[DEFEATED] Code of Maritime Law

[Lemmingtopias]

I believe that the fears of some delegates regarding the carrying of illegal product into sovereign waters being made legal by this proposal is actually unfounded. The preamble does appear to make clear that this resolution applies to international waters. However, perhaps the confusion is a sign that it needs more clarity.

I personally do not see the need for the second clause under Article II, Section 1.ii:

If a state of war exists between the home nations of the assisting and distressed vessels.

I see no reason why non-military ships should deny may day assistance to other non-military ships even if their home nations are at war. Shame on such blatant disregard for civilian human life.

After weighing up these shortfallings against the resolution itself, and taking into account the views of my constituents, currently unanimous against the Resolution, I have decided to vote against. However, I would be interested in seeing a revised proposal should this one fail to pass.

[Alotopia]

A humanoid android steps up to his microphone... He adjusts his voice modulator making a *WEEWOO* sound before beginning to speak. The following is translated from Kaasian...

"Hello honorable delegates, my name is C4-O6 or Zach Smith, I am an observer from the Interstellar Empire of Alotopia. My emperor has tasked me with asking a couple of questions...

Now, since this resolution involves sea/ocean going vessels, would this apply to space fairing vessels aswell? In addition, would it be illegal to wage war on shipping lanes and such?

Thank you."

[Bears Armed]

"And anyhows, how often is it likely to be the[/i] "cargo ship" itself --rather than its officers or owners -- that "wishes" to carry a particular cargo?"
^_^

Hey! W3 does have AI-enhanced cargo ships!

I knew that somebody would...
That's why I said "How often is it likely to be" rather than "It will never be".

[Plo City]

"I personally have noticed that this effectively makes smuggling legal, due to article 2, section 2 stating that a vessel can carry Any Cargo as long as it is not made illegal by a WA resolution or it's home city. So if for example, a sailor from plo city wanted to bring a boatload of cocaine and marijuana, which is legal by our laws, to a World Assembly State, which has cocaine and marijuana illegalized, they could not be arrested for such an act. And the opposite, if they brought a boatload of miniguns to plo city, those sailors could not be arrested either! For that, I must be against this bill.

[Defwa]

I believe that the fears of some delegates regarding the carrying of illegal product into sovereign waters being made legal by this proposal is actually unfounded. The preamble does appear to make clear that this resolution applies to international waters. However, perhaps the confusion is a sign that it needs more clarity.

The problem is the preamble has no authority. It may describe intention but the active clause in question makes no distinction

[Mitonialia]

Mitonialia having not spoken on it's reasoning for voting in a good while, wishes to note that the sub-sections to Item 2, Section 1, Article 2 are anathema to the traditions of the United Miton Navy and the Merchant Navy. Sections 2 and 3, Article 2 should be completely dispensed with. Point 2, Section 1, Article 3 is something unforgivable, the Mitonialia Customs and Enforcement Agency, Coast Guard and Department of Commerce is responsible for the searching of ships in Mitonialia, we will not surrender that power to any WA resolution. If necessary I would order that all vessels carrying the flag of Mitonialia be under that of the Merchant Navy, fortunately this legislation will not pass. To ensure it will not pass, Mitonialia will vote NO, NAY, and AGAINST!

[VarunHebli]

why dont you get it????its necessary

[Rotwood]

why dont you get it????its necessary

Felicia clutches her head, unsure if it is from the hangover or something else
"But it is a category violation. What the hell does any of this have to do with moral decency? What rights are we restricting here?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

why dont you get it????its necessary :palm:

Felicia clutches her head, unsure if it is from the hangover or something else
"But it is a category violation. What the hell does any of this have to do with moral decency? What rights are we restricting here?"

OOC: Are you sure about that? The category was discussed quite a bit earlier. Moral Decency was not only suggested by me, but by Ardchoille. This proposal places a number of restrictions on personal freedoms, obligating people to render aid and to refrain from misusing distress signals. That aligns with Moral Decency, a category about reducing personal freedom.

I'm not arguing in favour of the proposal, and I have my own legality concerns - unanswered - regarding this applying to domestic territorial waters, but I think it's confusing for new authors when they are advised to change categories only to have that change criticised. If you genuinely think the category is wrong, I think you should show how rather than just claiming it is.

[Rotwood]

Felicia clutches her head, unsure if it is from the hangover or something else
"But it is a category violation. What the hell does any of this have to do with moral decency? What rights are we restricting here?"

OOC: Are you sure about that? The category was discussed quite a bit earlier. Moral Decency was not only suggested by me, but by Ardchoille. This proposal places a number of restrictions on personal freedoms, obligating people to render aid and to refrain from misusing distress signals. That aligns with Moral Decency, a category about reducing personal freedom.

I'm not arguing in favour of the proposal, and I have my own legality concerns - unanswered - regarding this applying to domestic territorial waters, but I think it's confusing for new authors when they are advised to change categories only to have that change criticised. If you genuinely think the category is wrong, I think you should show how rather than just claiming it is.

OOC: I did in my post which is on the previous page. Given that only a small section is covered by it, I honestly dont see how you and Ard made that suggestion. I guess the problem is that this covers more than one category, but I don't think MD is the one that it really should be in. It feels like it's shoe-horned with extra baggage.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I did in my post which is on the previous page. Given that only a small section is covered by it, I honestly dont see how you and Ard made that suggestion. I guess the problem is that this covers more than one category, but I don't think MD is the one that it really should be in. It feels like it's shoe-horned with extra baggage.

