[IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Moderator: Staff
[IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Name & Title: Lord Holly-Wythe, Steward (IRS)
E-Mail/Contact: Discord
Nation: IRS
Request:
Notes:
As per the below listed treaty violations, Shireroth is enacting its right to recover territories it had granted to Batavia.
E-Mail/Contact: Discord
Nation: IRS
Request:
Notes:
As per the below listed treaty violations, Shireroth is enacting its right to recover territories it had granted to Batavia.
- Batavia's subordinated status in the Franco-Batavian Empire constitutes a state failure and an occupation by a third party, i.e. Francia. Its subordinated status is indicated by the fact that decrees of government in the empire emanate from Francia. This meets the criteria of Treaty of Portus Batavii, Article 2 Section 2, meaning the return of territories granted by Shireroth to Batavia.
- Batavia, due to its subordination to Francia, is now in violation Batavian Reunification Treaty, Article 4 (the Batavian Reunification Treaty being an extension of the aforementioned treaty), due to its failure to maintain a closed border with Stormark. The proof of this can be found in the fact that the King of Batavia is marrying a Stormarker, who sits in court with him.
Last edited by octavius on Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Is there an addendum to the linked treaty that extends its legality? Article 6 would appear to mean it has now expired, having been ratified 21 AN years ago:
6. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of twelve Norton years.
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
(speaking as the Frankish foreign minister, even if I'm arrested in Shirekeep)
The Shirerithians refer the second treaty (Treaty of Batavian Reunification) to this treaty (appears to be an error in the link): https://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 11&t=22581
It says:
With regard to the claims, the Franco-Batavian government will not dignify them with any comment.
The Shirerithians refer the second treaty (Treaty of Batavian Reunification) to this treaty (appears to be an error in the link): https://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 11&t=22581
It says:
Article 3 extends the applicability with another 20 AN years, i.e. to 1689 (October, 2020).This Treaty supplements the Sxiro-Batavian Treaty of Amity & Settlement [aka Treaty of Portus Batavii, my comment]. The duration of effect of the latter treaty in Section 6 shall be extended for the duration of implementation of Article 3 of the present Treaty.
With regard to the claims, the Franco-Batavian government will not dignify them with any comment.
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
A High Priestess wishes to convey a little a correction. Article 4 of the Batavian Reunification Treaty has been rendered obsolete ever since Stormark ceded the Storish Biland which was known as the Duchy of Gascony to Francia by means of the Treaty of the Northern Hereditary Lands that came into effect in 1681, causing the Batavian–Gasconian border mentioned in the Batavian Reunification Treaty to cease to exist. Since then Stormark does not have any borders with Batavia anymore.
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
A High Priestess wishes to convey that Arkadius will probably show up and have a thing or two to say about this matter.
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any Storers in all of Franco-Batavia.
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Borders aren't just on land, airports and seaports also have borders.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Ah, thank you. I thought they were meant to relate to separate treaties but linked to the same one, so wanted to make sure.
I'm glad you guys at least made sure to include a clause regarding third-party arbitrating on any disputes arising from the treaty though!
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Sorry about that. That was my fault
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
A High Priestess wishes to convey that the situation is a bit more complex than that since both Batavia and Francia have full sovereign control over their migration policies. There is freedom of movement between Francia and Stormark under Article XI of the Treaty of the Northern Hereditary Lands.
Morever, Batavia doesn't do exclusionary policies so if a Stormarker obtains a visa or residence permit for Batavia zie can travel and stay there. In addition there is the matter of individuals having multiple nationalities.
It seems that there is a bit of confusion about the nature of the Franco-Batavian Empire. It is a supranational union of Sovereign States inspired by the European Union, to which Batavia and Francia have freely delegated certain responsibilities as per the Pact of Benacium. Batavia is by no means subordinate to Francia, neither is Francia subordinate to Batavia.
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
A High Priestess wishes to convey that the Batavian Reunification Treaty is very specific about which border is to be kept closed: the border between Batavia and Storish Gascony, a border which does not exist anymore. And that border was shut to everyone, not only to Stormarkers.
