NATION

PASSWORD

[Closed] Ban on Intentionally Caused Extinctions

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

[Closed] Ban on Intentionally Caused Extinctions

Postby Morover » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:20 pm

Category: Environmental, All businesses
Strength: Mild


The World Assembly,

Disgusted at the acts of nations that intentionally kill off a species for personal gain.

Believing that extinction is detestable and should be avoided at all costs.

Hereby,

  1. Defines extinction as there being no living members of a species left.

  2. Outlaws knowingly driving a species to extinction.

  3. Clarifies that the unintentional killing of a species will not have legal repercussions, unless it was willful ignorance that led to it.

  4. Allows for nations to drive directly harmful diseases or pestilence to extinction.

  5. Prohibits the captivity of a species with the sole intent to wipe out the wild population of that animal.


I know this is my second proposal today, but I'd rather get it out while it's fresh in my mind.

I know the definition of "extinction" is weak, and I'm more than open to suggestions to make it stronger.
This is the only prior legislation I could find on the subject, but if there is more that I missed that actually affects the target that this proposal does, please let me know.

EDIT: I've added an exception towards harmful bacteria, viruses, and other biological agents which cause disease.

The World Assembly,

Disgusted at the acts of a nation that intentionally kill off a species for personal gain.

Believing that extinction is detestable and should be avoided at all costs.

Hereby,

  1. Defines extinction as there being no living members of a species left.

  2. Outlaws the intentional killing of a species, resulting in extinction for an ulterior motive.

  3. Clarifies that the unintentional killing of a species will not have consequences, unless it was willful ignorance that led to it.
  4. Mandates that all nations must report all newly-endangered species to the WA Endangered Species Committee.
Last edited by Morover on Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:13 pm, edited 8 times in total.

User avatar
Karteria
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 179
Founded: Jun 28, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Karteria » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:35 pm

"We are likely to support this, as long as there is more detail added later, and I'm sure you'll do that.

Some concerns do rise immediately, for now; what if some species, perhaps, should be eradicated? Invasive species immediately come to mind, as most of them hurt their environment's biodiversity more than they contribute to them. Additionally, there may be some species that present a significant harm towards a nation's populace. Should those nations be prohibited from protecting themselves, ambassador?"
World Assembly Delegate and Secretary-General for the New West Indies region.

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:41 pm

Karteria wrote:"We are likely to support this, as long as there is more detail added later, and I'm sure you'll do that.

Some concerns do rise immediately, for now; what if some species, perhaps, should be eradicated? Invasive species immediately come to mind, as most of them hurt their environment's biodiversity more than they contribute to them. Additionally, there may be some species that present a significant harm towards a nation's populace. Should those nations be prohibited from protecting themselves, ambassador?"

"I believe you misunderstand, this does not prohibit the killing of animals, merely of a species-wide eradication. For example, if an invasive species were to be introduced to an area, then it would be reasonable to kill them off in that area (though relocation would obviously be preferable), so long as there is a sustainable population of that species elsewhere."

"Similarly, if a species presents a significant harm towards the populace of a nation, it can be assumed that they can either be relocated or have significant numbers elsewhere in the world. So long as you do not bring about the extinction, you should be in the clear. However, that being said, you cannot simply go around killing off animals for the sake of killing them off, and if they go extinct, claim that you didn't know it would happen. It would fall under willful ignorance, and would be a clear violation of this resolution (should it pass)."

User avatar
Karteria
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 179
Founded: Jun 28, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Karteria » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:50 pm

Morover wrote:"I believe you misunderstand, this does not prohibit the killing of animals, merely of a species-wide eradication.


"Killing animals that are the last of their species would be a 'species-wide eradication,' would it not? Nonetheless, I think I know what you're implying, and it's non-consequential to the proposal."

Morover wrote:"For example, if an invasive species were to be introduced to an area, then it would be reasonable to kill them off in that area (though relocation would obviously be preferable), so long as there is a sustainable population of that species elsewhere."

"Similarly, if a species presents a significant harm towards the populace of a nation, it can be assumed that they can either be relocated or have significant numbers elsewhere in the world. So long as you do not bring about the extinction, you should be in the clear. However, that being said, you cannot simply go around killing off animals for the sake of killing them off, and if they go extinct, claim that you didn't know it would happen. It would fall under willful ignorance, and would be a clear violation of this resolution (should it pass)."


"That is good reasoning, so our concerns are alleviated, as long as you specify such exemptions in the draft itself."
World Assembly Delegate and Secretary-General for the New West Indies region.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5429
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:20 am

“The definition of extinction would perhaps be better as: ‘Defines extinction as the state where no member of a given species survive,’ as this flows slightly better.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14078
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:31 am

- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:43 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Relevant: viewtopic.php?p=731470#p731470

OOC: As I mentioned in the OP post, I did see this resolution, but it does not concern directly causing the extinction of a species. It merely restricts encroachment into habitats of already endangered animals. It does not mention animals that have not yet been classified as endangered, but are wiped out incredibly quickly.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18879
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:06 am

See also GA Resolution #267.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:15 am

Bears Armed wrote:See also GA Resolution #267.

