NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote: Being merely a shareholder in the company is not the same as owning the company. Shareholders enjoy limited liability against loss.

A shareholder is a proportionate owner of the company issuing the share. So absent any protection from the law, such as limited liability they would be partial owners. You claim shareholders enjoy limited liability. Where does WA law grant this protection?

The Lake- wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote: Being merely a shareholder in the company is not the same as owning the company. Shareholders enjoy limited liability against loss.

A shareholder is a proportionate owner of the company issuing the share. So absent any protection from the law, such as limited liability they would be partial owners. You claim shareholders enjoy limited liability. Where does WA law grant this protection?

"The WA does not grant this. It is inherent in how shares of investments operate. Shares of investment instruments are not coownership of all assets, but an interest less than coownership in future profits. I am not convinced this translates to coownership when the interest is in a pension portfolio. Or even a stock."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Old Hope wrote:We have considered this argument. We are surprised that you make it because the problem with that argument should be quite obvious for anyone well versed in international law.
The duty to comply with extant WA law does not apply to non-member nations.

"Member states have had to accommodate the lack of compliance among nonmembers since the world assembly was created. This was not a convincing argument in any other proposal requiring a duty to act and it is not now, given that extant law addressing perfidy also addresses this.

"Gotchyas only work when you have something of merit to argue."

This is not correct. The law, as written, gives non-member nations a significant military advantage over member nations, something the World Assembly has not been looking positively upon. General Assembly resolutions 10 and 305 clearly show that.

given that extant law addressing perfidy also addresses this.

Which law are you referring to?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The Lake- wrote:A shareholder is a proportionate owner of the company issuing the share. So absent any protection from the law, such as limited liability they would be partial owners. You claim shareholders enjoy limited liability. Where does WA law grant this protection?

"The WA does not grant this. It is inherent in how shares of investments operate.

problem being that this is wa law and wa law supersedes any private contract or national law. So, if you write a wa law making partial owners liable you cannot fall back on liablity protections elsewhere. They will be liable, the nature of their ownership and any liability protection thereof notwithstanding.

Old Hope wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Member states have had to accommodate the lack of compliance among nonmembers since the world assembly was created. This was not a convincing argument in any other proposal requiring a duty to act and it is not now, given that extant law addressing perfidy also addresses this.

"Gotchyas only work when you have something of merit to argue."

This is not correct. The law, as written, gives non-member nations a significant military advantage over member nations, something the World Assembly has not been looking positively upon. General Assembly resolutions 10 and 305 clearly show that.

given that extant law addressing perfidy also addresses this.

Which law are you referring to?

"I am correct, ambassador. Extant law addresses perfidious action and member responses to such. It is hardly my problem if your research skills fail you, given that I have clearly not been seeking your support."

The Lake- wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The WA does not grant this. It is inherent in how shares of investments operate.

problem being that this is wa law and wa law supersedes any private contract or national law. So, if you write a wa law making partial owners liable you cannot fall back on liablity protections elsewhere. They will be liable, the nature of their ownership and any liability protection thereof notwithstanding.

"Nothing in this law alters the nature of investment ownership, ambassador. While I agree that WA law supercedes national law, the WA operates on limited powers, and where it does not explicitly change national investment instrument law, such an implied modification cannot be reasonably read into the proposal. Please do not take my tone as condescending or dismissive, ambassador: this was an excellent concern that I was happy to address. I do not agree with your assessment, but my disagreement should not be taken as disrespect in your case."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I am correct, ambassador. Extant law addresses perfidious action and member responses to such. It is hardly my problem if your research skills fail you, given that I have clearly not been seeking your support."

Or maybe you are wrong.
We considered World Assembly resolution 334 but it does not help your argument. There is no other WA resolution that fits your description.

Old Hope wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I am correct, ambassador. Extant law addresses perfidious action and member responses to such. It is hardly my problem if your research skills fail you, given that I have clearly not been seeking your support."

Or maybe you are wrong.
We considered World Assembly resolution 334 but it does not help your argument. There is no other WA resolution that fits your description.

"This quality of research and reasoning is precisely why this delegation is not interested in making your edits.

"Initially, the act of rendering aid does not require overt rescue, and the proposal makes accommodations for this. To the extent you fear a carrier group would be peeled off it's course, you are wrong.

"Further, to the extent a state uses false indications of rescue as cover for a military goal, those craft are combatants falsifying the use of the status of hors de combat and members are not obligated to accord such protections on them. As they are not actually in need of rescue, their mayday is invalid.

"Any competent legal theorist would see several options available: provide aid without physically offering rescue, verifying the tactic as perfidious and taking action to avoid such entanglement under the associated provisions. As a hors de combat craft and crew are entitled to the provisions of surrendering combatants, and these craft are engaged in hostile military maneuvers, the entire issue is accommodated for.

"Ambassador, I am quite tired of dealing with your poor arguments. In the future, should you feel the need to comment, I would take it as a personal favor if you simply didn't."

Bump

Separatist Peoples wrote:Bump

Seeing as we have nothing on the books now currently covering this vital area of international security, please just submit it.

