[PASSED] Ensuring Commercial Vessel Navigation

[Bears Armed]

Bears Armed has a minority-group of sapient Ravens, and one of the main careers followed by its members is delivery-work for our main postal business: The facts that they can apparently take short-cuts through some other dimension, carry letters & even small parcels in what some people might call "hammerspace", and somehow use their wing-tips secondarily as hands (in best "Disney" fashion) help them to be very good at this...

(Have one of their leaders get in contact with my Government. Our Royal Post could find this useful).

(Consider it done.)

[Terttia]

OOC: This is really starting, in my opinion, to be shaping up into a rather useful proposition. I just wish you had saved earlier drafts in the top post under spoiler tags, though. That is a good learning tool for other new authors on how an initial draft is made in to a good proposal.

I wasn’t aware of that I’ll be sure to do that the next time I write a proposal.

[Terttia]

“Could 4d have an addition to clarify that only reasonable regulations be respected, for example putting in that local regulations that are in contradiction of GA legislation or common good practice needn’t be followed?”

I’ll be sure to do that.

[Araraukar]

“Could 4d have an addition to clarify that only reasonable regulations be respected, for example putting in that local regulations that are in contradiction of GA legislation or common good practice needn’t be followed?”

IC: "That would be a bad idea. If a nation needs to clear its territorial waters of foreign craft for whatever reason, giving ships' crews the right to go "nuh-uh, we don't feel like it" would make it a nightmarish mess with some ships obeying and some not."

OOC: Think of a war about to break out - target nation has gotten information about one of the foreign commercial craft carrying a nuke with the intention of detonating it when it nears the port. Being able to command ships off the territorial waters (not EEC) would be helpful, but most commercial transport companies maximize their profits by minimizing their kilometres traveled, and would be unlikely to volunteer to obeying something that's only a suggestion.

Also, Araraukar in IC has vested interest in this matter, since its territorial waters have some of the highest commercial traffic nautical routes in the world (on its planet).

---

Sea travel is safe now in part because we have accurate, up-to-date publicly available sea charts.

OOC: I never claimed differently? In any case, the problem the wording created, has been sorted in the new draft.

OOC: I just wish you had saved earlier drafts in the top post under spoiler tags, though. That is a good learning tool for other new authors on how an initial draft is made in to a good proposal.

First draft. Second draft. Third draft is probably lost. Fourth draft.

---

obey the local authorities when it comes to additional temporary regulations applied to all commercial vessels in that area, unless one of those regulations contradicts existing GA legislation and/or the common good of the vessel, its crew, or the surrounding areas,

OOC: Please remove that. And stop editing reactively, it's the quickest way to write yourself into a corner.

EDIT: A WA nation couldn't legally give an order/regulation that was against WA law, anyway, and for the rest, it requires the same to be applied to all commercial vessels in that area and be temporary, so ships really shouldn't be allowed to choose if they want to obey the local authorities. A reasonable nation wouldn't put in place regulations that scuppered all commercial transport for no reason, but if we let ships disobey their orders, that's probably a contradiction of existing resolutions.

Think of it as police stopping freeway traffic and maybe ordering cars to get off the freeway, and some truckers deciding to disobey because they get bonuses when they get to their destination on time. Police are unlikely to do that just for the fun of it, though, so there's probably some very serious reason for the order. Like maybe a plane needs an emergency landing site. But whatever it is, giving the transporters freedom to choose not to obey, would lead to a disaster sooner or later.

[Republic Of Vox]

That sound such a good proposal, like already many others already have suggested there's little things to change but its good.
My suggestion is a fare paid from those commercial ships, such fare should translate into a some kind of navy protection from the country where those commercial ships will pass.

[Terttia]

My suggestion is a fare paid from those commercial ships, such fare should translate into a some kind of navy protection from the country where those commercial ships will pass.

Realistically, it wouldn’t do any good to the ship, the ship’s crew, and the shipping company to sail a ship through unsafe waters.

[Ard al Islam]

Does my commercial robot shark count?

[Terttia]

Does my commercial robot shark count?

Does it transport cargo? If so, then yes. (I’m working on a definition for cargo vessel.)

