[ABANDONED]Access to Sea Ports

[Separatist Peoples]

"Please don't. Your writing needs improvement in all areas, and your grasp on the subject matter is tenuous at best. I'm sorry, ambassador, but you should seek enrichment and improvement of your skills, and the place for that is not here in the GA. Otherwise, continuous submissions of ill-prepared and illegal bills will end with you ejected."

If I don't get help then I won't improve or anything of the sort.

"I don't think you need ambassadors and diplomats to help you, I think you need professors and tutors to help you. It reads at a C.D.S.P. 7th grade level. I don't think international laws should be de jure complex, but I do balk at legislation that reads as if my niece was the sole drafter and writer. Wizard Landfree is right, you need to participate in the debates more. The next time you want to draft something, calculate the time between then and now, then triple it. That's how long you should participate in debates before drafting anything. Probably more. It took me about a year before I even tried drafting anything, and it never even made it to submission!"

[Goddess Relief Office]

"I don't think you need ambassadors and diplomats to help you, I think you need professors and tutors to help you. It reads at a C.D.S.P. 7th grade level. I don't think international laws should be de jure complex, but I do balk at legislation that reads as if my niece was the sole drafter and writer. Wizard Landfree is right, you need to participate in the debates more. The next time you want to draft something, calculate the time between then and now, then triple it. That's how long you should participate in debates before drafting anything. Probably more. It took me about a year before I even tried drafting anything, and it never even made it to submission!"

"Some of us don't speak English as a first language, Ambassador Bell. Poor language shouldn't be the sole reason to reject a proposal out of hand. That's where drafting comes in."

*turning to the author*

"We agree with Ambassador Bell's point that you should spend more time drafting and participating in debates. Don't be too hasty in submitting 5 day old proposals. Give it time and keep rewriting. "

If you intend to pursue this proposal further, we suggest that you add the word 'sea' to your title and preamble since your proposal relates only to sea ports and not air or space ports"

~GRO~

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't think you need ambassadors and diplomats to help you, I think you need professors and tutors to help you. It reads at a C.D.S.P. 7th grade level. I don't think international laws should be de jure complex, but I do balk at legislation that reads as if my niece was the sole drafter and writer. Wizard Landfree is right, you need to participate in the debates more. The next time you want to draft something, calculate the time between then and now, then triple it. That's how long you should participate in debates before drafting anything. Probably more. It took me about a year before I even tried drafting anything, and it never even made it to submission!"

"Some of us don't speak English as a first language, Ambassador Bell. Poor language shouldn't be the sole reason to reject a proposal out of hand. That's where drafting comes in."

*turning to the author*

"We agree with Ambassador Bell's point that you should spend more time drafting and participating in debates. Don't be too hasty in submitting 5 day old proposals. Give it time and keep rewriting. "

If you intend to pursue this proposal further, we suggest that you add the word 'sea' to your title and preamble since your proposal relates only to sea ports and not air or space ports"

~GRO~

OOC: Author has admitted previously and more then once that English is his/her first, and only, language. Otherwise, I'd be the last one to harangue them about their technical writing.

[Nucoclan]

"Some of us don't speak English as a first language, Ambassador Bell. Poor language shouldn't be the sole reason to reject a proposal out of hand. That's where drafting comes in."

*turning to the author*

"We agree with Ambassador Bell's point that you should spend more time drafting and participating in debates. Don't be too hasty in submitting 5 day old proposals. Give it time and keep rewriting. "

If you intend to pursue this proposal further, we suggest that you add the word 'sea' to your title and preamble since your proposal relates only to sea ports and not air or space ports"

~GRO~

OOC: Author has admitted previously and more then once that English is his/her first, and only, language. Otherwise, I'd be the last one to harangue them about their technical writing.

I also know Spanish.

[Araraukar]

"Some of us don't speak English as a first language, Ambassador Bell.

Yes, but not all of us use that as an excuse for poor writing.

Poor language shouldn't be the sole reason to reject a proposal out of hand.

It's not, trust me.

Aware that no international legislation currently governs member nations having access to sea ports.

No, but Law of the Seas says that nations can control who gets to go where in their own coastal waters/shoreline.

Convinced that allowing member nations to have access to sea ports will ensure the stability and the advancement of shipping and other services.

How? And what stability? I didn't know "advancement of shipping and other services", whatever they are, was unstable.

Thereby, improving international trade and commerce.

Hoping to, maybe.

