NationStates

OOC: Draft 3 is up. While I still feel that a committee is the best way to approach this topic, I do understand the need for not turning the entire proposal into a gnome-fest.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: So I'm only like 3-4 days late in getting back to you... *waves hand in a Jedi manner* ...these are not the droids you are looking for I am completely on time. Do Sith have that kind of trick? I'd really prefer using the Dark Side of the Force.

Given that you just burnt my proposal with a face-full of lightning, I think you're already there.

OOC: Also bumping this.

OOC: Doing a feedback bump.

OOC: Bumping to last call; made some changes. Might submit over the weekend or later.

"A lovely rendition, though perhaps a bit of public-private partnerships with the CPME could help further the aims of this proposal. Many national agencies for the environment work to involve, inform, and engage their citizenry and utilize commercial partners to further scientific knowledge and environmental endeavour. For many nations, planetary hydrospheres and their often vast ecosystems are often the closest yet least known frontiers for exploration and education."

Riverpost wrote:"A lovely rendition, though perhaps a bit of public-private partnerships with the CPME could help further the aims of this proposal. Many national agencies for the environment work to involve, inform, and engage their citizenry and utilize commercial partners to further scientific knowledge and environmental endeavour. For many nations, planetary hydrospheres and their often vast ecosystems are often the closest yet least known frontiers for exploration and education."

"The last time we tried mentioning public-private partnerships, we were attacked by an angry mob accusing us of promoting capitalism and targeting socialism based on ideology."

Cretox State wrote:

Riverpost wrote:"A lovely rendition, though perhaps a bit of public-private partnerships with the CPME could help further the aims of this proposal. Many national agencies for the environment work to involve, inform, and engage their citizenry and utilize commercial partners to further scientific knowledge and environmental endeavour. For many nations, planetary hydrospheres and their often vast ecosystems are often the closest yet least known frontiers for exploration and education."

"The last time we tried mentioning public-private partnerships, we were attacked by an angry mob accusing us of promoting capitalism and targeting socialism based on ideology."

"Dare I say the PPP is socialistically capitalist?

At the very least one must argue that basic modern economic principles in a connected modern society are irrevocably intertwined with the will and wants of the people. For all matters but formality, then, the popular opinion tends towards being the primary driver of the running and regulation of commercial enterprise, which, from my brief viewings appears quite in line with both apparently divergent ideologies. This angry mob, you see, is really arguing against what it believes in, or they are to suggest the economy simply does not exist in the way economists and business-folk have come to know it and run it."

OOC: This still sucks in it's approach. You CANNOT make WA take control over international waters. You CAN limit the members nations' actions in international waters, but the WA has no jurisdiction over areas not within the member states' jurisdiction.

The creation of the sanctuaries is the problematic thing. You could instead have research done (preferably by the member nations themselves, like the unique ecosystems research resolution), and then the committee (since you for some reason think member nations are idiots) could identify areas where member states' actions should be limited (and then list the limitations, not making them something invisible that the committee may or may not do. Don't pile on the problems with the whole sanctuary thing.

All OOC.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This still sucks in it's approach. You CANNOT make WA take control over international waters. You CAN limit the members nations' actions in international waters, but the WA has no jurisdiction over areas not within the member states' jurisdiction.

The WA has jurisdiction over member nations' activities in international waters.

Araraukar wrote:The creation of the sanctuaries is the problematic thing. You could instead have research done (preferably by the member nations themselves, like the unique ecosystems research resolution), and then the committee (since you for some reason think member nations are idiots) could identify areas where member states' actions should be limited (and then list the limitations, not making them something invisible that the committee may or may not do. Don't pile on the problems with the whole sanctuary thing.

Every critical marine environment necessitates its own regulations. I used a committee here because it allows for the requisite flexibility.

Cretox State wrote:The WA has jurisdiction over member nations' activities in international waters.

OOC: Yeah, but you're not doing that. You're creating sanctuaries.

Araraukar wrote:The creation of the sanctuaries is the problematic thing. You could instead have research done (preferably by the member nations themselves, like the unique ecosystems research resolution), and then the committee (since you for some reason think member nations are idiots) could identify areas where member states' actions should be limited (and then list the limitations, not making them something invisible that the committee may or may not do). Don't pile on the problems with the whole sanctuary thing.

Every critical marine environment necessitates its own regulations. I used a committee here because it allows for the requisite flexibility.

...and that requires the creation of sanctuaries exactly how?

Araraukar wrote:the WA has no jurisdiction over areas not within the member states' jurisdiction.

Why?

Saddest thing is that this won’t go to vote in August, despite the mention of this august assembly. Strong and unequivocal against.

Honeydewistania wrote:Saddest thing is that this won’t go to vote in August, despite the mention of this august assembly. Strong and unequivocal against.

OOC: A real tragedy.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Araraukar wrote:the WA has no jurisdiction over areas not within the member states' jurisdiction.

Why?

Touche. Why?

This basically just sets up a committee, right? Isn’t that not allowed? Not to mention the committee has pretty much unchecked authority to do anything “reasonable,” whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean.

Kleptocratic Maniacs wrote:This basically just sets up a committee, right? Isn’t that not allowed?

Read clause 5, 6, and 7.

This resolution directly contradicts and violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas. As such I can’t support this when it violates sovereignty of national waters, and urge fellow member nations to OPPOSE this resolution.

Apollo 19 wrote:This resolution directly contradicts and violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas. As such I can’t support this when it violates sovereignty of national waters, and urge fellow member nations to OPPOSE this resolution.

Uh, the UN doesn't exist in NS world.

How are the section 2 regulations enforced?

Why invoke a committee for a purpose member nations can do themselves?

Honeydewistania wrote:Why invoke a committee for a purpose member nations can do themselves?

(OOC: The proposal covers international waters, meaning that member states doesn’t have jurisdiction.

Gaen Vale Queendom wrote:The WA recently destroyed my safety rating with a proposal, it took a month to recover. Is this going to crush my Trout Fishing industry as well?
If it's the case, I will leave the WA before this proposal goes through if it affects Trout Fishing negatively because my environment is already at a very good and Trout fishing is my biggest industry.

That is the drawback of the World Assembly. Yes, this will affect your trout fishing industry. Also, there’s no need to type in such a large font.)

"As we believe the WA shouldn't be poking its nose in places outside its jurisdiction, we vote against."
OOC: I swear if any marine species decides to make my oil rigs their breeding ground, the there will be blood, lots of it...

Wayneactia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why?

Touche. Why?

OOC: Short answer: otherwise it makes no sense in IC. Long answer will have to wait until I have time to write the dissertation. Which might be never, but we'll see. I'll at least add it to my To Do list.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:How are the section 2 regulations enforced?

OOC still: It's the committee doing stuff. So presumably belligerent member nations would get in trouble with Wine And Crouton Conference, same as every other resolution. Or, alien thought for you, I know, member nations might actually comply because they're law-abiding nations?

Unrelated to the above, I notice that clause 3 has been written so as to apply to future resolutions too, possibly making this somewhat toothless. Was that intentional?

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Short answer: otherwise it [enforcement of WA laws outside member nation jurisdictions] makes no sense in IC. Long answer will have to wait until I have time to write the dissertation. Which might be never, but we'll see. I'll at least add it to my To Do list.

This new in: extraterritoriality makes no sense in IC, regardless of the fact that it has happened in the past and that it happens all the time (eg Belgium, every embassy ever). Your legality argument is pretty ridiculous prima facie, but sure, do write it up. A chance for Araraukar to show his quality.

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:How are the section 2 regulations enforced?

OOC still: It's the committee doing stuff. So presumably belligerent member nations would get in trouble with Wine And Crouton Conference, same as every other resolution. Or, alien thought for you, I know, member nations might actually comply because they're law-abiding nations?

Law abiding nations which are not required to know what the regulations are? Only the written word is law, and it does not say who is bound by the regulations, instead, certain actions are limited. Actions by whom on international waters? Maritime law generally operates, to my understanding, based on the flags of the ships. What about mixed actions? Who prosecutes for regulation violations? In what court? Are non-WA flagged ships bound by the regulations? If they are, under what authority are they interdicted? And who would interdict?