[PASSED] Trade of Endangered Organisms

[Bears Armed Mission]

Good luck!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thought it just fair to inform you that I have filed a challenge based on the category. "This isn't strong enough for that Environmental AoE" is not a good enough excuse for a random category switch without touching the active clauses. Especially not after the mods said it was ok to have mild-strength proposals in Environmental (at least in the subcategories, but it might've been for the "All" one as well).

[Western Evilly]

I would argue this actually fits more into International Security than any other category the way it is written.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: Thought it just fair to inform you that I have filed a challenge based on the category. "This isn't strong enough for that Environmental AoE" is not a good enough excuse for a random category switch without touching the active clauses. Especially not after the mods said it was ok to have mild-strength proposals in Environmental (at least in the subcategories, but it might've been for the "All" one as well).

OOC II: OOC HARDER: This proposal has been dinged by GenSec, who have asked the mods to take it down. It hasn't been removed yet, but it'll happen before votign on the Foreign Patents Act closes.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The author is encouraged to resubmit this proposal under the Environmental - All Businesses category

[Ransium]

Well the category is back to environmental all industries. I guess I'm likely to re-submit this eventually, but I have zero desire to conduct a new telegraph campaign at the moment. So for now, what other thoughts do folks have on this draft?

[Araraukar]

I would argue this actually fits more into International Security than any other category the way it is written.

I really hope you're joking. And if you're not, I suggest you read the proposal rules, paying extra care when reading about categories.

*snip*

OOC: That very much reads like gloating. Why are you gloating? Everyone makes mistakes.

Well the category is back to environmental all industries. I guess I'm likely to re-submit this eventually, but I have zero desire to conduct a new telegraph campaign at the moment. So for now, what other thoughts do folks have on this draft?

OOC: I'm too tired to check (and the forums are acting wonky, with graphics missing half the time, so I'm going to get out ASAP before they implode), but did you go back to your original preamble that you had before the category change stuff?

[Western Evilly]

I would argue this actually fits more into International Security than any other category the way it is written.

I really hope you're joking. And if you're not, I suggest you read the proposal rules, paying extra care when reading about categories.

Why would I be joking. Let's look at the proposal shall we?

Applauding its members' continued efforts on the preservation of endangered organisms,

Concerned that illegal collection and smuggling of endangered organisms could undermine preservation efforts,

Noting the loss of endangered species has the potential to cause extreme harm to member nations populations; such as possibly hindering the development of life saving medicines and industrial materials, and the destruction of ecosystem services,

Believing that because extinction is irreversible, and letting a species that currently exists in only one nation become extinct therefore permanently renders all nations incapable of ever acquiring populations of that species, member nations have a moral obligation -- not only to their own peoples today, but also to future generations of those peoples and to the international community -- to take action against such illegal collection and smuggling;

Fluff.

1. Instructs the World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) and WA member nation's governments to cooperate with each other in creating and maintaining up-to-date lists of the populations of species and subspecies that qualify as 'Endangered';

Okay this creates bureaucracy which could put it into environmental but I am not overly convinced.

2. Bans the international import and export into or from member nations of all organisms from endangered species or subspecies, and of goods derived wholly or in part from said organisms, unless any of the following exemptions applies:

They are specimens or goods that are being collected or being returned as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;
They are specimens or goods derived from specimens that originate from a non-wild source such as a farm, laboratory, or nursery, and are birthed, grown, or hatched from seeds, spores, eggs or other material, that itself was collected from a non-wild source or as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;
They are commercial, scientific, or other goods that were derived from specimens under the guidance of a species restoration program and collected in a manner which does not further endanger the species;
They are durable goods such as lumber, which can be historically or scientifically proven to have been processed before the species was first noted as being endangered by WAESC;
They are unintentionally distributed reproductive or other microscopic materials such as seeds, pollen, eggs or spores in trace amounts that are in or on other trade goods;

Key word "Bans". May fit into environmental as well.

3. Requires member nations to ardently enforce measures designed to stop the illegal collection and international trade of endangered species and products derived from them, within their jurisdictions;

4. Urges member nations to pass legislation preventing transporting and profiting from endangered species and products derived from them, within their own borders.

Ding ding ding! Enforcement. Enforcement requires a significant boost to police spending does it not? Also requires nations to increase spending to prevent the transportation of endangered species into their nations. That is going to significantly increase police spending as well.

Like I said, International Security. And for the record please don't patronize me. I am fully cognizant of the rules thanks.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Like I said, International Security.

Again, that would make every proposal that requires any enforcement, IS, and that's frankly preposterous. When you look at what is being enforced here, it's clearly an Environmental matter.