Moreover, keeping a specific border closed does not constitute a blanket travel or migration ban.
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Two things:
1. Article 4 has two clauses. One specifies that the border must be closed. The second specifies that crossings over the Batavia-Gascony border must be met with the harshest punishment.
2. Why is a Storer speaking for the Batavians? All the more evidence of Storish infiltration into Batavian territory and more proof that it has become a territory occupied by the Harald Entity through its puppet regime in Francia.
1. Article 4 has two clauses. One specifies that the border must be closed. The second specifies that crossings over the Batavia-Gascony border must be met with the harshest punishment.
2. Why is a Storer speaking for the Batavians? All the more evidence of Storish infiltration into Batavian territory and more proof that it has become a territory occupied by the Harald Entity through its puppet regime in Francia.
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
I try to stay out of debates involving reading treaties, but I must say it is confusing that Arky isn't the one speaking for his nation. Unless, that is, he has reached out to Stormark to act as the third party arbiter (though they certainly seem to have a preferred side in this). In any case, I think it's fair to say that we would all like to hear what he has to say on this matter.
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
There is no way in which foreign parties of the Storish persuasion could be considered a neutral party when it comes to a treaty signed in good faith intended to keep their taint out. It ought to be abundantly clear, however, that Batavia is no longer sovereign, having been subsumed into a union state. That gets to the root of this issue.
Last edited by octavius on Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: [IRS] Recovery of granted territory
Objection!
It is a good practice in diplomatic relations that both parties formulate their points of view before taking public action. His Majesty, the King of Batavia, has not even had the opportunity to react in substance. That is not very friendly.
Speaking of friendly. Article 3 of the "Treaty on the Unification of Batavia between the Kingdom of Batavia and the Imperial Republic of Shireroth", in short, the reunification treaty, specifies that there will be a "permanent relationship based on peace, friendship, and good neighbourliness" between the treaty partners. Unfortunately, practice has shown that Shireroth has not always behaved peacefully, in friendship, and in good neighbourliness towards the Kingdom of Batavia.
If the Imperial Government of Shireroth had taken the trouble to take note of the Pact of Benacium, one could have read that the Franco-Batavian Empire did not replace the Kingdom of Batavia.
There's no evidence that opened the Stormark border. It was only after Gascony was handed over to the Frankish Empire that the border was opened.
But I'd like to draw your attention to Article 6 of the reunification treaty. This states that the term of the previous treaty, namely the "Sxiro-Batavian Treaty of Amity & Settlement", in short Treaty of Portus Batavii, is extended to the term of Article 3 of the reunification treaty. However, the period is in Article 2. So that means that the Treaty of Portus Batavii has already expired.
It is a good practice in diplomatic relations that both parties formulate their points of view before taking public action. His Majesty, the King of Batavia, has not even had the opportunity to react in substance. That is not very friendly.
Speaking of friendly. Article 3 of the "Treaty on the Unification of Batavia between the Kingdom of Batavia and the Imperial Republic of Shireroth", in short, the reunification treaty, specifies that there will be a "permanent relationship based on peace, friendship, and good neighbourliness" between the treaty partners. Unfortunately, practice has shown that Shireroth has not always behaved peacefully, in friendship, and in good neighbourliness towards the Kingdom of Batavia.
If the Imperial Government of Shireroth had taken the trouble to take note of the Pact of Benacium, one could have read that the Franco-Batavian Empire did not replace the Kingdom of Batavia.
There's no evidence that opened the Stormark border. It was only after Gascony was handed over to the Frankish Empire that the border was opened.
But I'd like to draw your attention to Article 6 of the reunification treaty. This states that the term of the previous treaty, namely the "Sxiro-Batavian Treaty of Amity & Settlement", in short Treaty of Portus Batavii, is extended to the term of Article 3 of the reunification treaty. However, the period is in Article 2. So that means that the Treaty of Portus Batavii has already expired.
Arky