Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Story Thread 11 - August 2011]

[Aztecs (DoE)]

We Aztecs applaud the formation of the International Court of Justice.

We think the International Court of Justice should be the beaken of civilization and the basis of International Right all across the globe. Members of such an institution should be above all doubt and should also act as beakens of civilization.

Therefore we contest the right of nations to become a member of the International Court of Justice, if they themselves are guilty of one of the following acts:

- article 1) international crimes (acts of war, theft, bribery, sabotage, and other transnational criminal enterprises)
- article 2) crimes against humanity (by individual or group actors)
- article 3) treaty/agreement breaking
- article 4) the resolution of grievances by multiple parties, all of whom must agree to take part in the process and be bound by the verdict


Thus we can arrive at no other conclusion that the Russians should NOT become one of the judges of the International Court of Justice. The Russians are guilty of acts falling under articles 1 (international crimes) and 2 (acts against humanity) themselves , as the founders of the CIJ, the Incans, allready convincingly proved in #127: "Inca Leadership Attack Ongoing Russian Atrocities".

[Russia (DoE)]

* Russians continue to destroy the Aztec countryside. A farm, windmill and plantation have been destroyed. A totally unacceptabel act of random destruction.

It is only uneducated and unaware of the art of the war people who may not see the logic behind these actions. Those are only for cutting roads, to make trenches and fortifications, who to serve for the sole purpose of not allowing surprising attack from the Azteca loyalists, the rebels under American command, the USA army itself or Viking regiments under Azteca command. For those who are not aware, the combined potential hostile to the Russia forces in the region outnumber the Russian forces as much as 2:1 to 2.5:1, so those defensive actions are absolutely justified by the common sense of anyone skilled in the art of war.

* Camaxtli has made a short appearance between supporters, at his Tenochtitlan headquarters. He remains vigilant.

Instead of making show appearances, he better off accept those of his citizens who he sold to foreigners. All the suffering of the Azteca people began and will end with their stubborn leader overthrowing his huge ego, caring for his pride and for other nations well-being more than to his own people.

* The Calixtl rebels and their Incan protectors seem to get along fine. First days of temporary Incan rule pass in a mode of cheerfull collaboration.

Who would not enjoy finally under some competent and caring rule? Being not under the capitalist and imperialist heel of Camaxtli feels like good relief indeed.

We Aztecs want to see our entire country restored to it's former glory.
But being a proud people we want it restored without being bullied into any agreement we wouldn't have made otherwise.

The Aztecs and King Camaxtli in particular gave away willingly one of its important cities to foreigners vowing them to a death from starvation achieving nothing, but then they complain when someone who they consider enemy of them is taking away with force 2 other cities, killing far less civilians in the process than their own deeds. And this Russian intervention is only to make the Aztecs take back their former city, so the Aztec people who you pretend to care much start to populate your city again.

Denying half the world the benefits of oil,

This is a strategic resource. Wars have been fought for it in the history and most probably it will be fought over in the future too. As we see it, the Oil have no other use than to fuel military, so normally it will be treated in its military aspect.

then trying to bully one of the smaller countries of the world to give up their only chance to use it,

For the unprejudiced observer it will be clear that the Aztecs were and would have been far better without going this way, trying to mess with things that they dont understand, nor can control, not to mention they knew the world's opinion about this, so who is bullying who may prove highly controversial.

and then set an ultimatum of 24 hours,
and attack well before this ultimatum ends,

This is simply not true. Russia did not set any ultimatums, nor mentioned deadlines. It did politely asked you ( we remember using the word "Please" few times in a 10 rows long message) to take back your city or at least reply to Russia with your stance. On the the very same time, a message was sent to the Vikings asking them (politely again) to tell me are they going to return that city and asked them to answer us as soon as it is possible. They ignored the message too, despite It was mentioned what will be the consequences for their supposed friends the Aztecs if they dont return the city. It seems the Vikings dont care too much for the Aztec people - all they care is their oil and their fleet. And they pretend to be your friends!

resulting in large destruction in two proud Aztec cities,

Unfortunately the common citizens are those who pays for the mistakes of the rulers.

furthermore causing a massive famine througout Azteca by a naval blockade,

Even the death of your supposedly most dearest Azteca people could not convince you to do a simple thing. A true leader in his good mind could not do this. And we accuse you in fabricating stories to use them as a propaganda - the blockade lasted just one turn, which of course could not result in actual death from starvation. But what we can expect from a king, who ells off his own people and a bunch of rebels?