"Re: the formatting. I would suggest making your current 1, 2, 3 a subclauses a, b, c and have the other clauses as numbered ones. I think that would make the formatting less awkward. Otherwise, we concur with the statement from the delegation from Wayneactia."

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed due to the charge levied on the General Fund, which is not, despite protests to the contrary, a bottomless pit, and also takes contributions from landlocked nations.

"The definition of vessel seems overly broad. It's hardly reasonable to expect an amateur angler in a dinghy to be able to relay aid requests, maintain logs and detailed records, and so on.

"Considering all member states have universal health care, mentioning medical expenses is probably not necessary."

Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed due to the charge levied on the General Fund, which is not, despite protests to the contrary, a bottomless pit, and also takes contributions from landlocked nations.

"The definition of vessel seems overly broad. It's hardly reasonable to expect an amateur angler in a dinghy to be able to relay aid requests, maintain logs and detailed records, and so on.

"Considering all member states have universal health care, mentioning medical expenses is probably not necessary."

"If a small dinghy is incapable of rendering aid, it is not obligated to do so. How the owner elects to handle these recording obligations is entirely up to them. (OOC: oceanfaring dinghies are generally required to have radios on board irl).

"Medical expenditure is mentioned as a catch-all. Inclusion is better than the alternative.

"Finally, the cost to the General Fund is negligible given that the General Fund is the last resort. However, to the extent that it is burdened, the expenditure is paying for improved safety on international shipping, which reduces the costs and risks of international trade. The benefit wrought by the expense should turn the General Fund a profit when assessing contributions as a function of improved commerce."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed due to the charge levied on the General Fund, which is not, despite protests to the contrary, a bottomless pit, and also takes contributions from landlocked nations.

"The definition of vessel seems overly broad. It's hardly reasonable to expect an amateur angler in a dinghy to be able to relay aid requests, maintain logs and detailed records, and so on.

"Considering all member states have universal health care, mentioning medical expenses is probably not necessary."

"If a small dinghy is incapable of rendering aid, it is not obligated to do so. How the owner elects to handle these recording obligations is entirely up to them. (OOC: oceanfaring dinghies are generally required to have radios on board irl).

"Medical expenditure is mentioned as a catch-all. Inclusion is better than the alternative.

"Finally, the cost to the General Fund is negligible given that the General Fund is the last resort. However, to the extent that it is burdened, the expenditure is paying for improved safety on international shipping, which reduces the costs and risks of international trade. The benefit wrought by the expense should turn the General Fund a profit when assessing contributions as a function of improved commerce."

"The current text makes no distinction between ocean faring vessels and non-ocean faring dinghies, and while the distinction between capable and incapable of rendering aid is inherently present, there is no such distinction in respect of the record keeping requirements. I do not think it's reasonable that children in a paddle boat on a small lake should be required to record their "journeys".

Bananaistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"If a small dinghy is incapable of rendering aid, it is not obligated to do so. How the owner elects to handle these recording obligations is entirely up to them. (OOC: oceanfaring dinghies are generally required to have radios on board irl).

"Medical expenditure is mentioned as a catch-all. Inclusion is better than the alternative.

"Finally, the cost to the General Fund is negligible given that the General Fund is the last resort. However, to the extent that it is burdened, the expenditure is paying for improved safety on international shipping, which reduces the costs and risks of international trade. The benefit wrought by the expense should turn the General Fund a profit when assessing contributions as a function of improved commerce."

"The current text makes no distinction between ocean faring vessels and non-ocean faring dinghies, and while the distinction between capable and incapable of rendering aid is inherently present, there is no such distinction in respect of the record keeping requirements. I do not think it's reasonable that children in a paddle boat on a small lake should be required to record their "journeys".

"The children should consult an attorney."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"The current text makes no distinction between ocean faring vessels and non-ocean faring dinghies, and while the distinction between capable and incapable of rendering aid is inherently present, there is no such distinction in respect of the record keeping requirements. I do not think it's reasonable that children in a paddle boat on a small lake should be required to record their "journeys".

"The children should consult an attorney."

Would that be a vessel?

“Vessel” means any vehicle that travels on or below the surface of a water body which engages in, enables, or otherwise supports commerce,

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"The current text makes no distinction between ocean faring vessels and non-ocean faring dinghies, and while the distinction between capable and incapable of rendering aid is inherently present, there is no such distinction in respect of the record keeping requirements. I do not think it's reasonable that children in a paddle boat on a small lake should be required to record their "journeys".

"The children should consult an attorney."

"Regarding the updated definition of vessel, perhaps a further edit to be clear is necessary. If the children have rented their paddle boat, is the vessel supporting commerce? Also the angler in a dinghy who might happen to sell the fish he catches, does that make the dinghy a commerce supporting vessel?

"Also, in all cases, the vessel itself engaging in commerce is a bit clunky. A shop might occupy a building but the building itself doesn't engage anything?

"Further point. A millionaire's pleasure yacht that has much facilities and resources should not be exempt."

Bananaistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The children should consult an attorney."

"Regarding the updated definition of vessel, perhaps a further edit to be clear is necessary. If the children have rented their paddle boat, is the vessel supporting commerce? Also the angler in a dinghy who might happen to sell the fish he catches, does that make the dinghy a commerce supporting vessel?"