Note that I do not agree with any of this being an excuse for these resolutions needing to be in the IS category.

Prevention of Torture, Human Rights: "10. Any person making an accusation of torture within any member nation’s jurisdiction has the right to impartial investigation thereof.

11. If there is an accusation or probable cause exists to believe that an act of torture has been committed, the competent authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case, and to initiate the corresponding criminal process."

Clearly that requires increased police spending.

Convention Against Genocide, Human Rights: "4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings."

Clearly requires increased police spending.

Endangered Species Protection, Environmental: All Businesses: "- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations (Described later)."

According to you enforcing (requiring restrictions on hunting) that requires increased police spending.

On Female Genital Mutilation, Human Rights: "REQUIRE member states to treat the infliction of FGM upon an individual, or causing FGM to be inflicted upon an individual under one's authority or control, as a criminal act, with penalties appropriate for the barbarism of the act;

INSIST that member states likewise criminalize the act of traveling outside the nation for the purpose of inflicting FGM or having FGM inflicted upon an individual;"

Criminalizing and requiring penalties of something would obviously make it a police matter, hence requiring increased spending.

Convention On Wartime Deceased, Moral Decency: "DEMANDS that states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle,"

Since "field of battle" and military are specifically mentioned, a reasonable assumption would be that military (and possibly police, if after conflict) spending would have to be increased (if for nothing else, then better training of soldiers, and someone watching over the bodies until they can be buried).

Forced Marriages Ban Act, Human Rights: "5. Recommends that member states establish special law enforcement divisions to investigate claims of forced marriage and communities that supposedly countenance such unions."

Literally mentions increased police spending. ("Only" a recommends clause, but was so clear that I included it.)

Concerning Financial Fraud, Free Trade: "3. Member-states shall take all practical, effective preventative measures, including the creation of domestic laws, in order to eliminate financial fraud,"

Unless everyone's magically obeying a law, that would require increased law enforcement spending.

Prevention of Child Abuse, Human Rights: "MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse;"

Criminalised and investigated, sounds like law enforcement spending to me.

Sexual Autonomy Guarantee, Human Rights: "REQUIRES that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution, including efforts to protect the victim from a repeated attack by the perpetrator, regardless of whether the victim and perpetrator are in a marriage, or similar relationship, or not,"

Response to crime and protection of victims, increased police spending.

Biological Warfare Convention, Global Disarmament: "3. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the production, sale, or transfer of biological agents (and/or the components necessary in their construction) from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this resolution;"

Again going by your way of defining such restrictions, enforcing that would necessarily require an increase in police/military spending.

Sensible Limits on Hunting, Moral Decency (disputed): "2. Requires all member nations to regulate hunting within their borders, according to relevant expert advice, so as to keep the animal stocks involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels (except that they need not protect ‘invasive’ species, species parasitic on people or domestic livestock, or species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people);"
and
"4. Requires member nations to prohibit the sale and use of meat or other goods obtained by illegal hunting;"

According to you, enforcing both would require police spending.

Protecting Migratory Animals, Environmental: All Businesses: "3. Mandates that, where a migratory animal species ranges or migrates across international borders, member nations must collaborate with other nations to preserve and protect the animal's habitat and migratory path;

4. Requires member nations to restrain individuals, businesses, and organizations within their jurisdiction from unreasonably degrading the integrity of migratory animal populations living in, or traveling through, the territory of any nation;"

According to you enforcing such restrictions requires increased police funding.

Reducing Spills and Leaks, Environmental: All Businesses: "4. Requires that nations deny entry to their territory to any transport owned and/or operated by an entity that does not follow SaLDA recommendations as outlined by clause 2 and which is carrying materials the nation to be transited considers capable of causing a spill or leak,"

Increasing border security sounds very much like increased police/military spending.

Child Pornography Ban, Moral Decency: bans a lot of stuff and then says "MANDATES that nations treat violations of this resolution as criminal offenses, and proceed accordingly."

As criminal offences, the "proceed accordingly" would necessarily involve police actions and thus raise police funding.

Rules of Surrender, Human Rights: "MANDATES that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of these Articles a war crime, and exercise their jurisdiction over violators appropriately."

War crimes and having to deal with them as such sounds like increased funding for law enforcement is needed.

Wartime Looting and Pillage, Human Rights: "6. Member states shall consider actions deliberately contrary to these provisions to be wartime looting, and therefore a war crime, and shall take all necessary steps to prevent it within their jurisdiction."
and
"3. Member states’ military forces are obliged to limit deliberate targeting of civilian property, except where such action is rendered an absolutely military necessity, and shall take all possible steps to protect civilian property from destruction in the territory they effectively control."
and
"5. Member states shall consider actions deliberately contrary to these provisions to be wartime pillaging, and therefore a war crime, and shall take all necessary steps to prevent it within their jurisdiction."