It may be clear that, unless Russia changes it's ways, history will be unkind to you:
as it's clear that you're not able to restrain your power,

The history will remember Camaxtli the Mad King as a stubborn and out of his mind feather wearing ruler which political decisions and actions put its own countryman in troubles, which few nations had seen.

and you're also not able to restrain your Ottoman dog.

About the Ottomans, you better communicate with them directly. ITAR-TASS will only mention few well- known facts:
* Turkey is sovereign country.
* The Turks traditional lust for battles.
*It was Azteca who actually attacked Turkey to help out the Americans.
*Russia did not helped in any way the Turkish military campaigns (as it would have been very easy to do so as the current events have proved).
* Not a single coin of gold or a soldier Russia contributed to the Turks after the end of the Great War.
* It was Russia's diplomatic efforts who helped ceasing the Turkish military campaigns in North America.

Russia is ready to openly and argumentated answer to any further claims, despite so far those being only lies and insinuations.

People of Azteca, overthrow the Mad King Kamaxtli and the monarchy when it does not serves you well! Take back your country and rule it your way!

Proletarians from all the world - UNITE!

Avanti o Azteca, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa, Bandiera rossa.
Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa trionferà.
Evviva il comunismo e la libertà.

[Aztecs (DoE)]

Again a sad example of Russian Communist propaganda.
The Russians are mixing lies, half truths and truths of publications of Camaxtli and of us, the Revolutionairy Council, and present that as the truth. Pure propaganda.

Furthermore they seem to forget that the Aztec Revolutionairy Council is very opposed to the communist movement.
Even our colour is green, instead of the red of the communists, which to Aztecs means only one thing: Aztec blood spilled by the Russian communists.
The only red brigades in Azteca are of Russian origin and they are responsible for large destruction in the Aztec countryside.

The Aztec Revolutionairy Council

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

The Daily Turkey

The Daily Turkey has been authorized to release additional excerpts from Supreme Commander Jamal and Substitute Messenger Mahmud's Great Treatise of International Law...

Chapter 2 - Just War

All nations are capable of "Just War" however, historical World opinion dictates different requirements depending on the global "rank" of the nation involved. The rules borne out through history seems quite simple...

1. A War is always "Just" when a Lower ranked nation makes war on a higher ranked one.

2. When a higher ranked nation makes war on a lower ranked one, there are 2 requirements:

a. There must be a "moral" justification.

a-i. The moral justification should satisfy the allies of the attacker, and at a minimum be somewhat credible to neutral nations. Neutral nations need not be convinced of the moral justification, but they must at least agree that it contains at least a grain of merit. Silence on the matter suffices to satisfy either requirement. That is to say when allies of the attacker, or neutral parties remain silent, this indicates approval/consent on the part of the allies, and at least indifference on the part of Neutral nations.

a-ii. Enemies of the attacker, including the nation attacked, her allies, past war-rivals, members of rival alliances etc., need not consent or be satisfied with the moral justification. Indeed, these nations would never give approval or consent regardless of circumstances, so their opinions do not factor into whether the war is "Just"

b. There must be a strategic justification, other than pure conquest.

b-i. Wars of pure altruism are an obvious farce. All nations know that there is always some secondary, strategic goal in every war. However, when a higher ranked nation invades a lower ranked one, the strategic goal must be something other than acquisition of more territory or acquiring a resource the invader also possesses. The strategic goals possible are too many to enumerate, but they include, denying a resource to an enemy, pre-emptive strike, peace-keeping/ending a war swiftly, breaking a trade blockade, and many others. However, when a strategic reason is enumerated, the aggressor must end their campaign when the objective is acheived, and return territory to the vanquished that is not necessary to accomplish the stated objective...

