall.
Lots of fun, I'd say, being an elder in the 'moot.
Quote from: Bedwyr on January 04, 2013, 08:52:50 PM
And I would argue the treaty was basically immaterial in the success of the 'Moot. The guild, the communication, the constant efforts of those in power in the different realms, that is what got people to think that way. You could have had the fanciest treaty in the world, and it wouldn't have made any difference without those three things.
False.
I can think of multiple instances where the treaty has operated in a legal context as a form of prudential restraint; i.e. the actions of member states have been meaningfully affected by the existence and terms of the treaty, sometimes to the disadvantage of said realms.
The guild and communication matter– because the treaty has forced them to. They started out as mattering because nobles believed in them. Then, because nobles believed in them, nobles were willing to codify them. Now, because they are codified, nobles have a hard time escaping them.
Simple realist theories of international relations are woefully and utterly inadequate when you look at how states operate in settings where fairly extensive codification exists. The treaty is not immaterial– its terms have constrained the actions of states. Arguing that it only did so because nobles were willing to assign value to it is the same as arguing that you only understand my words because you assign meanings to them– it sounds smart until you realize is blindingly obvious and nearly meaningless. If nobles act differently because the treaty exists than they would if the guild, communication, and feelings existed without the treaty, then the treaty, as a legal document matters. Nobles do act differently and, thus, the treaty matters.
Also, as Mootgram, I can say with perfect certainty that the current friendship of the 'Moot realms would not exist at all were it not for the treaty. The three realms have frequently had widely diverging interests on key issues and strong incentives to betray each other– but their incentive calculations have been substantively altered, in favor of collaboration, by the setting defined by the Treaty of the Maroccidens.
Vellos,
You can preach the benefits of the treaty all you want, but I have seen more treaties simple, complex, and everywhere in between fall completely apart than I can count. My point isn't that the treaty isn't important in context, it's that without that context the treaty would be worthless, and
in context you could have the treaty specify all kinds of different things, and it would still matter.
Quote from: Vellos on January 05, 2013, 07:17:51 AM
Arguing that it only did so because nobles were willing to assign value to it is the same as arguing that you only understand my words because you assign meanings to them– it sounds smart until you realize is blindingly obvious and nearly meaningless.
Vellos, I know you have done enough negotiating to know the counterargument to this: The words you use do not always have the same meaning as the words I use. "Republican style of governance" can mean a hell of a lot of things. And if I define "possible" military aid differently than you do, then the retaliatory renegement clause could get invoked really easily.
Yes, where you have the will to actually work together, then you can work all these things out, and codifying things is helpful. But if you have that will, what the treaty says isn't an issue, because you'll work things out anyway, and add to the codification. Or, to summarize:
Unifying will allows codification to work. Codification has little to no bearing on creating or supporting unifying will.
I have to agree with Bedwyr on this one. The moot could have worked without the treaty. But it could never have worked without the guild. A wide open communication channel like the guild provides an easy way for the nobles in the realms to talk out their differences, and get to know the other realms. With the nobles knowing each other, and understanding each other, the possibiblity of war is greatly reduced. The guild was the really smart part of the whole thing that ties the group together. The treaty could have said "let's be friends, k?" and the moot could have worked. Without the guild, it would have crashed and burned.
Quote from: Indirik on January 05, 2013, 01:39:51 PM
I have to agree with Bedwyr on this one. The moot could have worked without the treaty. But it could never have worked without the guild. A wide open communication channel like the guild provides an easy way for the nobles in the realms to talk out their differences, and get to know the other realms. With the nobles knowing each other, and understanding each other, the possibiblity of war is greatly reduced. The guild was the really smart part of the whole thing that ties the group together. The treaty could have said "let's be friends, k?" and the moot could have worked. Without the guild, it would have crashed and burned.
Perhaps...
But the rulers could also have used the ruler channels to keep in touch.
What's nice about the guild, though, are the elder ranks each realm has, which helps to maintain accountability of said rulers towards both their peers and the rest of the 'moot.
Oh yes, the rulers can keep in touch via other means. But the guild, and all the communications it allows, builds a team, a sense of community, among the entire nobility of the involved realms. It creates an "us". That's critical.
Why do you think that communication is intentionally restricted to realms? Because it creates the realm as the team. The realm is "us". Everyone not in the realm is "them". The guild allows you to extend that "us" to include the other two realms. It's the same thing that has happened with the SA theocracies. We have created a very large "us". The ease and frequency of communications allows for a sense of identity. That's the beauty of the guild (or religion). Without that, the 'moot would be no more special than any other group of realms that happened to have mutual defense treaties.
No, unification would not be possible without the treaty. You're speaking from a position of ignorance.
Yes, "Republican style of government" is vague and open to interpretation. But it's a logical fallacy to suggest that, because it is vague, it is therefore meaningless. There was a time when those words were the only real barrier between an offer membership to Asylon (and even possibly Aurvandil)– something the mere spirit of unity may have permitted, but the treaty did not.
