So allow me to break it down then
1) You sign a treaty promising there will be no war between us.
This is a promise.
2) You then say you will ignore the treaty if a war I'm in isn't going like you want it to.
You are saying you will arbitrarily break your promise whenever it suits you.
Conclusion: Your promise carries no weight when it actually matters.
I am a lawstudent. Pacta sunt servanda is a quite deeply ingrained principle to me.
I am not a lawstudent. And as a hack, what I mean is not worth much
. But (from Wiki
"The only limit to pacta sunt servanda are the peremptory norms of general international law, called jus cogens (compelling law). The legal principle clausula rebus sic stantibus, part of customary international law, also allows for treaty obligations to be unfulfilled due to a compelling change in circumstances". Since this is a game, couldn't international law in this case be argued as "game balance"-something?
I mean, it's not that I don't applaud what you are doing, and have been doing,to win the game..I just don't see that ANY agreement should be kept, if it meant loosing the game (to a great likelihood..), IF by NOT keeping faith you have a greater chance of not loosing the game..hmm. My argument sounds a bit fishy, even to me
. The penalty clause should still be invoked, IF somebody were to breach contract..I think "the Neutrals" are more arguing for "compelling change of circumstance"..
Ahh, yes.. Maybe he was just notifying you, that the demands, as they stood, would cause a "compelling chance of circumstance" and as such, might/would cause the NAP to be void..
..well, anyhow, as I hear it, there was a lot of saber-rattling, but no actual breachs of NAP's...