Chapter 3 - Pacifism

A a general rule, Pacifism is despised by most nations, and viewed as cowardly and duplicitous. Nations claiming to be pacifist, and refusing to participate in armed conflicts can expect to generally be maligned, abused, bullied etc. This is because most nations will not be able to be truly pacifist and simultaneously isolationist. Consequently, other nations will resent their dealings with enemies and interperet this as hypocrisy and dishonesty about their pacifist principles. Conversely, even the so-called "friends" of the pacifist will be reluctant to assist them if the pacifist is attacked, knowing that the pacifist would likely refuse to return the favor. Therefore the only path of the pacifist is total isolationism.

The amount of acceptance a pacifist enjoys is usually directly related to how isolated they remain. If they avoid involving themselves in world affairs, avoid trade, avoid contact, refrain from sharing war spoils, or from arming other nations, or from openly supporting the policies or actions of others they stand the best chance of being respected as a pacifist, whether or not they actually claim to be pacifist. This does not mean they will be completely safe from attack, but it does mean that when they are attacked, it is more likely the world community will be sympathetic to their cause...

[Aztecs (DoE)]

"Sire, have you seen the latest issue of the Dailey Turkey on Just War ?"

"Yes, I just wiped my ass with it..", says Camaxtli..

[Arabia2 (doe)]

I question how a nation would be expected to compose a fair, acceptable rule about international law when they make claims like this:

China ...

You can replace it by the word "local superpower"

...does not owe anyone an explanation for their role in this matter, nor does China have to prove what "right" they have to be involved. China's "right" is self-manifesting and self-establishing, in that no one is in any position to stop them, save by requesting them to do so politely and respectfully.

Until this sentiment is exist Arabia should not accept laws which can be melded by the authors nor Arabia should accept the authority of the so called "Court of International Justice" where we were not even invited.

Mahmoud Salam

[Arabia2 (doe)]

Hereby Arabia wishes to sign the Incan treaty and join the Court of International Justice.

Abdul-Asim, Vice President

[Inca (DoE)]

A note that the court really requires the signing of at least 2 of the "court of 4" permanent members to be effective, and at least then the signing by the Native Americans. That said, it has recently come to my attention that 2 of the members will not be able to take part in the court's affairs.

A note to the Aztec that while your concerns are reasonable, the court's makeup was intended to represent the centers of power and diplomacy, so that rules would carry the force of their voice. It is as much a method of mediation between great power centers as it is of anything else. This approach appears destined to fail due to Chinese and Neandor absence. As such, a new approach will be taken.

A note to the Arabs, you were indeed invited into the Court as were all nations. We are glad you have signed on and respect attempts at codifying a more sensible international practice. We also would remind you that there is no compulsory nature to the court. All member states may make a choice at each juncture to accept the court's rulings or leave full membership. It is not presently possible for any nation to be compelled to follow the court's rulings or laws against their will.

[Carthage (DoF)]

.....

[Inca (DoE)]

Court for International Justice

A vote among current members to the Court for International Justice treaty:

Should the language of the charter be altered to the following:

The Court for International Justice in Capaco


A treaty that any nation may sign onto.

The Inca do hereby manifest the desires of the peoples of the world for justice on the international scene. We do construct a court in Capaco for the purpose of adjudicating international disputes of law and crime. We feel a growing need for codification and adherence to civilized norms within the international realm, something so far duly lacking in global affairs.

The definition "full-membership nation" in this document refers to nations that have signed the treaty and signed on to all further international law decisions by the court without any qualifying signing statements beyond those permitted in this document and which are in full compliance with the court's law.

This constructed body will have a judging body comprised of the full-membership signatory nations. The majority opinion will decide any matter before the court, and this opinion will be final and binding upon the signatories. Should a non-majority vote be made (including 50% or less), there will be no binding law.

