Repeal Law of the Seas! [Draft][Abandoned]

[Abbeyverne]

I wrote this proposal, and would like WA Delegates to approve it so it can reach the floor.
You can also comment if you think there's anything I should add.

Thanks!

/Abandoned

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the purpose of GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas,” namely, to create standards for naval jurisdiction, is valid and necessary,

SEEING, however, that the resolution contains no opening clause,

CONCERNED that the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a
member nation

DISTURBED that the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose,
even military, which, combined with reason 2, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce.

NOTING that the coastal member nation may not enact provisions to control customs and pollution in the EEZ, meaning any nation may freely
pollute that area of ocean, or use it to transport contraband, commit acts of piracy, etc.

PERTURBED about the lack of regulations concerning the EEZ, and

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations, thereby putting them in a position where they may be
exploited by enemy belligerents,

HEREBY repeals GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas.”

[Awesomeland012345]

you should probably draft it first in the forums

[Grays Harbor]

I wrote this proposal, and would like WA Delegates to approve it so it can reach the floor.
You can also comment if you think there's anything I should add.

Thanks!

Once submitted you cannot add diddly. Which is why drafting here is a good idea. Posting to pimp something already submitted is not, however, generally considered a good idea.

[Abbeyverne]

It's likely to time out by tomorrow, and before i submit it again, I want to know what people think.

[Awesomeland012345]

that's why you draft it in the forums, so that people can give you advice and their opinions on it.

[Abbeyverne]

Ok. So here's the things I found wrong so far:

1. the resolution contains no opening clause,
2. the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a member nation
3. the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose, even military, which, combined with reason 2, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce.
4. the coastal member nation may not enact provisions to control customs and pollution in the EEZ, meaning any nation may freely pollute that area of ocean, or use it to transport contraband, commit acts of piracy, etc.
5. lack of regulations concerning the EEZ, and
6. no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations, thereby putting them in a position where they may be exploited by enemy belligerents,

If you have any others, plz add

[Tinfect]

Ok. So here's the things I found wrong so far:

1. the resolution contains no opening clause,
2. the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a member nation
3. the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose, even military, which, combined with reason 2, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce.
4. the coastal member nation may not enact provisions to control customs and pollution in the EEZ, meaning any nation may freely pollute that area of ocean, or use it to transport contraband, commit acts of piracy, etc.
5. lack of regulations concerning the EEZ, and
6. no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations, thereby putting them in a position where they may be exploited by enemy belligerents,

If you have any others, plz add

OOC:
Please post the proposal in this thread.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Here’s the proposal text, though with formatting removed.

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the purpose of GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas,” namely, to create standards for naval jurisdiction, is valid and necessary,

SEEING, however, that the resolution contains no opening clause,

CONCERNED that the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a member nation,

DISTURBED that the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose, even military, which, combined with reason 2, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce,

NOTING that the coastal member nation may not enact provisions to control customs and pollution in the EEZ, meaning any nation may freely pollute that area of ocean, or use it to transport contraband, commit acts of piracy, etc,

PERTURBED about the lack of regulations concerning the EEZ, and

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations, thereby putting them in a position where they may be exploited by enemy belligerents,

HEREBY repeals GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas.”

)

[Abbeyverne]

Thank you!

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: A few formatting things. Firstly, you should put [DRAFT] in the title of this post, so that other people know that this thread is for drafting a piece of legislation. Secondly, copy the proposal text into your opening post. This enables people to easily know where it is.

I have attached below some thoughts on the current draft, if you do plan to resubmit. If you do, then I recommend waiting for a while before doing so. There are a lot of players here with experience in passing GA legislation, who will be able to help you improve your repeal. However, this can only happen if the repeal is being drafted on the forums.)

“Here are my thoughts on the draft, written in red pen.”

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the purpose of GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas,” namely, to create standards for naval jurisdiction, is valid and necessary,

SEEING, however, that the resolution contains no opening clause, This doesn’t really matter. Of course, I would definitely criticise it for that in the debating chamber, but there isn’t any real harm to member states because of the lack of an opening clause. The argument presented here doesn’t belong, and certainly shouldn’t be put first.

CONCERNED that the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a member nation, This is true, but isn’t actually relevant. Consider a resolution about labelling nutritional information on foods. You might say ‘this resolution offers no protections to people from being pelted with fruit’. That would be completely true, but also irrelevant. GA #168 was designed to cover jurisdictional issues around water, not provide any protections to vessels.

DISTURBED that the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose, even military, which, combined with reason 2, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce, This is exactly the same sort of issue as the above. The target resolution does not regulate the open ocean, and doesn’t try to do so. Other pieces of WA legislation or different types of international law regulate other matters.

