[DEFEATED] Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals

[Outer Sparta]

Does you proposal address any problems with ships potentially getting stuck (like the Suez Canal with that Evergreen ship )?

[Walfo]

Does you proposal address any problems with ships potentially getting stuck (like the Suez Canal with that Evergreen ship )?

This proposal works to make sure something like that does not happen. Wind speed is something that is mentioned several times as a catalyst to prevent and work against. The Ever Given was just a highly publicized situation, but many container ships have problems with wind. I think that my proposal gives good solutions.

[Minskiev]

Some notes:

Why the bold? Purely stylistic concern, by the way.

I'd rewrite Clause 1 as simply

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,

Some of the points in your preamble and clauses end with periods, however the rest end in commas. Which is it? (I'd go with commas/semicolons)

2a should be:

All shipping canals are to be equipped with:

2a section iv should be 2b

The 'Requires' in 3 and the 'Recommends' in 4 should be lowercase

The spacing between your main clauses is inconsistent

Who exactly is doing all of this? Clarify if it's a WA org or member states. If the former, I'll probably oppose. If the latter, clarify that this is for member states with canals.

I'm sure there's some reorganization to be done, as this proposal currently looks a little sloppy.

[Walfo]

Some notes:

Why the bold? Purely stylistic concern, by the way.

I'd rewrite Clause 1 as simply

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,

Some of the points in your preamble and clauses end with periods, however the rest end in commas. Which is it? (I'd go with commas/semicolons)

2a should be:

All shipping canals are to be equipped with:

2a section iv should be 2b

The 'Requires' in 3 and the 'Recommends' in 4 should be lowercase

The spacing between your main clauses is inconsistent

Who exactly is doing all of this? Clarify if it's a WA org or member states. If the former, I'll probably oppose. If the latter, clarify that this is for member states with canals.

I'm sure there's some reorganization to be done, as this proposal currently looks a little sloppy.

1st point, fixed, changed to italics.
2nd point, What did you change? It looks the same!
3rd point, fixed, all commas now
4th point, fixed, reworded, added "are"
5th point, fixed
6th point, fixed
7th point, fixed
8th point, this applies (because how the WA works) to all WA members by default. I do not know if I can change that. Also, we have to assume that the only nations that will really be affected and deal with this legislation are ones with shipping canals, or will in the future.

[Minskiev]

Some notes:

Why the bold? Purely stylistic concern, by the way.

I'd rewrite Clause 1 as simply

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,

Some of the points in your preamble and clauses end with periods, however the rest end in commas. Which is it? (I'd go with commas/semicolons)

2a should be:

All shipping canals are to be equipped with:

2a section iv should be 2b

The 'Requires' in 3 and the 'Recommends' in 4 should be lowercase

The spacing between your main clauses is inconsistent

Who exactly is doing all of this? Clarify if it's a WA org or member states. If the former, I'll probably oppose. If the latter, clarify that this is for member states with canals.

I'm sure there's some reorganization to be done, as this proposal currently looks a little sloppy.

1st point, fixed, changed to italics.
2nd point, What did you change? It looks the same!
3rd point, fixed, all commas now
4th point, fixed, reworded, added "are"
5th point, fixed
6th point, fixed
7th point, fixed
8th point, this applies (because how the WA works) to all WA members by default. I do not know if I can change that. Also, we have to assume that the only nations that will really be affected and deal with this legislation are ones with shipping canals, or will in the future.

I meant that things such as the canal sizing regulations should only be applicable for nations with canals, but things like ship regulations are fine for all nations, canals or not. And your second point doesn't answer my question. Are WA orgs that are paid for by all member states doing work in only some member states? Or are member states with canals doing this work on their canals?

Oh, and my first point was just saying that making the text "special" was pointless. Italicizing it didn't fix anything, however, remember that it's your proposal, so stylize it how you want.

My second point made 1. Defines: [new line] ... into 1. Defines...

[Walfo]

1st point, fixed, changed to italics.
2nd point, What did you change? It looks the same!
3rd point, fixed, all commas now
4th point, fixed, reworded, added "are"
5th point, fixed
6th point, fixed
7th point, fixed
8th point, this applies (because how the WA works) to all WA members by default. I do not know if I can change that. Also, we have to assume that the only nations that will really be affected and deal with this legislation are ones with shipping canals, or will in the future.

I meant that things such as the canal sizing regulations should only be applicable for nations with canals, but things like ship regulations are fine for all nations, canals or not. And your second point doesn't answer my question. Are WA orgs that are paid for by all member states doing work in only some member states? Or are member states with canals doing this work on their canals?

Oh, and my first point was just saying that making the text "special" was pointless. Italicizing it didn't fix anything, however, remember that it's your proposal, so stylize it how you want.

