Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: One of the main reasons people voted against "Ban on Secret Treaties" seems to have been the joke contained in the definition. Honestly, humour is a very risky move in an already contentions proposal. This is serious businesses!)Wallenburg wrote:I guess "Make Legislation Funny Again" is dead. People just can't take a joke. I'll be sure to remove the joke in clause 5 once I go back to drafting this.
You seem to forget that Ban on Secret Treaties passed with a healthy majority, and has not seen any repeal attempts reach the general vote.
"It is an international issue when foreigners bring invasive species into the country."
(2) We acknowledge, of course, that the import and export of goods, or trade, is an issue of international concern; but customs is not. By "customs," we refer to the administration of laws on trade and the collection of duties.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/customs
It is legitimate for the World Assembly to make laws on trade; but, as a general rule, the member states should administer them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_administration
"Member states would administer these mandates. The committee created in clause five only deals with removal of invasive species within member states, it is not involved in the inspection of international trade or the administration of penalties for infested goods."
Kolm wrote:I support this type of resolution; however, the proposal put forth does not match what I believe to be the best suitable option. I do not think we need another committee; rather, add it as a responsibility upheld by another existing committee.
Which committee do you suggest?
Furthermore, flamethrowers and other "violent" means of removal are not the best options; it would potentially damage the environment.
Acceptable losses.