Environmental Sovereignty Code

[Gruenberg]

OOC: I've never really understood why people who play extreme RP realities - like "my nation is a whole planet and doesn't interact with any others" - expect, demand that we cater to them absolutely, yet the converse is not true: we're constantly being forced to generalise and abstract as the interpretation of the RL reference/MetaGaming rules grow ever more restrictive. Thankfully Sedgistan overruled Ardchoille's bizarre ruling on the subject the other day (which would have been a much more effective blocker on environmental legislation than this proposal!) but in general, things only ever seem to go the way of those playing highly speculative scenarios.

There, I made it through one whole post without mentioning wank - oh, dammit.

[Normlpeople]

"Oh, now THIS is environmental legislation I can wholeheartedly support! It is high time people began realizing that killing a nations economy for the protection of a few insignificant plants or animals is incredibly stupid. If anything, this will provide a wonderful roadblock from the green zealots patrolling these halls lately. Complete support."

[Chester Pearson]

Conclusion: The World Assembly cannot pass environmental legislation anymore, because that legislation is affecting my right to regulate my nations intranational issues myself!

OMFG! The World Assembly is attempting to pass regulations that affect my sovereignty, so therefore they must be illegal! Are you actually trying to make that the whole crux of your argument? If so, I would suggest you go and read the rules before continuing to post, lest you look like a complete moron (which may have already happened, just saying.....)

[Old Hope]

Conclusion: The World Assembly cannot pass environmental legislation anymore, because that legislation is affecting my right to regulate my nations intranational issues myself!

OMFG! The World Assembly is attempting to pass regulations that affect my sovereignty, so therefore they must be illegal! Are you actually trying to make that the whole crux of your argument? If so, I would suggest you go and read the rules before continuing to post, lest you look like a complete moron (which may have already happened, just saying.....)

The World Assembly is attempting to pass regulations that affect my sovereignty guranteed by the draft we talk about , so therefore they must be illegal if the draft passes!
And if you are wondering what I speak about- take a look at this:

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;

[Chester Pearson]

OMFG! The World Assembly is attempting to pass regulations that affect my sovereignty, so therefore they must be illegal! Are you actually trying to make that the whole crux of your argument? If so, I would suggest you go and read the rules before continuing to post, lest you look like a complete moron (which may have already happened, just saying.....)

The World Assembly is attempting to pass regulations that affect my sovereignty guranteed by the draft we talk about , so therefore they must be illegal if the draft passes!
And if you are wondering what I speak about- take a look at this:

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;

Which resolution guarantees that the World Assembly wont interfere with your national sovereignty, if I may ask?

[Old Hope]

The World Assembly is attempting to pass regulations that affect my sovereignty guranteed by the draft we talk about , so therefore they must be illegal if the draft passes!
And if you are wondering what I speak about- take a look at this:

Which resolution guarantees that the World Assembly wont interfere with your national sovereignty, if I may ask?

None. I was not speaking about a nonexistant resolution that would do that generally.
What does Clause 4 in this draft mean? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning... but what is the purpose of that clause?

[Chester Pearson]

What does Clause 4 in this draft mean? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning... but what is the purpose of that clause?

It is a blocker clause, blocking further legislation in this matter.... Please think of the children and read the stickies before you keep posting?

[Old Hope]

What does Clause 4 in this draft mean? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning... but what is the purpose of that clause?

It is a blocker clause, blocking further legislation in this matter.... Please think of the children and read the stickies before you keep posting?

Let me ask the other way round:
How is it possible to legislate within proposals in the area of environmental legislation at all if this passes?

[Gruenberg]

It is a blocker clause, blocking further legislation in this matter.... Please think of the children and read the stickies before you keep posting?

Let me ask the other way round:
How is it possible to legislate within proposals in the area of environmental legislation at all if this passes?

