[PASSED] Ensuring Commercial Vessel Navigation

[Terttia]

However, if there wasn’t a definition in my opinion, member states could abuse the definition of “commercial vessel” for their own benefit.

Fine. All vessels that sail under the Wayneactian flag are now commissioned vessels of the government, and thus exempt.

I wish you good luck with undertaking the monetary challenge of turning them into military vessels.

[WayNeacTia]

Fine. All vessels that sail under the Wayneactian flag are now commissioned vessels of the government, and thus exempt.

I wish you good luck with undertaking the monetary challenge of turning them into military vessels.

What monetary challenge? We nationalize all vessels. Once commissioned they are technically military vessels. Military vessels need not be armed.

[Ransium]

This proposal will be at vote in an hour.

[Araraukar]

This proposal will be at vote in an hour.

OOC: Though I dislike the definition, let's see how it does at vote. If it doesn't pass, we're going to have to do some rewriting anyway, and can then fiddle with the definition. EDIT: It's now at vote. Perhaps unsurprisingly, voted for.

[Bavmorda]

This resolution violates my nations sovereignty by taking away my rights to police and protect my own waters as I see fit. Furthermore it requires me to release potentially dangerous sensitive information about shipping routes to anyone that wants them. My shipping will be forced into an established route that will make it easier for pirates to find targets. Add to this fact that pirates will have access to detailed maps and charts of my entire coastal system. Shipping in many regions stand to be crippled by this short sighted resolution.

Samhain of Bavmorda

[Kenmoria]

This resolution violates my nations sovereignty by taking away my rights to police and protect my own waters as I see fit. Furthermore it requires me to release potentially dangerous sensitive information about shipping routes to anyone that wants them. My shipping will be forced into an established route that will make it easier for pirates to find targets. Add to this fact that pirates will have access to detailed maps and charts of my entire coastal system. Shipping in many regions stand to be crippled by this short sighted resolution.

Samhain of Bavmorda

“The proposal in question, ambassador, only requires the release of shipping routes to those commercial vessels that are allowed within your territorial waters and EEZ, which would presumably not include pirates. Furthermore, Bavmorda’s national sovereignty is not being violated in a particularly egregious way by this proposal; this legislation regulates some quite easily achievable and non-contentious actions.)

[Terttia]

This resolution violates my nations sovereignty by taking away my rights to police and protect my own waters as I see fit. Furthermore it requires me to release potentially dangerous sensitive information about shipping routes to anyone that wants them. My shipping will be forced into an established route that will make it easier for pirates to find targets. Add to this fact that pirates will have access to detailed maps and charts of my entire coastal system. Shipping in many regions stand to be crippled by this short sighted resolution.

Samhain of Bavmorda

This resolution ideally lowers the rate of shipping accidents, furthering member nations’ economies.

[Saturna1ia]

Question:
Is it a fair assessment that this resolution does not apply to personal, recreational vessels? And if so, even if said recreational vessels are large enough to traverse the oceans/seas between territorial waters?

[Australian rePublic]

I agree with everything until we get to section 4. The government/WA shouldn't be telling people how to do their jobs

[Bavmorda]

It is our position that any strategic information concerning our waterways should be classified and not made public knowledge. The existing GPS system, NAV buoys, and channel markers combined with our experienced water pilots are more than adequate to serve our shipping traffic. This has been done for decades without the need for such sensitive information. This information in the wrong hands can be used to harm maritime traffic or even disrupt it completely. We can not in good conscience vote for this measure and urge others to vote against it as well.

[Verdant Haven]

Question:
Is it a fair assessment that this resolution does not apply to personal, recreational vessels? And if so, even if said recreational vessels are large enough to traverse the oceans/seas between territorial waters?

The resolution provides no size-based definition, but rather applies quite specifically to commercial vessels, which it defines as "non-military vessels that transport cargo and/or passengers for hire." As such, a personal, recreational vessel of any size would not be subject to this resolution's regulation.

[Bavmorda]

The resolution provides no size-based definition, but rather applies quite specifically to commercial vessels, which it defines as "non-military vessels that transport cargo and/or passengers for hire." As such, a personal, recreational vessel of any size would not be subject to this resolution's regulation.

