[SUA SPONTE CHALLENGE] [AT VOTE] Conv. on Int. Oil Spills

[Bananaistan]

Per Bears Armed post here, GenSec has vote to look at the current at vote proposal in the GA.

It is alleged that the proposal breaks the part of the Meta Gaming rule referring to attempting to force compliance on non-member nations by introducing regulations on all oil extraction operations in international waters in section 3 and in section 5(b) extending the scope of the committee to investigate allegations regardless of the operator's nation of origin.

[Auralia]

Is the proposed resolution 'Convention on International Oil Spills', currently at vote, actually illegal for trying to affect non-WA nations as well as WA members?

3. Mandates that all oil extraction operations working in international waters take the following precautions to prevent oil spillage:

Note the all there, which seems (in this context) to include those operated by non-members.

5. Extends the authority of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to:
1. Launch extensive relief efforts in the event of an oil spill in international waters;
2. Investigate allegations of dangerous and reckless mismanagement of maritime oil extraction;

And this apparently authorizes the WADB to investigate allegations regardless of the responsible nations’ membership status.

1. In general, GenSec should be erring on the side of legality. It can be safely assumed that "all oil extraction operations" refers to all member state oil extraction operations, given that it is already well established that the World Assembly cannot "forc[e] compliance on non-member nations" and there is no reason to think that the proposal was seeking to do this.

2. I don't see how this can even be construed as illegal. The rules don't bar World Assembly institutions from merely investigating the practices of non-member states. It would be against the rules to attempt to force non-member states to cooperate with the investigation, but the proposal does not do this.

[Wallenburg]

Should GenSec not automatically assume that the resolution only refers to oil operations owned by member states and their inhabitants? It goes against all precedent to ignore valid interpretations that render a resolution legal in favor of an interpretation that renders it illegal.

[Bananaistan]

What about the law does what the law says? Or, in this case, is there a magic invisible (part of a) clause in section 3 which clarifies that it only applies to operations originating in member states?

I agree that if there's a valid legal interpretation we should and we do run with that. And I'm sure in most cases, references to member states in other clauses would be enough to satisfy me. But in this case I'm not sure that there is a valid interpretation.

The subject matter is international waters. By definition international waters are not under the control of the either WA member states or the WA itself. Wouldn't it be quite the jump to say the clause says "international waters" but it actually means "territorial waters under the control of a member state" or "all oil extraction operations" actually means "only those oil extraction operations under the jurisdiction of a member state"?

[Wallenburg]

What about the law does what the law says? Or, in this case, is there a magic invisible (part of a) clause in section 3 which clarifies that it only applies to operations originating in member states?

Longstanding precedent holds that resolutions are not to be interpreted as affecting non-member states unless the choice of language requires such an interpretation, as with an explicit mandate on non-members or a distinction between "all nations" and "all member nations". There is no language here requiring that interpretation.

The subject matter is international waters. By definition international waters are not under the control of the either WA member states or the WA itself. Wouldn't it be quite the jump to say the clause says "international waters" but it actually means "territorial waters under the control of a member state"

It would be, yes, since "international waters" and "territorial waters" are mutually exclusive.

or "all oil extraction operations" actually means "only those oil extraction operations under the jurisdiction of a member state"?

No, it wouldn't. We are to default to an interpretation that "all oil extraction operations" refers only to all such operations under WA jurisdiction, just as Individual Working Freedoms gives directives to "all nations", but is still legal, since it is clearly reasonable to interpret that as meaning "all member nations".

[Liberimery]

So my read of the first at issue problem is a possible problem as first, I am not sure if international waters oil drilling is possible. I don't know enough to care but I'm not sure if drilling in international waters is even possible IRL. If it is, oil rigs are still flagged to a nation so this issue could be addressed and interpreted to be WA Flagged operations in International Waters quite handedly.

The second problem is not at issue at all. International waters are not controlled by any nation, and thus the non-member states have enough authority to keep WA Nations out as the WA has to go into the waters to investigate. If it started in international waters and after the disaster is secured, the WA may be allowed to assist in containment and limited investigations. Even if the rig is flagged to a non-member nation, as someone who plays an archipelago nation, I can see the benefit of the WA as standing as a Protecting Power or assisting in finding a protecting power for my nation interests to seek damages if the currents and weather meant my country was at risk from oil crossing my boarder, as I might have no diplomatic relationship with the nation representing those at fault.

Just so we're clear, Protecting Powers is a diplomatic term for a relation between two hostile governments with no diplomatic relationships being handled by a third party that both nations do have relationships with. For example, The Swiss Government will represent the US interests with respect to Iranian Government as the US and Iran do not have formal relations but there are times where the US may need someone to say "We'll give you an Iranian prisoner back if you give us our guy."

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe this is legal. Lets start with Clause 3.

The words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means. Context, then, is a primary determinant of meaning. An ambiguous word or phrase's meaning can be wrought from other uses of the same word within the law. A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout the text. A material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning. Further, the parts of a draft should be read in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.

Here, of course, the question focuses on the use of "nation" and whether it means member nations or all nations regardless of membership, albeit indirectly through a reference to operations in international waters. The proposal includes many such references, which I highlight for clarity:

The World Assembly,

Recognizing oil as a natural resource relied upon by many as a common source of fuel and energy, and forms the basis of a lucrative industry for most member nations;

However concerned with the many dangers of the extraction of oil in oceanic bodies, especially towards the marine ecosystem and quality of the nation’s water sources, posing risks including but not limited to:

1. Poisoning and killing off maritime life;
2. Spurring unnatural growth in certain algae populations that could threaten underwater plants’ ability to produce oxygen;
3. Stunting larval development and growth of maritime creatures;
4. Contaminating the nations' drinking water and spreading hazardous carcinogens including cancer-causing agents;

Fearing the demanding, nearly insurmountable task of cleaning up after an oil spills in international waters, and the inevitable threats that come with the spillage;

Desiring to prevent future oil spills in international waters, and facilitate their clean-up through a series of measures member nations are urged to take and through the dedication and work of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau;

Hereby:

1. Obligates member nations to establish appropriate legislation prohibiting the usage of faulty equipment in maritime oil extraction, create and uphold standards of safety of efficiency, and design oil spill emergency response plans;

2. Urges member nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and switch to alternate, eco-friendly energy sources including solar, wind, or geothermal energy;

3. Mandates that all oil extraction operations working in international waters take the following precautions to prevent oil spillage:

1. Inspect the operation thoroughly and check for any deterioration and leaks in equipment annually, especially oil drums, generators, and associated piping;
2. Test oil containers for integrity regularly;
3. Clean oil tanks every couple of years to prevent the corrosion and rusting of the tank;
4. Ensure that spill kits are easily accessible at oil extracting operations;

4. Strongly urges member nations do the following in the event of an oil spill:

1. Spray dispersants, a type of chemical agent that breaks up oil molecules and make them more easily biodegraded, on the area of oil spillage;
2. Use biological agents (nutrients, enzymes, and microorganisms) to further facilitate the biodegradation of oil spills;
3. Set booms made of absorbent material in the water along the edge of the oil spillage to contain the oil;
4. Rinse oiled shorelines and ruses using hoses that supply low or high-pressure water streams, and collect the runoff with plastic-lined trenches and sorbent materials;
5. Till and rake the shores and land penetrated by oil so that it can be exposed and evaporated, left to degrade naturally, or washed with pressure hoses;

5. Extends the authority of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to:

1. Launch extensive relief efforts in the event of an oil spill in international waters;
2. Investigate allegations of dangerous and reckless mismanagement of maritime oil extraction;
3. Finance national projects to establish more safeguards against international oil spills at the request of the member nation;

All operative clause use of "nation" here are qualified to indicate membership. The prefatory clauses are not all so referenced, but contextually reference the "nation" as the reader. Clause 3 is the only clause that does not refer to member nations explicitly, instead referencing all operations in international waters. Reading this clause to reference all states rather than member states conforms to the notion that material variation indicates a meaningful change in meaning. But taking this interpretation not only reads an illegal interpretation where a legal one is available, it rejects the context signaled by every other operative clause that the actors enforcing this law are member nations. This is a reading incompatible with the overall act's references and one that takes a deliberately inharmonious interpretation over a plausible and harmonious one. It isn't one I can accept.

As for Clause 5, I don't believe there is an interpretation of Metagaming that means nonmembers may not benefit from WA committee efforts, so long as their participation is not obligatory. The Anti-Counterfeiting Pact did something similar. Committee actions in international waters will, by default, affect any nation that uses international waters. That does not necessarily subordinate nonmembers to WA authority. As such, I can't find this clause illegal either.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re section 5 supra. Meteorological Cooperation s 8 comes to mind.

[Crazybloxian Empire]

Well, let’s encourage people to vote against it. If it wins I’ll make a simple repeal resolution to repeal it, you GenSec members make it legal (if you want) then the resolution passes and voila that illegal slip-up resolution now in effect repealed.

[Wallenburg]

Well, let’s encourage people to vote against it. If it wins I’ll make a simple repeal resolution to repeal it, you GenSec members make it legal (if you want) then the resolution passes and voila that illegal slip-up resolution now in effect repealed.

That's not how it works. GenSec doesn't "make proposals legal" or illegal. They do not rule by decree. They exist to interpret and enforce the GA proposal ruleset, and their desires are to have no bearing on their opinions.

[Aclion]

*laughter*

[Bears Armed]

Okay, taking the preambulatory clause

Desiring to prevent future oil spills in international waters, and facilitate their clean-up through a series of measures member nations are urged to take and through the dedication and work of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau;

more deeply into consideration, I am prepared to drop my challenge.
If it weren't for that one line, though, I would still see the omission of the term "member nations" from clause 3 -- when it is used in 1,2, & 4 -- as a problem.

Re section 5 supra. Meteorological Cooperation s 8 comes to mind.

'5.c', you mean? That was no problem as far as I'm concerned, anyway.
'5.b', apparently giving the WADB authority to investigate regardless of whether the nations involved are WA members? More problematical, but I can accept the argument that as it doesn't actually tell those nations to cooperate with the investigation it scrapes through as legal.

Now voting 'Legal'.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, let’s encourage people to vote against it. If it wins I’ll make a simple repeal resolution to repeal it, you GenSec members make it legal (if you want) then the resolution passes and voila that illegal slip-up resolution now in effect repealed.

Don't make suggestions about solving problems you don't understand. Its really not helpful.

[Araraukar]

What about the law does what the law says? Or, in this case, is there a magic invisible (part of a) clause in section 3 which clarifies that it only applies to operations originating in member states?

The invisible magic clause was introduced by GenSec, so, good luck getting a different answer.

That's not how it works. GenSec doesn't "make proposals legal" or illegal. They do not rule by decree. They exist to interpret and enforce the GA proposal ruleset, and their desires are to have no bearing on their opinions.

...who are you and what have you done to Wallenburg?

Given that we have the extant resolutions GA #95, Responsible Offshore Drilling and GA #298, Reducing Spills and Leaks, I'd rather have argued that the topic has already been covered, or that Mining was the wrong AoE to use, but eh, it's an Environmental one, so I'm disinclined to try to prevent its passing...

[Separatist Peoples]

What about the law does what the law says? Or, in this case, is there a magic invisible (part of a) clause in section 3 which clarifies that it only applies to operations originating in member states?

The invisible magic clause was introduced by GenSec, so, good luck getting a different answer.

That's because it's unfair to read a meaning into proposals that make it illegal when there is reason to believe that the reference is the colloquial one used by authors and not explicitly one designed to include nonmembers. Its OOCly impossible to subject nonmembers to WA authority without their consent, so why take a hard line interpretation on an ambiguity that conflicts with that? All it does is scuttle otherwise reasonable proposals.

