NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Extraplanetary Mining Regulations

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

[DRAFT] Extraplanetary Mining Regulations

Postby Isaris » Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:31 pm

Extraplanetary Mining Regulations

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Mining Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that one planet's resources cannot sustain a species indefinitely,

Cognizant that nations may seek to exploit resources beyond the confines of their planet of origin,

Aware of the extremely complex nature of celestial mechanics,

Concerned for the environments of any nearby planets, as well as the survival of any sentient beings living upon them, and

Seeking to minimize the risks of such activities,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "astronomical body" is defined as a naturally occurring physical object that exists in space; and

    2. a "planet" is defined as an astronomical body orbiting a star that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity but not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion.

  2. Prior to exploiting the resources of any astronomical body that is not an inhabited planet, member states and private entities therein must submit to the Astronomic Science and Technical Research Organization (ASTRO) an environmental impact assessment of their planned project for review.

    1. Such an assessment must include any potential disruption of the astronomical body's orbit and the environmental risks of such a disruption to any other nearby astronomical bodies.

    2. Should an assessment—upon review by ASTRO—indicate potential environmental risks to a member nation or nations, any such nation may file an objection to the project. An objected project will be subjected to a temporary or total stay until such a time that the risks to the nation or nations have been determined by ASTRO to be sufficiently minimized.

  3. If a project is subjected to a total stay, the organizing nation or private entity may negotiate terms of compensation with the affected nation or nations to allow the project to move forward. The stay shall remain in effect until such a time that all parties have entered into a legally binding agreement. It shall be prohibited to move forward with a project subjected to such a stay while it remains in effect.

------
Hello all. I've been working on this resolution for a little while on one of my regions' forums and I feel ready to bring it to the world. I'd been thinking about a resolution like this for awhile because of the increasing study of asteroids by space agencies in real life. NASA landed on its first asteroid last year and Japan's space agency in 2019. The idea that asteroids could be harvested for resources in the future is becoming far less ridiculous. However, this would cover other bodies too, not just asteroids. I also hope for this to be friendly to nations in space/sci-fi settings, so if it's problematic in that aspect, please let me know!
------
Draft #1
Extraplanetary Mining Regulations

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Mining Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that one planet's resources cannot sustain a species indefinitely,

Cognizant that nations may seek to exploit resources beyond the confines of their planet of origin,

Aware of the extremely complex nature of celestial mechanics,

Concerned for the environments of any nearby planets, as well as the survival of any sentient beings living upon them, and

Seeking to minimize the risks of such activities,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "astronomical body" is defined as a naturally occurring physical object that exists in space; and

    2. a "planet" is defined as an astronomical body orbiting a star that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity but not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion.

  2. Prior to exploiting the resources of any astronomical body that is not an inhabited planet, member states and private entities must submit to the Astronomic Science and Technical Research Organization (ASTRO) an environmental impact assessment of their planned project for review.

    1. Such an assessment must include any potential disruption of the astronomical body's orbit and the environmental risks of such a disruption to any other nearby astronomical bodies.

  3. Should an assessment—upon review by ASTRO—indicate potential environmental risks to a member nation or nations, any such nation may file an objection to the project. An objected project will be subjected to a temporary or total stay until such a time that the risks to the nation or nations have been determined by ASTRO to be sufficiently minimized.

    1. If a project is subjected to a total stay, the organizing nation or private entity may negotiate terms of compensation with the affected nation or nations to allow the project to move forward. The stay shall remain in effect until such a time that all parties have entered into a legally binding agreement.
------
Draft #2
Extraplanetary Mining Regulations

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Mining Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that one planet's resources cannot sustain a species indefinitely,

Cognizant that nations may seek to exploit resources beyond the confines of their planet of origin,

Aware of the extremely complex nature of celestial mechanics,

Concerned for the environments of any nearby planets, as well as the survival of any sentient beings living upon them, and

Seeking to minimize the risks of such activities,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "astronomical body" is defined as a naturally occurring physical object that exists in space; and

    2. a "planet" is defined as an astronomical body orbiting a star that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity but not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion.

  2. Prior to exploiting the resources of any astronomical body that is not an inhabited planet, member states and private entities must submit to the Astronomic Science and Technical Research Organization (ASTRO) an environmental impact assessment of their planned project for review.

    1. Such an assessment must include any potential disruption of the astronomical body's orbit and the environmental risks of such a disruption to any other nearby astronomical bodies.

