[PASSED] Toxic Heavy Metals Act

[The Silver Sentinel]

Why not? Who should clean it up? The victims?

Wait...I thought about this some more and realized that it really should be up to the belligerent nation(s). A nuked nation probably won't be in economic shape to clean it up. It's been changed.

Still working on the nonhuman thing...stand by.

Plus there is that little problem of the Nuclear Disaster Response Act which requires:

4) REQUIRES that nations afflicted by nuclear disasters take the following measures in dealing with the disaster, including, but not limited to:

A) Evacuating any areas that have been contaminated by radiation as a result of the disaster, beginning with areas closest to the source of radiation and moving outwards.
B) Providing clean water to areas that have had their sources of drinking water contaminated as a result of the disaster.
C) Providing immediate medical services to those suffering from radiation poisoning as a result of the disaster.
D) Clearly marking contaminated zones with multi-lingual signs, using languages present in the surrounding area.
E) Taking appropriate measures to prevent the spread of radiation by restricting or diverting the flow of contaminated waterways, where possible.

I myself would infer that any reasonable nation would classify a nuclear attack as a nuclear disaster.

[Kaboomlandia]

Now that could be a problem. While the easier thing would be to change this to put it on the victim, bringing it in compliance with GA #60, I've actually raised the issue on the Europeian regional forums to maybe repeal GA #60 instead.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I myself would infer that any reasonable nation would classify a nuclear attack as a nuclear disaster.

While deliberate acts are sometimes referred to as disasters the term still carries a strong implication of accidents or natural event. I hardly think it's reasonable to apply it in this context.

[Separatist Peoples]

I myself would infer that any reasonable nation would classify a nuclear attack as a nuclear disaster.

While deliberate acts are sometimes referred to as disasters the term still carries a strong implication of accidents or natural event. I hardly think it's reasonable to apply it in this context.

"I've never heard a definition of disaster that explicitly ruled out deliberate acts. Such an implication is tenuous enough that it matters not at all to legal interpretation."

[Kaboomlandia]

I myself would infer that any reasonable nation would classify a nuclear attack as a nuclear disaster.

While deliberate acts are sometimes referred to as disasters the term still carries a strong implication of accidents or natural event. I hardly think it's reasonable to apply it in this context.

GA #60, Clause #1, defines a "nuclear disaster" as any event, regardless of intent, that causes radioactive contamination over a wide area.

[Imperium Anglorum]

While deliberate acts are sometimes referred to as disasters the term still carries a strong implication of accidents or natural event. I hardly think it's reasonable to apply it in this context.

GA #60, Clause #1, defines a "nuclear disaster" as any event, regardless of intent, that causes radioactive contamination over a wide area.

What? Are they suddenly no longer disasters?

[Kaboomlandia]

GA #60, Clause #1, defines a "nuclear disaster" as any event, regardless of intent, that causes radioactive contamination over a wide area.

What? Are they suddenly no longer disasters?

Sorry, should have been more clear: that definition defines nuclear attacks as "disasters" and puts responsibilities on the afflicted nation.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

implication [/b]

explicitly

Not everything is explicit, especially in English. In this case the word is derived from a greek phrase meaning "bad luck" and that connotation carries over in its English use. This is why when people use the word disaster to describe a deliberate act they nearly always precede it with the modifier "man-made".

Sorry, should have been more clear: that definition defines nuclear attacks as "disasters" and puts responsibilities on the afflicted nation.

Well damn, repeal when?

[Separatist Peoples]

explicitly

Not everything is explicit, especially in English. In this case the word is derived from a greek phrase meaning "bad luck" and that connotation carries over in its English use. This is why when people use the word disaster to describe a deliberate act they nearly always precede it with the modifier "man-made".

"I've never heard a definition of disaster that explicitly ruled out deliberate acts. Such an implication is tenuous enough that it matters not at all to legal interpretation."

