Articles 3 & 5 of the Tripartite Pact are unclearly formulated. Was this standard for the period?

Question

Tripartite Pact: ARTICLE 3 and ARTICLE 5

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

and

ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.

could be interpreted so many ways, that only one sense to formulate defensive military alliance such way is "we need to have an option to do not follow it".

But may be those phrases was absolutely clear for those time diplomats since those formulations were widely used in other pacts? Did they had any precedents?

E.g. "The Triple Alliance" (1882) didn't contained anything like this, all formulations were absolutely straight forward.

What is "uclear" in Article 3:

"Triple Alliance" instead of "assist one another with all political, economic and military means" uses much more direct "assistance with all their forces" and "casus foederis will arise simultaneously"

Tripartite Pact uses "by a Power at present not involved in .. war" - what is "involved in war"? I've expected there to find "at present not in state of war". Where meaning of "involved" was defined? Why list of countries "at present involved in war" left open? I understand that we can't name USA, but what was a problem to name the GB and China (define the list involved at present by enumeration)?

Article 5 text I can understand as "if Soviet Russia attacks you - it is not our common problem". But the same can be stated much more direct way. And the presence of such phrase is very surprising. Do we have any precedents in past of such articles in other pacts?

And also why "Soviet Russia" (Sowjet-Rußland) name was used instead of Soviet Union or USSR (germ. Sowjetunion) ? E.g. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was singed with Union der Sozialistichen Sowietrepubiken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#/media/File:Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact_(German_copy).gif

Answer 1

That's mostly owing to the fact that, while most defensive alliances are signed in peacetime, in this case all the parties involved were already at war.

Usually defensive alliances are made to deter declarations of war. The weird situation here was that all the involved parties were already at war, and weren't looking to immediately link up their ongoing wars (WWII and the Second Sino-Japanese War).

The point was to strengthen their diplomatic hands against major powers that weren't already involved in those conflicts, in particular the Americans. But specifically naming the USA in an alliance document would itself be a rather hostile act, so they couldn't do that either. Hence all the weasel-words about ongoing conflicts.

The line item about the Soviet Union was a bone thrown to placate them for not being allowed on as signatories. They were in fact interested in signing the alliance, but Germany was preparing to invade them, and quietly worked to prevent their signature. Its fluffiness is a reflection of the fact that it had to be worded in a way that reassured the USSR without actually making a promise that would be broken by the upcoming invasion.

Answer 2

It was "diplomatese." The gist of the pact was that the three parties did not have to help each other against their existing enemies or Soviet Russia, but only against the one, great and foreseeable potential common enemy--the United States.

It was not a "typical" pact, because the circumstances were unusual; there was basically only one country that fit the mold of "a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict." and also was in no way party to "the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia."

Other pacts, such as that of the Triple Alliance, were more explicit because there was more room for misunderstanding.