The treaty, even aside from the guild, has substantively affected realms in ways a mere sense of unity has not. Moreover, there have been numerous times that one nation or another has had an interest in pulling out, and few strong voices were present to prevent that: but the treaty had a role in preventing those actions.
You're right that you can't just write words on a piece of paper and BAM they come true. I'm not arguing that. But the argument that treaties are merely descriptions of power relations, rather than at least somewhat formative of such relations, is wrong as long as at least one party in the treaty conceives of itself as somehow beholden to a law or standard.
And that's the key, really. However vague, the "Republican form of governance" is really a blanket condition covering a set of cultural practices– foremost among them a belief in rule of law. The 'Moot has more in common with the EU or HRE than with most normal treaties. Moot realms have functionally ceded a (rather small) share of their sovereignty to a supra-national entity: the Elders of the Véinsørmoot. They do not do this because of a sense of unity. They do this because the treaty says they should. They agree to the treaty because of a sense of unity, true– but the manner of that sensibility's expression could have extremely wide variation, and can be channeled by treaties, especially and emphatically in a setting where some or all parties operate under the assumption that treaties are a "real law."
Yes, you're right that a treaty can't function if nobody believes in it. Again– duh. That's indisputably true. And you're right that there's a subjective component. But you're dead wrong when you argue that treaties, as distinct from the motivating spirit behind such treaties, are uninfluential.
Indeed, you've all played as rulers: you've all seen the obscene lengths to which most realms will go to argue that they aren't violating a treaty, or are acting honorably, etc, etc. That is compelling proof of my argument. And realms which fail to provide such legal or quasi-legal justification for their actions are usually either hegemonic states who can bully everyone else into submission (rare but does happen), or else become pariah states (Aurvandil).
Quote from: Vellos on January 05, 2013, 07:05:10 PM
You're right that you can't just write words on a piece of paper and BAM they come true. I'm not arguing that.
Good, because that's
all I'm arguing. I explicitly stated in my last post that yes, within the context of the 'Moot, the treaty was important. Once you have a spirit of unity working, the codification takes on a life of its own. The Constitution of the United States is (rightly) regarded as the single most important document in the political history of the US, and it has certainly shaped how the US has worked, but there's nothing in the Constitution itself that has any magical powers that made it important. The number of failed national constitutions in the world, many of them incredibly similar to the US Constitution, shows that quite easily. It was the vast effort to actually get everyone, as Rob said, to think of "us" as being a larger group. Until everyone in a treaty is "us" then the treaty is meaningless. Once they
are us, then of course the treaty matters, but at that point the treaty could be considerably different in text and still be highly influential.
Quote from: Vellos on January 05, 2013, 07:05:10 PM
Indeed, you've all played as rulers: you've all seen the obscene lengths to which most realms will go to argue that they aren't violating a treaty, or are acting honorably, etc, etc. That is compelling proof of my argument. And realms which fail to provide such legal or quasi-legal justification for their actions are usually either hegemonic states who can bully everyone else into submission (rare but does happen), or else become pariah states (Aurvandil).
But everyone can. The only people who don't choose to not bother as a statement. Everyone who wishes can and will make some claim that theoretically absolves them of any guilt. Because it doesn't matter if we lie to
them.
And, of course, it's not a dichotomy. There are varying levels of "us"ness. At various points the Far East, for instance, made a collective decision that "we" were all going to be bound by certain rules of honorable conduct. Viracocha tortured everyone he got his hands on, and even though he worked out some deal with the leaders of Arcachon, he faced threats and was eventually killed by one of his new realm-mates in a duel. Selene's decision to hold the people of a city hostage on threat of mass murder if a war was not halted turned Jenred from a friend who was quietly preparing an army to go relieve NeoSartania if possible to demanding she step down immediately on pain of Arcaean troops
assisting in the utter destruction of NeoSartania (not that they were needed, but that's beside the point).
So: Treaties certainly matter once you have reached a certain level of "us"ness. But before you get there, the treaty can, and usually is, ignored the moment the benefits of doing so outweigh the consequences.
Quote from: Bedwyr on January 05, 2013, 07:31:01 PM
So: Treaties certainly matter once you have reached a certain level of "us"ness. But before you get there, the treaty can, and usually is, ignored the moment the benefits of doing so outweigh the consequences.
Fair enough.
I would simply add that treaties, depending on their exact content, can be important in creating the sense of us-ness from the beginning. Not the sole or unilateral agents, but they're not useless for generating such feeling.
For a fantastic book on the (dis)functionality of international law, and the kind of dynamics I'm trying to articulate, I recommend Joel Woestra's "International Law and the Use of Armed Force." It's dense but very good, and has very strong applications to Battlemaster.
I can pretend BM is revision for my finals in International Relations? Awesome.
Quote from: Hroppa on January 06, 2013, 04:36:44 AM
I can pretend BM is revision for my finals in International Relations? Awesome.
Absolutely.
I regularly toss in quotes from major IR thinkers– and model treaties off of famous cases in international affairs. It's a great study tactic.