The EDEN Charter – A theoretical debate
Day 803, 13:37
•
Published in Romania 
•
by
•
by Ion Vlahu
Who am i and why am i writing this?
First of all, I would like to welcome every single one of you, since is my first article in eRepublik. I didn’t feel the stringent need to devote an article for this solely purpose, so, I’m making my grand entry as a publisher, at the start of a very spiny analysis, which is my inner torment for the last few days.
But before we continue, I feel I have to make a short presentation of myself, for I am the perfect stranger to the majority of you, since I’m only playing this game for 30 days now (in a row, I might add). I am, as I write, and you read, a level 15 wallachian, who tries to make a short contribution to the heritage left to us by our e-forefathers. My commitment to this task is sincere, and I will only be restricted in it by my time and comprehension of events.
This being said, I would like to excuse myself if the title of this article promises more than i am able to give .
Who’s right? EDEN or us?
In this time of great international unrest, everyone has already made up his mind about the stance he is going to take. Many of you have already addressed harsh words to our allies, and a few tried a contrary approach, fearing our international downfall, and why not, even demise...
I tried to figure out, without anger or hate, all your opinions , and I’ve ended like the biblical king Solomon. It seemed all of you were right. My only choice, then, was to take all the arguments, swirl them around, and try to get to their core. And I am glad to say i found it. The core of all our international frustrations and problems is the EDEN Charter. It’s the only thing non-debatable between us and our allies.
All our views and opinions are a subject of inner prejudice. Romanians, americans, poles, we all are biased. Although our objectives are similar, they are not the same and although we care for one another, we care more about ourselves. It’s a inherent trait of the living...
The only thing we have to respect and bow before is the legal framework that we all agreed upon. The only thing that binds our will down is the law we constrained ourselves to. The EDEN Charter is the key to our future.
Why is the EDEN Charter of any importance to us?
There is a tradition in the legal practice that states: everything that is not denies, is allowed. So, if an action is not allowed, the only debate we can have is philosophical one. Was it right? Was it wrong? Were we entitled to...? Shouldn’t they...?
The EDEN Charter is the only legal framework in force, for the time being and if it’s any righteousness in our claim, it is there we will find it.
So what does that Charter say? Who is right? Who is wrong?
Our problem is that the EDEN Treaty doesn’t say much or, anyway, it says lesser than it should. However, from the context we can figure out some things that can be quite handy.
EDEN is a defensive alliance. The role of this alliance is to protect the member from an external assault. Crucial for this kind of treaty is that it doesn’t react outside its border unless one of the members are attacked. What lies at the core of the concept is the need of security, security that cannot be attained alone. So, the security of the alliance is nothing more than the sum of the security of all the signatories.
If the security of one member is breached, the purpose of the alliance vanished and that alliance becomes just an empty shell.
Was the security of one of the members violated? Is that member entitled to react in such a circumstance?
Well, to the first question is quite easy to answer if we study the EDEN Treaty. The treaty speaks about member’s security explicitly in two places.
The first guiding principle is found in the article V regarding Security Protocols. The Charter says and i quote: “The Security and Integrity of the Brotherhood and its Members will have priority over non-Members”. So, the alliance can act in a single way if one of the members is in need of direct assistance. The alliance has to strike back at the attacker.
The second principle is the backbone of the whole alliance. The “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” principle, which in the International Relations Theory is called “the musketeer principle”... al for one and one for all. I the EDEN Charter, we can find it in the Article VII (Military Operations), point 3 (Defence) and it states that “In the case of a Member being attacked by a Hostile nation all other Members are obligated to provide military and economic support”. As you can see, the phraseology is rather relative, for it doesn’t stipulate the quantity of support an ally is indebted to give. The amount of support given is left to the final decision of each ally.
So, although the amount of help given is not predetermined in the treaty, the allies are required to help, as soon as possible, without other philosophical considerations.
Conclusions:
1. The EDEN Charter does not specify unequivocally that the members should give offensive support for their allies, because this is not in the spirit of the alliance. Therefore, we should not be frustrated for what happened in Marmara and Sofia.
