Foreign Affairs of the Union

[Jonas]

Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Union Treaty:

The jurisdiction of the Union covers:
1. Representation of the Union in international relations, conclusion and ratification of treaties with other states;

This brings me to ask following questions:
1) Who is (among the Union Council of Commissars) responsible for these international relations? It's something we never explicitly wrote down in the Treaty. Can I assume that this is the Chairman, who acts as our figurehead?

2) Perhaps we can draft a basic recognition treaty for other countries. But instead of recognising us separately, the treaty would incline the recognition of all Union States (and their borders), saving us some work.

[Raz]

Are you trying to become the Verhofstadt of micronations?

[Gerenia]

1) Yes, I'd say so;

2) I don't really see the necessity of it.

[Jonas]

Are you trying to become the Verhofstadt of micronations?

I need different teeth for that.

[Wil]

http://hub.mn/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=8611

He's a bit contradictory where it says he will file to release his land claims with the MCS, but this seems a big deal.

[Craitman]

He's a bit contradictory where it says he will file to release his land claims with the MCS

How?

[Wil]

He's a bit contradictory where it says he will file to release his land claims with the MCS

How?

Instead of holding large parts of the Micras map hostage and facing reduction or outright removal for wanting to pursue this direction, I have opted to file for a removal, following a thorough change of names and places through a modification. I do not plan on giving away any Alexandrian land.

He's states he's a) opting "to file for a removal" of his claims but he also states b) he does "not plan on giving away any [of the land]." Those two statements seem to me to be contradictory. He perhaps could have worded it differently, in order to make it clearer, unless there is a context I am missing, Your Excellency.

[Craitman]

"Giving away" land refers to gifting it to other nations, as is often popular with dissolutions...

[Jonas]

He's giving it to the Green, I assume.

[Zibertian Kind]

As always we should keep an eye on the situation regarding Alexandria. While there can be little doubt that the rulers of Alexandria are acting in good faith, we cannot necessarily account for the intentions of others, including their close friends and associates. With that said we should remain vigilant to the threats, and to the opportunities which are posed by Alexandria's dissolution.

Regarding the original proposal:

1. Yes, I would assume that this is the case. In general, I would assume that the Chairman assumes all responsibilities which are not clearly defined by the treaty (*and reserves the right to delegate responsibilities as the need arises.*) As we move forward we will come to gain a better understanding of which roles should be defined, and we can make changes to the treaty accordingly.

2. While I agree that this isn't necessary, I can also see the logic of it. On a strictly personal level, treaties of recognition have always seemed like somewhat of a trivial formality. When nations engage with the alliance as a whole, I believe that it should be on the basis of something more substantial than mere recognition.

[Jonas]

When nations engage with the alliance as a whole, I believe that it should be on the basis of something more substantial than mere recognition.

What would would be an example of 'more substantial'?

[Zibertian Kind]

The most basic level of interaction between the alliance as a whole and an individual nation should relate to the establishment of observer status for the individual nation. I suppose that we could do is draft a treaty which makes it such that any treaty of recognition signed between a member-state and a non-affiliated nation automatically renders that nation an observer of the whole alliance.