This is part of my issue right here...Any boat that carries passengers for hire, There is no limit given. So a fishing vessel can carry passengers for hire! As long as they show that they meet this guideline i must provide them with the maps and charts they need with all reliant information contained within. This is a massive breach of security! A boat scuttled in a strategic location could devastate our national shipping lanes. Like wise undersea topographical maps could reveal sensitive information we do not want released to the public.

[Kenmoria]

Question:
Is it a fair assessment that this resolution does not apply to personal, recreational vessels? And if so, even if said recreational vessels are large enough to traverse the oceans/seas between territorial waters?

(OOC: That is correct; this proposal applies only to commercial vessels, as defined in the legislation.)

[Saturna1ia]

The biggest concern Saturna1ia has with this resolution is the mandate in Clause 4; Section b.
"have their planned route pre-approved by the member states whose waters they will be traversing,"

It is understandable that member states and their respective ports know when, where, and how many commercial vessels are docking and leaving to manage the shipping lanes within their internal and territorial waters. That said, what is the punishment for commercial vessels that enter a port or territorial water without pre-approval? And what of disputed territorial waters? Does the approval of both member states that make a claim to the waters have to be received? None of these issues are addressed, and so leave even more ambiguity in the already ambiguous field known as maritime law.

[Terttia]

The biggest concern Saturna1ia has with this resolution is the mandate in Clause 4; Section b.
"have their planned route pre-approved by the member states whose waters they will be traversing,"

It is understandable that member states and their respective ports know when, where, and how many commercial vessels are docking and leaving to manage the shipping lanes within their internal and territorial waters. That said, what is the punishment for commercial vessels that enter a port or territorial water without pre-approval? And what of disputed territorial waters? Does the approval of both member states that make a claim to the waters have to be received? None of these issues are addressed, and so leave even more ambiguity in the already ambiguous field known as maritime law.

The WA shouldn’t be in the business of deciding punishments in my opinion. That is the job of member states.

Disputed waters (I haven’t checked any passed resolutions for this subject; could have been already dealt with) could be a resolution all on its own.

[Verdant Haven]

This is part of my issue right here...Any boat that carries passengers for hire, There is no limit given. So a fishing vessel can carry passengers for hire! As long as they show that they meet this guideline i must provide them with the maps and charts they need with all reliant information contained within. This is a massive breach of security! A boat scuttled in a strategic location could devastate our national shipping lanes. Like wise undersea topographical maps could reveal sensitive information we do not want released to the public.

"We understand elements of your concerns with regard to the release of classified undersea data, but believe that the language of the resolution provides sufficient leeway in the interpretation of which charts much be released to provide sufficient protections. As commerical vessels are only permitted these charts if granted your nation's authorization to operate, and must file routing information prior to receiving that authorization, it is our interpretation that only those charts relevant to the authorized operating area must be provided. This is no more than what is already expected in any developed nation, as no professional mariner would bring a commerical vessel blithely near the coast without information on safe passage, depth, and obstructions. If there are areas that are sufficiently classified or sensitive that you are not comfortable sharing navigational information, it is a simple matter to not authorize commerical traffic to enter that portion of your waters, and thus avoid disclosure."

[Saturna1ia]

Disputed waters (I haven’t checked any passed resolutions for this subject; could have been already dealt with) could be a resolution all on its own.

Disputed waters are addressed in GA#168 Law Of The Seas, which also established a World Assembly Nautical Commission.
GA#34 International Transport Safety
GA#168 Law Of The Seas

Since the previously raised concerns have in fact been addressed by previous legislation, Saturna1ia will support this Resolution.

[Bavmorda]

2. Mandates that member states
a. create and frequently update nautical charts of their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone,
b. share their nautical charts with commercial vessels that have the right to enter these areas;
3. Requires that all commercial vessels registered in a member nation carry and utilize up-to-date nautical charts and nautical instrumentation;
4. Mandates that all crews of commercial vessels registered in a member nation
a. acquire the necessary nautical charts before leaving port,
f. carry nautical charts for the areas they intend to pass through.

The issue with what you say is located right here. You claim I only have to provide simple navigational information. Nothing sensitive, Yet article 2a clearly lays out that I must "Create and frequently update nautical charts of their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone". Article 2b lays out that I must make those charts available to the vessels that have the rights to go there. Article 4a and 4f states that the vessels must acquire the charts before leaving and carry them for areas they intend to pass thru.

So any vessel traveling thru my waters has to have access to this per this resolution. Furthermore I must make this information available to incoming ships that plan to come into my waters as well. That means multiple detailed copies of various areas of my coastal waters floating around the ocean and you want me to take your word that this is not a possible breach in my security? This all must be done because somehow the system we currently employ of GPS, buoys, and water pilots is not sufficient. There are too many areas of this resolution that are not clearly addressed. It needs to be removed and rewritten.

[Terttia]

2. Mandates that member states
a. create and frequently update nautical charts of their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone,
b. share their nautical charts with commercial vessels that have the right to enter these areas;
3. Requires that all commercial vessels registered in a member nation carry and utilize up-to-date nautical charts and nautical instrumentation;
4. Mandates that all crews of commercial vessels registered in a member nation
a. acquire the necessary nautical charts before leaving port,
f. carry nautical charts for the areas they intend to pass through.

The issue with what you say is located right here. You claim I only have to provide simple navigational information. Nothing sensitive, Yet article 2a clearly lays out that I must "Create and frequently update nautical charts of their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone". Article 2b lays out that I must make those charts available to the vessels that have the rights to go there. Article 4a and 4f states that the vessels must acquire the charts before leaving and carry them for areas they intend to pass thru.

So any vessel traveling thru my waters has to have access to this per this resolution. Furthermore I must make this information available to incoming ships that plan to come into my waters as well. That means multiple detailed copies of various areas of my coastal waters floating around the ocean and you want me to take your word that this is not a possible breach in my security? This all must be done because somehow the system we currently employ of GPS, buoys, and water pilots is not sufficient. There are too many areas of this resolution that are not clearly addressed. It needs to be removed and rewritten.

Member nations have complete territorial control over their sovereign waters. It is their job to defend them. Anyways, couldn’t satellites map out coastal areas anyways (and underwater to my knowledge), leaving them open to pre-planned attacks?

[Weed]

"4. Mandates that all crews of commercial vessels registered in a member nation
...
obey the local authorities when it comes to additional temporary regulations applied to all commercial vessels in that area,"

I voted AGAINST as I question the decision not to limit the above line to the regulations of WA Member States or at the very least regulations in compliance with existing WA law. My reading here would seem to indicate that if a Weedian vessel were to sail into a non-member's waters that requires racial segregation, the ship would need to quickly racially segregate for instance. Should have left some room for Member States to require or encourage non-compliance while in non-member's waters. It seems less than ideal for me to ever pass a WA resolution that would seem to protect non-members from member states.

[Waffia]

"4. Mandates that all crews of commercial vessels registered in a member nation
...
obey the local authorities when it comes to additional temporary regulations applied to all commercial vessels in that area,"

I voted AGAINST as I question the decision not to limit the above line to the regulations of WA Member States or at the very least regulations in compliance with existing WA law. My reading here would seem to indicate that if a Weedian vessel were to sail into a non-member's waters that requires racial segregation, the ship would need to quickly racially segregate for instance. Should have left some room for Member States to require or encourage non-compliance while in non-member's waters. It seems less than ideal for me to ever pass a WA resolution that would seem to protect non-members from member states.

If a Weedian ship were to sail into a non-member's waters where racial segregation is required, then it is not clause 4d of the proposal that requires the vessel to quickly racially segregate, it is the non-member's legislation that requires that. Without clause 4d in this proposal, the non-member could still force the vessel to comply and could, for instance, arrest the sailors on the Weedian vessel if it would refuse. When doing business in non-member nations, either respect the local law or don't do business there in the first place.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

2. Mandates that member states
a. create and frequently update nautical charts of their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone,
b. share their nautical charts with commercial vessels that have the right to enter these areas;
3. Requires that all commercial vessels registered in a member nation carry and utilize up-to-date nautical charts and nautical instrumentation;
4. Mandates that all crews of commercial vessels registered in a member nation
a. acquire the necessary nautical charts before leaving port,
f. carry nautical charts for the areas they intend to pass through.

