by Germantica » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:35 pm
by Jorren » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:08 pm
Germantica wrote:Description: The World Assembly,
Germantica wrote:iii) Cannot blockade ships that are the soul supply of income to neutral or uninvolved nations
Germantica wrote:iv) Must pay restitution to neutral or uninvolved nations which suffer due to a blockade (if the neutral nation petitions it).
Germantica wrote:2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.
Germantica wrote:3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.
Lichian wrote:"Er, what the ambassador is saying is that, uhm, he does not endorse this."
"You're God [redacted] [redacted] right I don't!" the ambassador called from the hallway.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:25 pm
3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.
by Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:38 pm
2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.
3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.
by Jorren » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:43 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.
3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.
Sections 2iii and 2iv - what the hell is the right to "potion"?
Jorren wrote:Germantica wrote:2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.
Needs rewording. It offers no provisions for retaliation against neutral countries who have been proven to aid one country in war covertly while still "maintaining" their neutral status to the WA or the world. If proof is given, there should be a provision for revocation of their neutral status. Also, I am curious if you are meaning position in the words I have highlighted.
Lichian wrote:"Er, what the ambassador is saying is that, uhm, he does not endorse this."
"You're God [redacted] [redacted] right I don't!" the ambassador called from the hallway.
by Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:43 pm
by Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:46 pm
Jorren wrote:Grays Harbor wrote:2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.
3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.
Sections 2iii and 2iv - what the hell is the right to "potion"?
Ambassador Gat stands up once again.
Honorable Ambassador, the Grand Leader of the Borderlands of Jorren made mention of the usage of that word and believes he meant to use "position" rather than potion and requested clarification.Jorren wrote:Needs rewording. It offers no provisions for retaliation against neutral countries who have been proven to aid one country in war covertly while still "maintaining" their neutral status to the WA or the world. If proof is given, there should be a provision for revocation of their neutral status. Also, I am curious if you are meaning position in the words I have highlighted.
Ambassador Gat nods curtly before returning to his seat once more.
by Germantica » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:57 pm
by Germantica » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:03 pm
Germantica wrote:Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?
by Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:20 pm
Germantica wrote:Germantica wrote:Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?
Tell me if there is a bill on "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" I looked and couldn't find one, it would be about how to engage hostile submarines and limits on USW
by Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:22 pm
Germantica wrote:Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:35 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Germantica wrote:
Tell me if there is a bill on "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" I looked and couldn't find one, it would be about how to engage hostile submarines and limits on USW
How about participating in debates first before going off on writing tangents submitting one illegal draft after another. Throwing a bowl of spaghetti against the wall in hopes one noodle may stick is hardly an ideal way to write proposals.
by Bears Armed » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:30 am
by Kaboomlandia » Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:11 am
by Whovian Tardisia » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:27 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:32 pm
Whovian Tardisia wrote:OOC: First thing I noticed and no one has mentioned: your emboldening tags are incorrectly formatted. Firstly, use a capital 'B' and secondly, make sure the brackets are tight to the text you are attempting to embolden.
by Tinfect » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:33 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote: do this. Not exactly sure why those tags are not working, honestly. Weird.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by SS Thief » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement