[DRAFT] Repeal Convention On Freshwater Shortages

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

This is the first step of a Repeal & Replace of the COFS. Please let me know what you think and offer advice!

The first replacement is the Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban, and the second one should be up on the forum later today!

Target res: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

The General Assembly,

Applauding the noble goals of General Assembly Resolution 441, “Convention On Freshwater Shortages”,

Believing that the intentions of the resolution are thwarted by its contents,

Noting the resolution does not define “hazardous waste” in clause six and that leaving said clause up to interpretation permits more malicious and self-interested states to not honour the intent of the clause by interpreting it as:

• A ban on the disposal of sharp (and therefore "hazardous") waste as to ignore regulations on chemical disposal as it intends,
  
  
• Barring the disposal of only certain hazards as opposed to all intended fields as a way to work around a given intent,

Cognizant that the target resolution hurts benevolent states who interpret the clause as intended as it does not permit for the disposal of hazardous wastes into waterways in cases where it may lethally endanger public health or national security if it is not disposed of,

Disappointed that though Clause 4 of the resolution requires the public be educated "on the causes and effects of water shortages, proper water usage, and practical methods of water conservation" it does not specify any desired effect of these programs nor how conclusive they must be,

Understanding that while detailed clarification is important in many cases it is taken to an extent that is unnecessary in several clauses throughout the resolution, as seen in:

• Clause 2, which presents as an unnecessarily verbose clause to the detriment of interpreting nations,
  
  
• Clauses 3 and 5 which both recommend courses of action for nations and would serve better combined as one recommendation clause,

Concerned by the optionality of the resolution with only two of seven clauses being mandatory, among the optional being the most important ones such as monitoring the freshwater supply as to prevent unnecessary droughts,

Desiring to make clear the meaning of these and other clauses via simplification and/or combination,

Wishing to honour and achieve the goals of the Convention On Freshwater Shortages in their entirety,

Encouraging World Assembly Delegations to draft more articulate and conclusive legislation with regards to unforeseen consequences of failing to define given terms and the overcomplication of commands,

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #441.

The General Assembly,

Applauding the noble goals of General Assembly Resolution 441, “Convention On Freshwater Shortages”,

Believing that the intentions of the resolution are thwarted by its contents,

Noting the resolution does not define “hazardous waste” in clause six and that leaving said clause up to interpretation permits more malicious and self-interested states to not honour the intent of the clause by interpreting it as:

• A ban on the disposal of sharp (and therefore "hazardous") waste as to ignore regulations on chemical disposal as it intends,
  
  
• Barring the disposal of only certain hazards as opposed to all intended fields as a way to work around a given intent,

Cognizant that the target resolution hurts benevolent states who interpret the clause as intended as it does not permit for the disposal of hazardous wastes into waterways in cases where it may lethally endanger public health or national security if it is not disposed of,

Understanding that while detailed clarification is important in many cases it is taken to an extent that is unnecessary in several clauses throughout the resolution, as seen in:

• Clause 2, which presents as an unnecessarily verbose clause to the detriment of interpreting nations,
  
  
• Clauses 3 and 5 which both recommend courses of action for nations and would serve better combined as one recommendation clause,

Desiring to make clear the meaning of these and other clauses via simplification and/or combination,

Wishing to honour and achieve the goals of the Convention On Freshwater Shortages in their entirety,

Encouraging World Assembly Delegations to draft more articulate and conclusive legislation with regards to unforeseen consequences of failing to define given terms and the overcomplication of commands,

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #441.

I know much of the wording and whatnot needs work. Open to any and all suggestions!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"No issues that I can see, ambassador. The target overlooked a couple of necessary items, and we would support this repeal."


OOC: It's customary to include a link to the repeal target so people can easily look it over (this happens automatically in the submitted version, but forumgoers appreciate the OP putting it up).

[Araraukar]

OOC: More comments when not on mobile, but since certain clauses are referred to by numbers and saying they should be combined, some reasoning on what they address that is so overlapping, should be provided.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

OOC: More comments when not on mobile, but since certain clauses are referred to by numbers and saying they should be combined, some reasoning on what they address that is so overlapping, should be provided.

"No issues that I can see, ambassador. The target overlooked a couple of necessary items, and we would support this repeal."


OOC: It's customary to include a link to the repeal target so people can easily look it over (this happens automatically in the submitted version, but forumgoers appreciate the OP putting it up).

Done and done!

[Araraukar]

OOC: More comments when not on mobile, but since certain clauses are referred to by numbers and saying they should be combined, some reasoning on what they address that is so overlapping, should be provided.

Done!

OOC: I meant addressing the contents of the clauses, not their form. You're more addressing the form of the proposal, now, not its actual contents. It's like wanting a bridge to be rebuilt because it's a single-span one instead of a cable-tensioned one. Rather than, you know, the bridge being in danger of collapsing in high winds.

I suggest reading the target's drafting thread and that of the original attempt to understand why it was written as it was. I was one of the coauthors, so it's somewhat important to me that if it's to be replaced, it's going to be replaced for the right reasons, not just because you want to pass your own resolution.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Done!

OOC: I meant addressing the contents of the clauses, not their form. You're more addressing the form of the proposal, now, not its actual contents. It's like wanting a bridge to be rebuilt because it's a single-span one instead of a cable-tensioned one. Rather than, you know, the bridge being in danger of collapsing in high winds.

I suggest reading the target's drafting thread and that of the original attempt to understand why it was written as it was. I was one of the coauthors, so it's somewhat important to me that if it's to be replaced, it's going to be replaced for the right reasons, not just because you want to pass your own resolution.

And I recognise that! I moved to fix both proposals, and this one has several things to be added soon.

We can do this hand in hand and move forward working together on a replacement that will honour and make proud the legacy of the the Convention on Freshwater Shortages!

More edits to come in the next 10 hours. EDIT: New edits are up! "Cogniscant" cause, and other clauses corrected.

[Island Girl Herby]

EDIT: New edits are up! "Cogniscant" cause, and other clauses corrected.

“Cogniscant”? Can’t find that in my English database.

[Gorundu]

Noting the resolution does not define “hazardous waste” in clause six and that leaving said clause up to interpretation permits more malicious and self-interested states to not honour the intent of the clause,

I still don't think this clause is specific enough in laying out what situations could occur if hazardous waste is not defined.

Also, addressing structural issues isn't really needed in a repeal. Instead, you should be trying to find other weaknesses in the effect of the proposal.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

EDIT: New edits are up! "Cogniscant" cause, and other clauses corrected.

“Cogniscant”? Can’t find that in my English database.

I accidentally put a c in there. It should be cognisant. Just changed it.

Noting the resolution does not define “hazardous waste” in clause six and that leaving said clause up to interpretation permits more malicious and self-interested states to not honour the intent of the clause,

I still don't think this clause is specific enough in laying out what situations could occur if hazardous waste is not defined.

Also, addressing structural issues isn't really needed in a repeal. Instead, you should be trying to find other weaknesses in the effect of the proposal.

Structural issues weaken a proposal. Concision is key.

I'll make the clause more specific as well.

[Island Girl Herby]

OOC Actually the preferred spelling is “cognizant”. Even in British English.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC Actually the preferred spelling is “cognizant”. Even in British English.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Changed to "Cognizant"!

Any further advice on it?

[Gorundu]

Changed to "Cognizant"!

Any further advice on it?

What I said before wasn't addressed. Structural problems may be a weakness, but it isn't enough to repeal an entire resolution.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Changed to "Cognizant"!

Any further advice on it?

What I said before wasn't addressed. Structural problems may be a weakness, but it isn't enough to repeal an entire resolution.

There are three clauses not related to structural issues that are arguments against. It is those three issues, coupled with the structural issues which complete the repeal.

[Mon Civia]

You have the Kingdom of Mon Civia's support for this repeal.

[Gorundu]

I note this has been submitted.

Looking at the target resolution, I think there are a few arguments that can make the proposal stronger. For one, I think the optionality of most of the resolution (with the only mandatory ones being one on public education and the problematic ban on disposal of hazardous waste) is a weakness of the resolution. I note that this thread for an earlier repeal attempt also contains some useful arguments you can include.

For more, I think you should also look at these threads:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=442140 (drafting thread for the target resolution)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=434939 (a predecessor proposal that was defeated at vote)

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I note this has been submitted.

Looking at the target resolution, I think there are a few arguments that can make the proposal stronger. For one, I think the optionality of most of the resolution (with the only mandatory ones being one on public education and the problematic ban on disposal of hazardous waste) is a weakness of the resolution. I note that this thread for an earlier repeal attempt also contains some useful arguments you can include.

For more, I think you should also look at these threads:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=442140 (drafting thread for the target resolution)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=434939 (a predecessor proposal that was defeated at vote)

Thanks! I've made some edits to work with those bits and have improved the draft (I think), on the whole.

The optionality has been addressed, so has the the issues with Clause Four outlined in the defeated previous draft.

Here's hoping I can get this moving after a few months away. Any advice is appreciated.

[Honeydewistania]

Against.

[United Massachusetts]

Full support.

[Cretox State]

Cognizant that the target resolution hurts benevolent states who interpret the clause as intended as it does not permit for the disposal of hazardous wastes into waterways in cases where it may lethally endanger public health or national security if it is not disposed of,

"Ah! It's nuclear waste! Quick, throw it in the river!"

[Honeydewistania]

The General Assembly,

Applauding the noble goals of General Assembly Resolution 441, “Convention On Freshwater Shortages”,

Believing that the intentions of the resolution are thwarted by its contents,

Noting the resolution does not define “hazardous waste” in clause six and that leaving said clause up to interpretation permits more malicious and self-interested states to not honour the intent of the clause by interpreting it as:

• A ban on the disposal of sharp (and therefore "hazardous") waste as to ignore regulations on chemical disposal as it intends, If it’s not defined by the proposal, it’s dictionary definition. And a dictionary will not say "This knife is hazardous but nuclear waste isn’t!"
  
  
• Barring the disposal of only certain hazards as opposed to all intended fields as a way to work around a given intent,

Cognizant that the target resolution hurts benevolent states who interpret the clause as intended as it does not permit for the disposal of hazardous wastes into waterways in cases where it may lethally endanger public health or national security if it is not disposed of,Surely, surely there is a less environmentally damaging way to quickly dispose waste?

Disappointed that though Clause 4 of the resolution requires the public be educated "on the causes and effects of water shortages, proper water usage, and practical methods of water conservation" it does not specify any desired effect of these programs nor how conclusive they must be,

Understanding that while detailed clarification is important in many cases it is taken to an extent that is unnecessary in several clauses throughout the resolution, as seen in:This clause is as unnecessary as the two below.

• Clause 2, which presents as an unnecessarily verbose clause to the detriment of interpreting nations,
  
  
• Clauses 3 and 5 which both recommend courses of action for nations and would serve better combined as one recommendation clause,

Concerned by the optionality of the resolution with only two of seven clauses being mandatory, among the optional being the most important ones such as monitoring the freshwater supply as to prevent unnecessary droughts, If a nation is going to ignore the World Assembly and have a drought, I’d say that’s on them.

Desiring to make clear the meaning of these and other clauses via simplification and/or combination,

Wishing to honour and achieve the goals of the Convention On Freshwater Shortages in their entirety,

Encouraging World Assembly Delegations to draft more articulate and conclusive legislation with regards to unforeseen consequences of failing to define given terms and the overcomplication of commands, Three clauses of fluff, especially since you’re the one that’s aiming to draft ‘articulate and conclusive legislation’. Try and condense this into one clause.

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #441.

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t think I can support this, especially not without a replacement ready to go.”

[Honeydewistania]

“I don’t think I can support this, especially not without a replacement ready to go.”

"You'll find the replacement in the OP, however it is an early draft. Anyways, the arguments presented are not very strong at all and do not warrant a repeal."

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t think I can support this, especially not without a replacement ready to go.”

"You'll find the replacement in the OP, however it is an early draft. Anyways, the arguments presented are not very strong at all and do not warrant a repeal."

“Precisely, there is a replacement currently being drafted, but it doesn’t seem finished and therefore isn’t at the same level as the target resolution. I could potentially support a repeal, but not without a replacement of superior quality to the original.”

[Honeydewistania]

"You'll find the replacement in the OP, however it is an early draft. Anyways, the arguments presented are not very strong at all and do not warrant a repeal."

“Precisely, there is a replacement currently being drafted, but it doesn’t seem finished and therefore isn’t at the same level as the target resolution. I could potentially support a repeal, but not without a replacement of superior quality to the original.”

"I see what you mean by that."