Intermicronational treaty

From MicroWiki, the free micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intermicronational treaty is a term typically used to describe multilateral treaties between micronations.[a] Intermicronational treaties are commonly open to ratification by other micronational entities, such as micronations or intermicronational organisations, without restriction. Intermicronational treaties serve to establish a system of rules and standards within micronationalism. While intermicronational treaties have dealt with issues such as climate change and human rights, the most widely adopted intermicronational treaties serve to establish rules and standards on micronationalism as a practice itself. These intermicronational treaties handle practices such as the granting of citizenship and false claims such as the land a micronation controls.

Intermicronational treaties lack the same practices seen in macronational treaties, which were widely established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the subsequent adoption of such as a peremptory norm, which micronational entities have not adopted itself. As a result, there are many different practices, or lack thereof, seen throughout intermicronational treaties. Examples of these varying practices include what entities may ratify an intermicronational treaty and the depositaries of intermicronational treaties.


The Wrythe Convention is the most widely signed intermicronational treaty with over 120 signatories. The treaty seeks to address false claims in micronationalism.

As bases of rules for the practice of micronationalism

One of the primary purposes of intermicronational treaties is to establish rules and standards for micronationalism as a practice. The goal of this is to formulate broad consensus on the ways micronations as entities ought to conduct themselves in order to be properly viewed as or considered as micronations. This can be visualized as a foundational basis of rules for micronations with other rules of conduct being built on top of it. Similar to how sovereignty is a necessity for macronations, these intermicronational treaties can be seen as attempting to establish similar necessities for micronations.

An example of this concept can be seen in Article 3, Subsection a, of the Edgbaston Convention, which states:

It is deemed improper for a nation-state[b] to claim as its territory... Any inhabited area in which a majority of the permanent residents, or a majority of the people who work there, are not citizens of the nation-state or family of citizens of the nation-state within three generations.

This article specifically seeks to establish formal considerations for how micronations claim land in relation to the citizenship status of residents. This can be distinguished from other intermicronational treaties dealing with land claims that seek to avoid disputes or establish resolution methods for the same. Such intermicronational treaties do not necessarily establish basic rules for when micronations can claim land or which land it may claim and rather provide rules or guidance for what to do after such claims are made.

As bases of rules for the conduct of micronations

Another primary purpose of intermicronational treaties is to establish rules and standards for the conduct of micronations. This may entail rules on how micronations should interact with each other, with individuals, or with the world in general. This may be seen in intermicronational treaties dedicated to combating climate change, such as the Sough2020 Convention or Alcatraz's Treaty, or ones relating to LGBT rights such as the Augusta Accord and Levaria Treaty.


Ratification and depositaries

Intermicronational treaties commonly employ ratification systems that do not involve depositaries. This causes the responsibilities that depositaries perform, most importantly the receiving of ratification instruments and ensuring such ratification is done properly, to not be completed within many intermicronational treaties. Rather, ratification is left completely in the hands of those ratifiying. This may result in ratifications not being legally binding or otherwise done properly. The publication of the ratification of intermicronational treaties, or even the withdrawal of such, may also be left up to those ratifying. Additionally, many micronations take to using the MicroWiki pages on specific intermicronational treaties in order to publicize their ratification of such.

Some intermicronational treaties do utilize methods that may be comparable to depositaries in order to track ratifications. While potentially not rising the the functions of depositaries as outlined by Article 77 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, requirements to inform a body of ratification found in some intermicronational treaties does serve to address some of the problems relating to the common lack of depositaries found in other intermicronational treaties. Intermicronational treaties may also have certain micronations appointed to maintain original copies of the document but these micronations may not be responsible for the production of further copies or translations of said document.


Micronations have distinctly fewer options than macronations when seeking to implement enforcement methods in intermicronational treaties. The primary method of enforcing obligations within micronationalism is the suspension of diplomatic relations or recognition. This is reflected in intermicronational treaties which commonly obligate parties to cease, or refuse to engage in, diplomatic relations with other micronations that violate it. Other enforcement methods may be included or implemented within intermicronational treaties, such as addressing breaches by utilizing micronational war or by applying sanctions, but these are less likely to be meaningfully enforced and are less commonly seen.

Enforcement is also commonly left up to individual parties to implement, with most intermicronational treaties lacking accompanying organisations to encourage enforcement or monitor breaches of the intermicronational treaty. This may lead to the lack of enforcement due to an unwillingness of a party or due to a party simply being unaware of breaches where enforcement measures would be necessary.


While macronations may commonly utilize unilateral or implied recognition when it comes to other states, this practice is not commonly utilized in micronationalism in favour of treaties of mutual recognition. This is reflected in some intermicronational treaties which include clauses to explicitly state that parties do not, even tacitly, recognise the other parties to it. An example of this practice can be seen in Article 6 of the Wrythe Convention, which states:

No signatory to this Convention, by co-signing it, necessarily extends recognition of any sort to any other signatory. The collective desire to ensure trust and honesty in the community transcends any diplomatic relations between individual states, nations, and entities.

With recognition being especially important to micronations, the explicit rejection of tacit recognition through international treaties serves as a strategy to maintain and incentivize continued ratification of said treaties without concerns of a current party needing to withdraw ratification due to a new party needing to be recognised or a new party withholding ratification because of a current party. Even without this explicit rejection, an argument may be made that tacit recognition would still not be extended between parties of an intermicronational treaty due to such a practice not being common within micronationalism.


  1. Micronations themselves may refer to intermicronational treaties simply as treaties or as international treaties in order to maintain their assertion of statehood and to not formally adopt the term micronation in legal texts.
  2. The Edgbaston Convention uses the term "nation-state" to refer to micronations.

See also