• 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.
OOC: But IRC is OOC chat... we need more IC

OOC: Everyone has already posted IC about what happened in the update. Why don't you come on the IRC Reis?
 
OOC: But IRC is OOC chat... we need more IC

OOC: Then why don't you comment on the things you listed in IC? :happy:
 
Last edited:
OOC: Then why don't you comment on the things you listed in IC? :happy:

I did, for some of them, but it's not so much fun when my IC posts make up nearly half the thread (OOC posts aside) since the update...

The Kingdom of Spain, noting that the War of the Quadruple Alliance was fueled, in part, by a naval arms race, is seeking to build up international consensus to the development of a Naval Treaty, to preserve peace and prosperity in the world.
 
GermanImperialFlag.gif

The Reich is intrigued by this naval treaty, we request that the Spaniards elaborate upon their designs for an international naval treaty.
 
While the USA appreciates such efforts as proposed by the Spaniards, who would enforce such a treaty? How would a nation be prevented from simply ignoring the provisions? Would the other signatories be expected declare war over such an issue?
 
The treaty would seeks to establish an international standard nomenclature for types of ship, as well as imposing restrictions on the construction of warships.

Our preliminary thoughts on the matter are that navies are essential to safeguard sea lanes and ensure freedom of trade, as well as ensuring territorial waters are respected, and thus the limitations would have to take into account the number of overseas possessions and the extension of territorial waters. Another important factor, for the preservation of peace in the world, is a limitation of naval construction relative to that of the other naval powers, to ensure there is a balance of power in the seas, as it is essential to ensure the upholding of this treaty.


OOC: Spaniard isn't a proper term for a formal diplomatic message, I'm afraid. It would be akin to referencing the Yanks, Brits, Ruskies...
 
His Majesty's Government outright refuses, and shall always do so, to sign any document which limits the ability, composition or size of the Royal Navy.​
 
The idea of naval limitations is not of itself considered evil to France but we are loath to support restrictions upon others that would burden their nation as ours as been and would limit their ability to defend their scattered citizens if such a nation was grand in size.
 
While Mexico sympathises with the idea of preserving the peace, protecting commercial interests etc, we foresee a number of problems for this suggested treaty.

I. Control; which organ would actively check if the treaty is effectively abided? No self-respecting state will allow its sovereignty to be violated by another. It would have to be a new organ or entity with competences previously agreed upon by all signatories. We have little faith that such an organ will effectively be called into being.

II. Sanctions & enforcement; An agreement without safeguards is meaningless. All signatories would have to agree on an independant unbiased authority, on enforcement and conditions to determine proper sanctioning. Additionally if a signatory is considered to have broken the terms of the agreement, there should be the possibility to appeal said judgement. Apart from a controling authority an additional court is required to appeal judgement. We again have little faith that either would be developed up to the extent that we would be willing to hand over a part of our right to rule ourselves.

However we will not block this suggestion a priori. If Spain can develop such a system and suggest it to the international community we will approach the matter with an open mind and judge it for its merrit.
 
The United Kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Finland find such a treaty impinging upon the sovereignty of nations to be odd and out of place.

OOC: Guys the Washington Naval Treaties weren't signed for more than 60 years and nations giving up sovereignty in such a way at this time is hilarious. Fry will likely slap the lot of you with a wet noodle.
 
OOC: Ok guys, due to a small mistake on my part (Didn't read Fry's post properly) I owe you a mini-update.

If the Japanese and Manchu players want to send their war orders relevant to Korea into me now, I would like to finish off Korea.
 
While Mexico sympathises with the idea of preserving the peace, protecting commercial interests etc, we foresee a number of problems for this suggested treaty.

I. Control; which organ would actively check if the treaty is effectively abided? No self-respecting state will allow its sovereignty to be violated by another. It would have to be a new organ or entity with competences previously agreed upon by all signatories. We have little faith that such an organ will effectively be called into being.

II. Sanctions & enforcement; An agreement without safeguards is meaningless. All signatories would have to agree on an independant unbiased authority, on enforcement and conditions to determine proper sanctioning. Additionally if a signatory is considered to have broken the terms of the agreement, there should be the possibility to appeal said judgement. Apart from a controling authority an additional court is required to appeal judgement. We again have little faith that either would be developed up to the extent that we would be willing to hand over a part of our right to rule ourselves.

However we will not block this suggestion a priori. If Spain can develop such a system and suggest it to the international community we will approach the matter with an open mind and judge it for its merrit.

The successful application of such measures would be achieved through game theory, as well as through the possibility of economic sanctions, essentially making infringement very costly for any given country.

We would appreciate further input from all nations, but applaud the constructive attitude displayed by some countries who show their commitment to preserve peace.


OOC: Doing something like the SDN to enforce it would be a possibility, but it seems a little "off" in this period, even if there were events such as the Congress of Vienna... so I would instead opt for a balance of power enforced by the top naval powers, to prevent anyone from getting too fat, in naval terms.
I was willing to give UK larger limits on tonnage and number of vessels, due to their extensive territorial waters and overseas shipping lanes, but I guess a bit of stick would be needed, since sugar doesn't work.
 
Ottoman Empire
4loaiu.png

While we don't see anything wrong with Spanish proposal we currently don't seee any need for such a treaty.

Spanish Monarch speaks about preserving peace. We would like to know how such treaty would achieve that ? Strong army and navy always have been and always will act as strong deterrant and will ensure peace better than any piece of paper.

Freezing naval buildup will only benefit states with less capacity to maintain large and modern fleet. In this retrospect state is like a living thing. If it is unable to protect it's citizens, or it's colonies it can't fullfill it's task and need to shorten it's defensive perimeter or even cease exist forever. Likewise with naval limits set by peace treaties.


Signed, Sultan Abdülmecid.
 
Even though the Republic of Poland has neither sea access or navy we still find the idea of such treaty to be an infrigment of national sovrereignty unheard of in modern ages.
 
The United Kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Finland are confused by the Spainish suggestions and furthermore is curious as to why any nation would voluntarily yield sovereignty to such a comission. Additionally, we find it odd that what is perhaps the most bellicose nation in the world is the one proposing such a "treaty of peace," or is it merely a tool for the Spanish nation to maintain its current position at the expense of others.

OOC: Game Theory was first derived by Nash in the 1940s...
 
The F.N.C.A. shall refrain from commenting on this "proposal" by the Spanish before anything has even been worked out. However, we are against infringing on the sovereignty of independent nations, and are therefore highly loath to support anything which might do so.
 
The Republic of Italy kindly asks Spain to stay out of our national affairs. You are causing enough trouble in South America, leave the rest of the world alone.
 
Last edited: