CivBase wrote:"It would be appreciated, Mr. Otto, if you would attempt to be less insulting on your country's behalf. It certainly isn't helping your case. We very much understand your laws and our problem is not that we contest most of them; this suggestion couldn't be further from the truth. Our problem is that your union seeks to impress its laws on the entire world, and not just the members who consent to these rules."
"Forgive my tone if I come across as insulting. It is just that you raise a point that has been beaten to death already. The German government tires of responding to this same point over and over and over again."
CivBase wrote:"Just as I said, our nation agrees with most of your laws, save for a few minor details. Our biggest concern is that you are able to make whatever additional laws you want through a 2/3 majority of the union. That 2/3 'majority' only accounts for 1/9 of the entire world, who is subject to these laws. It's legislation without representation."
"And, as we already pointed out, the charter actually partially resolves this issue. The removal of the charter simply means that
all issues are decided by a 2/3 majority vote, and that as long as 2/3 agree, anything goes. The charter is an attempt to at least suggest a direction for the World Union. Its existence does not threaten anyone any more than its nonexistence would.
I would further point out that you seem to not understand what legislation without representation means. If we were actively barring people from joining the World Union, then it would be legislation without representation. However, because anyone, including independent states, may choose to join the World Union at any time, it is by choice that nations are unrepresented."
CivBase wrote:"Statistically speaking, the World Union would be qualified as a voluntary sample, which makes it a poor representation of the entire population. Nations who do not favor the idea of a World Union or disagree with parts of World Union laws often do not join. There also is no representation for independent territories, who make up a majority of the world. Even with a unanimous vote on a new law from the World Union, it only accounts for 17% of the world it wants to govern. Because of this, it is only reasonable that the World Union only governs its own members until it has grown enough to provide accurate estimates for the opinions of the world."
"In most matters, yes, which is why sections 2, 3, and 4 only apply to members. But there are certain ethical and moral absolutes that everyone must abide by. If the international laws do not exist, the world
will burn down around us. Nations like Manchuria will invade and threaten and abuse and oppress until they are too large to be stopped, and then we will all fall."
CivBase wrote:"You have insisted on many accounts that our nation does not understand your charter. On the contrary, we have studied the document very carefully - likely more so than most of the members who are voting on it. You say that nations do not have to enforce international law, yet the charter itself says 'all nations are subject to International Law.' The charter further explains that 'valid justification [for invasion] entails that the nation to be invaded has broken international law.' Yes, your laws require diplomatic action first, but it is highly unlikely that such endeavors will succeed given the situation."
"You seem to misunderstand what exactly enforcing means. Let us take an example. Let's say that NUCA unlawfully invades some independent in South America. If the laws were enforced, Bolivia would
have to attempt to resolve the issue. However, under the charter, Bolivia does not have to attempt to resolve the issue, and the event might go unresolved. It pains us that we do not enforce these laws, but we understand that it would not necessarily be fair.
Under the charter, Bolivia has the right to invade NUCA (after all diplomatic attempts have failed), should NUCA break international law, but Bolivia does not have to invade NUCA. Absent the charter, Bolivia has the right to invade NUCA for whatever reason pleases it.
And it would be pointless for international law to only apply to members of the World Union. Members would then have no right, whatsoever, to interfere in any nonmember affair, period. Even if NUCA nuked a neighbor of the German Empire, we would be disallowed from responding because justification entails breaking international law, and NUCA would not be subject to international law. If international law only applies to members of the World Union, then we have simply hamstrung ourselves while allowing anyone else to do as they please. We wouldn't even be able to properly play the fiddle as the world burned down around us."
CivBase wrote:"Please, stop insisting that you are too tired of explaining yourself and actually do it for once! If you do not provide adequate response, it should be obvious that we will continue asking the same question."
"For once!? FOR ONCE!? We have explained these exact points to other members on at least four or five occasions. Over and over, these points have been brought up. Over and over and over again. Forgive us if we do not wish to expand these explanations to nonmembers. We've already got our hands full with members."
CivBase wrote:"Lastly, you continue to insist that by retaliation, we were referring to war. Again, that is not the case. We would rather not disclose our methods just so Germany can find a way to thwart them. I apologize if I seemed to imply military action, as this was not my intent."
"Not all war is fought on the battlefield, and not all attacks are made with soldiers. Whether the employment of soldiers or the use of espionage or sabotage, your retaliation to a simple charter, unless you meant sanctions or angry letters or some other laughable, ineffective reprisal, would reflect that your nation is just the sort of nation that needs to have its ethics and morality called into question."
