[PASSED] Convention on International Oil Spills

[Atzcapotzalco]

Hm. I suppose our calculations were incorrect.

And that's why stormtroopers are so inacurate.

[Otaku Stratus]

I'm still going to vote for this because it's fine enough, but there are some important points nonetheless:
1. while oil cleanups might well be described as "insurmountable", they clean themselves up via biodegradation inside of a year. A pretty nasty year to be a baby seal, but a year nonetheless.
2. if being extremely valuable hasn't motivated oil companies to make sure their oil stays inside the pipes and tanks where it lives, what good is legislation going to do?

[Ru-]

legislation allows companies that want to do the responsible thing to not be run over by the companies that take dangerous risks.

We need legislation to make sure corporations can compete agsinst each other on a fair playing field. It protects the enviroment, the consumer, the industry, and the companies themselves.

[Furry Things]

I think there are a number of minor issues that could've been fixed with some drafting on the forum. However, it still seems like a good proposal, so I'm voting for.

[Taboooo]

The Republic of Taboooo gives notice that we have supported this resolution. We believe that all nations have a responsibility to look after the world's oceans. The resolution also states that finance will be available, how will we access this, desperately need the money!

[Bears Armed]

OOC
GenSec might have slipped up by letting this go to vote. I've raised the question for urgent discussion in our sub-forum.

Is the proposed resolution 'Convention on International Oil Spills', currently at vote, actually illegal for trying to affect non-WA nations as well as WA members?

3. Mandates that all oil extraction operations working in international waters take the following precautions to prevent oil spillage:

Note the all there, which seems (in this context) to include those operated by non-members.

5. Extends the authority of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to:
1. Launch extensive relief efforts in the event of an oil spill in international waters;
2. Investigate allegations of dangerous and reckless mismanagement of maritime oil extraction;

And this apparently authorizes the WADB to investigate allegations regardless of the responsible nations’ membership status.

EDIT: I've now TGed the other GenSec members to draw their attention to that question.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: GenSec has voted to hear the sua sponte challenge (IE at least of two of us believe the question should be looked at). Public thread for the sua sponte review here.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I want to sincerely apologize to everyone for my hastiness and overconfidence in submitting a proposal without a public drafting period beforehand. I wasted everyone's time by submitting a piece of legislation with many glaring flaws that could have easily been rectified.

If this proposal manages to pass, I will support an instant repeal of the bill to give it a proper drafting period. And I shall give my hand at preparing its own repeal. And unlike this bill, the repeal will have a few days or weeks of public drafting.

[Queen Yuno]

I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. I've studied ecology, which includes the worst oil spills in history, what caused them and how to fix them. Your proposal is well written, did you come up with it entirely by yourself? I read the entire draft and it's accurate and helpful, it makes inconvenient things optional and mandates checking to make sure the machines aren't damaged before using them in international waters. Overall, it's one of the best proposals in readability and subject.

[Shaktirajya]

As We have made clear several times before, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, regard the Earth as a manifestation of the Goddess Herself, and as such, We vote For this resolution.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajyasya

[Ru-]

I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. I've studied ecology, which includes the worst oil spills in history, what caused them and how to fix them. Your proposal is well written, did you come up with it entirely by yourself? I read the entire draft and it's accurate and helpful, it makes inconvenient things optional and mandates checking to make sure the machines aren't damaged before using them in international waters. Overall, it's one of the best proposals in readability and subject.

I agree fully with this, and also do not see anything wrong with the proposal.

To the drafter: don't panic just because GenSec wants to review a possible legality issue. While public drafting is always a very very good idea, frankly, some are skilled enough to draft a good proposal without that very useful assistance. Not only is this proposal much more well written then several similar resolutions we have currently on the books (according to both myself and the WA delegate of forest, who asserted as much even while voicing their reservations) but the fact that but for GenSec holding it to resolve this issue, this would have pass the vote by an overwhelming margin. the opinion of the WA's majority surely speaks for a draft's quality. And you have gotten the support of many of the "super delegates" as well. These are players who pay very very careful attention to the written quality of what they vote for, since they know thier votes carry alot of weight. Don't beat yourself up over this proposal, it is plenty good enough lol

It's rare that a proposal that doesn't go through public drafting see such wide support by the major delegates btw, I think it can only because you managed to write a good WA proposal by (i assume) yourself, that's nothing to be ashamed of.

[Lord Dominator]

I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. I've studied ecology, which includes the worst oil spills in history, what caused them and how to fix them. Your proposal is well written, did you come up with it entirely by yourself? I read the entire draft and it's accurate and helpful, it makes inconvenient things optional and mandates checking to make sure the machines aren't damaged before using them in international waters. Overall, it's one of the best proposals in readability and subject.

