[PASSED] Repeal: “Reducing Spills And Leaks”

[Gemeinschaftsland]

Replacement: Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials

Repeal: “Reducing Spills And Leaks”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#298

---

General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks” (Category: Environment; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the immense importance of legislation regulating the transportation of hazardous substances, General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks” included;

Concerned that despite its laudable aim, a series of flaws and oversights may render this resolution detrimental to the member states of this august body;

Troubled that poor phrasing in subclause 1C(b): "... [penalizing] entities which cause and/or allow leaks to occur through negligence" may enable a dangerous interpretation of the provision, in which punitive penalties may only be extracted from negligent offenders;

Frightened that the desiderata laid out in Clause 2, which require compliant WA member states to "establish standards and utilize technologies ... using SaLDA recommendations and technological resources," may inhibit national-level policy and technologies by tying smaller-scale legislation and technological implementations, which seek to minimize risk, enable restitution for, and/or improve cleanup of spills and leaks, to the much broader standards of an international committee;

Ill at ease over Clause 4’s mandate, requiring compliant WA Member States to turn away transports from any entity that does not comply with the aforementioned SaLDA standards and recommendations, so long as the material being transported is considered "capable of causing a spill or leak," an outrageously broad mandate that applies not only to potentially hazardous materials. but to nearly every meaningful good and resource, and which could place trade between WA member states and the roughly 90% of nations that do not hold membership in this body (and which have little incentive to abide by regulations that hold no legal authority over them), alongside the import and export economies of compliant WA member states, at risk;

Dismayed that, despite the absolute importance of total cooperation between local, national, and international authorities in the success of any cleanup effort, and the number of lives that stand to be lost if particularly dangerous spills aren’t dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible, that Clause 7, the resolution’s provision regarding cooperation with national governments, is non-binding. Simply put, the risk of a breakdown in collaboration between hazmat authorities is too great to put into a simple recommendation, and stronger measures must be enacted for the safety of WA member states' citizens;

Propounding that, far be it from "[preserving] lives", the flaws present in General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks”’s provisions risk bringing significant harm upon World Assembly nations and nationals;

Concluding, therefore, that the immediate repeal and replacement of the aforementioned resolution is the right and proper path towards putting in place effective international standards and oversight for the transportation of hazardous materials,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks”.

Repeal: “Reducing Spills And Leaks”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#298

---

General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks” (Category: Environment; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the immense importance of legislation regulating the transportation of hazardous substances, GAR#298 included;

Concerned that despite its laudable goals, a series of serious issues may leave this resolution a detriment to WA member states, principally:

1. The absurdly broad requirement of “making whole those affected by spills and leaks” in reimbursement standards and technological resources; a demand impossible to meet in the many scenarios in which intangibles are damaged, likely spurring messy and prolonged lawsuits,
2. The failure of the resolution to address malicious spills and leaks of dangerous material, only penalizing entities which cause or allow such disasters to occur through negligence, and
3. Most egregiously, GAR#298 requires WA member states to deny any and all transports owned or operated by entities that do not adhere to SaLDA recommendations, including those of nations outside of the World Assembly. Given the lack of any real incentive for such nations to act in accordance with the recommendations of a World Assembly committee, this functionally bars trade between WA member states and the over 90% of nations who aren’t a part of this body, posing a grave risk to the economies of WA member states.

Concluding that an immediate replacement of the aforementioned resolution is the only way to put in place effective international standards and oversight for the transportation of hazardous materials;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks”.

Repeal: “Reducing Spills And Leaks”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#298

---

General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks” (Category: Environment; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the immense importance of legislation regulating the transportation of hazardous substances, General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks” included;

Concerned that despite its laudable goals, a series of inexcusable flaws may render this resolution detrimental to the member states of this august body, principally:

1. Clauses 1C(a) and 2B’s demands of “making whole those affected by spills and leaks” in reimbursement, technological usage, and the establishment of additional standards are much too broad to be feasible in the majority of scenarios, especially those in which intangible and invaluable assets are damaged in some way. Likely outcomes of such imprudent requirements include wasted time and money in the pursuit of nonexistent or unreachable solutions, and the spawning of countless messy and prolonged lawsuits.
   
2. Poor phrasing in clause 1C(b) leading to a not-unreasonable interpretation that SaLDA is only capable of penalizing entities whose negligence leads to spills or leaks, thus excluding intentional and/or malicious spills from punishment. A variety of entities could and likely would exploit such a loophole, allowing hazardous waste disposal companies to save time and money by releasing dangerous substances rather than treating them, and granting those who might wish to harm others a weapon with few or no repercussions.
   
3. The outrageous requirement of clause 4 that all WA member states must deny any and all transports owned or operated by entities that both do not adhere to SaLDA recommendations and which are carrying substances capable of spills or leaks. Given the application of this clause to all transports traveling through the territory of WA member states, including those of states outside the World Assembly, and the capability of nearly all materials to be spilled or leaked, this effectively places non-WA states under the jurisdiction of a WA committee. Meanwhile, if the 90% of nations who aren’t a part of this body were to choose not to comply, the vast majority of the trade of WA member states would be eliminated, posing a grave risk to the economies of all but the most self-sufficient of WA member states.

Concluding that an immediate replacement of the aforementioned resolution is the supereminent path toward putting in place effective international standards and oversight for the transportation of hazardous materials;

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #298 “Reducing Spills And Leaks”.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

I̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶/̶c̶o̶m̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶/̶c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶r̶n̶s̶,̶ ̶I̶’̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶m̶i̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶e̶k̶.̶

EDIT: This fella aged poorly.

[Outer Sparta]

Submitting a week after you draft it isn't enough time.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

Submitting a week after you draft it isn't enough time.

Perhaps, but it’s a rather concise repeal, I’ve drafted this elsewhere, and I’d very much like to see the replacement come through soon. I began drafting what is now Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials on the Euro forums on December 9th, and I’d like to move on to other projects soon. If anyone has any suggestions, however, I’d be eager to halt the pace.

[Hulldom]

Submitting a week after you draft it isn't enough time.

Going to echo OS here even though there's not much to comment on here.

I think you need to re-read clause 4 of the target, specifically everything after the "and".

[Outer Sparta]

Submitting a week after you draft it isn't enough time.

Perhaps, but it’s a rather concise repeal, I’ve drafted this elsewhere, and I’d very much like to see the replacement come through soon. I began drafting what is now Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials on the Euro forums on December 9th, and I’d like to move on to other projects soon. If anyone has any suggestions, however, I’d be eager to halt the pace.

I don't have much to comment on the actual repeal given you've laid out your arguments well and have a replacement lined up, but obviously I wouldn't rush things since there might be other people who can scrutinize it more carefully and thoroughly and see something you might not see.

[Apatosaurus]

OOC:

Most egrigiously, GAR#298 requires WA member states to deny any and all transports owned or operated by entities that do not adhere to SaLDA recommendations, including those of nations outside of the World Assembly. Given the lack of any real incentive for such nations to act in accordance with the recommendations of a World Assembly committee, this functionally bars trade between WA member states and the over 90% of nations who aren’t a part of this body, posing a grave risk to the economies of WA member states.

This contains some grammar and spelling mistakes, here is a rewrite:

Most egregiously, GAR#298 requires WA member states to deny any and all transports owned or operated by entities that do not adhere to SaLDA recommendations, including those of nations outside of the World Assembly; due to the lack of any incentive for such nations to comply with the recommendations of a World Assembly committee, this functionally bars trade between WA member states and the majority of nations which are not members of this Assembly, posing a grave risk to the economies of member states;

This might also violate Reasonable Nation Theory? There is an "incentive"; risking all your trade with member states. I think a better argument would be that this would coerce non-member-states into following SaLDA recommendations even though the law doesn't apply directly to them.

Other than that, this looks good and I will likely be supporting this at vote, but I agree with Outer Sparta that one week is too soon.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

OOC: Bump - hoping to get a little more feedback before I prepare this for submission.

[Apatosaurus]

aren’t a part of this body were to choose choose not to comply

[Gemeinschaftsland]

I'm pretty happy with where this is at. I'll put a tentative submission date of the 28th of no one has anything more to say.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

Submitted.

[Cretox State]

“I’ve been given several million good reasons to support your repeal effort,” says Whatshisface while waving around an oversized novelty check splattered with oil. “When it comes down to it, ambassador, for my people there is only the State and the security of the State. Ensuring smooth and safe flow of goods through our territories is essential to that security. Ensuring reliable flow of oil and gas through our territories is likewise essential to that security. The State does not need a heaving international bureaucracy to tell us to protect our own economic and security interests, especially not one hooked to numerous compromising flaws, as your delegation has so eloquently pointed out.”

Meanwhile, if the 90% of nations who aren’t a part of this body were to choose not to comply, the vast majority of the trade of WA member states would be eliminated, posing a grave risk to the economies of all but the most self-sufficient of WA member states.

“‘Choose not to comply’?! Ambassador, do you have any idea how many lucrative deals fell through for us just because the non-member party we were negotiating with just so happened to be slightly out of compliance with SaLDA so-called ‘recommendations’ through no fault of their own? Too many, that’s for sure.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm aware I've not been overly active recently. That's been the case in part because of doomscrolling and other stuff I won't get into. But I marked this illegal below:

In clause (ii), target does not allow release of dangerous substances. See target s 1(a). Alt'ly, "make whole" establishes standards for damage determination, RNT nations provide guidance for sentimentals, intangibles, etc. See eg R Dunn, Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits (6th ed, 2005). Claim in clause (iii) that target places "non-WA states under the jurisdiction of a WA committee" is false: it governs transport ships operating within WA jurisdiction, there is no extraterritorial application.

I'm not wedded to this position in its entirety. The weakest point I think is this assertion given in what is marked as (ii): that "hazardous waste disposal companies [might be allowed] to save time and money by releasing dangerous substances rather than treating them". Target section 1(a) doesn't permit that. Cf whole text canon.

The other portions, I am less sure-footed on. Though I do want to be clear that "make whole" is a well-known term relating to the way damages are calculated. I believe RNT nations would have sufficiently robust means to determine damages in a way that would comply. This doesn't lead to what the proposal claims, which is "non-existent or unreachable" solutions. Nb the extent to which the lawsuits are messy or prolonged is outside HM's scope.

On clause (iii) which says "this effectively places non-WA states under the jurisdiction of a WA committee", this is facially a falsehood, as transport ships are not non-WA states. But that reading is perhaps overly strict; it is pretty clear what is meant. On the other hand, the committee's tasks are not self-executing. Member nations are to execute them. And member states have clear jurisdiction to do so, because ships flagged in non-WA nations are not enclaves of their nations. Because the resolution applies within WA member state jurisdiction only, there is no extraterritorial application.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

Submitted.

Withdrawn.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

OOC: Bump, new draft. Should fix all issues that plagued the last two, and I'm currently working on bringing the replacement up to speed with the new repeal points.

[Las Duendes]

Las Duendes like! Spills and Leaks happen; not our fault. Get off our back!

[Gemeinschaftsland]

I like where this is at, and some of my partners in this repeal effort want to see it passed sooner than later in order to facilitate their own proposals. I intend to submit this shortly, should there be no significant flaws within pointed out to me in the next day or two.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

OOC: This is now at vote

[Lesbias]

"The People's Republic of Lesbias strongly supports the fixing of GA #298, however is there a plan to replace the Spills and Leaks Resolution? If so then Lesbias cannot support the following resolution"

[The Ice States]

"The People's Republic of Lesbias strongly supports the fixing of GA #298, however is there a plan to replace the Spills and Leaks Resolution? If so then Lesbias cannot support the following resolution"

The Ice ambassador provides the ambassador from Lesbias with two documents, as he speaks. "The mission from Gemeinschaftsland is drafting 'Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials', which would be complemented by our own 'Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials' as to fully replace the target upon its repeal".

[Lesbias]

The Ice ambassador provides the ambassador from Lesbias with two documents, as he speaks. "The mission from Gemeinschaftsland is drafting 'Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials', which would be complemented by our own 'Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials' as to fully replace the target upon its repeal".

The Lesbiasi Ambassador takes the documents and reads them, after finishing they respond. "The People's Republic of Lesbias can support these resolution. Lesbias affirms its support to the current resolution."

