[REDRAFT] Repeal "Environmental Warfare Act"

[Rovikstead]

OOC: A few months back, under my alternate account, Zone 71, I began the drafting of a repeal of Environmental Warfare Act. I suspended its drafting after Final Exams and schoolwork hit me like a huge, flaming garbage truck. Hopefully though, I'll have more time and energy to continue its drafting until I see it ready for submission.

Repeal “Environmental Warfare Act”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#382 | Proposed by: Rovikstead

General Assembly Resolution #382 “Environmental Warfare Act” (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding GA#382’s noble ambitions of prohibiting the abhorrent and harmful practice of environmental warfare;

However, concerned by the resolution’s grossly lacking definition of “environmental warfare," only fixating on the issue of the spread of invasive species;

Horrified by how many forms of ecoterrorism are grossly neglected by the resolution’s narrow definition of “environmental warfare" and its exclusion of other vastly harmful practices of environmental warfare such as:

1. Contaminating civilian drinking water;
2. Using chemical herbicides;
3. Deforestation;

Fearing that the target resolution's single focus excludes far more pressing issues and instances of ecoterrorism which, as a consequence, are not addressed in this resolution;

Further distressed that this resolution's misleading title and preamble may lead some members into a false sense of security;

Unsatisfied by clause 3, a mandate whose ambiguity and lack of guidance on how to comply with it would prevent the mandate from being properly enforced and reaching its potential as an active deterrent of the spread of invasive species;

Baffled by GA#382’s decision to task the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents (WACBA) with the responsibility of identifying and preventing the spread of invasive species despite the fact that WACBA's mission is centered around the use biological agents primarily in
ballistic weapons;

Convinced that GA#382 fails to identify environmental warfare, offer proper guidance and preventative measures against instances of ecoterrorism, allocate the proper authorities to deal with this issue, and provide the assistance necessary to significantly help member nations affected by environmental warfare;

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #382, “Environmental Warfare Act.”

Repeal “Environmental Warfare Act”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#382 | Proposed by: Zone 71 (alternate account)

General Assembly Resolution #382 “Environmental Warfare Act” (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding GA#382’s noble ambitions of prohibiting the use of environmental warfare;

However, terribly concerned by the resolution’s grossly insufficient definition of “environmental warfare," only fixating on the issue of invasive species;

Baffled by how many forms of ecoterrorism are neglected by the resolution’s narrow definition of “environmental warfare,” with the exclusion of acts under this definition such as:

1. Contaminating civilian drinking water;
2. Using chemical herbicides;
3. Deforestation and clearing land of vegetation;

Convinced that the target resolution's singular focus excludes far more pressing issues and instances of ecoterrorism;

Unsatisfied by clause 3, a mandate whose ambiguity and lack of guidance on how to comply with it would prevent the mandate from being properly enforced;

Puzzled by GA#382’s decision to task the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents (WACBA) with the responsibility of identifying and preventing the spread of invasive species, despite the fact that WACBA mission is centered around the use biological agents - primarily in
ballistic weapons;

Convinced that GA#382 fails to identify environmental warfare, offers proper guidance and preventative measures against instances of ecoterrorism, allocates the proper authorities to deal with this issue, or provides sufficient aid to member nations affected by it;

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #382, “Environmental Warfare Act.”

Repeal “Environmental Warfare Act”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#382 | Proposed by: Zone 71 (alternate account)

General Assembly Resolution #382 “Environmental Warfare Act” (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding GA#382’s noble ambitions of prohibiting the use of environmental warfare;

However, distressed by the resolution’s grossly insufficient definition of “environmental warfare,” as it solely focuses on the issue of invasive species;

Further baffled by how many forms of ecoterrorism are neglected by the resolution’s narrow definition of “environmental warfare,” with the exclusion of acts under this definitionsuch as:

1. Contaminating civilian drinking water;
2. Using chemical herbicides;
3. Deforestation and clearing land of vegetation;

Unsatisfied by clause 3, a mandate whose ambiguity and lack of guidance on how to comply with it would prevent the mandate from being properly enforced;

Puzzled by GA#382’s decision to task the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents (WACBA) with the responsibility of identifying and preventing the spread of invasive species, despite the fact that WACBA mission is centered around the use biological agents - primarily in
ballistic weapons;

Essentially unconvinced that GA#382 properly identifies environmental warfare, offers proper guidance and preventative measures against instances of ecoterrorism, allocates the proper authorities to deal with this issue, or provides sufficient aid to member nations affected by it;

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #382, “Environmental Warfare Act.”