Ah, I did miss that one. However, I don't believe that would interfere with this proposal, as this does not directly mention hunting. Of course, you're GenSec, so you'd know more about it than I would.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14078
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:35 am

Morover wrote:2. Outlaws the intentional killing of a species, resulting in extinction for an ulterior motive.

OOC: This currently sounds like you weren't allowed to kill any individuals of (any) species, or alternatively that you can freely extinct species as long as you don't have ulterior motives - isn't it one and same if there is an ulterior motive or not, when it comes to causing an extinction? I would also suggest using "causing the extinction of a species" over "killing a species", for more professional and exact wording.

Now, what about extirpation?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:06 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Morover wrote:2. Outlaws the intentional killing of a species, resulting in extinction for an ulterior motive.

OOC: This currently sounds like you weren't allowed to kill any individuals of (any) species, or alternatively that you can freely extinct species as long as you don't have ulterior motives - isn't it one and same if there is an ulterior motive or not, when it comes to causing an extinction? I would also suggest using "causing the extinction of a species" over "killing a species", for more professional and exact wording.

Now, what about extirpation?

I phrased it the way I did (with 'ulterior') because I do not want a legitimate mistake to bring significant harm to a nation due to "non-compliance." For example, if a species thought to be extinct was inside a forest that a nation chose to cut down, but the nation was not aware of the frog, and this resulted in the death of the frog, it was not an intentional cause of extinction, nor was it caused because of willful ignorance.

I do think I will reword it to what you suggested. It does better demonstrate what I mean, in a nearly as concise manner.

As for your last topic, I must be confused. Isn't extirpation essentially the same thing as extinction? A quick google search backs me up in this regard, as well. Is that not what we have been discussing this entire time?

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14078
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:43 am

Morover wrote:I phrased it the way I did (with 'ulterior') because I do not want a legitimate mistake to bring significant harm to a nation due to "non-compliance." For example, if a species thought to be extinct was inside a forest that a nation chose to cut down, but the nation was not aware of the frog, and this resulted in the death of the frog, it was not an intentional cause of extinction, nor was it caused because of willful ignorance.

OOC: You can still drop the ulterior motive simply rewording it as "knowingly causing the extinction of a species". That way a nation would only get in trouble for cutting down that forest if they knew it was the last place the frog lived, and cut it down anyway.

Isn't extirpation essentially the same thing as extinction? A quick google search backs me up in this regard, as well.

Don't google when you can wiki. :P

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creative genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:50 am

Araraukar wrote:
Don't google when you can wiki. :P

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creating genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.


OOC:
Also, to add to that, the current draft not only does not differentiate between extinction and extirpation, it also does not differentiate between extinctions in the wild and extinctions overall. If you just catch enough individuals to maintain a population, put them in a zoo, and then go on to eradicate the entire species in all other places in the world, surely that should be adressed by this proposal.
Last edited by The New Nordic Union on Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5429
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:52 am

“In the ‘Disgusted’ clause, it should be ‘nations’ and ‘kill’ or ‘a nation’ and ‘kill’. Currently, they do not agree.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:55 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Morover wrote:I phrased it the way I did (with 'ulterior') because I do not want a legitimate mistake to bring significant harm to a nation due to "non-compliance." For example, if a species thought to be extinct was inside a forest that a nation chose to cut down, but the nation was not aware of the frog, and this resulted in the death of the frog, it was not an intentional cause of extinction, nor was it caused because of willful ignorance.

OOC: You can still drop the ulterior motive simply rewording it as "knowingly causing the extinction of a species". That way a nation would only get in trouble for cutting down that forest if they knew it was the last place the frog lived, and cut it down anyway.

Isn't extirpation essentially the same thing as extinction? A quick google search backs me up in this regard, as well.

Don't google when you can wiki. :P

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creative genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.

OOC: Ah, I see. That is better worded. I'll change that.

As for extirpation, I believe that this legislation will not (if passed) concern it. The proposal merely concerns global and final extinction. I will clarify that extinction refers to global extinction, however. Extirpation, however, seems to be up to the will of an individual nation.

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Araraukar wrote:
Don't google when you can wiki. :P

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creating genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.


OOC:
Also, to add to that, the current draft not only does not differentiate between extinction and extirpation, it also does not differentiate between extinctions in the wild and extinctions overall. If you just catch enough individuals to maintain a population, put them in a zoo, and then go on to eradicate the entire species in all other places in the world, surely that should be adressed by this proposal.

This would be very strictly prohibited by GAR#66.
Kenmoria wrote:“In the ‘Disgusted’ clause, it should be ‘nations’ and ‘kill’ or ‘a nation’ and ‘kill’. Currently, they do not agree.”

Ah, that makes sense. I will change that, thank you.


Additionally, I have added the following clause to the proposal:
Mandates that all nations must report all newly-endangered species to the WA Endangered Species Committee.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:14 pm

Morover wrote:This would be very strictly prohibited by GAR#66.


