Laserlight argued:
> > I think we need a lawyer-tight definition of 'Pirate' and an
Would such a AE local government be officially recognised as a sovereign power
by any of the powers outside the AE?
Or would they treat them as, say, a state within a federation (e.g.like the
states in the US), thus dealing primarily with the Alarishi emperor and
holding him responsible for keeping any untoward citizens in check
?
Or would the AE governments be treated as judicial non-entities ? Then
any of their warships would be seen as a pirate.
Historical sidenote:
The inverse situation (several independent powers forming a joint fleet) has
similar problems, in that the joint fleet is not necessarily recognised by
outside powers.
Two cases in point: In 1848, the German states formed a federation, which also
had a Navy. Until the British Government recognised the joint German flag, the
ships
officially were registered in the various states.
When NATO created a joint fleet of AWACS early-warnig planes, they were
registered in Luxemburg.
Greetings Karl Heinz
ITTT, when it deals with them at all, deals with each as a government that is
within an aliance or mutual defence pact. But ITTT is a trade based
corporation.
More like dealing with individual nations of the Eastern Block before the fall
of the Soviet Union. Treat each as a government, but remember that there is a
bigger power behind them.
On a military level, I would guess that most governments have taken the JFK
possition with respect to the AE (i.e. an attack fron one memeber of the AE
will be considered an attack by ALL members of the AE).
On a trade level, each governement is likely treated seperatly.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.nbci.com/rlyehable/gzg/ittt.html (link to ITTT)
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> any of their warships would be seen as a pirate.
> Until the British Government recognised the joint German flag, the
> ITTT, when it deals with them at all, deals with each as a government
> On a military level, I would guess that most governments have taken
The AE's position, expressed quite clearly to anyone who asks, is "each
sovereignity is to be regarded as a corporate person and each is solely
responsible for its own actions." Anything that happens with AE
space is under AE or sovereignity law. If you're outside AE space and you get
into a situation, it's up to you to get out of it on your own. If you do get
out of it and make it back to AE space, you are (probably) safe from hot
pursuit, but you're not necessarily immune to legal action under AE law.
The AE will occasionally intervene--retroactively endorsing someone's
action, so to speak--and lend support, but it is uncommon.
The exception is for someone acting in an official Imperial capacity--eg
Imperial Navy ships, mercenaries operating under contract (eg Reynolds Corp
troops), that sort of thing. The Empire provides full governmental support,
including direct action where needed. On one occasion some mercs under AE
contract were captured by IF forces and scheduled for an unpleasant execution.
The AE wasn't able to extract the mercs by diplomacy and couldn't get assault
teams there in time. In an amazing coincidence, though, a small antimatter
meteor hit the town about three minutes before the executions were to start.
Of course the AE didn't have a ship there, so it must've been one of those
statistical flukes.
Karl sidenoted:
> Historical sidenote:
To which the proper reply is:
"Why should non-recognition by a bunch of ignorant foreigners
have any effect on the reality of our government?"
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:39:31 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> To which the proper reply is:
Because nations don't exist in a vacuum. There are treaties, there are
embassies, there is international law (maritime law being one of the very
earliest forms of international law).
This is one area where Quebec's hypothetical separation gives Canadians a
unique view of world affairs. If Quebec separates, for instance, is it
automatically a nation? No. The international community would have to accept
it. Until such time, treaties with Canada would be in effect with regard to
Quebec, and Quebec would not be able to make treaties on its own.
This was the same situation with regard to the US during their civil war. The
only real chance the Confederacy had was recognition by Britain and France. If
they both recognized the Confederacy, then the Confederacy could appeal to
them for assistance and form alliances. This would allow Britain and France to
get concessions (primarily in food and cotton exports) for military aid
(60,000 British soldiers, or the equivalent of an army, were waiting to move
into the US from Canada). However, the problem with recognition is that if
they recognized the Confederacy, and the Confederacy was defeated, they would
have essentially hurt their chances with the Union (who, at the time, were
getting closer to Russia and Prussia... as I said, countries don't exist in a
vacuum). In the Confederacy's case, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (where
all slaves, in all states -- including Rebel states -- were declared
free) made it impossible for Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy;
their own people wouldn't stand for a government to side with a slave state
(technically, until that point, the U.S. was still a slave state).
Now, this brings an interesting thing to mind as far as FT campaigns are
concerned. Most players tend towards military aggression when coming up with
reasons for wars between belligerents. In fact, most real world reasons are
political. Internal fractures within a political body can make for interesting
scenarios. I'd like to see more of this in the official timeline. Perhaps the
ESU splinters. Maybe a Kra'vak clan war kicks in. For that matter, even the
Phalons might splinter. It would make for an interesting situation. You want
to use those neat UN ships? How about putting them between two different ESU
factions.
> >To which the proper reply is:
Allen Goodall handed me a straight line:
> Because nations don't exist in a vacuum.
