NationStates

Acknowledging the dangers desertification poses to member nations,

Applauding the resolution in its attempt to slow the spread of desertification,

Worried that the framework of the resolution only states “removal of vegetation” as a major cause of desertification, not referencing other factors such as climate change, urbanization, and harmful agricultural practices,

Further worried that the resolution does not provide a specific definition for “desertification”, possibly allowing for nations to dodge parts of the resolution by allowing desertification to spread while not citing it as such, leading to further environmental harm,

Acknowledging that, while it is important for member nations to determine their own policies and regulations in preventing desertification, the overall vagueness of the resolution will allow nations to take advantage of the resolution, doing little to stop this process while citing their effort as beneficial,

Noting that Clause 1 is extremely vague in its usage of “reasonable precautions” and ”reasonable regulations”, not specifying what a level of excessive vegetation removal is and allowing member nations to interpret this however they want,

Observing that Clauses 2 and 3 both “encourage” nations to educate workers and take part in reforestation, allowing nations to ignore the clauses if they so choose, posing the risk of uneducated workers harming the environment further rather than aiding it,

Alarmed that Clause 4 is nebulous in the role the WAEC carries in its overseeing of efforts against deforestation, not elaborating on its jurisdiction or role, allowing member nations to dodge regulations and punishment through individual interpretation,

Seeing that subpoint A of of Clause 4 does not specify the extent of effort that is “feasible” or what is “not harmful” regarding efforts of preventing desertification, again allowing nations to employ minimal impact tactics as long as they interpret it as “feasible”,

Further surveying the subpoint’s generalization of each nation’s political structure could have an extremely negative impact on each specific nation’s role in combating desertification within its borders.

Worried that subpoints B and C of Clause 4 are both vague and generalized, not taking into account differing strategies for facilitating reforestation and preventing overgrazing in the different environments of each nation, allowing for member nations to continue deforestation and overgrazing through the ambiguity of the subpoints,

Concerned subpoint D of Clause 4 is also generalized, not referencing the specific water needs of each member nation based on its spread of desertification.

Confused on why subpoint E of Clause 4 does not specify what “records” are to be kept on areas affected by deforestation, such as water levels and area of land lost to desertification each year,

Viewing the extreme vagueness of the resolution has allowed for the exploitation of numerous loopholes,

Hoping the repeal of this resolution will result in the drafting of new legislation much more equipped to combat the disastrous effects of desertification,

Hereby Repeals GA#432 “Preventing Desertification.”

EDIT— The target resolution: viewtopic.php?p=34237185#p34237185

Concrete Slab wrote:

Acknowledging the dangers desertification poses to the world.

Applauding the resolution in its attempt to slow the spread of desertification.

Worried that the framework of the resolution only states “removal of vegetation” as a major cause of desertification, not referencing other factors such as climate change, urbanization, and harmful agricultural practices.

Further worried that the resolution does not provide a specific definition for “desertification”, possibly allowing nations to disregard this entire piece of legislation.

Noting that Clause 1 does not define what “reasonable precautions” and ”reasonable regulations” are for removal of vegetation, not taking into account the status of each individual nation and leaving the clause open to the exploitation of various loopholes.

Observing that Clauses 2 and 3 both “encourage” nations to educate workers and take part in reforestations, causing them to have no real weight with affected nations.

Alarmed that Clause 4 does not specify what power the WAEC has in overseeing efforts against deforestation, allowing the potential avoiding of regulations and punishments by member nations.

Seeing that subpoint A of of Clause 4 does not specify the extent of effort that is “feasible” or what is “not harmful” regarding efforts of preventing desertification.

Further surveying the subpoint does not specify what “local governments” are, not taking into account the specific structure of each nation’s government of this esteemed body.

Worried that subpoints B and C of Clause 4 both are very vague, not providing specific strategies for facilitating reforestation and preventing overgrazing, allowing for many loopholes.

Concerned subpoint D of Clause 4 does not implement specific limits and distribution of water, using phrases such as “orderly” and fair”, allowing for government officials to potentially take advantage of this system.

Confused on why subpoint E of Clause 4 does not specify what “records” are to be kept on areas affected by deforestation.

Viewing the extreme vagueness of the resolution has allowed for the exploitation of numerous loopholes.

Hoping the repeal of this resolution will result in the drafting of new legislation much more equipped to combat the disastrous effects of desertification.

Hereby Repeals GA 432 “Preventing Desertification.”

Please give me any advice and feedback you might have. Thank you!

This idea that words mean nothing is antithetical with reasonable nation theory and good faith compliance. Also, as I noted to another person earlier: while these clauses end with full stops, they are not sentences. To end them with a full stop is ungrammatical.