[Terttia]

Added 1d to cover the definition of a commercial vessel.

[Kenmoria]

“Your definition of ‘commercial vessel’ is, in my opinion, over-inclusive. ‘Passenger’ can mean a paying passenger, but often means any person on the vessel other than the driver. In which case, military vessels would count as being commercial.”

[Grays Harbor]

“Your definition of ‘commercial vessel’ is, in my opinion, over-inclusive. ‘Passenger’ can mean a paying passenger, but often means any person on the vessel other than the driver. In which case, military vessels would count as being commercial.”

Perhaps then they could add “non-military” in there, and that would solve that particular loophole, I do believe.

EDIT: the official US definition is as follows. Obviously using it word for word would be plagiarism, so it would need to be put in their own words, but that shouldn’t be overly difficult, and clean that clause up nicely. I would think just adding “for hire” would do that.

According to 26 USCS § 4462, [Title 26. Internal Revenue Code; Subtitle D. Miscellaneous Excise Taxes; Chapter 36. Certain Other Excise Taxes; Subchapter A. Harbor Maintenance Tax], the term ‘commercial vessel’ is defined as:

(A) In general. The term 'commercial vessel' means any vessel used--

(i) in transporting cargo by water for compensation or hire, or

(ii) in transporting cargo by water in the business of the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel.

(B) Exclusion of ferries.

(i) In general. The term 'commercial vessel' does not include any ferry engaged primarily in the ferrying of passengers (including their vehicles) between points within the United States, or between the United States and contiguous countries.

(ii) Ferry. The term 'ferry' means any vessel which arrives in the United States on a regular schedule during its operating season at intervals of at least once each business day.

Maybe this ... ?
”commercial vessels” as non military vessels that transport cargo and/or passengers for hire.

[Terttia]

”commercial vessels” as non military vessels that transport cargo and/or passengers for hire.

I like this definition as it is concise and does the job of defining commercial vessels quite well. Therefore, I’m using it.

[Bears Armed]

Maybe this ... ?
”commercial vessels” as non military vessels that transport cargo and/or passengers for hire.

That would exclude ships carrying goods &/or personnel for the benefit of the same commercial interests that own those vessels, e.g. where a business owns both the banana plantations in a group of tropical nations and the 'banana boats' that transport the crops to other nations where they will be sold...

[Grays Harbor]

Maybe this ... ?
”commercial vessels” as non military vessels that transport cargo and/or passengers for hire.

That would exclude ships carrying goods &/or personnel for the benefit of the same commercial interests that own those vessels, e.g. where a business owns both the banana plantations in a group of tropical nations and the 'banana boats' that transport the crops to other nations where they will be sold...

I believe it wouldn’t as they still cost the company to operate them. I would consider them covered by the definition.

And any Captain that takes a freighter out of port without the necessary navigation charts and equipment because of a perceived loophole doesn’t deserve his stripes, and shouldn’t be in command of a rubber duckie in a bathtub.

[The New Nordic Union]

That would exclude ships carrying goods &/or personnel for the benefit of the same commercial interests that own those vessels, e.g. where a business owns both the banana plantations in a group of tropical nations and the 'banana boats' that transport the crops to other nations where they will be sold...

I believe it wouldn’t as they still cost the company to operate them. I would consider them covered by the definition.

OOC: Is this '{cargo and/or passengers} for hire' or 'cargo and/or {passengers for hire}', i.e., does the qualifier 'for hire' refer to both the cargo and the passengers or just the passengers? If the latter, the banana boats would definitely be covered.

[Grays Harbor]

I believe it wouldn’t as they still cost the company to operate them. I would consider them covered by the definition.

OOC: Is this '{cargo and/or passengers} for hire' or 'cargo and/or {passengers for hire}', i.e., does the qualifier 'for hire' refer to both the cargo and the passengers or just the passengers? If the latter, the banana boats would definitely be covered.

No, freight counts too.

[Bears Armed]

That would exclude ships carrying goods &/or personnel for the benefit of the same commercial interests that own those vessels, e.g. where a business owns both the banana plantations in a group of tropical nations and the 'banana boats' that transport the crops to other nations where they will be sold...

