Multi Party Treaty

If only two parties out of four sign a treaty, are the two parties that signed still bound by the terms, or is the whole treaty void because not all four parties have signed?

Short and to the point lol

Thanks

sounds like a in-game legal minefield to me !

My approach would be to say the whole treaty is void as it was aimed at four signatories, however if the two signatories have 1) not raised concerns about the non-signatures and 2) abided by the terms I would suggest by their actions they have accepted the treaty as valid and active and should continue to do so.

If you are new player to a position, a position which is one of the signatories, I would try arguing that the treaty is void (if that is what you want)

LGDR eh ? where black and white doesnt exist....only grey

Unless the treaty states that it is only valid if all 4 signatories sign (which some do), then generally those parties who have signed a treaty are bound by it, but it depends on 3 other aspects:

1. The specific terms of the treaty.
2. The context within which the treaty was signed.
3. The legal capacity of the signatories to make an agreement.

Taking these elements in order:

Terms
The most obvious recent example is from G7 - the Treaty of Scotland, where there was an Anglo-French coalition fighting Spanish-Austrian-UDP coalition.  Some nations wanted to stop fighting after players had changed; others didn't or wouldn't.  So the treaty included these 2 terms:

"1. This treaty between England, France, Spain, Austria and UDP is designed to stop the current conflict from becoming a new 30 Years War by offering allied nations an honourable exit from a war they have no interest in fighting.

8. This Treaty is governed by Agema Treaty Rules.  If a signatory fails to sign by March 1712, they must make a separate bilateral peace with their opponent."

England, France, Spain, Austria signed the treaty, so were deemed to be at peace with each other.  UDP did not, so England/France remained at war with UDP until UDP signed a separate peace (The Treaty of Amsterdam) at the end of 1713.

Context
Context is also important because it could be argued that with only UDP holding out, who was UDP going to be able to fight against?  Clearly within the context of the origins of the war and the purpose of the treaty, it was impossible to force UDP to de facto be at peace without signing anything.  Context is hugely important in this case because each nation had their own reasons for being at war, reasons which had been stated in the newspaper.  Without going over a lot of game history, France joined the war against UDP in defence of King James.  Austria joined the war as an ally of UDP.  Spain joined the war for reasons Stuart will no doubt explain himself.  England (King James) and UDP were at war for more complicated reasons since with various changes of players (and both nations being inactive at times) there had not been a peace signed for a decade.  So from William's perspective he could argue that he was fighting to regain England (KJ having been restored in 1705), but from KJ's perspective he could argue that William had accepted this as a term of him being released at that time.  The war from England's perspective was therefore about defeating Williamite rebels who had taken over parts of KJ's realm (including Scotland).  That those rebels were backed by those nations/players who had recently accepted the 1705/06 peace would appear to have given further justification for the war to continue irrespective of that earlier peace.  Events in G7 may appear complicated to those not involved, but they do illustrate how difficult it can be to bring wars to an end when they have several interested parties, and how the interests of those parties can change the context within which any treaty must be viewed.

Capacity
It would have been meaningless for William to sign 'on behalf of England' since England was ruled by KJ.  It would also have been meaningless for William to sign 'on behalf of Scotland', since Scotland was understood to be English albeit in rebel hands.  Similarly Spain could not have signed on behalf of the Kentigern (Scottish) rebels he was controlling despite being 'in control' of a large part of Scotland.  All such decisions could and would have been overturned once England defeated the rebels.  Had any such treaties been signed by those who did not have the legal capacity to do so, then those treaties would be void (i.e. not exist) and therefore nobody is bound to keep to them.  The most that can be said of them is that they are political statements of encouragement between 2 players.  Your nobles may, or may not, be in favour of them, but they cannot have any legal force.  Ultimately any succession dispute ends when the parties who are disputing a succession agree to withdraw their claimant and sign a treaty with those they are fighting against to recognise another.  This is why clause 5 of the ToS used the rather neutral words: 5. All signatories accept the legitimate claim of King James Francis Edward Stuart to the crowns of England, Ireland and Scotland according to the Papal Bull Britannicus Clement.  This form of words was adopted to try to help UDP (in vain as it happens), so does not completely close the door on any future challenge.  However, with Spain/Austria having signed the treaty, should they change their minds, they will need to find a new reason for war, not to 'restore' William.



