Region of Selene

Dear World Leaders,

As time has passed I believe it is imperative for international stability to establish some basic rules of war. The Empire of Procellia wishes to propose a set of international laws in regards to neutral nations, both to restrict and protect our rights. This convention will only apply to the signatories, but failure to sign could prevent a nation from benefiting from a neutral nation.

1) A neutral nation may not declare war, unless first directly attacked

2) A neutral nation may not attempt to side with a party in a foreign conflict in any official capacity. Example of prohibited actions include; an official condemnation, trading with only one party, offering humanitarian aid to only one party or an official recognition of one side as the rightful victor

3) An antagonist party may not inhibit the free trade of goods from a neutral nation

4) An antagonist party may not attempt to attack or harm a neutral nation, or its citizens

5) A neutral nation may provide humanitarian relief, so long as it is nonpartisan and does not directly contribute to the war effort

6) A neutral nation must cease all humanitarian efforts if all parties involved request it

7) A neutral nation must turn over all patients and refugees to the victor once the fighting has ended

8) An antagonist party may not prevent or inhibit humanitarian efforts from a neutral nation

9) An antagonist party may not attempt to confiscate or steal the aid provided to civilian by a neutral nation

10) A neutral nation has the right to defend themselves, and refugees in their care from antagonists without being considered an active party in the conflict

11) It is the responsibility of all signatories to enforce these rules within their territory and amongst their population.

OOC: You can post your nation's response below, or note if your nation becomes a signatory

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk

Edward Yutan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has called this declaration as an idea that will fall flat on its face. "However, it does not choose to side with Selene, and that's all that matters," he said. "It's a shame it had to be proposed by a bunch of communists though."

Sasaufe signs the declaration saying 'I respect the fact that they wish not to harm anyone in war, but that they also want to help people'

Minister of Foreign Affairs approaches the signing desk and accepts the terms, with President Travis and madam Ambassador Sam Johnson both agree to the terms.

Sylon has laughed off the declaration as baggage that just adds complexity to a system that doesn't need it in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Premier Quetzal, in a statement earlier today, has criticized the Declaration of Rights of Neutral Nations, which is being proposed by Procellia.

"The proposal is much too stringent, in that it defines a condemnation as an official act of war. We are staunch defenders of human rights, and such a document would force us to provide no humanitarian aid, or provide aid to nations which may be committing the most heinous of war crimes and human rights violations. We will accept no such agreement."

The Procellian Prime Minister, in à public statement, addressed the criticism from Quetzal. "This law only binds a neutral nation. A nonneutral nation, such as Tepetlan, would only be required to recognise the rights of a neutral nation. Right now we are the only permanently neutral nation on the planet. Unless Tepetlan plans to call themselves neutral and still fight in foreign wars, their criticism comes from a misunderstanding of the document."

(Ooc: The document divides nations into two types, neutral and antagonist. A neutral nation is bound by all provisions. An antagonist nation is only required to recognize the rights of a neutral nation. So your country would only be banned from attacking a neutral nation, or blocking it's trade.

For example Kauzka has signed the document. Kauzka can still declare war and do everything they could before, except they can not stop a neutral party, such as Procellia, from providing humanitarian aid and trade.

A nation can also be neutral on a case by case basis. So Kauzka can be an antagonist in one war, but declare neutrality in another war.)

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk

(What is the penalty for breaking the treaty as both a signatory and a non-signatory?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(OOC: It gives the other signatories the right to enforce the laws among other signatories. For example if Kauzka had a civil war, and one side attacked a neutral Procellian Medical tent, the other signatories have the legal right to enter the war without being considered aggressors. Or trade sanctions, or any other punishment the other parties find reasonable.

As for nonsignators they just risk not benefiting from neutral nations. So humanitarian aid and continued trade could be withheld. It also means the signators don't have to recognise the rights of the other nation, even if they claim to be neutral)

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk