[WITHDRAWN] Resource Extraction from Uninhabited Bodies Act

by **Aureumterra** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:43 pm

Resource Extraction from Uninhabited Bodies Act

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Significant

NOTING the abundance of natural resources found in uninhabited bodies across the multiverse.

OBSERVING the lack of damage caused by extracting from said uninhabited bodies as compared to habitable and inhabited bodies.

RECOGNIZING that extracting resources from uninhabited bodies shall have no environmental consequences, due to the lack of a biosphere on said bodies.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, uninhabited bodies as any planets, asteroids, comets, planetesimals, or moons with the lack of a biosphere and not permanently inhabited by any life or unsusceptible to any likely terraforming process.

PROTECTS the rights of member nations and private entities within member nations to freely extract resources from unclaimed or claimed but unenforced uninhabited bodies unless prohibited by a treaty.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations and private entities within member nations to extract resources from uninhabited bodies over inhabited bodies.

ALLOWS member nations to reasonably claim uninhabited bodies under their sovereign territory in order to extract resources unless prohibited by a treaty or extant General Assembly legislation.

by **Araraukar** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:52 pm

OOC: Should perhaps be "unclaimed uninhabited bodies" that you're allowed to freely strip-mine for resources, to avoid conflicts between nations that have control over one or more solar systems? And also something about "unless prohibited by a treaty" or something, in case there's a pre-existing RP version of the Outer Space Treaty or similar.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:53 pm

It doesn't appear that this creates a rivalrous resource claim over such uninhabitable (probably uninhabited is a better word) bodies. Is that intentional?

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:08 pm

"We suggest the addition of something like 'unsusceptible to any likely terraforming process' to the definition of 'uninhabitable' - just because you can't go suitless on Mars today doesn't mean you have the right to leave toxic waste dumps lying around everywhere for when your great-great-grandchildren want to walk barefoot along the southern shore of Elysium Isla. But, like, Ganymede is fair game."

by **Aureumterra** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:11 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Should perhaps be "unclaimed uninhabited bodies" that you're allowed to freely strip-mine for resources, to avoid conflicts between nations that have control over one or more solar systems? And also something about "unless prohibited by a treaty" or something, in case there's a pre-existing RP version of the Outer Space Treaty or similar.

OOC: Yes, definitely, I’ll edit the first part, the latter is not something the WA is part of, if it’s a treaty between member nations, so they can decide which law carries more weight

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It doesn't appear that this creates a rivalrous resource claim over such uninhabitable (probably uninhabited is a better word) bodies. Is that intentional?

“Pardon me ambassador, I couldn’t quite understand your question. Are you asking about the outcome of conflicting resource claims?”

by **Araraukar** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:33 pm

Aureumterra wrote:the latter is not something the WA is part of, if it’s a treaty between member nations, so they can decide which law carries more weight

OOC: They can't decide that, because WA law overrides all national law. But I'm talking about RL-esque situation, which in WA multiverse would likely include non-WA nations.

by **The New Nordic Union** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:42 pm

OOC: Somehow, the title made me think of extracting resources from dead people.

by **Kenmoria** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:41 pm

“How do the ‘protects’ and ‘allows’ clauses work together? The latter clause appears to just duplicate part of the former, with no additional content, just listing a different method that may be employed.”

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:22 am

Raw resource extraction is always a rivalrous practice. This doesn't create a specific claim for a specific beneficiary, but rather, seemingly permits the exploitation of such resources wherever they are located. Is that intentional?

by **Aureumterra** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:05 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:the latter is not something the WA is part of, if it’s a treaty between member nations, so they can decide which law carries more weight

OOC: They can't decide that, because WA law overrides all national law. But I'm talking about RL-esque situation, which in WA multiverse would likely include non-WA nations.

OOC: True, adding that to draft two

Kenmoria wrote:“How do the ‘protects’ and ‘allows’ clauses work together? The latter clause appears to just duplicate part of the former, with no additional content, just listing a different method that may be employed.”

