[SUB'D] Repeal "Marine Protection Act"

[Imperium Anglorum]

The World Assembly finds as follows:

1. Resolutions may not be amended, but may be repealed and resubmitted with modifications. Repeals, therefore, are the only way to correct errors.
   
   
2. GA 510 "Marine Protection Act" would have the World Assembly create environmental regulations for international waters over which it has no enforcement mechanism or exclusive jurisdiction. GA 2 "Rights and Duties of WA States" prohibits the World Assembly from legislating into existence a police force that would enforce such policies, including marine police or deputisation of member nation naval forces.
   
   
3. It is foolish for the Assembly to create regulations over areas it does not and cannot control. Nor would it be wise to place enforcement of international law into the hands of vigilante nations acting without the authorisation of the international legislature. Without any coordinated economic or forceful response to such violations, any such regulations serve mostly to displace member nation activities in regulated areas while giving a wide berth for non-member nations to continue their exploitative practices unimpeded. This is for two reasons:
   
   
   1. Violations by member nations or persons within member nations can be addressed either by public action or private injunction under GA 440 "Administrative Compliance Act". Therefore, there is indirect enforcement or inducement of enforcement over ships registered in member nations.
      
      
   2. On the other hand, non-member nations could simply sail in to places under World Assembly protection and destroy them without falling under any effective enforcement, making a dead letter of Assembly marine regulations.
4. Moreover, the meaning of "regulations" in section 1 of GA 510 "Marine Protection Act" is profoundly unclear: no tests or guidance are provided as to the meaning of a "reasonable restriction". Restrictions banning most forms of economic activity or even visitation could be held as reasonable for the goal of protecting marine life, just as restrictions which fail to prohibit destructive economic activities could also be held as reasonable on the basis of reducing food insecurity for local fishermen. The actual effect of such regulations is highly dependent on the Assembly's executive or bureaucratic apparatuses, which could be subject to regional or corporate influence.
   
   
5. Clearer standards than "reasonable" are necessary on this topic. Moreover, the Assembly broadly ought to refrain from passing resolutions which heavily rely on reasonableness tests without clear and legislatively-defined standards with which reasonableness can be determined. In that vein, the sense of the Assembly is that resolutions which rely so heavily on such nebulous standards ought to be repealed.

Now, therefore, be GA 510 "Marine Protection Act" repealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Target in Rexis. viewtopic.php?p=37827862#p37827862
Target discussion thread. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=488107.
"Just saying ‘reasonable’ is not a standard". https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... -standard/

[*]Strangely, there is no explicit requirement in the target resolution requiring member nations to enforce regulations created by the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments. Nor does the resolution state explicitly to whom such regulations apply. Both of these omissions create difficulties in clearly establishing the legal basis on which the resolution attempts to protect marine sanctuaries.

The World Assembly finds as follows:

1. Resolutions may not be amended, but may be repealed and resubmitted with modifications. Repeals, therefore, are the only way to correct errors.
   
   
2. GA 510 "Marine Protection Act" would have the World Assembly create environmental regulations over international waters indirectly. GA 2 "Rights and Duties of WA States" prohibits the World Assembly from legislating into existence a police force that would enforce such policies, regardless of their jurisdiction. This includes marine police that could do things such as fight piracy on the open seas or enforce these regulations. Nor does GA 2 permit the World Assembly to deputise member nation naval forces to execute this function on its behalf.
   
   
3. It is foolish for the Assembly to create regulations over areas it does not and cannot control. Nor would it be wise to place enforcement of international law into the hands of vigilante nations acting without the authorisation of the international legislature. Without any coordinated economic or forceful response to such violations, any such regulations serve mostly to displace member nation activities in regulated areas, while giving a wide berth for non-member nations to continue their exploitative practices unimpeded.
   