I believe it wouldn’t as they still cost the company to operate them. I would consider them covered by the definition.

I think that there's scope for disagreement there, even with vessels that are actually owned by commercial enterprises...
... and state-run shipping lines belonging to Marxist regimes would surely reject that definition!
Also, what about vessels whose purpose isn't carrying cargo or passengers but that still could fall into the "commercial" category? Oilfield exploration & exploitation, tugs, and so on...

And any Captain that takes a freighter out of port without the necessary navigation charts and equipment because of a perceived loophole doesn’t deserve his stripes, and shouldn’t be in command of a rubber duckie in a bathtub.

That's a separate matter, and considering what some NS governments get up to...


I'd base the requirement on tonnage rather than commercial purpose, myself.

[Grays Harbor]

I believe it wouldn’t as they still cost the company to operate them. I would consider them covered by the definition.

I think that there's scope for disagreement there, even with vessels that are actually owned by commercial enterprises...
... and state-run shipping lines belonging to Marxist regimes would surely reject that definition!
Also, what about vessels whose purpose isn't carrying cargo or passengers but that still could fall into the "commercial" category? Oilfield exploration & exploitation, tugs, and so on...
I would think charts would be a good thing to have regardless of what they do or don’t carry. I wouldn’t consider including those an oversight. As for state-run shipping lines, it is still a cargo or passenger vessel. If they want to exclude themselves using that reasoning, they are idiots, and the “rubber duckie” applies to them as well.

And any Captain that takes a freighter out of port without the necessary navigation charts and equipment because of a perceived loophole doesn’t deserve his stripes, and shouldn’t be in command of a rubber duckie in a bathtub.

That's a separate matter, and considering what some NS governments get up to...


I'd base the requirement on tonnage rather than commercial purpose, myself.

[Bears Armed]

As for state-run shipping lines, it is still a cargo or passenger vessel. If they want to exclude themselves using that reasoning, they are idiots, and the “rubber duckie” applies to them as well.

Which is small consolation to any other nation whose waters get messed up when one of those state-run lines' vessels has an accident...

[Grays Harbor]

As for state-run shipping lines, it is still a cargo or passenger vessel. If they want to exclude themselves using that reasoning, they are idiots, and the “rubber duckie” applies to them as well.

Which is small consolation to any other nation whose waters get messed up when one of those state-run lines' vessels has an accident...

Which is why my Navy routinely conducts “Health & Safety” inspections on vessels suspected of creative non compliance with safety regulation. Then we offer them a non-optional “Naval Honor Guard & Courtesy Escort” out of our territorial waters.

[Kenmoria]

“You have a mixture of varieties of finishing punctuation, which I suggest standardising. Also, there should be a ‘to’ after ‘vessel’ in clause 1a.”

[Terttia]

“You have a mixture of varieties of finishing punctuation, which I suggest standardising. Also, there should be a ‘to’ after ‘vessel’ in clause 1a.”

Added semicolons to the ending of each numerical clause except for 4 (ends with a period); fixed the grammar issue.

Also, I’m going to format the proposal.

[Araraukar]

Which is small consolation to any other nation whose waters get messed up when one of those state-run lines' vessels has an accident...

Which is why my Navy routinely conducts “Health & Safety” inspections on vessels suspected of creative non compliance with safety regulation. Then we offer them a non-optional “Naval Honor Guard & Courtesy Escort” out of our territorial waters.

OOC: Also why Araraukarian coast guard rivals some navies on its planet... and has much the same approach as GH's.

I'm doing better, but busy until Friday. Vessel definition could simply be "cargo or passenger vessel", since don't need to define common nouns.

[Terttia]

Vessel definition could simply be "cargo or passenger vessel", since don't need to define common nouns.

I think that the current definition defines commercial vessels quite well.

[Araraukar]

Vessel definition could simply be "cargo or passenger vessel", since don't need to define common nouns.

I think that the current definition defines commercial vessels quite well.

OOC: The "for hire" is problematic as has already been demonstrated. Also "and/or" is clumsy language use for a law text. "Cargo or passenger vessel" would work since they're common nouns and used in the way they are normally defined, hence not needing definitions. Does it catch military transport ships? Who cares? They should have charts too.