Innocent Passage ACT [Draft][Abandoned]

[Abbeyverne]

"Ambassador, I am afraid I am unaware of these resolutions. Would you please provide resolution numbers so we can find what must be changed? Thank you."

OOC: You realize you were responding in IC to an OOC comment that your IC ambassador cannot see/hear? You right now have your ambassador talking to thin air.

And right now I can't go trawling for those resolutions for you (lumbar disc thing causing massive backache again, which means my computer time is very limited), but if you go to the passed resolutions thread and search with "ocean" and then separately with "sea", you're going to be finding at least some of them. I'd suggest doing a separate search with "fishing" as well.

OOC: The following resolutions include the words “sea,” “ocean,” or “fishing,” and are not repeals.

General Assembly Resolution # 168 - we know about this
General Assembly Resolution # 409 - no problem
General Assembly Resolution # 441 - no problem
General Assembly Resolution # 346 - no problem, unless innocent passage would destroy a unique ecosystem
General Assembly Resolution # 199 - no problem
General Assembly Resolution # 87 - I don’t even know how this one popped up
General Assembly Resolution # 95 - no problem
General Assembly Resolution # 445 - I mean, ships make gas, but that’s not my problem
General Assembly Resolution # 478 - close, but doesn’t cover it.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: Anything else, people?

[Riverpost]

4. Member nations may build artificial islands in the Open Oceans for any purpose other than as military installations.

Land Reclamation Regulation (At Vote)

3. Prohibits member nations from moving forward with a land reclamation project if the ESWA deems a place not suitable to reclaim land or if the land reclamation projects drain or destroy coral reefs, mangrove wetlands or other exceptionally biodiverse areas;

OOC: In the case that the LRR makes it through these two clauses could become contradictory. Should it pass, a good fix would likely be adding a 'subject to extant WA law' at the end of your fourth clause. Even if it fails, it may be good to add it so future resolutions on land reclamation regulations aren't tied behind their backs with a successful passage of this draft.

[Abbeyverne]

4. Member nations may build artificial islands in the Open Oceans for any purpose other than as military installations.

Land Reclamation Regulation (At Vote)

3. Prohibits member nations from moving forward with a land reclamation project if the ESWA deems a place not suitable to reclaim land or if the land reclamation projects drain or destroy coral reefs, mangrove wetlands or other exceptionally biodiverse areas;

OOC: In the case that the LRR makes it through these two clauses could become contradictory. Should it pass, a good fix would likely be adding a 'subject to extant WA law' at the end of your fourth clause. Even if it fails, it may be good to add it so future resolutions on land reclamation regulations aren't tied behind their backs with a successful passage of this draft.

OOC: If that proposal is passed, yes, we have a problemo. I will do so.

[Abbeyverne]

Here's a re-up:

Innocent Passage Act

The World Assembly,

NOTING that member nations currently have no protected right to open and free passage through other member nation’s waters,

SEEING that no WA legislation provides a basis for jurisdiction of the legality of such transit,

DISCERNING that legislation on this topic will help small nations reliant on naval transit,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   1. Innocent Passage: A right given to vessels registered in a member nation.
2. In the waters extending up to 200 NM from a nation's low tide mark other member nations have the right to innocent passage, except in times of war, quarantine, or other national or international crisis. Passage is innocent so long as it does not include acts of aggression, espionage, or actions not having a direct bearing on passage.
   
3. Member Nations have the right to refuse innocent passage to military vessels of other nations for any reason.
   
4. In shared waterways less than 400 NM wide, through which naval transport passes, any of the nations with a claim on the waterway may deny innocent passage, unless the ship(s) being denied cannot reach their destination by another route.
   
5. Vessels travelling under innocent passage provisions must conform to legislation in extant WA law and the customs regulations of the member nation through which they pass, subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission oversight, ensuring there is not abuse of the system.

[Abbeyverne]

Anyone think of anything else? Or should I submit?

[Riverpost]

OOC: While the question was mentioned briefly once before during the drafting, can it be assured that the current usage of 'Territorial Waters' and 'Exclusive Economic Zone' does not create a house of cards situation?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: While the question was mentioned briefly once before during the drafting, can it be assured that the current usage of 'Territorial Waters' and 'Exclusive Economic Zone' does not create a house of cards situation?

(OOC: I’m not sure, but I think it might do. The rule says ‘Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent’, and this legislation quite plainly relies on existing resolutions in order to make use of the internally-accepted definitions of those terms. Furthermore, I wouldn’t call it independent to have a proposal relying on a concept established in earlier law. However, I’m not sure on this, so other opinions are appreciated.)

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: While the question was mentioned briefly once before during the drafting, can it be assured that the current usage of 'Territorial Waters' and 'Exclusive Economic Zone' does not create a house of cards situation?

(OOC: I’m not sure, but I think it might do. The rule says ‘Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent’, and this legislation quite plainly relies on existing resolutions in order to make use of the internally-accepted definitions of those terms. Furthermore, I wouldn’t call it independent to have a proposal relying on a concept established in earlier law. However, I’m not sure on this, so other opinions are appreciated.)

OOC: I agree. The question is, however, how to circumvent this. Redefining the terms for this proposal, using the same definition as in LotS could work, as it shouldn't be duplication when the definition is 'for the purpose of this resolution'. Otherwise, one could just simply state 'Innocent passage is allowed in an area extending 24 miles out from the seashore' or whatever the exact definiton is in LotS.

EDIT: Of course, one should stay clear of plagiarism and receive the original authors consent if using the exact same definition (word for word). 'Twas quite late yestereve

[Abbeyverne]

(OOC: I’m not sure, but I think it might do. The rule says ‘Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent’, and this legislation quite plainly relies on existing resolutions in order to make use of the internally-accepted definitions of those terms. Furthermore, I wouldn’t call it independent to have a proposal relying on a concept established in earlier law. However, I’m not sure on this, so other opinions are appreciated.)

OOC: I agree. The question is, however, how to circumvent this. Redefining the terms for this proposal, using the same definition as in LotS could work, as it shouldn't be duplication when the definition is 'for the purpose of this resolution'. Otherwise, one could just simply state 'Innocent passage is allowed in an area extending 24 miles out from the seashore' or whatever the exact definiton is in LotS.

EDIT: Of course, one should stay clear of plagiarism and receive the original authors consent if using the exact same definition (word for word). 'Twas quite late yestereve

Ok, well, I can't receive the author's consent (he's not on the site), but I will add the definitions.

Ok. They are added, but should I remove the "As Defined," I just put that in to avoid plagiarism or someone saying it's trying to rewrite 168.

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Also, my S key is randomly hating me, so if a word looks like a weird typo, it should probably have an S somewhere in it.

If your most recent draft is not in the first post, it should be added there. I have assumed that it is the most current, as is usual, and have based the following comments on it.

Preamble (bits that come before "hereby") should answer three questions: WHAT is the problem you're trying to solve? WHY is it an international issue? And WHY isn't it already covered by existing resolutions?

NOTING that member nations currently have no protected right to open and free passage through other member nation’s waters,

Nor will they even if this proposal passed, so I don't really see the point of this clause. Also, this doesn't really answer any of the 3W questions above.

SEEING that many small member nations are reliant on naval import/export, and that without freedom of innocent passage, such nations could collapse,

If they already are reliant on such, they must already have agreements in place with their neighbours, or they wouldn't have gotten to the point of where they became reliant in the first place. Also, the "collapse of a nation" is nonsense. The nation's economy might collapse, but even if that led to a revolt and leadership changed hands, the nation itself would not collapse. And given that you're not targeting this proposal to such nations, this is about as helpful as saying "water is wet". This also doesn't answer any of the 3W questions.

WISHING to establish laws to prevent such economic damage,

...then do so, instead of this?

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,

• Open Oceans: the ocean area outside of nations jurisdiction (outside the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ)).