"The former seems unlikely. The vessel is not facilitating commerce. The latter would be commerce. Said angler needs to comply with commercial regulations, and should get no pass merely because he or she uses a dinghy. Commercial activity bears commercial costs."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"Regarding the updated definition of vessel, perhaps a further edit to be clear is necessary. If the children have rented their paddle boat, is the vessel supporting commerce? Also the angler in a dinghy who might happen to sell the fish he catches, does that make the dinghy a commerce supporting vessel?"

"The former seems unlikely. The vessel is not facilitating commerce. The latter would be commerce. Said angler needs to comply with commercial regulations, and should get no pass merely because he or she uses a dinghy. Commercial activity bears commercial costs."

This is not really a satisfactory answer. These requirements are a burden to anyone, but the burden is not entirely proportionate to the size of the vessel.
The burden for small-sized vessels is much greater in relation to the income they produce.
However, very small vessels are not built for travel far out in the sea anyways. So why do the owners of these vessels have to write a log? We only see negative effects here, for no substantial gain. That's not sound policy.

Old Hope wrote:This is not really a satisfactory answer. These requirements are a burden to anyone, but the burden is not entirely proportionate to the size of the vessel.
The burden for small-sized vessels is much greater in relation to the income they produce.

"Vessels too small to carry a radio and a logbook are too small to be effective at commercial enterprise. The requirements herein are no greater than any common-sense measures for personal safety afloat, ambassador."

However, very small vessels are not built for travel far out in the sea anyways. So why do the owners of these vessels have to write a log? We only see negative effects here, for no substantial gain. That's not sound policy.

"Vessels needing to record their course, range, and mayday signals is a greater burden than facilitating rescue of stricken vessels? Ambassador, have you ever been on a boat? These efforts are standard activities for maritime travel for commercial vessels anyway to log fuel consumption and ensure effective course management. Most modern vessels record this electronically. Most recreational vessels do this. Are you truly so obtuse that you find standard operating procedure more onerous than protecting the most lucrative lanes of commercial transit? This may be the worst argument I have heard from you to date."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Old Hope wrote:This is not really a satisfactory answer. These requirements are a burden to anyone, but the burden is not entirely proportionate to the size of the vessel.
The burden for small-sized vessels is much greater in relation to the income they produce.

"Vessels too small to carry a radio and a logbook are too small to be effective at commercial enterprise. The requirements herein are no greater than any common-sense measures for personal safety afloat, ambassador."

"Hmmm"

The latter would be commerce. Said angler needs to comply with commercial regulations, and should get no pass merely because he or she uses a dinghy. Commercial activity bears commercial costs.

Bananaistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Vessels too small to carry a radio and a logbook are too small to be effective at commercial enterprise. The requirements herein are no greater than any common-sense measures for personal safety afloat, ambassador."

"Hmmm"

The latter would be commerce. Said angler needs to comply with commercial regulations, and should get no pass merely because he or she uses a dinghy. Commercial activity bears commercial costs.

"Yes. And, as such, no rational actor would use such a craft for commercial activity. This is a meaningless argument about a non-issue."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"Hmmm"

"Yes. And, as such, no rational actor would use such a craft for commercial activity. This is a meaningless argument about a non-issue."

"So there's literally no angler in the universe who catches fish from a dinghy and occasionally sells the odd fish? This is not credible.

"Also, don't forget the millionaire's yacht issue. Commercial activity is probably not the best way to qualify the definition of vessel."

OOC: and don't forget the 'tech levels' factor, either; I'm sure that there are nations in the WA within which radios (or other means of relaying distress messages to further vessels) are unknown, or are known but are still too unreliable &/or expensive for this requirement to be practical.

Bananaistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Yes. And, as such, no rational actor would use such a craft for commercial activity. This is a meaningless argument about a non-issue."

"So there's literally no angler in the universe who catches fish from a dinghy and occasionally sells the odd fish? This is not credible.

"Also, don't forget the millionaire's yacht issue. Commercial activity is probably not the best way to qualify the definition of vessel."

"If they do, they ought comply with all laws applicable to commercial enterprises. A millionaire's yacht that engages in commercial activity should be equally bound. I am unconvinced."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"So there's literally no angler in the universe who catches fish from a dinghy and occasionally sells the odd fish? This is not credible.

"Also, don't forget the millionaire's yacht issue. Commercial activity is probably not the best way to qualify the definition of vessel."

"If they do, they ought comply with all laws applicable to commercial enterprises. A millionaire's yacht that engages in commercial activity should be equally bound. I am unconvinced."

“With respect Ambassador, it’s you who should be convincing me. The current proposal effectively outlaws on water amateur angling if the angler ever sells one fish. At the same time it exempts rich people’s pleasure cruises. One group do not have resources and would be forced to jump through ridiculous record keeping hoops, the other have all the resources and yet would have a WA mandate to sail right by any maritime disaster they encounter. This is bad policy. The People’s Republic of Bananaistan is opposed.

“Also preventing the state from recovering its losses while private actors can is bad too.”