   
4. The definition of "regulations" in section 1 of GA 510 "Marine Protection Act" is profoundly unclear: no tests or guidance are provided as to the meaning of a "reasonable restriction". Restrictions banning most forms of economic activity or even visitation could be held as reasonable for the goal of protecting the area, just as restrictions which fail to prohibit destructive economic activities could also be held as reasonable on the basis of reducing poverty for local fishermen.
   
   
5. Clearer standards than "reasonable" are necessary on this topic. Moreover, the Assembly broadly ought to refrain from passing resolutions which heavily rely on reasonableness tests without clear and legislatively-defined standards with which reasonableness can be determined. The sense of the Assembly also is that resolutions which rely so heavily on such nebulous standards ought to be repealed.

Now, therefore, be GA 510 "Marine Protection Act" repealed.

[Tinhampton]

Support. The World Assembly should not (go about/have gone about) enforcing its laws in territories that it does not technically control.

[North American Imperial State]

Support. The World Assembly should not (go about/have gone about) enforcing its laws in territories that it does not technically control.

OOC: Sounds like the EU right now

IC: I can get behind this Repeal, as Tin pointed out the WA should not enforce what it does not control.

[Kenmoria]

“I think you are missing the word ‘do’ before ‘things’ in clause 2. Nevertheless, this repeal has my full support.”

[New Carthagea]

We wholeheartedly support this repeal. The WA should have no authority to implement such influential laws in areas outside of its sovereign jurisdiction.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not a huge fan of the court verdict format, but very much for the repeal in general.

IC: "Support. I won't needlessly echo the words of those who have already spoken in support, here, so will instead add the words of agreement that regulations, which, when they are meant to restrict the activities of member nations and their citizens whether at home or abroad, should definitely be clearly specified by resolutions, not left up in the air as some vague to-do list to be sorted out later."

[Honeydewistania]

Bad resolution, good repeal. Absolute support

[Ardiveds]

"We're hoping someone would write up a repeal for this travesty. Full support."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump. I submitted because I don't want the GA activity chain to break.

[Haganham]

Why did I get three telegrams from you about this?

[Tinhampton]

Why did I get three telegrams from you about this?

Three campaign telegrams have been sent out in the past few hours: one for this by IA, one for Repeal "Elections and Assistance Act" by Hulldom, and one for Commend Kyorgia by Toerana. (One was sent out at 3am BST today for Condemn Thaecia by New Burnet.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why did I get three telegrams from you about this?

It's possible that I accidentally sent you three telegrams while I was debugging my telegram client. I've been doing a test for a (mostly) rewritten version of Communique, my telegram client. My apologies about the telegrams, if they were sent in triplicate.

[Gonswanza]

"This has my support, as stated before, this only grants WA the authority to enforce laws which are far too vague to be enforced properly, while also enabling them to act on behalf of member nations in international waters rather than allowing the member nations to come to terms as they wish and try to get in line within their own territorial waters. Hence, at any moment, WA can easily stop world trade for member nations and claim in defense that it was in the best interests of the environment, while also scrambling to get a fleet from the member nations to enforce this policy... Which won't go over well with anyone."

[Haganham]

Why did I get three telegrams from you about this?

It's possible that I accidentally sent you three telegrams while I was debugging my telegram client. I've been doing a test for a (mostly) rewritten version of Communique, my telegram client. My apologies about the telegrams, if they were sent in triplicate.

ah, that would also explain why the couriers were all identical. -.-

[Tinhampton]

THIS SHOULD BE RESUBMITTED

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED that this failed to make quorum and FIRMLY BELIEVE that every World Assembly nation deserves to vote on the future of one of the most bureaucratic and overreaching resolutions on the books!!!

[WayNeacTia]

THIS SHOULD BE RESUBMITTED

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED that this failed to make quorum and FIRMLY BELIEVE that every World Assembly nation deserves to vote on the future of one of the most bureaucratic and overreaching resolutions on the books!!!

For gods sake. You, yourself are the queen of minutiae and complain about bureaucracy?