[PASSED] Delineation of Borders Act

[Serrland]

This is a rough outline of a proposal I've had in the works for a few days but haven't taken the effort to post. It might be slow going, and I don't have two endorsements anyways, so this might be a long time coming if it's deemed worthy of anything. Per ususal, criticism is welcomed and encouraged.

Delineation of Borders Act
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild


AWARE that maintaining territorial integrity is critical to a government's ability to function,

NOTING that established international borders are of crucial importance to determining and maintaining said territorial integrity,

FURTHER NOTING that unclear and undilineated borders are often detrimental to a nations ability to maintain territorial integrity over border regions,

BELIEVING that clearly and precisely demarcating international borders is in the interest of all nations,

HEREBY

CALLS for states to work in cooperation in regards to demarcating and documenting international borders whenever possible,

ENCOURAGES the peaceful resolution of disputed borders whenever possible,

ESTABLISHES the General Assembly Border Demarcation Organization (GABDO), a committee dedicated to examining international borders and documenting them properly, arbitrating border disputes when requested, and maintaining accurate maps of international borders,

LIMITS the arbitration powers of the GABDO to situations in which all parties directly involved agree to request said arbitration,

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations involved in border disputes seek arbitration on the matter from the GABDO rather than engage in acts of violence against each other

INVITES non-WA nations to seek GABDO arbitration if all parties agree to respect said arbitration and a proper fee is paid

[Aglrinia]

Although i'm not in the WA, i'll do my best to get my delegate to support its one of the few that seems necessary now a days.

[Rientia]

I have read and would vote for this Act without a doubt. Borders are constantly changing, and without definition of those borders being clear and concise, many nations may be unwilling losing territory to other more advanced nations.

If you have any trouble finding your endorsements or you would like it posted in the WA asap, then send me a telegram. I am currently WA Delegate of my region and would love to see this motion pass.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

This creates a committee that has no power unless both sides if a disagreement agree to involve the committee. I see no reason for the HRC to support this measure.

[Embolalia]

There are the basics of something worthwhile here. But there are a few questions that need to be asked:
What should be done if all parties don't agree to participate?
Should there be penalties for not recognizing borders?
What if all of the parties aren't WA members?
I'm sure there are more that I haven't thought of, but start with those.

[Serrland]

There are the basics of something worthwhile here. But there are a few questions that need to be asked:
What should be done if all parties don't agree to participate?

That is indeed problematic and difficult to address. I don't believe it is the place of the WA to act unilaterally to determine the territorial boundaries of sovereign states. That does cause something of a predicament, though, and that is addressed below.

Should there be penalties for not recognizing borders?

Personally, yes, there definitely should be. Legally, can it happen? I didn't think it was legal to impose punitive measures within WA legislation, but if I'm mistaken then I'd be inclined to add something to that effect.

What if all of the parties aren't WA members?

If a non-WA member was in a border dispute with a WA member things would get admittedly muddled. If both the WA and non-WA nations agreed to arbitration by the GABDO they should have access to it, as it effects a WA nation directly.

I'm sure there are more that I haven't thought of, but start with those.

These concerns are the main ones I imagined would be levied when I wrote this, and they're quite frankly difficult ones to approach.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper thinks that it is hard to see how a draft could not affect non-member states. For example, there is a member state whose borders are only with non-member states. Now, where it says:

CALLS for states to work in cooperation in regards to demarcating and documenting international borders whenever possible,

This clause seems to apply to non-members. I'm not saying that it is impossible but it could be clarified.

[Darenjo]

or you could add a clause allowing non-WA members to participate

[Manticore Reborn]

Ms. Harper thinks that it is hard to see how a draft could not affect non-member states. For example, there is a member state whose borders are only with non-member states. Now, where it says:

CALLS for states to work in cooperation in regards to demarcating and documenting international borders whenever possible,

This clause seems to apply to non-members. I'm not saying that it is impossible but it could be clarified.

Although I agree with you assessment, would it be illegal for a WA Committee to keep track of non-member nation's borders? Obviously it would have no legal bearing on them, but it would be useful for organizational reasons.

[Chaosbull]

i support

[Darenjo]

Ms. Harper thinks that it is hard to see how a draft could not affect non-member states. For example, there is a member state whose borders are only with non-member states. Now, where it says:

CALLS for states to work in cooperation in regards to demarcating and documenting international borders whenever possible,

This clause seems to apply to non-members. I'm not saying that it is impossible but it could be clarified.

Although I agree with you assessment, would it be illegal for a WA Committee to keep track of non-member nation's borders? Obviously it would have no legal bearing on them, but it would be useful for organizational reasons.