Do not make a list with only one item on it. You could just have this entire definition read "Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "open ocean" as the oceanic area outside of any nation's direct influence, such as territorial waters or exclusive economic zone". Using that wording and dropping the Proper Nouns means you can expect people to go with dictionary definitions for the words, instead of having to poke at previous resolutions or whatnot, to look them up. And do note that this bit SHOULD use "any nation's" instead of "any member nation's", because you'll just be creating trouble if you're trying to claim non-member nations' territorial waters as free for all open ocean.

2. In the Territorial Sea and EEZ

No. You have a defined term, use it, instead of these undefined ones. Either use "outside of open ocean", or define an additional term "territorial sea" as "any ocean area not included in open ocean", or something like that. Basically, you want a single defined term, not something that relies heavily on existing resolutions.

other member nations have the right to innocent passage and overflight,

What is overflight?

except in times of war, quarantine, or other national crisis.

Might want to make that "national or international crisis", because there might be, you know, a pandemic or a massive hurricane or something like that going on. Also, wars - barring civil wars - are rarely national.

Passage is innocent so long as it does not include acts of aggression, espionage, or any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

This has been criticized several times a being way too specific. And what of passenger transports? The passengers' activities probably don't have direct bearing on the passage of the ship, but short of putting them all to sleep for the duration, or making them row, would mean this doesn't apply to anything but ships with crews that do not need to eat or go to the bathroom or sleep or talk with one another about anything but the running of the ship.

3. Member Nations have the right to refuse innocent passage to military vessels of other nations for any reason.

What about military aircraft? Given you've included the "overflight".

4. In the Open Oceans, all nations may freely exercise economic activity and commerce, as well as military exercises. Member nations may build artificial islands in the Open Oceans for any purpose other than as military installations.

Since this has nothing to do with the concept of innocent passage, you shouldn't try to stuff several resolutions' worth of stuff into a single sideswipe clause of your proposal. Focus on one thing at a time. And since you're focusing this to civilian traffic, you might want to make it Free Trade category.

[Abbeyverne]

-snippity-snip-snip-

Made some edits. Also, this is not just innocent passage. I fixed the intro clauses to reflect that.

[Araraukar]

Also, this is not just innocent passage.

OOC: It should be. You're trying to cram too much into one proposal. Just go with the innocent passage angle and leave the rest for other proposals.

[Kenmoria]

“I can’t see the category or strength anywhere on the draft. It should be added somewhere, preferably at the top of the proposal.”

[Abbeyverne]

Also, this is not just innocent passage.

OOC: It should be. You're trying to cram too much into one proposal. Just go with the innocent passage angle and leave the rest for other proposals.

Ok. I will do that.

“I can’t see the category or strength anywhere on the draft. It should be added somewhere, preferably at the top of the proposal.”

I didn't add it cuz I don't know all the categories, but probably free trade/mild

[Araraukar]

OOC: If I was you, I'd try to get legality opinions on whether the following, from GA #168, would create issues with your "innocent passage through territorial waters must be allowed" concept.

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights and unless these terms would create conflicting claims,
A) Waters within 24 nautical miles (‘NM’) of a member nation's sea border, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be considered that nation’s 'Territorial Waters' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;

I'm too tired right now to puzzle that out, so I can't quite tell if the emphasized part means that other WA stuff can't conflict with that resolution, or if it's trying to say other WA stuff can alter what it says, but if the first reading is right, then you can't demand nations to allow "innocent passage" to all civilian ships through their territorial waters.

If the latter reading is correct, then you very definitely should at least include some line about ships needing to follow extant WA laws during their passage through another nation's territorial waters and EEZ, because they have to at least obey GA #478.

Also, you might want to consider "vessels registered in a member nation" as entities that are given the right of "innocent passage", because giving that right to member nations themselves sounds weird, given most nations encompass landmasses rather than something that floats and is capable of ocean travel.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: If I was you, I'd try to get legality opinions on whether the following, from GA #168, would create issues with your "innocent passage through territorial waters must be allowed" concept.

