Re: (ZAR) Zaristic League of Trade

Azotakza Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:00 pm

Apepistan wrote:To the proposal about neutrality: Aye.

To the proposal about a ZAR navy: Nay.

The United Kingdoms of Apepistan instead propose again that:
1. Each nation is responsible for protecting ZAR trade ships of any ZAR member states in their own waters.
2. In case the ZAR trade routes are threatened by armed conflict, the ZAR Court could decide if armed support and protection of ZAR trade ships are needed in international waters, in which case member states would be obliged to contribute protection from their navy to the ZAR trade ships. This includes both naval patrols and cooperative convoys.
3. The rate of contribution would depend on the navy of the members, the number of their trade ships active in trade with ZAR members, and the number of ZAR ports in their nation.

The United Kingdoms of Apepistan will send 50 trade ships to trade with ZAR nations. Overall 5 tanker ships, 5 vehicle carriers, 15 bulk ships, and 25 cargo ships. The United Kingdoms of Apepistan will also begin to start a merchant fleet building project, which will double the number of ships actively trading with ZAR members.
Currently the United Kingdoms of Apepistan have 2 open ZAR trade port, in the coastal cities of Aktau and Sarkel. To maximize the effectiveness of the future doubled amount of ships, both of these ports will be expanded.

Aye to the Reinstatement.
I retract my vote for the set navy.

England and Wales Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:29 am

I purpose that we have a fleet loyal only to the ZAR and only work to protect the trade fleets. Every nation should have a trade house dedicated to the ZAR and handles all exports and imports from ZAR nations alone.

Atlantica is currently building a trade fleet of 50 ships, 10 tankers, 25 cargo ships, 15 bulk ships and 10 trade ships to carry specialized goods, such as weapons, or more expensive goods like gold.

Azotakza Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:12 am

Omega Atlantica wrote:I purpose that we have a fleet loyal only to the ZAR and only work to protect the trade fleets. Every nation should have a trade house dedicated to the ZAR and handles all exports and imports from ZAR nations alone.

Atlantica is currently building a trade fleet of 50 ships, 10 tankers, 25 cargo ships, 15 bulk ships and 10 trade ships to carry specialized goods, such as weapons, or more expensive goods like gold.

Both are really good ideas but if anything we can find a compromise, or if it comes each party will have a day to compile a reason why we should go with there idea. So tomorrow around this time please have a reason of why we should go with your idea and we will all vote upon it.

Apepistan Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:08 am

1.) Having a common ZAR navy would make the organisation look like a military heavy organisation.

2.) The question of the main HQ and command/leadership of the navy could cause conflict between nations. Who would lead it? The founder? The one who has the biggest navy? An elected member? How long will that member be elected? Military-wise the cooperation of navies is much easier and cleaner than commanding a mixed culture and language navy.

3.) Even if there would be a common ZAR navy, members would most likely have to take care of their own security in their own waters. Apepistan would be strongly against having any other navy in our seas than our own.

4.) A common navy would be standing, whereas a cooperative protecting navy could be situational. There is no need for constant military support for merchant fleets on international waters as long as nothing is seriously threatening the trade.

5.) A common navy would also, since it being standing, draws away valuable force from the national navies; so it would either weaken the member states' own navies, or would be a great financial stress to the nations to build new ships for replacement.

Great Eurussia Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:18 am

Eurussia wishes to become an observer state to the ZAR.

Thank you.

England and Wales Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:57 am

A Common Navy for ZAR would allow trade ships to be more saver and not have to deal with international laws! A common navy would stop attacks with out us having to take our own navy! Thus resulting in us for dealing with bigger problems! Parts of the navy are needed for the protection of a nation!

Apepistan Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:14 am

What international laws are you talking about?
Ships on international waters are under the jurisdiction of the flag state.

I do not wish the ZAR to turn into a militaristic alliance. If there is no threat to our trade having a fleet is simply pointless!

England and Wales Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:25 am

(sighs) Well... I have a small part of my navy dedicated to protect this trade ships

Azotakza Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:00 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Eurussia wishes to become an observer state to the ZAR.
Thank you.

I agree with this

Azotakza Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:03 am

Omega Atlantica wrote:(sighs) Well... I have a small part of my navy dedicated to protect this trade ships

protect your sea, If we ever have to use the navy then we will use them but please state why you want to set up a navy.

Shlask Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:10 am

To the proposal about neutrality: Aye

To the proposal of a navy Shlask: Abstains

Xolox Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:20 am

Neutrality: Yea

Navy: Nay, the navy of the memberstates should be enough to defend us in times of need.

Muchos Estados Unidos Sun Nov 09, 2014 1:28 am

Muchos Estados Unidos will join

Azotakza Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:04 am

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:Muchos Estados Unidos will join

Accepted

Azotakza Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:06 am

All members are now called to vote on with proposal we will go on
Altantica: pro central navy
or
Apepistan: anti central navy

England and Wales Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:32 am

Azotakza wrote:All members are now called to vote on with proposal we will go on
Altantica: pro central navy
or
Apepistan: anti central navy

may we vote for our own idea?

Snarfian Federation Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:40 pm

Snarfia thinks the ZAR is now strong enough to defend each others ports against foreign treats

Azotakza Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:23 pm

The next think I would like to bring up is member recruitment.
Should we be aggressive about inviting nations or should we let others join us slowly and build from there?

For agressive inviting say: 1
For letting people join slowly say: 2

England and Wales Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:29 am

I vote for the second option in regards to recruitment.

Apepistan Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:01 am

2, I vote for letting people join slowly.

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:37 am

The United States of Scouting is requesting membership.

Apepistan Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:46 am

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:The United States of Scouting is requesting membership.

Request accepted! Welcome to ZAR!

UnitedStatesOfScouting Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:50 am

Apepistan wrote:
UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:The United States of Scouting is requesting membership.

Request accepted! Welcome to ZAR!

Thank You!

EDIT: I agree to uphold the Zaristic trade rules and will fight for a better world.

Azotakza Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:40 pm

I would like to call a vote: the blockade and embargo of Lockdownn.

he threatens to bomb members and declare war, with no valid reason.

if you agree please say: AYE
if you disagree please say: NAY

Hungaria Nova Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:53 pm

To the great alliance of ZAR

The Kingdom of Hungaria Nova would like to join the Alliance to improve her trade and diplomatic relations with all member states.

(ZAR) Zaristic League of Trade - Page 2 Syle_a10

(ZAR) Zaristic League of Trade - Page 2 Syle_a10

Rear admiral Attila Sülley, ambassador of KHN announces the appliance

Sponsored content