NationStates

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:04 pm**

“In the ‘observing’ clause, I notice that you have ‘extracting on’. I believe that ‘extracting from’ would be a better choice of words.”

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:29 pm**

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

OBSERVING the lack of damage caused by extracting on 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.

In Defines, "which lack", "and are not", and "while also being unsusceptible".

Enforcement of claims in the Pacific ocean are difficult, when not near a base or anchorage. Yet, nobody can simply extract resources out of other people's islands (or more likely, under their islands) without pushback.

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:24 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:“In the ‘observing’ clause, I notice that you have ‘extracting on’. I believe that ‘extracting from’ would be a better choice of words.”

“Yes, I’ll edit that real quick”

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In Defines, "which lack", "and are not", and "while also being unsusceptible".

Enforcement of claims in the Pacific ocean are difficult, when not near a base or anchorage. Yet, nobody can simply extract resources out of other people's islands (or more likely, under their islands) without pushback.

OOC: Keep in mind, islands and interplanetary objects are treated very differently, while islands are small enough to be properly monitored, a claim on an uninhabited body which is not enforced is similar to a random country claiming the world

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:47 pm**

Aureumterra wrote:OOC: Keep in mind, islands and interplanetary objects are treated very differently, while islands are small enough to be properly monitored, a claim on an uninhabited body which is not enforced is similar to a random country claiming the world

And yet, I would struggle to believe that Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island are properly monitored such that one would be able to tell if all the trees (not sure if there are trees) or fish around it were extracted within an amount of time small enough to actually do anything about it. To actually enforce a claim is far different from claiming, but many claims are respected, totally ignoring, their actual enforcement.

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:12 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:OOC: Keep in mind, islands and interplanetary objects are treated very differently, while islands are small enough to be properly monitored, a claim on an uninhabited body which is not enforced is similar to a random country claiming the world

And yet, I would struggle to believe that Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Island are properly monitored such that one would be able to tell if all the trees (not sure if there are trees) or fish around it were extracted within an amount of time small enough to actually do anything about it. To actually enforce a claim is far different from claiming, but many claims are respected, totally ignoring, their actual enforcement.

OOC: That’s up to the individual nation to decide wether or not to respect said claims

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:02 pm**

But your proposal vests private entities the power to mine wherever, which doesn't seem to conform with that claim.

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:32 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:But your proposal vests private entities the power to mine wherever, which doesn't seem to conform with that claim.

OOC: It prohibits mining in enforced claims

EDIT: A claim like the aforementioned would probably be considered “enforced”

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:48 pm**

OOC: The WA should not intentionally encourage creating a lawless frontier for essentially a gold rush. In RL trying to put this through would run smack dab into the Outer Space Treaty and Antarctica Treaty. Such treaties can be assumed to exist at least on some WA nations' planets, too, with non-WA nations involved. The WA should not destabilize international politics by encouraging private actors of member nations to break treaties their nations have signed. Everyone keeps saying that non-WA nations aren't bound by any of the rules of warfare that WA nations do, and could respond with weaponry the WA has banned. So why the fuck would you want to try and push some of them into doing just that?

tl:dr; Don't try to recreate Gold Rush conditions. Nations in NS tend to respond with nukes to large-scale provocations.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:36 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: The WA should not intentionally encourage creating a lawless frontier for essentially a gold rush. In RL trying to put this through would run smack dab into the Outer Space Treaty and Antarctica Treaty. Such treaties can be assumed to exist at least on some WA nations' planets, too, with non-WA nations involved. The WA should not destabilize international politics by encouraging private actors of member nations to break treaties their nations have signed. Everyone keeps saying that non-WA nations aren't bound by any of the rules of warfare that WA nations do, and could respond with weaponry the WA has banned. So why the fuck would you want to try and push some of them into doing just that?

tl:dr; Don't try to recreate Gold Rush conditions. Nations in NS tend to respond with nukes to large-scale provocations.

OOC: The proposal literally says “Unless prohibited by a treaty” on multiple instances, this applies to private entities within nations as well, the clause applies to the state as well as private entities within it

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:18 pm**

OOC:
How, exactly, are we defining 'claimed but unenforced' territories? The Imperium of Tinfect ICly controls two major blocks of territory, the Interior Territories, and the Exterior Territories. The Exterior is gigantic, and lightly patrolled by simple logistical necessity; is anywhere the Third Fleet can't get to regularly or that doesn't have a defense platform or two lying about considered 'unenforced'? The Imperium would it terrorism at the least if a bunch of foreigners got together to start mining within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Imperium just because there isn't a flag lying around.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:21 pm**

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
How, exactly, are we defining 'claimed but unenforced' territories? The Imperium of Tinfect ICly controls two major blocks of territory, the Interior Territories, and the Exterior Territories. The Exterior is gigantic, and lightly patrolled by simple logistical necessity; is anywhere the Third Fleet can't get to regularly or that doesn't have a defense platform or two lying about considered 'unenforced'? The Imperium would it terrorism at the least if a bunch of foreigners got together to start mining within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Imperium just because there isn't a flag lying around.

