[CHALLENGE] Pandemic Waste Awareness Act

[Bananaistan]

Public thread

Drafting thread

Recognising that due pandemics a higher volume of garbage such as masks, gloves and disinfectant bottles reach the oceans and litter whole swathes of land across the nations, this act should raise awareness towards waste caused by pan- and epidemics.

Acknowledging that plastic waste in general is a big problem and that this problem must be solved as best as possible. And that the waste in the oceans and on land is endangering the lives of entire species and, conversely, our own species. This resolution aims to raise our awareness especially on pan- and epidemic caused litter.

That is why we urge to implement those points below:

I - In the event of a pandemic or epidemic all nations either already affected or at significant risk of becoming affected need to raise awareness in politics and among the population about the proper disposal of masks, gloves and disinfectant bottles and other disposable medical items.

II - Proper disposal is defined as recycling or incinerating the used medical items before they end up in the landside and from there in the worst case in the rivers, lakes and oceans.

III - Nations must mandate if technologically possible the use of biodegradable materials instead of plastic for the production of medical one-off products in order to reduce the burden on the environment.

IV - In the case of a pandemic or epidemic in a very critical state where there is no possibility to produce only ecological biodegradable one-off medical utilities, the share must apply for at least 1/12 of the produced goods despite high demand of one-off medical utilities.

The branding rule specifically mentions "we" as unacceptable but in recent years we have informally allowed it on a number of occasions where the context suggests that it refers to the whole GA.

I move we hear this challenge and clarify where "we" is acceptable or not.

[Separatist Peoples]

Seconded and vote aye to hear. I do think the excessive use of we starts to make it unclear who is the subject. This is a useful clarification.

[Bears Armed]

Thirded for hearing this. I'd probably have accepted that use of "We" as just on the 'legal' side of borderline, but 'Environmental: Manufacturing' was too strong for a proposal that only "Urges" action: The author should have stuck with the earlier-used 'Environmental: All Businesses _ Mild.

EDIT: The author has withdrawn the current version.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I didn't see the proposal before it was withdrawn, so can't speak to strength / hortatory considerations. Here's the standard I'd publish for use of "we":

Proposals must be written from the World Assembly's point of view (WA POV). That is, a resolution must consist of the WA taking action. A resolution is the concrete declaration of what action is being taken. Thus, where the word "we" can plausibly refer to the WA itself (e.g. "We the Free and Sovereign Nations of the World Assembly..." or even "...lest we be suddenly attacked by the amoral, ravening hordes of non-member nations, the World Assembly hereby declares..."), it is acceptable to use. Where it cannot, it isn't.

[Separatist Peoples]

I didn't see the proposal before it was withdrawn, so can't speak to strength / hortatory considerations. Here's the standard I'd publish for use of "we":

Proposals must be written from the World Assembly's point of view (WA POV). That is, a resolution must consist of the WA taking action. A resolution is the concrete declaration of what action is being taken. Thus, where the word "we" can plausibly refer to the WA itself (e.g. "We the Free and Sovereign Nations of the World Assembly..." or even "...lest we be suddenly attacked by the amoral, ravening hordes of non-member nations, the World Assembly hereby declares..."), it is acceptable to use. Where it cannot, it isn't.

Just post this as the opinion in full.

[Bananaistan]

Can we add in something to make this applicable to repeals in light of this proposal, which includes the line "Furthermore, we discovered there is the error in the clause with the doubling of “occur”":

ID: greataz_1631972589

Repeal: “Citizenship And Birth Act”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

General Assembly Resolution #552 “Citizenship And Birth Act” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Dismayed that this proposal requires the practice of Jus sanguinis, the practice of inheriting nationalities based on the parent(s) nationality instead of the widespread practice of making this choice up to the member states instead.

In the clause “ Understanding that the location and time at which the birth of a child occurs occurs is natural and unpredictable”, it failed to take account that with modern technology, it is possible to control both the time and location of brith of a child in an member state. Furthermore, we discovered there is the error in the clause with the doubling of “occur”.

In clause 2, the author has also failed to understand that in accordance to some member state’s laws, there may be regional and provisional citizenship instead of general national citizenship.

In clause 3, the author made a foolish statement that attempts to engage attempts to enforce some member state laws, as using the “loophole” of age of majority, herby making this statement useless due to the definition of “age of majority” that states it can be any age the member state chooses.

As explain above, the world assembly herby repeal “citizenship and birth act”.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

How's this strike you?

Proposals must be written from the World Assembly's point of view (WA POV). That is, a resolution must consist of the WA taking action, whether that be imposing a new mandate or repealing an existing resolution. A resolution - even a repeal resolution - is the concrete declaration of what action is being taken. Thus, where the word "we" can plausibly refer to the WA itself (e.g. "We the Free and Sovereign Nations of the World Assembly..." or even "...lest we be suddenly attacked by the amoral, ravening hordes of non-member nations, the World Assembly hereby declares..."), it is acceptable to use. Where it cannot, it isn't.

[Separatist Peoples]

OK by me

[Bears Armed]

So are posting this explanation as "Yes, that proposal was legal"; "No, that proposal wasn't legal"; or just general guidelines for future reference?

[Bananaistan]

Opinion looks good to me. iSign.

So are posting this explanation as "Yes, that proposal was legal"; "No, that proposal wasn't legal"; or just general guidelines for future reference?

I think the last of these but as binding precedent.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Posted.