[DRAFT] Terra Nullius Protection Act

[Araraukar]

"Does this only apply to land areas, or also sea and atmospheric areas? It's not just land-bound humanoids that inhabit the WA nations, and some have vastly higher technologies with which the world becomes truly three-dimensional."

OOC: I know that "terra" means land, but the definition doesn't specify terrestrial territory.

[Lower Nubia]

"Does this only apply to land areas, or also sea and atmospheric areas? It's not just land-bound humanoids that inhabit the WA nations, and some have vastly higher technologies with which the world becomes truly three-dimensional."

OOC: I know that "terra" means land, but the definition doesn't specify terrestrial territory.

"1) Although I initially intended it to be for just land, I have attempted to remove those biases within this proposal, seeing as it was pointed out that that would be 'humanocentric". But even for all other medias of territory, what ramifications would exist? In all situations, it would incur swapping "land" for "sea" or "Space", where applicable, and I genuinely cannot think of how that would produce some contradiction in the clauses (maybe 6).

2) However, I would think that that would breach other resolutions who speak for the regulation on these mediums, such as Law of the Seas, for example, on these matters.

So if you think the second point is valid, I can modify it to be "terrestrial land" only."

[Araraukar]

2) However, I would think that that would breach other resolutions who speak for the regulation on these mediums, such as Law of the Seas, for example, on these matters.

So if you think the second point is valid, I can modify it to be "terrestrial land" only."

OOC: That's pretty much why I was asking, as there already are resolutions concerning international oceans and airspace (to some extent at least). Maybe "terrestrial territory"? Nice alliteration that way too. Or "terrestrial area" or "land area".

[Lower Nubia]

2) However, I would think that that would breach other resolutions who speak for the regulation on these mediums, such as Law of the Seas, for example, on these matters.

So if you think the second point is valid, I can modify it to be "terrestrial land" only."

OOC: That's pretty much why I was asking, as there already are resolutions concerning international oceans and airspace (to some extent at least). Maybe "terrestrial territory"? Nice alliteration that way too. Or "terrestrial area" or "land area".

I've checked a couple of times, I've found nothing, which is why we started this resolution because it needed addressing. Again the only one that comes to mind are GA#168. Which is really about peripheral ownership of waters connected to territory, rather than the jurisdiction of that territory.

[Araraukar]

I've checked a couple of times, I've found nothing, which is why we started this resolution because it needed addressing. Again the only one that comes to mind are GA#168. Which is really about peripheral ownership of waters connected to territory, rather than the jurisdiction of that territory.

OOC: One to do with airspaces just got passed like one or two resolutions ago. Though, again, WA can't really legislate on international areas, just member states' actions on/in them, which is your approach as well as far as I can tell. But still, if your intention is to only address land areas, then perhaps it really is best to have wording to that effect.

Also, the national waters that come attached to the landmasses, as the Law of the Seas (or whatever the exact title is, cba check) legislates, are considered part of the nation in question (presumably unless the nation for some reason forfeits the right to them), so they are by default under the nation's jurisdiction (and WA's too).

[Lower Nubia]

I've checked a couple of times, I've found nothing, which is why we started this resolution because it needed addressing. Again the only one that comes to mind are GA#168. Which is really about peripheral ownership of waters connected to territory, rather than the jurisdiction of that territory.

OOC: One to do with airspaces just got passed like one or two resolutions ago. Though, again, WA can't really legislate on international areas, just member states' actions on/in them, which is your approach as well as far as I can tell. But still, if your intention is to only address land areas, then perhaps it really is best to have wording to that effect.

Also, the national waters that come attached to the landmasses, as the Law of the Seas (or whatever the exact title is, cba check) legislates, are considered part of the nation in question (presumably unless the nation for some reason forfeits the right to them), so they are by default under the nation's jurisdiction (and WA's too).

I’ve just re-read GA#464 ‘Protection of Airspace’ and what it seems to cover isn’t absolved, or overridden by this resolution, because this resolution is concerned with the area beyond jurisdictions. Which #464 has defined for airspace. Seeing as to have this proposal cover just terrestrial territory would require other legislation for space, air, water, which would needlessly limit what this proposal can already apply within these areas.

I mean, seeing as it’s about applying principals in ungoverned jurisdiction rather than applying a jurisdiction, I don’t think it matters if that “ungoverned” area shrinks with further resolutions defining territory. My only concern is clause 6, which I may expand to include resolutions in air, or space.

Apart from that, I think the current draft is pretty complete, and we’re hoping to put it up for quorum some time tomorrow or Monday.

[Araraukar]

My only concern is clause 6, which I may expand to include resolutions in air, or space.

OOC: No no no no no, don't expand. Stay within easily defined limits (in this case, land area not owned by a sovereign nation) and you have a higher chance of passing it.

[Lower Nubia]

My only concern is clause 6, which I may expand to include resolutions in air, or space.

OOC: No no no no no, don't expand. Stay within easily defined limits (in this case, land area not owned by a sovereign nation) and you have a higher chance of passing it.

But if I maintain the ambiguity in "territory", doesn't the proposal become more useful for all nations with the WA? While not trespassing on other resolutions? For Clause 6:

"6) That the established law within seas and oceans is not usurped by this resolution, which falls in submission to resolutions concerning regional disputes in sea and ocean."

Under this 'ambiguity', this could be replaced or removed entirely.

[Araraukar]

"6) That the established law within seas and oceans is not usurped by this resolution, which falls in submission to resolutions concerning regional disputes in sea and ocean."

OOC: You could just word it "This resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas." to remove all ambiguity. And using "seas" instead of "oceans", because while all oceans are seas, all seas might not be oceans. A fun Finnish fact: in Finnish "sea" is "meri", and "ocean" is "valtameri"; if "valtameri" was literally translated into English, it'd be "power sea". XD

[Lower Nubia]

"6) That the established law within seas and oceans is not usurped by this resolution, which falls in submission to resolutions concerning regional disputes in sea and ocean."

OOC: You could just word it "This resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas." to remove all ambiguity. And using "seas" instead of "oceans", because while all oceans are seas, all seas might not be oceans. A fun Finnish fact: in Finnish "sea" is "meri", and "ocean" is "valtameri"; if "valtameri" was literally translated into English, it'd be "power sea". XD

That is a much nicer condensed form, would you think that allows to maintain that “territory” exists across several mediums?

[Araraukar]

That is a much nicer condensed form, would you think that allows to maintain that “territory” exists across several mediums?

OOC: What do you mean? If you add what I suggested, you don't need to define territory as terrestrial, as that clause alone will make it clear you're only talking about land areas.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This is currently about 100 characters over the character limit of 5000, so you will need to cut down a few clauses.)

[Lower Nubia]

(OOC: This is currently about 100 characters over the character limit of 5000, so you will need to cut down a few clauses.)

I'm cutting down clause 6.

[Lower Nubia]

My final edit totals the character count to 4977, and I believe that this resolution covers all necessary and subsidiary issues concerning this problem. Another change was to definition 2, which removed the double negative for "uninhabited", it's our desire to submit this to quorum today, although any additional feedback is always welcome, especially concerning spelling and grammar.

[Araraukar]

My final edit totals the character count to 4977

OOC: Did you count them by hand? The proposal format counts enter presses (line changes), spacebar presses and all marks used on coding.

Also, given the "identifying" line in preamble, you should move the definitions to the active clauses. Especially as their verb is in active form, not passive.

[Lower Nubia]

My final edit totals the character count to 4977

OOC: Did you count them by hand? The proposal format counts enter presses (line changes), spacebar presses and all marks used on coding.

I have a character counter. It does count whitespace and paragraph. but does the proposal "counter" count [b*][/b*] as 6 characters?

Edit: Some slight editing needed,

[Araraukar]

I have a character counter. It does count whitespace and paragraph. but does the proposal "counter" count [b*][/b*] as 6 characters?

OOC: Not counting the asterisks, that's 7 characters.

[Lower Nubia]

I have a character counter. It does count whitespace and paragraph. but does the proposal "counter" count [b*][/b*] as 6 characters?

OOC: Not counting the asterisks, that's 7 characters.

OOC: Oh yes, ,

I've made the final adjustments, the total Characters are now 4,996. Checked within the Nationstates proposal Character limit.

I've just replaced "World Assembly" with "WA", "member states" with "WA states" and "and" with "&". Additions which are used in other proposals.

The only other major change is I removed the "Encouraging" clause and merged it with "Furthermore", other than those changes, no major changes to the clauses except shorter connective words between sentences.

Every little helps.

[Lower Nubia]

Just submitted this proposal for quorum (again ). Hopefully, it can pass first as legal, and then in the eyes of the delegates.

[Kenmoria]

Just submitted this proposal for quorum (again ). Hopefully, it can pass first as legal, and then in the eyes of the delegates.

(OOC: Good luck; this will be a good addition to the GA legislative books, as land law is an area quite sparsely legislated upon.)

[Lower Nubia]

So, I’m not entirely sure about how normal this is, but in our attempt to further understand the quorum process and WA campaigning. We’ve been advised to to take down the quorum proposal, repost just after an in game update time. And then utilise that extra time to do campaigning through properly tested forms.

So we’ve decided to take down the quorum proposal, repost the same proposal, and actually get multiple telegrams out. We’re novices in this, so understanding how to maximise the efficiency of this process, is what we’ve been advised to do.

Sorry for the inconvenience,

LN.

[Lower Nubia]

OOC: Now... definitely now , it’s submitted. Sorry for going back and forth on that, we just wanted to do it properly. Apologies for any inconvenience. If it fails to reach quorum, then it fails, but we hope it does pass through the delegates and then at the vote.

[Maowi]

OOC: Good luck, I'd like to see this get to vote. Incidentally, have you campaigned/are you planning on campaigning?

[Lower Nubia]

OOC: Good luck, I'd like to see this get to vote. Incidentally, have you campaigned/are you planning on campaigning?

