[DRAFT] International Seabed Surveying (Help Needed)

[Blyskalia]

No promises but I will try to give full comments this weekend.

That would be amazing, I appreciate the possibility

[Bears Armed]

Despite being moved to the 'Illegal' list, this has picked up more approvals.
Current list = 103 (Pingu Armada, Boku no Pica, Dragons of Power, Zighineborp, Golanchia, United Massachusetts, Dictoriahon, New Legland, Palsada, Calotvia, United Western State, Of Higher Razaria, NationState Pie, Blanjiland, Azlaake, Hypron, Thomhinderans, Irwinstan, North Rukonia, New Western Arrakis, Inven, Albiorix, Grandmother Is Arriving With the Cheese, Fyrewynd, Tundranistan, Gonadez, Croatian Istria, New Luciannova, Howfalcistan, North Newlandishforth, The Kyivan Rus, Sougra, The Tomerlands, Kordesia, Diplomatic Territories, Greater Icaria, New Prussian Republic, Unresolved Anarchy, Corrocium, Perisno, Libertars, Bietzopolis, Alaskan Land, Otaku Stratus, New Nationale Einheit, Conserva, Blueztopia, Wagoll, Eastern Tatarstan, Austrovik-Germania, Neko Britain, Greater Serbian Provinces, Dolayssfina Muhat, The society of jimmyhamland, Footscray, Viss Trupe, Sockoa, Zakahus, Soviet republic of Russland, Vrolondia, Numeniora, New Isradia, Coryanhafflaruda, URCD, Paquador, Cokania, Rughzhenhaide, Aynia Moreaux, Bappo State, Vukastan, Hyper12Land, Syndicalist Unions of Terron, The Dylanese, Fedele, Xingyun Heping, Cardison, Makersaulache, Tibbsia, Southern Vulcan, Westerna, Salamanderssss, The People of the Great Plains, Stalins Russian Utopia, Island of Tranquility, Trektopolis, Wizaria, Krohandean people, Seclumistineopia, Conservative American Republican States, Aztopiand, Loyalist Zemenia, Fascist Republic of Israel, Oshillia, Republic Bosnia, Anyname, Junastria, MissiBama, SFR Philippines, The Cansa, Southern-Nordic States, Independent Alignments, Eastern-European Nations, SOUTH WANISTAN)

EDIT
Updated list, 15th May, 2.30pm BST = Approvals: 125 (Pingu Armada, Boku no Pica, Dragons of Power, Zighineborp, Golanchia, United Massachusetts, Dictoriahon, New Legland, Palsada, Calotvia, Of Higher Razaria, NationState Pie, Blanjiland, Azlaake, Hypron, Thomhinderans, Irwinstan, North Rukonia, New Western Arrakis, Inven, Albiorix, Grandmother Is Arriving With the Cheese, Fyrewynd, Tundranistan, Gonadez, Croatian Istria, New Luciannova, Howfalcistan, North Newlandishforth, The Kyivan Rus, Sougra, The Tomerlands, Kordesia, Diplomatic Territories, Greater Icaria, New Prussian Republic, Unresolved Anarchy, Corrocium, Perisno, Libertars, Bietzopolis, Alaskan Land, Otaku Stratus, New Nationale Einheit, Conserva, Blueztopia, Wagoll, Eastern Tatarstan, Austrovik-Germania, Greater Serbian Provinces, Dolayssfina Muhat, The society of jimmyhamland, Footscray, Viss Trupe, Sockoa, Zakahus, Soviet republic of Russland, Vrolondia, Numeniora, New Isradia, Coryanhafflaruda, URCD, Paquador, Cokania, Rughzhenhaide, Aynia Moreaux, Bappo State, Vukastan, Hyper12Land, Syndicalist Unions of Terron, The Dylanese, Fedele, Xingyun Heping, Cardison, Makersaulache, Tibbsia, Southern Vulcan, Westerna, Salamanderssss, The People of the Great Plains, Stalins Russian Utopia, Island of Tranquility, Trektopolis, Wizaria, Krohandean people, Seclumistineopia, Conservative American Republican States, Aztopiand, Loyalist Zemenia, Fascist Republic of Israel, Oshillia, Republic Bosnia, Anyname, Junastria, MissiBama, SFR Philippines, The Cansa, Southern-Nordic States, Independent Alignments, Eastern-European Nations, SOUTH WANISTAN, Dagnia, Milpaiss de Rio, Jew Man, Keness, The Panlannerkalisiang, Valdr Army, Ramaeus, Floopfloopya, Horse Sea, Da Third Reich, Borneon Nations, Sowlina, Sllonsonnopia, East Morey, Envorland, De-lovely, PolandsRebirth, The Arab Coast, Kokebi, Laranen, Refuge Isle, The Unified Territories, FederationofAmerica, Holy Roman Empires2)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I'm surprised this couldve reached qourum if it wasn't illegal.