I agree fully with this, and also do not see anything wrong with the proposal.

To the drafter: don't panic just because GenSec wants to review a possible legality issue. While public drafting is always a very very good idea, frankly, some are skilled enough to draft a good proposal without that very useful assistance. Not only is this proposal much more well written then several similar resolutions we have currently on the books (according to both myself and the WA delegate of forest, who asserted as much even while voicing their reservations) but the fact that but for GenSec holding it to resolve this issue, this would have pass the vote by an overwhelming margin. the opinion of the WA's majority surely speaks for a draft's quality. And you have gotten the support of many of the "super delegates" as well. These are players who pay very very careful attention to the written quality of what they vote for, since they know thier votes carry alot of weight. Don't beat yourself up over this proposal, it is plenty good enough lol

It's rare that a proposal that doesn't go through public drafting see such wide support by the major delegates btw, I think it can only because you managed to write a good WA proposal by (i assume) yourself, that's nothing to be ashamed of.

One is of course that the author's note wasn't from the legality thing as far as I know, but rather other concerns. Also, regarding Ransium's statement, 'least bad' isn't exactly what I call a ringing endorsment

[Yorshka Corp]

This proposition goes against our interests. Voting against at this time.

[Bears Armed]

the opinion of the WA's majority surely speaks for a draft's quality.

*<cynical laugh>*

[Old Hope]

*<cynical laugh>*

Indeed. And it was not a singular accident:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=31364803#p31364803 passed with more than 80% support...
repealed six days later:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=31364845#p31364845, with more than 80% support.
and....
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=32730354#p32730354
and its repeal...https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=32730365#p32730365
and this gem illegalizing self-defense against animals:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=25513722#p25513722
which was, of course, quickly repealed:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=25513844#p25513844

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. I've studied ecology, which includes the worst oil spills in history, what caused them and how to fix them. Your proposal is well written, did you come up with it entirely by yourself? I read the entire draft and it's accurate and helpful, it makes inconvenient things optional and mandates checking to make sure the machines aren't damaged before using them in international waters. Overall, it's one of the best proposals in readability and subject.

OOC: +1. Legal proposals can be bad, and illegal proposals can otherwise be good. And the reverse, of course. Just because there is an 11th hour challenge means nothing. We can't give every submitted proposal the kind of analytical treatment we give to Challenges, so different interpretations sometimes yield issues late in the game. That isn't your fault. It isn't really even GenSec's fault. It just happens.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I want to sincerely apologize to everyone for my hastiness and overconfidence in submitting a proposal without a public drafting period beforehand. I wasted everyone's time by submitting a piece of legislation with many glaring flaws that could have easily been rectified.

If this proposal manages to pass, I will support an instant repeal of the bill to give it a proper drafting period. And I shall give my hand at preparing its own repeal. And unlike this bill, the repeal will have a few days or weeks of public drafting.

(OOC: Although some drafting would have been better, and would have been ironed out a few minor issues and content problems with the draft, a lack of such doesn’t automatically make a proposal bad. It’s possible for someone to write a draft in a few days drafting offline, and for that draft to be better than one that has been through weeks of constructive criticism.

Repealing a resolution solely because it wasn’t drafted isn’t a good enough and there a high chance said repeal will fail at vote. If there are glaring, proposal-breaking issues I’ve overlooked, then a replacement might be in order, but the relatively small errors with what is at vote still make a decent piece of legislation.)

[True Spain]

OOC: I want to sincerely apologize to everyone for my hastiness and overconfidence in submitting a proposal without a public drafting period beforehand. I wasted everyone's time by submitting a piece of legislation with many glaring flaws that could have easily been rectified.

If this proposal manages to pass, I will support an instant repeal of the bill to give it a proper drafting period. And I shall give my hand at preparing its own repeal. And unlike this bill, the repeal will have a few days or weeks of public drafting.

The mere fact that you've been willing to admit that maybe you rushed it more than desirable and have accepted criticism has made my day a tiny little bit better. Not enough people are brave and mature enough to do it, and I commend you for that. If your resolution gets placed in hold and you give it a second go with a proper drafting period, I'm very confident I'll be voting for.

[Wallenburg]

That isn't your fault. It isn't really even GenSec's fault. It just happens.

Well, in this case, at least some blame does rest with the author, since an 11th hour challenge would have been far less likely had this seen a drafting period.

