[DRAFT] Traditional Fishing Act

[Emishin]

Traditional Fishing Act Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Fishing

A General Assembly resolution focusing on traditional fishing rights and areas, especially for nations that are geographically surrounded by the ocean. Further bilateral agreements may be needed for nations regarding this resolution. The World Assembly hereby, Describes, the traditional fishing is an activity for fishing with traditional boats by fishermen which has been going on for thousands of years and has become the cultural heritage of their ancestors Describes, the traditional fishermen are indigenous peoples who work as fishermen based on the culture that has been implemented for a long period Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the fishing rights granted to certain groups of fishermen of a particular nation who have habitually fished in certain areas over a long period that inherited from the previous generations and kept in practice by the current generation. There are two types of traditional fishing rights, among them are; traditional fishing rights exercised by traditional inhabitants or indigenous peoples within their national jurisdiction traditional fishing rights exercised by nationals of one nation in another nation’s jurisdiction. The practice is conducted outside their national jurisdiction Defines, the traditional fishing areas as the locations of fishing for traditional fishermen in international waters as well as those that intersect with the waters of other nations based on the rights granted Guarantees, the traditional fishing rights as a legal right for traditional fishermen in all World Assembly member nations Understands, the traditional fishing areas as a special water area that are permitted by a nation for fishing activities of traditional fishermen of indigenous peoples based on legal elements, historical facts and cultural values

(Image)

Traditional Fishing Act Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Fishing

A General Assembly resolution regarding traditional fishing rights and areas, especially for nations that are geographically surrounded by the ocean. Further bilateral agreements may be needed for nations regarding this resolution. The World Assembly hereby, DEFINES traditional fishing rights as the rights of traditional fishermen to carry out fishing activities that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation DEFINES traditional fishing areas as fishing zones that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation APPROVES traditional fishing rights as a legal right for all nations APPROVES traditional fishing areas as a special area provided by a nation on the basis of historical and cultural values RECOGNIZES the rights granted by a permit giver nation to respect the rights of the indigenous people of the permit receiver nation who receive these rights in using the giver sea as their main livelihood that has lasted tens or hundreds of years RECOGNIZES nation that provides territorial waters to be used as a traditional fishing area for fishermen from other nations is a sovereign authority who has the right to monitor and act against illegal activities in their traditional fishing area DECLARES bilateral agreements between nations if the traditional fishing areas intersect with territorial boundaries or exclusive economic zones of other nations. So that their intersecting territories may be used by traditional fishermen from nations that submit their rights GUARANTEES the security of fishing activities in traditional fishing areas that have been set by the nations on the agreement ALLOWS the nations that grant traditional fishing rights to cancel the agreements with clear information PROHIBITS fishermen from illegal fishing activities on their fishing methods in traditional fishing areas by: fishing tool standards approved by the relevant nations fishing boat standards approved by the relevant nations set fish quota that can be lured in the amount determined by the nation that gives traditional fishing rights determine the type of fish that should only be taken in traditional fishing areas by the nation that gives rights install clear fishing boat identities such as certain flag or symbols to make it easier for security officers to monitor activities in the fishing area PRESERVES the marine ecosystem which in the traditional fishing areas by each nation in the agreement Proposed by Emishin

Description: Traditional Fishing Act more defining and regulating traditional fishing rights, activities and territories with agreements between countries without damaging the aquatic ecosystem. while the Sustainable Fishing Act regulates more about the diversity of aquatic ecosystems caused by overfishing

If this proposal is believed to be approved by the secretariat after being amended. then I will submit it as soon as possible.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

(Image)

Traditional Fishing Act Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Fishing