Repeal “Environmental Warfare Act”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#382 | Proposed by: Zone 71 (alternate account)

General Assembly Resolution #382 “Environmental Warfare Act” (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding GA#382’s noble goal of protecting the environment in times of war;

However, distressed by the resolution’s grossly insufficient definition of “environmental warfare,” as it singularly focuses on the issue of invasive species;

Baffled by how many forms of ecoterrorism are neglected by the resolution’s narrow definition of “environmental warfare,” and its exclusion of acts such as:

1. Contaminating civilian drinking water;
2. Using chemical herbicides;
3. Deforestation and clearing land of vegetation;

Unsatisfied by clause 3, a mandate which obligates member nations to prevent the introduction of invasive species domestically or abroad with no elaboration on how to efficiently do so;

Puzzled by GA#382’s decision to task the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents (WACBA) with the responsibility of identifying and preventing the spread of invasive species, despite the fact that WACBA mission is centered around the use biological agents in weapons;

Unconvinced that GA#382 properly identifies environmental warfare, offers proper guidance and preventative measures against instances of ecoterrorism, allocates the proper authorities to deal with this issue, or provides sufficient aid to member nations affected by it;

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #382, “Environmental Warfare Act.”

Repeal "Environmental Warfare Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#382| Proposed by: Zone 71 (alternate account)

General Assembly Resolution #382 "Environmental Warfare Act" (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Commending GA Resolution #382's noble goal of protecting the environment, especially in times of war;

However, distressed by the resolution's definition of "environmental warfare" as grossly insufficient, only focusing on one form of environmental warfare, the introduction of invasive species;

Baffled by how many forms of ecoterrorism are neglected by the resolution's narrow description of "environmental warfare" including but not limited to:

1. Contaminating drinking water;
2. Destroying forests;
3. Using chemical herbicides;

Puzzled by the resolution's broad mandate obligating member nations to "take reasonable action to prevent" citizens from carrying out ecoterrorism abroad, and prevent ecoterrorism within their own jurisdiction, with little elaboration, and failure to suggest or provide aid on how to do so successfully;

Unconvinced that this resolution properly identifies environmental warfare, does enough to prevent instances of ecosystem, and provides sufficient aid and guidance to member nations afflicted by ecoterrorism;

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #382, "Environmental Warfare Act."

[Wallenburg]

I fail to see what is unclear about clause 3's requirements. I also fail to see how the target fails to provide sufficient aid to nations suffering from the effects of environmental attacks. Clause 4(b) of the target clearly provides for such aid.

[Rovikstead]

I fail to see what is unclear about clause 3's requirements.

Clause three demands that all nations take "reasonable action" to prevent the spread of invasive species abroad, but never does this resolution define what is considered "reasonable action," nor suggest effective, preventative measures of this form of environmental warfare. Additionally, because this resolution never defines "reasonable action," there's hardly any way this mandate can be effectively enforced by the compliance commission.

I also fail to see how the target fails to provide sufficient aid to nations suffering from the effects of environmental attacks. Clause 4(b) of the target clearly provides for such aid.

Clause four allocates the responsibility of dealing with the spread of invasive species to the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents. Under this resolution, the commission is tasked with ensuring that "nations remain up-to-date on the latest information regarding identification and prevention of invasive species" and aiding civilian populations when afflicted by this issue. But there's no way a World Assembly committee dedicated to research on biological agents, especially those used in ballistic weapons, can effectively tackle this issue. The delegation of such responsibilities to this committee is reckless and completely irrelevant to the WACBA's mission, so the chances of the WACBA balancing these delegated responsibilities on top of its own effectively are little to none.

[Wallenburg]

I fail to see what is unclear about clause 3's requirements.

Clause three demands that all nations take "reasonable action" to prevent the spread of invasive species abroad, but never does this resolution define what is considered "reasonable action," nor suggest effective, preventative measures of this form of environmental warfare.