[Araraukar]

Its OOCly impossible to subject nonmembers member nations to WA authority without their consent, so why take a hard line interpretation on an ambiguity that conflicts with that? All it does is scuttle otherwise reasonable proposals.

Fixed. And you might be aware that I have begrudgingly followed the line of reasoning used by GenSec - which will never stop me from continuouing to suggest that authors use "member nations" instead of "all nations" to avoid exactly that kind of trouble. "All nations" can easily be used as a repeal hook, too, since campaign TGs can lie all they want. *shrug*

[Separatist Peoples]

Its OOCly impossible to subject nonmembers member nations to WA authority without their consent, so why take a hard line interpretation on an ambiguity that conflicts with that? All it does is scuttle otherwise reasonable proposals.

Fixed. And you might be aware that I have begrudgingly followed the line of reasoning used by GenSec - which will never stop me from continuouing to suggest that authors use "member nations" instead of "all nations" to avoid exactly that kind of trouble. "All nations" can easily be used as a repeal hook, too, since campaign TGs can lie all they want. *shrug*

...you fixed it wrong. You can force members, oocly, to submit to WA authority. That's the stats change. Nonmembers dont get a stat change. So nonmembers cannot be forced to submit to WA authority.

It's always a good idea to be precise. That insistance is fair. Characterizing the interpretation as a magic invisible clause in this case? Not so fair. Or reasonable. Or even realistic, since we explain the canons of interpretation that bring us to interpretive conclusions. This is a subpart of the game based in law. So it tracks that we use legal theories to resolve them.

[Araraukar]

You can force members, oocly, to submit to WA authority. That's the stats change.

Which only applies when a resolution actually passes. Outside of that, nada.

Characterizing the interpretation as a magic invisible clause in this case? Not so fair.

Yell at Banana about that, not me.

[Bananaistan]

The invisible magic clause was introduced by GenSec, so, good luck getting a different answer.

That's because it's unfair to read a meaning into proposals that make it illegal when there is reason to believe that the reference is the colloquial one used by authors and not explicitly one designed to include nonmembers. Its OOCly impossible to subject nonmembers to WA authority without their consent, so why take a hard line interpretation on an ambiguity that conflicts with that? All it does is scuttle otherwise reasonable proposals.

This would be reasonable if the reference was actually this colloquial reference. However, the clause in question does not contain the phrase "all nations" nor does it refer to nations at all. It does refer to international waters. By definition such waters are outside the territory of any nation. I don't see how any interpretation can reasonably infer that this actually means something other than that stated in the text. Using context to clarify the meaning of unclear phrases, and the informal precedent that "all nations" actually means "only member nations". These I have no problem with. I do have a problem with using context to read into a clause a meaning which is at odds with the clear and unambiguous words used.

So anyway, minority of one but I still vote illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's because it's unfair to read a meaning into proposals that make it illegal when there is reason to believe that the reference is the colloquial one used by authors and not explicitly one designed to include nonmembers. Its OOCly impossible to subject nonmembers to WA authority without their consent, so why take a hard line interpretation on an ambiguity that conflicts with that? All it does is scuttle otherwise reasonable proposals.

This would be reasonable if the reference was actually this colloquial reference. However, the clause in question does not contain the phrase "all nations" nor does it refer to nations at all. It does refer to international waters. By definition such waters are outside the territory of any nation. I don't see how any interpretation can reasonably infer that this actually means something other than that stated in the text. Using context to clarify the meaning of unclear phrases, and the informal precedent that "all nations" actually means "only member nations". These I have no problem with. I do have a problem with using context to read into a clause a meaning which is at odds with the clear and unambiguous words used.

So anyway, minority of one but I still vote illegal.

I really don't think this is a reasonable interpretation, since it not only imputes illegality when an alternative exists, but it also reads Clause 3 in a manner that is not compatible with the other clauses without any intrinsic reason to do so. I don't think that literal meaning here is appropriate in light of the clear coding limits and plain meaning available. But that's why we have 6 votes.