Just allow non-members to voluntarily participate. Though i cannot think of a resolution that has a similar clause, there have been proposals that had such clauses that simply failed to gain quorum.

[Serrland]

Ms. Harper thinks that it is hard to see how a draft could not affect non-member states. For example, there is a member state whose borders are only with non-member states. Now, where it says:

CALLS for states to work in cooperation in regards to demarcating and documenting international borders whenever possible,

This clause seems to apply to non-members. I'm not saying that it is impossible but it could be clarified.

Although I agree with you assessment, would it be illegal for a WA Committee to keep track of non-member nation's borders? Obviously it would have no legal bearing on them, but it would be useful for organizational reasons.

And it would relate directly to the affairs of the WA. I'll lodge a question about that in Moderation in a little bit to try to get a definitive ruling on the matter.

[Serrland]

Although I agree with you assessment, would it be illegal for a WA Committee to keep track of non-member nation's borders? Obviously it would have no legal bearing on them, but it would be useful for organizational reasons.

Just allow non-members to voluntarily participate. Though i cannot think of a resolution that has a similar clause, there have been proposals that had such clauses that simply failed to gain quorum.

This could be interpreted as a resolution inclusive of non-WA states, but this resolution would be a better example - notably operative clause 8. Again, though, I'll seek a ruling from Moderation on the matter just to be sure.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Considering a similar clause by GA#103

4. Non-WA nations may apply for access to DOCTUS; a nominal fee may charged by the IDEA for access.

The WA has previously invited non-members access to at least one of its services, it's just that it cannot force a service upon them.

[Serrland]

Considering a similar clause by GA#103

4. Non-WA nations may apply for access to DOCTUS; a nominal fee may charged by the IDEA for access.

The WA has previously invited non-members access to at least one of its services, it's just that it cannot force a service upon them.

Thank you for providing another example. I have filed arequest for clarification and hopefully things will get ironed out properly and we can proceed with debate and discussion. I highly doubt it will be deemed illegal, but I thought it better to confirm than to continue acting on a faulty assumption.

[Morscraw]

Not in the WA but i do support this strongly. I have had many Boarder disputes with my Eastern Neighbors in Europe.

[Serrland]

Ard has confirmed the legality of allowing non-WA nations to voluntarily participate in the GABDO. I will edit the original proposal to make that more clear.

[Quelesh]

This is not a bad proposal, but it doesn't really do much. It encourages (but does not require) nations to clearly delineate borders "when possible," and creates a committee. Like I said, it's not actually bad; it's just that it does so little that it doesn't seem to be worth it at this point.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

INVITES non-WA nations to seek GABDO arbitration if all parties agree to respect said arbitration and a proper fee is paid

Ms. Harper thinks we should be a little bit generous and take the fee out.

If not, try and make it reasonable.

[Sierra Lobo]

I am not in support of this proposal. I am not a WA member and have no plans of joining in the future. Currently I have 3 border disputes of various WA members. What this act will do is a legalized land grab from WA members. All non WA member states will be disenfranchised by this proposal.

[Mediterreania]

It should be under global disarmament rather than political stability.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is not a bad proposal, but it doesn't really do much. It encourages (but does not require) nations to clearly delineate borders "when possible," and creates a committee. Like I said, it's not actually bad; it's just that it does so little that it doesn't seem to be worth it at this point.

I agree, I would like to see some power given to the new authority. I see no reason why all border disputes between member-nations should not have to go through the committee.

I support allowing non-members to use the committee, and I agree that they should have to pay a fee. But, members already pay into the General Fund, which would be responsible for covering the administrative costs of the committee.

- Dr. B. Castro

It should be under global disarmament rather than political stability.

OOC: The proposal has nothing to do with armaments.

[Mediterreania]

It should be under global disarmament rather than political stability.

OOC: The proposal has nothing to do with armaments.

Oh really?

ENCOURAGES the peaceful resolution of disputed borders whenever possible,

...

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations involved in border disputes seek arbitration on the matter from the GABDO rather than engage in acts of violence against each other

[Glen-Rhodes]

Oh really?

OOC: Tangential at best. Let me reword: the proposal has nothing to do with disarmament. Please make the case for how this proposal would require nations to decrease their armaments, or even to decrease military spending. 'Global Disarmament' does not mean 'reduction of conflict.'

[Bears Armed]

Oh really?

OOC: Tangential at best. Let me reword: the proposal has nothing to do with disarmament. Please make the case for how this proposal would require nations to decrease their armaments, or even to decrease military spending. 'Global Disarmament' does not mean 'reduction of conflict.'

If memory serves me properly then there have been one or two past proposals, deemed legal, for which that was the case: Maybe the previous international organisation's resolution on recognising borders?