[Blyskalia]

Despite being moved to the 'Illegal' list, this has picked up more approvals.
Current list = 103 (Pingu Armada, Boku no Pica, Dragons of Power, Zighineborp, Golanchia, United Massachusetts, Dictoriahon, New Legland, Palsada, Calotvia, United Western State, Of Higher Razaria, NationState Pie, Blanjiland, Azlaake, Hypron, Thomhinderans, Irwinstan, North Rukonia, New Western Arrakis, Inven, Albiorix, Grandmother Is Arriving With the Cheese, Fyrewynd, Tundranistan, Gonadez, Croatian Istria, New Luciannova, Howfalcistan, North Newlandishforth, The Kyivan Rus, Sougra, The Tomerlands, Kordesia, Diplomatic Territories, Greater Icaria, New Prussian Republic, Unresolved Anarchy, Corrocium, Perisno, Libertars, Bietzopolis, Alaskan Land, Otaku Stratus, New Nationale Einheit, Conserva, Blueztopia, Wagoll, Eastern Tatarstan, Austrovik-Germania, Neko Britain, Greater Serbian Provinces, Dolayssfina Muhat, The society of jimmyhamland, Footscray, Viss Trupe, Sockoa, Zakahus, Soviet republic of Russland, Vrolondia, Numeniora, New Isradia, Coryanhafflaruda, URCD, Paquador, Cokania, Rughzhenhaide, Aynia Moreaux, Bappo State, Vukastan, Hyper12Land, Syndicalist Unions of Terron, The Dylanese, Fedele, Xingyun Heping, Cardison, Makersaulache, Tibbsia, Southern Vulcan, Westerna, Salamanderssss, The People of the Great Plains, Stalins Russian Utopia, Island of Tranquility, Trektopolis, Wizaria, Krohandean people, Seclumistineopia, Conservative American Republican States, Aztopiand, Loyalist Zemenia, Fascist Republic of Israel, Oshillia, Republic Bosnia, Anyname, Junastria, MissiBama, SFR Philippines, The Cansa, Southern-Nordic States, Independent Alignments, Eastern-European Nations, SOUTH WANISTAN)

Thank you for the updated list

[Aclion]

OOC: How the hell is this "Education and Creativity - Educational"? I don't see anything that raises spending in education.

Also, you create the WAOSA twice for some strange reason.

Same reason 322, 346 and 451 are all educational. Because on NS scientific research and education is lumped into one category, with the ad hoc justification that discovering new things is educational.

[East Meranopirus]

Same reason 322, 346 and 451 are all educational. Because on NS scientific research and education is lumped into one category, with the ad hoc justification that discovering new things is educational.

Perhaps we should end this confusion once and for all by adding a new category of "Scientific Advancement". Though currently, as implausible as it sounds, Education seems like the category that makes the most sense to me.

[Aclion]

Same reason 322, 346 and 451 are all educational. Because on NS scientific research and education is lumped into one category, with the ad hoc justification that discovering new things is educational.

Perhaps we should end this confusion once and for all by adding a new category of "Scientific Advancement". Though currently, as implausible as it sounds, Education seems like the category that makes the most sense to me.

Admins have previously been pretty reluctant to code new categories, and we've recently gotten a few new ones. And a research category wouldn't be all that different because they're lumped together on the national level as well.

[Ransium]

I have to agree that the category violation call was inconsistent with #346 in particular. On the other hand, GenSec isn't strictly bound by modly precedent, so if they want to change the scope of educational that's their prerogative. If it were me, I think I would make this a regulation - transportation proposal and include in my preamble stuff about the transportation safety aspect of knowing underwater topography as well as the scientific benefit. In the past free trade - mild has been used to similar sort of proposals e.g. 34 but I think now it would fall under regulation - transportation. The category is untested though, so I would definitely want a GenSec or two's opinion before a final determination is made. Regardless a transportation safety focused version of the this should pass muster in one of those categories.

To avoid optionality, I would compel nations to make all survey data they've done publically available unless it conflicts with a legitimate security interest. I might also compel nations to provide maps which allow for safe navigation into any international port. I would allow but not compel nations to allow your committee to survey their territories/parts of their territories if they so choose.