OOC: I will give you one example, one, but I'm not going to get into a huge back and forth. You've already shown your hand: you're just going to argue about some isolated single-nation-planet where environmental factors don't affect other nations. I'm not interested in such extreme scenarios, nor do I understand why everyone else has to cave into the demands of such players when roleplaying in general is given such scant regard. On such a planet-nation, why should there be international waters? Why are bioweapons or epidemics international concerns? Thank Wena the delineation of borders resolution was repealed: who needs such a thing when there are no borders?

Snore.

Example: NSUN Resolution #155, "Waste Disposal Covenant". Only a single line of that proposal, 6(a), would no longer be possible, and even that's arguable and could be readily fixed anyway.

[Old Hope]

Um, ok. Still, that means that further environmental resolution would not be able to ban something outright. A significant portion of the resolution's limited space has to be used to adress this resolution.

But there are still other issues as well.

Can you explain how clause 2,

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

does not contradict clause 5 and 4 of this proposal?

[Gruenberg]

Um, ok. Still, that means that further environmental resolution would not be able to ban something outright.

Yes, they would.

A significant portion of the resolution's limited space has to be used to adress this resolution.

A few words in one line of the preamble is not a "significant portion" of 3500 characters.

Can you explain how clause 2,
does not contradict clause 5 and 4 of this proposal?

Clause 4 does not affect "prior" law, which would include the prior clause 2. I can add "further" to clause 5 if you really think it's necessary, but even by the WA's current standards that would be a fairly tortured reading.

[Bears Armed]

You've already shown your hand: you're just going to argue about some isolated single-nation-planet where environmental factors don't affect other nations. I'm not interested in such extreme scenarios, nor do I understand why everyone else has to cave into the demands of such players when roleplaying in general is given such scant regard. On such a planet-nation, why should there be international waters?

Actually, there aren’t. With only one nation having any territory on the planet, and therefore only one nation having a 24-mile wide band of territorial waters around its lands, all of the other waters there would fall into the “and any further waters that are enclosed by these” part of the definition and therefore also be ‘territorial’ rather than ‘international’ in nature. That’s one of the potential situations that this wording was actually intended to cover.

^_^

[Gruenberg]

I did note that clause but had interpreted it to mean inland waters. I remember you arguing this way back when the first Law of the Sea was repealed.

Apart from the difficult-to-handle one that any FT nations that are located on planets of their own may see no reason why they can't claim ALL of the water on those planets as being within their territories...

Then there will be no other people coming to use that planet's seas' resources, and so it won't matter anyway.

Your doggedness evidently won out, although working out the geometry of that interpretation of "enclosed" is doing my head in. It seems counterintuitive to say that the Earth's international waters are "enclosed" by the territorial claims.

Not that I really think it matters: it was one example, and others could easily be substituted e.g. those are some impressive migratory animals to pose an international concern for planet-nations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I get what you're trying to do with this, but I really think we should caution against writing these types of blockers. Gruenberg may have one completely reasonable idea of what an international environmental issue is. But that doesn't mean those in power will, or that in a legal fight over an environmental proposal, the side with that reasonable view won't be up against somebody with better rhetoric.

The better way to stop the World Assembly from legislating local environmental issues would be to ensure those proposals don't make to quorum. Yes, that's difficult. But it's also very difficult to write a blocker and know for a fact that it will be applied within the strict confines of how the author intended.

[Louisistan]

"While I do enjoy (and get a certain deal of amusement out of) your everlasting crusade against the Secretariat, I'm unsure about this one. NEF is garbage. Everybody just adds 'doors pose an extreme hazard to national populations' to their economic proposals. What good does that do? None. Nobody even cares to demonstrate anymore how doors pose a risk, they just say 'I added the line, so it's legal'. Your proposal is going to do just the same thing. Simply adding some bullshit line to a proposal without anyone taking care of demonstrating (either in the debate or preferably in the proposal) how it is a transnational issue. That just encourages sloppy work."

[Gruenberg]

OOC: There doesn't seem to be a great deal of support for this, so I won't be pursuing this right now. I really don't think there was anything terribly unreasonable about the idea though, so I'll keep it at the back of my mind for future thoughts.