[DRAFT] Inter-Stellar Colonization Act

[Flemingisa]

This is my first resolution so please Constructive Criticism. Thanks

Inter-Stellar Colonization Act

By:Flemingisa

Noting that multiple World Assembly members have achieved Inter-Solar travel and Inter-Stellar travel.

Further Noting that many of these same World Assembly members have colonized many planets in their goals of preserving their culture and way of life.

Somewhat Concerned that many nations have claimed Non-Colonized planets for themselves even if said member nations do not have any interest in colonizing said planets or using them for Raw Materials.

Hoping to Encourage future space exploration among Non-Space faring nations and to allow them the opportunity to expand among the stars.

Requring that World assembly nations Relinquish claims on all Celestial bodies within Inter-Solar territory and Inter-Stellar territory that,

A). Are not being actively colonized or have no plans to within Fifty years of Territorial Claim by said nation.

B). Are not planning on harvesting Raw Materials on said Celestial Bodies within 50 Years of Territorial claim.

Adding That claims of land due to results from Treaties of War are Valid claims and must be settled with above regulations of the Resolution

Also Adding that certain complexes and organizations such as military headquarters and Private Military Corporations shall, for all intents and purposes will defer to the nation where the military is located or the Private military corporation is based out of.

Hereby Sets forth all rules and regulations set forth in the above resolution in accordance with active resolutions.

Please give me some constructive criticism about grammar and wether or not this is even legal.
Thanks
Flemingisa

[Heartlost]

You forgot a word:

Somewhat Concerned that many nations have claimed Non-Colonized planets for themselves even if said member nations do not have any interest in colonizing said planets or using them for Raw Materials.

[Flemingisa]

You forgot a word:

Somewhat Concerned that many nations have claimed Non-Colonized planets for themselves even if said member nations do not have any interest in colonizing said planets or using them for Raw Materials.

Thanks! I didn't realize I missed out on that phrase of words

[Losthaven]

Category and strength?

[Tinfect]

"No, No, No, and again, No. The Imperium will not be relinquishing any Territory. A great number of worlds under our control are used solely for Weapons Testing, Military Training, and Border Defense, and do not have any permanent colonies on their surface. You are asking us to give up 60% of our Territory, and that is completely unacceptable."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why only interstellar colonization? Shouldn't the WA have an interest in regulating any colonization by superior powers?

FYI: Not even colonization of Mars qualifies as "interstellar." More like interplanetary.

[Flemingisa]

Why only interstellar colonization? Shouldn't the WA have an interest in regulating any colonization by superior powers?

FYI: Not even colonization of Mars qualifies as "interstellar." More like interplanetary.

I had figured there were already resolutions for colonization of the earth by superior powers...

But I'll edit it to make sure that I include "Inter-Solar" colonization

[Grays Harbor]

We are at a complete loss for why it is any business of the WA to tell somebody that unless they use their territory for what the WA deems the "right" reasons they lose that territory.

And you haven't answered the earlier question about category and strength.

[The Islands Gazette]

We are at a complete loss for why it is any business of the WA to tell somebody that unless they use their territory for what the WA deems the "right" reasons they lose that territory.

And you haven't answered the earlier question about category and strength.

Sorry.. It's "Political Stability" and the strength is Mild as of right now.. It may change based on what people tell me.

And why should the WA tell someone how to... It's not it's only saying if your not going to use it at all then your claim will be removed... You can get it back but this stops people from claiming land in a solar system they aren't in just for the sake of "having more territory. That's all it's doing

[Separatist Peoples]

We are at a complete loss for why it is any business of the WA to tell somebody that unless they use their territory for what the WA deems the "right" reasons they lose that territory.

And you haven't answered the earlier question about category and strength.

Sorry.. It's "Political Stability" and the strength is Mild as of right now.. It may change based on what people tell me.

And why should the WA tell someone how to... It's not it's only saying if your not going to use it at all then your claim will be removed... You can get it back but this stops people from claiming land in a solar system they aren't in just for the sake of "having more territory. That's all it's doing

"Which is really a nation's right. What a nation does with their land is their business. That's a ridiculous restriction."

[The Islands Gazette]

Sorry.. It's "Political Stability" and the strength is Mild as of right now.. It may change based on what people tell me.

And why should the WA tell someone how to... It's not it's only saying if your not going to use it at all then your claim will be removed... You can get it back but this stops people from claiming land in a solar system they aren't in just for the sake of "having more territory. That's all it's doing

"Which is really a nation's right. What a nation does with their land is their business. That's a ridiculous restriction."

So your telling me that a member nation shouldn't be able to colonize a planet right next to theirs because they had space tech later than some other member nation who just has claims on it but doesn't even have a probe on it. They just say they own it. That's not fair to the new nation and they should be able to dispute the claim

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Which is really a nation's right. What a nation does with their land is their business. That's a ridiculous restriction."

So your telling me that a member nation shouldn't be able to colonize a planet right next to theirs because they had space tech later than some other member nation who just has claims on it but doesn't even have a probe on it. They just say they own it. That's not fair to the new nation and they should be able to dispute the claim

They're free to do so. It's not the WA's business to be a nanny state when it comes to making sure all the children play nice with their land claims. Exploitation of native races, tribes, or polities, sure - but unused land, barring environmental concerns, isn't in the sphere of international law.

[Jarish Inyo]

Opposed. This would be like the WA telling governments that they have to give up islands because the islands don't have anyone on them.

[Flemingisa]

So your telling me that a member nation shouldn't be able to colonize a planet right next to theirs because they had space tech later than some other member nation who just has claims on it but doesn't even have a probe on it. They just say they own it. That's not fair to the new nation and they should be able to dispute the claim

They're free to do so. It's not the WA's business to be a nanny state when it comes to making sure all the children play nice with their land claims. Exploitation of native races, tribes, or polities, sure - but unused land, barring environmental concerns, isn't in the sphere of international law.

I hear that term a lot "nanny-State". do you know what the World Assembly's motto is. "Improving the world, One resolution at a time"." I'm not going to debate the ethics of this resolution... I want You to provide examples about how this resolution won't help the world. Answer me that please and I'll admit you may be right

[Flemingisa]

Opposed. This would be like the WA telling governments that they have to give up islands because the islands don't have anyone on them.

That's not what this resolution does.. This resolution is preventing say.. Belgium from claiming some random island next to Tahiti and saying it's theirs when they have never visited it themselves. This resolution is preventing things like that

[Sainterre]

Opposed. This would be like the WA telling governments that they have to give up islands because the islands don't have anyone on them.

That's not what this resolution does.. This resolution is preventing say.. Belgium from claiming some random island next to Tahiti and saying it's theirs when they have never visited it themselves. This resolution is preventing things like that

I concur with the Ambassador from Jarish Inyo, that is exactly what the resolution does. And I do not know what this 'Tahiti' you speak of is. Opposed.

[Tinfect]

Opposed. This would be like the WA telling governments that they have to give up islands because the islands don't have anyone on them.

That's not what this resolution does.. This resolution is preventing say.. Belgium from claiming some random island next to Tahiti and saying it's theirs when they have never visited it themselves. This resolution is preventing things like that

"First of all, Ambassador Nameless is correct. Those planets are well within our Borders, they have been defended by our Military for decades, and many of them have a great deal of uses besides Resource Acquisition, or Colonization, I refer you to my previous statements on this matter for examples. Those worlds have no governments, no species even capable of self-governance, and all of them are Imperial Territory, this is nothing like, whatever this "Belgium" is, acting like an Imperialistic Power."

[Flemingisa]

That's not what this resolution does.. This resolution is preventing say.. Belgium from claiming some random island next to Tahiti and saying it's theirs when they have never visited it themselves. This resolution is preventing things like that

"First of all, Ambassador Nameless is correct. Those planets are well within our Borders, they have been defended by our Military for decades, and many of them have a great deal of uses besides Resource Acquisition, or Colonization, I refer you to my previous statements on this matter for examples. Those worlds have no governments, no species even capable of self-governance, and all of them are Imperial Territory, this is nothing like, whatever this "Belgium" is, acting like an Imperialistic Power."

If you re-read the edited proposal you saw then that I said that military bases and PMC's count towards colonization and resource collection.., so I don't know where you still are against this

[Jarish Inyo]

This proposal does not make the world or universe better in anyway. All it does is force nations to give up territory. And the arguments in the proposal are not valid reasons for any nation to give up said territory.

There is nothing wrong for a nation to claim or have territory even when they have no plans to use it. Whether it is an island chain or a solar system. The WA has no right to limit the growth of a nation or force a nation to give up territory.

[Grays Harbor]

They're free to do so. It's not the WA's business to be a nanny state when it comes to making sure all the children play nice with their land claims. Exploitation of native races, tribes, or polities, sure - but unused land, barring environmental concerns, isn't in the sphere of international law.

I hear that term a lot "nanny-State". do you know what the World Assembly's motto is. "Improving the world, One resolution at a time"." I'm not going to debate the ethics of this resolution... I want You to provide examples about how this resolution won't help the world. Answer me that please and I'll admit you may be right

"Improve the world one resolution at a time" is not a catch-all for "we're going to micromanage every facet of your existance". It is not the business of the WA to mandate how and why somebody can manage their own territory or lose their claim to it.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"We firmly oppose this resolution. Our empire has jurisdiction over trillions of planets that fit the description in the proposal, many of which may go untouched for millions of years before being needed. We will not relinquish our sovereign territory, territory we have possessed for billions of years, for any reason."

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra has legal claim to a great deal of uninhabited territory and has no intention of relinquishing those claims.
We would regard any attempt to so drastically undermine our territorial sovereignty as an act of war Ambassador.

[Tinfect]

"We firmly oppose this resolution. Our empire has jurisdiction over trillions of planets that fit the description in the proposal, many of which may go untouched for millions of years before being needed. We will not relinquish our sovereign territory, territory we have possessed for billions of years, for any reason."

OOC:
Trillions.
There's FT, and then there is whatever the hell you've got going on.
I'm sure you're great fun in RPs/

[Sierra Lyricalia]

They're free to do so. It's not the WA's business to be a nanny state when it comes to making sure all the children play nice with their land claims. Exploitation of native races, tribes, or polities, sure - but unused land, barring environmental concerns, isn't in the sphere of international law.

I hear that term a lot "nanny-State". do you know what the World Assembly's motto is. "Improving the world, One resolution at a time"." I'm not going to debate the ethics of this resolution... I want You to provide examples about how this resolution won't help the world. Answer me that please and I'll admit you may be right

Nope. Burden of proof is on the author to show why the resolution would be a net benefit. A number of ambassadors have informed you that simply confiscating territory for the sake of confiscating territory does not help anyone. In the example you gave above, there's nothing preventing the younger nation from disputing the older nation's claim. What we're trying to tell you is that it's not the WA's business to pre-emptively pick sides in that dispute based on nothing more than the fact that the original claim exists! If in fact there's some benefit to the WA doing so, you need to show what it could possibly be. What if the younger nation is a Yahtzee regime bent on conquering the universe and exterminating all other forms of life? Well, they're the ones planning to occupy and colonize this place, so I guess we better let 'em?!? There's no way to rationally adjudicate the ridiculous number of territory questions that will spew forth from the can of worms that clause is hell-bent on opening.

[Caracasus]

The main object of contention for us is that this legislation, should it be passed, seeks to undermine existing territorial claims made before this resolution came into effect

Requring that World assembly nations Relinquish claims on all Celestial bodies within Inter-Solar territory and Inter-Stellar territory that,

A). Are not being actively colonized or have no plans to within Fifty years of Territorial Claim by said nation.

B). Are not planning on harvesting Raw Materials on said Celestial Bodies within 50 Years of Territorial claim.

It is hard enough to mandate what nation states may or may not claim as their own; as we are sure you are aware ambassador, a significant percentage of armed conflicts have been instigated by territory disagreements between nations. We shudder to think how many more conflicts may be triggered by attempting to legislate on territory acquisition after the fact.

Whilst we broadly agree with the main aims of your proposal - to curb the further acquisition of territories - this legislation does not fully succeed in this, rather it adds further confusion to an already troubled area. You are correct in that many WA members have inter-solar travel, Caracasus is currently experimenting with re-usable space craft for example, most lack the capacity to establish any form of viable colony on another planet or satellite. You claim that you wish to encourage further space exploration among nations, yet how does removing the territorial claims of nations unless they can realistically establish a colony or outpost on another planet or satellite within 50 years help nations? Surely this would result in nations with more advanced technology seizing all available territory before other, less advanced but still space faring nations can do so?

Perhaps legislation prohibiting a member state from claiming too much land/territory on another planet or satellite unless they can demonstrate clear plans to colonize the entire planet or satellite might work, although you still find yourself in the position of trying to legislate across an incredibly diverse spectrum of technological advancement.