Overall though, your proposal spends a lot of time worrying about the wrong stuff IMO. It goes into a huge amount of detail on things that need either a single clause or none at all. You concern yourself with the procedure of things far more than you need to. I think your final proposal could easily be half this size.

I've made a bunch of comments as I read through the proposal which are with respect to the proposals current paradigm, however, to make this legal as I've suggested it's going to take a major overhaul, that will make some comments no longer true. The take-home points are the most important things and that is don't concern yourself with the minuta so much and be less repetitive and less redundant.

International Seafloor Surveying Effort

RECOGNIZES the importance of our oceans and the vast potential scientific knowledge contained within these bodies;

OBSERVES that a vast majority of the ocean floor has remained unmapped and uncharted;

NOTES that whilst some efforts are underway to map the ocean floor, a united international effort is not present, which prevents the free sharing of knowledge and data;

Fine.

ACKNOWLEDGES every Member State’s right to sovereignty and the established right to claim their seabed up to and including twenty-four nautical miles offshore;

This whole clause, in particular, the exactly specified distance is arguably a house of cards violation and/or not pre-amble at all. If you want it pre-amble make it much vaguer. Acknowledging member states have sovereignty over some amount of ocean floor.

RECOGNIZES the wisdom of GAR #168, governing the conduct and privileges of Member States as it relates to their oceanic and/or other aquatic claims;

I'm not sure what this is meant to do for the proposal but I'd cut it. BTW bolding and capitalizing the pre-amble clauses, but not active clauses seems weird to me. Personally, and this is wholly a style decision, I advocate no special starting clause formatting throughout a proposal.

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY:

"Hereby declares:" would be the more standard way of transitioning and formatting such a transition

1. The World Assembly Oceanic Surveying Authority (WAOSA) be tasked with the express goal of surveying the seabed and geological features below sea-level as part of an international cooperative effort to further scientific understanding and knowledge of the seabed

I wouldn't underline the committee. Generally, when you establish a new committee you say you're doing so in the first mention of the committee. So "Establishes World Assembly Oceanic Surveying Authority (WAOSA) and tasks it with the goal of..." then you can cut your extremely awkward last clause.

2. The WAOSA is instructed to survey all international and ungoverned waters and to survey the national waters of member states subject to authorization by the member state's relevant marine authority.

This is pretty repetitive with this:

c. The WAOSA may survey international and ungoverned waters without restriction

The point only needs to be made once.

a. Surveying may be conducted using: lead lines, sounding poles, single-beam echo-sounders, multibeam swath systems, side-scan sonar systems, and lidar (light detection and ranging)

b. Equipment may be installed on inflatable craft, small vessels, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and/or large ships

I wouldn't concern myself with the particulars of how the surveying is done at all (although that's some nice remote sensing knowledge there!). Specifying the technology is limiting to nations with greater or lower tech levels or different resources. If you must specify something I would just say "surveying must be done with the best available technology for the conditions" or something

3. All Member States are allowed the ability to request WAOSA personnel and vessels not conduct surveying and data collecting within their territorial waters


a. Member States may make this appeal to WAOSA personnel and vessels at any time regardless of any prior consent given


b. Upon the reception of a request, the WAOSA will send the case to an internal panel to consider the concerns of the party making the plea


i. During the period in which the request is pending or is otherwise being processed, WAOSA vessels will promptly vacate the territorial waters of the party making the appeal

This is, IMO, a lot of unneeded hand wringing about Member states consents. Without worrying about the optionality problem. I would simply write "Member states may consent to WAOSA surveying their sovereign territory, however, that consent may be withdrawn at any time" I'm not clear if there's meant to be only certain reasons a request to not survey should be considered legit, but if so you should spell them out here too. However, the next clauses suggest an unrestricted right to withold access, in which case what would the panel be deciding on anyway?

4. All data collected by WAOSA on a specific Member State’s seabed will be firstly shared with the nation from which the data originates


a. The relevant Member State is guaranteed the unrestricted right to withhold and/or request the data not be disseminated in any form

Again this could be condensed to a single clause along the lines of "Member states have the unrestricted right to withhold map data over any part of their sovereign territory

i. Member States are banned from altering and/or falsifying any data pertaining to their seabed

ii. The WAOSA is mandated not to comply with any request from a Member State to falsify and/or dishonestly report geological data

Again condense to a single clause. The first clause is odd as it suggests the member state is providing data which the rest of the proposal had not suggested. The second probably isn't needed the committee is populated by hyper-efficient gnomes who would never provide false data.