2. The superior amount of damage made by Romania for USA or Spain is not relevant in the context. Romania did it for strategic reasons, although it’s possible that the population felt some affinity towards their allies. Our damage was essential for stopping the enemy from gaining a strategical advantage.
3. Romania has the moral and juridical right to reject the “quid pro quo” argument of their allies. The EDEN Charter makes only one distinction between regions: of origin or not!
4. Romania is entitled to claim the violation of the EDEN Charter, in day 771 of the new world, when Hungary attacked Crisana.
5. Romania should not consider this moment, from a legal perspective, as a “sui generis” case.
6. Without legal compliance of the EDEN Charter, the treaty is invalid and obsolete.
P.S. Please excuse any grammatical or lexical errors that occurred during the writing of this article.
First of all, I would like to welcome every single one of you, since is my first article in eRepublik. I didn’t feel the stringent need to devote an article for this solely purpose, so, I’m making my grand entry as a publisher, at the start of a very spiny analysis, which is my inner torment for the last few days.
But before we continue, I feel I have to make a short presentation of myself, for I am the perfect stranger to the majority of you, since I’m only playing this game for 30 days now (in a row, I might add). I am, as I write, and you read, a level 15 wallachian, who tries to make a short contribution to the heritage left to us by our e-forefathers. My commitment to this task is sincere, and I will only be restricted in it by my time and comprehension of events.
This being said, I would like to excuse myself if the title of this article promises more than i am able to give .
Who’s right? EDEN or us?
In this time of great international unrest, everyone has already made up his mind about the stance he is going to take. Many of you have already addressed harsh words to our allies, and a few tried a contrary approach, fearing our international downfall, and why not, even demise...
I tried to figure out, without anger or hate, all your opinions , and I’ve ended like the biblical king Solomon. It seemed all of you were right. My only choice, then, was to take all the arguments, swirl them around, and try to get to their core. And I am glad to say i found it. The core of all our international frustrations and problems is the EDEN Charter. It’s the only thing non-debatable between us and our allies.
All our views and opinions are a subject of inner prejudice. Romanians, americans, poles, we all are biased. Although our objectives are similar, they are not the same and although we care for one another, we care more about ourselves. It’s a inherent trait of the living...
The only thing we have to respect and bow before is the legal framework that we all agreed upon. The only thing that binds our will down is the law we constrained ourselves to. The EDEN Charter is the key to our future.
Why is the EDEN Charter of any importance to us?
There is a tradition in the legal practice that states: everything that is not denies, is allowed. So, if an action is not allowed, the only debate we can have is philosophical one. Was it right? Was it wrong? Were we entitled to...? Shouldn’t they...?
The EDEN Charter is the only legal framework in force, for the time being and if it’s any righteousness in our claim, it is there we will find it.
So what does that Charter say? Who is right? Who is wrong?
Our problem is that the EDEN Treaty doesn’t say much or, anyway, it says lesser than it should. However, from the context we can figure out some things that can be quite handy.
EDEN is a defensive alliance. The role of this alliance is to protect the member from an external assault. Crucial for this kind of treaty is that it doesn’t react outside its border unless one of the members are attacked. What lies at the core of the concept is the need of security, security that cannot be attained alone. So, the security of the alliance is nothing more than the sum of the security of all the signatories.
If the security of one member is breached, the purpose of the alliance vanished and that alliance becomes just an empty shell.
Was the security of one of the members violated? Is that member entitled to react in such a circumstance?
Well, to the first question is quite easy to answer if we study the EDEN Treaty. The treaty speaks about member’s security explicitly in two places.
The first guiding principle is found in the article V regarding Security Protocols. The Charter says and i quote: “The Security and Integrity of the Brotherhood and its Members will have priority over non-Members”. So, the alliance can act in a single way if one of the members is in need of direct assistance. The alliance has to strike back at the attacker.
The second principle is the backbone of the whole alliance. The “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” principle, which in the International Relations Theory is called “the musketeer principle”... al for one and one for all. I the EDEN Charter, we can find it in the Article VII (Military Operations), point 3 (Defence) and it states that “In the case of a Member being attacked by a Hostile nation all other Members are obligated to provide military and economic support”. As you can see, the phraseology is rather relative, for it doesn’t stipulate the quantity of support an ally is indebted to give. The amount of support given is left to the final decision of each ally.