NOTING that the coastal member nation may not enact provisions to control customs and pollution in the EEZ, meaning any nation may freely pollute that area of ocean, or use it to transport contraband, commit acts of piracy, etc, This, however, isn’t accurate. There is nothing in the target resolution that bans coastal nations from controlling customs and pollution. As such, you should remove this clause.

PERTURBED about the lack of regulations concerning the EEZ, and As before, the target resolution exists solely to decide matters of jurisdiction. There is nothing stopping your from passing another resolution that deals with all the topic you feel were omitted.

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations, thereby putting them in a position where they may be exploited by enemy belligerents, This is an interesting clause, and might be a good argument. However, I am currently having trouble understanding exactly what you mean. Consider expanding on this clause to illustrate your point.

HEREBY repeals GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas.”

[Abbeyverne]

Innocent passage and open ocean regulations are key parts of laws of the sea, and it would be difficult to add them in without cancelling out parts of the legislation. Innocent passage is very relevant because of the different ways in which it works (can mean different things in differet zones).

Anyway, thanks for your input.

[Abbeyverne]

Ok, here's some edits:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the purpose of GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas,” namely, to create standards for naval jurisdiction, is valid and necessary,

CONCERNED that the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a member nation, and that the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose, even military, which, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce.

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations,

NOTING how the baseline is relevant to all sea jurisdiction zones created by the proposal, and

DISTRESSED that this may put them in a position where they may be exploited by enemy belligerents,

HEREBY repeals GA Resolution #168, "Law Of The Seas.”

[Riverpost]

Innocent passage and open ocean regulations are key parts of laws of the sea, and it would be difficult to add them in without cancelling out parts of the legislation. Innocent passage is very relevant because of the different ways in which it works (can mean different things in differet zones).

Anyway, thanks for your input.

"Under whose international authority has innocent passage and open ocean regulation been declared key parts to the laws of the sea?"

[Ardiveds]

CONCERNED that the resolution contains no provisions for innocent passage, meaning any ship or aircraft may be attacked for simply being near a member nation, and that the resolution has no provisions for jurisdiction over the open ocean, meaning any nation may use the open ocean for any purpose, even military, which, would entirely shut down naval transportation and commerce.

OOC: Pretty sure the open ocean is beyond the jurisdiction of the WA or any nation, member or otherwise.

[Abbeyverne]

There is no way to create a resolution that provides innocent passage without editing parts of the current bill, and gen-sec told me that's not ok.

[Abbeyverne]

Open ocean regulation is the WA saying "You can't claim this as yours, it's open to everyone."

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Out of curiosity, what's stopping you from making a brand new proposal focused mainly on open oceans? Just because the resolution is named 'law of the seas' doesn't mean you can't make anymore rssolutions relating to seas and oceans in general.
Also, WA laws only apply to memebers so you can't stop a non-member from claiming open ocean as its own.

[Comfed]

I support this.

[Kenmoria]

There is no way to create a resolution that provides innocent passage without editing parts of the current bill, and gen-sec told me that's not ok.

(OOC: You aren’t allowed to edit parts of existing resolutions, partly for technical reasons and partly because of the ruleset. However, you can very easily write a separate proposal that addresses a similar topic. Minor duplication is allowed, and I can’t see any reason why this hypothetical law would contradict Law of the Seas.)

[Abbeyverne]

Ardiveds: Actually, what I am most worried about is innocent passage, but open oceans is also something that needs to be fixed.

I could conceivably make two new resolutions to implement those changes, but I already have a draft of an overhaul/replacement, and as you saw, the repeal bill.

[Ardiveds]

Ardiveds: Actually, what I am most worried about is innocent passage, but open oceans is also something that needs to be fixed.

I could conceivably make two new resolutions to implement those changes, but I already have a draft of an overhaul/replacement, and as you saw, the repeal bill.

OOC: You can put both of your concerns in a single new proposal. As long as nothing in your proposal contradicts the clauses of this or any other passed resolution (though as Kenmoria said, minor duplication is allowed), it'll be perfectly fine. Repeal and replace is usually harder than just making a new proposal, especially since most of your arguments in your repeal are what you consider the resolution doesn't do rather than issues with what it does.

[Abbeyverne]

Ok.

[Abbeyverne]

I'll write a proposal for implementing Open Seas regulations and Innocent passage.

[Tinhampton]

Please mark your [Abandoned] proposals accordingly, and please - for the love of all that is good, holy, and probably somewhat dreary - do not purge the contents of your OP itself

[Abbeyverne]

Ok, done