"By ensuring in print that WA members do indeed have the right to claim uninhabitable bodies under their sovereign territory, and to not leave the former clause open to interpretation”

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"We suggest the addition of something like 'unsusceptible to any likely terraforming process' to the definition of 'uninhabitable' - just because you can't go suitless on Mars today doesn't mean you have the right to leave toxic waste dumps lying around everywhere for when your great-great-grandchildren want to walk barefoot along the southern shore of Elysium Isla. But, like, Ganymede is fair game."

“It’s a good suggestion ambassador, I’ll add that to my second draft”

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Raw resource extraction is always a rivalrous practice. This doesn't create a specific claim for a specific beneficiary, but rather, seemingly permits the exploitation of such resources wherever they are located. Is that intentional?

“Yes ambassador, that is the interpretation I intended with the clause”

by **Aureumterra** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:17 pm

OOC: Made 2nd draft

by **Rarstotzka** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:10 pm

Resource Extraction from Uninhabitable Bodies Act
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation

NOTING the abundance of natural resources found in uninhabitable bodies across the multiverse.

OBSERVING the lack of damage caused by extracting on said uninhabitable bodies as compared to habitable and inhabited bodies.

RECOGNIZING that extracting resources from uninhabitable bodies shall have no environmental consequences, due to the lack of a biosphere on said bodies.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, uninhabitable bodies as any planets, asteroids, comets, planetesimals, or moons with the lack of a biosphere and not permanently inhabited by any life.

PROTECTS the rights of member nations and private entities within member nations to freely extract resources from uninhabited bodies

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations and private entities within member nations to extract resources from uninhabited bodies over inhabited bodies

ALLOWS member nations to claim uninhabited bodies under their sovereign territory in order to extract resources

This treaty doesn't protect against damage caused to other environments due to the resource extraction process. E.G. A comet being mined enough to significantly alter it's orbital trajectory causing it to fall into an inhabited biosphere or crash into an inhabited/uninhabited satellite. Potentially allowing for the weaponisation of comets and other smaller celestial bodies under the pretences of mining.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations and private entities within member nations to extract resources from uninhabited bodies over inhabited bodies

Also this could imply directly above an inhabited body, perhaps instead/in lieu/in place of or in preference to, would be better wording?

by **Aureumterra** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:17 pm

Rarstotzka wrote:
Resource Extraction from Uninhabitable Bodies Act
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Environmental Deregulation

NOTING the abundance of natural resources found in uninhabitable bodies across the multiverse.

OBSERVING the lack of damage caused by extracting on said uninhabitable bodies as compared to habitable and inhabited bodies.

RECOGNIZING that extracting resources from uninhabitable bodies shall have no environmental consequences, due to the lack of a biosphere on said bodies.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, uninhabitable bodies as any planets, asteroids, comets, planetesimals, or moons with the lack of a biosphere and not permanently inhabited by any life.

PROTECTS the rights of member nations and private entities within member nations to freely extract resources from uninhabited bodies

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations and private entities within member nations to extract resources from uninhabited bodies over inhabited bodies

ALLOWS member nations to claim uninhabited bodies under their sovereign territory in order to extract resources

This treaty doesn't protect against damage caused to other environments due to the resource extraction process. E.G. A comet being mined enough to significantly alter it's orbital trajectory causing it to fall into an inhabited biosphere or crash into an inhabited/uninhabited satellite. Potentially allowing for the weaponisation of comets and other smaller celestial bodies under the pretences of mining.

“This is not a treaty ambassador, this is a GA proposal. As for your concern, there is no way to prevent the weaponization of a celestial body in this proposal, that, we trust, is for member states to decide. This proposal simply protects the right to extract resources from uninhabited bodies, and encourages doing so over inhabited bodies. If you are so concerned about weaponization of celestial bodies, you may want to draft your own proposal regarding that”

by **Rarstotzka** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:21 pm

Aureumterra wrote:
“This is not a treaty ambassador, this is a GA proposal. As for your concern, there is no way to prevent the weaponization of a celestial body in this proposal, that, we trust, is for member states to decide. This proposal simply protects the right to extract resources from uninhabited bodies, and encourages doing so over inhabited bodies. If you are so concerned about weaponization of celestial bodies, you may want to draft your own proposal regarding that”

