DRAFT: Ecology Act

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Ahh, Mr. Ambassador... I daresay someone's rear-end is a bit sore.


Rgds.,

[Hirota]

By the same standard you're using, it's a violation of your personal sovereignty to stop you from punching me in the face.

Wouldn't do it personally, I have staff for that.

It's a violation of your national sovereignty to stop you from invading me.

Out of curiosity, who exactly would stop us? Not that we see much value in invading just one nation when we could simply steamroller your entire region by ourselves. Hypothetically, of course, and completely off tangent.

Such a claim would be ridiculous, as is yours; it is not a violation of national sovereignty, to act to prevent a nation from violating another nation's sovereignty.

Of course it is - and it's patently obvious, any legislation by definition treads on someone's sovereignty for some potential benefits which might or might not be worth the impact in natsov (which I guess depends on where you happen to be standing and your perspective on the matter in question)

If my nation has a river downstream of yours, and you decide to save money on waste disposal by dumping your atomic runoff, acidic mining waste, sewage, and pharmaceutical waste into that river,

That's too inefficient and clumsy for our tastes. In the past my government has supported legislation to improve standards for dealing with waste (especially through the sharing and promotion of best practices between member states), and I'm sure we would be happy to endorse such a proposal again.

But this draft isn't seeking to solve any problems, it's just seeking to cause more discord and strife. Member states may decide it's cheaper to invade and annex a nation whining about pollution than to pay up.

Acting to stop you from doing this is not a violation of your national sovereignty; it is a protection of mine.

Actually it's both, your position is that the ends justify the means, and mine is the opposite.

Also, it's one reference. That's not a House of Cards.

Actually it was, but it looks like you've removed the offending part already. Good for you.

I like you consider an Cool Eggs draft a "debauched predecessor" when you were too lazy/incapable/inept to write your original piece in the first place. Theft Plagarism isn't exactly the domain of the morally pure.

[Sagatagan]

Wouldn't do it personally, I have staff for that.

What a clever and relevant observation.

Out of curiosity, who exactly would stop us? Not that we see much value in invading just one nation when we could simply steamroller your entire region by ourselves. Hypothetically, of course, and completely off tangent.

Again, not the point at all; the point is that by the logic you're using, you have the legitimate right to invade us based on your national sovereignty, and stopping you would be a violation of your national sovereignty. I, on the other hand, argue that you do not have the right to invade me, I do not have the right to invade you, you do not have the right to dump toxic waste upstream of me, and I do not have the right to dump toxic waste upstream of you.

Of course it is - and it's patently obvious, any legislation by definition treads on someone's sovereignty for some potential benefits which might or might not be worth the impact in natsov (which I guess depends on where you happen to be standing and your perspective on the matter in question)

Again, you consider it a violation of national sovereignty to stop nation A from invading nation B. That is ridiculous; nation A is already violating nation B's sovereignty, and stopping nation A is protecting the sovereignty of nation B. Sovereignty of a nation does not imply the right to deny the sovereignty of other nations any more than individual freedom implies the right to victimize others and take away their freedom.

That's too inefficient and clumsy for our tastes. In the past my government has supported legislation to improve standards for dealing with waste (especially through the sharing and promotion of best practices between member states), and I'm sure we would be happy to endorse such a proposal again.

Such proposals are welcome, but this proposal actually gives states more freedom to seek appropriate environmental policy than such a proposal that put a one-size-fits-all solution on a few problems. This proposal establishes and affirms the principle from which appropriate environmental policy grows.

But this draft isn't seeking to solve any problems, it's just seeking to cause more discord and strife. Member states may decide it's cheaper to invade and annex a nation whining about pollution than to pay up.

So... we shouldn't stand against blatant injustice because the aggressor might just ignore us and hurt the victim some more? Try applying that to any sane legal system, and see how it flies. This draft creates LESS discord and strife by setting an international legal principle for the redressing of grievances, instead of forcing nations to the battlefield to stop cross-border pollution. It also establishes a rule of law, allowing the weak voices to actually have a voice in these matters and not serve unwillingly as dumping grounds for the wealthy nations.

Actually it's both, your position is that the ends justify the means, and mine is the opposite.

Actually, that's not my position at all. My position is that it is wrong for one nation to violate the sovereignty of another by using them as a dumping ground for industrial waste or by killing off their migrating wildlife, and that a fair channel of arbitration must be established. Your position seems to be contrarianism.

[Mehayn]

May I ask how the EPC will be be funded? Other than that, full support!

[Mousebumples]

As someone who helped write the replacement that you've essentially ripped off and dumbed down here, I fully intend to file a plagiarism GHR if the present text is submitted. Yes, you've reworded things, but the same overall aim and concept are maintained from CES's proposal to yours. You can call it "paraphrasing" but I think it's a bit too similar for it to be ruled legal.

Suggestion: come up with your OWN idea and write a whole new shiny draft. Don't appropriate someone else's ideas and rework them to make them more palatable to you without permission.

[Sagatagan]

As someone who helped write the replacement that you've essentially ripped off and dumbed down here, I fully intend to file a plagiarism GHR if the present text is submitted. Yes, you've reworded things, but the same overall aim and concept are maintained from CES's proposal to yours. You can call it "paraphrasing" but I think it's a bit too similar for it to be ruled legal.

Suggestion: come up with your OWN idea and write a whole new shiny draft. Don't appropriate someone else's ideas and rework them to make them more palatable to you without permission.

