[DRAFT] Agreement on Transboundary Waters

[The Dourian Embassy]

So I've been working on this for a few days. Gave it a bit of shine and polish before posting it here. I'd like some feedback on it, as there are some things that could stand to be improved, but I'd like input before I go tinkering with it.

Accepting that transboundary waters cross national borders,

Affirms that access to transboundary waters is incredibly important to the quality of life for many persons.

Concerned that the actions of one nation regarding this water may have undue consequences for other nations which depend on that same water,

Mindful that the World Assembly should work towards encouraging peaceful resolution of disagreements,

Hereby declares the following:

1) Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,
A) Transboundary waters as any system of lakes, rivers, groundwaters, oceans and/or any water source that exists across or along the internationally recognized boundaries of two or more nations.
B) An affected nation as any nation which would be significantly and negatively affected by usage involving other nations of any particular transboundary waters that exist in whole or part inside the internationally recognized boundaries of that nation.

2) Requires that any agreement(including those already negotiated) involving transboundary waters include participation and discussion between all affected nations, should those affected nations wish to.

3) Mandates that non-navigational usage of any transboundary waters be in compliance with existent agreements.

4) Declares that all nations will, in the event of a dispute over the non-navigational use of transboundary waters, meet with other affected nations and reach an agreement on their use.

5) Requires that all agreements on transboundary waters be equitable to any affected nations.

Some stuff seems redundant, some seems like it might not be needed, but I want input before I make the decision. Go nuts.

[The Solarian Isles]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right, so correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you're suggesting that any nation that has an interest in crossing through Solarian waters would be required to be given a chance at negotiating for right of passage.

As I've previously stated, Solarian national waters extend to 200 nautical miles from our shores. By the order of His Holiness, any and all foreign incursion in that area is not welcome, and is to be met with a military response. His Holiness' orders are final, and no foreign nation has a right to negotiate to change this.

His Radiance High Cleric Joran Kell
Member of the Radiant Council and Solarian Delegate to the WA

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right, so correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you're suggesting that any nation that has an interest in crossing through Solarian waters would be required to be given a chance at negotiating for right of passage.

As I've previously stated, Solarian national waters extend to 200 nautical miles from our shores. By the order of His Holiness, any and all foreign incursion in that area is not welcome, and is to be met with a military response. His Holiness' orders are final, and no foreign nation has a right to negotiate to change this.

His Radiance High Cleric Joran Kell
Member of the Radiant Council and Solarian Delegate to the WA

Actually no, it's not supposed to ensure a right of passage to anyone. This would be about if say, a neighboring set of islands took issue with how much pollution you dumped into the oceans, or overfishing, or any number of things like that. I'll see about making it more clear that it doesn't involve any rights to traverse those waters.

[The Solarian Isles]

Actually no, it's not supposed to ensure a right of passage to anyone. This would be about if say, a neighboring set of islands took issue with how much pollution you dumped into the oceans, or overfishing, or any number of things like that. I'll see about making it more clear that it doesn't involve any rights to traverse those waters.

In that case, I'm glad I asked. If it covers waters of common interest outside national claims, then we can support it. However, no other nation has any business complaining about what we do in our own waters.

[The Dourian Embassy]

In that case, I'm glad I asked. If it covers waters of common interest outside national claims, then we can support it. However, no other nation has any business complaining about what we do in our own waters.

The idea is that if what you're doing in your own waters has an effect on someone else, it's an international issue, and rather than go to war over it, there should be a mechanism to solve the problem.

Edit: I've included the term Non-Navigational in a few places to help clarify what this is about.

[The Dourian Embassy]

More opinions are wanted. I don't want to have to put this up without more extensive drafting, but if no one else has an opinion...

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

2) Requires that any agreement involving transboundary waters include participation and discussion between all interested nations, should they wish to participate.

3) Requires re-negotiation of any current agreement that does not meet the requirements of section 2.

While we are entirely in favour of the principal of not polluting your neighbours, we do not believe carefully brokered treaties and contracts with neighbouring nations should be broken just because some tin pot little dictator on the opposite side of our planet might be affected by just enough water pollution to kill a small pet goldfish within the next million years.

If you really want to rectify the issue, please set up a compensation board or something else a bit less devastating instead.

[The Dourian Embassy]

2) Requires that any agreement involving transboundary waters include participation and discussion between all interested nations, should they wish to participate.

3) Requires re-negotiation of any current agreement that does not meet the requirements of section 2.

While we are entirely in favour of the principal of not polluting your neighbours, we do not believe carefully brokered treaties and contracts with neighbouring nations should be broken just because some tin pot little dictator on the opposite side of our planet might be affected by just enough water pollution to kill a small pet goldfish within the next million years.

If you really want to rectify the issue, please set up a compensation board or something else a bit less devastating instead.

Or I could add the word significantly to the definition of interested nations, so that only those who would be "significantly affected" have claim.

[Discoveria]

"Some thoughts. I support this in principle but the text needs review."