Yes we are, Lislandia has done the Campaigning side and I have some stuff to do when I have free time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I find this proposal strange. I'm not sure how better to describe it because it isn't clear enough to make anything out. There are ideas in it which make sense, but they seem to be lack form or substance. The proposal is amorphous to the point that criticising it is difficult because there are enough interpretations to hold a superposition. Also, my apologies for coming out of the woodwork, I've criticised it in the past, but I only really drew my attention to this proposal upon receipt of a telegram informing me of its existence. I also failed to make the connection between your asking for campaign help (in the form of disclosing my region's client key) and running a campaign.

However that is, I received a message from a friend of mine who asked me to look at the proposal and develop an opinion. I'll go down the resolution by clause, then draw in, perhaps, some of the material referenced in your FAQ (I would also recommend using the block text tags to clearly delineate which sections are quoted and which are not, instead of using italics).

2) That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA.

This is unclear, the word "being" has the same problems as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". I don't know whether it is a limiting clause or a prefatory one. Your FAQ talks about legal principles, perhaps which could be termed as the "spirit" of a law. The clause does not talk about it: it speaks only on the requirements of law. One is not the other. Clarify this section so to convey what you mean.

3) Concerning the responsibility of WA states' citizens, or corporations, acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national state;

a) A WA state is not culpable for the actions of their citizens, or corporations, unless evidence of coercion, command, or irresponsibility, of that state, is identified.

b) May have charged, by, or through that respective state, those individuals, or parties, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be charged under international law; as per clauses 1 & 2.

This applies to WA persons. The first clause says that WA nations have non-culpability, though a better term here would probably be liability, unless they are irresponsible. I'm not sure what that means, do you mean negligent? Moreover, on a literal meaning basis, it doesn't say coercion having to do with the action, but rather, coercion itself. If something like paying taxes is a coercive behaviour, then the act of coercion itself implies culpability, even absent connection with the malfeasance itself.

The second part of the clause includes the word "charged". Is this a charge to act? Or is it a charge in court? If the latter, what about diversity cases? And enforcement seems lax, since WA members are not required to act, instead, they may bring charges. It also seems to imply that all member nations must extend extraterritoriality to their citizens. Is that what you intended?

At a grammatical level, the use of a semicolon at the end of the introduction of the clause is unapt, it should be a colon; also, the list should follow parallel construction and be joined by an "and". The use of a full stop is wrong because the list hasn't ended yet.

4) That WA states do not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, through independent treatise. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treatise, are to remain under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory.

This is phrased passively, it should be in the active voice. Treatise is not the pluralisation of "treaty", which is "treaties". A treatise is a long essay (cf tract, thesis). But even if I presume substitution, I'm not sure what this clause means: if WA members are excluded from the provisions of this act by having signed an independent treaty, why are they then required to abide by it?

5) That terra nullius, being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null & void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings;

a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national & international.

b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.

This doesn't seem precise. I conceive of a defence as something which is not a subversion of the court. In fact, it would be a subversion of justice if a person were not permitted to defend himself. The validity of a defence doesn't matter in the context of a jurisdictional dispute. If the court does not have jurisdiction to hear a case, arguments as to whether the court has jurisdiction are eminently relevant. Moreover, the extent of law seems prima facie only to come up in the phrase "prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law", which implies to me the question of bringing charges. Being in the wrong jurisdiction precludes a cause of action.

Moreover, the phrasing of this clause is extremely muddled. The sub-sections do not follow from the ending of the section. Again, full stops are used when a list continuation is required.

Also, explain to me why how "Terra nullius [can be] used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law". Certainly, it could be used as reason for why a dispute cannot be settled in a certain manner. Yet, its presence does not ipso facto justify the need for a multinational treaty.

7) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius & seek resolution to dispute.

What rights? The land cannot have rights. And if there are people there, why are they accorded rights by the WA when they are not WA member nations or WA citizens? How can there be a dispute that can be dealt with by the World Assembly, moreover, if does not create an action in a court under WA jurisdiction? It also seems unclear what this intermediary body will do, is it in charge of running negotiations? Or is it an advisory body?

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim & establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

1) The claim is made by a sovereign WA state.

2) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any WA resolutions in the process of its claim.

3) The claim is not contested legally by any power, people, or species, who maintain an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by the WA.

Guarantees(1) doesn't make sense when according with the stated purpose of this resolution. But as an aside, what is the "aforementioned" in the sentence? Which nations? The resolution purports to provide for people who live in a land which is not administered by a sovereign nation. If they claim sovereignty over the land, then this in of itself becomes not unclaimed territory. Moreover, how can a body of people who are settling some place be granted the claim, which is what I think you mean to say, when claims must be made by a WA nation? If you do not mean to have popular sovereignty, how can you justify the action of taking native land simply because it was claimed by a WA member nation?

Guarantees(2) should be expanded, in my view, to all territories under the control of a member nation. If the WA is to be used as a legitimating body, why should it not give lesser priority the people who do not uphold the implicit contract of WA membership?

Guarantees(3). The World Assembly already recognises an obligation of member nations to administer lands under their occupation pursuant to WA law. Could justify this discrepancy?