A General Assembly resolution regarding traditional fishing rights and areas, especially for nations that are geographically surrounded by the ocean. Further bilateral agreements may be needed for nations regarding this resolution. The World Assembly hereby, DEFINES traditional fishing rights as the rights of traditional fishermen to carry out fishing activities that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation DEFINES traditional fishing areas as fishing zones that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation APPROVES traditional fishing rights as a legal right for all nations APPROVES traditional fishing areas as a special area provided by a nation on the basis of historical and cultural values RECOGNIZES the rights granted by a permit giver nation to respect the rights of the indigenous people of the permit receiver nation who receive these rights in using the giver sea as their main livelihood that has lasted tens or hundreds of years RECOGNIZES nation that provides territorial waters to be used as a traditional fishing area for fishermen from other nations is a sovereign authority who has the right to monitor and act against illegal activities in their traditional fishing area DECLARES bilateral agreements between nations if the traditional fishing areas intersect with territorial boundaries or exclusive economic zones of other nations. So that their intersecting territories may be used by traditional fishermen from nations that submit their rights GUARANTEES the security of fishing activities in traditional fishing areas that have been set by the nations on the agreement ALLOWS the nations that grant traditional fishing rights to cancel the agreements with clear information PROHIBITS fishermen from illegal fishing activities on their fishing methods in traditional fishing areas by: fishing tool standards approved by the relevant nations fishing boat standards approved by the relevant nations set fish quota that can be lured in the amount determined by the nation that gives traditional fishing rights determine the type of fish that should only be taken in traditional fishing areas by the nation that gives rights install clear fishing boat identities such as certain flag or symbols to make it easier for security officers to monitor activities in the fishing area PRESERVES the marine ecosystem which in the traditional fishing areas by each nation in the agreement Proposed by Emishin

Description: Traditional Fishing Act more defining and regulating traditional fishing rights, activities and territories with agreements between countries without damaging the aquatic ecosystem. while the Sustainable Fishing Act regulates more about the diversity of aquatic ecosystems caused by overfishing

If this proposal is believed to be approved by the secretariat after being amended. then I will submit it as soon as possible.

I support

[Barfleur]

DEFINES traditional fishing rights as the rights of traditional fishermen to carry out fishing activities that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation
DEFINES traditional fishing areas as fishing zones that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation

"Does that include instances in which territory changed hands between nations?"

[Emishin]

I support

Thank you very much! but I think improvements to the perfection of the proposal will be needed in the future

[Emishin]

DEFINES traditional fishing rights as the rights of traditional fishermen to carry out fishing activities that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation
DEFINES traditional fishing areas as fishing zones that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation

"Does that include instances in which territory changed hands between nations?"

sure not, my friend. territorial waters which are the location of traditional fishing activities for fishermen from nations that are given their rights will still remain legitimate waters owned by the nations that give them the right to traditional fishing. regarding the transfer of hands of the territory of a nation not regulated in this proposal. this proposal only guarantees traditional fishing activities in international waters as well as those that intersect with the exclusive economic zone of a nation without changing the control over these waters.

[Morover]

"I have some concerns about this proposal, ambassador."

"Firstly, 'fishing' is not a valid industry for the environmental category. The categories are automotive, mining, logging, manufacturing, agricultural, or all of the above. From what I can tell, fishing has historically gone under 'all industries' category."

"Perhaps it is because my environmental advisor is on vacation and I'm not well-educated in the subject, but the fifth clause sounds strange to me, and I'm not entirely sure what a "permit giver nation" nor what a "permit receiver nation" is. Additionally, if it is to protect natives who rely on fishing (which I suspect it is), it seems arbitrary to give a specific timeframe that they have been there."

"Clause six seems rather redundant to me, is territorial sea not already under the jurisdiction of the mainland government, by basic principles of sovereignty?"

"Furthermore, clause seven seems rather micromanage-y to me, though that may be a personal preference, and clause eight seems to not be the place of the World Assembly - it is not always feasible for the nations of the world to always guarantee the security of traditional fishing areas. Times of war come to mind right away."

"Clause nine's language is rather confusing to me, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish there, except perhaps add optionality, which is illegal. Additionally, clause ten seems to be common sense and unneeded to me, as the nation the fisherperson is fishing in would have already prohibited the use of illegal fishing activities, as defined by their laws. Clause eleven is not feasible and should just be removed."

"I don't know if you're intending to keep it in the proposal, but it's in the box, so I must assume that you are, but the "Proposed by Emishin" is branding, and therefore illegal. When a proposal is submitted and/or passed, your name will automatically appear beside it, so there is no need to put your name in the actual proposal, unless it was co-authored by another individual, in which case, you may say that at the bottom of the proposal."

"And I recommend you wait even if it is deemed legal by GenSec, because legal does not mean it is necessarily good. I would recommend waiting until quite a few of the active ambassadors here believe it is ready to be published. It is a common mistake for newcomers to submit too early, which is understandable. I did it my first few times, but you do learn to give it time eventually."

"You're a rather skilled legislator, ambassador. I do hope you stick around."

EDIT: OOC: Apologies for this jumping everywhere and being rather short paragraphs instead of a few larger ones. I have a rather bad headache right now and it must be affecting my ability to write coherently, or something like that.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Apologies to not getting to this sooner, as per the telegram; work has been getting a little hectic lately. I’ll give this a look through tomorrow. The first thing as I’ve noticed is the last line in small text. If this is included in the actual proposal, it will be marked as illegal for branding.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: "Approves" and "recognizes" don't actually do anything. Also, "fishing zones that have been carried out" doesn't make sense. Clause 5 talks about "permit giver/receiver nation", but no permits are mentioned anywhere else. "Traditional fishing" isn't defined, nor "traditional fishermen". Clauses 6-10 just make no sense (grammar and punctuation are your friends), or the bits that are understandable refer to things that were removed from this version of the draft. Clause 11 is the only thing that refers to marine environment at all, so not including fresh-water ecosystems seems out of place.

And generally speaking the proposal seems to be more pro-(traditional)-fishing than restricting it, which makes it not fit the chosen category and thus be illegal.

I can see that English isn't your first language, so why don't you explain (and please capitalize the first letter of each sentence, as it isn't done automatically by the system) as a reply post exactly what you mean by traditional fishing and why it should be promoted over whatever you think is non-traditional fishing?

Also, have you read the existing resolutions that concern fishing and hunting (since fishing is basically just hunting fish)? You can't contradict those.

"Firstly, 'fishing' is not a valid industry for the environmental category."

OOC: Yes it is.

[Kenmoria]

"Firstly, 'fishing' is not a valid industry for the environmental category."

OOC: Yes it is.

.
(OOC: Are you sure? It isn’t in the GA rules compendium, and I can’t find any proposal with a fishing subcategory in IA’s list.)

[Emishin]

"I have some concerns about this proposal, ambassador."

"Firstly, 'fishing' is not a valid industry for the environmental category. The categories are automotive, mining, logging, manufacturing, agricultural, or all of the above. From what I can tell, fishing has historically gone under 'all industries' category."

"Perhaps it is because my environmental advisor is on vacation and I'm not well-educated in the subject, but the fifth clause sounds strange to me, and I'm not entirely sure what a "permit giver nation" nor what a "permit receiver nation" is. Additionally, if it is to protect natives who rely on fishing (which I suspect it is), it seems arbitrary to give a specific timeframe that they have been there."

"Clause six seems rather redundant to me, is territorial sea not already under the jurisdiction of the mainland government, by basic principles of sovereignty?"

"Furthermore, clause seven seems rather micromanage-y to me, though that may be a personal preference, and clause eight seems to not be the place of the World Assembly - it is not always feasible for the nations of the world to always guarantee the security of traditional fishing areas. Times of war come to mind right away."

"Clause nine's language is rather confusing to me, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish there, except perhaps add optionality, which is illegal. Additionally, clause ten seems to be common sense and unneeded to me, as the nation the fisherperson is fishing in would have already prohibited the use of illegal fishing activities, as defined by their laws. Clause eleven is not feasible and should just be removed."

"I don't know if you're intending to keep it in the proposal, but it's in the box, so I must assume that you are, but the "Proposed by Emishin" is branding, and therefore illegal. When a proposal is submitted and/or passed, your name will automatically appear beside it, so there is no need to put your name in the actual proposal, unless it was co-authored by another individual, in which case, you may say that at the bottom of the proposal."

"And I recommend you wait even if it is deemed legal by GenSec, because legal does not mean it is necessarily good. I would recommend waiting until quite a few of the active ambassadors here believe it is ready to be published. It is a common mistake for newcomers to submit too early, which is understandable. I did it my first few times, but you do learn to give it time eventually."

"You're a rather skilled legislator, ambassador. I do hope you stick around."

EDIT: OOC: Apologies for this jumping everywhere and being rather short paragraphs instead of a few larger ones. I have a rather bad headache right now and it must be affecting my ability to write coherently, or something like that.

Thank you very much, my friends, for your supportive critics and suggestions.
first I will explain the phrase "the permit giver nation" and "the permit receiver nation" should be meant as "a nation that gives traditional fishing rights" and "the nation that receives that right", indeed it may have sounded very foreign beforehand.
then the sixth clause was intended to ensure ownership of the territorial waters which became the location of traditional fishing activities without any unilateral claims from one of the nations later.
I will do changes or erases regarding other clauses immediately, perhaps especially those related to micromanagement and which should not be in the clause.

Thanks for your compliment! you also likes that


OOC: don't worry mate, get well soon

[Emishin]

(OOC: Apologies to not getting to this sooner, as per the telegram; work has been getting a little hectic lately. I’ll give this a look through tomorrow. The first thing as I’ve noticed is the last line in small text. If this is included in the actual proposal, it will be marked as illegal for branding.)

OOC: No problem mate! I will change some clauses that have been informed by Morover before. and branding also will erase it

[Araraukar]

OOC: Yes it is.

.
(OOC: Are you sure? It isn’t in the GA rules compendium, and I can’t find any proposal with a fishing subcategory in IA’s list.)

OOC: At least it's mentioned in the rules compendium: "Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses." EDIT: If it's no longer an AoE, then that should be fixed.

[Kenmoria]

.
(OOC: Are you sure? It isn’t in the GA rules compendium, and I can’t find any proposal with a fishing subcategory in IA’s list.)

OOC: At least it's mentioned in the rules compendium: "Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses." EDIT: If it's no longer an AoE, then that should be fixed.

(OOC: Nevermind, I’ve just checked with a WA puppet and there is a fishing subcategory. The thing that tripped me up was that there was no mention of fishing in the bulleted list of examples under environmental. All the other subcategories with no example just have ‘examples to come’, next to them. I presume Morover made the same mistake.)

[Emishin]

OOC: "Approves" and "recognizes" don't actually do anything. Also, "fishing zones that have been carried out" doesn't make sense. Clause 5 talks about "permit giver/receiver nation", but no permits are mentioned anywhere else. "Traditional fishing" isn't defined, nor "traditional fishermen". Clauses 6-10 just make no sense (grammar and punctuation are your friends), or the bits that are understandable refer to things that were removed from this version of the draft. Clause 11 is the only thing that refers to marine environment at all, so not including fresh-water ecosystems seems out of place.

And generally speaking the proposal seems to be more pro-(traditional)-fishing than restricting it, which makes it not fit the chosen category and thus be illegal.

I can see that English isn't your first language, so why don't you explain (and please capitalize the first letter of each sentence, as it isn't done automatically by the system) as a reply post exactly what you mean by traditional fishing and why it should be promoted over whatever you think is non-traditional fishing?

Also, have you read the existing resolutions that concern fishing and hunting (since fishing is basically just hunting fish)? You can't contradict those.

"Firstly, 'fishing' is not a valid industry for the environmental category."

OOC: Yes it is.

Thank you for suggestions for improving this proposal, my friend. indeed, fishing and hunting fish are the same only difference in words but what distinguishes them here are the location, culture, and nations involved in fishing. I will also immediately improve my first draft based on the advice of you and others.

[Emishin]

.
(OOC: Are you sure? It isn’t in the GA rules compendium, and I can’t find any proposal with a fishing subcategory in IA’s list.)

OOC: At least it's mentioned in the rules compendium: "Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses." EDIT: If it's no longer an AoE, then that should be fixed.

OOC: I'm sorry but what is AoE ?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Area of Effect. The other categories which don't have strengths have Areas of Effect. Despite the in game description for the Environmental category being industry affected, we tend to refer to it as Area of Effect.

And fishing is still one of them.

[Emishin]

OOC: At least it's mentioned in the rules compendium: "Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses." EDIT: If it's no longer an AoE, then that should be fixed.

(OOC: Nevermind, I’ve just checked with a WA puppet and there is a fishing subcategory. The thing that tripped me up was that there was no mention of fishing in the bulleted list of examples under environmental. All the other subcategories with no example just have ‘examples to come’, next to them. I presume Morover made the same mistake.)

OOC: So, do you think that my category is already in place with the subcategories available or have to replace it with another category? but before I have also checked the proposal page but there is no category that matches my proposal other than the environmental category. I also based on the GA proposal that was passed about sustainable fishing act for category, btw.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: At least it's mentioned in the rules compendium: "Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses." EDIT: If it's no longer an AoE, then that should be fixed.

OOC: I'm sorry but what is AoE ?

(OOC: ‘AoE’ stands for ‘Area of effect’. Whereas some categories have strengths showing how much of an impact the legislation has, others have AoEs showing what part of the category is affected. In this case, the AoE of fishing is correct.)

[Emishin]

OOC: Area of Effect. The other categories which don't have strengths have Areas of Effect. Despite the in game description for the Environmental category being industry affected, we tend to refer to it as Area of Effect.

And fishing is still one of them.

OOC: Ok, thank you for your explain sir

[Emishin]

OOC: I'm sorry but what is AoE ?

(OOC: ‘AoE’ stands for ‘Area of effect’. Whereas some categories have strengths showing how much of an impact the legislation has, others have AoEs showing what part of the category is affected. In this case, the AoE of fishing is correct.)

OOC: Okay, I will fix the category of proposal

[Emishin]

draft #1 will be edited to become draft #2 in a few hours. Thanks for Kenmoria, Araukar and Morover for critics and suggestions also Imperium Anglorum for informed me about passed GA resolutions to be checked so as not to contradiction/plagiarism with other proposals

[Morover]

OOC: apologies, I just checked the bulleted list in the categories section of the rules and fishing is not there. My bad.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: ‘AoE’ stands for ‘Area of effect’. Whereas some categories have strengths showing how much of an impact the legislation has, others have AoEs showing what part of the category is affected. In this case, the AoE of fishing is correct.)

OOC: Okay, I will fix the category of proposal

(OOC: The category you have now is fine; there isn’t a need to change it.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

First, you don't need to bold operative verbs. Nor do you need to capitalise them. You should, before writing your proposal, establish in your mind exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish; then do that. Writing proposals is not difficult with that in mind.

[*]APPROVES [the rights of traditional fishermen to carry out fishing activities that have been carried out for generations over the territories of a particular nation] as a legal right for all nations

I don't get this; it gives the right of people to a non-person entity. It would be akin to giving the right of entrance to a kennel for a person who has a dog ... to some nation. The nation cannot exercise that right because it is not a natural person, unless you would mean to have the nation actually do those things; but if the definition is implicitly backward looking, there are no rights to exercise, since the nation's directly owned fishing firm has no traditional fishing spots.

You need to make it clear what the right is and to whom it is granted, because I don't think you mean to give nations (and if you take the broad interpretation, all persons in that nation) the rights of specific traditional fishermen.

[*]RECOGNIZES the rights granted by a permit giver nation to respect the rights of the indigenous people of the permit receiver nation who receive these rights in using the giver sea as their main livelihood that has lasted tens or hundreds of years

Clarify whether this implies that the indigenous people are not under the jurisdiction of this 'permit giver nation', which isn't clarified. The word permit doesn't appear anywhere else in the proposal. I'm also unclear whether you mean that nations give permits to fishers or to other nations. If the former, that makes sense. If the latter, what we are really talking about is a treaty and not a permit system.

[*]RECOGNIZES nation that provides territorial waters to be used as a traditional fishing area for fishermen from other nations is a sovereign authority who has the right to monitor and act against illegal activities in their traditional fishing area

This seems circular; a nation is itself sovereign; nations already possess the rights to administer portions of land within their territory.

[*]DECLARES bilateral agreements between nations if the traditional fishing areas intersect with territorial boundaries or exclusive economic zones of other nations. So that their intersecting territories may be used by traditional fishermen from nations that submit their rights

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: You cannot just declare that bilateral agreements exists. That would be akin to me declaring that you now owe Mr Bell five thousand New Sterling. Treaties (not treatises) and agreements don't work that way; they necessarily don't work that way when they are bilateral.

[*]GUARANTEES the security of fishing activities in traditional fishing areas that have been set by the nations on the agreement

OOC: One cannot simply guarantee the safety of something. One must instead post guards for future security. I can declare that New York is free of crime all I want, that doesn't actually make it free of crime until I post police officers and enforce laws. There's a grammatical issue in the latter part of this clause, please rework it.

[*]ALLOWS the nations that grant traditional fishing rights to cancel the agreements with clear information

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: I'm not sure how these rights work now. This implies that there are agreements. Agreements are only mentioned in the context of bilateral agreements between countries. While one can grant a country the right to fish in some territory, I was under the initial impression that this had to do with, say, people in Northern Lesbosia who fish in Lake Sanganika who are all under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament. This clause seems to imply it has to do with the fact that Anglican fishers have historically dragged fish out of Belgae waters and that to do so would require authorisation.

