[PASSED] Vehicle Emissions Convention

[Abacathea]

Nui Magna cannot endorse the Vehicle Emissions Convention due to its omission of a few key details: namely, 1. how nations shall be nominated to the International Vehicular Emissions Authority, 2. what criteria the IVEA will use to determine whether nations are properly progressing, and 3. what constitutes "proportionate funding" of research into greener technologies. We feel the Vehicle Emissions Convention allows the IVEA too much freedom to determine what constitutes as proper adherence to the bill, which opens the possibility for discrimination against nations (that, while unlikely, could happen if certain nations are nominated to the IVEA).

Nui Magna stands for reducing vehicular emissions worldwide and working to protect the environment; however, its government cannot in good faith vote for a bill that omits such crucial details as those aforementioned. We would like this bill to be rejected by the World Assembly and edited to include the details listed above.

I will address the other points in due course as I have seen a lot of nonsense coming from delegates here regarding time frames which is the very thing I didn't want. Especially regarding an ENCOURAGMENT clause. The teeth are in the mandates not the encouragements.

However regarding the council elections... I'm assuming you're not aware that councils are formed in a variety of acts to date. That nations do not sit on. This is clarified in WA rules

[Ylang]

Im against it.

Look where it led to in real life. In the EU countries there are no big engine cars, beside the ones most of the people will never be able to buy, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini, etc. We pay for the size of the engine, thats why most of the cars in the EU have < 2.0, and between 50-150 HP, we pay for the amount of co2 emission, and we pay for the age of the cars, therefore the best old mustang cars, cost a fortune to maintain, in addition to that, police can fine you, for having too loud engine, and thats obvious, that powerful engine will be loud. Thats the point of it.

I will give you an example how EU is destroying car market, you can buy a Corvette C6 Z06 for about 100.000 (my country currency) in the USA, if you want to ship it here, including all the fucking taxes, and other crap you will have to pay, the price of the car is 500.000, this is not a joke, but a fact.

The car, first of all, is meant to give a pleasure of owning it, of driving it. A car, is to show your status in the society, its a priviledge to own a car, not a muss.

I dont own a car, and I will never own one, when someone will be punishing me for it. I use public transport and my bicycle, and I hope to leave rEtarded Union, and go the USA, when I will be buy loud powerful mustang car, where noone tells me, "excusme sir, you cant drive it, since its damaging the environmet".

Look what happened over all the years here, even the shittiest cars now, are expensive. 1.X engine, and HP that barely makes this junk drive on some small hill, this is pathetic.

Im against any norms of co2 emission, and all similar crap. Dont punish people for what they want to drive.

[Abacathea]

OOC: That post was so ignorant it almost made me blind. I live in the eu and drive a monster of an engine and the government has made my 2ltr turbo engine cheaper tax wise than the 1.4 I had before it and by a hundred euro a year too. Why I hear you ask because my goliath Toyota actually produces less co2 than my 1.4 ford did.

Argue that one. Cars are no more a privilege or status symbol than waving your cock in traffic and not getting arrested for it.

[Potted Plants United]

Argue that one. Cars are no more a privilege or status symbol than waving your cock in traffic and not getting arrested for it.

OOC: Thank you for that, I'll try to remember it for future!

IC: "While CO₂ emissions are not a problem for us, we do like the more general approach of the proposal's current form, and thus have voted for it."

[Kara-Osea]

I had this idea during the recent enviro debate and wanted to put it to paper before I lost track of the core elements of it, it's something I like, sensible and seems like an international issue. Furthermore, I believe the last drafting period taught me an awful lot about patience and feedback, so both of which will play a big factor in this endeavor

Vehicular CO2 Emissions Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Automobile manufacturing

Recognising the commitment of member nations to improving the quality of the environment and the willingness of nations to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Believing that the reduction of CO2 emissions is an issue with no simple solutions and no national boundaries and that every nation and industry should accept a collective responsibility and affirmative response attitude.

Noting that among the biggest pollutants known to nations is the automotive industry generally accepted as the car, bus and rail industries both private and industrial and wishing to address these issues specifically;

Defining for the purpose of the act;

(i) automobile as; a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered either fully, or in part by an internal combustion engine.

(ii) CO2 Emissions as; the incombustible gas bi-product released into the atmosphere as a direct result of the burning of coal, gas, diesel and petrol via an internal combustion engine or likewise device.

Hereby;

(i) Mandates a reduction of exhaust emissions from automobiles to a maximum level of 120g/kilometer (or equal unit of distance).

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore sets a target of 5 years (or equal time measurement) for this to be achieved.

(iii) Mandates that all HGV's (heavy goods vehicles) be fitted with a speed limiting device, which will reduce the vehicles ability to produce significant levels of CO2 emissions.

(iv) Mandates in line with clause (iii) the fitting of emission reduction filters to all newly constructed trains, boats and jet engines to reduce CO2 emissions until such a time as mandates (i) and (ii) can be achieved.

(v) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target of 90g/km (or equal unit of distance) to be achieved.

(vi) Encourages governments to offer incentives to the automotive industry to achieve the target set out in clause (v) and furthermore to offer incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce a lower carbon emission than vehicles pre-existing in the marketplace.

(vii) Encourages the automotive industry to set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset carbon emissions from their products

.

Vehicular Emissions Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Automobile manufacturing

Recognizing the commitment of member nations to improving the quality of the environment and the willingness of nations to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Believing that the reduction of CO2 emissions is an issue with no simple solutions and no national boundaries and that every nation and industry should accept a collective responsibility and affirmative response attitude.

Noting that among the biggest pollutants known to nations is the automotive industry generally accepted as the car, bus and rail industries both private and industrial and wishing to address these issues specifically;

Defining for the purpose of the act;

(i) Automobile as; a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered either fully, or in part by an internal combustion engine.

(ii) CO2 Emissions as; the incombustible gas bi-product released into the atmosphere as a direct result of the burning of coal, gas, diesel and petrol via an internal combustion engine or likewise device.

Hereby;

(i) Mandates a reduction of exhaust emissions in all newly constructed automobiles by at least a quarter of each nations current average vehicular emissions.

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore encourages the automotive industry to strive for the target set in clause (i) while mandating regular figures to be provided to government agencies reflecting said improvements and ensuring that all entities are actually progressing towards this goal.

(iii) Mandates that governments allocate an official/official body to review the data from clause (ii) annually to ensure compliance with clause (i) and (ii) respectively.

(v) Mandates the fitting of emission reduction filters to all newly constructed trains, boats, HGV's (heavy goods vehicles) and jet engines (which produce CO2 emissions and do not yet hit the target outlined) to reduce CO2 emissions until such a time as mandate (i) can be achieved.

(vi) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

(vii) Encourages governments to offer incentives to the automotive industry to achieve the target set out in clause (vi) and furthermore to offer incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce a lower carbon emission than vehicles pre-existing in the marketplace.

(viii) Mandates the automotive industry set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset carbon emissions from their products.

.

Draft 3:

Vehicular Emissions Act
Category: Environmental | Area: Automobile manufacturing

Commending the efforts of many WA member nations to improving the quality of the environment and their willingness of to adapt feasible approaches towards achieving this.

Believing that the reduction of waste emissions from the automotive sector is an international issue with significant climate implications, no simple solutions and no national boundaries and that every nation and industry should accept a collective responsibility and affirmative response attitude towards improving.

Noting that waste products/emissions from mechanical forms of transportation such as cars, buses, trains, shipping, and air travel, constitute a significant source of atmospheric pollutants.

Intending to reduce the environmental impact made by WA member nations through their automotive industries and general automotive operations,

Defines for the purpose of this act;

(i) "Automobile" as a vehicle designed for the carriage of goods or people powered either fully, or in part by an internal combustion engine.

(ii) "Emissions" as the harmful gas bi-products released into the atmosphere as a direct result of the burning of carbon-based fuels (such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum products) via an internal combustion engine or likewise device equivalent in function ie; carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

Hereby;

(i) Mandates that member-states take all practical and effective measures to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions, including the institution of a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions produced by automobiles manufactured after the passage of this resolution.

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore encourages the automotive industry to adhere to the progressive schedule of reduction as much as is practicable while mandating regular figures to be provided to government agencies reflecting said improvements and ensuring that all entities are actually progressing towards this goal.

(iii) Mandates the creation of the "International Vehicular Emissions Authority" committee to review the data from clause (ii) annually to ensure compliance with clause (i) and (ii) respectively.

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

(v) Encourages governments to offer incentives to the automotive industry to achieve the target set out in clause (iv).

(vi) Encourages governments to offer incentives to citizens to purchase vehicles which produce lower emissions than others available on the market.

(vii) Mandates the automotive industry set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset emissions from their products.

All thoughts welcomed

Maybe some clauses should be reviewed first. But I see the vision of this Convention, to have an eco-friendly world... We, In the name of our Beloved Nation, we strongly supporting this Resolution.

[Opaloka]

The Workers' & soldiers' government is FOR this act. It is vital that nations take collective action in relation to our shared enviaronment.

[Kidlantis]

Ambassador-General Nickleson takes the floor...

"This resolution is obviously very well written and is an attempt to help the environment. I am for this resolution as vehicle emissions are one of the worst emitters of greenhouse gasses. Kidlantis has already taken steps to stop greenhouse emissions through cars, and applauds this effort to stop global warming. I yield the floor.

[Kringalia]

Although I support overall the effort to decrease carbon emissions I have to vote against the current resolution because I believe it would put unnecessary strains to Kringalia's developing economy. A 75% reduction in emissions would be appropriate if suitable and affordable replacements in energy and technology were available, which they are not, at least in the context of a competitive market. That being said, should that technology were affordable I would support a new resolution.

[Abacathea]

Although I support overall the effort to decrease carbon emissions I have to vote against the current resolution because I believe it would put unnecessary strains to Kringalia's developing economy. A 75% reduction in emissions would be appropriate if suitable and affordable replacements in energy and technology were available, which they are not, at least in the context of a competitive market. That being said, should that technology were affordable I would support a new resolution.

Hence the reason for a progressive schedule to do so, not an immediate requirement.

Furthermore, the 75% reduction is only an encouragement clause. The only immediate mandate is clause (i) - (iii)

[Of the Quendi]

Although I support overall the effort to decrease carbon emissions I have to vote against the current resolution because I believe it would put unnecessary strains to Kringalia's developing economy. A 75% reduction in emissions would be appropriate if suitable and affordable replacements in energy and technology were available, which they are not, at least in the context of a competitive market. That being said, should that technology were affordable I would support a new resolution.

Hence the reason for a progressive schedule to do so, not an immediate requirement.

Furthermore, the 75% reduction is only an encouragement clause. The only immediate mandate is clause (i) - (iii)

"And clause vii, ambassador." Lady Malréd reminded. "Perhaps the most economically damaging of all damaging clauses of your proposal where it not for the ambiguous loophole presented by the word "proportional"."

[Nui Magna]

However regarding the council elections... I'm assuming you're not aware that councils are formed in a variety of acts to date. That nations do not sit on. This is clarified in WA rules

Nui Magna was unaware nations' delegates were not elected to the council. We are a young nation in comparison to many here, so please forgive our lack of knowledge about councils.

If not nations or delegates, then, who sits on councils?

[Suevo-Prussia]

However regarding the council elections... I'm assuming you're not aware that councils are formed in a variety of acts to date. That nations do not sit on. This is clarified in WA rules

Nui Magna was unaware nations' delegates were not elected to the council. We are a young nation in comparison to many here, so please forgive our lack of knowledge about councils.

If not nations or delegates, then, who sits on councils?

The gnomes do. And they are a rather annoying species.

[Abacathea]

Nui Magna was unaware nations' delegates were not elected to the council. We are a young nation in comparison to many here, so please forgive our lack of knowledge about councils.

If not nations or delegates, then, who sits on councils?

The gnomes do. And they are a rather annoying species.

We suspected as much so no worries.

As for Prussia's statement... Annoying... But efficient

[Parinis]

I know, and hope, that most member nations would have the sense to use "practical and effective" measures that may not endanger the populace in some form or way. I will vote for the resolution as my qualms may be unwarranted and just over thinking a possibility. But I fear that perhaps some member nations will use "practical and effective" measures at the expense of safety or any human rights within certain nations. Now, as I said, my worries may be me over thinking a possibility, but if someone could put my worries at ease with a logical explanation to why this may not happen, I would be grateful.

[Bedford Isles]

While our nation and His Majesty agree about the importance of the environment, however global mandates are not the solution. Why not let the market determine the value of the planet? This decision doesn't represent the consumer's personal values; but rather, it oppresses. Population controls and agricultural alterations would better serve the planet than a forced operation of standards.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Three small penguins walk up to the podium.

"Ladies and gentlemen," one of the penguins begins. "Global warming is a myth and so too is this whole notion of carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide, while really a great idea in the very high upper atmosphere, is exceptionally dangerous to life forms in the lower atmosphere. It makes people in cities sick and it can kill the weak. In addition, 'Health effects associated with a single exposure to hydrocarbons are asphyxiation, narcosis (ie depression of the central nervous system; anaesthesia), cardiac arrest and aspiration.' And finally I should point out that, 'Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma.'"

The second penguin then continues, "While these points of data might suggest that such pollution depends more on the density of life forms - in other words the city is more at risk than the middle of the Antarctic plains - the general nature of these emissions - minus the carbon dioxide - is generally anathema to life as we know it."

"Fortunately," the third penguin adds, "we have a really crappy resolution ..."

"You aren't supposed to mention that," the first penguin retorts.

"That is exceptionally general," the third penguin continued, ignoring the first's penguin's retort. "You see it describes a number of pollutants and suggests a target. Does this target apply to all pollutants or to some, or an average of some kind. If we really work hard to eliminate the really deadly ones, what does that mean to the not so deadly ones. As you can see, there is vagueness in this resolution. Vagueness is good."

"Therefore," the first penguin replied. "Since our representative is off on a tropical island trying to pimp himself for the position of regional delegate, who would normally vote against this bill on general stat wank principles and because he has stock in our automobile industry, we will vote for this resolution. However, please leave the CO2 alone; we need it in the atmosphere in order to transform atmospheric CO2 into the worlds largest diamond ever designed by a sentient life form."

"You're not supposed to mention that," the third penguin retorted.

"Did you know a one metric ton diamond is basically five million carats," the first penguin replied. "Well now you know."

"There are a lot of metric tons in the atmosphere," the second penguin added. "I'll let you imagine how big our diamond is."

[Flugenstein]

(i) Mandates that member-states take all practical and effective measures to make a meaningful and good-faith effort towards reducing vehicular emissions, including the institution of a progressive schedule of reduction in the amount of emissions produced by automobiles manufactured after the passage of this resolution.

(ii) Understands that the automotive industry by nature goes through developmental stages and therefore encourages the automotive industry to adhere to the progressive schedule of reduction as much as is practicable while mandating regular figures to be provided to government agencies reflecting said improvements and ensuring that all entities are actually progressing towards this goal.

(iii) Mandates the creation of the "International Vehicular Emissions Authority" committee to review the data from clause (ii) annually to ensure compliance with clause (i) and (ii) respectively.

What is to stop a country from not complying? Will the committee who reviews the data actually have the power to enforce this law? What would the repercussion be for not obeying this law?

(iv) Encourages the automotive industry to set a target and strive towards said target of a 75% reduction in vehicle emissions in comparison to current levels.

Will this be in a certain amount of time? What is the timetable on this goal? And will all nations have to reduce from 75% of their current levels? What about nations who have not tried to reduce emissions at all, will they not have a far easier time converting to cleaner technology than a country who has already made strides? It sounds like we are not rewarding those nations who have tried to reduce emissions.

(vii) Mandates the automotive industry set aside proportionate funding to research and develop engines and technologies which will further offset emissions from their products.

Proportionate to what exactly? Their overall spending or is it equal for all? What if a company does not do this? They will become more competitive than others who do.

[United Federation of Canada]

Flugenstein wrote:

What is to stop a country from not complying? Will the committee who reviews the data actually have the power to enforce this law? What would the repercussion be for not obeying this law?

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Votes For: 7,501 (75%)
Votes Against: 2,511 (25%)

Implemented: Fri Apr 11 2008

[Libertas Liber]

Flugenstein wrote:

What is to stop a country from not complying? Will the committee who reviews the data actually have the power to enforce this law? What would the repercussion be for not obeying this law?

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Votes For: 7,501 (75%)
Votes Against: 2,511 (25%)

Implemented: Fri Apr 11 2008

However, there is not solid definition of what is "good faith effort" in this resolution. The committees have no standard by which to judge. We can sit and argue all day on what is "good faith," but in the end it's subjective. By reducing emissions by .01% a year, the Republic would still be in compliance with the resolution in that we would be moving towards cutting emissions rather than raising them.

Not only that, but as previously mentioned, there has still not been a good argument brought against the resolution's lack in recognizing nations with already low emission levels. They, too, will be subject to reducing emission levels. Then of course since this resolution lacks solid language they won't have to follow it.

The point is: there is no proper guideline. The situation could be likened to creating a new measurement without defining it.

Pax et bonum,

Ambassador Raedan Oferus

[Abacathea]

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Votes For: 7,501 (75%)
Votes Against: 2,511 (25%)

Implemented: Fri Apr 11 2008

However, there is not solid definition of what is "good faith effort" in this resolution. The committees have no standard by which to judge. We can sit and argue all day on what is "good faith," but in the end it's subjective. By reducing emissions by .01% a year, the Republic would still be in compliance with the resolution in that we would be moving towards cutting emissions rather than raising them.

Not only that, but as previously mentioned, there has still not been a good argument brought against the resolution's lack in recognizing nations with already low emission levels. They, too, will be subject to reducing emission levels. Then of course since this resolution lacks solid language they won't have to follow it.

The point is: there is no proper guideline. The situation could be likened to creating a new measurement without defining it.

Pax et bonum,

Ambassador Raedan Oferus

See this is the part of the WA debate thats gone on within this thread since it started that i find absolutely ridiculous and want to slap each and every nation who mentions it, in fact, i might just start slapping the next few nations that do.

"We want a defineable amount of reductions, which this act doesn't provide."
"Oh, but that 75% at the end there... thats.... thats ridiculous"
Are you shitting me? Cake, eat it, really? The reason no defined scale has been provided is due to the ever present "tech level" issue which gets tossed around so often here, we can't force all nations to hit X by Y that would be unreasonable.

As for the secondary issue nations who are currently at low levels of emissions, are still not at nil. And no nation so far that I can recall off hand has claimed to be at nil, so reducing those levels is still a positive, even if it is only by .1%, it's still .1% less per vehicle, released to the atmosphere, this all adds up on a global scale.

[Libertas Liber]

However, there is not solid definition of what is "good faith effort" in this resolution. The committees have no standard by which to judge. We can sit and argue all day on what is "good faith," but in the end it's subjective. By reducing emissions by .01% a year, the Republic would still be in compliance with the resolution in that we would be moving towards cutting emissions rather than raising them.

Not only that, but as previously mentioned, there has still not been a good argument brought against the resolution's lack in recognizing nations with already low emission levels. They, too, will be subject to reducing emission levels. Then of course since this resolution lacks solid language they won't have to follow it.

The point is: there is no proper guideline. The situation could be likened to creating a new measurement without defining it.