Presumably, the government of member states has enough brain cells between all its officials to figure out how to stop environmental terrorists.

Additionally, because this resolution never defines "reasonable action," there's hardly any way this mandate can be effectively enforced by the compliance commission.

First, the Compliance Commission doesn't have any enforcement powers, so that statement is nonsensical. Second, there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of this clause. Among the unreasonable is allowing environmental terrorists to act with impunity.

I also fail to see how the target fails to provide sufficient aid to nations suffering from the effects of environmental attacks. Clause 4(b) of the target clearly provides for such aid.

Clause four allocates the responsibility of dealing with the spread of invasive species to the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents. Under this resolution, the commission is tasked with ensuring that "nations remain up-to-date on the latest information regarding identification and prevention of invasive species" and aiding civilian populations when afflicted by this issue. But there's no way a World Assembly committee dedicated to research on biological agents, especially those used in ballistic weapons, can effectively tackle this issue.

Why not?

The delegation of such responsibilities to this committee is reckless and completely irrelevant to the WACBA's mission,

How is it reckless? How is it irrelevant? These hardly seem to characterise the reality of the committee or this resolution.

so the chances of the WACBA balancing these delegated responsibilities on top of its own effectively are little to none.

We have gnomes for a reason. They can handle the workload. And if they can't, the WACBA has hired more gnomes.

[Rovikstead]

Clause three demands that all nations take "reasonable action" to prevent the spread of invasive species abroad, but never does this resolution define what is considered "reasonable action," nor suggest effective, preventative measures of this form of environmental warfare.

Presumably, the government of member states has enough brain cells between all its officials to figure out how to stop environmental terrorists.

Additionally, because this resolution never defines "reasonable action," there's hardly any way this mandate can be effectively enforced by the compliance commission.

First, the Compliance Commission doesn't have any enforcement powers, so that statement is nonsensical. Second, there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations of this clause. Among the unreasonable is allowing environmental terrorists to act with impunity.

You must consider the nation's situation. Some nations lack the resources and management to properly remedy this issue. Other nations may feel that dealing with this issue would be a waste of their time and resources, and based on a loose interpretation of the mandate, will do as little as possible to "deal" with terrorism of this sort. Essentially, because this resolution fails to appoint the appropriate committee to aid nations in need, and because there's no defined standard for what is considered "reasonable action," it's extremely difficult to assume that most nations will follow the mandate as the resolution's author envisioned.

Clause four allocates the responsibility of dealing with the spread of invasive species to the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents. Under this resolution, the commission is tasked with ensuring that "nations remain up-to-date on the latest information regarding identification and prevention of invasive species" and aiding civilian populations when afflicted by this issue. But there's no way a World Assembly committee dedicated to research on biological agents, especially those used in ballistic weapons, can effectively tackle this issue.

Why not?

The delegation of such responsibilities to this committee is reckless and completely irrelevant to the WACBA's mission,

How is it reckless? How is it irrelevant? These hardly seem to characterise the reality of the committee or this resolution.

so the chances of the WACBA balancing these delegated responsibilities on top of its own effectively are little to none.

We have gnomes for a reason. They can handle the workload. And if they can't, the WACBA has hired more gnomes.

The issue is not purely a question of manpower, but of whether or not the WACBA has people equipped with the knowledge to tackle this issue. I do not doubt that the members of this committee are very intelligent people dedicated to their job, but expecting people hired to deal with biological agents and warfare to also solve the crisis of invasive species is wrong to assume, especially when it would be more appropriate to allocate this responsibility to a committee more involved in this form of environmental warfare.

[Wallenburg]

You must consider the nation's situation. Some nations lack the resources and management to properly remedy this issue.

Such a nation is not sovereign for long. This Assembly does not concern itself with theoretical member states that have no power.

Other nations may feel that dealing with this issue would be a waste of their time and resources,

Too bad. They voted against. They lost. Now they fulfill the mandate.

and based on a loose interpretation of the mandate, will do as little as possible to "deal" with terrorism of this sort.

No interpretation allows inaction.

