Treaty Interpretation Styles

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Anaris]

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.)

[Eirikr]

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.

[Penchant]

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.

[Chenier]

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.

[Penchant]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[jaune]

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

-Jaune

[Eirikr]

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

-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.

[Dante Silverfire]

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.

[Vellos]

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.

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Chenier]

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.

[Vellos]

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.

[Vellos]

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.