[DRAFT] Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban

[Araraukar]

Wally, I think you missed the word “intentional” before disposal. No one intends to have their ship destroyed!

OOC: You bloody well do when the only other option is to let the enemy have it and use it against you.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Wally, I think you missed the word “intentional” before disposal. No one intends to have their ship destroyed!

OOC: You bloody well do when the only other option is to let the enemy have it and use it against you.

I should add an "emergency situation" exception clause. Let me do so.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: You bloody well do when the only other option is to let the enemy have it and use it against you.

I should add an "emergency situation" exception clause. Let me do so.

(OOC: Make sure you make that clause be very specific, as a nation such as Kenmoria would view anything other than allowing corporations to dump waste into oceans as an ideological emergency.)

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I should add an "emergency situation" exception clause. Let me do so.

(OOC: Make sure you make that clause be very specific, as a nation such as Kenmoria would view anything other than allowing corporations to dump waste into oceans as an ideological emergency.)

Got it. Let me do so.

Also, Ransium, is it good now?

[Ransium]

(OOC: Make sure you make that clause be very specific, as a nation such as Kenmoria would view anything other than allowing corporations to dump waste into oceans as an ideological emergency.)

Got it. Let me do so.

Also, Ransium, is it good now?

Still looks very vague.Try actually defining emergency situation.

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2, there should not be an apostrophe in the form of ‘its’ occurring before ‘people’, as you are using the possessive form.”

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Got it. Let me do so.

Also, Ransium, is it good now?

Still looks very vague.Try actually defining emergency situation.

I already had done so. Is it adequate? I think it is a little vague, again. But couldn't really think of a better way to define it.

I was asking for suggestions on the alteration of the definition!

“In clause 2, there should not be an apostrophe in the form of ‘its’ occurring before ‘people’, as you are using the possessive form.”

"Allow me to fix that, Ambassador!"

[Merni]

OOC:

Further Defines an "Emergency Circumstances", for the purposes of this resolution, as a situation in which a nation or it's people will experience immediate catastrophe or loss of life should certain actions not be taken,

Remove the "an" and remove the extra capitalisation on "Further defines" and "emergency circumstances". Also, what are those "certain actions"? And why do you give an example for "emergency circumstances" in clause 5 instead of here?

“In clause 2, there should not be an apostrophe in the form of ‘its’ occurring before ‘people’, as you are using the possessive form.”

Also, this is still not fixed.

[Ransium]

I don't think you need a separate clause defining emergency circumstances. I'd strike 2 and change 5 to:

Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation involving the potential for the immediate loss of life, massive property damage, or national security threat;

[Araraukar]

I don't think you need a separate clause defining emergency circumstances. I'd strike 2 and change 5 to:

Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation involving the potential for the immediate loss of life, massive property damage, or national security threat;

OOC: And then nations like Kenmoria (in IC that is, the person behind the nation is quite sensible) just set someone to aim a gun at whoever presses the button/pulls the lever/whatever needed to dump stuff in, and completely satisfies the requirement.

[Ransium]

I don't think you need a separate clause defining emergency circumstances. I'd strike 2 and change 5 to:

Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation involving the potential for the immediate loss of life, massive property damage, or national security threat;

OOC: And then nations like Kenmoria (in IC that is, the person behind the nation is quite sensible) just set someone to aim a gun at whoever presses the button/pulls the lever/whatever needed to dump stuff in, and completely satisfies the requirement.

Sounds 100% foreseen.

[Araraukar]

Sounds 100% foreseen.

OOC: Only by the people actually aware of the gunman being there in advance. Which would probably not be the person whose job it is to prevent the pollution from reaching the ocean.

[Ransium]

Sounds 100% foreseen.

OOC: Only by the people actually aware of the gunman being there in advance. Which would probably not be the person whose job it is to prevent the pollution from reaching the ocean.

If the state hires someone to threaten to kill someone it is forseen by the state, which is whom we’re regulating.

[Araraukar]

If the state hires someone to threaten to kill someone it is forseen by the state, which is whom we’re regulating.

OOC: Battery dying on laptop ate the reply I'd written, so I'll just say that there are ways for the state to be unaware of what people it has hired, do, and that it's not my RP, just speculation based on what Kenmoria said earlier on this thread.

[Kenmoria]

If the state hires someone to threaten to kill someone it is forseen by the state, which is whom we’re regulating.

OOC: Battery dying on laptop ate the reply I'd written, so I'll just say that there are ways for the state to be unaware of what people it has hired, do, and that it's not my RP, just speculation based on what Kenmoria said earlier on this thread.

(OOC: Indeed, it is possible for there to be numerous ways for the state to claim that it doesn’t know what people it is hiring. Subcontraction or hiring people to hire people could allow for the government itself to be unaware of who’s doing what, at least as far as the Compliance Comission is concerned.)

[Ransium]

These “objections” makes lots of WA legislation on the books unenforceable and I don’t really buy them. If you subcontract, the event is still forseen, whether you know the exact details or not. To review, the claim is that nations will circumvent the hazardous waste dumping ban by hiring people who will hire terrorists through back door channels to regularly force waste operators to dump the waste into oceans via threats of mass terrorism?

What wording do you suggest to avoid this anyway?

[Kenmoria]

“On a minor note, clause 2 defines ‘emergency circumstances’ as ‘a situation’, which means you have an imbalance of singular and plural.”

[Araraukar]

What wording do you suggest to avoid this anyway?

OOC: Which one of you is currently drafting it? And I would think that an act of war excemption would be really the only thing you need to have. Well okay, maybe also one for "or due to a massive natural disaster" to okay Fukushima-type actions.

[Kenmoria]

“Some of your line breaks are slightly larger than others. It’s hardly noticeable, but still annoying.”

[Araraukar]

“Some of your line breaks are slightly larger than others. It’s hardly noticeable, but still annoying.”

OOC: That's caused by the list code. It's not something they can help. Unless you mean between the numbered clauses.

[Kenmoria]

“Some of your line breaks are slightly larger than others. It’s hardly noticeable, but still annoying.”

OOC: That's caused by the list code. It's not something they can help. Unless you mean between the numbered clauses.

(OOC: I meant between the numbered clauses. Looking at the code of the OP, some of the clauses have a different number of empty lines between them.)

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Alright. This has been updated. What do you think of the anti-subcontracting clause?

[Kenmoria]

Alright. This has been updated. What do you think of the anti-subcontracting clause?

(OOC: My ambassador will certainly be annoyed, but it works well at closing the loophole, and also preemptively closes a lot of other possible loopholes through mentioning similar measures.)

[Giant Bats]

"A question, if I may," said Kistiri, or at least someone using his communication device. Without ultrasonic hearing it was hard to tell if the Tikrr was actually taking a nap or not. "My scientific adviser tells me that the dangerousness of chemical waste depends more on concentration than quantity, except that it may re-concentrate itself after disposal, such as due to precipitation in a reaction with oceanic salinity. So was the "large quantities" intentionally removed? Combining, not only breaking down, can also make a chemical more toxic, such as is the case with some organometallic compounds."

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation male

[Uan aa Boa]

Understanding the crucial role oceans play in global ecological and economic stability, demonstrated by industries such as fishing, marine aquaculture, shipping, and recreation, as well as providing countless ecosystem services such as providing habitat for oxygen producing organisms

This is a bit of clunky sentence. How about something like "Understanding the economic and ecological importance of oceans, which are essential for industries such as fishing etc, and also provide ecosystem services such as offering a habitat for oxygen producing organisms and removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere."

Noting the dumping of hazardous wastes into oceans have catastrophic impacts on all of the above industries and organisms,

As a singular noun dumping has catastrophic impacts. Your list of "the above organisms" is also pretty short as it stands, so it might be better to say "on all the above industries and ecosystem services."

Aware that once dumped in ocean hazardous waste can travel great distances and have international impacts,

This should say dumped in an ocean or the ocean.

Industrially produced carcinogens and waste known to be of a densely concentrated carcinogenic nature,

I know what you're trying to say, but "densely concentrated carcinogenic nature" doesn't really mean anything. Also, the ocean can't get cancer so you should ask why carcinogens are particularly being singled out. If it's because they're harmful to marine life then why not make this clause expressly about waste that's harmful to marine life. If it's because of a risk to humans in the ocean then specify that.

Waste deemed chemically hazardous, either due to acidity, flammability, or chemical reactivity,

Here you're defining waste to be hazardous if it's deemed to be hazardous, which doesn't tell us very much.

Sewage or other materials containing a high level of waterborne pathogens and/or pharmaceutical compounds;

As with the carcinogens, sewage isn't harmful just because contact with it could damage health directly. It's a source of nutrients that causes excessive algal bloom and growth of other organisms, which distorts the ecosystem. It also breaks down in ways that can remove oxygen from the water. Pathogens and pharmaceuticals don't need to be present for this to be a problem. You could potentially look at fertiliser run-off in the same section for the same reasons.

Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous waste...

What if I transport waste around in a leaky boat, or fail to take reasonable steps to stop seepage from a riverside factory? It isn't then my intention for the waste to get into the sea, but it is a foreseeable consequence of my cost-cutting. Should the proposal include this scenario?

Also, resolutions are binding on governments rather than people and organisations. Perhaps this needs to mandate not only that governments themselves refrain from dumping but that they make it illegal for everyone under their jurisdiction.

States that the processes of subcontracting or other ways to intentionally work around the 'unforeseen' requirement above are entirely foreseen and will be treated as such

This sentence doesn't work, though I'm not sure how to improve it. Also, I'm not sure you can close loopholes by effectively just saying "don't exploit the loopholes" without giving specifics. How would subcontracting waste disposal create an acute and unforeseen situation?

I'm being pedantic here, but I do wish this proposal well and look forward to supporting it.