So if a private entity were to engage in mining processes above an inhabited planet under the pretences of this treaty (knowingly) causing it (a smaller celestial body) to enter the biosphere in a potentially extinction level event that would be fine by the proposed treaty?

by **Aureumterra** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:26 pm

Rarstotzka wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:
“This is not a treaty ambassador, this is a GA proposal. As for your concern, there is no way to prevent the weaponization of a celestial body in this proposal, that, we trust, is for member states to decide. This proposal simply protects the right to extract resources from uninhabited bodies, and encourages doing so over inhabited bodies. If you are so concerned about weaponization of celestial bodies, you may want to draft your own proposal regarding that”

So if a private entity were to engage in mining processes above an inhabited planet under the pretences of this treaty (knowingly) causing it to enter the biosphere in a potentially extinction level event that would be fine by the proposed treaty?

“Again ambassador, it is not the job of this proposal to prevent warfare with celestial bodies, but to protect the rights of member states and private entities within this Assembly to mine on uninhabited bodies. I restate, if you are as concerned about this, you may want to draft your own proposal. Adding a clause preventing this will make the proposal go completely off the rails” ambassador Wyse said wiping his brow.

by **Rarstotzka** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:32 pm

Aureumterra wrote:“Again ambassador, it is not the job of this proposal to prevent warfare with celestial bodies, but to protect the rights of member states and private entities within this Assembly to mine on uninhabited bodies. I restate, if you are as concerned about this, you may want to draft your own proposal. Adding a clause preventing this will make the proposal go completely off the rails” ambassador Wyse said wiping his brow.

I am simply saying that negligent behaviour from NGO's and States should be legislated against, no? Disregarding weaponisation.

by **Aureumterra** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:35 pm

Rarstotzka wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:“Again ambassador, it is not the job of this proposal to prevent warfare with celestial bodies, but to protect the rights of member states and private entities within this Assembly to mine on uninhabited bodies. I restate, if you are as concerned about this, you may want to draft your own proposal. Adding a clause preventing this will make the proposal go completely off the rails” ambassador Wyse said wiping his brow.

I am simply saying that negligent behaviour from NGO's and States should be legislated against, no? Disregarding weaponisation.

"I trust nations to have laws within themselves to avoid negligent behavior, ambassador. These should be handled on a case by case basis, therefore, generalization in international law will create many more problems."

by **Rarstotzka** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:39 pm

Aureumterra wrote:
Rarstotzka wrote:
I am simply saying that negligent behaviour from NGO's and States should be legislated against, no? Disregarding weaponisation.

"I trust nations to have laws within themselves to avoid negligent behavior, ambassador. These should be handled on a case by case basis, therefore, generalization in international law will create many more problems."

"Apologies ambassador Wyse, we were unaware you were suffering from such severe economic and judicial myopia. Perhaps a state-provided optometrists appointment is required?"

OOC: A provision stating that if resource extraction in the uninhabited environment would pose significant threat to life in another biosphere is (at least in my opinion) fairly reasonable. Other then that though I like the sound of your proposal!

P.S. Sorry for RP beefing, I love it and sometimes forget that others don't hahaha.

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:48 pm

OOC: Mining a body such as a comet or asteroid cannot appreciably alter its orbital trajectory. Orbital pathing is determined by the masses of the relevant objects; and for any pair of objects with characteristics such that one is a clear and obvious primary, the mass of the smaller object is basically negligible in determining its path. I don't believe the concern about cometary/asteroid mining somehow threatening a planetary impact is necessary to consider here unless the author has room to spare and nothing better to do with it. Certainly not essential.

by **Aureumterra** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:12 pm

Rarstotzka wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:"I trust nations to have laws within themselves to avoid negligent behavior, ambassador. These should be handled on a case by case basis, therefore, generalization in international law will create many more problems."

"Apologies ambassador Wyse, we were unaware you were suffering from such severe economic and judicial myopia. Perhaps a state-provided optometrists appointment is required?"

OOC: A provision stating that if resource extraction in the uninhabited environment would pose significant threat to life in another biosphere is (at least in my opinion) fairly reasonable. Other then that though I like the sound of your proposal! P.S. Sorry for RP beefing, I love it and sometimes forget that others don't hahaha.