Essentially, because this resolution fails to appoint the appropriate committee to aid nations in need, and because there's no defined standard for what is considered "reasonable action," it's extremely difficult to assume that most nations will follow the mandate as the resolution's author envisioned.

What is the appropriate committee, and how does giving tasks to the WACBA instead render totally separate mandates meaningless?

The issue is not purely a question of manpower, but of whether or not the WACBA has people equipped with the knowledge to tackle this issue. I do not doubt that the members of this committee are very intelligent people dedicated to their job, but expecting people hired to deal with biological agents and warfare to also solve the crisis of invasive species is wrong to assume, especially when it would be more appropriate to allocate this responsibility to a committee more involved in this form of environmental warfare.

Again. These are gnomes. They always get the job done. This is how things work here.

[Rovikstead]

You must consider the nation's situation. Some nations lack the resources and management to properly remedy this issue.

Such a nation is not sovereign for long. This Assembly does not concern itself with theoretical member states that have no power.

The World Assembly's mission is to spread democracy and to aid unfortunate nations within its hallowed halls. It will do you no good to fail to recognize these nations and to downplay their presence and importance within the World Assembly.

Other nations may feel that dealing with this issue would be a waste of their time and resources,

Too bad. They voted against. They lost. Now they fulfill the mandate.

I don't believe you necessarily understand my point. Because of clause three's ambiguity, nothing will stop these nations from doing the minimal amount of effort in preventing this form of ecoterrorism within and outside of their state.

and based on a loose interpretation of the mandate, will do as little as possible to "deal" with terrorism of this sort.

No interpretation allows inaction.

But it does allow for the nation to do as little as possible in dealing with the introduction of invasive species, essentially diminishing whatever positive impact clause three could have had if it was written less vaguely.

Essentially, because this resolution fails to appoint the appropriate committee to aid nations in need, and because there's no defined standard for what is considered "reasonable action," it's extremely difficult to assume that most nations will follow the mandate as the resolution's author envisioned.

What is the appropriate committee, and how does giving tasks to the WACBA instead render totally separate mandates meaningless?

The issue is not purely a question of manpower, but of whether or not the WACBA has people equipped with the knowledge to tackle this issue. I do not doubt that the members of this committee are very intelligent people dedicated to their job, but expecting people hired to deal with biological agents and warfare to also solve the crisis of invasive species is wrong to assume, especially when it would be more appropriate to allocate this responsibility to a committee more involved in this form of environmental warfare.

Again. These are gnomes. They always get the job done. This is how things work here.

As I said before, giving tasks to the WACBA that are outside their mission would be very unproductive and ill-advised because the members of this committee are primarily equipped to deal with biological agents - not invasive species. It would be like asking a food vendor to become a police officer; these are two completely different occupations, each requiring absolutely separate skill-sets.

Given that this committee deals more with the prevention and monitoring of disasters, as well as dealing with hazards negatively affecting civilian populations and nations' welfare, I would say that the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (established in GAR#105) would be a more appropriate group to task with dealing this issue. However, I feel that the suppression or elimination of invasive species in a nation is such a massive undertaking that making an entirely new committee dedicated to this problem would have appropriate too.

And, although this committee was established far after the passage of "Environmental Warfare Act," your resolution, "Agricultural Invasive Species Act," created the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service, which specifically deals with this form of ecoterrorism. Out of curiosity, how come you, in your resolution, decided to create a committee for the sole purpose of dealing with this issue? Why didn't you, like the author of "Environmental Welfare Act," fall back on another committee like the World Assembly Committee of Biological Agents, or task this issue with the World Assembly Disaster Bureau?

[Kenmoria]

As I said before, giving tasks to the WACBA that are outside their mission would be very unproductive and ill-advised because the members of this committee are primarily equipped to deal with biological agents - not invasive species. It would be like asking a food vendor to become a police officer; these are two completely different occupations, each requiring absolutely separate skill-sets.

(OOC: Unfortunately, or not depending on how one looks at it, gnomes are perfect. They are assumed to be immune to corruption, bribery, inefficiency, bankruptcy, inadequate preparation and anything else that could possibly hinder them. WA committees always have the necessary resources and skillsets to deal with the problems they face, no matter how impossible this may be depending on what the committee should do. It’s very unrealistic and nothing at all like real life, just a system so that WA authors don’t have to specify how a committee runs and can just assume it’s already perfect.)

