[PASSED] Reducing Microplastics

[Tinhampton]

overwhelmingly illegal

If you believe that Reducing Microplastics meets that criterion, you are welcome to file a legality challenge.

[Ackuzay]

overwhelmingly illegal

If you believe that Reducing Microplastics meets that criterion, you are welcome to file a legality challenge.

I actually just found GenSec about 5 seconds ago. I will be submitting one by tonight.

[Ackuzay]

The legality challenge thread is officially posted.

[Scalizagasti]

Well, I suppose we shou,d unveil our “genius” plan or how we will work around this legislation and continue producing microplastics. Simply re-qualify all of microplastics production as “medical”. Just as simple as that, comrades, and your industry won’t suffer!
Yep, we don’t give a flying... Oops, language, excuse me!

"Read the resolution more carefully, the exception only exists for medication 'for use inside the body.' Have fun eating plastic shards."

[Shaktirajya]

As the Earth is seen as a manifestation of the Goddess Herself, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Ackuzay]

All WA States are encourage to read the Legality Challenge. Many arguments there cross apply to this debate as well.

Here is a spoiler of an important post:

From this point forward the Resolution at Vote "Reducing Microplastics" will be referred to as RAV.

Can you further explain the point regarding section 4 of the proposal and Article 1 of GAR#2 please. I don’t see anything there that would effectively abolish centrally planned economies. They’d just follow these mandates the same as any other economy regardless of the ownership or management structures of their domestic industries.

Incidentally, the rule in question here would be the Ideological Ban rule. Article 1 is solely in respect of one member state not interfering with another, it does not prevent the WA from interfering.

Regarding Article 2, it’s not a requirement that the immunity be explicitly stated. The practical effect of Article 2 is that member states can do whatever they like on a particular policy or question if the WA hasn’t said otherwise.

RAV 3 states:

Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles...

My nation, among others, has no current information on the amount of purposefully-added microplastic particles in products within our economies. Once research has been completed, if we were to find any purposefully-added microplastic particles our government would be illegal and abolished as it may include a centrally planned economy with purposefully-added microplastic particles that is protected by GAR 2, Section 1, Article 1 "§ Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

This problem is exasperated by the fact that "purposefully-added" is not legally defined leaving it open to interpretation. It is understood that GAR 2.1.1 explicitly denies "dictation by any other NationState" which is not the WA; however, it is also understood that GAR 2.1.1 states and proclaims separately that "Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely... " and explicitly includes "...including the choice of its own form of government." This includes governments with centrally planned economies that may or may not include some amount of legally undefined "purposefully-added microplastics."

RAV 4.b requires WA States to "Implement the most effective measures to combat other known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,

This is an impossible task as the resolution tasking WASP with research has not yet been passed, and my nation runs no such program. While specific text noting the illegality of this situation has not yet been found, RAV 4.b does not accurately define legislative intent, include lawful language (impossible task designed to fail), and is not otherwise enforceable. Again, specific text outlawing this has not been found, and a GenSec ruling in favor of this challenge could be used as case law for a new proposal on the matter.

GAR 2.3 states: "§ Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law."

While the WA is an entity completely made up of NationStates all WA Resolutions are intervention's of "any other NationState." This argument is particularly weak in a matter of legality. It is brought up only in the hopes of generating a GenSec decision, either for or against, to use as case law in future debate.

GAR 3.8 States "§ Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State."

RAV 3 states: "Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles..."

Each WA Member State with an economy that includes any number of loosely defined purposefully added microplastic particles will unfairly be affected, changed, and punished without equality to other WA States. This is protected by GAR 3.8.

I also don’t see an issue with GAR#7. What particular provision here contradicts what particular provision in GAR#7? You might also expand the argument here please.

GAR 7.2 states :

Guarantees the right of all employees to a safe working environment.

Resolution at Vote 4.a states:

Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering

Firstly, "such as" is poor text as at leaves to interpretation whether membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering is required or suggested. While this particular point doesn't inherently make the resolution illegal, it makes maintaining a legal stance nearly impossible and brings the concept in line with illegality itself as the result is the same.

GAR 7.4 "Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face."

This is in direct contradiction with RAV 4.b and, in many nations, 4.e that requires WA States to Implement and track measures to contain microplastic materials without the research outlined in RAV 2, which will not yet have occurred at the passing of legislation. This makes the resolution contradictory to ITSELF and GenSec is requested to declare this illegal in the interest of intent.

GAR 7.6-8 outlines particular responsibilities of WA States to comply with, that simply cannot be met pending research outlined in RAV 2. While it is unknown whether or not this is explicitly declared illegal in previous legislation, it is impossible to comply with and our position is it cannot be a legal requirement, and therefore illegal.