OOC:
Not necessarily, GAR#66 is mainly concerned with habitats and pollution and only states that "The WAESC may also severely restrict the hunting of endangered species", thus, if a nation were to neither encroach on or pollute a species' habitat, and only hunt it, and the WAESC did not exercise their power to restrict hunting... then the scenario would still be possible. (Although yes, the WAESC would have to release specimens back into the wild.)


(Side note: Is there any policy on reduction to zero of administrative discretion pertaining to WA Committees? If so, then my point might be moot.)
Last edited by The New Nordic Union on Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:21 pm

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Morover wrote:This would be very strictly prohibited by GAR#66.


OOC:
Not necessarily, GAR#66 is mainly concerned with habitats and pollution and only states that "The WAESC may also severely restrict the hunting of endangered species", thus, if a nation were to neither encroach on or pollute a species' habitat, and only hunt it, and the WAESC did not exercise their power to restrict hunting... then the scenario would still be possible. (Although yes, the WAESC would have to release specimens back into the wild.)


(Side note: Is there any policy on reduction to zero of administrative discretion pertaining to WA Committees? If so, then my point might be moot.)

I was referring to this clause in GAR#66:

"- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations "

User avatar
Tsuki
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 155
Founded: Feb 16, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Tsuki » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:24 pm

*thumbs up*
Yes we need the EPA
Don't be mean or xenophobic to me..... or YOU'RE NEXT!
Like any other nation, this nation does represent my views. Every factbook on NS is (supposed to be) IC.
I'm part of the WA.
https://iiwiki.us/wiki/Tsuki - Learn about me.
https://iiwiki.us/wiki/Category:Tsuki - Learn about the things in Tsuki.
https://dreamfiction.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Tsuki - Ditto, but more about culture i should say.
https://dreamfiction.fandom.com/wiki/Li ... iese_words - Learn Tsukiese!
Conscription isn't and will NEVER be canon to my nation!

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:26 pm

Morover wrote:I was referring to this clause in GAR#66:

"- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations "


OOC:
Yes, and the important part there is 'based on WAESC determinations'. If the WAESC determines not to restrict hunting, which is within their rights by the wording of the resolution, which employs the word 'may', the nation would be free to hunt down the species if they do not encroach onto the habitat or pollute it.
Last edited by The New Nordic Union on Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:41 pm

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Morover wrote:I was referring to this clause in GAR#66:

"- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations "


OOC:
Yes, and the important part there is 'based on WAESC determinations'. If the WAESC determines not to restrict hunting, which is within their rights by the wording of the resolution, which employs the word 'may', the nation would be free to hunt down the species if they do not encroach onto the habitat or pollute it.

OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.

Tsuki wrote:*thumbs up*
Yes we need the EPA

Thank you for your support.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:47 pm

Morover wrote:OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.


OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:51 pm

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Morover wrote:OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.


OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

OOC: Perhaps I will add a clause which prohibits the captivity of a species solely for it to become legal to drive them to extinction. However, I will have to think about it, and, more importantly, how to word it, as it is a rather awkward thing to say in just one clause, but I believe it would become redundant if I were to use more than one clause.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5429
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:50 am

Morover wrote:
The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

OOC: Perhaps I will add a clause which prohibits the captivity of a species solely for it to become legal to drive them to extinction. However, I will have to think about it, and, more importantly, how to word it, as it is a rather awkward thing to say in just one clause, but I believe it would become redundant if I were to use more than one clause.

(OOC: Redundancy is always better than under-comprehensiveness. There is also the option of giving it one clause, with some subclauses for clarification and expansion.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Morover
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Morover » Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:01 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Morover wrote:OOC: Perhaps I will add a clause which prohibits the captivity of a species solely for it to become legal to drive them to extinction. However, I will have to think about it, and, more importantly, how to word it, as it is a rather awkward thing to say in just one clause, but I believe it would become redundant if I were to use more than one clause.

(OOC: Redundancy is always better than under-comprehensiveness. There is also the option of giving it one clause, with some subclauses for clarification and expansion.)
The New Nordic Union wrote:
Morover wrote:OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.


OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

"I have added the requested clause in what I believe to be an acceptable and succinct manner, in clause five."

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14078
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:56 am

Clarifies that the unintentional killing of a species will not have consequences, unless it was willful ignorance that led to it.

OOC: Killing off a species will always have consequences, perhaps specifying "legal consequences on the WA level" should be done? I mean, I'm sure Araraukar isn't the only nation that already criminalizes willfully causing the extinction of a natural species.

Also, if you're using "biological agent" in the usual meaning, then are you intentionally banning the willfull eradication of genetically altered organism that is a higher form of life (animal, plant) even if it was harmful (invasive species threatening to cause extinctions of natural species/directly harmful to sapient people/causing serious issues in agriculture, etc.) and specifically allowed to be eradicated by existing resolutions? Or indeed eradicating anything outside of the lab where it escaped from (clause 5)? Because if yes, that's going to be a problem.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lord Dominator

Advertisement

Remove ads