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights and unless these terms would create conflicting claims,
A) Waters within 24 nautical miles (‘NM’) of a member nation's sea border, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be considered that nation’s 'Territorial Waters' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;

I'm too tired right now to puzzle that out, so I can't quite tell if the emphasized part means that other WA stuff can't conflict with that resolution, or if it's trying to say other WA stuff can alter what it says, but if the first reading is right, then you can't demand nations to allow "innocent passage" to all civilian ships through their territorial waters.

If the latter reading is correct, then you very definitely should at least include some line about ships needing to follow extant WA laws during their passage through another nation's territorial waters and EEZ, because they have to at least obey GA #478.

Also, you might want to consider "vessels registered in a member nation" as entities that are given the right of "innocent passage", because giving that right to member nations themselves sounds weird, given most nations encompass landmasses rather than something that floats and is capable of ocean travel.

OOC: Yeah, I think it's just saying you can't create a bill extending the territorial waters or something expressly written into it. I will write the extant WA clause. For your last part though, where did you get the "vessels registered in a member nation" from? It's in 168 right? Cuz you'd have to explain that to me more.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: If I was you, I'd try to get legality opinions on whether the following, from GA #168, would create issues with your "innocent passage through territorial waters must be allowed" concept.


I'm too tired right now to puzzle that out, so I can't quite tell if the emphasized part means that other WA stuff can't conflict with that resolution, or if it's trying to say other WA stuff can alter what it says, but if the first reading is right, then you can't demand nations to allow "innocent passage" to all civilian ships through their territorial waters.

If the latter reading is correct, then you very definitely should at least include some line about ships needing to follow extant WA laws during their passage through another nation's territorial waters and EEZ, because they have to at least obey GA #478.

Also, you might want to consider "vessels registered in a member nation" as entities that are given the right of "innocent passage", because giving that right to member nations themselves sounds weird, given most nations encompass landmasses rather than something that floats and is capable of ocean travel.

OOC: Yeah, I think it's just saying you can't create a bill extending the territorial waters or something expressly written into it. I will write the extant WA clause. For your last part though, where did you get the "vessels registered in a member nation" from? It's in 168 right? Cuz you'd have to explain that to me more.

(OOC: I think Ara was saying that you should make this legislation apply to vessels registered in member states, rather than giving rights to member states. This is because countries, clearly, can’t move about the ocean, so it makes more sense to give freedoms to ships registered in member nations rather than the nations themselves.)

[Abbeyverne]

OK

[Abbeyverne]

Made some changes to the proposal. Anyone see anything that's gotta be changed?

[Separatist Peoples]

"I see no reason to allow foreign craft into our waters without proper screening and clearance, ambassador. We do not permit individuals to simply drive through our territory without appropriate screening. Why should watercraft earn an exemption?"

[Abbeyverne]

"I see no reason to allow foreign craft into our waters without proper screening and clearance, ambassador. We do not permit individuals to simply drive through our territory without appropriate screening. Why should watercraft earn an exemption?"

"Forgive me, ambassador, I accidentally omitted a sentence detailing that the vessels were subject to customs regulations of the member nation. I will correct this oversight."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I see no reason to allow foreign craft into our waters without proper screening and clearance, ambassador. We do not permit individuals to simply drive through our territory without appropriate screening. Why should watercraft earn an exemption?"

"Forgive me, ambassador, I accidentally omitted a sentence detailing that the vessels were subject to customs regulations of the member nation. I will correct this oversight."

"Then whay realistically prevents nations from using those regulations from terminating innocent passage writ large?"

[Abbeyverne]

"Forgive me, ambassador, I accidentally omitted a sentence detailing that the vessels were subject to customs regulations of the member nation. I will correct this oversight."

"Then whay realistically prevents nations from using those regulations from terminating innocent passage writ large?"

"Well, actually, I had a lively discussion here with someone who wanted to do just that, and I'm still trying to figure out an effective way to do that. If you have any ideas I'll gladly take them."

OOC: So after some digging, I remembered the WANC, so they can oversee the denial on the basis of customs. Can anyone come up with a better way to write that last clause? I'm not super eloquent.