So, although the amount of help given is not predetermined in the treaty, the allies are required to help, as soon as possible, without other philosophical considerations.
Conclusions:
1. The EDEN Charter does not specify unequivocally that the members should give offensive support for their allies, because this is not in the spirit of the alliance. Therefore, we should not be frustrated for what happened in Marmara and Sofia.
2. The superior amount of damage made by Romania for USA or Spain is not relevant in the context. Romania did it for strategic reasons, although it’s possible that the population felt some affinity towards their allies. Our damage was essential for stopping the enemy from gaining a strategical advantage.
3. Romania has the moral and juridical right to reject the “quid pro quo” argument of their allies. The EDEN Charter makes only one distinction between regions: of origin or not!
4. Romania is entitled to claim the violation of the EDEN Charter, in day 771 of the new world, when Hungary attacked Crisana.
5. Romania should not consider this moment, from a legal perspective, as a “sui generis” case.
6. Without legal compliance of the EDEN Charter, the treaty is invalid and obsolete.
P.S. Please excuse any grammatical or lexical errors that occurred during the writing of this article.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
first
second
😁 thx mates. But it's not really a contest. 😛
inafara ca e prea lung 🙂, tot e bine votat
"4. Romania is entitled to claim the violation of the EDEN Charter, in day 771 of the new world, when Hungary attacked Crisana. "
This is the main point. Did Romanian officials agree to EDEN strategy of leaving Crisana to be conquered?
PS: put a link to EDEN treaty. Might be useful.
i think we have a lawyer amongst us, oooh the end is near 😛
v+s for the work you put into this 😉
Good article. Good luck and keep them coming 🙂
@Diplomacy Inc
http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/Contract:Treaty_of_the_Brotherhood_of_EDEN" target="_blank">http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/Cont[..]EDEN
Here's the link, erepublik is responding poorly to my commands. 🙂
I think it does not matter if Romania agreed or not. Verba volant, scripta manent. The treaty does not allow it, in plain english Thank for your opinion. 🙂
@counterica
Thx for your comment but you are 50% percent wrong. About the attorney part. 🙂 I have an M.A. in History of International Relations.
Good article. Succes pe viitor cu mai multe articole.
good english 😉
Great Job. Subscribed!
si totusi, poate data viitoare ai sa scrii ceva in romana 😉
Maybe the best newcomer newspaper lately. 🙂 Good job!
Vote + subscribe
Surubu
Scopul articolului a fost sa atinga, daca se poate, cat mai multi aliati. Daca primesc solicitari pentru o traducere, o fac bucuros. O seara buna.
si ar fi bine daca cineva care cunoaste f bine engleza sa l traduca in litera si in spiritul sau in limba romana. asa vom intelege toti cu ce avem de a face si nu sa cerem explicatii peste explicatii si sa ne dam cu parerea ca ar fi asa sau altfel!
v+s
Ionutzeu
O sa ii fac o traducere maine, daca sunt mai multi doritori. Numai sa nu spamez aiurea presa. 🙂
Sounds completely biased to be honest, Phoenix starting shit with each country was also a problem if you recall.
Picking on helpless countries that couldn't defend themselves.
So please, get a bit more of your facts straight first.
Chemich
Please, read the text of the Charter, and tell me that i am wrong. But not on a lyrical background. With facts and quotes. I'm not hotheaded nor stubborn. If you have a solid argument i'll bow before it, but rejecting my article as biased, is quite superficial. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read it.
ion vlahu, ai citit cumva presa din ultimele 24 ore? cum sa spamezi presa? tradu-l,daca sunt doritori
votat
Ok, then I pose this question, give me one ocasion where a treaty under unsual and unspecified circumstances was followed by the book. Let's not be demagogues and hypocrites here, we all know for a fact that leaving crisana was the only way for Romania to save the war and the whole country for that matter. Massive tanking in the initial attack would've left the treasury dry and it most certainly would've cost us the war... You know for a fact, that strategic retreats are often an option in the aim of obtaining an economical advantage (therefor granting a sense of security in the next upcoming battle). On the other hand, how secure on a scale of 1 to 10 does Greece feel in face of an imminent attack from Serbia which is aimed at the iron stocks of central greece... So you see, it's just a matter of perspective
Good job. Tine-o tot asa !
