Environmental Sovereignty Code

[Gruenberg]

Environmental Sovereignty Code
Category: Advancement of Industry | Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation | Proposed by: Gruenberger Overseas Affiliate Territory

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that unnecessary, outdated or poorly instituted environmental regulations can have the perverse effect of stifling sustainable development,

Adamant that the removal of such regulations will not negatively affect environmental quality if they have the overall effect of contributing positively to sustainable development,

Acknowledging that past international law has not always respected the principle of subsidiarity,

And,

Accepting that concerning purely intranational environmental affairs individual member nations will be best placed to take authority for regulation:

1. Confirms its commitment to the promotion of sustainable development, the removal of unnecessary legislation, and the cause of subsidiarity in environmental regulation;

2. Mandates that all nations remove environmental regulations that have the sole effect of stifling sustainable development;

3. Encourages nations to regularly review environmental regulations to ensure those regulations are necessary, relevant and effective;

4. Reserves for individual member nations absolute sovereignty over all purely intranational environmental regulation of persons, territories and activities within their jurisdiction, except as is necessary to meet obligations under any active prior World Assembly law;

5. Yields to the General Assembly permission to consider environmental regulation exclusively in matters demonstrating a genuine transnational character.

As we're still waiting on comments on our other draft, here's something we dug out of the vault and polished up a bit.

[Unibot III]

How can any environmental issue ever be seen as a solely national issue? Even environmental instability in the most remote and distant of ecosystems can encourage interstellar migration and colonisation, plus increase foreign investment risk, scarcity, supply shocks and stagflation in the universal economy.

There's not much point in passing "National Economic Freedoms 2.0".

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that simply because something is not a "transnational" issue does not necessarily mean it does not affect 'foreigners' -- stateless natives come to mind.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You'll forgive me, I hope, when I say that this just feels wrong to admit, but...

We're unable to find anything to object to. This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to pass. You have a knack for finding exactly the right thing to draft in response to the worst legislative ideas, and I salute your (borderline comedic) sense of timing.

Steph turns to her intern. Another Caucasian, Gary. Knowing his boss's moods, the hapless overworked intern has it waiting. Steph grabs it, raises the glass in the direction of the Gruenberger delegation, and drains half of it.

A drink, Ambassador? This one should be fun to watch.

[Ratateague]

How can any environmental issue ever be seen as a solely national issue? Even environmental instability in the most remote and distant of ecosystems can encourage interstellar migration and colonisation, plus increase foreign investment risk, scarcity, supply shocks and stagflation in the universal economy.

There's not much point in passing "National Economic Freedoms 2.0".

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that simply because something is not a "transnational" issue does not necessarily mean it does not affect 'foreigners' -- stateless natives come to mind.

Agreed. Ecology knows no national borders.

[Gruenberg]

There's not much point in passing "National Economic Freedoms 2.0".

OOC: Of course there is: because National Economic Freedoms 1.0 was repealed by moderator fiat.

Given your stated view on blockers, I'm not going to take your objections terribly seriously.

[Defwa]

There's not much point in passing "National Economic Freedoms 2.0".

OOC: Of course there is: because National Economic Freedoms 1.0 was repealed by moderator fiat.

Given your stated view on blockers, I'm not going to take your objections terribly seriously.

NEF was repealed no one told me?
A blocker such as this strikes me as unwise and duplicative of the very much alive NEF whose repeal I would Still like to see.

[Glen-Rhodes]

4. Reserves for individual member nations absolute sovereignty over all purely intranational environmental regulation of persons, territories and activities within their jurisdiction, except as is necessary to meet obligations under any active prior World Assembly law;

That's where this becomes completely 100% counter-productive as an environmental resolution. Any government that doesn't give a shit about the environment is going to say that any and all issues are "intranational." The other aims of this proposal, while vague and likely meaningless without any effective way of adjudicating at an international level what kinds of regulations inhibit sustainable development, are good. But those last two clauses will spell the end of environmentalism in the World Assembly.

---

And then we're just going to have to rely on mods to decide what's "intranational." Considering that globalization of environmental issues is difficult enough in the real world to delineate from purely domestic issues, this is effectively a blocker on all environmental resolutions going forward.

