[PASSED] Repeal "GMO International Trade Accord"

[Regnum Italiae]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that regulation of trade of genetically modified organisms, which General Assembly Resolution #509 “GMO International Trade Accord” tried to address, is an important area of legislation most likely in need of attention from the World Assembly; but

Noting that unclear measures lead to unforeseen consequences which can do more harm than good;

Concerned by many issues, including:

1. The exclusion of genetic modifications obtained through hybridisation or selective breeding as a result of the limited definition of biotechnology, which pose comparable threats to the environment;
   
   
2. The resolution’s failure to explicitly require member nations to enforce regulations created by the Committee for the Regulation of Modified Products, allowing for nations to easily dodge compliance of these provisions without penalty;
   
   
3. The vagueness of the term ‘reasonable’ that is used so often in regard to safety measures throughout the resolution, especially in sections 3 and 4, as the use of this term allows an excessively ambiguous and free interpretation of what is the best effort possible in the matter of safety. The term reasonable is in fact inherently relative in its definition and this implies that nations can set up measures as they see fit to their contingent situation, without any kind of control, thus making it possible for them to hugely disregard security when profitable;
   
   
4. The lack of regulations of intellectual property, thus granting undisciplined privileges to corporations and private institutions, like the possibility to stop outside research or create monopolies, which undermines the resolution's call for improving research and the exchange of information between member nations; and
   
   
5. The presence, in section 4, of exemptions to unsterilized plants GMOs, since requirements like “in cases where the environmental benefit [...] clearly outweigh any downsides of their use” are loose enough to let member nations set their own policies without any way to ascertain the truthfulness of their reasons especially since there are no overseeing authorities; and

Concluding that such overlooked flaws completely undermine the effectiveness of the resolution as a whole; hereby

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #509 “GMO International Trade Accord”.

Co-authored by Honeydewistania

Thanks to Imperium Anglorum and Honeydewistania for the inputs, comments and edits

Link to target resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

The World Assembly,
Believing the good intentions of General Assembly Resolution #509 “GMO International Trade Accord”,

Acknowledging that regulation of trade of genetically modified organisms is an important goal to achieve which requires special attention and care, but
Noting that unclear measures lead to unforeseen consequences which can do more harm than good,

Concerned by many issues, including:

• The exclusion of genetic modifications obtained through hybridisation or selective breeding as a result of the limited definition of biotechnology, which pose analogue threats to the environment;
  
• The resolution’s failure to explicitly require member nations to enforce regulations created by the Committee for the Regulation of Modified Products, allowing for nations to easily dodge compliance of these provisions without penalty,
  
• The vagueness of the term ‘reasonable’ that is used so often in regard of safety measures throughout the resolution, especially in sections 3 and 4, as the use of this term allows an excessively ambiguous and free interpretation of what is the best effort possible in matter of safety;
  
• The lack of regulations of intellectual property, thus granting undisciplined privileges to corporations and privates like the possibility to stop outside research or create monopolies; and
  
• The presence, in section 4, of exemptions to unsterilized plants GMOs, since requirements like “in cases where the environmental benefit [...] clearly outweigh any downsides of their use” are loose enough to let member nations set their own policies with little to no control from external authorities; and

Concluding that such overlooked flaws completely undermine the effectiveness of the resolution as a whole, hereby
Repeals General Assembly Resolution #509 “GMO International Trade Accord”.

[Tinhampton]

General support. A few notes:

1. "Believing the good intentions of [GA]#509?" Does that part of the proposal make grammatical/proper/common/whatever sense?
2. Please be consistent with whether you end your clauses with a comma or a semicolon.
3. Do IA or Honeydew seek to be recognised as coauthors in the actual text of this proposal?

[Regnum Italiae]

General support. A few notes:

1. "Believing the good intentions of [GA]#509?" Does that part of the proposal make grammatical/proper/common/whatever sense?
2. Please be consistent with whether you end your clauses with a comma or a semicolon.
3. Do IA or Honeydew seek to be recognised as coauthors in the actual text of this proposal?

Edited
I'm waiting for IA response for the coauthorship

[Honeydewistania]

General support. A few notes:

1. "Believing the good intentions of [GA]#509?" Does that part of the proposal make grammatical/proper/common/whatever sense?
2. Please be consistent with whether you end your clauses with a comma or a semicolon.
3. Do IA or Honeydew seek to be recognised as coauthors in the actual text of this proposal?

I was offered, but I sort of declined as I didn’t feel I contributed much to the actual text. I only made comments

[Tinhampton]

General support. A few notes:

1. "Believing the good intentions of [GA]#509?" Does that part of the proposal make grammatical/proper/common/whatever sense?
2. Please be consistent with whether you end your clauses with a comma or a semicolon.
3. Do IA or Honeydew seek to be recognised as coauthors in the actual text of this proposal?