<vbg> That is exactly where the Alarishi Empire does exist. No habitable
planets around here, remember?
Let's consider cases. a) The AE has a constitution, a legal code, a court
system, police and military forces, an executive and a designated method of
succession (and, being Alarish, a method of secession as well, but that's
irrelevant). Is it a nation?
b) There are no other governments is in existence (the Kra'Vak having been
pretty thorough). Does it stop being a nation simply because there's no one
else around to recognize it?
c) AE declares itself independent of the EU. The New Israeli government
recognizes it but no one else does.
d) Take case C and add other governments to the list. Is there a
critical point--is so, what?
> In the Confederacy's case, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
You're sure about that "all states" part?
> Now, this brings an interesting thing to mind as far as FT
Or economic.
> Internal fractures within a political body can make for
Agree.
***
> In the Confederacy's case, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
You're sure about that "all states" part?
***
The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY covered the secessionist states. Kinda moot
elsewhere. *yawn*
Look, can't the rest of us agree the AE is an obvious Bavarian Illuminati
fabrication? This part of the thread started with Laserlight wrongly answering
Karl's questions twice, and Karl's failing to take my advice on dropping the
whole thing.
The repetition in the arguments is becoming tiresome.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:43:49 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Allen Goodall handed me a straight line:
And I did too! (Check the name spelling. *G*)
> Let's consider cases.
Only if other states think it is.
> b) There are no other governments is in existence (the Kra'Vak
If no one else is around, then they're pretty much free to call it whatever
they want. *S*
> c) AE declares itself independent of the EU. The New Israeli
That is a very, very good question. Ummm... it's a nation to those who
recognize it. Remember, there are Arab nations that don't consider Israel a
nation. When Israel was created, so was Palestine but it took over 50 years
for them to get as far as they have while Israel was accepted by the west
almost immediately.
I would suggest that the critical point is when the UN recognizes it, if your
universe has the UN... *S*
> In the Confederacy's case, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
Well, okay, I simplified. In fact, most of the Northern states had abolished
slavery, but not all. Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky were all technically
Northern states and all had slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't
actually free slaves in those states. Neither did it free slaves in territory
already captured by the Union, which meant the entire state of Tennessee as
the Union had captured it.
That was on paper. What's interesting is that the Emancipation Proclamation
basically told the Confederate states that they had 100 days to get back in
line with the Union. If they did, they would be recompensed for their slaves.
It was Lincoln's equivalent to saying, "Don't make me come over there and
smack you." In reality, it signalled the death knell of slavery. There was no
way that slavery would survive for any length of time after the war if all
territory henceforth captured by the Union resulted in freedom for slaves. It
was actually an acute piece of writing. It meant that the fastest path to
freedom was for the Union to capture territory. If Britain or France joined in
to help, they would actually be slowing down the pace of freedom.
> Or economic.
*L* There's a difference? Actually, you are quite right. It's rare, though,
that politics and economics aren't intertwined.
***
Well, okay, I simplified. In fact, most of the Northern states had abolished
slavery, but not all.
***
Likewise on the over-simplification. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> >Allen Goodall handed me a straight line:
<blush> I was just telling one of my coworkers today that, despite having
initials CD my memory is not ROM, but RAM--emphasis on "Random".
> >d) Take case C and add other governments to the list. Is
What is it to the other ones?
> I would suggest that the critical point is when the UN
so....before the UN existed, what was the critical point?
<snip the discussion of the War of Northern Aggression>
> >Or economic.
Rephrase Clausewitz: Politics is an extension of economics by other means.
> Brian Bell wrote:
> On a military level, I would guess that most governments have taken
I don't know how true that can be. Some of the smaller AE outpusts are small
family groups or even lone (intrepid, insane, fill in the blank)
adveturers/claimstakers/homesteaders/etc. I would imagine the
particularly far flung outpsts are quite vulnerable to true pirates and
"plausibly deniable" local power antagonism. When Old Zeke way out on some
rock somewhere stops transmitting and all the AE investigation patrol finds is
a big glass crater where his dome used to be, what's the emperor going to do?
What if the antagonist is an entrenched power larger than AE? What if it's a
roving pirate band?
Iceberg Raphael, founder, Actuarial Nightmares
I understand your point of view. But if a FSE patrol cruiser was attacked by
(bother! now I have to go look up an AE government)...Republic of Marxgrad
(picking a name out of the hat), the FSE would likely hold the AE responsible
(they failed to exercise control over thier citizens). Granted the primary
target of retalitory strikes would likely be the Marxgrad holdings and
property, but any AE ship that they would meet would likely be deemed hostile
until a diplomatic solution (including repreations) could be agreed upon.
It would be a somewhat similar situation to an attack from a territory of the
US (example Puerto Richo) against Cuba. The US could claim that the attacking
force was made up of only native forces using equipment purchased with funds
gathered by natives in the territory without any official US envolvement. But
Cuba would most likely hold the US responsible.