[Socialist Republik of Xerathic Germany]

I would add something about renewable energy sources. If the goal of the proposal is to stop environmental regulations that restrict development, then I would recommend that you point out that there are other ways of having cleaner countries, such as solar panels, which, at least in the United States, raise your property value by at least ten thousand dollars.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

4. Reserves for individual member nations absolute sovereignty over all purely intranational environmental regulation of persons, territories and activities within their jurisdiction, except as is necessary to meet obligations under any active prior World Assembly law;

That's where this becomes completely 100% counter-productive as an environmental resolution. Any government that doesn't give a shit about the environment is going to say that any and all issues are "intranational." The other aims of this proposal, while vague and likely meaningless without any effective way of adjudicating at an international level what kinds of regulations inhibit sustainable development, are good. But those last two clauses will spell the end of environmentalism in the World Assembly.

Two things: first, this isn't a change from the status quo. The last time our delegation saw an environmental resolution pass, it was repealed either the very next resolution or the one after. (OK, I see that in the meantime #290, 291, and 298 were passed. My estimation that this is livable was based partly on the fact that among and prior to those, we saw repeal after repeal after repeal after repeal). While there may be future dreams of good, durable environmental resolutions coming to the table, dreams is all they are at this point.

Secondly, as the Unibotian ambassador pointed out: no environmental issue is solely a national issue! Therefore this would not be a blocker for those issues that need WA legislation.

The plain fact is that any atmospheric emission is a genuinely transnational issue, since all gases travel without respect to national borders, and accumulate in the air worldwide. Your coal emissions are my government's business.

Any aquatic emission above the level of holding ponds is a genuinely transnational issue, since the vast majority of lakes and rivers are connected to the sea, which is not the exclusive province of one nation. The health of your rivers is my government's business.

Any hunting of or negligence toward endangered species is a genuinely transnational issue, since every time a species goes extinct, there are multiple ripple effects across the biosphere, affecting even biomes with no apparent relation to the one immediately concerned. The protection of endangered species in your borders is my government's business.

Any vast expanse of forest is a genuinely transnational issue, for the same reason atmospheric emissions are: forests being necessary to the continued survival of all animal life, wholesale forest destruction is a paramount strategic threat to all nations (do we have plans filed away for air strikes on the most irresponsible foreign ecoterrorists logging companies? You fuckin' betcha!). The continued existence of your forests is... well, you get the idea.

In short, we do not see this as being stronger than a well-deserved rebuke to certain recent instances of... overzealousness might be the best word for it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Two things: first, this isn't a change from the status quo. The last time our delegation saw an environmental resolution pass, it was repealed either the very next resolution or the one after. ... While there may be future dreams of good, durable environmental resolutions coming to the table, dreams is all they are at this point.

That's a terrible reason to just shrug off a massive blocker.

Secondly, as the Unibotian ambassador pointed out: no environmental issue is solely a national issue! Therefore this would not be a blocker for those issues that need WA legislation.

This doesn't really matter, though. In practical terms, there's no way for the World Assembly to say definitely that X or Y is an international or intranational environmental issue. And there never will be, because the majority of delegations think international courts are an Illuminati agenda to introduce a One World Government. So the extent that a government wants to ignore transnational environmental issues, and shrug off all attempts to coerce them into dealing with those issues, that government will simply say it's intranational and their right to do nothing is protected under international law.

That means -- and forgive me for being explicitly OOC here -- the only way to deal with transnational environmental issues is through the World Assembly. But because this is the type of resolution that basically mimics US federalism -- anything not explicitly granted to the WA is a power held exclusively by members -- all future environmental resolutions will have to go through the mods first. They will get to determine, in their secret forums with no accountability to authors, whether the issue a resolution is dealing with is truly transnational. Given the quite unsophisticated approach to national sovereignty most of these mods take, with few exceptions, and the general hostility to environmentalism you've already pointed out, is it an mystery how that will end? And if you have more faith in the mod team than I do -- first, good for you -- you have to question if it's good policy to force yet another broad category of resolutions through yet another legal hurdle, especially when the GA is already the most difficult part of the game to play.

[Gruenberg]

And then we're just going to have to rely on mods to decide what's "intranational."

OOC: NEF was an idiotic ruling. But we know the mods are incredibly stubborn. They refuse to back down or admit mistakes. They would rather continue to enforce a bad ruling than ever admit a player correction. They see engagement with players as beneath them and a sign of weakness.

