Draft: Repeal "International Salvage Laws"

[Charlotte Ryberg]

You might recall that early in May, I expressed here and here how disappointed I was with the fact that Resolution #50, International Salvage Laws by Sydia, was passed with notable flaws, no mandatory clauses and the wrong category. So let's get this draft repeal perfected:

---

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Repeal "International Salvage Laws"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #50 | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description: The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the the intended purpose of World Assembly Resolution #50, "International Salvage Laws", which was to build an international understanding on salvage laws based on moral decency;

NOTING that a resolution is a serious document that all member states must comply with, yet;

OUTRAGED that the resolution enacted no mandatory clauses, thereby allowing member states to opt out if they wish;

REGRETTING that the resolution lacked a good definition of "lost" and "irretrievable" items, leading member states to believe that the resolution was anything other than a "finders keepers" policy;

REALISING that there was no way to suggest that the resolution would either reduce income inequality or increase basic welfare;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the resolution was not only flawed with numerous loopholes but it prevented a more effective resolution from being passed;

HEREBY repeals World Assembly Resolution #50, "International Salvage Laws".

---

Anything that I've missed out?

The original version was as follows:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the need by the author to build an international understanding on salvage laws in the name of fairness;

AFFIRMING that a resolution is a serious document that all member states must comply with, yet;

ANNOYED that World Assembly Resolution #50, "International Salvage Laws" has no defined mandatory clauses, thereby allowing member states to ignore it if they wish;

BELIEVING that:
- The lack of the definition of "lost" and "irretrievable" items implied to nations that the resolution was anything other than a "finders keepers" policy;
- There was no way to suggest that this resolution would either reduce income inequality or increase basic welfare;
- The resolution was presented with numerous flaws which consequently lead to numerous misinterpretations and loopholes;

HEREBY repeals World Assembly Resolution #50, "International Salvage Laws".

[Glen-Rhodes]

The first clause seems to be suggesting that the World Assembly, as a whole, doesn't quite think that international salvage laws are important. Remove 'by the author' to fix this.

Other than that, and the use of the word 'annoy' (use something more professional), I don't see any other flaws. Then again, I'm not quite versed in the resolution to begin with.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Done: "Annoyed" is replaced by "Disappointed".

[Super-Chechnya]

Stronger still, use "Outraged" rather than "Disappointed", ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg. The resolution you are trying to repeal turns out to be optional because of the sole use of a recommendation.

Past repeals can get you some ideas for strong argumentative words.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

That would be a better word, honoured ambassador: in addition I have removed the bullet points to make it more argumentative.

[Super-Chechnya]

I cannot say the resolution was a total utter failure, so you should get the WA to seek a better version of the resolution to be written.

[Morlago]

I cannot say the resolution was a total utter failure, so you should get the WA to seek a better version of the resolution to be written.

I disagree. This clearly states the reason why this repeal was written, and they are good, strong reasons. I checked the resolution, and it only says "recommends", and, as Charlotte Ryberg has mentioned, means that nations can ignore the whole resolution if they want to.

[Deschenek]

I cannot say the resolution was a total utter failure, so you should get the WA to seek a better version of the resolution to be written.

I disagree. This clearly states the reason why this repeal was written, and they are good, strong reasons. I checked the resolution, and it only says "recommends", and, as Charlotte Ryberg has mentioned, means that nations can ignore the whole resolution if they want to.

That is an obvious problem on an important and historic resolution it really should have been worded differently.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Optionality: GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Use of "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES" in mild proposals are actually fine but it still appears optional because member state are not being urged or recommended to ratify the following measures in national law.

[Morlago]

You should propose this, Charlotte Ryberg.