GAR 7.12 Explicitly requires all employees to refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions. Now that we know of the possible existence of microplastics and the damage they might cause we cannot comply with RAV 4 or RAV 3 without knowingly endangering our people in violation of GAR 7.12.

Recommendations to vote for/against the proposal don't belong in this thread, they belong in the at vote thread. A legal challenge thread is solely for debate about legality, and is out-of-character.

OOC: Wrapper, I've seen the President of the United States do some very strange things in some very strange places. With respect, nothing is out of character. Politicians will often say what they want where they want, whether or not it has to do with the topic at hand even.

Andrew Country 12 Thank you for your interest and support! Don't let the other delegates bully your message away. Please make sure your message is posted in the proposal thread here.

[Scalizagasti]

Can you further explain the point regarding section 4 of the proposal and Article 1 of GAR#2 please. I don’t see anything there that would effectively abolish centrally planned economies. They’d just follow these mandates the same as any other economy regardless of the ownership or management structures of their domestic industries.

Incidentally, the rule in question here would be the Ideological Ban rule. Article 1 is solely in respect of one member state not interfering with another, it does not prevent the WA from interfering.

Regarding Article 2, it’s not a requirement that the immunity be explicitly stated. The practical effect of Article 2 is that member states can do whatever they like on a particular policy or question if the WA hasn’t said otherwise.

RAV 3 states:

Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles...

Doesn't address what Bananaistan said. Centrally-planned economies are not abolished. The WA is allowed to impose regulations on member states.

My nation, among others, has no current information on the amount of purposefully-added microplastic particles in products within our economies. Once research has been completed, if we were to find any purposefully-added microplastic particles our government would be illegal and abolished as it may include a centrally planned economy with purposefully-added microplastic particles

Not how it works.

This problem is exasperated by the fact that "purposefully-added" is not legally defined leaving it open to interpretation.

Terms like "purposefully-added" are assumed to use the dictionary definition. Microplastics knowingly added to a product are "purposefully-added." I didn't include a definition because the definition is pretty obvious.

RAV 4.b requires WA States to "Implement the most effective measures to combat other known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,

This is an impossible task as the resolution tasking WASP with research has not yet been passed, and my nation runs no such program.

If the resolution passes, WASP will begin that research.

While specific text noting the illegality of this situation has not yet been found, RAV 4.b does not accurately define legislative intent, include lawful language (impossible task designed to fail), and is not otherwise enforceable.

Again, just because the WASP is not actively doing research at this very second does not mean they never will. Nothing in 4(b) is "impossible."

GAR 3.8 States "§ Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State."

RAV 3 states: "Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles..."

Each WA Member State with an economy that includes any number of loosely defined purposefully added microplastic particles will unfairly be affected, changed, and punished without equality to other WA States. This is protected by GAR 3.8.

That's not what equality under the law means. Also, you seem to be very hung up on this idea about economies that include purposefully-added microplastic particles. If your economy is so reliant on poorly-made face creams with microplastic emulsifiers then you have bigger problems than the WA.

GAR 7.4 "Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face."

This is in direct contradiction with RAV 4.b and, in many nations, 4.e that requires WA States to Implement and track measures to contain microplastic materials without the research outlined in RAV 2, which will not yet have occurred at the passing of legislation. This makes the resolution contradictory to ITSELF and GenSec is requested to declare this illegal in the interest of intent.

This makes no sense. How is implementing solutions to reduce microplastic runoff stopping workplaces from having PPE? Will filtration in your laundry machine render eye protection useless?

GAR 7.6-8 outlines particular responsibilities of WA States to comply with, that simply cannot be met pending research outlined in RAV 2. While it is unknown whether or not this is explicitly declared illegal in previous legislation, it is impossible to comply with and our position is it cannot be a legal requirement, and therefore illegal.

GAR 7.12 Explicitly requires all employees to refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions. Now that we know of the possible existence of microplastics and the damage they might cause we cannot comply with RAV 4 or RAV 3 without knowingly endangering our people in violation of GAR 7.12.

For reference, these are the clauses of GA#7 mentioned:

6) Requires that the workplace be reasonably free of safety hazards, that all equipment and tools can be safely operated, and that the workplace be maintained in such a state as long as employees are present.

7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near.

Requires that proper training for tool, machine, and motorized vehicle operation be provided when employees are required to use them in the course of their work.

12) Requires that all employees refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions in workplaces.

This argument is also quite nonsensical. Even if you take microplastics in waste water plants to be "hazardous materials," it should be pretty simply to adhere to GA#7. As long as you aren't drinking the sewage water (which you should not be doing anyway!) the microplastics won't go in your body. Not sure how clause 8 has anything to do with anything. Also, we have known about the "possible existence" of microplastics for quite a while now... it's not like I discovered them and decided to warn everyone via this resolution.

[Jedinsto]

All WA States are encourage to read the Legality Challenge. Many arguments there cross apply to this debate as well.

Here is a spoiler of an important post:

From this point forward the Resolution at Vote "Reducing Microplastics" will be referred to as RAV.

Can you further explain the point regarding section 4 of the proposal and Article 1 of GAR#2 please. I don’t see anything there that would effectively abolish centrally planned economies. They’d just follow these mandates the same as any other economy regardless of the ownership or management structures of their domestic industries.

Incidentally, the rule in question here would be the Ideological Ban rule. Article 1 is solely in respect of one member state not interfering with another, it does not prevent the WA from interfering.

Regarding Article 2, it’s not a requirement that the immunity be explicitly stated. The practical effect of Article 2 is that member states can do whatever they like on a particular policy or question if the WA hasn’t said otherwise.

RAV 3 states:

Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles...

My nation, among others, has no current information on the amount of purposefully-added microplastic particles in products within our economies. Once research has been completed, if we were to find any purposefully-added microplastic particles our government would be illegal and abolished as it may include a centrally planned economy with purposefully-added microplastic particles that is protected by GAR 2, Section 1, Article 1 "§ Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

This problem is exasperated by the fact that "purposefully-added" is not legally defined leaving it open to interpretation. It is understood that GAR 2.1.1 explicitly denies "dictation by any other NationState" which is not the WA; however, it is also understood that GAR 2.1.1 states and proclaims separately that "Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely... " and explicitly includes "...including the choice of its own form of government." This includes governments with centrally planned economies that may or may not include some amount of legally undefined "purposefully-added microplastics."

RAV 4.b requires WA States to "Implement the most effective measures to combat other known sources of microplastic runoff into the environment based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as mandating filtration in laundry machines to reduce runoff from synthetic fibre clothing,

This is an impossible task as the resolution tasking WASP with research has not yet been passed, and my nation runs no such program. While specific text noting the illegality of this situation has not yet been found, RAV 4.b does not accurately define legislative intent, include lawful language (impossible task designed to fail), and is not otherwise enforceable. Again, specific text outlawing this has not been found, and a GenSec ruling in favor of this challenge could be used as case law for a new proposal on the matter.

GAR 2.3 states: "§ Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law."

While the WA is an entity completely made up of NationStates all WA Resolutions are intervention's of "any other NationState." This argument is particularly weak in a matter of legality. It is brought up only in the hopes of generating a GenSec decision, either for or against, to use as case law in future debate.

GAR 3.8 States "§ Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State."

RAV 3 states: "Prohibits the manufacturing and sale of products that contain purposefully-added microplastic particles..."

Each WA Member State with an economy that includes any number of loosely defined purposefully added microplastic particles will unfairly be affected, changed, and punished without equality to other WA States. This is protected by GAR 3.8.

I also don’t see an issue with GAR#7. What particular provision here contradicts what particular provision in GAR#7? You might also expand the argument here please.

GAR 7.2 states :

Guarantees the right of all employees to a safe working environment.

Resolution at Vote 4.a states:

Ensure that wastewater treatment plants include processes that are known to significantly reduce microplastic concentrations in water during operation based on WASP recommendations and their own internal research, such as membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering

Firstly, "such as" is poor text as at leaves to interpretation whether membrane bioreactor treating and rapid sand filtering is required or suggested. While this particular point doesn't inherently make the resolution illegal, it makes maintaining a legal stance nearly impossible and brings the concept in line with illegality itself as the result is the same.

GAR 7.4 "Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face."

This is in direct contradiction with RAV 4.b and, in many nations, 4.e that requires WA States to Implement and track measures to contain microplastic materials without the research outlined in RAV 2, which will not yet have occurred at the passing of legislation. This makes the resolution contradictory to ITSELF and GenSec is requested to declare this illegal in the interest of intent.

GAR 7.6-8 outlines particular responsibilities of WA States to comply with, that simply cannot be met pending research outlined in RAV 2. While it is unknown whether or not this is explicitly declared illegal in previous legislation, it is impossible to comply with and our position is it cannot be a legal requirement, and therefore illegal.

GAR 7.12 Explicitly requires all employees to refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions. Now that we know of the possible existence of microplastics and the damage they might cause we cannot comply with RAV 4 or RAV 3 without knowingly endangering our people in violation of GAR 7.12.

Recommendations to vote for/against the proposal don't belong in this thread, they belong in the at vote thread. A legal challenge thread is solely for debate about legality, and is out-of-character.

OOC: Wrapper, I've seen the President of the United States do some very strange things in some very strange places. With respect, nothing is out of character. Politicians will often say what they want where they want, whether or not it has to do with the topic at hand even.

Andrew Country 12 Thank you for your interest and support! Don't let the other delegates bully your message away. Please make sure your message is posted in the proposal thread here.

Also, please keep the discussion of the legality challenge in the appropriate thread, this thread is to discuss the merits of the actual proposal.

[New Hawubagatica]

Next thing the WA will ban private industry and the free market.

[Ardiveds]

Next thing the WA will ban private industry and the free market.

OOC: Resolutions can neither ban private industry nor ban means of production being under complete government control because both would constitute an ideology ban violation. Interesting that you think this proposal is commie while the commies claim this is road to capitalist hell....

[Outer Sparta]

Next thing the WA will ban private industry and the free market.

That would be illegal under WA rules and no resolution can ban the free market. Obviously they can implement regulations like this one, but cannot outright ban capitalism.

[Scalizagasti]

OOC: Resolutions can neither ban private industry nor ban means of production being under complete government control because both would constitute an ideology ban violation. Interesting that you think this proposal is commie while the commies claim this is road to capitalist hell....

Somehow I managed to simultaneously destroy both capitalism and communism with this resolution. Quite the accomplishment if you ask me!

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: Resolutions can neither ban private industry nor ban means of production being under complete government control because both would constitute an ideology ban violation. Interesting that you think this proposal is commie while the commies claim this is road to capitalist hell....

Somehow I managed to simultaneously destroy both capitalism and communism with this resolution. Quite the accomplishment if you ask me!

I'm surprised the communists would think this resolution would make everyone go down the path to capitalism even though it's simply regulating microplastics.

[New Hawubagatica]

I am the acting delegate for a region with a struggling economy. This bill could damage my regions industry.

[Ardiveds]

Somehow I managed to simultaneously destroy both capitalism and communism with this resolution. Quite the accomplishment if you ask me!

I'm surprised the communists would think this resolution would make everyone go down the path to capitalism even though it's simply regulating microplastics.

OOC: Apparently a lot of governments base their ideological identity on microplastics

[Scalizagasti]

I'm surprised the communists would think this resolution would make everyone go down the path to capitalism even though it's simply regulating microplastics.

OOC: Apparently a lot of governments base their ideological identity on microplastics

Are you telling me you aren't an adherent of Anarcho-Microplasticism!?

[Cartheen]

I am the acting delegate for a region with a struggling economy. This bill could damage my regions industry.

I agree. As someone else said:

While the General Assembly's effort to protect the environment are commendable, the Twelvian Government is concerned that Section 4(a) of this resolution is unnecessary with proper regulation of microplastics in consumer products. Worried that fully complying to this resolution will require the government to upgrade its wastewater treatment plants at great expense, creating an undue economic burden on its citizens, Andrew Country 12 will vote against this resolution.

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: Apparently a lot of governments base their ideological identity on microplastics

Are you telling me you aren't an adherent of Anarcho-Microplasticism!?

We got plenty of delegations who adhere to anarcho-microplasticism as evident in the comments.

[Upper Yationd]

I fully support this

[Adriandra]

I am in full support of this notion.

[New Hawubagatica]

I am in full support of this notion.

Why? This is the WA trying to push its Liberal Bernie Sanders agenda. They are being total dictators and they think they can just ban everything they don't like.

[Heavens Reach]

I am in full support of this notion.

Why? This is the WA trying to push its Liberal Bernie Sanders agenda. They are being total dictators and they think they can just ban everything they don't like.

Participation in the WA is voluntary, ambassador and the decisions it makes are democratic and reversible. There's not much latitude for anyone to accuse the delegation of tyranny.

Also, who is Bernie Sanders?

[Jedinsto]

I am in full support of this notion.

Why? This is the WA trying to push its Liberal Bernie Sanders agenda. They are being total dictators and they think they can just ban everything they don't like.

Hmm yes the democracy here where we vote on stuff and the majority gets their way is being autocratic.

[Uueidhhd]

I fully support this

I am fully against it.

[Outer Sparta]

I am in full support of this notion.

Why? This is the WA trying to push its Liberal Bernie Sanders agenda. They are being total dictators and they think they can just ban everything they don't like.

More "WA is elitist" or "WA is corrupt" arguments.