War crimes, protecting civilian property, sounds like increased military spending (and possibly police, depending on how war crimes are handled in that nation).

Protected Status in Wartime, Human Rights: "5. Member states shall consider actions contrary to the provisions of this law to be an abuse of protected status in wartime, and therefore an illegal war crime."

War crimes again, repeat the above.

Proscription on Living Shields, Human Rights: "3. Member states shall consider the use of individuals as living shields in the course of armed conflict illegal and a war crime.

4. Member states shall consider the use of individuals as living shields to be an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting or otherwise dealing with violators of international law, and are encouraged to take the necessary steps to protect those hostages from harm."

War crimes, prosecution, protection of hostages during wartime, increased military and law enforcement spending.

To Prevent Dangerous Debris, Environmental: Manufacturing: "REQUIRES member nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects from their territory into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions,"

Such prevention, when talking about orbital insertion process, sounds at the very least like military having to be involved.

Explosive Remnants of War, Health: International Aid: "Member states are required to take steps towards demarcating and demining or quarantining aforementioned sites, and publicize the process in the interests of public health and safety.

Member states are required to ensure their humanitarian demining operations utilize methods that, collectively, ensure a clearance rate of 99.7% for a particular site, and ensure compliance with ERWAS inspection findings."

In most nations at least such operations would require the military (and possibly police) being involved.

Environmental Warfare Act, Global Disarmament: "2. PROHIBITS member nations from carrying out acts of environmental warfare against other nations,

3. MANDATES member nations take reasonable action to prevent those in their nation from carrying out acts of environmental warfare abroad, and to guard against such acts within their own borders,"

Ban and requirement to enforce it, according to you that raises police spending.

EDIT: After going through the list of extant resolutions, I can say that the WA clearly has a serious crush on International Security anyway.

[Ransium]

*snip*.

For some reason I'm not in the mood for this debate. The category I'm filling this under is Environmental/All Industries. If you feel that category is illegal for this proposal please file a challenge now.

[Bears Armed Mission]

And I'm pushing the management for the introduction -- as has been discussed in the past -- of an 'Environmental (Mild)' option, which I think would be useful anyway in addition to being one whose use would -- I hope -- be considered an acceptable compromise in this particular case.

[Ransium]

Okay, so you would like me to table this until we get a definitive answer on Environment/mild? Could be a while...

[Glen-Rhodes]

You've been given the go-ahead for Environmental - All Businesses. It's up to you if you want to wait. New categories tend to take a while to implement.

[Bears Armed]

If you do decide to re-submit the proposal as 'Environmental (All Businesses)' then that's fair enough given the ruling, and I accept that you might not want to wait for the milder option to become available... but if you do do that then please remove my co-author credit from the proposal.

[Ransium]

Given the amount of work you've put into this proposal, I feel not listing you as a co-author would be intellectually dishonest. I'm putting this proposal on hold until further notice.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

With sincere apologies for the delay in delivering these opinions, here they are. We're taking procedural steps to ensure future promptitude; I also believe the perfect storm of exams, a new baby, and other RL concerns contributed to the delay in a way that's highly unlikely to arise so broadly again.

*** Official Opinion of the Secretariat ***

We were asked to assess the legality of the submitted resolution "Trade of Endangered Organisms." We ruled 3-2 that it was illegal. Bears Armed, as co-author, recused himself from voting.

Majority opinion (Sierra Lyricalia, joined by Glen-Rhodes and Christian Democrats):

We are asked to determine if the proposal Trade of Endangered Organisms ("ToEO") is illegal for a category violation. This proposal was submitted as Moral Decency ("MD"); we find the proposal too broad to fit in MD, and thus illegal.

Moral Decency is a category designed to restrict the personal freedoms of individuals in order to promote a greater good; to constrain personal conduct because society as a whole becomes more virtuous as a result. From one perspective, all law is on some level a moral decency act, a restriction of individual power to benefit society; without getting into a genealogy of rules, NationStates specifically is set up to differentiate areas of the law based pragmatically on what parts of society they affect. MD in this scheme is simply that part of the law that primarily restricts individuals in the personal (rather than the political or economic) sphere.

