[Passed] Transboundary Water Use Act

[Cerlor]

Absolutely wonderful idea. Cerlor highly approves, vote is for

[The Foxfyre Islands]

The Foxfyre Islands is FOR this resolution as we view the environment is something to be protect.....and exploited later

[Chunk of Dirt]

How would this JWRMP be formed?
Does every nation get one representative or do countries with a bigger percentage of the water get more to say? If a country has more than 50%, then they can do whatever they want.
If every nation would have one representative, and a country would only have just a few square kilometers then it wouldn't be fair for the other countries either.

I welcome the efforts to improve our water quality but I'd like to know the details of how this idea would be executed, or else it would be just empty words and not worth voting for.

[Flibbleites]

How would this JWRMP be formed?
Does every nation get one representative or do countries with a bigger percentage of the water get more to say? If a country has more than 50%, then they can do whatever they want.
If every nation would have one representative, and a country would only have just a few square kilometers then it wouldn't be fair for the other countries either.

I welcome the efforts to improve our water quality but I'd like to know the details of how this idea would be executed, or else it would be just empty words and not worth voting for.

The same way all WA committees are formed, "they are staffed by mystical beings (gnomes) that instantly spring into existence and live only to serve on said committee." If you'd read the Proposal Rules you'd know that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Chunk of Dirt]

sorry for that, then. There are so many walls of text to dig through around here.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm just going to throw this here:
The Clean Water Act deals primarily with the internal distribution of water to civilians, but there is a clause within it that raises the most concern in regards to potential contradiction:

4) Each nation may determine the following for itself, provided all other provisions of this act are met:
i) Methods for production and distribution of water,
iv) Water usage, conservation, and rationing regulations.

This Office contends that this section of the CWA stands in direct conflict with the following clause in the proposed legislation:

Conserve, improve, and use transboundary water resources responsibly;
Mitigate any downstream hazards caused by upriver human activity;
Agree not to overtap, divert or dam transboundary water resources if the action causes significant harm to neighbouring nations;
Adopt measures to eliminate pollution from agriculture or industrial activities entering transboundary rivers and groundwater basins;
Ensure future development carried out on or near transboundary water resources will not cause lasting, adverse change to them; and
Allow neighbouring member nations to monitor the progress made in mutually agreed joint-implementation programs.

Ignoring this contradiction, the use of the term "human activity" excludes nations that have significant non human populations, an oversight on the part of the author.

AGAINST.

[Tanular]

4) Each nation may determine the following for itself, provided all other provisions of this act are met:
i) Methods for production and distribution of water,
iv) Water usage, conservation, and rationing regulations.

I'm not a mod or a lawyer, and my personal opinions amount to absolutely zero authority, but I emphasized two words of the CWA that, IMO, would make this act legal. Simply put, if you decide to dam up a river that flows into other nations, you're are making decisions not just for yourself, but for everyone down-river from you as well. You are crossing a boundary when your actions affect other nations. In other words, this act would provide a vehicle for determining how much of that water is for Nation A to use and how much is for Nation B to use, while the CWA allows Nation A to use its share however it wants.

(OOC: The Danube in Europe is a perfect example of this...if Austria blocked off the Danube at Vienna, what happens to Slovakia and the other 5-6 nations downriver?)

This act would serve as a complement to the CWA, governing a highly contentious issue at the international level. Water rights and access to water is an issue that effects the very existence of nations and lives of people everywhere. I'm pleased to see such a well-written proposal tackling the subject.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby IV
Tanulari Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Mallorea and Riva]

4) Each nation may determine the following for itself, provided all other provisions of this act are met:
i) Methods for production and distribution of water,
iv) Water usage, conservation, and rationing regulations.

I'm not a mod or a lawyer, and my personal opinions amount to absolutely zero authority, but I emphasized two words of the CWA that, IMO, would make this act legal. Simply put, if you decide to dam up a river that flows into other nations, you're are making decisions not just for yourself, but for everyone down-river from you as well. You are crossing a boundary when your actions affect other nations. In other words, this act would provide a vehicle for determining how much of that water is for Nation A to use and how much is for Nation B to use, while the CWA allows Nation A to use its share however it wants.

(OOC: The Danube in Europe is a perfect example of this...if Austria blocked off the Danube at Vienna, what happens to Slovakia and the other 5-6 nations downriver?)

This act would serve as a complement to the CWA, governing a highly contentious issue at the international level. Water rights and access to water is an issue that effects the very existence of nations and lives of people everywhere. I'm pleased to see such a well-written proposal tackling the subject.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby IV
Tanulari Ambassador to the World Assembly

Yeah not seeing that, CWA is explicit. This resolution is deciding for the nations on items that were left for nations to decide.

[Greater British Columbia]

I suppose this resolution could benefit the clean water industry.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

We agree with Zakath that the Clean Water Act, perhaps inadvertently but likely on purpose, reserves the right to determine water conservation and use policy to individual nations. Article 4 of the CWA is plainly a blocker, and the words "Each nation may determine the following for itself.." mean, in context, that nations get to establish their own policies on certain subjects without WA interference.

That said, the fact that this proposal is now at vote renders the point moot. A proposal, once at vote, is presumed to have all legality challenges waived or decided in its favor. Somehow, this proposal does not conflict with the CWA, though only the gnomes know why.

We also agree that inserting the word "human" was unnecessary and an unfortunate oversight. Our regional delegate will not be pleased...

Ultimately, we vote for this act because we think it is good for the WA, technicalities and minor mistakes aside. While there may be some minor flaws, the ultimate aim and the manner in which it is pursued are laudable.

[Discoveria]

"Discoveria is an island nation, and does not share water resources with other nations. While we are supportive of this proposal in principle, it seems inappropriate to vote on a subject whose provisions do not currently apply to us; we shall therefore ABSTAIN, but urge nations who will be affected by this to strongly consider the collective benefits of voting FOR."

[Mallorea and Riva]

We agree with Zakath that the Clean Water Act, perhaps inadvertently but likely on purpose, reserves the right to determine water conservation and use policy to individual nations. Article 4 of the CWA is plainly a blocker, and the words "Each nation may determine the following for itself.." mean, in context, that nations get to establish their own policies on certain subjects without WA interference.

That said, the fact that this proposal is now at vote renders the point moot. A proposal, once at vote, is presumed to have all legality challenges waived or decided in its favor. Somehow, this proposal does not conflict with the CWA, though only the gnomes know why.

We also agree that inserting the word "human" was unnecessary and an unfortunate oversight. Our regional delegate will not be pleased...

Ultimately, we vote for this act because we think it is good for the WA, technicalities and minor mistakes aside. While there may be some minor flaws, the ultimate aim and the manner in which it is pursued are laudable.

Personally I prefer to live in a world without paradoxes. Against.

[Cherryvile]

Who shall comprise the committee?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Who shall comprise the committee?

How would this JWRMP be formed?
Does every nation get one representative or do countries with a bigger percentage of the water get more to say? If a country has more than 50%, then they can do whatever they want.
If every nation would have one representative, and a country would only have just a few square kilometers then it wouldn't be fair for the other countries either.

I welcome the efforts to improve our water quality but I'd like to know the details of how this idea would be executed, or else it would be just empty words and not worth voting for.

The same way all WA committees are formed, "they are staffed by mystical beings (gnomes) that instantly spring into existence and live only to serve on said committee." If you'd read the Proposal Rules you'd know that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Glen-Rhodes]

Since it seems quite a few of you don't already know this:

There is a longstanding World Assembly convention that the use of the word "human" or any derivation thereof also includes, by default, all fictional races and species any player has created for their member state.

[White Haven]

I want to vote for it, but I cant yet.

Who appoints the members of the panel?
What powers is it given to enforce the positions it makes?

Law without enforcement is idealogical nonsense. Until these questions, and any others like it, are answered I am afraid I will have to vote against the resolution.


EDIT: I read the posts above. But I still ask what powers the panel is given to enforce its regulations.

[Tanular]

I want to vote for it, but I cant yet.

Who appoints the members of the panel?
What powers is it given to enforce the positions it makes?

Law without enforcement is idealogical nonsense. Until these questions, and any others like it, are answered I am afraid I will have to vote against the resolution.


EDIT: I read the posts above. But I still ask what powers the panel is given to enforce its regulations.

Simply put, all member nations are literally incapable of violating WA resolutions. Basically, the Deus ex Machina of the WA forces compliance on all WA members, regardless of their individual wishes. There's no exception to this rule; any decision that would be made by an organization created by WA resolution is automatically enforced.

[Libertarian-Free State]

To Goddess Relief Office Spokesperson,

On behalf of all the free people of Free Land of Libertarian-Free State, let me extend our deepest appreciation for your concerns for the environment and of impacts upon it and other issues caused by water uses along international borders. Your thoughtful sympathy for the impact of one nation upon another is not without merit.

However, believing in the complete sovereignty and autonomy of NationState countries; believing that sovereign nations have the right to enter into treaties and trade pacts with other nations and to develop their own industry within their sovereign borders without interference or intervention from outside international interests and bodies, uncluding the World Assembly, we must reject and have voted against this Act.

We note your perfectly well-founded and good intentions and look forward to more WA proposals from you that does not cause international bodies like the WA to interfere with the sovereign acts of a NationState country.

Sincerely,

Jose Gomez, Political Columnist-Elected WA Delegate to represent the people of The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State
October 24, 2012

[Hippie culture]

I totally don't want this I just want to make more in my industries so I absolutely disagree with this

[Free South Califas]

I'm not a mod or a lawyer, and my personal opinions amount to absolutely zero authority, but I emphasized two words of the CWA that, IMO, would make this act legal. Simply put, if you decide to dam up a river that flows into other nations, you're are making decisions not just for yourself, but for everyone down-river from you as well. You are crossing a boundary when your actions affect other nations. In other words, this act would provide a vehicle for determining how much of that water is for Nation A to use and how much is for Nation B to use, while the CWA allows Nation A to use its share however it wants.

(OOC: The Danube in Europe is a perfect example of this...if Austria blocked off the Danube at Vienna, what happens to Slovakia and the other 5-6 nations downriver?)

This act would serve as a complement to the CWA, governing a highly contentious issue at the international level. Water rights and access to water is an issue that effects the very existence of nations and lives of people everywhere. I'm pleased to see such a well-written proposal tackling the subject.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby IV
Tanulari Ambassador to the World Assembly

Yeah not seeing that, CWA is explicit. This resolution is deciding for the nations on items that were left for nations to decide.

OOC: For what it's worth, I've had formal linguistics training and I agree with Tanular's interpretation:

IC: The CWA is indeed explicit; it explicitly refers to decisions a nation makes "for itself". Not, importantly, "by itself", which would render the Mallorea and Riva interpretation more likely. As it stands, the CWA clearly refers to water decisions relating to one's own nation, but it is not at all clear that the stricter interpretation implying 'only those decisions which affect that nation and no other WA member nations' was meant to be precluded, nor in fact should it be. Indeed, the conscious choice of "for itself" instead of "by itself" seems to suggest that potential victims of such decisions have the right to fair/proportional decision-making power on those issues relating to water supply which affect them. TWUA gives teeth to that interpretation, and thus fills a glaring hole in the otherwise noble CWA. Of course, TWUA is legal because it is up for the vote, but this should also clear up any questions about informal conflicts of legislation.

According to the democratic mandate of 17FAR/WAGA208 Binding Resolution finding the FSC Position on TWUA, the Federated Communities and Economies of Free South Califas stand FOR this measure, which is both necessary and well-executed, and have cast our vote accordingly. Additionally, this humble delegation considers TWUA a coup in the field of environmental legislation, even if it is less ambitious than would normally merit such accolade. TWUA appears poised to pass with flying colors, strengthening national sovereignty and international cooperation on basic human needs in the General Assembly. We hope that this is a sign of things to come in this august chamber.

[Anime Daisuki]

Thanks for the explanation and the support Free South Califas.

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Vinage v. Grey-Anumia, will be voting AYE on this act after a deadlocked internal vote separated by the number of World Assembly nations within Europeia.

Congrats on the passing. I wonder if it was influenced by the early vote by the author

[Libertarian-Free State]

From the Office of the President and WA Delegate, Chris Forte, of The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State,

The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State is up in arms, practically literally, over the passage of this intrusive act upon the sovereignty of individual and legitimate NationStates countries. We will do all in our power to circumvent, ignore, even to disobey this Act, despite any international repercusions from the World Assembly and some of its member states.

(OOC): Within the parameters and rules of the game, of course.

[Tanular]

From the Office of the President and WA Delegate, Chris Forte, of The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State,

The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State is up in arms, practically literally, over the passage of this intrusive act upon the sovereignty of individual and legitimate NationStates countries. We will do all in our power to circumvent, ignore, even to disobey this Act, despite any international repercusions from the World Assembly and some of its member states.

(OOC): Within the parameters and rules of the game, of course.

OOC: Parameters of the game say you have no choice but to comply in good faith with a passed WA resolution. Its technically not something you see, the game only changes your national states according to the proposal's category and strength, but your nation automatically complies with any passed resolution. Its one of the rules of the WA probably posted somewhere on the forum here.

[Libertarian-Free State]

From the Office of the President and WA Delegate, Chris Forte, of The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State,

The Free Land of Libertarian-Free State is up in arms, practically literally, over the passage of this intrusive act upon the sovereignty of individual and legitimate NationStates countries. We will do all in our power to circumvent, ignore, even to disobey this Act, despite any international repercusions from the World Assembly and some of its member states.

(OOC): Within the parameters and rules of the game, of course.

OOC: Parameters of the game say you have no choice but to comply in good faith with a passed WA resolution. Its technically not something you see, the game only changes your national states according to the proposal's category and strength, but your nation automatically complies with any passed resolution. Its one of the rules of the WA probably posted somewhere on the forum here.

OOC: Yes, I know the rule....but it really does take a lot of the realism out of the game as in the real world member states of the UN ignore and violate resolutions, acts, and international laws all the time....we should be able to have a debate, via conflict if necessary, like disobeying Acts, over the proper role and expansion of the WA, as there is one in the real world concerning the UN. It is the mission of my member NationState to be anti-WA global governance, just as some in the real world are anti-UN global governance. My nation can symbolically condemn and commend other members, but does not like real actions that intrude on their sovereignty, again, a parallel to real-world issues and discussions.