Therefore, the only way to change that precedent is to create a "new" one (in practice, just reverting to the old one that operated under UNSA). This resolution would allow them to do that: they could rule, quite sensibly, that it's not for them to determine what is "transnational" and "intranational", but simply that any resolution that declares itself to be dealing with a transnational issue is legal, much as any resolution that declared itself to be dealing with something not necessary for national defence was legal.

all future environmental resolutions will have to go through the mods first. They will get to determine, in their secret forums with no accountability to authors, whether the issue a resolution is dealing with is truly transnational.

That's a shitty mechanism, and it's not how it should work. Any resolution stating that it is dealing with a transnational issue should be automatically ruled legal, much as any resolution declaring it was dealing with something not necessary for national defence was ruled legal, and (previously) any resolution declaring it was dealing with something that posed an extreme hazard to national populations was ruled legal.

Best I can do is this promise: if they end up enforcing it the way you've suggested they will, I will repeal it.

[Unibot III]

OOC: NEF was an idiotic ruling. But we know the mods are incredibly stubborn. They refuse to back down or admit mistakes. They would rather continue to enforce a bad ruling than ever admit a player correction. They see engagement with players as beneath them and a sign of weakness.

OOC: It wasn't an idiotic ruling - it was them avoiding having to make a complex political judgement over what constitutes "extreme hazard". They will probably want to avoid the same issues with your "transnational'" test - and given just about anything can be argued as transnational, this blocker isn't going to go anywhere differently than the "extreme hazard" test did.

EDIT:

Therefore, the only way to change that precedent is to create a "new" one (in practice, just reverting to the old one that operated under UNSA). This resolution would allow them to do that: they could rule, quite sensibly, that it's not for them to determine what is "transnational" and "intranational", but simply that any resolution that declares itself to be dealing with a transnational issue is legal.

Are we talking about the same "NEF" ruling? Because that was the NEF ruling. It was still an utterly merit-less hurdle that authors had to step over.

[Gruenberg]

Are we talking about the same "NEF" ruling? Because that was the NEF ruling. It was still an utterly merit-less hurdle that authors had to step over.

Nah, they overturned that with a ruling that means now resolutions are subject to moderator value judgements about what constitutes an extreme hazard, which is obviously a terrible idea.

Anyway, we're getting a little ahead of ourselves: the proposal still needs to be fully drafted before we worry about all this.

[McMasterdonia]

I wonder what Bears Armed will think about this?

*reserves judgement for later*

[Unibot III]

Are we talking about the same "NEF" ruling? Because that was the NEF ruling. It was still an utterly merit-less hurdle that authors had to step over.

Nah, they overturned that with a ruling that means now resolutions are subject to moderator value judgements about what constitutes an extreme hazard, which is obviously a terrible idea.

OOC: Christ, why would you ever invite them to do something like that again? That sounds awful. It'd be so politicised - especially with mostly NatSovers on the mod-team now.

[Gruenberg]

Nah, they overturned that with a ruling that means now resolutions are subject to moderator value judgements about what constitutes an extreme hazard, which is obviously a terrible idea.

OOC: Christ, why would you ever invite them to do something like that again?

I wouldn't...

Best I can do is this promise: if they end up enforcing it the way you've suggested they will, I will repeal it.

Off-topic, but:

especially with mostly NatSovers on the mod-team now.

Based on the voting on Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms", I don't think that's very accurate.

[Unibot III]

Perhaps remove the ambguitity in the interpretation by saying "The World Assembly will make an effort to identity the transnational scope of said resolutions" or something like that?

[Goddess Relief Office]

Don't think I can support this unless the word "prior" is followed by "and future"

4. Reserves for individual member nations absolute sovereignty over all purely intranational environmental regulation of persons, territories and activities within their jurisdiction, except as is necessary to meet obligations under any active prior World Assembly law;

I know you are disappointed about NEF, but this is not the right way to protest.

[Gruenberg]

I know you are disappointed about NEF, but this is not the right way to protest.

OOC: I was mostly joking with that comment. The bare bones of this proposal was written years before NEF even passed: I have a collection of blockers on various topics from back when Jey and I were scheming away. I actually wasn't thinking about NEF when I revamped this - although I'm curious as to what "the right way to protest" is, given that (a) appealing the decision (b) trying to repeal the resolution and (c) asking for the resolution to be enforced are all not allowed?

Let me offer this counter then: why should any purely intranational environmental issue be subject to WA regulation? If you want to argue that an issue isn't purely intranational, then fine, but that's not the same thing at all (and I have always favoured genuinely international environmental regulations: I even started a think tank about it!).

[Old Hope]

I know you are disappointed about NEF, but this is not the right way to protest.