“Again, like what the ambassador from Sierra Lyricalia said, it is not necessary to consider this possibility in this proposal, which should ideally be on-point”

by **Aclion** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:36 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Mining a body such as a comet or asteroid cannot appreciably alter its orbital trajectory. Orbital pathing is determined by the masses of the relevant objects; and for any pair of objects with characteristics such that one is a clear and obvious primary, the mass of the smaller object is basically negligible in determining its path. I don't believe the concern about cometary/asteroid mining somehow threatening a planetary impact is necessary to consider here unless the author has room to spare and nothing better to do with it. Certainly not essential.

It can be an issue if the mining causes outgassing, evaporation of trapped materials. The escaping gas can act as a propellant, altering the comet or asteroid's trajectory. This is something we saw in our flyby comet Oumuamua

by **Allied Sapients** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:52 pm

“There is one concern I have,” says Ambassador Olsh. “If there are people living on a planet orbited by a moon large enough to be visible from its surface, then it is theoretically possible that intensive mining or other resource extraction could alter its appearance. This could cause distress to the inhabitants, especially if they are not being benefited by the mining and therefore only see that a nation or company is destroying their natural view with no compensation to them. This could cause...problems, internationally.”

by **Aureumterra** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:30 am

Allied Sapients wrote:“There is one concern I have,” says Ambassador Olsh. “If there are people living on a planet orbited by a moon large enough to be visible from its surface, then it is theoretically possible that intensive mining or other resource extraction could alter its appearance. This could cause distress to the inhabitants, especially if they are not being benefited by the mining and therefore only see that a nation or company is destroying their natural view with no compensation to them. This could cause...problems, internationally.”

“That is a valid concern, Ambassador. However, I do not feel this needs to be addressed in this proposal, such an incident should be handled on a case by case basis, said people should try to negotiate with the mining entities if they are as distressed about the situation. Unfortunately, the scenarios are so varied, it would be inconvenient to add a clause that generalizes every such scenario. As I said, the distressed people should ideally negotiate with mining entities and find a compromise or solution to the problem without hostility.”

by **Allied Sapients** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:50 am

Aureumterra wrote:“That is a valid concern, Ambassador. However, I do not feel this needs to be addressed in this proposal, such an incident should be handled on a case by case basis, said people should try to negotiate with the mining entities if they are as distressed about the situation. Unfortunately, the scenarios are so varied, it would be inconvenient to add a clause that generalizes every such scenario. As I said, the distressed people should ideally negotiate with mining entities and find a compromise or solution to the problem without hostility.”

“I suggest adding a clause excluding celestial bodies with features visible to the naked eye, with a possible exception allowing the mining of the far side of one that is tidally locked. There will be no negotiation to be had between a small, impoverished nation and an international mining company- the company will do whatever it wishes and the nation will not be able to afford to do a single thing about it.”

by **Aureumterra** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:01 am

Allied Sapients wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:“That is a valid concern, Ambassador. However, I do not feel this needs to be addressed in this proposal, such an incident should be handled on a case by case basis, said people should try to negotiate with the mining entities if they are as distressed about the situation. Unfortunately, the scenarios are so varied, it would be inconvenient to add a clause that generalizes every such scenario. As I said, the distressed people should ideally negotiate with mining entities and find a compromise or solution to the problem without hostility.”

“I suggest adding a clause excluding celestial bodies with features visible to the naked eye, with a possible exception allowing the mining of the far side of one that is tidally locked. There will be no negotiation to be had between a small, impoverished nation and an international mining company- the company will do whatever it wishes and the nation will not be able to afford to do a single thing about it.”

“Said clause would defeat the purpose of the resolution, as it would open up too many loopholes regarding which bodies are “visible” and which are not. If said small impoverished nation happens to be a member state, it can reach out for help. It is unsafe to assume anything, ambassador”

[WITHDRAWN] Resource Extraction from Uninhabited Bodies Act

[WITHDRAWN] Resource Extraction from Uninhabited Bodies Act

Who is online