Accepting that transboundary waters cross national borders,

Affirms that access to transboundary waters is incredibly important to the quality of life for many persons.

Concerned that the actions of one nation regarding this water may have undue consequences for other nations which depend on that same water,

Mindful that the World Assembly should work towards encouraging peaceful resolution of disagreements,

Hereby declares the following:

1) Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,
A) Transboundary waters as any system of lakes, rivers, groundwaters, oceans and/or or any water source that exists across or along the internationally recognized boundaries of two or more nations.
B) An interested nation as any nation which would be significantly affected by an agreement reached onthe use of any particular transboundary waters that exist in whole or part inside the internationally recognized boundaries of that nation. This would otherwise leave the loophole - nation X sharing a transboundary river with nations Y and Z could be cut out of bilateral negotiations between Y and Z regarding river use. Nation X would not then be an 'interested nation' and have no further claim under this proposal.

2) Requires that any agreement involving transboundary waters include participation and discussion between all interested nations, should they wish to participate.With my edit to the definitions above, this clause is no longer part of a circular reasoning. Seems okay.

3) Requires re-negotiation of any current agreement that does not meet the requirements of section 2.

4) Allows any current agreements that meet the requirements of section 2. Redundant?

5) Mandates that non-navigational usage of any transboundary waters be in compliance with existent agreements. Non-navigational usage is clear in the context of this thread but sounds like jargon otherwise. I would replace with "Mandates that the use of transboundary waters (except for their use during travel or passage over or through such waters) be in compliance with existing agreements". Or it could have its own clause.

6) Declares that all nations will, in the event of a dispute over the non-navigational use of transboundary waters, meet with other interested nations and reach an agreement on their use. Could be clearer, i.e. all interested nations for a particular transboundary water.

7) Requires that all agreements on transboundary waters be equitable to any interested nations. What does equitable mean in this context? Wiktionary tells me it means fair, just or impartial. In any case I'm not sure why this is a requirement. The proposal is concerned with environmental impact, not social justice. If nation Y is overwhelmingly powerful compared to nation X, this clause is not going to redress the balance between these nations to any great degree.

[The Dourian Embassy]

B) An interested nation as any nation which would be significantly affected by an agreement reached onthe use of any particular transboundary waters that exist in whole or part inside the internationally recognized boundaries of that nation. This would otherwise leave the loophole - nation X sharing a transboundary river with nations Y and Z could be cut out of bilateral negotiations between Y and Z regarding river use. Nation X would not then be an 'interested nation' and have no further claim under this proposal.

2) Requires that any agreement involving transboundary waters include participation and discussion between all interested nations, should they wish to participate.With my edit to the definitions above, this clause is no longer part of a circular reasoning. Seems okay.

Not sure how this is wrong or how it's supposed to work. I think the wording as currently stated is perfectly fine, but if there is some ambiguity I'm missing... I'm also not seeing any drawbacks to excising the words "an agreement reached on". Done.

4) Allows any current agreements that meet the requirements of section 2. Redundant?
This is akin to one of those throwaway lines about how "this resolution in no way restricts the rights of governments to be more/less restrictive. I think it might need a bit of cleaning to be more crisp, but the line should stay.

5) Mandates that non-navigational usage of any transboundary waters be in compliance with existent agreements. Non-navigational usage is clear in the context of this thread but sounds like jargon otherwise. I would replace with "Mandates that the use of transboundary waters (except for their use during travel or passage over or through such waters) be in compliance with existing agreements". Or it could have its own clause.

Your wording is more clunky than mine, and non-navigational is a standard term used for exactly this purpose. I didn't just pull it out of the air.

6) Declares that all nations will, in the event of a dispute over the non-navigational use of transboundary waters, meet with other interested nations and reach an agreement on their use. Could be clearer, i.e. all interested nations for a particular transboundary water.

The definition of interested nations helps clear this clause up for anyone who is confused by it.

7) Requires that all agreements on transboundary waters be equitable to any interested nations. What does equitable mean in this context? Wiktionary tells me it means fair, just or impartial. In any case I'm not sure why this is a requirement. The proposal is concerned with environmental impact, not social justice. If nation Y is overwhelmingly powerful compared to nation X, this clause is not going to redress the balance between these nations to any great degree.

This is not a social justice resolution, I'm not trying to redress that balance. I'm providing a framework for resolving certain disputes involving the environment.

Regardless, I've internalized some of yours and some stuff from offsite(not to mention a few IRC channels) and have a new draft version up. Let me know what you think.

[Goddess Relief Office]

hey Dourian,

I already have a proposal on Transboundary Water Resources. I have been working on it on and off since May this year and have no intention of dropping it.

Regards,
~GRO~

[The Dourian Embassy]

hey Dourian,

I already have a proposal on Transboundary Water Resources. I have been working on it on and off since May this year and have no intention of dropping it.

Regards,
~GRO~

Any feedback on my draft?

[Norsklow]

Yes, of course we have feedback. The concept of 'equitable to all' is irreconcilable with 'winner takes all', which is the founding stone of our native concept of secular Justice.