"Ignoring the rest of the comment doesn't exactly do you any favors, ambassador. In most legal transactions where ambiguity is an issue, we take the context to explain only what has been written, not what it was intended to read as. Disaster, which has no explicit qualifier of being natural in origin, would then be interpreted as including all disasters, man made or not. The lack of explicit qualifiers requires we interpret ambiguity as written. Moreover, we can easily take the context and apply it to the interpretation. Nations afflicted by nuclear disasters need to take a series of actions to mitigate damage and loss of life. These actions would be taken in the event of a reactor failure or the detonation of a nuclear bomb. There is little substantive difference, and it is therefore absurd to expect that one is implicitly left out when the actions would be functionally identical.

"Semantics have a place in law, ambassador, but what you are engaging in is little better than sophistry."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

-bilge-

I'm willing to settle for being little better then you.

[Separatist Peoples]

-bilge-

I'm willing to settle for being little better then you.

"When all else fails, we rely on ad hominem, I suppose. What ever did I do to earn your contempt, ambassador? Have I despoiled one of your cousins, or did I just hurt your feelings? I only ask because I keep detailed records of all the times I've been challenged to duels, and I want to make careful note of the circumstance. For posterity, of course."

EDIT: OOC: I am a spell check master after I hit submit...

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I'm willing to settle for being little better then you.

"When all else fails, we rely on ad hominem, I suppose. What ever did I do to earn your contempt, ambassador? Have I despoiled one of your cousins, or did I just hurt your feelings? I only ask because I keep detailed records of all the times I've been challenged to duels, and I want to make careful note of the circumstance. For posterity, of course."

EDIT: OOC: I am a spell check master after I hit submit...

Oh I'm sorry I forgot to hide my personal attack under a small pile of straw men. Be a dear and wait while I fetch some.

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh I'm sorry I forgot to hide my personal attack under a small pile of straw men. Be a dear and wait while I fetch some.

"I'll wait. I accused you of sophistry, ambassador. I didn't assault your worth."

[Wrapper]

Now that could be a problem. While the easier thing would be to change this to put it on the victim, bringing it in compliance with GA #60, I've actually raised the issue on the Europeian regional forums to maybe repeal GA #60 instead.

OOC: Actually I'm already working on this; I'm planning to post a draft on Friday.

[Kaboomlandia]

So, here's an update.

As you can probably tell by my legality check request, I'm planning to submit this soon. However, I don't want it sitting in the queue for a week before it goes to vote, so I'm going to give it until the end of the current resolution up for vote.

[Bananaistan]

All comments OOC, it's just easier than switching back and forth.

Defines "toxic heavy metals" as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity;

I see this is still the wiki definition.

Requires member states to research alternatives to reduce the use of, and where technologically feasible, phase out the use of toxic heavy metals and their compounds;

1) Why should every member state have to research alternatives? This will lead to ridiculous duplication of work and extraneous costs when we could all club together to do this research.
2) "Technologically feasible" can be a long way from "economically feasible". Effectively you are telling member states to stop using "toxic heavy metals" once alternative methods or substances exists even if to use these alternatives would be prohibitively costly. For any MT nation, you have just outlawed car batteries!

Further requires member states to educate citizens about the dangers of toxic heavy metals, as well as make a reasonable effort to safely dispose of such chemicals;

First part is all well and good. I assume a television ad every now and then will be sufficient education. The subject of the second part is still the member states. I assume you want to apply the requirement to citizens? I've previously spoken against the usage of the word "reasonable" in any resolution.

Prohibits the intentional discharge of toxic heavy metals into the natural environment, including bodies of water;

Fair enough.

Bans the disposal of toxic heavy metals in landfills where there is a probability of them leaching into the environment;

Fair enough. Perhaps "in landfills" could be dropped to strengthen the clause.

Requires that employees of workplaces in member states utilizing such toxic heavy metals follow extant World Assembly law on hazardous material safety, including but not limited to proper labelling, personal protective equipment, etc.;

Etc is another word that should never appear in a resolution. In any case, if this is covered by extant WA law, surely the whole clause is superfluous.

Exempts the use of toxic heavy metals in military applications, so long as due care is taken to ensure safe disposal of said toxic heavy metals and/or their compounds, as covered by existing international law.