The World Assembly,

Mandates the articles below:

Article I

Section I Definitions

I'd put definitions before mandates, myself. Just have "DEFINES" clauses for the definitions, and then after those, "MANDATES" clauses. The whole "article" thing is getting old/annoying.

1. A sea port is a location on a coast or shore containing one or more harbors where ships can dock and transfer citizens or cargo to or from land.

No, that's what a port is. A sea port needs to be on seashore, generally, though some can be in/just upstream of a large river delta.

2. Defines access as the permission or the right to enter, get near, or make use of the member nation's sea port.

That's not quite what "access" means usually. I'd at the very least make that "DEFINES access to sea ports as". And even then, "make use of"? What exactly does that entail?

Section 1 What access to sea ports will allow member nations;

This sounds more like something that should be a definition, not a mandate - hell, to be completely honest, it doesn't sound even like a definition, more like off-the-proposal notes list.

1.Free trade with other member nations of choice.

What's stopping them from doing that as is?

2.More income for member nations.

How?

3.Reduced barriers to allow free trade.

How?

4.The power to turn away ships remains with the nation's government.

This should be a separate "REAFFIRMS" clause, since it's already a right given by a previous resolution...

Member nations are allowed to turn away whoever they want and whenever they want for any reason.

...but it does kinda render this one as completely optional. Proposals that are completely optional, are illegal.

Cognizant that the provisions of this resolution do apply to all member nation's sea ports.

...what?

Hereby granting, all member nations access to sea ports.

Now you're contradicting not just a previous resolution, but also your own proposal. You can't grant access to sea ports if the nations can deny access at will.

Now, as others have said, give up on writing a proposal rightaway. Partake the debate on others, learn to write better, and comprehensively read the previous resolutions.

[Tea Party USA 2]

OK son I am going to be blunt, your bill is one of the worst I have ever seen and it has a 0 percent chance of passing. I highly suggest you drop this bill and spend time debating other ones where you may get some more knowledge on how this works.

[Bears Armed]

Aware that no international legislation currently governs member nations having access to sea ports.

No, but Law of the Seas says that nations can control who gets to go where in their own coastal waters/shoreline.

"Ahem!"

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights

"So this aspect of the proposal would be legal."

[Araraukar]

No, but Law of the Seas says that nations can control who gets to go where in their own coastal waters/shoreline.

"Ahem!"

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights

"So this aspect of the proposal would be legal."

Perhaps, but that "aware" bit says there's no such law at all, while there is. Also, this proposal doesn't place any limits as per its text.

OK son I am going to be blunt, your bill is one of the worst I have ever seen

I see you're new here, ambassador. While this is a bit unstable and badly written, possibly illegal too, it's still hardly the worst one ever.

OOC: The worst ones go here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=548

[Snefaldia]

My advice to the author: First, ignore all the insulting, unhelpful, and dogpiling comments you have received in this thread. They are completely unnecessary, and while en vogue at the moment, unimportant to actual debate.

A common maxim is to "write to the category," i.e. you should choose your category first, then build your proposal around it. As mentioned, Law of the Sea is already on the WA books; you may be better served by creating a proposal that is narrowly focused on one aspect of sea ports- such as an internment law, or a safe harbor law for ships in distress.

Moreover, don't rush headlong toward submission. Many authors take months of drafting (I think some even years but this is extreme to say the least), and consider word choice and rules violations very carefully.

But I should reiterate: ignore all the base and flamish insults and look for genuine advice. Don't hesitate to fire I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons either.

Maj. Primua Tarhuntamanapa
Charge d'Affaires

[Tea Party USA 2]

This bill says that we must trade with everyone, however if we do not like a particular nation we don't have to trade with them. Now correct me if I am wrong but that's the current system and if that is the case then why do we need this bill in the first place?

[Nucoclan]

This bill says that we must trade with everyone, however if we do not like a particular nation we don't have to trade with them. Now correct me if I am wrong but that's the current system and if that is the case then why do we need this bill in the first place?

just for the record i did put of choice.

[Tea Party USA 2]

This bill says that we must trade with everyone, however if we do not like a particular nation we don't have to trade with them. Now correct me if I am wrong but that's the current system and if that is the case then why do we need this bill in the first place?

just for the record i did put of choice.

That choice that makes your entire bill optional which makes it illegal.

[Normlpeople]

just for the record i did put of choice.

OOC: And that's where the issue lies. Rather it's illegal is a mod thing, but i'll tell you this. It basically reads, with optionality, that I have to open my ports to any nation. It also says I can turn away any nation for any reason. As it stands to reason, my ports are open to those I want in them and closed to everyone else, what exactly does this resolution, as written, accomplish, other than a situation that exists already?

It is great that you want to be involved, however, try your hand at debating existing drafts first, just to get a feel for the process. Believe me, the regulars here are great at finding loopholes in even the most well-written legislation, its best to be prepared for that. Seeing how debates go in existing drafts is the best way to do so.

[Prussia-Austria-Hungary]

I think the ISTC would fall under the "No WA Police/Army"

[Velkanika]

This proposal is illegal and contradicts previously passed resolutions, notably Resolution #2, Section I, Article 2. The Article in question states, and I quote, "Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." Sovereign states retain the right to absolute authority over activities that occur inside their territory in order to maintain its integrity and national security among other important guarantees. There is no feasible way to implement this resolution without overwriting existing aspects of international law and completely destroying the concept of national sovereignty.

In light of these irreparable problems with the draft resolution, my nation will not support moving it to the floor for a general vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

This proposal is illegal and contradicts previously passed resolutions, notably Resolution #2, Section I, Article 2. The Article in question states, and I quote, "Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." Sovereign states retain the right to absolute authority over activities that occur inside their territory in order to maintain its integrity and national security among other important guarantees. There is no feasible way to implement this resolution without overwriting existing aspects of international law and completely destroying the concept of national sovereignty.

In light of these irreparable problems with the draft resolution, my nation will not support moving it to the floor for a general vote.

"This would be international law. If that jurisdiction is subject to international law, then that jurisdiction is overridden by this."

[Velkanika]

This proposal is illegal and contradicts previously passed resolutions, notably Resolution #2, Section I, Article 2. The Article in question states, and I quote, "Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." Sovereign states retain the right to absolute authority over activities that occur inside their territory in order to maintain its integrity and national security among other important guarantees. There is no feasible way to implement this resolution without overwriting existing aspects of international law and completely destroying the concept of national sovereignty.

In light of these irreparable problems with the draft resolution, my nation will not support moving it to the floor for a general vote.

"This would be international law. If that jurisdiction is subject to international law, then that jurisdiction is overridden by this."

Mr. Ambassador, that's a secondary issue in this case. Contradictions of existing resolutions that are currently in-force are an illegal feature of any proposal brought before the General Assembly. Any resolution that this one contradicts must be repealed before this can be brought to the floor. I suggest you or your staff reread the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. The relevant section is listed under Types Of Violations as Contradictions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This would be international law. If that jurisdiction is subject to international law, then that jurisdiction is overridden by this."

Mr. Ambassador, that's a secondary issue in this case. Contradictions of existing resolutions that are currently in-force are an illegal feature of any proposal brought before the General Assembly. Any resolution that this one contradicts must be repealed before this can be brought to the floor. I suggest you or your staff reread the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. The relevant section is listed under Types Of Violations as Contradictions.

"Except that isn't a contradiction. GAR#2 states that the sovereignty is to be left to member states, except as restricted by future legislation. It was, essentially, a fluff clause, since the WA can still, legally, control every minutia of a national government with impunity."

[Hakio]

This proposal is illegal and contradicts previously passed resolutions, notably Resolution #2, Section I, Article 2. The Article in question states, and I quote, "Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." Sovereign states retain the right to absolute authority over activities that occur inside their territory in order to maintain its integrity and national security among other important guarantees. There is no feasible way to implement this resolution without overwriting existing aspects of international law and completely destroying the concept of national sovereignty.

In light of these irreparable problems with the draft resolution, my nation will not support moving it to the floor for a general vote.

"Wow what an overly complicated and obnoxious way of stating one simple idea:
NATSOV."

[Nucoclan]

just for the record i did put of choice.

That choice that makes your entire bill optional which makes it illegal.

Only for that line.

[Defwa]

That choice that makes your entire bill optional which makes it illegal.

Only for that line.

One line makes the entire proposal illegal.

[Wrapper]

That choice that makes your entire bill optional which makes it illegal.

Only for that line.

Ambassador... answer this one question if you will, please. What does this proposal... actually... do, if anything? You cannot say it grants access to ports, because, any nation can give any reason to block access to its ports, in which case... this proposal does absolutely nothing.

[Chester Pearson]

That choice that makes your entire bill optional which makes it illegal.

Only for that line.

Which still makes it illegal....

[Nucoclan]

Remember anything that helps me become better is always appreciated.

[Tea Party USA 2]

Remember anything that helps me become better is always appreciated.

Son I would give this bill up and spend more time
particapating in actual debates. Your just not ready for crafting bills yet.