[Draft]The Administration and Legality of Terra Nullius

[Lower Nubia]

---

The Administration and Legality of Terra Nullius
Category: Political Stability | Effect: Mild | Proposed by: Lower Nubia

---

The General Assembly,

Identifying the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, being outside of any sovereign entity.

Defines terra nullius as a territorial dispute resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, law and jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s);

Established either through international treaty on the part of member states, whereby land is acknowledged as terra nullius; which is formed for: political, cultural, religious, ecological and economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly.

Noting prior resolutions failure to define terra nullius with respect to adherence to supranational law;

Owing to the World Assemblies definition of acting law working within sovereign member-states, but not beyond them to infringe on non-member sovereignty, means, therefore, that terra nullius is not under World Assembly jurisdiction; both being beyond member states sovereignty and not intervening in the sovereignty of non-member states.

Reveals the potential exploitation by member states to comply with World Assembly regulation through the abuse of this legal loophole, by circumventing regulation through actions within terra nullius: which is both non-member and non-sovereign national territory.

Hereby seeking to eliminate this circumvention, while also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes, and additionally recognising member states compliance with WA resolutions;

1. Formulates and requires that any member states actions within terra nullius is both consistent and acts as an extension of prior and later supranational law outlined by the World Assembly and this proposal.
2. Protecting those sapient and non-sapient species, who utilise and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights defined by the World Assembly.
3. Sanctions to stop exploitation of terra nullius, judicially, economically, materially and ecologically by member states until the dispute is resolved, to protect the rights of those and that within terra nullius from intervening parties.
4. Necessitates member states actions be in accord with what has been defined regarding terra nullius, both with regards to this proposal and therefore WA resolutions.

Additionally understands the existence of direct/indirect disputes which result in terra nullius, as defined here, as being both undesirable and unsustainable;

Hereby establishes the formation of the Terra Nullius Resolution and Protection Agency (T.N.R.P.A) to work closely with disputing parties to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, which is located in terra nullius.

Edit 1: Changed the operative clauses; marking identification from action clauses. Added opener to the general assembly.
Edit 2: Changed the wording to eliminate the false impression of establishing a WA nation.
Edit 3: Defined more clearly terra nullius
Edit 4: Replaced and, with or: "free of any sovereign national control, law and jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s)"

[Erithaca]

Separate the operative (identifying, noting) clauses, which describe the background to the resolution, and active clauses (defines, recognises), which describe things that will be done. After the operative clauses, put "hereby," and prefix the whole resolution with "The General Assembly".

[Araraukar]

OOC: Unless you also define "territorial dispute", you're going to cause a shitton of trouble. Also, I can't see making contested places better by declaring them entirely lawless in the definition. Further, you literally define the non-existent land as something that's outside of law and jurisdictions, yet claim it under the laws and jurisdiction of the WA - it sounds like an oxymoron and a half.

It looks like you're trying to create a "WA nation", which I'm fairly sure can't be done, since the WA acts through the member nations. If the area is defined as outside the jurisdiction of WA nations, then it is also outside the direct jurisdiction of the WA. (And could be technically grabbed up by a non-WA nation, without the WA nations in question being allowed to intervene.)

And given that Araraukar is in a stable border zone dispute (both nations claim the area, but neither has any interest in forcing the other nation to give up its claim, and more or less govern it jointly) with its nextdoor neighbour, I wouldn't be for this in IC either, even though the other nation isn't in the WA.

[Lower Nubia]

OOC: Unless you also define "territorial dispute", you're going to cause a shitton of trouble. Also, I can't see making contested places better by declaring them entirely lawless in the definition. Further, you literally define the non-existent land as something that's outside of law and jurisdictions, yet claim it under the laws and jurisdiction of the WA - it sounds like an oxymoron and a half.

It looks like you're trying to create a "WA nation", which I'm fairly sure can't be done, since the WA acts through the member nations. If the area is defined as outside the jurisdiction of WA nations, then it is also outside the direct jurisdiction of the WA. (And could be technically grabbed up by a non-WA nation, without the WA nations in question being allowed to intervene.)

And given that Araraukar is in a stable border zone dispute (both nations claim the area, but neither has any interest in forcing the other nation to give up its claim, and more or less govern it jointly) with its nextdoor neighbour, I wouldn't be for this in IC either, even though the other nation isn't in the WA.

I have hopefully amended what seems like an attempt at a WA nation (which was not my intention).

I feel that the oxymoron is the reason the proposal needs to exist, because WA member nations can circumvent WA resolutions, by both being beyond her jurisdiction, while not infringing on non-member sovereignty. The abuses of terra nullius status as allows these things.

[Kenmoria]

"Your new definition excludes any areas with sovereign claims, which means that a territory would not be Terra Nullius if a government hundreds of miles away lay claimed it."

(OOC: This is the RL situation with Antarctica.)

[Lower Nubia]

"Your new definition excludes any areas with sovereign claims, which means that a territory would not be Terra Nullius if a government hundreds of miles away lay claimed it."

(OOC: This is the RL situation with Antarctica.)

Could the "and" in that clause be replaced with "or"?

"Defines terra nullius as a territorial dispute resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, law and jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s);

Established either through international treaty on the part of member states, whereby land is acknowledged as terra nullius; which is formed for: political, cultural, religious, ecological and economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly."

[Kenmoria]

"Your new definition excludes any areas with sovereign claims, which means that a territory would not be Terra Nullius if a government hundreds of miles away lay claimed it."

(OOC: This is the RL situation with Antarctica.)

Could the "and" in that clause be replaced with "or"?

"Defines terra nullius as a territorial dispute resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, law and jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s);

Established either through international treaty on the part of member states, whereby land is acknowledged as terra nullius; which is formed for: political, cultural, religious, ecological and economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly."

Yes, replacing the “and” with an “or” would be a more fitting definition.

[Araraukar]

I feel that the oxymoron is the reason the proposal needs to exist, because WA member nations can circumvent WA resolutions, by both being beyond her jurisdiction, while not infringing on non-member sovereignty. The abuses of terra nullius status as allows these things.

OOC: But things that are outside of the WA's jurisdiction, are outside the WA's jurisdiction. The WA can only legislate for the WA member nations. It can't legislate on non-member nations. I can't help but feel like you're looking for a problem intentionally. Because if a WA nation has conquered/occupied/claimed an area as its own, the people there are then "inhabitants" and the area is within the member nation's jurisdiction, both of which mean that existing WA laws apply and there is no "land without law".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Come on. We don't need to bold the entire proposal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Okay, you seriously need to separate the preamble and the active clauses from one another (and put definitions into active clauses), because it's getting hard to tell them apart.

EDIT: Also, my sleepy-brain understanding of the language as it now is, is getting to the point where you're about to ban fishing on international waters. Possibly shipping and any kind of similar activity also.

[Kenmoria]

"Also, you should write "this resolution" rather than "this proposal" since it won't be a proposal once it's passed."