OOC: I was mostly joking with that comment. The bare bones of this proposal was written years before NEF even passed: I have a collection of blockers on various topics from back when Jey and I were scheming away. I actually wasn't thinking about NEF when I revamped this - although I'm curious as to what "the right way to protest" is, given that (a) appealing the decision (b) trying to repeal the resolution and (c) asking for the resolution to be enforced are all not allowed?

Let me offer this counter then: why should any purely intranational environmental issue be subject to WA regulation? If you want to argue that an issue isn't purely intranational, then fine, but that's not the same thing at all (and I have always favoured genuinely international environmental regulations: I even started a think tank about it!).

Can you give an example for an intranational environmental issue?

[Bears Armed]

I wonder what Bears Armed will think about this?

"The Bears think... that we're thinking about this.
"There obviously are some environmental matters that lack a genuine trans-national factor -- especially as some of the nations represented here actually occupy complete worlds, where there are no neighbouring nations to be affected by their policies anyhows -- and we smell no problem in stating that those should remain under national or maybeso even sub-national jurisdiction. However the likelihood that the Secretariat would let just about every otherwise-legal proposal that claims a trans-national factor go through the system leaves urrs amongst those wondering hwhether this proposed resolution would rreally have any noticveable effects on this organisation's future polices..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Gruenberg]

Can you give an example for an intranational environmental issue?

OOC: Well, for example: recent proposals on fracking have been something the WA has discussed. Yet those proposals haven't explained why fracking should be considered an international issue: they've simply gone on about how fracking is bad and should be banned or regulated. I'm not commenting on whether that argument is right or not: just that that argument can surely be resolved at a national level.

Another popular issue is recycling. Quite often the Silly Proposals thread sees rather reductive proposals on recycling posted to it, usually mandating artificially high standards. Waste dumping is something with international relevance; air pollution from incineration could be. But recycling is not in itself something that crosses borders.

I am not trying to block all environmental legislation: that would obviously be not legal anyway, even if it weren't a terrible idea both in and out of character. But the WA is an international organization for discussing international laws, and environmental regulations should demonstrate why they have to be resolved at the international level. It's not really very different from the EU's subsidiarity principle.

[Old Hope]

Problem:This resolution would make future environmental legislation impossible.
It would block off environmental legislation that affects intranational issues... anywhere.
Now, if my whole nation occupies a planet, nearly all environmental legislation is about intranational issues.
Conclusion: The World Assembly cannot pass environmental legislation anymore, because that legislation is affecting my right to regulate my nations intranational issues myself!
Possible Solutions:
1. Submit this to block further environmental legislation in the WA(This might be illegal).
2.Find a definition that protects states and the WA's legislative abilities.
3.Abadoan this draft.

[Chester Pearson]

Problem:This resolution would make future environmental legislation impossible.
It would block off environmental legislation that affects intranational issues... anywhere.

Henceforth the tern "blocker". That being said, you are hardly the person to giving advice on authoring proposals, especially to someone who was authoring proposals NINE YEARS before you joined us....

[Old Hope]

Problem:This resolution would make future environmental legislation impossible.
It would block off environmental legislation that affects intranational issues... anywhere.

Henceforth the tern "blocker". That being said, you are hardly the person to giving advice on authoring proposals, especially to someone who was authoring proposals NINE YEARS before you joined us....

Look, ambassador. There are different nations. Very different nations. What is a national problem for one nation might not be one for another nation.
Furthermore,

2. Mandates that all nations remove environmental regulations that have the sole effect of stifling sustainable development;

and

5. Yields to the General Assembly permission to consider environmental regulation exclusively in matters demonstrating a genuine transnational character.

contradict themselves,
and

4. Reserves for individual member nations absolute sovereignty over all purely intranational environmental regulation of persons, territories and activities within their jurisdiction, except as is necessary to meet obligations under any active prior World Assembly law;

and Number 2 do that, too.

And since member states have absolute sovereignity about intranational environmental regulation, and, for some member states, all environmental legislation is intranational, this blocks further environmental regulation at all... and if I am reading the rules for proposals right, that is illegal, no?

This might be wrong, but if you don't say why you think that this is wrong, I cannot correct you if it's not!
Edit:And Number 4 and 5 contradict themselves, too... Either member nations have absolute sovereignity over themselves in intranational issues or the World Assembly can legislate on certain issues that are an international problem for some or many nations, affecting those nations that have that as a intranational issue only!