Pax et bonum,

Ambassador Raedan Oferus

See this is the part of the WA debate thats gone on within this thread since it started that i find absolutely ridiculous and want to slap each and every nation who mentions it, in fact, i might just start slapping the next few nations that do.

"We want a defineable amount of reductions, which this act doesn't provide."
"Oh, but that 75% at the end there... thats.... thats ridiculous"
Are you shitting me? Cake, eat it, really? The reason no defined scale has been provided is due to the ever present "tech level" issue which gets tossed around so often here, we can't force all nations to hit X by Y that would be unreasonable.

As for the secondary issue nations who are currently at low levels of emissions, are still not at nil. And no nation so far that I can recall off hand has claimed to be at nil, so reducing those levels is still a positive, even if it is only by .1%, it's still .1% less per vehicle, released to the atmosphere, this all adds up on a global scale.

I can see how frustrating it is to have your resolution torn apart for valid reasons. If there is no definitive amount, no standard, what is the point of passing this resolution?

It strikes me as a motivational poster hanging in my office to "encourage" everyone to be their best everyday. The difference however is that this will be one expensive and huge poster which will ultimately be a waste of time and money for all parties involved.

Nations will be allowed to carry on tomorrow if this passes as they are today. They can get by with minor reductions in emissions being released and they will be considered "effort."

Pax et bonum,

Ambassador Raedan Oferus

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra rises, shaking her head. She had rather liked Rowan's new friends, too. "For Eireann Fae's part, we don't want a 'defineable amount of reductions', we want a target of low or zero emissions. Mandate the goal, not the method. Seventy-five percent is ridiculous, and I can't believe you're being so damned obtuse as to not see it. The 'tech level' issue would not even be an issue if you had assigned a real target, and not tried to sloppily shoehorn a means of getting to it."

"And for the record, Eireann Fae is a zero emissions nation. We don't use modern technology - certainly not cars - and thus have no emissions to reduce, by 75% or any other number you care to pull out of your ass. And like I said before, you're putting an awfully unfair burden on low-emissions nations, because they have to work exponentially harder to reduce their emissions by 75% more than what may actually be lower than what other nations would now be striving for."

Alex closes her eyes for a moment and takes a deep breath. When she opens them, the gaze she levels at the Abacathean ambassador is neutral - any other national representative may have gotten one of her famous cold glares. "Face it, Chombers. Your resolution, while no doubt being drafted with the best intentions, is trash. It needs re-working. You know Eireann Fae supports a clean environment - our history here is evidence enough of that. We just want it done right, and you're not doing it right with this proposal. You're doing it very, very wrong. The worst part of it is, you won't even man up and admit the mistake."

[Outer Triangulum]

If passed, the Senate of the Allied States of Outer Triangulum has no intention of ratifying this convention for these reasons:

1. The government does not consider anthropogenic climate change to be a settled science.
2. The World Assembly should not attempt to reach into the domestic economies of states.
3. The government doesn't have the constitutional authority to enforce CO2 standards.

Therefore, Outer Triangulum voted no.

[Libertas Liber]

If passed, the Senate of the Allied States of Outer Triangulum has no intention of ratifying this convention for these reasons:

1. The government does not consider anthropogenic climate change to be a settled science.
2. The World Assembly should not attempt to reach into the domestic economies of states.
3. The government doesn't have the constitutional authority to enforce CO2 standards.

Therefore, Outer Triangulum voted no.

To the ambassador from Outer Triangulum,

Unfortunately, whether we want to or not, passed resolutions must be enforced in all World Assembly member states. This is not an option.

On a side note, this resolution doesn't have any solid language that mandates you to drastically cut emissions and therefor its damage, if any, will be minimal.

Pax et bonum,

Ambassador Raedan Oferus

[Auralia]

Unfortunately, whether we want to or not, passed resolutions must be enforced in all World Assembly member states. This is not an option.

We disagree, and would appreciate it if the notion of "mandatory compliance" is not presented as irrefutable fact.