OOC: The main operative section, II.1, concerns mild restrictions on personal freedom. At present, if you sail your boat into international waters you can do whatever you like. Now, you have certain restrictions - being obligated to render aid, not to misuse distress flares, not deactivating your radio. The right established 2 (i) doesn't change anything, because this was already the case, but 2 (ii) does provide an additional restriction: you can't just load up your boat as heavy as you like. 3 requires another (mild) restriction of personal freedoms. Furthermore, Article III provides for additional restrictions of personal freedoms: unannounced inspections and suspensions of rights to operate vessels.

The only reason this is even contested is because people don't like writing resolutions in the "negative" categories and hence the Human Rights/Free Trade categories have been horribly abused. It is quite obviously a resolution restricting personal freedoms.

[Zarkanians]

AWARE that no international legislation currently governs seagoing vessels in international waters,

AWARE that the reason for this is that most people don't want one.

AGAINST.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

why dont you get it????its necessary

Felicia clutches her head, unsure if it is from the hangover or something else
"But it is a category violation. What the hell does any of this have to do with moral decency? What rights are we restricting here?"

Would you not consider the mandate that ships must help other distressed ships an act of moral decency? We are restricting rights not to assist distressed vessels for the sake of moral decency.

[Rotwood]

Felicia clutches her head, unsure if it is from the hangover or something else
"But it is a category violation. What the hell does any of this have to do with moral decency? What rights are we restricting here?"

Would you not consider the mandate that ships must help other distressed ships an act of moral decency? We are restricting rights not to assist distressed vessels for the sake of moral decency.

Felicia shakes her head
"That is kind of a bad argument to shoe-horn this into that category. I guess the problem is there is no real category for it. The one we would have suggested the mod has already over-ruled, but the tone is more fitting to that than moral decency."

[Mosktopia]

Felicia clutches her head, unsure if it is from the hangover or something else
"But it is a category violation. What the hell does any of this have to do with moral decency? What rights are we restricting here?"

Would you not consider the mandate that ships must help other distressed ships an act of moral decency? We are restricting rights not to assist distressed vessels for the sake of moral decency.

Don't get me wrong, I see the "moral decency" argument. The proposal would require ships stop and help other ships experiencing an emergency. So their freedom to not stop and help is being restricted. Put another way, they are required (in the name of moral decency) to stop whatever they would rather be doing and help a ship in distress.

I drafted a similar proposal in the "Advancement of Industry; Tort Reform" category (never submitted). Personally, I think that's really where this kind of thing belongs. After all, the point of the proposal is to advance the shipping industry: "ensure the safety and stability of shipping and passenger service, thereby improving international trade and commerce." And the proposal has a strong tort reform elements: not only is an affirmative duty of rescue created (something also seen in negligence and breach of trust lawsuits), but "vessels which are assisting a vessel in distress shall not be liable for damages sustained during the rescue..." Exempting someone from civil damages in certain situations is classic tort reform.

This go 'round has failed, but I would strongly encourage the author to take a second look to the Advancement of Industry, Tort Reform category, and perhaps resubmit a slimmed down version (the current proposal tries to touch on too many things) in the future.

[Mosktopia]

"Code of Maritime Law" was defeated 7,529 votes to 3,961.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Code of Maritime Law" was defeated 7,529 votes to 3,961.

"Good. Let's brush this into a dustbin and move on to more fruitful orchards."

[The Eternal Kawaii]

"Code of Maritime Law" was defeated 7,529 votes to 3,961.

"Good. Let's brush this into a dustbin and move on to more fruitful orchards."

Now, now...there were a lot of good things about this proposal. Unfortunately, it had one or two flaws that made it unworkable. We encourage the author to fix them and make another go at this.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

We intend to revise this proposal, address all of the flaws found in it, and resubmit it, hopefully by the end of the month. We hope to count on your support.

[Lemmingtopias]

I look forward to it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Good. Let's brush this into a dustbin and move on to more fruitful orchards."

Now, now...there were a lot of good things about this proposal. Unfortunately, it had one or two flaws that made it unworkable. We encourage the author to fix them and make another go at this.

"There is nothing good about a proposal that mandates us rescue ships in need, especially when we have no duty or even training to do so or have a more serious obligation elsewhere."

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

Now, now...there were a lot of good things about this proposal. Unfortunately, it had one or two flaws that made it unworkable. We encourage the author to fix them and make another go at this.

"There is nothing good about a proposal that mandates us rescue ships in need, especially when we have no duty or even training to do so or have a more serious obligation elsewhere."

It's saddening that your nation has no regard for basic human decency, such as attempting to save the lives of those in jeopardy.

[Separatist Peoples]

"There is nothing good about a proposal that mandates us rescue ships in need, especially when we have no duty or even training to do so or have a more serious obligation elsewhere."

It's saddening that your nation has no regard for basic human decency, such as attempting to save the lives of those in jeopardy.

"My government is concerned with one thing only: The well-being of our citizens. We would sacrifice a million non-citizens for one citizen, because doing anything less would be a failure to the people we represent. I, personally, and my government, officially, have a simple yardstick on the matter. A C.D.S.P.'s citizen's right to choice is sacrosanct. That extends as far as another person's rights do. My fist and your nose and all that. Since your rights cannot be infringed upon by my inaction, there is no compelling evidence to force us to do that."

"If they choose to attempt a rescue, then that is their will, but we will not force the choice on anybody. We are not in the habit of legislating on a matter of conscious like this."