[Rovikstead]

My intentions of repealing and replacing the proposal come from hopes of creating a more comprehensive piece of legislation that effectively prevents and expedites the clean-up of international oil spills through stronger mandates, clearer wording and better use of legal language. Over the course of its time in vote, I have found that there are several glaring flaws that should have been addressed long before I proposed “Convention on International Oil Spills,” especially in light of the legality challenge. These issues include but are not limited to:

• Grammar mistakes and poor wording
• Failure to address certain areas of oil spillage such as the protection and rehabilitation of wildlife
• Failure to properly convey that clause 5 (beyond the measures operating in international bodies of water) affects WA nations - not non-WA nations
• Failure to ensure that this proposal benefits nations of various tech levels and not just exclusively modern-future tech levels

I believe these are flaws that not only make it difficult for the bill to succeed in its purpose but may set a poor precedent for future proposals. However, through the repeal of this bill and a replacement of an improved one, I believe that I can better reach the goals I originally had with the current proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

That isn't your fault. It isn't really even GenSec's fault. It just happens.

Well, in this case, at least some blame does rest with the author, since an 11th hour challenge would have been far less likely had this seen a drafting period.

OOC: I mean, insofar as the author was the proximate and factual cause of the proposal, sure. Generally, I don't want to lay blame for esoteric interpretations on the feet of the author unless they were warned ahead of time. Its really hard to predict how other people will interpret writing. Hell, large collections of lawyers get it wrong all the time in the Real World. But I do see your point.

My intentions of repealing and replacing the proposal come from hopes of creating a more comprehensive piece of legislation that effectively prevents and expedites the clean-up of international oil spills through stronger mandates, clearer wording and better use of legal language. Over the course of its time in vote, I have found that there are several glaring flaws that should have been addressed long before I proposed “Convention on International Oil Spills,” especially in light of the legality challenge. These issues include but are not limited to:

• Grammar mistakes and poor wording
• Failure to address certain areas of oil spillage such as the protection and rehabilitation of wildlife
• Failure to properly convey that clause 5 (beyond the measures operating in international bodies of water) affects WA nations - not non-WA nations
• Failure to ensure that this proposal benefits nations of various tech levels and not just exclusively modern-future tech levels

I believe these are flaws that not only make it difficult for the bill to succeed in its purpose but may set a poor precedent for future proposals. However, through the repeal of this bill and a replacement of an improved one, I believe that I can better reach the goals I originally had with the current proposal.

You may want to let somebody else repeal it, rather than doing so your own self. People my consider your own attempt at repeal and replace as a chance to get 3 badges for the work of one. Especially with instarepeals. Its really a silly argument, but the voters don't exactly view reality as clearly as those of us who are active in the forum. Just food for thought.

[Wallenburg]

Well, in this case, at least some blame does rest with the author, since an 11th hour challenge would have been far less likely had this seen a drafting period.

OOC: I mean, insofar as the author was the proximate and factual cause of the proposal, sure. Generally, I don't want to lay blame for esoteric interpretations on the feet of the author unless they were warned ahead of time. Its really hard to predict how other people will interpret writing. Hell, large collections of lawyers get it wrong all the time in the Real World. But I do see your point.

OOC: I agree with Ara to a degree. Any active clauses should be clear in their limitation to the jurisdictions of member states. It's not illegal to use the language this resolution uses, but it's hardly an ideal choice.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I mean, insofar as the author was the proximate and factual cause of the proposal, sure. Generally, I don't want to lay blame for esoteric interpretations on the feet of the author unless they were warned ahead of time. Its really hard to predict how other people will interpret writing. Hell, large collections of lawyers get it wrong all the time in the Real World. But I do see your point.

OOC: I agree with Ara to a degree. Any active clauses should be clear in their limitation to the jurisdictions of member states. It's not illegal to use the language this resolution uses, but it's hardly an ideal choice.

OOC: Oh yeah. Clarity is always good.

[Ru-]

lol, i had a small feeling a desire for more sweeping mandates might have been partly behind this desire to rework it. Can't say Ru would support the new version but here's hoping. Big part of why I liked this one so much in particular was that it took a very tough stance when it came to international waters while still being respectful of individual nations when it came to thier own territory.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: As Separatist Peoples rightly believes, if I were to author the repeal of “Convention on International Oil Spills,” it would be viewed by the members of the World Assembly as a cheap and ill-intentioned way to earn another badge - a distinction I do not want to be known for.

I want to make it clear that my hopes of repealing and replacing “Convention on International Oil Spills” - should it pass - comes from the stance of several including myself that this is a poorly-written resolution with so much potential, but as a consequence of my hastiness, overconfidence, and unwillingness to spend time publicly drafting it, ultimately fails to accomplish its mission of preventing and facilitating the clean-up in maritime oil spills.

With that being said, I will still try to help repeal this bill if it manages to pass to the best of my abilities, but I will not author the repeal proposal.