The scope of the court will be:
- international crimes (acts of war, theft, bribery, sabotage, and other transnational criminal enterprises)
- crimes against humanity (by individual or group actors)
- treaty/agreement breaking
- the resolution of grievances by multiple parties, all of whom must agree to take part in the process and be bound by the verdict

The process will be that parties seeking adjudication will notify the Inca of their case. If further clarification or information is needed, the Inca will handle this process. Once this is completed, the Inca will pass on the case to those members who wish to be a part of the "hearing process" (they must include such a signing statement upon signing the treaty). If, after [48 hours] there is a majority agreement to proceed, the case will go to trial.

If a member of the court is directly involved in a case, they must remove themselves from the process.

The applying parties will then propose "limits of judgement", these will limit the scope of the court's decision. The court may decide to ignore these limits, however, if there is no consensus among the applying parties, and propose its own limits. The "hearing committee", comprised of all willing nations, will determine the "limits of judgment". At this point, the pre-trail phase will be completed and the applicants must sign a binding contract to abide by the court's verdict. If no such contract is signed, the case will not proceed to trial.

The court will then open a special session, and the defending and prosecuting parties will make their case before the court (a synopsis will be prepared by the Inca for public information, abridged and redacted accordingly, pending approval by the interested parties). The judging nations will then have a chance to ask questions to the various parties, and then the court will convene while the judging panel considers the merits of the case and debates among themselves. After a period of no greater than [48 hours], each judge will submit his verdict to the other judges in a FINAL draft.

The court will then hand down a ruling. If there is a majority agreement on any point, it will be binding. If not, there will be no binding verdict.

Each time the court issues a ruling that is applicable to international law (special notes will be made of such verdicts), a notice will be posted and signatory nations will have [72 hours] to ratify the verdict as binding international law. At the outset, there are no binding laws on nations. Failure to ratify the new laws will result in being unable to bring issues to the court based on those laws within [15T] of ratification. Those who immediately ratify as preexisting members of the court may have immediate recourse when the law comes into effect, with a [5T] period of forgiveness for offending parties to adjust their actions after the new law is passed.

This treaty may be amended by a unanimous opinion by all signatory nations that have agreed to all its binding verdicts.


My nation does hereby sign onto this treaty and join the CIJ:

The Inca vote "yes" to this change, and should it be adopted they add a signing statement saying "we wish to be included in the 'hearing committee'".

The Inca await the vote by the Arabs for the treaty to be amended.

A synopsis of alterations:
- no longer is there a "court of 4", now all full-membership nations are all included in the deciding body
- the definition of "full-membership nations" included
- a voluntary body of "hearing committee" members to decide the merits and limits of a case has been included
- clarification over non-majority opinions (they are not binding for anything of 50% or less)
- redefinition of the "hearing process"
- clarification over the termination of trial if all interested parties do not agree to continue
- period for deliberation increased to 48 hours
- period for reratification increased to 72 hours
- amendments now require a unanimous vote
- optional signing statement for inclusion in hearing votes allowed

[Egypt (DoF)]

wrong thread again.. at least It seems I'm not the only one

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

The Daily Turkey

The Daily Turkey recently obtained a statment from Public Relations Minister Aysecan, regarding her remarks that were recently cited by Mahmoud Salam of Arabia. She was happy to speak with us, as always. She said:

"First of all, I am not quite certain who Mahmoud Salam is. I know that Mr. Abdul-Asim is the Vice President of Arabia, and thus probably authorized to release official statements on behalf of the Government, but the Arabian government just experienced some upheaval so it is difficult to know for sure who is in charge, and who is authorized to speak on their behalf. I have been very busy with the War and the India-Japan matters before that, so forgive me if I am not fully versed on Arabian affairs.

However, assuming Mr. Salam is speaking on behalf of Arabia, I must clarify that this statement was a direct quote authored by myself, delivered in the context of the Indian-Japan mediation, in my capacity as the Mediator. It was a statment of unquestionable truth, and I stand by it, but in no way was that statement official Turkish policy, nor was it, to my knowledge, the position of Supreme-Commander Jamal or Substitute-Messenger Mahmud, the authors of the Great Treatise of International Law.

In fact, I have never discussed the Treatise with either of these two gentleman or the Sultan and I do not know what the Sultan's position is on the book. I do know that it is not presently the official policy of Turkey.