5. The participating Member States are mandated to provide any and all relevant and declassified maps, charts and existing geological data pertaining to their respective area of the seabed in order to allow surveying to be undertaken in the most efficient manner

I suppose this was your effort to get around optionality? I would cut this.

ADDS THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

This is not a standard thing to do and I would remove it.

1. Military vessels or fleets may, for the express purpose of national security, request that a WAOSA vessel does not survey a specific area of ocean floor surrounding the military vessel or fleet up to two nautical miles in diameter from the vessel(s), even in international waters

I don't like this exception. You can't own international waters, your national security should not extend into them IMO. People love playing the national security card though so maybe this needed, I don't know.

2. WAOSA vessels are permitted to, in a time of dire peril, seek harbor in a nation which has not given consent to allow WAOSA personnel to enter


a. No surveying and/or geological research will be completed in this scenario

I would cut this. I believe there's already WA legislation about vessels in distress which would cover this.

FORMS the World Assembly Oceanic Surveying Authority (WAOSA) to preside over and conduct surveying operations on the seabed as well as to collect and collate data relating to the surveying of the seabed.

As previously stated cut this.

[Kenmoria]

“You go into a lot of detail on what the committee should do and how this should happen when this could probably be left for the WAOSA to decide for itself. The staff for the committees decide how to do things without any input from proposals, and, though it isn’t necessary harmful to specify, the level of specification here is excessive.”

[Araraukar]

Because on NS scientific research and education is lumped into one category, with the ad hoc justification that discovering new things is educational.

OOC: And that is said officially where?

[Aclion]

Because on NS scientific research and education is lumped into one category, with the ad hoc justification that discovering new things is educational.

OOC: And that is said officially where?

It's a convention carried over from before gensec. It has not been subject to a formal challenge since until now, every time the objection has been raised the mods and gensec have not pursued it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: And that is said officially where?

It's a convention carried over from before gensec. It has not been subject to a formal challenge since until now, every time the objection has been raised the mods and gensec have not pursued it.

OOC: Good enough a reason as any to challenge it officially on this one, then.

But if the author wanted to make it a better AoE fit, then maybe they should add something about teaching (or at least enabling teaching) oceanography in the WA nations involved? I mean, I was required to learn the 5 highest peaks of North America (and all the bloody states of USA - why do you have so many?) despite living on an entirely different continent (though learning African countries was even worse, especially as they keep changing names), so it's reasonable to presume that you should have some idea of what's where in the sea bottom at least around your own nation's coastline.

Though something that occurs to me - rather than make the committee re-do all the existing work and thus waste WA money, what if nations already have detailed maps at their use? Couldn't they just submit these and be done with it? The committee could decide if the maps are detailed enough (and I would presume that in most cases they would be).

I agree with the nixing off of the details of how the maps are made, especially as they inexplicably ignore the use of satellites.

[Ransium]

Though something that occurs to me - rather than make the committee re-do all the existing work and thus waste WA money, what if nations already have detailed maps at their use? Couldn't they just submit these and be done with it? The committee could decide if the maps are detailed enough (and I would presume that in most cases they would be).

OP, that was what I was trying to say when I was discussing how to avoid optionality although I did not make the point as clearly as Ara has. In other words, totally agree.

If you do stick with this category, I think at the very least a single preambulatory clause about how publically available maps of shallow areas will enhance shipping safety would be a convincing point to some nations, although I wouldn't harp on it too much so to not conflict with the category.

[Aclion]

It's a convention carried over from before gensec. It has not been subject to a formal challenge since until now, every time the objection has been raised the mods and gensec have not pursued it.

OOC: Good enough a reason as any to challenge it officially on this one, then.

I don't think GenSec would hear it, as regardless of the category the resolution would still be illegal. If I had assurance that this is not the case I am willing to take the time to challenge it.

[Blyskalia]

@Ransium thank you for all that help, I appreciate all of that so much!

As for the category, I think to avoid any more friction, I'll place it in Transport Regulations simply because the Education category seems like a less hospitable place for wide interpretations

[Kenmoria]

@Ransium thank you for all that help, I appreciate all of that so much!

As for the category, I think to avoid any more friction, I'll place it in Transport Regulations simply because the Education category seems like a less hospitable place for wide interpretations

(OOC: Transport regulation doesn’t seem to be a very good fit to the current proposal, as that is a category more about regulating methods of transport themselves, with the examples given being ‘increas[ing] hull thickness, standardis[ing] trading route traffic or protect[ing] shipping.’)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Good enough a reason as any to challenge it officially on this one, then.

I don't think GenSec would hear it, as regardless of the category the resolution would still be illegal. If I had assurance that this is not the case I am willing to take the time to challenge it.