Also, any competently-written bilateral treaty would have withdrawal provisions, why override them?

[*]PROHIBITS fishermen from illegal fishing activities on their fishing methods in traditional fishing areas by:

1. fishing tool standards approved by the relevant nations
2. fishing boat standards approved by the relevant nations
3. set fish quota that can be lured in the amount determined by the nation that gives traditional fishing rights
4. determine the type of fish that should only be taken in traditional fishing areas by the nation that gives rights
5. install clear fishing boat identities such as certain flag or symbols to make it easier for security officers to monitor activities in the fishing area

If traditional fishermen have not historically done these things, the requirement of making them do these things changes the activity which they are conducting, which obliterates the right under your proposal to traditionally fish. Is that intended? Because we're half way to an interesting way of paying lip service to traditional practices while setting up a legal mechanism to stop them.

[*]PRESERVES the marine ecosystem which in the traditional fishing areas by each nation in the agreement[/list]

OOC: Again, this isn't how legislation works. See example supra, New York and crime.

[Emishin]

First, you don't need to bold operative verbs. Nor do you need to capitalise them. You should, before writing your proposal, establish in your mind exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish; then do that. Writing proposals is not difficult with that in mind.

thank you, I have thought about it and I will correct it in the second version of the draft

I don't get this; it gives the right of people to a non-person entity. It would be akin to giving the right of entrance to a kennel for a person who has a dog ... to some nation. The nation cannot exercise that right because it is not a natural person, unless you would mean to have the nation actually do those things; but if the definition is implicitly backward looking, there are no rights to exercise, since the nation's directly owned fishing firm has no traditional fishing spots.

maybe there is a little misunderstanding about what I mean in that clause points, what if I change the two clauses to be like this: "Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the rights granted by a nation to traditional fishermen from other nations to use their territorial waters as fishing locations according to existing cultural values and historical facts", I will also explain the rights given in the subclause of that clause. and "Guarantees, the traditional fishing rights as a legal right for traditional fishermen in all World Assembly member nations", I mean here the right to fishing is only given to fishermen not the nation.

Clarify whether this implies that the indigenous people are not under the jurisdiction of this 'permit giver nation', which isn't clarified. The word permit doesn't appear anywhere else in the proposal. I'm also unclear whether you mean that nations give permits to fishers or to other nations. If the former, that makes sense. If the latter, what we are really talking about is a treaty and not a permit system.

Sure, I shall erase that clause point

This seems circular; a nation is itself sovereign; nations already possess the rights to administer portions of land within their territory.

I guess, that point doesn't really matter too

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: You cannot just declare that bilateral agreements exists. That would be akin to me declaring that you now owe Mr Bell five thousand New Sterling. Treaties (not treatises) and agreements don't work that way; they necessarily don't work that way when they are bilateral.

Yeah, I will change or erase that clause according the purpose of the proposal

OOC: One cannot simply guarantee the safety of something. One must instead post guards for future security. I can declare that New York is free of crime all I want, that doesn't actually make it free of crime until I post police officers and enforce laws. There's a grammatical issue in the latter part of this clause, please rework it.

Rework on progress in few hours, I think must more details on it, thank you

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: I'm not sure how these rights work now. This implies that there are agreements. Agreements are only mentioned in the context of bilateral agreements between countries. While one can grant a country the right to fish in some territory, I was under the initial impression that this had to do with, say, people in Northern Lesbosia who fish in Lake Sanganika who are all under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament. This clause seems to imply it has to do with the fact that Anglican fishers have historically dragged fish out of Belgae waters and that to do so would require authorisation.

Also, any competently-written bilateral treaty would have withdrawal provisions, why override them?

I will erase it, that clause looking wouldn't work

If traditional fishermen have not historically done these things, the requirement of making them do these things changes the activity which they are conducting, which obliterates the right under your proposal to traditionally fish. Is that intended? Because we're half way to an interesting way of paying lip service to traditional practices while setting up a legal mechanism to stop them.

how if I change prohibits to restricts the traditional fishermen to overfishing in traditional fishing areas that are protected by a nation to protect ecosystems in these waters. does that make sense ?

OOC: Again, this isn't how legislation works. See example supra, New York and crime.

I will erase these clause