Treaties are often made between a State and another State, State and Corporate bodies and or State and an individual. It is very obvious that no state goes into a treaty that is not gainful to her, now the measurement and understanding of the gain a state stand to get from an existing treaty probably after some time especially when it’s original initiators are no longer occupying big political offices becomes a big issue.
Due to greed and selfish reasons, governments tend to exploit and most time violet some part of treaties and when such happens they pretend to be ignorant of it, but if the other party raises an alarm over the violation, government may own up and apologize. Is the apology a sign that such violation will not happen again? Obviously No!
On whether it invalidates the treaty for violence, non-performance, fraud and violence, the answer is no because that is when and where the coercive attitudes of governments manifest fully as she will do everything possible including more violence to compel the other party to continue the pact unless a formal dissolution or modification of such treaty is agreed.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
i respectfully disagree with your conclusion at this time. Could you please explain how the treaty/contract is not broken when all evidence and one of the parties believe the contract/treaty to be broken? irrespective of the crowns "attitude" and willingness to engage in further violence, the crown was the "promiser", and the tribes the "promisee" if the crown had any intention of honouring the treaty, there would be a history of compensating the tribes for the trespass by the crown. Contracts/treaties require both parties to be in agreement - As the "promisee" believes the "promiser" has failed in their obligation, then the Contract/treaty which binds the two party's requires that the promiser compensate the promisee - There is a lot of damning evidence to support the claim by the "promisee".
Yes many presume that violation of any of the terms of agreement means an outright cancellation but its not, until formally broken, any of the parties may continue laying claims against the other even when such party started or was involved in terms violation.
Thank you for your clarification, however you did not answer the question - yes the two parties to a contract/treaty can have disagreements, but a disagreement is not what this debate is about, it is about whether the violence committed by the crown makes the treaty null and void - Also how can the tribes formally nullify, break the treaty when the promiser i.e the crown is the one enforcing and controlling all of the courts that hold the power to officially say that it is broken? If your premise is correct, then the treaty can never be broken by the crown no matter what horrors and violence they unleash upon the tribes. Whilst ever the promiser is also the enforcer of the contract/treaty, it will always be a case of "do as i say not as i do, the rules i make don't apply to me" - You see this in most statute laws, it makes it quite clear that the crown is exempt from the statutes.
A simple example - punch your boss at work... and try and say that you have not broken your work contract by engaging in violence....You will find that your contract was void when the punch landed - and your employer will be more than happy to toss your ass to the kerb....
Now if your boss punches you at work, and you say that he has broken the work contract, he will laugh at you and tell you to get back to work or you will be either beaten further or he will have your ass thrown to the kerb....
The land belongs to the tribes - it is their land and they cannot and should not quit and walk away -
My response and initial postulation is based on general contract/treaty, but being specific using the situation you are pointing at, its long over due for the people involved to raise and formally invalidate the so called treaty as it no longer holds. The reason I believe in this arrangement is, going be what one party may loose in canceling this treaty formally, it may not willingly agree to this but when the public stand as one united people with one voice, the other party will start to recognize that the people has cancelled the dead treaty and may call for a round table discussion if its still willing to make peace.
My dear friend;
If I just read your response correctly, are are advocating for the idea that violence, non-performance and fraud is not grounds to invalidate a treaty, only because the bully will resort to more violence if we confront them on that fact. As such, those that have been violated by the bully should shut up or face the consequences of more violence.
This stand is, in itself, a violent and abusive position to take and violates the foundations of this debate forum. You are justifying the actions of the state and telling the other part to shut up. Not only that, but you are arguing that the only way to get out of the treaty is if both sides agree, which further traumatizes the victims of the abuse and violence and provides even more power and authority to the abuser.
This is an abhorrent and violent position to argue my friend. I am disqualifying you from the debate due to your violation of the spirit of this debate. I am also calling out the 21 individuals who voted for this argument and I question their own integrity regarding violence, bullying, coercion, fraud and non-performance.
Please I never wished to be misunderstood by my comment, Like I explained to @realtreebivvy my position is based on an ideal treaty/contraction situation, however your yesterday's post (https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/the-day-treaty-six-died) gave a more detailed and clearer explanation of the situation which is very obvious that the so called treaty in question is dead long long ago.
Am not in support of violence, bullying, coercion, fraud or non-performance from whoever against any people or group in any manner.
I'm not convinced my friend. Even if you were speaking from an ideal treaty / contract situation, your position still held the fact that the violence would NOT invalidate the agreement and your argument also suggested that the other party had no power to do anything about it.
This position is similar to an abused spouse trying to leave a relationship and the abuser having power over them to prevent the separation.
EVERYONE has a veto and to suggest otherwise is coercive, violent and abusive. Your argument supported that no veto exists and for anybody who has been on the receiving end of a violent relationship, they most likely would have a visceral reaction to your statements. Your words have power and I suggest you think twice about how you use them.
To argue such a position is, in fact, in support of the abuser. So your comments are now incongruent.
Nice