A lot of it would depend on the state of relations between the AE and the
other governent. If relations were neutral to friendly, and the AE was quick
to denounce the attack, any reprisals would likely be directed to the specific
offenders. If the AE denied or supported the attack, it is likely that the
whole AE would be held responsible.
Now I am using the AE as an example. The same would hold true for any
government that has more than one stellar holding.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Brian Bell wrote:
Noam replied:
> I don't know how true that can be. Some of the smaller AE outpusts are
Noam has the right general idea. AE policy is: a. if you're within our systems
(Alarish, Huy Braseal, Coronado), the Empire will protect you as best it can.
However, space is big and the Navy can't be everywhere. Installation of active
defense systems is highly recommended. The Navy reserves the right to clear
private minefields if they become a hazard to navigation, though. b. if you're
outside our systems: your defense is totally up to you. If you want escorts or
patrol visits, you arrange the contracts for it (payable in
advance and/or as the insurance policy beneficiary). If we visit for
reasons other than contract obligations and find your habitat is now a glass
crater, the Navy will probably investigate and take whatever direct action is
required, but by that point you're not likely to care.
There are AE sovereignities in non-AE space--including quite a few in
NSL,
New Israeli, OU and NAC systems--but they normally contribute cash to
the local government in return for protection. They often also install
whatever "active defenses" the local government permits (or overlooks).
> I understand your point of view.
Just make one up. If I like it, it's probably been there for years.
> ...Republic of Marxgrad (picking a name out of the
The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Marxgrad can't afford a ship
big enough to attack a CE--it's only a couple hundred people--but if
they did (and their ship made it back to AE space), the AE would have to
decide if it was justified (if if the AE retroactively endorses it). If not,
the AEmight allow the FSE safe passage for retaliation if the FSE didn't want
to prosecute under Imperial law. If the FSE caught the Marxgrad ship before it
got back to AE space, then whatever the FSE does with it is up to them, not
the AE. This could in theory get kind of complicated--say five
sovereignities group together to pay for a mercenary attack--but in
practice it very seldom arises.
In message <q8k2tso73gtpu5ab6gv44pmrgdv9vodlvj@4ax.com>
> Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> Now, this brings an interesting thing to mind as far as FT campaigns
Perhaps the
> ESU splinters. Maybe a Kra'vak clan war kicks in. For that matter,
You want
> to use those neat UN ships? How about putting them between two
Looking at FB2, page 34 "The Phalon Conglomerate is a lose, highly balkanised
federation of individual worlds..." and goes on in that light
- they co-operate against an extrenal threat, but if that threat were to
diminish (say the human/Kra'Vak war cools down, due to, say, the KV
turning the human core worlds to slag with mile-long hyper-mass drivers
:-) or the KV war effort loosing momentum due to internal strife as
mentioned elsewhere, or the Sa'Vasku killing everyone, or the SV failing to
kill everyone so the humans & KV join forces and turn on
them, etc. and ad infinitum - I think I swiped most of these ideas
from B5 :-), then the old rivalries would re-surface...
Hmm... gotta think about this!
In message <dlo2tskn926og2f51coq1hvc0vjpl6o3f7@4ax.com>
> Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> I would suggest that the critical point is when the UN recognizes it,
[snip]
> Allan Goodall awg@sympatico.ca
Well, I'm getting rather tempted to paint my UN ships up as Japanese
Imperial Fleet - due to a) lack of UN symbol decals that I can find, and
b) existance of Japanese symbol decals I can find. :-)
Of course, with the GZG game philosophy, you could use those minis as
whatever you want them to be :-)
> I don't know how true that can be. Some of the smaller AE outpusts are
> family groups or even lone (intrepid, insane, fill in the blank)
> far flung outpsts are quite vulnerable to true pirates and "plausibly
> big glass crater where his dome used to be, what's the emperor going to
> What if the antagonist is an entrenched power larger than AE? What if
If it occurs in OU space, then expect the following: a) OUDF forces search to
see if any of the covert surveillance buoys are still in existence. Many of
these are "covert" merely by them being very numerous
and inconspicuous, not hi-tech stealth jobs. 20,000 buoys at $1 a pop
rather than 1 at $20,000.
b) Examine records of the buoys to see Whodunnit.
c) Try and find out *why* the attack occurred. This is important, as evidence
as to whodunnit may be inconclusive - a "frame-up" is always suspected.
d) OU takes appropriate action. This may be "Do nothing, they deserved
it".
It may be involve a Vandal Raid on an expensive and difficult to replace
installation. It may involve the cancellation of an old debt (or recording
that a new one is owed). Generally speaking though, an attack on an AE
installation could well have been an attack on any of the similar isolated OU
facilities. The OUDF hasn't got nearly enough to guard everything. But they're
very big on Retribution,