OOC: That makes it enforced then. “Unenforced” is mostly directed at claims such as China claiming Arunachal Pradesh or NoKo claiming the entire Korean Peninsula

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:37 pm**

Aureumterra wrote:OOC: That makes it enforced then. “Unenforced” is mostly directed at claims such as China claiming Arunachal Pradesh or NoKo claiming the entire Korean Peninsula

OOC:
Well, if the claim is 'unenforced' because it's functionally the territory of another nation, then, wouldn't that open up a loophole where territories under dispute become valid targets for free mining, regardless of who is actually in control?

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:56 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:OOC: That makes it enforced then. “Unenforced” is mostly directed at claims such as China claiming Arunachal Pradesh or NoKo claiming the entire Korean Peninsula

OOC:
Well, if the claim is 'unenforced' because it's functionally the territory of another nation, then, wouldn't that open up a loophole where territories under dispute become valid targets for free mining, regardless of who is actually in control?

OOC: In disputes, there are still clear cut borders. The best example is the Line of Control in Kashmir, as India and Pakistan both claim the entire region, but each enforces their claims on roughly half the territory with a clearly defined ‘border’

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:45 pm**

Aureumterra wrote:OOC: In disputes, there are still clear cut borders. The best example is the Line of Control in Kashmir, as India and Pakistan both claim the entire region, but each enforces their claims on roughly half the territory with a clearly defined ‘border’

OOC:
... And each side claims the entire thing, but it is in practice controlled by two different nations; from my reading, this allows companies or other states to presume recognition of one side's claim and thus, as the territory held by the other side is claimed but unenforced, assume force of international law in barging in to set up oil derricks or what-have-you.

Basically, I'm trying to say that the clause could stand to be rewritten; it's a bit abusable as it stands.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:42 am**

OOC
An interesting situation re claims on RL Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:13 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Aureumterra wrote:OOC: In disputes, there are still clear cut borders. The best example is the Line of Control in Kashmir, as India and Pakistan both claim the entire region, but each enforces their claims on roughly half the territory with a clearly defined ‘border’

OOC:
... And each side claims the entire thing, but it is in practice controlled by two different nations; from my reading, this allows companies or other states to presume recognition of one side's claim and thus, as the territory held by the other side is claimed but unenforced, assume force of international law in barging in to set up oil derricks or what-have-you.

Basically, I'm trying to say that the clause could stand to be rewritten; it's a bit abusable as it stands.

OOC: Each side only enforces their claims on their side, so the other side is “unenforced”

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:15 pm**

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
An interesting situation re claims on RL Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

OOC: Neither of the nations in question want the small triangle because both want the big triangle. So basically one bit of land is left unclaimed by both, and both are claiming the other piece.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:42 pm**

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
An interesting situation re claims on RL Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

OOC: And if one day somebody finds something remotely valuable in terms of resources there… watch every country in the region claim it

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:56 pm**

OOC: Been quite a while, gonna submit soon, since it seems like no one has anything further to say

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:40 pm**

OOC: Last call for any suggestions and/or flaws in the proposal, I’ll be submitting in a few moments

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:47 pm**

OOC: Well then, submitted

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:14 pm**

This prohibits member states from enacting legislation banning or even regulating private exploitation of "uninhabited" bodies.

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:19 pm**

Wallenburg wrote:This prohibits member states from enacting legislation banning or even regulating private exploitation of "uninhabited" bodies.

"Oh well."

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:22 pm**

"Marxist Germany wishes to notify you that it will be voting FOR"

Posted: **Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:49 pm**

Aureumterra wrote:
Tinfect wrote:
OOC:
... And each side claims the entire thing, but it is in practice controlled by two different nations; from my reading, this allows companies or other states to presume recognition of one side's claim and thus, as the territory held by the other side is claimed but unenforced, assume force of international law in barging in to set up oil derricks or what-have-you.

Basically, I'm trying to say that the clause could stand to be rewritten; it's a bit abusable as it stands.

OOC: Each side only enforces their claims on their side, so the other side is “unenforced”

OOC: So you're still basically encouraging an unregulated gold rush in any locale where there isn't a clear and overwhelming national monopoly on violence. Be aware this might not be super popular.

A note on categories: your preamble talks about the lack of environmental concerns on lifeless rocks, but no operative clause actually deregulates any environmental rules. There's mainly some stuff about the power of commercial actors to act free of interference from pesky little things like property rights or the best interests of the people of the (world, solar system, galaxy, etc.). This looks honestly closest to Free Trade, though you could maybe slot it into Adv. of Ind./CE if you added something to the effect of indemnifying extractors from liability for any actions taken in support of exploiting resources in areas that others have claimed and just, like, expected people not to waltz in like conquistadors "discovering" "new lands."

EDIT:

Aureumterra wrote:OOC: Well then, submitted

Oops. Guess you should've waited more than a few hours after "last call."

NationStates

[WITHDRAWN] Resource Extraction from Uninhabited Bodies Act