OOC: In my understanding, unless the challenge maker withdraws the challenge (or more than one person makes the same challenge, they may ignore all but one thread), GenSec will "hear" all legality challenges. If it's something they all agree is legal/illegal, then they'll be quick to post the decision, is all.

In this particular case, I think it's more of a case of nobody making an official challenge, rather than just discussing the possibility of one on the relevant thread.

[Blyskalia]

@Ransium thank you for all that help, I appreciate all of that so much!

As for the category, I think to avoid any more friction, I'll place it in Transport Regulations simply because the Education category seems like a less hospitable place for wide interpretations

(OOC: Transport regulation doesn’t seem to be a very good fit to the current proposal, as that is a category more about regulating methods of transport themselves, with the examples given being ‘increas[ing] hull thickness, standardis[ing] trading route traffic or protect[ing] shipping.’)

Yes, but as it stands right now, it seems to exist in a limbo-land between categories, if I do as suggested and talk about how surveying shallow grounds improve safety, I suppose I could place it in the corresponding category, but it seems weak either way

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium, regardless of the text of the draft itself, has one concern; why?" Markhov paused for effect. "Or, in other words, what makes this an issue of international import?"

[Bears Armed]

I don't think GenSec would hear it, as regardless of the category the resolution would still be illegal. If I had assurance that this is not the case I am willing to take the time to challenge it.

OOC: In my understanding, unless the challenge maker withdraws the challenge (or more than one person makes the same challenge, they may ignore all but one thread), GenSec will "hear" all legality challenges. If it's something they all agree is legal/illegal, then they'll be quick to post the decision, is all.

OOC
Not 100% correct. We discuss whether a challenge is actually worth hearing, and can decide not to bother with doing so formally if it's too obviously incorrect (e.g a claim that tries using GAR#2 to justify a NatSov-based challenge)... although in that case we will normally still post our decision & reasons about not continuing.

[Araraukar]

Yes, but as it stands right now, it seems to exist in a limbo-land between categories

OOC: That is because of the active clauses (you know, the ones that actually make things happen) not exactly fitting a category currently. I have suggested one thing you could change if you wanted it to fit Educational. If you want to go for transport safety, then you need to add active clauses (not preamble, like some suggest) that fit that particular category.

What you have right now is just science for the sake of science, basically. What you need, to be able to fit it into a category, is to think of a practical application. Seacharts have been historically drawn for the purposes of shipping safety, which I think is your most viable angle here. So think of some way to ad in practical application of the data gathered, that fits your category.

although in that case we will normally still post our decision & reasons about not continuing.

This was what I meant. That you'll at least give the reasoning on the legality challenge thread.

[Ransium]

Yes, but as it stands right now, it seems to exist in a limbo-land between categories

OOC: That is because of the active clauses (you know, the ones that actually make things happen) not exactly fitting a category currently. I have suggested one thing you could change if you wanted it to fit Educational. If you want to go for transport safety, then you need to add active clauses (not preamble, like some suggest) that fit that particular category.

What you have right now is just science for the sake of science, basically. What you need, to be able to fit it into a category, is to think of a practical application. Seacharts have been historically drawn for the purposes of shipping safety, which I think is your most viable angle here. So think of some way to ad in practical application of the data gathered, that fits your category.

although in that case we will normally still post our decision & reasons about not continuing.

This was what I meant. That you'll at least give the reasoning on the legality challenge thread.

Not sure if some was meant to include me, but for the record my suggestions were not merely preamble changes, I suggested major change to the active clauses to fit in the suggested category.

[Araraukar]

Not sure if some was meant to include me, but for the record my suggestions were not merely preamble changes, I suggested major change to the active clauses to fit in the suggested category.

OOC: If the shoe doesn't fit, it's not your shoe.

[Blyskalia]

I doubt it is worth challenging the illegality of the draft based on the conversation here. I'm very new here so I'm not really fully keyed in on the debate, but from what I gather, I dont have a real basis for a challenge, but my resolution demonstrates a certain ambiguity in the nature of categories?

[Kenmoria]

I doubt it is worth challenging the illegality of the draft based on the conversation here. I'm very new here so I'm not really fully keyed in on the debate, but from what I gather, I dont have a real basis for a challenge, but my resolution demonstrates a certain ambiguity in the nature of categories?

(OOC: The categories are, and always have been, somewhat ambiguous. Your best option now would be to try and make your proposal fit a category, it doesn’t matter which of the ones suggested you choose, rather than trying to shoehorn a category around the proposal.)