I repeat, at the time I made my remarks to , no nation was in any position to do anything about China's role in the India-Japan conflict, and demanding that China prove what "right" they had to be involved was unproductive and pointless. Preventing China from invading India could only be done by polite request, not accusations and provocations. All nations were aware of this, so I can not fathom why my statement would be seen as controversial by Mr. Salam, whoever he is."
-----------------------------

The Daily Turkey would like to point out, that as explained in the introduction, the Great Treatise of International Law is not policy of any nation, including Turkey and is not intended to be binding upon any nation. It is merely a distilled anthology of how nations have behaved historically, offered to assist World Leaders in determining how their actions will likely be responded to and interpreted in the future. We at the Daily Turkey apologize for any confusion that our publication has caused and we hope that this will be clearer in the future. Again, the book is not currently Turkish policy, it is more of historical record than a rulebook.

For reference, here is are the previously printed excerpts from the Great Treatise of International Law

Introduction
This work is done with respect and appreciation to all nations who have contributed to the understanding of international law. Particularly, we wish to give special thanks to certain nations and certain persons throughout history. The nations that must recieve special recognition are, Neandor, Inca, China, Valhalla, India and Native America. The persons that deserve special recognition are, Dwight 'diplo' Eisenhower of America, Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, Emperor Mejii of Japan, Rabbi Amram Goan of Israel, Lady Aysecan of Turkey, Camaxtli of Azteca, Ras Imru of Mali, King Phillipe of France, King Venetta of Neandor, Mind of Heaven of Native America, Comrade-Princess Catherine of Russia...

This Treatise is not intended to be an imposed rule. On the contrary, this Treatise is merely a recorded observation of what the attitude of the world community has been historically to a number of situations. We attempt to present the way the international community has responded to past situations, in order to help nations predict how nations will respond to their conduct in the future...

Chapter 1
--Wars of Pure Conquest
Lower rank Civilizations have an absolute privilege to attack higher ranked civilizations for the purpose of pure conquest and or rank increase. Higher ranked civilizations have no privilege to attack lower ranked ones for conquest purposes. Some other legitimate purpose must be well enumerated before attack. When a lower rank civilization attacks a higher ranked one for conquest purposes, the attacks must cease when the lower ranked civilization surpasses the formerly higher ranked one in rank...
Chapter 2 - Just War
All nations are capable of "Just War" however, historical World opinion dictates different requirements depending on the global "rank" of the nation involved. The rules borne out through history seems quite simple...
1. A War is always "Just" when a Lower ranked nation makes war on a higher ranked one.
2. When a higher ranked nation makes war on a lower ranked one, there are 2 requirements:
a. There must be a "moral" justification.
a-i. The moral justification should satisfy the allies of the attacker, and at a minimum be somewhat credible to neutral nations. Neutral nations need not be convinced of the moral justification, but they must at least agree that it contains at least a grain of merit. Silence on the matter suffices to satisfy either requirement. That is to say when allies of the attacker, or neutral parties remain silent, this indicates approval/consent on the part of the allies, and at least indifference on the part of Neutral nations.
a-ii. Enemies of the attacker, including the nation attacked, her allies, past war-rivals, members of rival alliances etc., need not consent or be satisfied with the moral justification. Indeed, these nations would never give approval or consent regardless of circumstances, so their opinions do not factor into whether the war is "Just"
b. There must be a strategic justification, other than pure conquest.
b-i. Wars of pure altruism are an obvious farce. All nations know that there is always some secondary, strategic goal in every war. However, when a higher ranked nation invades a lower ranked one, the strategic goal must be something other than acquisition of more territory or acquiring a resource the invader also possesses. The strategic goals possible are too many to enumerate, but they include, denying a resource to an enemy, pre-emptive strike, peace-keeping/ending a war swiftly, breaking a trade blockade, and many others. However, when a strategic reason is enumerated, the aggressor must end their campaign when the objective is acheived, and return territory to the vanquished that is not necessary to accomplish the stated objective...
Chapter 3 - Pacifism
A a general rule, Pacifism is despised by most nations, and viewed as cowardly and duplicitous. Nations claiming to be pacifist, and refusing to participate in armed conflicts can expect to generally be maligned, abused, bullied etc. This is because most nations will not be able to be truly pacifist and simultaneously isolationist. Consequently, other nations will resent their dealings with enemies and interperet this as hypocrisy and dishonesty about their pacifist principles. Conversely, even the so-called "friends" of the pacifist will be reluctant to assist them if the pacifist is attacked, knowing that the pacifist would likely refuse to return the favor. Therefore the only path of the pacifist is total isolationism.
The amount of acceptance a pacifist enjoys is usually directly related to how isolated they remain. If they avoid involving themselves in world affairs, avoid trade, avoid contact, refrain from sharing war spoils, or from arming other nations, or from openly supporting the policies or actions of others they stand the best chance of being respected as a pacifist, whether or not they actually claim to be pacifist. This does not mean they will be completely safe from attack, but it does mean that when they are attacked, it is more likely the world community will be sympathetic to their cause...

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

The Daily Turkey

The Daily Turkey would like to publish additional excerpts from "The Great Treatise of International Law" to better illustrate the true intents and purposes for the book...

Chapter 3 - Pacifism
...

Take for example the cases of India and America. These are by no means the only nations that have either been pacifist or claimed to be pacifist or "peaceful" over the centuries, however, these two nations well illustrate the necessity of accompanying Pacifism with Isolationism.

India has long claimed to be pacifist, however, they are by no means isolationist. They are a major player in world affairs, often entering into alliance agreements and defensive pacts with other nations, declaring War, trading for weapons, cities and the like.

Observe that when India was attacked by Japan, the international community had a lukewarm to cold response to India's pleas for assistance. The Neandor and French were reluctant to aid a self-proclaimed pacifist who would likely be of no use to them in the war against their rivals. The Vikings who owed India weapons delayed delivering them, because it was inconvenient, and it was just not worth the risk to aid a pacifist who in turn would likely not aid them with force of arms.

Concurrently, nations like Inca, Russia and England scoffed at India's claims of Pacifism, because as they saw it, India had routinely involved herself in world wars, albeit indirectly, by entering into trade agreements to recieve war spoils, and captured cities...

Contrast this with America, who although never proclaiming themselves Pacifist, has always claimed to be peaceful. America, unlike India, has been strongly isolationist, refusing repeatedly to involve herself in World Affairs, and until very recently, avoiding Wars altogether. It is this isolationist spirit, coupled with pacifist ways, that erupted world opinion against Turkey and in support of America when Turkey invaded America.

Finally, notice how the pro -American passions of the world community have cooled substantially as America has become more and more entwined in World affairs, fighting wars, trading for Weapons, joining alliances etc., while still claiming to be a peaceful nation. Like India in the past, America is cultivating the same world sentiment that India once did, as a nation who's claims of peaceful-isolationism are duplicitous. Simultaneously, as India has slowly abandoned claims of pacifism and become more openly militaristic, more nations are openly supporting India, courting them as allies and friends. These develpoments prove the tenets of this chapter on Pacifism, that the world in general despises a pacifist, unless they are totally isolationist as well...
---------------------------------

We will continue to release excerpts from this massive undertaking, which has already become #1 on the Daily Turkey Bestseller list.

[Arabia2 (doe)]

To the Inca's proposal: We Arabians signed this treaty because we agree its general aim, especially the fight against war-crimes. We don't pretend to understand every details or even care too much about it, because we have our doubts that this court would ever have the capability to truly change things for the better. But we also don't see why shouldn't we give it a chance for the greater good.

Reflecting on the Turks' Question: Mr. Mahmoud Salam is of course not representing Arabia in any official way, (he is a well known (in Arabia) politician, mostly known for being the son of the former president and one of the main speaker of an arabian party)

Abdul-Asim

[Inca (DoE)]

So, Arabs, what is your vote on the matter? Should the treaty be amended or not? It cannot be amended without your consent. It seems like a "yes", but we are not sure.