I think that every member of EDEN should have AT LEAST one Military Unit available for the assistance of other members.Personally,the EDEN Chart is MUCH to vague.(who wrote it anyway?).A debate concerning this delicate matter would be in order.Some conditions should be stated clearly like imediate military aid or donations to help the RWs.As the treaty has been violated I think we deserve some sort of compensation for what happened on day 771.(but probably the president of that time considered it wasn't necessary and decided that we can handle it).As for Marmara and Sofia I wonder what would have happened if let's say the president would have made a donation of lets say 100 g to a foreign military unit to help us with the conflicts in those areas.But then again,maybe the president knows indeed what he is doing so maybe he let those regions fall because they were no use to us(just strategically).I think your article should be taken to higher levels.Try contacting a congress member or even the president because,frankly,you are right.
grecia este cat se poate de ok fiindca sarbii tocmai au dat si plovdivul bulgarilor . pe moment in balcani situatia pare calma .
@James Parker: "how secure on a scale of 1 to 10 does Greece feel in face of an imminent attack from Serbia which is aimed at the iron stocks of central greece.." Well, why do you think Romania attacked Bulgaria?
vote & subscribe. super!
Since I joined this game (almost 30 days too), I havent seen EDEN do one single defensive action. Lets say I'm wrong and I missed something... so like "only "95% of EDEN's military actions were offensive. So from my point of view, the name and most of its charter are there just for "teh lulz".
It's probably been named defensive because of the political situation when it was formed... as I understand attacks on other countries weren't that popular back then (this mostly being the reason why the previous alliance had failed with the swedes attacking Germany and stuff).
I do agree with the point about Crisana tho. They can spin it however much they want... thing is when EDEN saw the attack, they figured an attack on HK couldnt bring anything bad. They were either gonna get a high iron region or save Romania. Unfortunately for them, the second thing happened.
They can say they saved us however much they want... fact is they risked our existence as a country for a small chance that they could get a high iron region.
@Mynsc: when EDEN was formed, all the countries were in danger of being invaded by PEACE (now Phoenix).
Exactly my point! How can security and aid in face of a threat aimed to alter the sense of it can be quantified ?!
@Mynsc I strongly believe that in put in front of an option, wiping Romania from the face of the map and keeping Hello Kitty every Phoenix tactician will choose HK. If HK is conq... liberated... well, let's just imagine a long line of dominos 🙂
@James Parker
I see your point, but i do not agree. An alliance is as powerfull as it's reaction, and, in case of attack, it's retribution. Your interpretation of the Charter is very flexible, too supple for my taste. I'm into text not words or interpretations.
A swift retaliation in day 771 would of been a powerfull signal towards Hungary's plans. Of course, our two opinions can coexist and although you have a different perspective, the point of the text still remains: article 3.0.1. was breached.
Anyway, thanks for your pertinent comment. It's always refreshing to have in front of you the other side of the story. Thx.
And btw, opening HK and tanking there was far more expensive than protecting Crisana in the first place.
drinkeru
Thx for your kind words.
Mynsc
HK or Romania. Quid pro quo, right, James? 🙂
James Parker
A SOUTHERN AFRICAN diamond has a lot of facets. I allowed myself to bring in the public eye, one of many.
Yes, indeed, but it did not sack our treasury dry. Imagine the fallback of Romania tanking in crisana. Yes, we would've probably secured it, but that would've stopped Hungary to open a new region and Bulgaria to block us from attacking right at the end of the battle? Yes article 3.0.1 was breached, but it was done for obtaining an overall advantage, let's get a sense of the general idea of the chart not cling to it's exact words. Security cannot be quantified and other similar situation will occur in which this scandal will be taken in as an argument.
James Parker
As you can see, i'm not taking the "i want to slit the troath of our allies and drink their blood" stance.
I just want to explain why the frustration of eRomania has solid juridical background. That's all. I'm not a partisan of the "we made a lot of damage and you made none" rhetoric. Our damage helped us indirectly and our allies should understand that their damage will help them indirectly.
In the end, i must tell you that the text of the Charter has major flaws. I am going to talk about this in another article... if i can find the time 🙂.
Oh, my hat goes down to the modest but still graet king Solomon. Oh, king of all kings, hero among heroes, genius of the Carpathians, we thank you for enlightening us with your all encompassing wisdom. One can only wonder what the e-world would have become without Your omniscient passing of judgments.
PS: All these articles whining about the lack of EDEN support in Sofia only goes to show that a huge number of e-Romanians are suffering from battered woman syndrome.
Hey, e-Romanias! When are you going to show some character? You lost, shit happens, everyone knows that. Move on or shut up!
Man up, grow some balls and start thinking proactively, because all this bitching and whining is really starting to become boring.
Lets just hope that on the 5th, the situation in EDEN will improve. If not, then we are all doomed.
I just read many comments and articles in which our allies are mocking our importance and other related this, that cumulated, may lead to a rupture in the alliance.
I may exagerate, but I never undermine the importance of the small things.
Also, I think that Fenix has a major part in maximizing the rupture between Romania and EDEN. I am sure there are hungarians, russians and so on with polish, us or spanish citizenship that love making flame.
Hadriean
🙂 Nothing like a fresh dose of irony, right? Perhaps you did not read the whole article mate, if you're talking about Sofia.
If reading and commenting the EDEN Treaty is a proof of being a eunuch, than so be it.
Thank you for your colorful comment and have a good night.
Hadriean , why dont you go and bang your little head against the wall and save yourself from all the trouble of thinking.
Ion Vlahu , respectele mele !
Did you had classes with Valentin Stan? “The musketeer principle" is something he uses in his lectures about NATO.
P.S. To those who don't know. Article VII point 3 of the EDEN treaty is similar to Article V of the North Atlantic treaty.
@Hadriean
This is the reaction we got non-stop during these last 4,5 days and it ain't helping at all with disarming the situation. I just hope our leaders are a bit more clear headed (and I'm talking about all the leaders of the EDEN countries) and are actually discussing seriously about ways to solve this problem.
Saying we're whiners just because we're tired of being treated like the alliance door mat is just adding more fuel to our fire.
I (and probably the entire eromanian population) would love to see this argument solved as soon as possible so we can return to kicking Phoenix ass... but we're not just gonna pretend like nothing ever happened and go back to how things were. Something needs to change. Hopefully the new EDEN HQ and the romanian officials will find the solution.
da abia astept
Romania isi retrage sprijinul pt. anumite actiuni ale Eden pt. ca nu are bani de fapt... ba mai mult, mai e si datoare. Se pare ca ne-a costat mult "distractia". Daca mai punem la socoteala si situatia economiei, de care nu s-a ocupat nimeni, stam foarte prost in momentul de fata ! As putea sa dau si nume si cifre dar nu o sa fac asta... deocamdata...
I like your style! v+s
Oret
More than once. 🙂
true
frumos articol , votat ofcourse
Considering the fact that eRepublik (read here admins) do not enforce treaties between countries the EDEN treaty and all other agreements between countries have little value other than to state where one's honor lies.
Mistwalker
Thank you for your comment, and of course, you are right. I must add that ones honour might be judged when his actions and his words, converge.
The problem with EDEN which no one seems to properly adress isn't that the treaty is vague at some points, that the EDEN hq ignored the romanian president or that its members started conquest wars.
The problem is that EDEN has lost perspective. It was created not as a defensive or economic alliance but as a Brotherhood. The only purpose of EDEN is (or in this case was) to break the normal cycle of power blocks across the world that eventually collapse in on themselves because of conflicting interests (see history of PEACE and ATLANTIS).
In order to prevent its eventual collapse EDEN was thought of as more of a social project, the problem was that all its members were at that time on the verge of annihilation and no one found time for other things besides wars.
The EDEN treaty which you brought into discussion will seem perfectly made if you take these things into consideration (I should know since I wrote 90% of it). It's made to enforce a Brotherhood of nations, not an alliance of self-interests.
vote