Feel free; the draft as written is substantially different, and the overall aim and concept are very different- yours provides no power to arbitrate (or did not until you 'plagiarized' and weakened the arbitration idea). By the logic you use, any draft that includes environmental research would be plagiarism, allowing you to block anyone who wants to submit a draft that actually does something in addition to providing research. It becomes increasingly clear that the entire intent of repealing the existing legislation was not to replace it with anything of substance, but to weaken environmental protection overall. First you submit a new environmental plan that is as bad if not worse than the old one. Then you ignore the overwhelming majority of the people who critique it to play lackey to extreme isolationists. Then you object when somebody submits what the act would look like, if you listened to the people critiquing it. Then, when they acquiesce to your demands and rewrite the whole draft, you decide, 'Hey, this plagiarism charge is a clever way to make sure no environmental legislation that contains any research clauses in it can be passed!'. That's really what it is at this point; a game to make sure no substantial environmental legislation gets passed, played by a pair of nations with open allegiances to isolationist extremists, the leader of the two also having an abysmal environmental record. What do you want me to do? I rewrote the whole draft. It includes research. It will include research. It would have included research regardless of any previous existing draft. Unlike your proposal, it actually includes substance, too.

[Vladixandria]

I ambassador Bubbkea, would like to chime in on this heated and very worthy discussion. Being new to this world and sadly not too familiar with its full breadth of protocols, would like to ask the honourable author of this proposal, what would stop a large polluting nation A from leaving the WA and continue to pollute nation B. In such a case WA only option would be what war?

[Sagatagan]

In such a case, yes, the matter would not be up to the WA, as we do not enforce our legislation on non-members; it would be resolved in the same crude and unjust ways that environmental injustice is currently resolved- or more accurately, currently fails to be resolved. However, there is nothing we can do within the legitimate bounds of WA power to stop that; we cannot demand a non-member report before a WA body for arbitration.

[Knootoss]

This is quite obviously plagiarism, and considering that Cool Egg Sandwich hasn't actually dropped his idea, malicious plagiarism too.

[Quadnairia]

It sounds like Cool Egg Sandwich’s opposition to this proposal is that he feels you copied his proposed replacement. I think what he really wants is a co-author credit. Surely, Sagatagan, you wouldn’t mind sharing some of the credit, would you? Cool Egg Sandwich will have his name on an effective resolution, and everyone will get meaningful environmental protection. That should please him and all of his allies.

[Sagatagan]

It sounds like Cool Egg Sandwich’s opposition to this proposal is that he feels you copied his proposed replacement. I think what he really wants is a co-author credit. Surely, Sagatagan, you wouldn’t mind sharing some of the credit, would you? Cool Egg Sandwich will have his name on an effective resolution, and everyone will get meaningful environmental protection. That should please him and all of his allies.

No, his objection to this proposal is because he wants to have the only replacement proposal on the table be a toothless, ineffective piece of legislation to serve the ideological agenda of his isolationist allies, and he's pushing his current charge to attempt to block any legislation that would actually have a real effect. This proposal as currently written is not plagiarism. It includes clauses for research cooperation, but that's the only substantial similarity- the main point of this proposal is the arbitration, something the CES refused to put in his act despite the overwhelming majority of people critiquing his draft demanding some form of enforcement. Was it a poor choice to initially use the wording of his legislation, in protest of the political ploy he and his allies were playing? Yes. I should have proposed the act as it currently stands, and not allowed this charge to be levied. But, the act as it currently stands is not plagiarized, unless it is plagiarism to include in any act any basic concept or idea that someone else had previously. I will not strip research from the act, because research is an essential environmental service, one that has just been more or less abolished by the repeal CES and his allies pushed through, and one that is needed to make the arbitration work. At this point, the continuation of the charges CES and his allies are throwing is simply a cynical ploy to kill the idea of this act and of effective environmental legislation. I don't care about credit. I want effective environmental legislation.

[Ardchoille]

Evidently you haven't yet had a chance to read yesterday's ruling on Cool Egg Sandwich's complaint.

Please pay particular attention to the generalised warning.

I'm offering the following advice/legality ruling on the assumption that you will want to continue working on this proposal for submission if CES's fails to make quorum or makes quorum but fails At Vote.

On that basis, please note that, as it stands, it would be rejected even if not for the copying issue.

First, because it violates the committee rule:

Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Every active clause in the proposal would be nullified if the committee were removed. You need a clause or clauses requiring some action from nations independent of the committee's existence.

Second, the category:

Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements.

I accept that the words Hack italicised make extremely specific references optional, but I think you should at least wave in the general direction of industries, rather than simply addressing it completely to nations.

You may be able to kill two birds with one stone by requiring nations to take (@@action@@) against polluting industries. (Don't be led astray into giving specific numbers for fines, levies or whatever, and make sure you don't run afoul of existing Free Trade legislation.)

Third, the strength. The categories that don't give you a choice of saying Mild, Significant or Strong are treated as being automatically Strong. You should therefore write proposals in those categories with very broad international effect and/or inescapable phrasing -- requires, insists, mandates, prescribes, rather than encourages, recommends, advises, applauds. Much of your committee content does that, but you will need it in the non-committee clause(s) as well.

[Quadnairia]

Does that ruling mean that, if CES never submits his proposal, Sagatagan can never submit his? Is there a time limit?

If there isn’t a time limit, then I think that CES and his allies have gotten exactly what they wanted. He can effectively block this proposal by not submitting his.

[Ardchoille]

No, it doesn't. I've no reason to think Cool Egg Sandwich won't act in good faith. He has some work to do on his proposal, too. Mods aren't going to stand over him with a stop-watch or a calendar, especially if there's some obvious drafting going on in his thread, but we're not going to penalise Sagastan further by letting his be delayed indefinitely, either.