NATION

PASSWORD

[LAST CALL] Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

[LAST CALL] Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals

Postby Walfo » Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:34 am

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Transport

The World Assembly,

Aware of the importance of canals acting as shortcuts on important trade routes,

Seeking to prevent congestion of traffic through such canals while also making transit through the canals safe,

Wishing to encourage nations in charge of such canals to continue allowing their use for international trade and to consider improvements on their infrastructure if necessary,

Hereby,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines:
  1. a "canal" as an artificial waterway built along important shipping routes to allow for the transit of commercial vessels, and creating a shortcut between two large bodies of water, or a large body of water and an international port,
  2. "canal authorities" as personnel authorized to allow or deny the transit of any one ship through the canal, whether on-site or remotely,
  3. a "ship" as a commercial civilian vessel transporting trade goods or passengers;

2. Requires that all canals:
  1. be observed by the canal authorities assigned to them at all times,
  2. have on-call pilots and tugboats to assist ships to pass through the canal safely,
  3. have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary,
  4. have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident, and
  5. are equipped with weather monitoring with communication capability to warn ships of adverse weather conditions;

3. Also requires that canal authorities:
  1. do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with safety and passability of the canal at the time, unless otherwise required by a previously passed and still extant General Assembly resolution,
  2. remain aware of how many vessels and of which size are within the boundaries of the canal at any one time,
  3. take care to not allow more ships to begin the transit through the canal than is safe,
  4. keep in contact with all ships within their area of jurisdiction, and
  5. react to changing conditions and emerging hazards by quickly alerting the ships in transit and those waiting to enter the canal;

4. Mandates that the crews of all ships wishing to pass through the canal,
  1. have made sure that their ship is capable of traveling through the canal in its current condition and the current weather conditions,
  2. take necessary measures to minimize the spread of invasive species,
  3. have competent personnel in control of the ship, at all times when within the canal,
  4. request help from canal authorities to enable safe transit, when necessary,
  5. are able to abide by maritime laws and local regulations,
  6. are able to understand and follow the instructions of canal authorities,
  7. have personal safety equipment for all members of the crew and in the case of passenger ships for all passengers as well, and
  8. stay aware of traffic around them and inform canal authorities of any accidents they witness or of any hazards they encounter that they were not already made aware of;

5. Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships:
  1. damage the canal's infrastructure,
  2. endanger or damage other ships within the canal,
  3. hold up traffic unnecessarily,
  4. or their crews fail any of the duties in clause 4.
Co-authored by Araraukar

Draft IX
Last edited by Walfo on Fri May 07, 2021 6:04 am, edited 29 times in total.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:37 am

Hello everyone, you will be able to find all the old drafts here.
Waffles
The General Assembly,

Aware that canals and vital waterways are necessary for international trade,

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in international waterways and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations with running aground.

Hereby:

1. Defines an international waterway as straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

2. Requires that:
  1. All waterways to become equipped with,
    1. Accurate wind sensors,
    2. Pilots that are familiar with the area,
    3. Proper equipment to deal with any possible situations,
    4. On larger vessels, 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
    3. Asks for:
    1. All boats to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in,
    2. Canals and international waterways to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
      1. If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations,
    3. Contries who need renovations to set aside funds.

4. Prohibits:
  1. Ships that have found their max wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit,
  2. Waterways or canals from withholding windspeed data and
  3. Not partaking in construction to deal with larger ships if the inspection has failed.
[/list]

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that canals and vital waterways are necessary for international trade,

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in international waterways and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations running aground.

Hereby:

1. Defines an international waterway as straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

2. Requires that:
  1. All canals/small straights to become equipped with,
    1. Accurate wind sensors,
    2. Pilots that are familiar with the area,
    3. Proper equipment to deal with any possible situations,
    4. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
  2. Maximum width for canals/small straights needing tugs is 1 mile, minimum 300 feet.

    3. Asks for:
    1. All boats to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the waterway,
    2. Canals and international waterways to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
      1. If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that that waterway is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
    3. Contries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.

    4. Prohibits:
    1. Ships that have been inspected for their max wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit,
    2. Waterways or canals from withholding windspeed data.
[/list]

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that canals and vital waterways are necessary for international trade,

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in international waterways and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations running aground.

Hereby:

1. Defines an international waterway as straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

2. Requires that:
  1. All industrial and shipping canals/small straights to be equipped with,
    1. Wind sensors,
    2. Pilots to maneuver ships,
    3. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
  2. Maximum width for canals/small straights needing tugs is 1 mile, minimum 300 feet.

    3. Additionly Requires:
    1. All boats to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the waterway,
    2. Canals and international waterways to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
      1. If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that that waterway is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
    3. Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.

    4. Prohibits:
    1. Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that canals and straits are necessary for international trade,

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in international waterways and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations running aground.

Hereby:

1.Defines:
  1. A canal as an artificial waterway to allow ships to transit inland.
  2. A strait as a narrow corridor of water that connects two other sizable areas of water.

2. Requires that:
  1. All industrial and shipping canals/small straits to be equipped with,
    1. Wind sensors,
    2. Pilots to maneuver ships,
    3. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
    4. Maximum width for canals/small straits needing tugs is 1 mile, minimum 300 feet.

3. Additionly Requires:
  1. All boats to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the waterway,
  2. Canals and straits to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
    1. If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that that waterway is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
  3. Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.

4. Prohibits:
  1. Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit,
  2. Ships that are wider than a certain canal to refrain from passage.
  3. Canals from withholding data on wind speeds, tides, and the width of the canal from captains and crews.
    [[/list]

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that shipping canals are necessary for international trade,

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in these areas and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations running aground.

Hereby:

1.Defines:
  1. A shipping canal as an artificial waterway built along major routes to enable the passage of sea-going vessels inland.

2. Requires that:
  1. All shipping canals to be equipped with,
    1. Wind sensors,
    2. Pilots to maneuver ships,
    3. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
    4. Maximum width for canals needing tugs is 1 mile, minimum 300 feet.

3. Additionly Requires:
  1. Large ships to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the canal,
  2. Shipping canals to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
    1. If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that that waterway is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
    2. Renovate/expand to allow for the continuation of trade.
  3. Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.

4. Prohibits:
  1. Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that shipping canals are important for present-day international trade in how they allow for alternative routes for vessels,

Believing that in most cases, ships are increasing their size, and canals are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size.

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in canals and continue the constant flow of international trade by regulating ship size changes with canals.

Hereby:

1. Defines:
A shipping canal as an artificial waterway that is built along important seawater routes to allow for the transit of vessels, and for the object of creating a shortcut or between two land-locked water bodies.

2. Requires that:
  1. All shipping canals to be equipped with,
    1. Wind sensors around the canal,
    2. Area pilots to maneuver ships,
    3. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times to help with maneuvering,
    4. Maximum width for canals needing tugs is 5280 feet (1609.344 meters), minimum 300 feet (91.44).

3. Additionally Requires:
  1. Large ships to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the canal,
  2. Ships that pass through canals to be inspected every 5 years to decree if they can deal with the current state of canals,
  3. If the canals, due to the size of the current ships need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that the canal is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
    1. And the number of wide ships that request transport exceeds 1,000.

4. Strongly Recommends:
  1. To renovate/expand the canal to allow for the continuation of trade if possible (if failure of 3b),
  2. In the situation that it is impossible to expand the canal (cities, nature reserves, bridges), the canal does not allow for certain large ships to enter.
  3. Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.


5. Prohibits:
  1. Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit,
  2. Ships that are wider than a certain canal to refrain from passage.
  3. Canal authorities from withholding data on wind speeds, tides, and the width of the canal from captains and crews.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that shipping canals are important for present-day international trade in how they allow for alternative routes for vessels,

Believing that in most cases, ships are increasing their size, and canals are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in canals and continue the constant flow of international trade by regulating ship size changes with canals,

Hereby:

1. Defines a shipping canal as an artificial waterway that is built along important seawater routes to allow for the transit of vessels, and for the object of creating a shortcut or between two land-locked water bodies,

2. Requires that:
  1. All shipping canals are to be equipped with,
    1. Wind sensors around the canal,
    2. Area pilots to maneuver ships,
    3. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times to help with maneuvering,
  2. Maximum width for canals needing tugs is 5280 feet (1609.344 meters), minimum 300 feet (91.44),

3. Additionally Requires:
  1. Large ships to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the canal,
  2. Ships that pass through canals to be inspected every 5 years to decree if they can deal with the current state of canals,
  3. If the canals, due to the size of the current ships need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that the canal is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
    1. And the number of wide ships that request transport exceeds 1,000,

4. Strongly Recommends:
  1. To renovate/expand the canal to allow for the continuation of trade if possible (if failure of 3b),
  2. In the situation that it is impossible to expand the canal (cities, nature reserves, bridges), the canal does not allow for certain large ships to enter,
  3. Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage,

5. Prohibits:
  1. Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit,
  2. Ships that are wider than a certain canal to refrain from passage,
  3. Canal authorities from withholding data on wind speeds, tides, and the width of the canal from captains and crews.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant


The General Assembly,

Aware that shipping canals are important for present-day international trade in how they allow for alternative routes for vessels,

Believing that in most cases, ships are increasing their size, and canals are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size,

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in canals and continue the constant flow of international trade by regulating ship size changes with canals,

Hereby:

1. Defines a shipping canal as an artificial waterway that is built along important seawater routes to allow for the transit of vessels, and for the object of creating a shortcut or between two land-locked water bodies,

2. Requires that:
  1. All shipping canals are to be equipped with,
    1. Wind sensors around the canal,
    2. Area pilots to maneuver ships,
    3. Rescue equipment,
    4. Devices to actively communicate with ships,
    5. Devices to track all vessels that are in transport,
    6. On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times to help with maneuvering,
  2. Maximum width for canals needing tugs is 5280 feet (1609.344 meters), minimum 300 feet (91.44),

3. Additionally Requires:
  1. Large ships to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the canal,
  2. Ships that pass through canals to be inspected every 5 years to decree if they can deal with the current state of canals,
  3. If the canals, due to the size of the current ships need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that the canal is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
    1. And the number of wide ships that want to have transport exceeds 1,000,
  4. Shipping companies to be responsible for the costs of widening the canal (also deepening) and the measures to stop invasive species,

4. Mandates
  1. Shipping companies to be responsible to give compensation to canal authorities for:
    1. Damages to canal structures and resources,
    2. Holding up traffic unnecessarily,

5. Strongly Recommends:
  1. To renovate/expand the canal to allow for the continuation of trade if possible (if failure of 3b),
  2. In the situation that it is impossible to expand the canal (cities, nature reserves, bridges), the canal does not allow for ships too large to have transport,

6. Prohibits:
  1. Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit,
  2. Ships that are wider than a certain canal to refrain from passage,
  3. Canal authorities from withholding data on wind speeds, tides, and the width of the canal from captains and crews.
Last edited by Walfo on Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 533
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:37 am

"Ambassador, since these waterways benefits more than just the country that owns them and not all countries that own them might be able afford such big costs, shouldn't the WA fund their renovation and extension?"
Last edited by Ardiveds on Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:41 am

Greater Cesnica wrote:"Ambassador, the correct spelling is 'Standards', not 'Standerts'."

lol. Cannot believe spell check did not pick that up!
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7043
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:41 am

Walfo wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:"Ambassador, the correct spelling is 'Standards', not 'Standerts'."

lol. Cannot believe spell check did not pick that up!

OOC: It happens to the best of us haha

User avatar
South Bengal
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Apr 11, 2018
Anarchy

Postby South Bengal » Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:43 am

"Support, however, there might be a credible case of duplication of GA 34 and 478. If there's no basis for duplication the delegation from South Bengal recommends utilising the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) established in GA 34 and pertaining to the international nature of the matter the use of the World Assembly Fund to finance required infrastructure in nations that might struggle to build these facilities."

User avatar
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:33 am

South Bengal wrote:"Support, however, there might be a credible case of duplication of GA 34 and 478. If there's no basis for duplication the delegation from South Bengal recommends utilising the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) established in GA 34 and pertaining to the international nature of the matter the use of the World Assembly Fund to finance required infrastructure in nations that might struggle to build these facilities."

The original had an amendment that stated: Asks for the ITSC to create a further committe to deal with specific maritime safety in waterways.
How would I legally be able to utilize the ITSC in this proposal? (due to the fact that the original amendment did not pertain to the rules). Also to add, this proposal focuses on international waterways which received no attention in both.
Last edited by Walfo on Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10386
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:36 am

First, it should be 'InteRnational Waterways' in the topic thread/title.

That out of the way, I'm not sure as to we even should call something like the Suez canal (the seeming obvious source of inspiration here) an international waterway. It seem to be an Egyptian waterway owned and operated by the Egyptian government. It perhaps might have been an international waterway before 1956 when the owners of the canal were expropriated without compensation. But if we view a port like Trieste as a place accessible via Suez (a major port reliant on Suez access in the time of the Austro-Hungarian empire) it also doesn't fall into the definition given in section 1, as the port is not 'otherwise[] land-locked' due to the strait at Gibraltar. And a canal like Panama has no real 'interior'. Surely both San Francisco and New York are exterior ports.

The waterways cannot be equipped with accurate wind sensors. Necessarily such things would be built near or around the waterways. Perhaps the authority controlling the waterway, if it exists, would employ such people. Broadly though, I'm not sure whether self-regulation isn't acceptable. A waterway makes money by charging fees for passage. The authority has direct incentives to ensure that passage is safe, efficient, and rapid. To that end, most large canals like Suez have dedicated pilots and effective means to deal with the possibility of groundings. Smaller canals, like Kiel, will not need something like two tug boats at bow and stern. Huge straits, currently included in the definition, like Gibraltar would not need any assistance at all, being eight or so miles in width.

As to enforcement of the provision related to maximum wind speed inspection, why would the specific aerodynamic characteristics of the ship itself be very relevant? Would it not change based on the cargo, weight, and other storage characteristics related to what is on the ship? Surely if the Ever Given were entirely empty it would have a far more aerodynamic horizontal cross-section. Moreover, the the idea of forcing possibly-impoverished member nations to 'partake in construction to deal with larger ships' also seems foolish. There exist many ships which are larger than Suezmax or Panamax. To force expansion of Suez merely because someone has built a larger ship somewhere, with the intention of travelling via Good Hope, would be an immense waste of resources.

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
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:25 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:First, it should be 'InteRnational Waterways' in the topic thread/title.

That out of the way, I'm not sure as to we even should call something like the Suez canal (the seeming obvious source of inspiration here) an international waterway. It seem to be an Egyptian waterway owned and operated by the Egyptian government. It perhaps might have been an international waterway before 1956 when the owners of the canal were expropriated without compensation. But if we view a port like Trieste as a place accessible via Suez (a major port reliant on Suez access in the time of the Austro-Hungarian empire) it also doesn't fall into the definition given in section 1, as the port is not 'otherwise[] land-locked' due to the strait at Gibraltar. And a canal like Panama has no real 'interior'. Surely both San Francisco and New York are exterior ports.

The waterways cannot be equipped with accurate wind sensors. Necessarily such things would be built near or around the waterways. Perhaps the authority controlling the waterway, if it exists, would employ such people. Broadly though, I'm not sure whether self-regulation isn't acceptable. A waterway makes money by charging fees for passage. The authority has direct incentives to ensure that passage is safe, efficient, and rapid. To that end, most large canals like Suez have dedicated pilots and effective means to deal with the possibility of groundings. Smaller canals, like Kiel, will not need something like two tug boats at bow and stern. Huge straits, currently included in the definition, like Gibraltar would not need any assistance at all, being eight or so miles in width.

As to enforcement of the provision related to maximum wind speed inspection, why would the specific aerodynamic characteristics of the ship itself be very relevant? Would it not change based on the cargo, weight, and other storage characteristics related to what is on the ship? Surely if the Ever Given were entirely empty it would have a far more aerodynamic horizontal cross-section. Moreover, the the idea of forcing possibly-impoverished member nations to 'partake in construction to deal with larger ships' also seems foolish. There exist many ships which are larger than Suezmax or Panamax. To force expansion of Suez merely because someone has built a larger ship somewhere, with the intention of travelling via Good Hope, would be an immense waste of resources.

As shown in the definition, it does not matter who owns the canal. An international waterway is one "that connects two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked". The Suez canal adheres to this definition. As well, a canal such as Keil, would not require a tugboat because I stated it is for larger vessels, and by that supertankers. I can change that. Also, you have brought to my attention that larger straights like Gibraltar would not need tugboats or sensors. Perhaps this part could only adhere to canals or small straights. Also on the weight, perhaps before entering a canal, a ship should be inspected on its limitations. Your point with the fact that some canals do not need this, I could add the amendment that the canal or waterway to be renovated must be the ONLY way to effectively transport vessels of increased size. How does that sound?
Last edited by Walfo on Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 533
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:33 pm

OOC: Just out of curiosity, which country, not currently landlocked, would become so if the suez canal wasn't there?
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
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:58 pm

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, since these waterways benefits more than just the country that owns them and not all countries that own them might be able afford such big costs, shouldn't the WA fund their renovation and extension?"