ToEO prohibits a substantial amount of economic activity and requires that nations "ardently enforce" measures to halt that activity. The obvious real-world analogue is CITES, the treaty forming the basis of the international ban on ivory. Killing members of an endangered species may well be morally unacceptable, and a law against it thus enacted to restrict personal conduct for moralistic ends. But the most noticeable consequence of the way this proposal bans such killings isn't a reduction of the personal freedom of would-be poachers, it is the loss of profits to those caught trading in the products of those animals. Therefore, since ToEO acts primarily on economic rights for the benefit of the ecosystem, it properly belongs under Environmental and is thus illegal as submitted.

Dissenting opinion (Separatist Peoples, joined by Sciongrad):

I must respectfully dissent from the majority decision. In my view, while this properly belongs in the Environmental category, it does fit in Moral Decency. It restricts the individual's nonpolitical rights. I believe the appropriate test for category violations should not be one determining the best category and so requiring it, but one where there is a violation only if the resolution has no impacts which could reasonably fit into the selected category. I feel it is unduly restrictive and paternalistic toward the players to tell them not only what categories are illegal, but what are legal on their face but otherwise "wrong".

In this case, the resolution seeks to restrict individual nonpolitical freedoms to engage in certain natural resource collection. This is a restriction of individual rights which is the category requirement for Moral Decency, and it is reasonable to assume that there are category-imposed impacts on private action by individuals, even though the greater impact is on individual and business' economic rights.

I also dissent with the notion that precedent be overturned. A precedential system works best when precedents are not overturned unless there is no alternative. There is no purpose in a precedential system where previous decisions are ignored lightly. Here there is an alternative: The precedent set by Sensible Limits on Hunting is not so damaging that it cannot stand. It represents a minor option to choose the best of two options for an incredibly narrow kind of resolution, and need not be tossed aside.

[Kitzerland]

1. Who had a baby? Are there any cute baby picture?
2. So, this would be legal in the environmental category?

[Ransium]

1. Who had a baby? Are there any cute baby picture?
2. So, this would be legal in the environmental category?

To 2) Yes, but Bears Armed asked that if I submit this as Environmental - All Industry I remove him as co-author, which I am not comfortable doing. Bears Armed has asked admin for an Environmental Category - Mild and I will submit the proposal under that category when/if it is made.

[Araraukar]

Bears Armed has asked admin for an Environmental Category - Mild and I will submit the proposal under that category when/if it is made.

OOC: Strengths have been asked for the Environmental category for ages, so I wouldn't hold my breath in Bears's request having much more effect than others'. But of course if he can somehow blackmail/bribe the admins into adding it, that'd be great.

If/when you decide to come back to working on this proposal, please give people enough time to comment on it, rather than submitting it straightaway?

[Ransium]

Bears Armed has asked admin for an Environmental Category - Mild and I will submit the proposal under that category when/if it is made.

OOC: Strengths have been asked for the Environmental category for ages, so I wouldn't hold my breath in Bears's request having much more effect than others'. But of course if he can somehow blackmail/bribe the admins into adding it, that'd be great.

If/when you decide to come back to working on this proposal, please give people enough time to comment on it, rather than submitting it straightaway?

I'm not exactly worried about it. I have plenty to do with my recreational time that'll probably benefit the game more.

[Ransium]

Bears has agreed to stay as a co-author if I submit this as Environmental - All Industries; I'm therefore breathing new life into this draft. I know many here my not have been around when I drafted this or see the new resolution in a new light now, so I'll let this kick around for several weeks at least before submitting again.

[Uan aa Boa]

I think this is excellent, so in making any suggestion I'm being a bit nitpicking - but would you consider giving more weight to the ecosystems services angle and less to the future medical and industrial materials? Obviously a rare species might one day yield a cure for cancer, but it's a long shot and emphasising this argument risks, I think, looking like a post facto rationalisation. In contrast, it's beyond dispute that sapients do benefit on many levels from functioning ecosystems and this is where the genuine reasons for environmental preservation lie. Despite this, "ecosystem services" is far from a universally recognised term. Perhaps a little explanation of the concept would strengthen the case and avoid voters having to pause to look the term up using the tax-paying search engine of their choice.

[Aclion]

My only concern is that the term species restoration program comes up twice, without explanation. Is it a term I should be familiar with or it meant to be generic?

Also thank you for addressing my earlier concerns regarding it's effect on conservation programs.

OOC: Oh It's this one! I like this one.

[Imperium Anglorum]

My only concern is that the term species restoration program comes up twice, without explanation. Is it a term I should be familiar with or it meant to be generic?

OOC: Presumably, it is a term referring to programmes which attempt to effect the restoration of some species.

[Aclion]

snip

If you're saying it is meant to be generic you can do it without acting like an ass.