[PASSED] Ensuring Commercial Vessel Navigation

[Terttia]

I think the title should be changed as well since all large commercial vessels must carry the charts. What would be a good title? “Ensuring Nautical Navigational Safety”?

[Grays Harbor]

I would think “all commercial vessels” may be a better fit.

This is a "commercial vessel", along with rental paddleboards and kayaks and such. Not much room for charts aboard these.

Pretty sure that would not pass the “reasonable nation” metric and be classified as a commercial vessel.

[Araraukar]

OOC post, detailed feedback.

Realizing the dangers of sea travel, especially in the absence of proper navigation tools and techniques.

Actually, sea travel is the safest form of travel after air travel. Anything happening on a road is by far the most hazardous. So this is at best misleading and at worst just lying. I get it that you're trying to say sea travel without sea charts can be dangerous, but the way you've worded this, using "especially", makes it sound like it's super-dangerous even with them.

Emphasizing that a lack of nautical charts can lead to an inhibition towards sea trade, causing drastic economic stress.

Why would it lead to inhibition (which is an active action) rather than avoidance? And if sea travel has always been dangerous to a nation, it's not like they wouldn't have existing alternatives already in place. So rather than "inhibition" and "causing economic stress", you should be talking about opening new vistas or whatever, if this is supposed to only apply to nations that don't already have working systems in place.

Defines nautical charts as charts that define the characteristics of a shoreline and the topography of a sea bed, and can include dangers to mariners.

Definitions should come after "hereby". Also, what on earth are "characteristics of a shoreline"? Which beach has the best parties? And topography of sea bed is only moderately useful knowledge, unless you also include information about currents. Water isn't like air, when it moves, it moves, and it moves the ships too. It takes much less energy for a ship to push against the wind than against the current. And currents (as well as water depth, which also isn't required to be there - topography is just the countours of the seabed itself, not the depth of water between the seabed and surface) near the shore unsurprisingly change with tide. Unless you have effects of tides factored in, the seacharts are useless for commercial vessels. Especially considering mandate 2.

Further Defines nautical routes as routes in water that boats and other vessels travel through.

This is very tautological ("a water travel route is a route in water that boats travel"). I'm sure there's a better definition available. One that specifies why a boat can't travel wherever the heck it wants.

Create nautical charts that ships, with or without conventional navigation equipment, can use to navigate nautical routes if present;

Without conventional navigation equipment, you'll be hard-pressed to know which way is north (unless you know the area well enough to not need the charts either), and thus any charts will be useless. Not knowing the time of day means not knowing tides which means not knowing currents, etc. You would honestly be better off requiring sonar equipment and a compass. At the very least require the ships to also have "conventional navigation equipment".

And this whole thing kind of seems to ignore that most charts are digital, are updated in realtime along with weather conditions, and ships use GPS to navigate them.

Frequently update their nautical charts, due to the erosion of shorelines and changing of water depth;

You know that tides exist, right? Any rotating planet that orbits a star, has tides. The tides cause changes in water depth (among other things). So do winds. Also, exactly how quickly do you think a granite bedrock shoreline erodes? Rather than "frequently", I'd suggest requiring the charts have the water depth (which your chart definition doesn't require to be included) and its usual limits of change, instead of a single depth. And then require nations to update the charts if something changes enough to pose a hazard to the sea traffic.

Share their nautical charts with civilian craft, so long that the member state allows them entry into their sovereign water.

Okay, "sovereign water" is not law text. Look up the other sea travel related resolutions to see what terminology to use. Also, I'd suggest here some combination of requiring charts and ability to navigate, before being allowed on the sea travel routes (otherwise they're a hazard to others), and requiring nations to make the charts available to any craft that can otherwise legally enter their area.

Requires that all large commercial vessels bear a nautical chart to warn the crew of any nautical hazard that may be positioned in their path.

Aside from the point that nautical charts are not warning markers (nations are already required to mark dangers in traffic routes, I'm fairly sure), and the crew should be aware of hazards when planning their path, long before actually entering the area, requiring the chart to be used rather than just carried along, would do a lot more good.

All in all, I don't see it having much use whatsoever as written, and you really should use the preamble (non-active clauses) to explain why this is an international issue. Or an issue that wouldn't already be handled by nations that have any kind of commercial sea travel.

[Terttia]

OOC post, detailed feedback.

Realizing the dangers of sea travel, especially in the absence of proper navigation tools and techniques.

Actually, sea travel is the safest form of travel after air travel. Anything happening on a road is by far the most hazardous. So this is at best misleading and at worst just lying. I get it that you're trying to say sea travel without sea charts can be dangerous, but the way you've worded this, using "especially", makes it sound like it's super-dangerous even with them.

Emphasizing that a lack of nautical charts can lead to an inhibition towards sea trade, causing drastic economic stress.

Why would it lead to inhibition (which is an active action) rather than avoidance? And if sea travel has always been dangerous to a nation, it's not like they wouldn't have existing alternatives already in place. So rather than "inhibition" and "causing economic stress", you should be talking about opening new vistas or whatever, if this is supposed to only apply to nations that don't already have working systems in place.

Defines nautical charts as charts that define the characteristics of a shoreline and the topography of a sea bed, and can include dangers to mariners.

Definitions should come after "hereby". Also, what on earth are "characteristics of a shoreline"? Which beach has the best parties? And topography of sea bed is only moderately useful knowledge, unless you also include information about currents. Water isn't like air, when it moves, it moves, and it moves the ships too. It takes much less energy for a ship to push against the wind than against the current. And currents (as well as water depth, which also isn't required to be there - topography is just the countours of the seabed itself, not the depth of water between the seabed and surface) near the shore unsurprisingly change with tide. Unless you have effects of tides factored in, the seacharts are useless for commercial vessels. Especially considering mandate 2.

Further Defines nautical routes as routes in water that boats and other vessels travel through.

This is very tautological ("a water travel route is a route in water that boats travel"). I'm sure there's a better definition available. One that specifies why a boat can't travel wherever the heck it wants.

Create nautical charts that ships, with or without conventional navigation equipment, can use to navigate nautical routes if present;

Without conventional navigation equipment, you'll be hard-pressed to know which way is north (unless you know the area well enough to not need the charts either), and thus any charts will be useless. Not knowing the time of day means not knowing tides which means not knowing currents, etc. You would honestly be better off requiring sonar equipment and a compass. At the very least require the ships to also have "conventional navigation equipment".

And this whole thing kind of seems to ignore that most charts are digital, are updated in realtime along with weather conditions, and ships use GPS to navigate them.

Frequently update their nautical charts, due to the erosion of shorelines and changing of water depth;

You know that tides exist, right? Any rotating planet that orbits a star, has tides. The tides cause changes in water depth (among other things). So do winds. Also, exactly how quickly do you think a granite bedrock shoreline erodes? Rather than "frequently", I'd suggest requiring the charts have the water depth (which your chart definition doesn't require to be included) and its usual limits of change, instead of a single depth. And then require nations to update the charts if something changes enough to pose a hazard to the sea traffic.

Share their nautical charts with civilian craft, so long that the member state allows them entry into their sovereign water.

Okay, "sovereign water" is not law text. Look up the other sea travel related resolutions to see what terminology to use. Also, I'd suggest here some combination of requiring charts and ability to navigate, before being allowed on the sea travel routes (otherwise they're a hazard to others), and requiring nations to make the charts available to any craft that can otherwise legally enter their area.

Requires that all large commercial vessels bear a nautical chart to warn the crew of any nautical hazard that may be positioned in their path.

Aside from the point that nautical charts are not warning markers (nations are already required to mark dangers in traffic routes, I'm fairly sure), and the crew should be aware of hazards when planning their path, long before actually entering the area, requiring the chart to be used rather than just carried along, would do a lot more good.

All in all, I don't see it having much use whatsoever as written, and you really should use the preamble (non-active clauses) to explain why this is an international issue. Or an issue that wouldn't already be handled by nations that have any kind of commercial sea travel.

1) Sea travel, along with any other form of travel, is dangerous. When a ship of large scale crashes, isn’t going to cause large amounts of damage to the sailors on it, the surrounding population, and the surrounding ecosystem?

2) It would lead to an inhibition because traveling near the coastline without some type of instrumentation or graph would be extremely difficult and dangerous.

3) Thanks for that format suggestion. Characteristics of a shoreline is the shoreline adjacent to a sea or ocean. For the topography of a sea bed considerably distance from the shoreline, it’s moderately useful; however, near a shoreline, that information is vital because a ship may run aground without the topography of the sea bed information.

4) I’ll further research this, and I’ll come up with something better.

5) I’ll write that information in the proposal. In the U.S., it is regulated by the federal government that most commercial vessels have a nautical chart, either paper or digital.

6) Shoreline erosion is a natural occurrence, although some shorelines don’t erode. I’ll also include that the charts should include the changing of water depth during tides, and if a hazard does appear, that the change would then be recorded on a chart.

7) I’ll use terminology from GA #168 when describing “sovereign water”.

8 ) I’ll be sure to write that mariners must be cognizant of nautical dangers, and they must plan their routes.

[Grays Harbor]

I’ll use terminology from GA #168 when describing “sovereign water”.

Put it in your own words else you risk plagiarism. Which is bad.

[Terttia]

I’ll use terminology from GA #168 when describing “sovereign water”.

Put it in your own words else you risk plagiarism. Which is bad.

Not only bad, but will result in a ban from the WA on offense one. Would it define plagiarism to say, “in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 168” in my proposal?

[Araraukar]

Put it in your own words else you risk plagiarism. Which is bad.

Not only bad, but will result in a ban from the WA on offense one. Would it define plagiarism to say, “in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 168” in my proposal?

OOC: You don't actually need to define something like "territorial waters" if you use them the way the term is normally used, as defined by dictionary. You can use the terms other resolutions use, just not word-for-word definitions. But previous resolutions don't own terms like "territorial waters".

[Terttia]

Not only bad, but will result in a ban from the WA on offense one. Would it define plagiarism to say, “in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 168” in my proposal?

OOC: You don't actually need to define something like "territorial waters" if you use them the way the term is normally used, as defined by dictionary. You can use the terms other resolutions use, just not word-for-word definitions. But previous resolutions don't own terms like "territorial waters".

For the record, GA #168 does make use of and define “territorial waters”.

[Terttia]

I think after Araraukar’s suggestions and thoughts, a more appropriate title for this proposal would be “Large Commercial Vessel Navigational Regulations” (does fit within the 50 character limit with 48 characters). Is that change allowed?

[Araraukar]

For the record, GA #168 does make use of and define “territorial waters”.

OOC: Hence why I specified that the resolution doesn't own the term itself, simply the wording of the definition. But words that are used in the general sense of the actual words, don't need to be defined. Like you don't need to define "sea", despite there being parts of the RL world ocean that you can drink without dying of dehydration.

[Terttia]

Also, since I’ve now added more things to my proposal regarding equipment large container vessels must have, should this proposal be under Regulation | Transportation or anything else?

[Frisbeeteria]

Pretty sure that would not pass the “reasonable nation” metric and be classified as a commercial vessel.

Aw, c'mon! It's got a real captain (Malcolm Reynolds) and everything. There are probably places in that hull that he and Josh Whedon use for smuggling. You just can't trust those two.

[Grays Harbor]

Pretty sure that would not pass the “reasonable nation” metric and be classified as a commercial vessel.

Aw, c'mon! It's got a real captain (Malcolm Reynolds) and everything. There are probably places in that hull that he and Josh Whedon use for smuggling. You just can't trust those two.

Yeah, but can we trust Jayne? You know he’s hiding there somewhere.

[Bears Armed]

Would it define plagiarism to say, “in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 168” in my proposal?

No.
But it would make your proposal illegal under the 'House of Cards' rule.

[Terttia]

Would it define plagiarism to say, “in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 168” in my proposal?

No.
But it would make your proposal illegal under the 'House of Cards' rule.

In that case, I’ll use “territorial waters” to describe a member state’s water.

[Terttia]

I need help deciding which category this proposal would fit under. Is the current category correct, or should I list it under a different category?

[Grays Harbor]

I need help deciding which category this proposal would fit under. Is the current category correct, or should I list it under a different category?

I would put in under Regulation - Transportation
Also, I would remove “mandatory” and “mapping” from the title because to me it just sounds better. Perhaps call it “Nautical Chart Usage”. But that’s just me.

[Terttia]

I need help deciding which category this proposal would fit under. Is the current category correct, or should I list it under a different category?

I would put in under Regulation - Transportation
Also, I would remove “mandatory” and “mapping” from the title because to me it just sounds better. Perhaps call it “Nautical Chart Usage”. But that’s just me.

Or, a good title could be “Ensuring Commercial Vessel Navigation”.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2ii seems to be an overreach, since it is entirely possible that planning could be done by a land-based body.”

[Terttia]

“Clause 2ii seems to be an overreach, since it is entirely possible that planning could be done by a land-based body.”

I don’t see how an agency could plan routes for every large commercial vessel.

[Terttia]

I changed the title to be aware of the fact that this proposal only effects large commercial vessels.

[Grays Harbor]

“Clause 2ii seems to be an overreach, since it is entirely possible that planning could be done by a land-based body.”

I don’t see how an agency could plan routes for every large commercial vessel.

They do it all the time. Charts are available to everybody. Shipping companies plan their routes carefully for their vessels to maximize cargo space usage, the shortest safest routes, and many other concerns.

[Terttia]

I don’t see how an agency could plan routes for every large commercial vessel.

They do it all the time. Charts are available to everybody. Shipping companies plan their routes carefully for their vessels to maximize cargo space usage, the shortest safest routes, and many other concerns.

Now, it makes since. I’ll change my wording to include “ahead of voyage”.

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend removing ‘sonar’ from your required list of nautical instrumentation, since it is the only one on there that might not be possible for nations to have developed. Also, you could combine the ‘defines’, ‘further defines’ and ‘elucidates’ clauses into one definition clause with three subclauses.”

[Terttia]

“I recommend removing ‘sonar’ from your required list of nautical instrumentation, since it is the only one on there that might not be possible for nations to have developed. Also, you could combine the ‘defines’, ‘further defines’ and ‘elucidates’ clauses into one definition clause with three subclauses.”

Since water depths should be included on the nautical charts, I’ll remove sonar. Also, I’ll implement your format suggestion.