Proposed Bill- New Foreign Policy Doctrine Act

Where legislation is proposed and discussed.

Moderator: United Republic Empire

Post Reply
Diamond Confederacy
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:29 pm
Contact:

Unread post Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:23 pm

New Foreign Policy Doctrine Act
Authored by Vice President Diamond Confederacy, Edited by Agent Frost
Section I: Preamble
  • NOTING that the region currently has a foreign policy doctrine.
  • FURTHER NOTING that this doctrine requires an update in content.
  • REALIZING that updating our foreign policy in the correct manner will result in greater international recognition and result in the growth of our region.
  • HEREBY updates the current foreign policy doctrine:
Section II: Foreign Policy Doctrine
  • Though our region wishes to establish diplomatic relations with other regions in NationStates, we shall hereby not do the following:
    -Negotiate with terrorists.
    -Negotiate with Nazistic organizations/regions.
    -Negotiate with hateful regions or those that attempt to spread hate.
    -Open embassies with regions who do not inform a government member or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
  • To open consulates with another region, the region MUST meet the following criteria:
    -The region must not have a “nazi” tag
    -The region must not violate the CAIN treaty
    -The region must have at least 15 nations.
    -The region must have contacted a government official about opening a consulate prior to the request.
    -The region must have a positive and active environment.
  • In order to open embassies with another region, the region MUST meet the following criteria:
    -The region must not have a “nazi” tag.
    -The region must not have a “raider” tag.
    -The region must have at least 20 nations.
    -The region must prove that they have a positive environment that is active.
    -The region must have contacted a government official about opening embassies prior to the request.
    -The region must show intentions of attempting to improve both their region and our region
Kanha/Mahendra Singh Dhoni
  • Vice President of Enadia (December 27th 2017-Present)
User avatar
Karenina
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:41 pm
Contact:

Unread post Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:06 am

My only note is that perhaps it should be specified that this be up to the current MoFA at the time of the embassy request.
-The region must prove that they have a positive environment that is active.
Image
User avatar
Enadian Administrator
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:49 pm
Contact:

Unread post Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:35 am

It was time to make a few changes in our policy. I would suggest thought that Embassies should be for regions with over than 50-60 member nations. We had it 20, when we were around what? 36 EU nations ourselves? Now that we got bigger, our demands should be bigger as well.

Consulates can work just fine for every region that wants to work with us, and must be forum oriented.
Contracorriente
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:10 am
Contact:

Unread post Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:20 pm

What about regions that roleplay the world war 2? They would have nazi tag.
User avatar
Allhardrheimr
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:06 am
Contact:

Unread post Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:26 pm

Not every WW2 themed region has the nazi tag.
User avatar
Karenina
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:41 pm
Contact:

Unread post Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:22 pm

Allhardrheimr wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:26 pm
Not every WW2 themed region has the nazi tag.
Agreed, but I also feel making the distinction in the bill would be unnecessary. How often would this situation arise / how often would we care that much?
Image
User avatar
Allhardrheimr
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:06 am
Contact:

Unread post Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:34 pm

Karenina wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:22 pm
Allhardrheimr wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:26 pm
Not every WW2 themed region has the nazi tag.
Agreed, but I also feel making the distinction in the bill would be unnecessary. How often would this situation arise / how often would we care that much?
Understandable, but better to not need it and have it clarified than need it and have nothing clarified. And how would the clarification actually hurt the bill? It would simply add detail to it and allow any future confusion to be eliminated.
User avatar
Karenina
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:41 pm
Contact:

Unread post Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:47 pm

Perhaps I'm just coming from a place of lethargy. I have nothing against it being added, and fully understand where you are coming from - I just find the whole thing rather trivial. But again, have nothing against adding the clarification.
Image
gvh
Site Admin
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:07 pm
Contact:

Unread post Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:05 am

I have a few issues with this, largely relating to the CAIN treaty, invader tags and the requirement that the region must show a commitment to improving their own region as well as ours.

CAIN is, currently, not an active organisation, having fallen apart at some point last year. Therefore, their is no official standpoint about what violates the cain treaty: some regions may say that only Nazi-themed regions do, others that fascist regions also do. Some regions, particularly the red fleet, even criticise defenders who defend regions in the first 2 categories. Therefore, I see the requirement that a region not violate the cain treaty to open us up to problems and accusations, and I would prefer that we draw up our own requirements on this.

Secondly, as I have stated on the discord several times, all raiders are not made alike. Their are raider organisations such as the invaders or the black hawks which exist soley to raid; however, their are also regions with fully-formed communities that have a raider-aligned military, such as Osiris. I do not believe that we should be tarring both categories of 'raiders' with the same brush, and rather think we should operate a sliding scale of acceptability based on whether a region does more than simply raid.

The requirement that a region improves both themselves and us, from where I'm looking doesn't make a great deal of sense, and restricts our ability to have embassies with regions that are not our allies in the strictest sense, but which we may wish to rp with. Take, for example, if we were going to have an embassy with Greater Dienstad which would allow us to more adequately cooperate on rps: they would probably not agree to an obligation to help our regional development, and they are already developed enough to arguably not need to develop further.
New Zealand Republic
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:15 am
Contact:

Unread post Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:57 am

Whats wrong with Nazistic organizations and Regions?
Smith VerinGuard
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:22 pm
Contact:

Unread post Mon May 07, 2018 8:08 pm

New Zealand Republic wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:57 am
Whats wrong with Nazistic organizations and Regions?
We did not win WWll just so questions like this can be asked.
User avatar
Enadian Administrator
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:49 pm
Contact:

Unread post Tue May 08, 2018 5:24 pm

I agree with Khovost a lot 😂
Smith VerinGuard
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:22 pm
Contact:

Unread post Wed May 16, 2018 11:44 pm

And this should be removed:
-The region must not have a “raider” tag.
Considering as Independents, all Raiders and Defenders are equal
User avatar
Latrovia
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 1:56 pm
Location: Anthetal City, Latrovia
Contact:

Unread post Thu May 17, 2018 5:12 am

Smith VerinGuard wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:44 pm
And this should be removed:
-The region must not have a “raider” tag.
Considering as Independents, all Raiders and Defenders are equal
Also agreed, raider regions can be proven reliable at times.
Post Reply

Return to “Debating Chamber”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest