• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well see, this is what I was saying about contract law earlier. The point is that the contract does not specify what each party is promising to do. It can be read as "If I do X, you get Y", with no actual prohibition on X. Or it can be read as "I promise not to do X, and if I do, you get Y". Frosty wants to read it in the second sense, and fair's fair, he's got a lot of precedent and common sense on his side. But it is not completely illegitimate to read it in the first sense.
 
Maybe on this ground, (clausula rebus sic stantibus)

No, "Unilateral denunciation of a treaty based on this clause is prohibited"

Woah, woah.
But it is not completely illegitimate to read it in the first sense.

The ide that since there is punishment attached you can break it whenever you wish is absurd, especially since 1: that punishment is not meted out by me but by the GM 2: I cannot attach a real penalty myself since he could just ignore that clause to! Since I cannot stipulate penalty you cannot reasonably use that as an excuse.

Presume I enter into alliance with you, and promise to come to your defence. Then when you get attacked I realize it would actually be to my benefit that you lose, would you then accept my ignoring you call to arms arguing that "Hey, ignoring a call to arms incures -20 prestige from gamemechanics, I paid my dues!". Or would you contend that that is not an acceptable excuse for breaking my word?
 
No, "Unilateral denunciation of a treaty based on this clause is prohibited"



The ide that since there is punishment attached you can break it whenever you wish is absurd, especially since 1: that punishment is not meted out by me but by the GM 2: I cannot attach a real penalty myself since he could just ignore that clause to!

Presume I enter into alliance with you, and promise to come to your defence. Then when you get attacked I realize it would actually be to my benefit that you lose, would you then accept my ignoring you call to arms arguing that "Hey, ignoring a call to arms incures -20 prestige from gamemechanics, I paid my dues!". Or would you contend that that is not an acceptable excuse for breaking my word?

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly an acceptable excuse. I mean you'd also have to consider the human badboy that'd you'd incur. I personally would feel that it wouldn't be worth it, but hey, if you do, go for it.

Plus I'm not sure why its absurd to say that. There is a built in escape mechanism in every contract we make in the game.
 
I note that, in some sense, Frosty's interpretation is self-enforcing. If he says publicly that he holds an interpretation of "A treaty is a promise to do X, not a promise of compensation for not-X", then everyone knows that breaking a treaty with him is that much human badboy, from Frosty and from whoever agrees with Frosty's interpretation. And he can, of course, refuse to sign treaties with anyone who does not hold such an interpretation. (If it turns out that he needs such a treaty... well, that's life in international law! It's no joke living in an anarchic world without a sovereign.) And the other thing is, I don't think anyone holds a pure compensation view of NAPs; it seems to me that everyone views them at least partly as promises not to attack. And, as pointed out, if your word is not your bond, it will be that much harder to get the next treaty. Which is true even if you publicly proclaim a compensation view; a contract with someone who views the NAP as a promise is more valuable than a treaty with someone who sees the excomm as the only penalty, and consequently more sought after.

So, y'know, judge your treaties carefully and your breaches of them even more carefully. Jakalo has presumably sacrificed some credibility here; on the other hand he has gained a Middle East situation that suits him better. Whether that was a wise exchange is for him to judge, and he'll likely want to wait until at least the end of CK to do so, too.
 
Hmm? The two parties would be the perpetrator and the state, the victim doesn't enter into it.

Perhaps in modern law, but in older, more proper law, the perp is sentenced to pay recompense to the victim (or his family), not any governing body. The state is merely there to sentence - they don't enter into it as a party of negotiation at all.
 
Perhaps in modern law, but in older, more proper law, the perp is sentenced to pay recompense to the victim (or his family), not any governing body. The state is merely there to sentence - they don't enter into it as a party of negotiation at all.

Well that's it exactly then, the perp is sentenced to pay. The state sentences, and ensures the perpetrator fulfills the terms through its monopoly of force.

And the state is the other party in the contract. They broke a compact that they have with the state, that then then have to pay to the victim. Just because the victim recieves money doesn't mean they had a contract with the perpetrator.
 
Someone could probably write a paper on international politics using these games as an experiment.
 
doesn't mean they had a contract with the perpetrator.

But they do. A divine/social contract inherent to their humanity, the law is simply a recognition of this. :D
 
Well that's it exactly then, the perp is sentenced to pay. The state sentences, and ensures the perpetrator fulfills the terms through its monopoly of force.

And the state is the other party in the contract. They broke a compact that they have with the state, that then then have to pay to the victim. Just because the victim recieves money doesn't mean they had a contract with the perpetrator.

In this example, the GM is the State which is exacting the punishment for breaking the law. As you see, each part has it's counter-part in real law. Jakalo is the perp, Frosty the victim, KoM the State.

And yes, all people have a contractual and inalienable duty to their fellow humans to not break contracts or inhibit their rights. Not murdering people is an example of that duty, as is not going against a NAP.
 
As an aside, I have found the discussion of enforcability of my NAP with West Rome back in page 69...

KoM said:
tricky, that. I don't know that I care to enforce it by edits.
Frosty said:
We shall simply have to trust in the honour of our counterparts. Something we feel quite safe in doing, its not like they're Greeks or anything.
Carillon said:
Talk about a potential recipie for disaster. Trusting one another? Bah
Frosty said:
When has trusting Jakalo ever backfired for me?





angry-smiley-8098.gif
 
As a minor point of interest, of the twelve specific treaties linked under Wiki's article on 'non-aggression pact' two are not really NAPs (the Peace of Callias was a peace treaty and the Franco-Soviet treaty was not really anything at all, but certainly not NAP) and it would appear that 100% (ten of ten) of the remaining live-linked ones were broken by one side or the other. As such applying real-world principles of international law in order to argue that NAPs are inviolable seems to fly in the face of their apparently not being considered inviolable at all IRL.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, I have found the discussion of enforcability of my NAP with West Rome back in page 69...

angry-smiley-8098.gif

You are trying soo hard to discredit me with you clever law student logic.

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.

Too bad its faulty. No pact was broken. At best you can accuse us at bluffing our intervention to save two nations from obnoxiously harsh peace offer, something you have done yourself (OA against Russia).

And, mind you, for the good of yourself as you admitted it.

Our alliance would have won, but it would have taken for ever, and the distribution of spoils would not have been as slanted in my favour. Perhaps had you held out unforeseen events/european intervention would have turned it.

However on a local level the outcome was probably for the best, any real amount of provs back or forth in the M.E. and I think we would have had another war in the not to distant future. Now we have compromise giving a chance at lasting stability and security, something that will be worth more longterm than a few provs back or forth.

And you claim I am trying to destabilize our relations whilst taking all this effort to prove how I am the bad guy while all we did was for the good of the middle east.

I am no law student, but doesnt that sound a little hypocritical?
 
No pact was broken.

The crime was not commited, but there was intent. According to yourself at least.

something you have done yourself

Indeed, but I had not prommised not ot attack the people I was threatening to attack.

And, mind you, for the good of yourself as you admitted it.

If you can't beat them, join them. :D

And you claim I am trying to destabilize our relations whilst taking all this effort to prove how I am the bad guy while all we did was for the good of the middle east. I am no law student, but doesnt that sound a little hypocritical?

I am not decrying your intentions, but your means.

that 100% (ten of ten) of the remaining live-linked ones were broken by one side or the other

One might also note almost all those pacts were with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during the years 1926-1941, so, yea....

Of the ones remaining Callias was more of a peace than a NAP, and Paris was the Papacy saying christians can't attack eachother and the latins pretending like the church was in charge untill the priest left the room.

None of which is realy applicable to our situation and age. Although NAP's really is a thing from the more civilized Industrial age, as are our potentially continent-covering systems of alliances.
 
Last edited:
One might also note all those pacts were with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during the years 1926-1941, so, yea....

None of which is realy applicable to our situation and age. Although NAP's really is a thing from the more civilized Industrial age, as are our potentially continent-covering systems of alliances.

Not all, Treaty of London at least was an example closer to your era. And was broken by not one but several of the major participants as soon as it became convenient.

But yeah, perhaps the unreliability is why NAPs aren't so common any more.
 
And was broken by not one but several of the major participants as soon as it became convenient.

I note that one of the main signatories was King Henry VIII, not a man known for his ability to keep oaths made before clergymen. :p

But yeah, perhaps the unreliability is why NAPs aren't so common any more.

NAPs existed, but more in the form of friendships and marriages than actual paper treaties.
 
Go back to the Napoleon era and you will have plenty of examples where nation states broke their alliances and attacked their former ally, simply because of a change in the global situation. In international politics, law does not make right, the power to enforce your will makes right and has done so for more than 2000 years. Only in more recent times has that begun to change.
 
NAPs existed, but more in the form of friendships and marriages than actual paper treaties.

I mean today, you won't see bilateral NAPs much. ;)
 
I mean today, you won't see bilateral NAPs much.

What? The UN is one giant super-NAP! As is the EU! :D

law does not make right, the power to enforce your will makes right and has done so for more than 2000 years. Only in more recent times has that begun to change.

Might does not make right, but it lets you get away with it while your counterpart gnashes teeth. Remember however, we have longer memories than our ingame counterparts...
 
What? The UN is one giant super-NAP! As is the EU! :D

I don't think either is comparable to NAPs after the 19th-early 20th century model. Also, not bilateral.

Also, haven't people been excommed already for breaking treaties in this game? I thought I remembered reading of such, though since there was not such a big thing made of it as this time, I don't remember the details.
 
I don't think either is comparable to NAPs after the 19th-early 20th century model. Also, not bilateral.
Well, multilateral, but so have a bunch of our NAP's been. At any rate the union treaties clearly have clauses forbiding wars, etc, between the signatories, yet are not alliances.

Also, haven't people been excommed already for breaking treaties in this game? I thought I remembered reading of such, though since there was not such a big thing made of it as this time, I don't remember the details.

Some assassinations within eachothers realms, but nothing to great came of it. Denmark excommed Croatia and Bavaria by ingame means for partitioning Poland.