To: Colonial Remnant =CR=

[aeris]

Honorary Q12,

The more we share viewpoints, the more I feel we begin understanding each other. I believe it truly is possible with people with differing ideals and lifestyles to work for mutual benefit.

Let us write the agreement from scratch, as I think it wasn't adequately written until both our goals were properly visualized. I also think dividing common terms to two different places complicates matters too much. Your worries are addressed after the proposal. Please review and comment.

TREATY OF NON-HOSTILITY AND TRUCE BETWEEN CR AND ARRIS

1. PURPOSE AND AIM

1.1. The purpose of this treaty is, within the Tau sectors

a) Produce a peaceful and regular presence in Tau among trustworthy and respectful parties
b) Provide new opportunities of trade and influence
b) Limit and eventually cease unauthorized and hostile activity among any third parties, either by mitigating their hostile attitude towards the participants of this treaty, encouraging their participation in it, or by attempting to remove their presence completely

2. PARTICIPANTS

2.1. This treaty includes two groups as parties

a) The other party is the faction and it's members of Colonial Remnant. Hereby written "CR".
b) The other party is the Junker arris, his direct sub-ordinates (amounting to no more than 5 specifically named Junker entities, pending mutual approval, none of which will be proposed at this time), and those in convoy with arris or his sub-ordinates. Hereby written "arris"
c) The treaty as of now excludes any other group, be that an ally, another Junker, or otherwise.

2. MUTUAL WITHDRAWAL

2.1. Both parties will respect each others' immunity and avoid conflicting situations

a) CR will grant arris uninterrupted right of passage through systems affected by CR Zone of Influence. Hereby written ZOI
b) CR will not demand stoppage, scan or demand cargo, or engage arris
c) Pending threat of CR ZOI violations unless official business deemed lawful by both parties is presented, CR will first and foremost advice and request arris to cancel the threat

d) arris will recognize total CR authority within their ZOI at, but not limited to, Tau systems and avoid CR zones and operatives unless requested to do so, or unless on official business deemed lawful by both parties, pending presentation before approach
e) arris will not demand stoppage, scan or demand cargo, or engage CR
f) arris will heed and immediately attempt to fulfill all advice and requests of CR personnel pending course change or presence within CR controlled areas

3. MUTUAL NON-HOSTILITY AND LIMITED AID

a) CR will not help any entities during their engagement on arris' vessels
b) CR will attempt to pick up ejected arris' pilots, and release them to the nearest neutral (i.e. Freeport) or Junker facility

c) arris will not help any entities during their engagement on CR vessels
b) arris will attempt to pick up ejected CR pilots, and release them to the nearest neutral (i.e. Freeport) or CR facility

e) Unless conflicting alliance treaty or force majeure so prevents, rendering military aid to treaty participant in said engagements, and advicing nearby friendly or neutral entities to act according to the treaty is of mutual interest. Politics or other reasons so dictating, it is, however, not mandatory
f) The participants to the treaty have complete and total rights of self preservation and defence, when dealing with allies of the said parties. The single exclusion to this, any ejected entities belonging to either CR and IMG, or Junkers, are to be released at the nearest neutral (ie. Freeport) or faction facility.

4. LIABILITY, CHANGE AND TERMINATION OF TREATY

4.1. Both parties approve the existence of other and non-intrusive, peaceful conduct of business, unless provided terms are deliberately broken

a) All deliberate attempts to break terms contained within the treaty justify, but do not necessitate immediate cancelling of the said treaty by wronged party
b) The party breaking treaty terms is liable for all damages caused, assessed in mutual diplomatic negotiations
c) The treaty is open for any proposed changes, pending mutual agreement

I know remembering five different entities without a faction/group tag is troublesome, for this reason I will either create a group and tag ourselves, or we can agree on a secret passphrase through PM transmission.

the abillity to scan ships should be a two way arrangement . There is no goal for a treaty, if it cant be uphold.

True, and quite contradictory, as the definite purpose of the treaty is to eliminate suspicion and the need to scan cargo. Thus the limitations and assurances within this new treaty. If the aim is to create a civilian policed no-fire-zone full of new business opportunities, such "safety clauses" would only conflict against their aim.

I have no more chance to prevent you from e.g. scanning or demanding cargo, as you have in preventing me. But that would by definition mean the treaty is not respected, not that the treaty would prevent such possibilities. And if the treaty is not respected it's a useless treaty. I am quite sure we aim at a soup, both of us have to (and are willing to) eat together.

This treaty is between CR and JU-17 and since its a small step we should not involve other factions. Also i apologize for the misunderstanding, but since its a treaty all do's and dont's schould be clear. We never intended to suggest that you or your adversaries are unlawfull.

I think we attempted to complicate matters too far, making them susceptible to nitpicking. The treaty itself should be clear on all counts: "I shouldn't, so you shouldn't either". I hope this newly written draft is more suitable to both our standards.

I'm also sure we both agree procuring arrested entities, commonly considered criminals by all House factions, to Falkland base at Tau-37 does not constitute a crime.

please clarify that , because i do not understand your point at this

I were left under the impression, that you fear I would use Tau for purposes of kidnap and enslavement. I wouldn't. I am by oath of blood required to help all fellow Junkers within reason. The only thing I ever wanted, was gaining assurance from you they will be treated as civilians and released to neutral care (and pending punishment according to our Junker rule) so conflict in our customs would not render our mutual attempts futile.

In return, I offer the same degree of trust in your judicial methods, and would never consider any IMG entities my captives, should unlikely hostilities arise.

However, consider certain neighbouring factions that you are not quite friendly with. It is a truth not said aloud, that our contacts and methods are needed among this faction to fund their bitter war, and we need the business opportunity to provide for our families and bases, which suffer daily damage among the gas and debris fields. Here we have two needs and two solutions, which create stability and mutual understanding.

Now, most unlawful factions have a very loose hierarchy, and especially the young and lively among them sometimes forget mutually agreed conducts. If I were to suffer damage, I wouldn't consider releasing the captives to your Falkland base slavery, because a) we would have a treaty and b) the damages must be recouped.

Furthermore, that right there is a lever and an advantage. I could easily release the said captives to their faction representatives, if only.. ah, certain areas of Tau would be a little more peaceful in return. I am in the power to do this, because your neighbours and us need each other. But I have additional leverage, understood by the said neighbours much better than the diplomacy we use here. See where I'm going?

I believe these were the only clarifications you requested. I invite you again to read the new proposal throughly, and comment on any possible disagreements.

Best Regards,
arris

---

Case File: arris