NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Preventing Desertification

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Remove ads

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9875
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:19 pm

Auralia wrote:
Erithaca wrote:In the resolution, the word is "oversee". This suggests either advisory and regulatory, when appropriate.

Another important word is "ensure", which is even stronger.

If indeed the WAEC is playing a regulatory role, then its mandate and powers should be clearly defined and limited. This is not presently the case. At the moment the resolution suggests that the WAEC can freely regulate desertification efforts (a) and forestation (b), as well as aspects of agriculture (c) and water usage (d). I think this is far too much unchecked power for an international administrative agency.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

As I noted on our region's message board:

My reading of the proposal is narrower. In my opinion, subsection 4(a) limits all of section 4. In other words, there can be no "efforts" for the agency to oversee, unless those "efforts are [1] feasible, [2] not harmful and [3] approved by the local community and government."
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
A Bright Future
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 109
Founded: May 30, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby A Bright Future » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:52 pm

I agree with Christian Democrats' reading which is why I supported this earlier on.

Regarding area of effect, would the area of effect (ag) be illegal if the proposal mandates "member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations [...] relating to agriculture and otherwise"?

Or does the AoE limit the "and otherwise"?
Last edited by A Bright Future on Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Imperial States of Burgh
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Mar 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Imperial States of Burgh » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:05 pm

The Glorious Empire votes in favour of the resolution.

As for issues of legality, the law is whatever the God-Emperor says it is.
--Julian de Lusa, Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the 17th Glorious Empire.

User avatar
Triangle And Square
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: Feb 06, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Triangle And Square » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:24 pm

"Against, because you never defined what 'desertification' is. Most resolutions will first define their topic either in the pre-amble or in the actionable clauses."

Since you already pointed out the mistakes in TNP's analysis on the resolution in this factbook, I'm not going to put that here now.
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Absolutely not, this is a patently absurd and frankly disgusting change that I am absolutely appalled you would even suggest. Absolutely unacceptable.



He Qixinian WA Mission.

User avatar
Mihaiteren
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Feb 25, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mihaiteren » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:04 pm

"I like my nature walks as much as the next young prince. In fact, my country has a very lovely environment. Not world-class perhaps, but still very nice. Nevertheless, this bill is far too vague. Put some legislation on the table with better-defined terms and clearer objectives, and I may support it. As for now, however, I'm afraid I most vote against this bill."
Regnum Dei in Virtute



Andrew I, Dei Gratia Michahelterrae Imperator, Fidei Defensor

User avatar
Shaktirajya
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Mar 22, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Shaktirajya » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:56 pm

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, vote FOR this resolution as We see the Earth as a manifestation of the Goddess Herself and as such, We heartily defend any legislation to preserve and protect the Environment.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya
Nota Bene: Even though my country is a Matriarchy, I am a dude.

Pro: Hinduism, Buddhism, polytheism, legalization of drugs and prostitution, free thought, sexual freedom, freedom of speech.

Anti: Intolerant Abrahamic religion, drug prohibition, homophobia and homomisia, prudery, asceticism.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7823
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:14 am

MADSONS: This action here would take one more step against allowing us to sterilise the environment and replacing it with a market system. Absolutely unacceptable.

Author: 1 SC and 21 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Cosmopolitan borovan
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Jan 18, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Cosmopolitan borovan » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:33 pm

Against. We need limits and expectations how the nation's and the agency to prevent desertification.

User avatar
Equalsun Empire
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5351
Founded: Feb 18, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Equalsun Empire » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 am

So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?

4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:

a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,


In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".
Spirit Animal of Castle Crashers


Awarded the Honourable Epicness Award for Persuasive Nuclear Weapon Placement 2015

Dogs of War wrote:While the motto of the British SAS is "Who dares wins" the motto of Equalsun's SAS is "Who cares who wins?"

19, Canadian, ENFP

User avatar
Imperial States of Burgh
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Mar 15, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Imperial States of Burgh » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:37 am

Equalsun Empire wrote:So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?

4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:

a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,


In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".


OOC: I'm glad there's another supporter of the Oxford Comma. The use of it helps to make the meaning clear. I've never really understood the desire to get rid of the Oxford Comma. It helps avoid confusion and ambiguity.

There was a court case in Maine about overtime rules.
--Julian de Lusa, Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the 17th Glorious Empire.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 2986
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:15 am

Equalsun Empire wrote:So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?

4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:

a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,


In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".

(OOC: Whilst I am a firm supporter of the Oxford comma, I think the intended meaning here is fairly clear, and isn't a justified argument for voting against.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Erithaca » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:11 am

It is a well-written proposal. A single comma, or rather the lack of it, is not a reason to vote against when the meaning is abundantly clear.
Founder and Delegate of The Palumban Nations A 35.7 civilization, according to this index No NS Stats Author of 2 GA Resolutions

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4811
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:26 am

Christian Democrats wrote:As I noted on our region's message board:

My reading of the proposal is narrower. In my opinion, subsection 4(a) limits all of section 4. In other words, there can be no "efforts" for the agency to oversee, unless those "efforts are [1] feasible, [2] not harmful and [3] approved by the local community and government."

I think this might push things too far in the opposite direction, then. Is it really good policy to declare that all efforts against desertification -- which is a broad category of action -- must be approved by both the local community and government?

Equalsun Empire wrote:So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?

4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:

a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,


In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".

Your suggested interpretation is incorrect, as it would render the sentence grammatically incorrect. You would still require an "and" to connect the clauses "feasible" and "not harmful and approved by the local community and government".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Last edited by Auralia on Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
A Bright Future
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 109
Founded: May 30, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby A Bright Future » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:55 am

Auralia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:As I noted on our region's message board:

My reading of the proposal is narrower. In my opinion, subsection 4(a) limits all of section 4. In other words, there can be no "efforts" for the agency to oversee, unless those "efforts are [1] feasible, [2] not harmful and [3] approved by the local community and government."

I think this might push things too far in the opposite direction, then. Is it really good policy to declare that all efforts against desertification -- which is a broad category of action -- must be approved by both the local community and government?

I agree this is a problem particularly given that some local communities may be very happy to veto anti-desertification measures for their local interest and at the expense of national efforts in this area. That being said national law may allow governments to mandate local communities consent to government measures. Maybe this mitigates the problem.

ABF Representative to the WA
Vuk Jeremić
Last edited by A Bright Future on Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ThePenguinLand
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 05, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby ThePenguinLand » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:25 am

My Personal problem with the resolution is that it`s vague and over concerned. It`s worded in such a way that makes it seem like a paranoid prophecy of doom. These factors do make me see it as a rushed and unconvincing policy. It seems to offer the ability for it`s enforcement to be ignored by it`s vague wording, yet it also offers the ability to have far more oversight than is needed.
Okay, admittedly after saying this I did vote for this resolution not because I believe it`s well thought out, yet because if this issue is addressed and handled by our government than it probably will be managed well. I agree the oversight clause is dubious and practically the only reason I actually voted for the resolution in it`s current state. Oh well, we`ll just see how this turns out.
(P.S. The world Assembly seems to be focusing on regulating agriculture more than usual recently, thoughts as to why?).

Gary Marvell, ThePenguinland Ambassador to the Word Assembly.
"Penguins Forever, Penguins Today, Penguins Tomorrow!"

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 1923
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:43 pm

Erithaca wrote:It is a well-written proposal. A single comma, or rather the lack of it, is not a reason to vote against when the meaning is abundantly clear.


OOC: It really isn't (a well written proposal). It has a single hard and fast mandate which is defanged by the word "excessive". Then you have nullified the committee's work by only allowing them to carry out their mandate with the permission of the local community and government.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9875
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:05 pm

A Bright Future wrote:
Auralia wrote:I think this might push things too far in the opposite direction, then. Is it really good policy to declare that all efforts against desertification -- which is a broad category of action -- must be approved by both the local community and government?

I agree this is a problem particularly given that some local communities may be very happy to veto anti-desertification measures for their local interest and at the expense of national efforts in this area. That being said national law may allow governments to mandate local communities consent to government measures. Maybe this mitigates the problem.

ABF Representative to the WA
Vuk Jeremić

In my view, this proposal leaves national governments in the driver's seat. They're the ones in charge of leading anti-desertification efforts. If a national government is slacking off and allowing a "dust bowl" situation to emerge, an international committee may step in and bypass the national government, but only if "the local community and government" consent to the intervention. Maybe, for some ambassadors, this solution is too mild. I think it strikes a logical balance among international, national, and local power.

Also, we should not forget Section 1 of this proposal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Erithaca
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Erithaca » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:09 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
A Bright Future wrote:I agree this is a problem particularly given that some local communities may be very happy to veto anti-desertification measures for their local interest and at the expense of national efforts in this area. That being said national law may allow governments to mandate local communities consent to government measures. Maybe this mitigates the problem.

ABF Representative to the WA
Vuk Jeremić

In my view, this proposal leaves national governments in the driver's seat. They're the ones in charge of leading anti-desertification efforts. If a national government is slacking off and allowing a "dust bowl" situation to emerge, an international committee may step in and bypass the national government, but only if "the local community and government" consent to the intervention. Maybe, for some ambassadors, this solution is too mild. I think it strikes a logical balance among international, national, and local power.


This was my intention when writing the proposal.

Bananaistan wrote:
Erithaca wrote:It is a well-written proposal. A single comma, or rather the lack of it, is not a reason to vote against when the meaning is abundantly clear.


OOC: It really isn't (a well written proposal). It has a single hard and fast mandate which is defanged by the word "excessive". Then you have nullified the committee's work by only allowing them to carry out their mandate with the permission of the local community and government.

When I said "well-written", I meant "in coherent English and not worthy of grammar nitpicking".
Founder and Delegate of The Palumban Nations A 35.7 civilization, according to this index No NS Stats Author of 2 GA Resolutions

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4811
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:03 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:In my view, this proposal leaves national governments in the driver's seat. They're the ones in charge of leading anti-desertification efforts.

I don't think so. The proposal clearly states that "the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that...efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government."

There is no qualification, so I think it's likely that the WAEC must oversee all "efforts" against desertification. Since the WAEC is tasked with "ensur[ing]" that such efforts are "approved by the local community", that is tantamount to a veto for local communities for any "effort" against desertification.

This interpretation is consistent with section 1. It is not clear exactly how section 1 and section 5 interact with each other, but it does seem likely that if a member state wants to take action beyond what is strictly required by section 1, they could be barred from doing so by local governments.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Last edited by Auralia on Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Little Tralfamadore
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 154
Founded: May 06, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Little Tralfamadore » Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:30 am

Mandates member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations to reduce excessive removal of vegetation for purposes relating to agriculture and otherwise.


What is "reasonable" ? What is "excessive" ?
Just a couple of vague statements with no meaning and no enforcement as nation would just say they felt their actions were reasonable and non-excessive

A bunch of encouragements (even "strongly") has no effect.

And then a committee (at what and whose expense) oversees efforts that approved by local governments. If the local governemnt approved it why is the committe needed to make sure efforts are approved by local governments

We vote no on this meaningless ineffictive proposal

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18286
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:27 pm

Preventing Desertification was passed 11,231 votes to 6,925.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

Previous

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Remove ads