    2. Should an assessment—upon review by ASTRO—indicate potential environmental risks to a member nation or nations, any such nation may file an objection to the project. An objected project will be subjected to a temporary or total stay until such a time that the risks to the nation or nations have been determined by ASTRO to be sufficiently minimized.

    3. If a project is subjected to a total stay, the organizing nation or private entity may negotiate terms of compensation with the affected nation or nations to allow the project to move forward. The stay shall remain in effect until such a time that all parties have entered into a legally binding agreement.
------
Draft #3
Extraplanetary Mining Regulations

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Mining Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that one planet's resources cannot sustain a species indefinitely,

Cognizant that nations may seek to exploit resources beyond the confines of their planet of origin,

Aware of the extremely complex nature of celestial mechanics,

Concerned for the environments of any nearby planets, as well as the survival of any sentient beings living upon them, and

Seeking to minimize the risks of such activities,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. an "astronomical body" is defined as a naturally occurring physical object that exists in space; and

    2. a "planet" is defined as an astronomical body orbiting a star that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity but not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion.

  2. Prior to exploiting the resources of any astronomical body that is not an inhabited planet, member states and private entities must submit to the Astronomic Science and Technical Research Organization (ASTRO) an environmental impact assessment of their planned project for review.

    1. Such an assessment must include any potential disruption of the astronomical body's orbit and the environmental risks of such a disruption to any other nearby astronomical bodies.

    2. Should an assessment—upon review by ASTRO—indicate potential environmental risks to a member nation or nations, any such nation may file an objection to the project. An objected project will be subjected to a temporary or total stay until such a time that the risks to the nation or nations have been determined by ASTRO to be sufficiently minimized.

  3. If a project is subjected to a total stay, the organizing nation or private entity may negotiate terms of compensation with the affected nation or nations to allow the project to move forward. The stay shall remain in effect until such a time that all parties have entered into a legally binding agreement. It shall be prohibited to move forward with a project subjected to such a stay while it remains in effect.
Last edited by Isaris on Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:23 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10393
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:46 pm

I'd recategorise section 3 and its subsection as subsections of section 2. Otherwise, no major objections.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:59 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd recategorise section 3 and its subsection as subsections of section 2. Otherwise, no major objections.

OK, I'll do that. Thanks! Edit: Done!
Last edited by Isaris on Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5166
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tinfect » Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:24 pm

"The Imperium has no objections; this is finely tailored legislation."
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Preliminary trials of Military Doctrinal Reform prototypes to begin; IRPC 5-115, 5-298, 5-076 public details, Project Lead interviews released | Aeravahn occupation expands to 17% of the Exterior Territories, Internal Security orders full-stop to Civilian expeditions to Exterior | TCO - Vigilant Star declared missing following exit of Iraet orbital region | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10393
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:48 am

Just to clarify, the 'environmental risks' spoken of here are mostly space-borne ones? The first thing I think of is asteroid impact, but after that, there are extremely minor ones such as 'meteor showers might make the sky brighter during the night to imperceptibly harm the breeding cycle of some rare beetles'. I think the latter probably shouldn't be included, lest member nations start using them as excuses to extract disproportionate rents from space miners.

Second, what are these total stays and what would be the standard by which they would be imposed?

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:04 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Just to clarify, the 'environmental risks' spoken of here are mostly space-borne ones? The first thing I think of is asteroid impact, but after that, there are extremely minor ones such as 'meteor showers might make the sky brighter during the night to imperceptibly harm the breeding cycle of some rare beetles'. I think the latter probably shouldn't be included, lest member nations start using them as excuses to extract disproportionate rents from space miners.

Second, what are these total stays and what would be the standard by which they would be imposed?

Well, asteroid impacts are definitely the foremost concern. However, it also is concerned with things like disruptions to a moon's orbit around a planet, which could dramatically impact tidal forces, and resource exploitation that would present a threat of extinction to critical native species on a planet with only non-intelligent life, either through destruction of their environment or toxic pollutants. I don't think something like a small disruption to an insect's breeding cycle would be a concern that would block a project, but I'd be willing to put in more clear language if that's needed.

A total stay would mean the project would be put on hold indefinitely until either ASTRO has determined the risks to be sufficiently minimized or the parties involved come into a legally binding agreement to settle their dispute. These would be imposed only on projects which represent a clearly catastrophic danger to either another member nation, the environment of the astronomical body in question, or the environment of another astronomical body. I'd be willing to work on the language here too if needed.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:24 pm

Apologies for double posting but given the quiet, I did a little test submission, and the proposal was deemed illegal for the Committee rule. Can anyone help me to understand what I need to change to fix this draft so the proposal will be legal?

User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 487
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:49 pm

Isaris wrote:Apologies for double posting but given the quiet, I did a little test submission, and the proposal was deemed illegal for the Committee rule. Can anyone help me to understand what I need to change to fix this draft so the proposal will be legal?

The only action of the proposal is to establish a committee, which is illegal. You need an operative clause that doesn't involve the committee.
My drafts
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:20 pm

Jedinsto wrote:
Isaris wrote:Apologies for double posting but given the quiet, I did a little test submission, and the proposal was deemed illegal for the Committee rule. Can anyone help me to understand what I need to change to fix this draft so the proposal will be legal?

The only action of the proposal is to establish a committee, which is illegal. You need an operative clause that doesn't involve the committee.

But it doesn't establish a committee at all. ASTRO has already been established by a previous resolution. How is Section 2 not an operative clause?

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:39 pm

Isaris wrote:
Jedinsto wrote:The only action of the proposal is to establish a committee, which is illegal. You need an operative clause that doesn't involve the committee.

But it doesn't establish a committee at all. ASTRO has already been established by a previous resolution. How is Section 2 not an operative clause?

OOC:
Committees: Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.

From : viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Port Ember
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1296
Founded: Dec 06, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Port Ember » Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:45 pm

Ambassador Lilly Publican places her hipflask down on the table before her, before clearing her throat politely, speaking into the mounted microphone,
"This well written Proposal has been deemed illegal due to contravening the Committee Rule... Now whilst the Author did not establish a new Committee here, the Author did grant additional powers and responsibilities to the existing Committee. This is all fine in the bigger picture ofcourse.

However, I personally believe that the cause of the contravention is the fact that the only operative clause of this draft is enbedded in Section 2 - which is viewed as granting an extended scope to the existing Committee. Therefore it is viewed that this proposal in its current form does not contain a separate operative clause, seperate from the scope of the Committee - and thus the contravention of the Rules."
♤ And my proudest work - Hydra Industries - I created all my own military equipment.
♤ A great RP resource -The Average Port Emberian
Port Emberian Embassy Program
♤ My Discord Channel - https://discord.gg/ufkwkCh
However only for members of the GFTC

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:36 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Isaris wrote:But it doesn't establish a committee at all. ASTRO has already been established by a previous resolution. How is Section 2 not an operative clause?

OOC:
Committees: Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.

From : viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

OOC: Having a mining project subjected to a total stay unless the member state negotiates compensation with an affected party isn't more burdensome than filing paperwork?
Last edited by Isaris on Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:14 am

Isaris wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC:
From : viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

OOC: Having a mining project subjected to a total stay unless the member state negotiates compensation with an affected party isn't more burdensome than filing paperwork?

OOC: You got a point. IMO either that total stay doesn't count because it depends on the committee's decision and not a blanket burden that covers everyone OR more likely, you need an operative clause independent of the committee.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:03 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Isaris wrote:OOC: Having a mining project subjected to a total stay unless the member state negotiates compensation with an affected party isn't more burdensome than filing paperwork?

OOC: You got a point. IMO either that total stay doesn't count because it depends on the committee's decision and not a blanket burden that covers everyone OR more likely, you need an operative clause independent of the committee.

OOC: 2b and 2c were a separate 3 and 3a in my first draft. Do you think it would be legal if I went back to that?

User avatar
Port Ember
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1296
Founded: Dec 06, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Port Ember » Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:13 am

Since 2b is still very much an extention of the ASTRO committee, that wont solve the solution. Though perhaps you should leave 2b as 2b, and make 2c into 3. Then flesh some additional regulation under 3, for example making it specifically an criminal offence for mining before an agreement has been reached.
Last edited by Port Ember on Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
♤ And my proudest work - Hydra Industries - I created all my own military equipment.
♤ A great RP resource -The Average Port Emberian
Port Emberian Embassy Program
♤ My Discord Channel - https://discord.gg/ufkwkCh
However only for members of the GFTC

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:13 pm

Port Ember wrote:Since 2b is still very much an extention of the ASTRO committee, that wont solve the solution. Though perhaps you should leave 2b as 2b, and make 2c into 3. Then flesh some additional regulation under 3, for example making it specifically an criminal offence for mining before an agreement has been reached.

OOC: I've taken your advice and updated the OP. Please let me know if you think the new 3 will work.

Edit: Snuck a little "therein" after "private entities" in s2 to make sure it's clear this only applies to private entities that operate within member states.
Last edited by Isaris on Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:34 pm

Sorry for double-posting but since it's been some time since I got any comments, I intend to submit this in one week if there are no issues brought up with the proposal before then.

User avatar
The Langburn Islands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 44
Founded: Jan 14, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Langburn Islands » Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:06 am

"The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands is delighted to support this extremely well written and essential resolution. We Commend the author for proposing valuable regulations which are sorely needed in such a currently unregulated space. No objections from us".
The Commonwealth of The Langburn Islands
Population: 4.2 million Capital city: Onita (pop. 1.5 million)

President: Bear Logan (Independent)
Prime Minister: Jim Coffey (Reform)
WA Ambassador: Susana Arias (Independent)

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:40 am

Isaris wrote:Sorry for double-posting but since it's been some time since I got any comments, I intend to submit this in one week if there are no issues brought up with the proposal before then.

OOC: I personally support this proposal but have you made sure that it's legal now? Asking this since a cursory glance seems to suggest its basically the same as the draft that got flagged as illegal.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Astrobolt
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 111
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:48 pm

"Ambassador, what is meant by an inhabited planet? Currently your proposal does not define this term."
He/Him
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe
In the WA IC, despite not being in it OOC.


Note: All views expressed are solely my own, and don't represent any region, organization or group unless stated otherwise.

For a detailed list of positions, and other things of note, read the dispatch here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1428456

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Mar 08, 2021 3:17 am

Astrobolt wrote:"Ambassador, what is meant by an inhabited planet? Currently your proposal does not define this term."

"Ambassador, we appreciate your question regarding our terminology. We believe that the common definition that sapient beings live on the planet is sufficient and that the term does not need to be defined in the proposal. However, if other nations disagree, we would be willing to include a definition on this."

The Langburn Islands wrote:"The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands is delighted to support this extremely well written and essential resolution. We Commend the author for proposing valuable regulations which are sorely needed in such a currently unregulated space. No objections from us".

"We in the Interstellar Republic of Isaris are extremely grateful for the Commonwealth's support."

OOC: I'll put this up for a test submit to ensure the legality, since it's had an issue in the past, but I'll hold off on campaigning to reach queue.

EDIT: This passed a legality check with two votes from GenSec.
Last edited by Isaris on Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Disembodied Voice
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Apr 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Disembodied Voice » Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:09 am

A voice seemingly coming out of nowhere, spoke behind the author's left ear: "I find the definitions sorely lacking, and the restrictions ridiculous to any nation not restricted to a single planet's surface. If you have not yet set the text in stone, or whichever archaic form you prefer, may I make some questions and suggestions?"

Without waiting for a response, the voice went on, "Take your definition of a planet, for example. Do you mean to say that thermonuclear fusion does not occur naturally on it or that thermonuclear fusion is not currently and continuously naturally occurring on it? I am asking because most objects generally considered planets, are not massive enough to sustain naturally occurring thermonuclear fusion, but that does not mean that sapients might not cause conditions where the fusion occurs. On the other hand, there are stellar objects that could not be classified as planets under any normal circumstances, but in or on which thermonuclear fusion does not currently occur, such as white dwarves, neutron stars and mature low-mass brown dwarves. I would suggest adding "substellar" to the definition, as well as "naturally occurring" before the condition about thermonuclear fusion. That way you would avoid classifying unusual stellar objects as planets."

There was a very minor pause before the voice launched to its last point for the time being: "And then there is the idiocy of requiring the committee's permission for a nation to mine anything on their own sovereign territory. If a nation owns an entire solar system or consists of multiple planets or dwarf planets, some of which are inhabited and some aren't - which reminds me, is continuous inhabitation necessary, or would having a research or military base that is occasionally inhabited and occasionally not, make the planet count as inhabited? - then why should they need the World Assembly's permission to mine within their own territory? Planet-bound nations are not required to exercise such cautions despite mining, by definition, on an inhabited planet. Why is an uninhabited planet considered more valuable and worth the World Assembly's time? I would reword the start of clause two as "prior to exploiting the resources of any astronomical body that is not an inhabited planet or part of the sovereign territory of a member nation", as that would cover occasions of the planet or planetoid belonging to a non-member nation. Territorial disputes between member nations are to my knowledge already handled by the World Assembly, so such could be excluded from here."

The voice went silent as abruptly as it had appeared.
"The tongue can paint what the eyes can't see." – a Chinese proverb

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:19 pm

Disembodied Voice wrote:A voice seemingly coming out of nowhere, spoke behind the author's left ear: "I find the definitions sorely lacking, and the restrictions ridiculous to any nation not restricted to a single planet's surface. If you have not yet set the text in stone, or whichever archaic form you prefer, may I make some questions and suggestions?"

Without waiting for a response, the voice went on, "Take your definition of a planet, for example. Do you mean to say that thermonuclear fusion does not occur naturally on it or that thermonuclear fusion is not currently and continuously naturally occurring on it? I am asking because most objects generally considered planets, are not massive enough to sustain naturally occurring thermonuclear fusion, but that does not mean that sapients might not cause conditions where the fusion occurs. On the other hand, there are stellar objects that could not be classified as planets under any normal circumstances, but in or on which thermonuclear fusion does not currently occur, such as white dwarves, neutron stars and mature low-mass brown dwarves. I would suggest adding "substellar" to the definition, as well as "naturally occurring" before the condition about thermonuclear fusion. That way you would avoid classifying unusual stellar objects as planets."

There was a very minor pause before the voice launched to its last point for the time being: "And then there is the idiocy of requiring the committee's permission for a nation to mine anything on their own sovereign territory. If a nation owns an entire solar system or consists of multiple planets or dwarf planets, some of which are inhabited and some aren't - which reminds me, is continuous inhabitation necessary, or would having a research or military base that is occasionally inhabited and occasionally not, make the planet count as inhabited? - then why should they need the World Assembly's permission to mine within their own territory? Planet-bound nations are not required to exercise such cautions despite mining, by definition, on an inhabited planet. Why is an uninhabited planet considered more valuable and worth the World Assembly's time? I would reword the start of clause two as "prior to exploiting the resources of any astronomical body that is not an inhabited planet or part of the sovereign territory of a member nation", as that would cover occasions of the planet or planetoid belonging to a non-member nation. Territorial disputes between member nations are to my knowledge already handled by the World Assembly, so such could be excluded from here."

The voice went silent as abruptly as it had appeared.

OOC: This is a lot and I don't know how to respond in-character to "a voice", so, let me just address what I can here. Regarding your first point, I believe you have misread the text. Whether or not thermonuclear fusion is occurring on the body is not the issue. It is whether or not the body itself causes thermonuclear fusion as a consequence of its mass. By definition, such thermonuclear fusion would be naturally occurring. Any thermonuclear fusion produced by sapient beings on a body would not disqualify that body as being a planet because it is not being produced by the body itself. I hope that makes sense. However, your point regarding brown dwarves and the like is valid, and I will seek to address it.

On the second point, I would caution against assuming the delineation of borders in space. Two nations may inhabit the same star system and as such, actions they take with regard to a third astronomical body (i.e., not their planets of origin) in their shared system may impact one another. Further, I think it is safer to assume that the majority of nations in this Assembly are not spacefaring civilizations, and it must be kept in mind that this legislation is also being written for them as well, to ensure that their advancement into the area of space resource extraction is done ethically and responsibly.

With regard to the subject of continuous inhabitation, I am willing to make a change here. Your point about temporary installations is a valid one. It is a bit unreasonable for a project to be delayed or stopped if the beings will no longer be present before any environmentally hazardous effects occur. However, I would stress that uninhabited planets are important and we should care. The entire point of this proposal is to protect the environment of worlds beyond, so that they may one day be host to new life or utilized by future generations. We don't want to leave an empty void in our wake.

I will take all of your commentary into consideration and I will present some changes this week. Thank you for your input.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10393
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:26 pm

I'd imagine that any planet on which there is no multicellular life would not be on the cusp of developing any kind of intelligence, at least within the next few billion years. If you are to impose restrictions re planets with life, I would hope they deal mostly with ones on which intelligence's development could be at least foreseen with any degree of certainty.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Quebecshire

Advertisement

Remove ads