The issue with what you say is located right here. You claim I only have to provide simple navigational information. Nothing sensitive, Yet article 2a clearly lays out that I must "Create and frequently update nautical charts of their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone". Article 2b lays out that I must make those charts available to the vessels that have the rights to go there. Article 4a and 4f states that the vessels must acquire the charts before leaving and carry them for areas they intend to pass thru.

So any vessel traveling thru my waters has to have access to this per this resolution. Furthermore I must make this information available to incoming ships that plan to come into my waters as well. That means multiple detailed copies of various areas of my coastal waters floating around the ocean and you want me to take your word that this is not a possible breach in my security? This all must be done because somehow the system we currently employ of GPS, buoys, and water pilots is not sufficient. There are too many areas of this resolution that are not clearly addressed. It needs to be removed and rewritten.

Steph clears her throat before speaking, and chuckles slightly as she begins. "Ambassador, if shipping goods through your national waters is such a horrific pain in the ass, I wonder if you have any international trade to speak of! Other than in the immediate vicinity of naval bases or other military installations, most nations publish their coastal charts for the use of all who want them. A country that is so secretive that it makes all ship captains give over control of their vessels is not going to have a lot of incoming vessels. You should vote for this resolution, sir, and what's more you should then thank this Assembly for carrying you, kicking and screaming, into the modern age of commercial trade."

Steph grins smugly for a moment before she finishes with, "And by all means - you're quite welcome!"

[New Jaedonstan]

I have one, and only one, comment about this. It is SEA LANE. S-E-A L-A-N-E. "Nautical route" doesn't even return anything in a Google search. Please, get your nautical terminology correct.

[Bavmorda]

I was not aware that G.P.S. was some ancient technology that needed to be bypassed. I am not sure if the august ambassador is aware but there is no chart on earth and no amount of computer assistance that can replace an experienced water pilot. A person trained to handle the challenges and the dangers of his home waters. There are few things in this world more treacherous than the sea and you expect these ships to sail into multiple ports guided by charts that are out of date as soon as they are printed.

You can not update a chart like you can a resume. Every major storm can have an affect as can major flooding of a river system. This resolution locks our nation into an endless cycle of trying to play catch up on something can can never be caught. We might as well be trying to catch the water in our hands. It takes years to make a chart. Our licensed pilots are more reliable as they are more familiar with the waters they travel. No ship captain can do this no matter how many charts he collects.

So to sum up this Resolution, it will do the following:
1. Violate our national sovereignty by directing us to make available charts that may contain sensitive data to any entities requesting it
2. Fail to adequately define what size ship can request this data
3. Force older ships to upgrade constantly or be in breach of legislation
4. Lock member nations into a costly never ending cycle of constantly updating charts that can be out of date before they are printed
5. Place unnecessary burden on small developing nations that can not afford the most up to date equipment
6. Completely ignore the existing laws and procedures currently in place to govern waterborne commerce

[Terttia]

I was not aware that G.P.S. was some ancient technology that needed to be bypassed. I am not sure if the august ambassador is aware but there is no chart on earth and no amount of computer assistance that can replace an experienced water pilot. A person trained to handle the challenges and the dangers of his home waters. There are few things in this world more treacherous than the sea and you expect these ships to sail into multiple ports guided by charts that are out of date as soon as they are printed.

You can not update a chart like you can a resume. Every major storm can have an affect as can major flooding of a river system. This resolution locks our nation into an endless cycle of trying to play catch up on something can can never be caught. We might as well be trying to catch the water in our hands. It takes years to make a chart. Our licensed pilots are more reliable as they are more familiar with the waters they travel. No ship captain can do this no matter how many charts he collects.

So to sum up this Resolution, it will do the following:
1. Violate our national sovereignty by directing us to make available charts that may contain sensitive data to any entities requesting it
2. Fail to adequately define what size ship can request this data
3. Force older ships to upgrade constantly or be in breach of legislation
4. Lock member nations into a costly never ending cycle of constantly updating charts that can be out of date before they are printed
5. Place unnecessary burden on small developing nations that can not afford the most up to date equipment
6. Completely ignore the existing laws and procedures currently in place to govern waterborne commerce

Being in the WA is a choice. Member states must abide by all legislation the WA passes, whether they like it or not.