[PASSED] Responsible Land Management, Re: Desertification

[Adriatican]

This resolution will most likely pass, but I see it as a massive intrusion into the sovereignty of Member Nation’s and their related environmental policy.

[Kenmoria]

This resolution will most likely pass, but I see it as a massive intrusion into the sovereignty of Member Nation’s and their related environmental policy.

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation. This is not even particularly intrusive, as far as some pieces of legislation go, and doesn’t require too much action.)

[Adriatican]

This resolution will most likely pass, but I see it as a massive intrusion into the sovereignty of Member Nation’s and their related environmental policy.

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation. This is not even particularly intrusive, as far as some pieces of legislation go, and doesn’t require too much action.)

Excuse me? In what universe has that been litigated?

[Maowi]

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation. This is not even particularly intrusive, as far as some pieces of legislation go, and doesn’t require too much action.)

Excuse me? In what universe has that been litigated?

OOC: That's ... kinda the premise of the GA. You join, you have to follow the legislation passed - and there's no way every member will like all of it - but that's the price of the benefits it gives you.

[Federation of New Hanover]

I see no problem with supporting this descision

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation. This is not even particularly intrusive, as far as some pieces of legislation go, and doesn’t require too much action.)

Excuse me? In what universe has that been litigated?

(OOC: The GA’s entire purpose, as Maowi has said, is to pass legislation that member nations are obligated to follow. This inherently restricts national sovereignty to some degree, as nations are then forced to obey mandates, but is the only way that a supranational legislative body could conceivably function.)

[Enslavia]

The Federal Republic of Enslavia rejects this revision along with the original bill. Enslavians have enacted robust national policy concerning green initiatives and are signatories to international climate treaties, however, we must object to the grandiose over-regulation by third party state actors. In response to a comment concerning the forfeiture of national sovereignty through membership, our Republic disagrees. Each of our nations have joined the World Assembly (WA) to act as good faith actors within the international community, not to have the WA govern our peoples or cause undue harm to national economies or self-interests.

Should an impartial, rotating committee of elected nation representatives that hold valid interests such as economic, environmental, and societal concerns that hold public forum be created to better guide this initiative, Enslavia would gladly sign on.

[Creslonia]

Creslonia will be voting for this resolution. Standard rules and regulations governing responsible land management are long overdue. Hopefully, this resolution will help improve the quality of our Earth. Our Directorate of International Environment Co-operation already has international co-operative plans in place.
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Kenmoria]

The Federal Republic of Enslavia rejects this revision along with the original bill. Enslavians have enacted robust national policy concerning green initiatives and are signatories to international climate treaties, however, we must object to the grandiose over-regulation by third party state actors. In response to a comment concerning the forfeiture of national sovereignty through membership, our Republic disagrees. Each of our nations have joined the World Assembly (WA) to act as good faith actors within the international community, not to have the WA govern our peoples or cause undue harm to national economies or self-interests.

Should an impartial, rotating committee of elected nation representatives that hold valid interests such as economic, environmental, and societal concerns that hold public forum be created to better guide this initiative, Enslavia would gladly sign on.

(OOC: One of the assumptions that the GA makes is that all committees, regardless of what job or function they are performing, are completely incorruptible and complete their task to the best ability that is possible. This is so that authors don’t have to use up a lot of the limited character space explaining committee staff and other arrangements.)

[Araraukar]

This resolution will most likely pass, but I see it as a massive intrusion into the sovereignty of Member Nation’s and their related environmental policy.

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation.)

OOC: No they don't. They may give up parts of it, but the WA is not a federation.

Also, name a single IC benefit of being part of the WA.

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation.)

OOC: No they don't. They may give up parts of it, but the WA is not a federation.

Also, name a single IC benefit of being part of the WA.

OOC: The same reasons nations join the UN.

[Bananaistan]

(OOC: Nations give up their national sovereignty in exchange for the benefits granted by General Assembly legislation when they join the organisation.)

OOC: No they don't. They may give up parts of it, but the WA is not a federation.

Also, name a single IC benefit of being part of the WA.

OOC: Here's a few off the top of my head.

1) Being inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in.
2) Access to the General Fund for stuff your nation can't pay for itself.
3) The right to the same trading terms and conditions and tariffs as any other member in any one member state.
4) Access to the work and research of the many committees which directly benefits your population.

It's more akin to RL EU than UN in terms of benefits of membership.

[Underwater Sovereignties]

Would said legislation also apply to subaquatic nations? If so, what measures would need to be taken?

[Refuge Isle]

Thank you to everyone who supported this resolution and helped it to be passed into law. I would like to specially thank Sylh Alanor for helping me get through the blocks in writing the first draft, everyone who contributed to the drafting process, and Karteria for convincing me to do this in the first place.

See you around some time

[Kenmoria]

Responsible Land Management was passed 11,351 votes to 3,409.

[Araraukar]

It's more akin to RL EU than UN in terms of benefits of membership.

OOC: And given that you probably have a front row seat to the mess that is Brexit, you're aware that people can still feel like it's more restrictive than supportive.

General fund is nothing but a money drain if your nation can pay for things on its own.

The trade thing sounds good until you read the resolutions closer and realize that you can't, as a nation, give another nation - like, say, one that's struggling after a long war/natural disaster - a preferential trade deal, because you'd have to offer the exact same deal to all the other nations as well. That cuts off quite a big way that a richer nation (net payer) could assist a poorer nation, which makes no sense if the WA is supposed to be about helping thy WA neighbour.

The research data is about the only real benefit, but even then many of the databases are available to non-WA nations, either directly stated in a resolution, or via a member nation willing to sell the data.

And the "being on the inside pissing out" thing fails to realize that in WA, you've got 10 times more nations pissing in than out. That tent's a piss balloon.

Would said legislation also apply to subaquatic nations? If so, what measures would need to be taken?

OOC: Generally speaking the resolutions only apply when they're applicable. So if a resolution is all about railways and you don't have any, it won't apply to you, but if you one day build a railroad, you'll have to apply all the regulations to it then.

An underwater nation wouldn't have to worry about wind erosion, but would still need to avoid overgrazing (if you keep aquatic animals and have vegetation for them to graze on) to avoid water erosion. You'd still be banned from removing vegetation (seagrass, algae) that would expose the place they grew to erosion. If you have none, then it won't apply. If you farm things in underwater domes, then you'll likely already be in compliance.