So the military can keep their car batteries but everyone else will have to bike it! Why is pollution by the military ok but not by everyone else? If this this is important for international law it should apply to all.

[Kaboomlandia]

I've fixed most of Banana's suggestions. Going to look into trying to get a non-wiki definition for the first clause.

Also, with the rule change, I've popped Wrapper's name back in (he did an early edit on the draft). I've put down his non-mod nation to make it clear that he helped almost 6 months before he was modded. Wrapper, if you want your mod nation put in instead, just say so.

[Wrapper]

I've fixed most of Banana's suggestions. Going to look into trying to get a non-wiki definition for the first clause.

Also, with the rule change, I've popped Wrapper's name back in (he did an early edit on the draft). I've put down his non-mod nation to make it clear that he helped almost 6 months before he was modded. Wrapper, if you want your mod nation put in instead, just say so.

You sure? My name is pretty toxic itself right now. Up to you. But, I'd prefer Wrapper over PJWoW.

[Kaboomlandia]

I've fixed most of Banana's suggestions. Going to look into trying to get a non-wiki definition for the first clause.

Also, with the rule change, I've popped Wrapper's name back in (he did an early edit on the draft). I've put down his non-mod nation to make it clear that he helped almost 6 months before he was modded. Wrapper, if you want your mod nation put in instead, just say so.

You sure? My name is pretty toxic itself right now. Up to you. But, I'd prefer Wrapper over PJWoW.

Point taken. I will remove your name if you want.

[Wrapper]

Like I said, up to you.

[Tinfect]

I've fixed most of Banana's suggestions. Going to look into trying to get a non-wiki definition for the first clause.

Also, with the rule change, I've popped Wrapper's name back in (he did an early edit on the draft). I've put down his non-mod nation to make it clear that he helped almost 6 months before he was modded. Wrapper, if you want your mod nation put in instead, just say so.

You sure? My name is pretty toxic itself right now. Up to you. But, I'd prefer Wrapper over PJWoW.

OOC:
Dude, don't be taking the moderation backlash personally, I've certainly got nothing against you, and I'd be willing to bet you'll see the same from most regulars.

[Sciongrad]

You sure? My name is pretty toxic itself right now. Up to you. But, I'd prefer Wrapper over PJWoW.

OOC:
Dude, don't be taking the moderation backlash personally, I've certainly got nothing against you, and I'd be willing to bet you'll see the same from most regulars.

OOC: This is absolutely true. I still respect Wrapper immensely and would certainly never vote against a resolution solely because he contributed to it. Now, if there was more than one co-author, that may be a different story.

[Separatist Peoples]

I've fixed most of Banana's suggestions. Going to look into trying to get a non-wiki definition for the first clause.

Also, with the rule change, I've popped Wrapper's name back in (he did an early edit on the draft). I've put down his non-mod nation to make it clear that he helped almost 6 months before he was modded. Wrapper, if you want your mod nation put in instead, just say so.

You sure? My name is pretty toxic itself right now. Up to you. But, I'd prefer Wrapper over PJWoW.

"Maxim 18 of the 70 Maxims oF Maximally Effective Mercenaries: "Your name is in the mouth of others. Be sure it has teeth." I'd say toxicity counts, so I'd take that as a good thing!" Bell winks.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Dude, don't be taking the moderation backlash personally, I've certainly got nothing against you, and I'd be willing to bet you'll see the same from most regulars.

OOC: This is absolutely true. I still respect Wrapper immensely and would certainly never vote against a resolution solely because he contributed to it. Now, if there was more than one co-author, that may be a different story.

OOC: Agreeing with them and SP (though I probably need to kill him now for making me want to go read Schlock from the start again), that you're one of the few mods who gets props from most GA regulars atm.

[Kaboomlandia]

I'm going to have to jump the gun and submit this one now, as I do not know when the "Lying Repeal Train" is going to start coming through, and if I haven't submitted it by the time it hits, this won't ever see the light of day even if it makes quorum.