[Rovikstead]

OOC: Bump

Does anyone feel the reasoning for the repeal is insufficient or wrong? Does anyone want to see a replacement of the Environmental Warfare Act?

[Bears Armed]

"Bearing in mind that GAR #382's definition of the term 'Environmental Warfare' is specifically stated in the text to be "for purposes of this resolution", nothing in that resolution blocks either you or anybody else from drafting and submitting separate legislation on any of the practices which you complain that resolution does not address. A repeal is therefore not needed for that reason"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

[Rovikstead]

"Bearing in mind that GAR #382's definition of the term 'Environmental Warfare' is specifically stated in the text to be "for purposes of this resolution", nothing in that resolution blocks either you or anybody else from drafting and submitting separate legislation on any of the practices which you complain that resolution does not address. A repeal is therefore not needed for that reason"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

Considering this resolution's desires to confront the issues falling under the term of "environmental warfare," and the unfortunate truth that this ambitious resolution fails to efficiently tackle the consequences of even one form of environmental warfare, invasive species, I believe this piece of legislation must be repealed in order to make way for future legislation that better handles ecoterrorism without pouring WA funding into a completely irrelevant field, and a comprehensive bill recognizing all or most forms of environmental warfare, denouncing them as the abhorrent crimes they are, and offering preventative measures and appropriate aid to sufferers of such an issue.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I've updated the current draft. I would appreciate further discourse on this proposed repeal. I've also added a poll for everyone's initial thoughts on it.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Good reasons

Clause three of ga 382 might be misconstrued and a biological agents committee can't deal with invasive species

[Aclion]

While I agree that Environmental Warfare Act has it's issues I don't think repealing it is necessary to resolve them. I'd like to see a resolution that addresses the shortcomings of Environmental Warfare Act, and if the resolution becomes an issue for that proposal then we can consider a repeal.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I agree with aclion

[Araraukar]

Horrified by how many forms of ecoterrorism are grossly neglected by the resolution’s narrow definition of “environmental warfare" and its exclusion of other vastly harmful practices of environmental warfare such as:

1. Contaminating civilian drinking water;
2. Using chemical herbicides;
3. Deforestation;

Fearing that the target resolution's single focus excludes far more pressing issues and instances of ecoterrorism which, as a consequence, are not addressed in this resolution;

OOC: 1. Intentionally spoiling drinking water has already been banned by another existing resolution. 2. Chemical weapons are explicitly allowed defensively, but you'll want to check the definition on that resolution - other than that, there is a requirement of the pesticide being legal to use in the nation it's used in, in another resolution, which also has some other requirements/restrictions on their use when they aren't used as chemical weapons. 3. Didn't we just pass something that requires you to reforest areas? 4. Ecoterrorism is still terrorism, and there is at least one resolution on terrorism already.

[Wallenburg]

Further distressed that this resolution's misleading title and preamble may lead some members into a false sense of security;

The title and preamble are not misleading.

Unsatisfied by clause 3, a mandate whose ambiguity and lack of guidance on how to comply with it would prevent the mandate from being properly enforced and reaching its potential as an active deterrent of the spread of invasive species;

Member states do not need detailed instructions on how to stop ecoterrorism.

Baffled by GA#382’s decision to task the World Assembly Commission of Biological Agents (WACBA) with the responsibility of identifying and preventing the spread of invasive species despite the fact that WACBA's mission is centered around the use biological agents primarily in
ballistic weapons;

No, the WACBA's mission is centered around humanitarian relief from biological attacks, and assistance in defending member states from biological weapons.

Convinced that GA#382 fails to identify environmental warfare, offer proper guidance and preventative measures against instances of ecoterrorism, allocate the proper authorities to deal with this issue,

Beyond that which I have already addressed, what do you mean by "allocate the proper authorities"? You are aware that the WA cannot have a police or military force, right?

and provide the assistance necessary to significantly help member nations affected by environmental warfare;

What more than what clause 4 contains is necessary?

I still see no reason why you cannot address other forms of environmental warfare without repealing this.