Edited
I'm waiting for IA response for the coauthorship

I mean... why do your list items end in semicolons but your non-list items end in commas? >:P

[Araraukar]

requirements ... are loose enough to let member nations set their own policies with little to no control from external authorities

OOC: I think that was pretty much the idea.

[Cretox State]

Support. Some comments:

The exclusion of genetic modifications obtained through hybridisation or selective breeding as a result of the limited definition of biotechnology, which pose analogue threats to the environment;

This was intentional on my part, since I believed selective breeding and hybridization to be different enough from true genetic modification to warrant their own proposal down the line instead of being lumped in with this one.

The resolution’s failure to explicitly require member nations to enforce regulations created by the Committee for the Regulation of Modified Products, allowing for nations to easily dodge compliance of these provisions without penalty;

Fair enough, I suppose. Though this was also very intentional: I distinctly remember Araraukar throwing a fit over my committee enforcing its regulations. That's why I ended up changing it to guidelines. I won't be making this mistake in the future, I can tell you that.

The vagueness of the term ‘reasonable’ that is used so often in regard of safety measures throughout the resolution, especially in sections 3 and 4, as the use of this term allows an excessively ambiguous and free interpretation of what is the best effort possible in matter of safety;

Fair.

The lack of regulations of intellectual property, thus granting undisciplined privileges to corporations and privates like the possibility to stop outside research or create monopolies;

I don't really see how intellectual property regulations can't be covered by another resolution. Moreover, I don't see why these regulations should have been lumped in with the rest of the resolution, nor how this is grounds for repeal. IP regulations even in a single field are a complex area that really warrants its own resolution.

The presence, in section 4, of exemptions to unsterilized plants GMOs, since requirements like “in cases where the environmental benefit [...] clearly outweigh any downsides of their use” are loose enough to let member nations set their own policies with little to no control from external authorities;

I remember the GA throwing a collective fit over this same section "forcing member nations to use sterilized seeds" or something equally silly. Now you're complaining that the resolution doesn't force member nations to use sterilized seeds? Outstanding

On a serious note, I'd revise this portion of the repeal to more clearly express what the problem here is, and to be worded a bit more professionally in general. At least to me, it reads like "This section is bad because it has exceptions to plants being unsterilized, which means that member nations can just set their own policies, meaning that these exceptions aren't actually exceptions, which is the problem."

Additionally, this section was intended to serve as a blocker, and I don't really see a good faith interpretation that allows member nations to ignore the "clearly outweighs" part. Seriously though, didn't I just listen to half the GA chanting that section 4 somehow nefariously forces nations to use sterilized seeds? And now it's being repealed because it doesn't actually do the nefarious thing?

Overall, not bad, especially for a first proposal. Could definitely use revision and polishing, but not bad!

Edit:

requirements ... are loose enough to let member nations set their own policies with little to no control from external authorities

OOC: I think that was pretty much the idea.

Correct. It's pretty straightforward as blockers go.

[Honeydewistania]

Support. Some comments:

The exclusion of genetic modifications obtained through hybridisation or selective breeding as a result of the limited definition of biotechnology, which pose analogue threats to the environment;

This was intentional on my part, since I believed selective breeding and hybridization to be different enough from true genetic modification to warrant their own proposal down the line instead of being lumped in with this one.

I mean, since you already have the committee, why not let it write a few more guidelines on those?

The resolution’s failure to explicitly require member nations to enforce regulations created by the Committee for the Regulation of Modified Products, allowing for nations to easily dodge compliance of these provisions without penalty;

Fair enough, I suppose. Though this was also very intentional: I distinctly remember Araraukar throwing a fit over my committee enforcing its regulations. That's why I ended up changing it to guidelines. I won't be making this mistake in the future, I can tell you that.

I think the problem was giving a committee so much power. I’m pretty sure Ara told you to write procedures yourself or something.

I don't really see how intellectual property regulations can't be covered by another resolution. Moreover, I don't see why these regulations should have been lumped in with the rest of the resolution, nor how this is grounds for repeal. IP regulations even in a single field are a complex area that really warrants its own resolution.

I think the author was trying to say that corporations can build monopolies without much regulations at all.

The presence, in section 4, of exemptions to unsterilized plants GMOs, since requirements like “in cases where the environmental benefit [...] clearly outweigh any downsides of their use” are loose enough to let member nations set their own policies with little to no control from external authorities;

I remember the GA throwing a collective fit over this same section "forcing member nations to use sterilized seeds" or something equally silly. Now you're complaining that the resolution doesn't force member nations to use sterilized seeds? Outstanding

On a serious note, I'd revise this portion of the repeal to more clearly express what the problem here is, and to be worded a bit more professionally in general. At least to me, it reads like "This section is bad because it has exceptions to plants being unsterilized, which means that member nations can just set their own policies, meaning that these exceptions aren't actually exceptions, which is the problem."

Additionally, this section was intended to serve as a blocker, and I don't really see a good faith interpretation that allows member nations to ignore the "clearly outweighs" part. Seriously though, didn't I just listen to half the GA chanting that section 4 somehow nefariously forces nations to use sterilized seeds? And now it's being repealed because it doesn't actually do the nefarious thing?

Hmm... THIS is the part that could be covered by standalone legislation. Limping a topic like that into one clause with vague regulations is a bad idea.

[Bananaistan]

Wtf are "analogue threats to the environment"?

[Regnum Italiae]

Wtf are "analogue threats to the environment"?

analogue
noun [ C ]
formal (US usually analog)
something that is similar to or can be used instead of something else

Re: Cretox
My reasons are the ones Honeydew stated

[South St Maarten]

Wtf are "analogue threats to the environment"?

analogue
noun [ C ]
formal (US usually analog)
something that is similar to or can be used instead of something else

Re: Cretox
My reasons are the ones Honeydew stated

I'd use a synonym for simplicitiy's sake

[Regnum Italiae]

I'd use a synonym for simplicitiy's sake

Fine :/
Anyway I'll edit a bit more later

[Araraukar]

Fair enough, I suppose. Though this was also very intentional: I distinctly remember Araraukar throwing a fit over my committee enforcing its regulations. That's why I ended up changing it to guidelines. I won't be making this mistake in the future, I can tell you that.

I think the problem was giving a committee so much power. I’m pretty sure Ara told you to write procedures yourself or something.

OOC: ^This. CS, I objected to you - as I do when others try to do the same - wanting to give the committee the right to write "invisible" regulations/procedures that nations would then have to apply. Invisible in the sense that, not written into the resolution text, people voting for or against the proposal wouldn't really know what they were voting on. If you'd actually taken the trouble to write the procedures into it, it would've been clearer what you envisioned the committee to actually accomplish.

To the author of this repeal, the link to the target: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
You might want to post it somewhere in the first post.

[Regnum Italiae]

OOC: ^This. CS, I objected to you - as I do when others try to do the same - wanting to give the committee the right to write "invisible" regulations/procedures that nations would then have to apply. Invisible in the sense that, not written into the resolution text, people voting for or against the proposal wouldn't really know what they were voting on. If you'd actually taken the trouble to write the procedures into it, it would've been clearer what you envisioned the committee to actually accomplish.

To the author of this repeal, the link to the target: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
You might want to post it somewhere in the first post.

Thanks
Noted

[Honeydewistania]

"Who will propose a replacement?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I guess I'll have to be Mousebumples' echo: Why do we need one?

[WayNeacTia]

"Who will propose a replacement?"

Is there a compelling reason for one?

[Honeydewistania]

"Who will propose a replacement?"

Is there a compelling reason for one?

I don’t care but the proposal says that regulating trade is important so if you mention that you’ll probably want a replacement

[Regnum Italiae]

I guess I'll have to be Mousebumples' echo: Why do we need one?

Is there a compelling reason for one?

I don’t care but the proposal says that regulating trade is important so if you mention that you’ll probably want a replacement

I think that regulating affectively GMOs is important enough to be done without flaws compromising it's affectiveness, yet I'm not necessarely implying we must have a replacement.
Also, I think that the author is surely capable to address these flaws if he want to give it another shot

[Araraukar]

I think that regulating affectively GMOs is important enough to be done without flaws compromising it's affectiveness, yet I'm not necessarely implying we must have a replacement.

OOC: Then you might want to change "is an important goal to achieve which requires special attention and care" to something more like "is an important area of legislation most likely in need of attention from the World Assembly".

[Honeydewistania]

I think that regulating affectively GMOs is important enough to be done without flaws compromising it's affectiveness, yet I'm not necessarely implying we must have a replacement.

OOC: Then you might want to change "is an important goal to achieve which requires special attention and care" to something more like "is an important area of legislation most likely in need of attention from the World Assembly".

I agree

[Regnum Italiae]

I think that regulating affectively GMOs is important enough to be done without flaws compromising it's affectiveness, yet I'm not necessarely implying we must have a replacement.

OOC: Then you might want to change "is an important goal to achieve which requires special attention and care" to something more like "is an important area of legislation most likely in need of attention from the World Assembly".

Edited
Thanks for the input

[Honeydewistania]

as the use of this term allows an excessively ambiguous and free interpretation of what is the best effort possible in the matter of safety

I’d advise inserting slightly more elaboration on why this is bad e.g. […] in the matter of the safety, defeating the purpose of this resolution

[Regnum Italiae]

I’d advise inserting slightly more elaboration on why this is bad e.g. […] in the matter of the safety, defeating the purpose of this resolution

Done, along with some minor corrections

[Honeydewistania]

since there are no overseeing authorities; and

Minor correction.