Ending Political Takeovers: The Chicago Convention
•
by NeilP99
War has rules. Many of us may not think about this, or may even find this statement strange, but it is true. There are things that you can and can’t do when you are at war. These rules have been set by the international community, most notably in the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention sets guidelines for what a nation can and can’t do to enemy combatants, prisoners of war, and non-combatants. Many of these guidelines have to do with humane treatment of prisoners and civilians. Of course, in eRepublik this isn’t much of an issue. When eNations go to war they can’t torture enemy prisoners, they can’t attack civilians, and they can’t commit the types of war crimes outlined in the Geneva Convention. However, there is another kind of war crime that they can engage in. This war crime is one that has been in the news lately, but really goes back through the history of eRepublik. The war crime I’m talking about is a political takeover.
Political takeovers, especially when committed against small nations, are almost impossible to protect against when done correctly. They take away the right of a group of people to determine their own leaders and often result in the looting of a nation’s treasury and complete destabilization of its economy. They have been committed by nations on both sides of the Atlantis – PEACE war and are viewed in a very negative light by most of the population of the world. With all this in mind I have a proposal that I feel could greatly decrease, if not stop all together, political takeovers by rival nations.
The Chicago Convention
The idea behind the Chicago Convention is the same as the idea behind the Geneva Contention. A contract would be created in the eRepublik Forum that would be for every nation of the eWorld to sign. The contract would say that the signing nations swear not to take part in any political takeovers and to do what they can to stop political takeovers from happening in other nations. It would be signed by the presidents of each nation every time a new president takes office. Penalties for signing the contract and then breaking the contract would be discussed between the leaders of the world before the contract first being formulated. They could range from military attacks against the offending nation to economic sanctions.
The bonus to signing the contract would not be monetary, military, or economic. They would be moral bonuses and the knowledge that your nation is on the side of honesty and justice. I’ll admit it, for many these bonuses won’t be enough to warrant signing the contract. However, I feel that there will be enough nations that want to do the right thing and sign, to give the contract a feeling of authority. If I am right and some of the eWorld’s leading nations sign the contract I think it could create a domino effect that brings more and more nations into the agreement.
I fully realize that this is a long shot idea. The agreement that I’m suggesting offers nothing but risk to the nations that get involved. However I feel that it also offers the chance to take a moral stand and to do what is best for all citizens of the eWorld. I encourage national leaders to talk to each other about a more detailed contract. This idea won’t get anywhere though unless the people rally behind it. If you are opposed to political takeovers by any nation then vote for this article. Send links to friends in other nations. Talk to the leaders of the world about it and make sure that your voice is heard. Some of you may wonder why I picked Chicago for the name of this agreement. Well that’s my trying to leave my mark since I’m from Chicago in RL. Thank you for reading and please leave comments if you have ideas on how to expand The Chicago Convention and make it better.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Nice
Nice Idea Neil, tough to enforce though. voted
The main problem I foresee is one of the eRep super powers withholding its signature, as this would effectively put that country at an advantage over the member nations.
@GMoney: I could see that being a problem too, however, under the treaty that I am imagining that country would then be either attacked or have economic sanctions put on it by every other signing nation. This would be quite a blow to even the strongest nations. Plus there would be intense political pressure on them to join by the international community as well as people inside their own country.
"The bonus to signing the contract would not be monetary, military, or economic. They would be moral bonuses and the knowledge that your nation is on the side of honesty and justice."
The people who are the cause of conventions like this are exactly those who will ignore this sentiment. It is a nice, dreamy idea but one doesn't make much headway by telling people that they should be moral. More effective solutions create contexts where it is in everyone's best interest to behave however you think they should behave. At that point it is neither placation nor pretension.
As an alternative to edicts I would suggest that we illustrate the negative aspects of dealing with those who would initiate political takeovers. These are violent and reckless people who could not support their ideology based on its merit, and had to use force to achieve power. They are therefore risky business partners, and any trading done with their captive nation will be subject to their whim and the use of force.
Considering this reality, I suggest that each entity in the international community follow ITS OWN self-interest and cease dealings with such people. Know that if you continue to deal with them, the deal may be subject at any time to their under-handed tactics; be willing to accept the economic consequence of your risky venture.
@jackrungh: Are you subscribed to my paper for the sole purpose of attacking the articles that I write? It seems like every time I have an article you leave a comment mocking the ideas that I'm suggesting. Even the article I wrote that was nothing but a bunch of jokes! You left a comment acting like you were above that humor. I guess I'm just wondering why you always read my paper when all you do is disagree with what I have to say?
how about fixing the game (a la residency requirements) rather than more rules that arent enforced by the admins?
All is fair in love and war...and now political takeovers!
I'm with Jason. This issue will not get resolved by a convention, a treaty or some other community-based initiative. No matter how thought out and well-meaning they might be, without the ability to enforce them, they will mean nothing. Only a change to game mechanics can prevent political takeovers.
Citizenship based on residency with some grace period (1 month, for example) is really the only thing that I can see working to help here. It will not solve the issue completely since the "attackers" can still move to the country they are planning to take over in advance, but at least it will give the "defenders" plenty of notice. Furthermore, it will discourage this tactic for the obvious disadvantages it carries to the attacking country (loss of workers, productivity and revenue from taxes).
@Chahk Noir and jasonalwaysready: These rules would be enforced. Not by the Admins but by other nations. I agree that a citizenship requirement should be in place for running for office, but as Chahk pointed out, there are ways around this. If we signed a treaty then regardless of how long the political takeover took it would still be punishable by the international community.
While I think this is a good idea, it is also one that is not easily carried out. I voted this up, but I think that if this idea were to fall through, it would require alot of work and trust on the part of all signing nations.
Neil, there was no tone implied in my commentary that in any way seemed to me to be inflammatory. I am subscribed to your paper, and yes we disagree on a major point of life philosophy, which results in many different conclusions. However, I appreciate the conflict, as it tests out my opinions and forces me to use reason to defend my positions. Is your complaint that you don't want any maturely-stated challenges to your viewpoint? Is it that you don't want to think through your ideas to defend them? I doubt you agree with either of those questions, so where is our problem?
Chahk brings up a good point here, that of limitations to citizenship. In this regard I would suggest that reality is the best forge in which policies are hammered out. Why not remove automatic citizenship from the game, and require some sort of bureaucratic body to oversee immigration? This body could be a sub-set of the congress or other legislative body, perhaps with members appointed by the sitting president. There are complications there, and it would need to be fleshed out, but at the very least the idea of applying for citizenship and waiting some amount of time before it is granted is a wise addition, even if citizenship comes automatically after that time. It would at least give the president or other leaders time to reject it if there is some special reason to do so, otherwise they could just ignore it and it would go through in... a week?
no, more bueracracy is not needed. my word, its bad enough to have professional beuracrats in rl, all i need is jr high 2 clickers stamping my passport...
how can anything be enforced in this game by the users? i cant earrest anyone or put them on einterpol.
and most of all, what of the treaty when those who signed it are no longer in power? are the treaties still good after political leaders are gone? (perhaps by political takeover? heh) i would say half of these takeovers arent by governments, so unless you have emafia and those jokers in the ss sign this, which they wont, what good would it do?
I like the idea. Could be the start of an United Nations like system in eRepublik. Good idea.
Neil, you have a pm.
@Neill:
The idea that other countries will enforce the treaty via economic sanctions is flawed because the countries being taken over usually belong to the enemy alliance or are not allied at all. This means that the allies of the attackers most likely support the takeover and will ignore the treaty.
Also, since there is little trade going on between the warring alliances in the first place, the attackers will not be deterred from any enemy sanctions anyway.
@Chahk
that may be true, but what neil is considering, in essence is a eUnited Nations. Just as in RL those nations who violate global agreements will be sanctioned(philosphically).
This idea could mold the proposed third alliance we have all heard so much about recently. Its something new, its fresh and I like it.
You are right Chahk, but its still a good idea imho.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying that it won't work.
Just look at the alliances' charters. In Atlantis governments are supposed to give ample notice to allies before declaring wars. Remember the time when Spain opened up a few fronts without telling anyone? How about Romanian antics in Russia? Similar stories in PEACE with Iran.
What exactly did the allies do in response in all of those cases? Exactly.
In essence this seems like a great idea, and for what its worth I support it.
I really like your idea, and I hope that it makes it through. Voted!
hmm...
i like this idea... but,i think same with chank noir... that it won't work...
Invaders should not need to meet a residence requirement to do the classic migrate - rape - loot -burn - conquer type of expansion. How else can you acquire new territory by Right of Conquest.
The game rules should be changed to remove the restriction of starting a resistance war in the home territory of another country with perhaps an exception being for the territory of the capital city. Revolutionary wars should allowed and the victors should be able to vote to form a new nation and establish a capital, or vote to join another nation. This would be so much fun for everyone. There could a C.S.A., there could be a Republic of Texas, there could be an Aztec Nation, we could re-fight the War for Southern Independence. We could have so much fun!
Hey Victor...looks like your idea got implemented somewhat 🙂
I remember these days