[New Falkarth]

This repeal seems reasonable. New Falkarth will vote FOR this resolution.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

We believe the complaint raised against the target's Clause 2 is unfair, and potentially misleading. Clause 2 explicitly allows member nations to 'establish standards and utilize technologies appropriate to their needs and capabilities.' Clause 2 cannot be reasonably read to inhibit national policy making or technological advancement, because it declares SaLDA input a mere recommendation and it explicitly allows member nations to adopt standards appropriate to their needs and capabilities."

"Ordinarily, our determination that a single repeal criticism is unfair is grounds for the Princess's delegation to vote against."

"We agree with the criticism of clause 1(C)(b), in that the clause was overwritten. It should have stopped after 'allow leak to occur' without going on to specify 'through negligence.' As it stands, we agree that the law requires punitive measures against only negligent leakers, and does not require the same treatment of intentional or malicious leakers. While we believe reasonable member nations will likely punish malicious leakers on their own, without a WA mandate to do so, we can agree that this is a (relatively minor) flaw in the target to have picked on negligent actors while saying nothing about intentional wrongdoers."

"We find most of the remaining arguments to be generally unpersuasive. The fact that members are encouraged to cooperate is not a flaw in our view. All WA resolutions are a sort of recommendation when you really think about it, since members could freely disassociate from the WA if something were demanded that they were not willing to do. We also think it's obvious that the target didn't put people at greater risk than they faced before the target was enacted."

"We do agree that the following argument makes a persuasive case for repeal:"

Ill at ease over Clause 4’s mandate, requiring compliant WA Member States to turn away transports from any entity that does not comply with the aforementioned SaLDA standards and recommendations, so long as the material being transported is considered "capable of causing a spill or leak," an outrageously broad mandate that applies not only to potentially hazardous materials. but to nearly every meaningful good and resource, and which could place trade between WA member states and the roughly 90% of nations that do not hold membership in this body (and which have little incentive to abide by regulations that hold no legal authority over them), alongside the import and export economies of compliant WA member states, at risk;

"We must agree that the target applies to anything capable of leaking or spilling. Taken literally, that would include milk trucks, freights of potable water, piles of beans, crates full of chickens, bushels of hay, etc. etc. etc. Nearly everything. Presumably, the target meant transports of only hazardous materials that are capable of spilling or leaking. But that is not what it says."

"We commend the repeal author for identifying at least one persuasive flaw, which was a substantial and unjustifiable overreach indeed. Nonetheless, the poor editing in the repeal clause pointing out that flaw completely overwhelms our senses! And the irony of bemoaning 'poor phrasing' in the target while committing such a silly unforced error in the repeal text is quite powerful. For those reasons, and pursuant to the Princess's ancient law, her delegation must vote AGAINST. Repeals are forever; they permanently strike out another author's work and cannot themselves be repealed. For that reason, we hold them to a higher quality standard. They should be drafted and submitted a with a bit more diligence and care than was evidenced here."

- Deputy Ambassador Roweina

[The Ice States]

Long post

"Your mission had nearly an entire year to raise up these concerns before the proposal reached vote."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Your mission had nearly an entire year to raise up these concerns before the proposal reached vote."

OOC: I did not complain about this being rushed to vote.

To be fair, I don't recall being particularly active in the mid-Feb to March 1 timeframe, when this was initially proposed and then declared withdrawn. I was most active in the early summer before disappearing again until the holiday time frame, when my kids school activities let up. I see that this was bumped back up November 28 and by December 18 the author was saying they planned to submit in a day or two. I really don't know when it was submitted, but in full candor I can't recall noticing or looking closely at this particular repeal proposal until earlier today when I was deciding how to vote.

I'm sorry, what exactly is your point in calling me out here? Are my comments not valid? Most of them are just about what I found persuasive and unpersuasive. I gave a public compliment to the argument I thought was quite good and then followed my very not secret practice of voting against repeals containing an obvious drafting flaw that final proofreading really should have caught.

Edit: By my count feedback on an early draft was solicited for about two weeks between Feb 14 and March 1. The proposal was then withdrawn for nine months until Nov 28, when a new draft was pushed and feedback was solicited for about three more weeks until it was submitted sometime around Dec 18. I know you probably just looked at the February 14 initial posting date before commenting, but go back and check your own math then tell me if you really think there was nearly an entire year. Seems to me like it was nearly three weeks. #rant over.