"Absolutely not, the General Fund is not a bottomless pit. Let the operators of these waterways charge a fee for usage."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10386
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:29 pm

Walfo wrote:As shown in the definition, it does not matter who owns the canal. An international waterway is one "that connects two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked". The Suez canal adheres to this definition.

Sure. My remarks have to do with the correctness of assigning the moniker 'international waterway'. I could create a definition for 'pods of air' to mean 'military small arms capable of repeating fire of small calibre bullets' but that perhaps would be a less than correct assignment. It might even be impactful if that definition were used in a proposal.

Walfo wrote:As well, a canal such as Keil, would not require a tugboat because I stated it is for larger vessels, and by that supertankers. I can change that. Also, you have brought to my attention that larger straights like Gibraltar would not need tugboats or sensors. Perhaps this part could only adhere to canals or small straights. Also on the weight, perhaps before entering a canal, a ship should be inspected on its limitations. Your point with the fact that some canals do not need this, I could add the amendment that the canal or waterway to be renovated must be the ONLY way to effectively transport vessels of increased size. How does that sound?

There are a few other questions that then emerge.

Yes, it would probably be a good idea of limit any requirement for superfluous or unnecessary action to only where it is needed. Large ships do not need help to cross the strait at Gibraltar. To force them to request or take help is little more than a jobs programme. Canals also come in many different sizes. It is impractical, for example, for tugboats to be attached to the ends of ships transiting the locks at the Panama Canal. They might be crushed between the lock and the ship and the design of the locks mostly reduces any kind of jostling associated regardless.

The weight of a ship is perhaps important, but it is far less important in a place like Suez than in a place like Panama, where ships must be lifted through locks. Given that a ship's weight is directly connected to its displacement and, therefore, its draft, I would imagine that any responsible canal authority would conduct checks quite simply and efficiently. Surely the canal authority, if it seeks to make money, would understand what would fit in their canal and what would not. Even if they do not, it is illogical to spend enormous time and effort to reduce the impact of freak and low probability accidents.

I'm interpreting your use of 'this' in 'some canals do not need this' to refer to expansion. Forcing expansion because someone built a bigger ship and says they want to use the canal when it does not fit is a strange idea. Surely the question of canal expansion should be decided by the owners of the canal rather than forced upon them by shipbuilders?

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
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:36 am

2nd draft is out! Please give me your opinions!
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8173
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:53 am

Some observations and questions:
  • Article 2b sets relatively arbitrary standards for all canals, international or not, and would not have stopped the Ever Given incident. You should have a {/list} tag (replace curly brackets with square brackets) after this Article, but do not.
  • Article 2a "Requires that all canals/small straights to become equipped with" particular equipment; this does not make grammatical sense ("...be equipped with..." instead?). You similarly misspell "small straights" in Article 2 and "countries" in Article 3c; these should be "small straits" and "countries" instead. (What is a "small strai[gh]t?")
  • In Article 1, you define "international waterways" but do not use that term other than in Article 3b - which is a nonbinding, "Asks for" clause. Article 2, in particular, is focused on "canals/small straights," regardless of where in the WA they are located and regardless of how much international utility they have.
  • Article 2a(i) requires that canals and small straits be "equipped with accurate wind sensors." How accurate?
  • Article 2a(ii) requires that canals and small straits have "pilots that are familiar with the area." What area and why would a body of water need a pilot in the first place... or am I just misreading this?
  • Article 2a(iii) further requires that they possess "proper equipment to deal with any possible situations" - what equipment and why do you not require them to ever actually use it?
  • Article 2a(iv) requires that canals and small straits, not the boats that pass through them, have "2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times." Why?
  • Why does Article 3b(a), a section which I can make neither head nor tail out of in the first place, have to be split out into a one-item list?
  • Why do you use "max" instead of "maximum" in Article 4a?
  • How are you going to expect "waterways [and] canals," which are non-sapient, to "withhold... windspeed data?" And from whom does windspeed data have to be withheld from for it to be illegal?
crap... that actually turned out to be a lot of observations
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

I STAND WITH PAM DUNCAN-GLANCY

User avatar
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:42 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Some observations and questions:
  • Article 2a(iii) further requires that they possess "proper equipment to deal with any possible situations" - what equipment and why do you not require them to ever actually use it?
  • Article 2a(iv) requires that canals and small straits, not the boats that pass through them, have "2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times." Why?
Just edited it! Thanks for the ideas, remember this is my first proposal. But I do have some clarifying questions for you and comments. Also, should I add that most of these regulations are for industrial and commercial canals and straights? 1st bullet, now it is required, but I think I am going to make another list of proper items. 2nd bullet, changed the requirement to industrial and commercial waterways, and the tugs will be useful to maneuver HUGE ships effectively through these areas.
Last edited by Walfo on Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8173
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:00 pm

Article 1 of your draft reads:
Defines an international waterway as straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

Encyclopedia.com's entry on "International Waterways" reads:
In international law, international waterways are straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

Ergo, your draft is illegal for plagiarism.

Will offer even more feedback later.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

I STAND WITH PAM DUNCAN-GLANCY

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 533
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:01 pm

OOC: I'm fairly certain 'straight' is not synonymous with 'strait'.
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
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:18 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Article 1 of your draft reads:
Defines an international waterway as straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

Encyclopedia.com's entry on "International Waterways" reads:
In international law, international waterways are straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked.

Ergo, your draft is illegal for plagiarism.

Will offer even more feedback later.

Plagiarism is gone, I even replaced the definition because International Waterways was not the focus but rather Canals and Straits. I paraphrased the google definitions.
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: I'm fairly certain 'straight' is not synonymous with 'strait'.

Fixed.
Last edited by Walfo on Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 555
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:13 am

'A few comments:

The definition in s. 1. a) now is worded in such a way that every inland waterway is included; the use of the qualifier 'usually' makes the requirement for atificiality moot. Is this intentional, and if yes, why?

What would constitute an 'industrial canal' or a 'shipping canal' as per s. 2. a)? Also, if there is no b, there is no need for an a.
Similarly, what is the difference between a small strait and a normal strait, also s. 2 a).

What is the justification for the arbitrary numbers in s. 2. a) iv)?

The way s. 3. a) is worded, 'to receive inspection [...] when entering the waterway' might lead to confusion as to when this inspection should take place, at the moment, it could be understood that such an inspection is mandatory each and every time a vessel would like to enter any waterway in question.

S. 3. b) makes no allowances of different waterways being suitable for different sizes of vessels. Surely a small inland canal connecting two small rivers has no need to be able to be navigated by 400m supertankers.

S. 3. b) a) (which is also inconsistent formatting to s. 2) is rather incomprehensible; if the canals can work with the sizes and they need renovations etc. in the scenario they are the only waterway... then what?'
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:35 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:'A few comments:

The definition in s. 1. a) now is worded in such a way that every inland waterway is included; the use of the qualifier 'usually' makes the requirement for atificiality moot. Is this intentional, and if yes, why?

What would constitute an 'industrial canal' or a 'shipping canal' as per s. 2. a)? Also, if there is no b, there is no need for an a.
Similarly, what is the difference between a small strait and a normal strait, also s. 2 a).

What is the justification for the arbitrary numbers in s. 2. a) iv)?

The way s. 3. a) is worded, 'to receive inspection [...] when entering the waterway' might lead to confusion as to when this inspection should take place, at the moment, it could be understood that such an inspection is mandatory each and every time a vessel would like to enter any waterway in question.

S. 3. b) makes no allowances of different waterways being suitable for different sizes of vessels. Surely a small inland canal connecting two small rivers has no need to be able to be navigated by 400m supertankers.

S. 3. b) a) (which is also inconsistent formatting to s. 2) is rather incomprehensible; if the canals can work with the sizes and they need renovations etc. in the scenario they are the only waterway... then what?'

1st comment, fixed to artificial.
2nd comment, only shipping canals (there is no such thing as an industrial canal). Straits eliminated because they are large enough to not have problems.
3rd comment, it is necessary to define the size to set a standard on the maximum width for a canal to be, because if it were not for the definition, any canal could have it, and that would mean that either the tugs would get crushed, or tugs would be attached in 5 mile wide areas which are unnecessary.
4th comment, fixed for only large ships. I do have a question. Do you think that I should define a large ship or vessel?
5th comment changed to shipping canals, which do not constitute small canals like the one you are talking about. Sea-going vessels are larger than regular canal boats (as provided in the definition.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15506
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:15 pm

OOC: On a mobile device so comments in blue instead of separate quotes, because handwriting code is annoying.

