Clause 2: A general clause on the protections offered within Terra nullius, should such other protection resolutions be repealed. However, this clause requires member states be responsible in terra nullius' protection, by informing (whether through immediate law, or even other forms of government communication) nationals (citizens) and corporations of that member state, where applicable, of the consequences of their actions. Of course, a member state is not, necessarily*, culpable for their citizens or corporation action, for they are ultimately independent.
I don't get this. If the clause is supposed to do this, why does it not do that in the last section? Saying that someone must follow the law if it exists doesn't create a requirement to follow the law if it does not exist, which is the problem you are ostensibly solving.
Clause 3a) & b): Allows actions which the GA does not cover, but member state's law does cover, to hold those accountable within that state's legal system. This is only acceptable for actions done by, or on, that states citizens, corporations, assets, etc, it does not allow a member state's law to bring to trial any other member states citizens and corporations, unless they act in some way against that member's citizens, corporations, assets, etc. according to their law. Therefore demanding a degree of responsibility by a member state's for their citizens and corporations. Of course, this clause demands a degree of cooperation between states such as for extradition, but ultimately this is a national issue. For which this clause is under the assumption of a fair criminal trial (GA resolution #37) and extradition rules (GA resolution #147), and other forms of apparatus for removing inappropriate responses or, potential, corruption.
WA member nations could already do this. It's one of those implicit 10th amendment sort of things: if it isn't restricted, it is permitted. But let's assume for argument that this extraterroriality is the case. If there exists enforcement of crimes on that territory, is that not the exercise of a jurisdiction? And thus, given that having a dispute in the first place requires that there be people, the territory no longer is nobody's land?
After some thought, it occurred to me that this legislation can not condone forcing compliance with treatise based terra nullius agreements. For at least two reasons: 1) these treatises establish a land that isn't inherently no-ones as belonging to no-one. Technically they could include any land, the inhospitable as well as the hospitable. 2) It would mean national treaty becomes an international treaty, simply by demanding that any land that is recognised as terra nullius by any single nation, is counted as terra nullius to all nations, which is patently absurd.
Why is there this distinction between national treaty and international treaty? All treaties are international treaties. A treaty with yourself is a domestic law. The only exception is when the US deigned to make a treaty with Britain so to give itself more power under the treaties clause so to do something unconstitutional (also, it's hilarious). Nor does this follow. The promise of Bigtopia to not exercise jurisdiction over a certain place does not mean that nobody else can exercise jurisdiction. The same thing applies to a claim.
Clause 4a makes such positions, as a defence against that potential activity, to be null, and that such actions are fully culpable if against international or, with respect to clause 3, national law. Clause 4b may seem obsolete in terms of Section II, clause 4a & clause 1, however, certain resolutions may demand actions between jurisdictions to have treaty, therefore an extension of that resolution, provided in clause 1, does not alleviate the lack of treaty here (who can ratify for res nullius?).
Section 4(a) as written doesn't do this. Where are the section requiring the existence of a treaty? If such places exist, why is there not a default behaviour? Any resolution which requires the existence of a treaty between two nations, which are not necessarily WA member nations, would implicitly violate the meta gaming rule.
Notable that the TNPC, being the representative for species (non sapient and sapient), protected within terra nullius, may contest a claim if the respective claimant is in contravention to privileges given by WA law, as presented through Section II, clauses 1-4.
This power isn't granted to the TNPC explicitly. Moreover, there are no section markings in the text of the resolution.
I'm unconvinced any of this makes sense. The definition of terra nullius provided requires that nobody have a claim. If someone has a claim, then it definitionally isn't terra nullius and these provisions don't apply. Moreover, non-WA nations can occupy these areas. This proposal is completely silent as to how non-WA nations are to be handled.