I should also add that as a general principle, the law cannot be used to validate an otherwise illegal act.  The Treaty of Scotland contained clauses recognising the Papal Bull which strengthened KJ's position.  The Papal Bull made it difficult for Catholic nations to go against the Pope, so some of the clauses in the ToS were a repetition of the wording used in that Bull, and had to be interpreted within the context of that Bull.  This continued to be a cause of contention between the English and Spanish interpretations of the wording, but despite 3 years of wrangling, so far peace has held.  Had the ToS contradicted the Papal Bull then it could have been challenged as inconsistent with what the rulers signing it would have reasonably meant.

What the game lacks, of course, is a 'court Agema' so in a sense forensic legal quibbles do not have the importance they do in real life.  However, if there is doubt, 'ask advisors' does clarify how your nobles view what you signed.  Clause 6 reads: 6. All signatories promise not to offer support to any group or individual seeking to undermine another signatory of this treaty. which was designed to stop Spain backing factions fighting against KJ.  However, it proved its worth to Austria when Hungarians seeking their freedom under Prince Rak, wrote to KJ asking for him to recognise the status of Prince Rak.  I asked advisors whether clause 6 prevented me from doing so and they replied (in public) that it did.  Consequently despite KJ being prepared to receive Prince Rak as a prince, England was unable to do anything to help his Hungarian rebellion.

You will note that I have carefully avoided mentioning G10 and your difficulties there - my opinion on which should be well known to regular correspondents in game, and readers of that newspaper. I will add that in G10 where there is no dispute between the Maritime Powers (England, Scotland, UDP) over who their King is, William does have the legal capacity to sign a treaty on behalf of all 3 nations. Whether those nations would consider themselves bound by it is another question since they could claim any royal decree from William has not gone through their own Parliaments. However, if they went against the stated policy of William then no doubt this would cause division between pro-Royalist(Williamite) elements and nationalist elements. Stranger things have no doubt happened within LGDR, but the refusal to obey the agreed titular monarch normally causes problems. UDP may not have Scotland's dominance of the whisky trade, nor a fleet the size of England's, but both agreed that William would be their King so are obligated to respect his views and act accordingly. Once this stops happening then can William be considered the legitimate King of England and Scotland? And at that point it would appear to open the doors for a Jacobite restoration, which it will come as no surprise to players I tend to be in favour of in principle.

There is a kind of court of Agema.
Richard holds nations to signed treaties as long as these treaties are presented and signed, dated correctly according to Agema rules. Anyone deemed breaking the signed treaty gets a constant honour hit until the player corrects his wrongdoing and adheres to the signed treaty once again.

Thanks for your replies, appreciated.

Personally, I believe the terms should be binding on the parties that sign the treaty, unless the treaty states it is void unless all parties have signed, but this should be made clear in the basic rules to protect new players. I was presented with a multi party treaty for the first time in game 10, and after all these years playing I didn't know when it became binding.

Part of the problem is that the rules on treaties (and their enforcement) have changed quite dramatically over the lifetime of the game.

When I first joined there was a 'Court Agema' which ruled on suspected violations of treaties, and from what I recall there was also a rule which meant that any new player who joined was not bound by treaties signed by his predecessor.  This was simple, but easily abused so deemed unfair.  Also it was stated in a later edition of the basic rule book that 'Court Agema' was unhistoric and so it was no longer part of the game.

What resulted, unfortunately, was a free for all where players used treaties to deliberately trick their opponents.  In G7 France signed a non aggression treaty with Austria; 3 months later Austria (played by the same player) broke the treaty and invaded France.  Did Austria suffer from breaking the treaty?  There may have been an initial honour drop, but this was more than compensated for by gains in honour resulting from capturing French towns.  Austria claimed that her 'honour' required her to attack France and since the reasons she gave found broad support from the Austrian nobility, she did not especially suffer from this act of treachery.  However, Austria was viewed with suspicion and it became pointless signing anything with a player whose word meant nothing.  Curiously Spain, in the same game at the same time, did not break her treaty with France, which is probably why the player for Spain kept his reputation and diplomatic influence with other players.

It was the fiasco of treaty breaking, mistrust and general behaviour which led to the reintroduction of an Agema 'arbitration' service for treaties, which is detailed on p41 of the 7th Edition rules as "Peace Conferences".

It is also worth re-reading p40 about treaties, which states "if you want to enter into a meaningful treaty arrangement with another state rather than just have a statement of intent between the 2 of you ..."  Agema therefore makes the distinction between a 'treaty' and what I referred to as a 'political statement of intent'.  That same section sets out what can constitute a valid 'treaty', the penalties for breaking it, and that Agema can interpret its terms based on the context within which it is signed (e.g. to prevent players signing treaties to benefit their friends and then dropping).

The general warning on both pages is that if you don't want to be bound by the treaty/peace conference rules, then don't sign them.  If in doubt, either ask advisors for their clarification of what terms mean or whether the treaty is worth signing.  Ultimately my opinion is that there is no point in signing any treaty with a player who has proved to be untrustworthy or who has broken treaties in the past.  They will either break them (which renders it pointless in signing them) or they will quibble over terms to get out of what they have agreed (which is far more common).  This puts those who play honourably and in good faith at a disadvantage because we naturally find it difficult to break our word, whether spoken or written.  It is always tempting to judge others by the high standards we apply to ourselves, but it is also delusional - the dishonourable have chosen to play in that manner and most players are smart enough to work out that they must be dealt with on their own terms.

Another aspect you might like to consider is what happens when a player signs treaties which contradict each other.  One treaty will be broken, but the other not.  In those cases the player must provide a very good case to set aside one or both treaties.  They may suffer honour penalties for breaking one while keeping the other, or for breaking both, or they may just suffer a one-off drop and suffer an extended period of ridicule ... who knows?  The honour system is opaque at the best of times.

It may well be that multi-party treaties are longer than the 260 word limit or contain clauses which last longer than 3 years, so would fall outside the Agema definition of a 'treaty'.  In that case there is no honour penalty for breaking it, and from the way G10 has developed, that seems to be what some players are relying on.  But that still doesn't mean that long treaties can be signed without consequences if you value your reputation as a player.  Since many players also play in multiple games, once a reputation is lost in one game it is difficult to re-establish it in another, especially when the same players are involved.  I will normally treat each game separately, but a player who has broken his word in one game is going to have a lot more work to do in another game to convince me he is not going to do it again.  My experience in G10 has fully justified that cautious approach.  I have much more time for players who break a treaty for justifiable reasons and are clear why they are doing so, than to just deliberately and arbitrarily break their word for reasons that are either unexplained or self-contradictory.

The purpose of the 3 year limit is set out in the rules, but it does introduce a wildcard element into what can be legitimately included in a treaty.   It is fine for such political arrangements as basic trade agreements, tariff reductions or non-aggression between states.  But if treaties are made to buy/sell territory, then is this kind of arrangement only valid for 3 years?  Logically not since such transfers are intended to be permanent, but since the game treaty rules are only valid for 3 years, it suggests there can be no permanent transfers of territory under the treaty rules, which does somewhat diminish the value of treaties to resolve game disputes.  This is another reason why I discussed treaties with reference to terms, context and capacity. If the terms are clear, the context is understood by each signatory (even if their version of the context is different, it should still be clear), and the people signing it actually have the legal capacity to make such an agreement, then a treaty should be kept. But if the terms are unclear (unless deliberately so to save political face), the parties signing expect a completely different result by signing (because their understanding of the context has no common elements), or those signing it have no legal capacity to make the agreement, then the treaty has no validity.

Players can promise what they like and help their friends for their own reasons, but they can't necessarily expect the game 'treaty' system to bind others in the way they expect.  The only sure way of making a good agreement is to deal with those you know to be trustworthy and will therefore stick to any agreement.

My take is if someone signs a treaty then it's valid if at least one other nation has signed it.

Papa has the same history of treaty enforcement processes recollection as I have. It's always felt to me that if a party to the treaty raised a breach, then that impacted on the nation that broke the treaty until the breach was rectified. It felt like only a signed party of a treaty would have the right to call a breach and thus inflict a major part of whatever sanctions Agema saw fit to implement, on behalf of nobles and wider society etc.

There may be some effect from non signed parties calling out but if a signed party does not call a breach out then is the world really going to take notice?