Walfo wrote:Aware that shipping canals are necessary for international trade,
They are? Since when? Even in RL international trade shipping happened long before canals existed.

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,
Isn't that the fault of the shipbuilders instead?

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in these areas and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations running aground.
This sentence doesn't make much sense. Also, why do you keep saying "these areas" if you mean canals?

1.Defines: A shipping canal as an artificial waterway built along major routes to enable the passage of sea-going vessels inland.
No need for subclause list code when there is only one. And built along WHAT routes? Sea currents? And this definition seems to say this whole thing only applies to canals through which seagoing vessels move inland, like the Saimaa Canal, and NOT ones like Suez and Panama.

2. Requires that:
All shipping canals to be equipped with,
Wind sensors,
What are wind sensors? Do you mean the things that look like pillowcases on poles? And why would that even be relevant? Commercial transport ships are required to be able to communicate with local authorities and could and should get a local weather conditions and forecast report from authorities before entering a confined space that might have other traffic too.

Pilots to maneuver ships,
Don't all ships already have someone at the proverbial wheel?

On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
As was already pointed out, most ships move in canals under their own power, not due to tugboats pulling them. And what good are tugboats at the stern? Are they pushing the bigger ship or what?

Maximum width for canals needing tugs is 1 mile, minimum 300 feet.
How much is that in metres? And why narrower canals don't need these? One would think they especially needed more precise movements.

3. Additionly Requires:
Typo in additionally.

Large ships to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the canal,
What do ship inspections have to do with windspeeds?

Shipping canals to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
Wouldn't it be more useful in terms of safety to inspect them (far more regularly) to make sure that they still are, you know, safe for the ships passing through?

If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that that waterway is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
What? If they can fit (work is unprofessional word) the current ship population (freakishly big ships might exist, but if they form only 0.000001% of all freight ships, that's like making all rain cloaks 2.4 metres long because one of the few individuals to ever grow anywhere near that height might need a rain cloak one day), then why would they need any extensions or renovations?

Renovate/expand to allow for the continuation of trade.
Again, nowhere is it said this only applies if they can't handle the traffic. Also, what do you do if the expansion is not possible? Canals do go through cities on occasion, bridges cross them often, geology might make it impossible to expand it safely, and what if some endangered species lives at or nature reserve begins 2 metres offshore of the canal?

Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.
Are you saying they should massively raise prices to cover the costs? How would that fit in the category?

Also, these subclauses do not flow with the main clause.


4. Prohibits:
Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit
Lacking ending period, and again WTF is this focus on windspeeds? Wouldn't width and draft and manouvering capabilities of the ship be much more important? Or phase of tide? Because, you know, ships travel on water.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:14 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: On a mobile device so comments in blue instead of separate quotes, because handwriting code is annoying.

Walfo wrote:Aware that shipping canals are necessary for international trade,
They are? Since when? Even in RL international trade shipping happened long before canals existed.

Believing that in most cases, these areas are not properly equipped for dealing with the increasing size of vessels,
Isn't that the fault of the shipbuilders instead?

Seeking to prevent unneeded congestion in these areas and to continue the constant flow of international trade especially situations running aground.
This sentence doesn't make much sense. Also, why do you keep saying "these areas" if you mean canals?

1.Defines: A shipping canal as an artificial waterway built along major routes to enable the passage of sea-going vessels inland.
No need for subclause list code when there is only one. And built along WHAT routes? Sea currents? And this definition seems to say this whole thing only applies to canals through which seagoing vessels move inland, like the Saimaa Canal, and NOT ones like Suez and Panama.

2. Requires that:
All shipping canals to be equipped with,
Wind sensors,
What are wind sensors? Do you mean the things that look like pillowcases on poles? And why would that even be relevant? Commercial transport ships are required to be able to communicate with local authorities and could and should get a local weather conditions and forecast report from authorities before entering a confined space that might have other traffic too.

Pilots to maneuver ships,
Don't all ships already have someone at the proverbial wheel?

On larger vessels (supertankers, large container ships), 2 tugs connected to the bow and stern at all times.
As was already pointed out, most ships move in canals under their own power, not due to tugboats pulling them. And what good are tugboats at the stern? Are they pushing the bigger ship or what?

Maximum width for canals needing tugs is 1 mile, minimum 300 feet.
How much is that in metres? And why narrower canals don't need these? One would think they especially needed more precise movements.

3. Additionly Requires:
Typo in additionally.

Large ships to receive inspections to find the maximum wind speed they can maneuver in when entering the canal,
What do ship inspections have to do with windspeeds?

Shipping canals to be inspected every decade to decree if they can deal with current ships and,
Wouldn't it be more useful in terms of safety to inspect them (far more regularly) to make sure that they still are, you know, safe for the ships passing through?

If they can work with the size of the current ships and need extensions or renovations only in the scenario that that waterway is the only way to effectively transport vessels,
What? If they can fit (work is unprofessional word) the current ship population (freakishly big ships might exist, but if they form only 0.000001% of all freight ships, that's like making all rain cloaks 2.4 metres long because one of the few individuals to ever grow anywhere near that height might need a rain cloak one day), then why would they need any extensions or renovations?

Renovate/expand to allow for the continuation of trade.
Again, nowhere is it said this only applies if they can't handle the traffic. Also, what do you do if the expansion is not possible? Canals do go through cities on occasion, bridges cross them often, geology might make it impossible to expand it safely, and what if some endangered species lives at or nature reserve begins 2 metres offshore of the canal?

Countries who need renovations to set aside funds through fees of usage.
Are you saying they should massively raise prices to cover the costs? How would that fit in the category?

Also, these subclauses do not flow with the main clause.


4. Prohibits:
Ships that have been inspected for their maximum wind maneuvering speed to continue transport when the wind speed exceeds the limit
Lacking ending period, and again WTF is this focus on windspeeds? Wouldn't width and draft and manouvering capabilities of the ship be much more important? Or phase of tide? Because, you know, ships travel on water.

1st point, fixed.
2nd point, fixed.
3rd point, fixed.
4th point, fixed.
5th point, this makes it necessary for wind sensors to be equipped. This proposal sets standards to make sure that this is done for the safety of ships and canals.
6th point, fixed, I always meant area pilots, but I made it more specific.
7th point, fixed, tugboats on the bow and stern will provide for maneuvering, and this is very useful on large ships to grant them better maneuverability than they would under their own power. The tugs can also provide braking power.
8th point, fixed, narrower canals would not be able to fit large vessels and a tugboat. In order to prevent the ships from being crushed or crushing others, these standards must be put in place to make sure that does not happen.
9th point, fixed
10th point, fixed, the weight or draft of a ship can determine if it can maneuver in the wind speeds. Especially with container ships that struggle in high winds, this is necessary for confined spaces
11th point, fixed, changed to 5 years and the ships are inspected, not the canals, but inspected if they can work with the canals.
12th point, fixed, VERY GOOD POINT! Changed to needed extensions if requesting ships that are too large reach 1,000.
13th point, fixed, another good point! Changed so that if there are blocking sources or natural recourses, the extensions do not need to be made, but ships are not allowed to enter if they are too large.
14th point, fixed, changed to non-withholding, and this does not imply that the change is great. All it says not is to recommend to charge the prices, or charge if not doing so.
15th point, fixed, FINAL POINT! Changed to withholding other data including tides, width etc. Once again setting standards, so this also stands to guide against doing these things.
My friend, this was very useful in guiding the proposal. I hope these fixes answer your questions and edits. Let me know if they did not, or you need some new info.
Waffles
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 533
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:24 am

OOC: Why is there a max size for canals needing tugboats? This is not a suggestion, I'm genuinely curious cause I got no idea about any of this shit :)
Last edited by Ardiveds on Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Walfo
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Dec 11, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Walfo » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:41 am

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: Why is there a max size for canals needing tugboats? This is not a suggestion, I'm genuinely curious cause I got no idea about any of this shit :)

You need a max size because do you really think it would be necessary for a tug to be attached in a 2-mile wide area? I think not.
Nickname: Waffles
Current Representative to the WA of Walfo: Barthélémy Timéo
"Never quit or hide from what you believe is right."-Neil I

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arr

Advertisement

Remove ads