Edited

Noting that Clause 1 is extremely vague in its usage of “reasonable precautions” and ”reasonable regulations”, not specifying what a level of excessive vegetation removal is,

Most likely because it all depends on the situation and what is there. A One-size-fits-all declaration is never a solution.

Concrete Slab wrote:Acknowledging the dangers desertification poses to the world,

...
Concerned subpoint D of Clause 4 is also generalized, not referencing the specific water needs of each member nation based on its spread of desertification.
...

Hold up, you want it to reference the specific water needs of every WA nation? You do know how many there are, right? It's necessary for some laws to be vague for two reasons, because it's hard to change laws, and it gives more freedom in how you want to execute it, basically, desertification policy in member nations. Pinning things down to exact numbers for everyone is too unwieldy and just won't work.

Sodoran Alesia wrote:

Concrete Slab wrote:Acknowledging the dangers desertification poses to the world,

...
Concerned subpoint D of Clause 4 is also generalized, not referencing the specific water needs of each member nation based on its spread of desertification.
...

Hold up, you want it to reference the specific water needs of every WA nation? You do know how many there are, right? It's necessary for some laws to be vague for two reasons, because it's hard to change laws, and it gives more freedom in how you want to execute it, basically, desertification policy in member nations. Pinning things down to exact numbers for everyone is too unwieldy and just won't work.

Well, what I was trying to say was that this vagueness would allow for member nations to exploit loopholes the resolution does not address.

Grays Harbor wrote:Most likely because it all depends on the situation and what is there. A One-size-fits-all declaration is never a solution.

Yeah, I get that every situation is different, it's just that member nations could really just dodge the resolution using this vagueness. Also, I think it is possible to have a definition of desertification that dispels this vagueness.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the original, but my ability to argue to support this resolution would be greatly strengthened if you had a replacement resolution as well. Without that I doubt Forest is likely to support.

Ransium wrote:I wasn’t a huge fan of the original, but my ability to argue to support this resolution would be greatly strengthened if you had a replacement resolution as well. Without that I doubt Forest is likely to support.

I could definitely try my best, but I don't think I could bring out its full potential.

Concrete Slab wrote:

Ransium wrote:I wasn’t a huge fan of the original, but my ability to argue to support this resolution would be greatly strengthened if you had a replacement resolution as well. Without that I doubt Forest is likely to support.

I could definitely try my best, but I don't think I could bring out its full potential.

OOC: I can write up a replacement if you dont mind.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Concrete Slab wrote:I could definitely try my best, but I don't think I could bring out its full potential.

OOC: I can write up a replacement if you dont mind.

I could help, just as long as someone can bring out it's best lol

But does anyone have any feedback for my resolution?

“I’ve left comments in red on this draft.”

Concrete Slab wrote:Acknowledging the dangers desertification poses to the world, Since the World Assembly covers many world, I suggest ‘member nations’ rather than ‘the world’.

Applauding the resolution in its attempt to slow the spread of desertification,

Worried that the framework of the resolution only states “removal of vegetation” as a major cause of desertification, not referencing other factors such as climate change, urbanization, and harmful agricultural practices,

Further worried that the resolution does not provide a specific definition for “desertification”, possibly allowing nations to disregard this entire piece of legislation, I’m not sure a member nation can disregard the entirety of the proposal due to the word not being defined, since a common-sense meaning can still be used. Definitions are only necessary for words used in a different manner to normal, or which have multiple meanings,

Noting that Clause 1 is extremely vague in its usage of “reasonable precautions” and ”reasonable regulations”, not specifying what a level of excessive vegetation removal is, Presumably, member nations are supposed to work it out for themselves. It can’t be too hard for a government to ascertain reasonability.

Observing that Clauses 2 and 3 both “encourage” nations to educate workers and take part in reforestation, allowing nations to ignore the clauses if they so choose, That could have been a deliberate choice, if the authoring delegation wanted members nations to have choice in this clause.

Alarmed that Clause 4 is nebulous in the role the WAEC carries in its overseeing of efforts against deforestation, not elaborating on its jurisdiction or role, Committees work essentially perfectly to fulfil the mandates of clauses, so it is not necessarily bad that the WAEC has a choice.

Seeing that subpoint A of of Clause 4 does not specify the extent of effort that is “feasible” or what is “not harmful” regarding efforts of preventing desertification, Similarly to your other clauses, member nations should have a choice, as the WA has not yet assumed direct rule,

Further surveying the subpoint’s generalization of each nation’s political structure could have an extremely negative impact on each specific nation’s role in combating desertification within its borders. I’m not sure why you bolded the word ‘further’ here.

Worried that subpoints B and C of Clause 4 are both vague and generalized, not taking into account differing strategies for facilitating reforestation and preventing overgrazing in the different environment of each nation, allowing for the exploitation of many loopholes, What loopholes?

Concerned subpoint D of Clause 4 is also generalized, not referencing the specific water needs of each member nation based on its spread of desertification.

Confused on why subpoint E of Clause 4 does not specify what “records” are to be kept on areas affected by deforestation, such as water levels and area of land lost to desertification each year,

Viewing the extreme vagueness of the resolution has allowed for the exploitation of numerous loopholes, You never really explain what these loopholes are, just point out that member nations have a choice in some clauses.

Hoping the repeal of this resolution will result in the drafting of new legislation much more equipped to combat the disastrous effects of desertification,

Hereby Repeals GA 432 “Preventing Desertification.”

Kenmoria wrote:“I’ve left comments in red on this draft.”

All right, I made some edits. What do you think?

If you want to repeal something because you don't like it or you think it's going to do the world harm to let it stand, God bless you, I'll listen to what you have to say. But that's not what's happening here.

Like the repeal of the private prison ban, this draft is a way of saying that a resolution with any kind of flaw has no utility or value as a piece of legislation while it's enacted. Because there's no replacement to fix what the repeal then breaks, it's just an attempt to get a resolution passed by pointing a finger and saying "Not good enough!" The idea that someone's going to come along after you and write up something else (which is not guaranteed in the first place) that is somehow flawless in every way is just simply not how things work.

So why should I sign on to this with the wishful thinking that it'll all work out later?

“In the ‘applauding’ clause, I recommend quoting the resolution by name rather than just referring to it as ‘the resolution’.”

Refuge Isle wrote:If you want to repeal something because you don't like it or you think it's going to do the world harm to let it stand, God bless you, I'll listen to what you have to say. But that's not what's happening here.

Like the repeal of the private prison ban, this draft is a way of saying that a resolution with any kind of flaw has no utility or value as a piece of legislation while it's enacted. Because there's no replacement to fix what the repeal then breaks, it's just an attempt to get a resolution passed by pointing a finger and saying "Not good enough!" The idea that someone's going to come along after you and write up something else (which is not guaranteed in the first place) that is somehow flawless in every way is just simply not how things work.

So why should I sign on to this with the wishful thinking that it'll all work out later?

Well, good sir. I think the resolution being "not good enough" is a prime reason for a repeal. I am sure that if Prohibit Private Prisons was perfect, it would be standing. But it wasn't, and that's why a repeal was needed. Also, if you look further down the forum, you'll see a replacement draft has already been started by Marxist Germany. "Not Liking" a resolution is not really grounds for a repeal, and if you read my proposal, you'll see all the harm the resolution has caused.

“Seeing as this has been submitted, I declare this mission’s vote in favour of this proposal.”

I just don't believe that the target resolution is as vague as the repeal claims. It simply isn't the case that the word 'reasonable', among others, is so vague or non-justiciable as to render the mandates in the target vague unto being unenforceable.

If we collapse the points in the repeal, most of them just turn into 'this word isn't precise'. I think repeals ought have substance beyond 'this is vague' and doing that to lots of clauses. It would be different if the repeal made arguments, but a claim and warrant sans impact do not suffice.

Concrete Slab wrote:[spoiler=FIRST DRAFT]
Hoping the repeal of this resolution will result in the drafting of new legislation much more equipped to combat the disastrous effects of desertification,

Hereby Repeals GA#432 “Preventing Desertification.”

I don’t like these half-measures that do enough work to remove laws with no new law lined up behind it. I regret supporting the previous resolution for that reason, as without an immediate replacement it’s all too easy for the entire initiative to fall into obscurity. This is doing more harm than good.

"I shall be voting for this repeal in order to replace it with a better resolution such as.."he coughs "...the one I am drafting."

Is it just me or are more and more of the general world assembly proposals about reform instead of actual new proposals?

The Most Serene Republic supports repeal, because the more desert in neighboring countries, the less economically viable they are, and thus that much easier to annex...I mean, all the easier to assist said territory in achieving a more sustainable society. *angel eyes*

Kavotik Ceru wrote:Is it just me or are more and more of the general world assembly proposals about reform instead of actual new proposals?

To be honest, perhaps the existing legislation isn't as quality as it could be.

Marxist Germany wrote:"I shall be voting for this repeal in order to replace it with a better resolution such as.."he coughs "...the one I am drafting."

"Humility is a thing Ambassador

Wayne"