My second point made 1. Defines: [new line] ... into 1. Defines...

Your second point I agree with, and I changed the "define". With your question about the WA orgs, I am assuming that member states will do the work on their canals if they have one. This proposal requires that nations with canals follow these safety standards. It also asks to partake in enlarging protocols if possible. As shown in 4C, the proposal also recommends for those countries to set aside funds through fees of usage which once again implies that they take care of themselves. So, in summary, to answer your question, the nations that have canals will do work on their canals if the situation appears. WA members with no canals will not need to supply funds for those who do. Also, I am changing the Italics to bold again! I liked it better!

[Araraukar]

this makes it necessary for wind sensors to be equipped.

OOC: You didn't answer what wind sensors are or why existing ones for weather forecast services are not adequate?

Also, why should canals be expanded to deal with bigger vessels if the bigger vessels were never intended to go through canals?

[Walfo]

this makes it necessary for wind sensors to be equipped.

OOC: You didn't answer what wind sensors are or why existing ones for weather forecast services are not adequate?

Also, why should canals be expanded to deal with bigger vessels if the bigger vessels were never intended to go through canals?

1st point. For some weather stations, to record the wind they use wind sensors, so having a private system that the canal uses will be just as useful. As well, I am assuming that a weather service only gives you the speed in a certain area. In canals, the wind speed can vary in many places, so why I stated this part of the proposal is to make sure that the accurate picture of the whole area is covered.
2nd point. Just ask the Americans why they expanded the Panama canal! As well, it is stated in this proposal (3c I) that the renovations are strongly recommended if "the number of wide ships that request transport exceeds 1,000. ". This means that the ships that are larger than the canals request transport several times. If we can understand that shipping companies have an interest in traveling through the canals (but some might not because of the toll) then it makes perfect sense to renovate it. As well, the section that requests renovation is non-withholding so countries could still not do it, but if they don't, they are strongly recommended that "the canal does not allow for certain large ships to enter" (4b).

[Araraukar]

1st point. For some weather stations, to record the wind they use wind sensors

OOC: So for the third time, what are wind sensors?

so having a private system that the canal uses will be just as useful.

Private?

As well, I am assuming that a weather service only gives you the speed in a certain area.

I don't know any weather service that doesn't also give direction.

In canals, the wind speed can vary in many places, so why I stated this part of the proposal is to make sure that the accurate picture of the whole area is covered.

...and the ships are going to get the information exactly how? By communicating with the canal authorities to get the local weather data? Like I said they should do.

Just ask the Americans why they expanded the Panama canal!

Better yet, ask the Americans why they do anything instead of the nation they cut in half with the canal. (Also, given it's Americans, it's a fair bet the answer to your question is "profit". )

But you're missing the point. Most of the superwhatevers in RL are built with the very expectation of not being able to use the canals and instead go around the landmasses. So why should canal-operating nations widen (and deepen) their canals when the biggest ships were never designed to go through them?

This means that the ships that are larger than the canals request transport several times.

...but they wouldn't request to be allowed into a canal they know they're too big to fit in...

If we can understand that shipping companies have an interest in traveling through the canals (but some might not because of the toll) then it makes perfect sense to renovate it.

For the shipping companies, sure, because they aren't the ones paying for all the costs and doing all construction and relocation work necessary. In fact, make the shipping companies wanting the expansion of the canal to be 100% responsible for all the costs of widening the canal (also deepening) and all the measures to stop invasive species from hitching a ride through them, and see if they're still interested in getting their superwhatevers through there.

they are strongly recommended that "the canal does not allow for certain large ships to enter"

That's common sense. I don't think you need to have a common sense clause. Or if you must, then instead of "certain large ships" make it "ships too large to fit the canal".

Also, something entirely missing here, that should be there, given your title has "safety" on it, is for canal authorities to have any kind of rescue equipment for emergencies, or active communication with the ships passing through them or even tracking of the ships currently in transit through the canal.

You should also require compensation from the shipping companies or ship owners (if they're not the same thing) if their ships damage the structures of the canal or block the passage of other traffic through the canal for longer than normal transit through it takes in the weather conditions at the time.

EDIT: You currently prohibit ships too big for the canals to decide to not try to go into them.

[Walfo]

OOC: So for the third time, what are wind sensors?

Wind sensors are devices that measure the wind speed and its direction.

Private?

Owned and maintained by canal authorities, but still accessible to the public.

...and the ships are going to get the information exactly how? By communicating with the canal authorities to get the local weather data? Like I said they should do.

Of course, canal authorities will communicate with crews!

...but they wouldn't request to be allowed into a canal they know they're too big to fit in...

Still keeping it, because if shipping companies have interest, then renovations should (if possible) take place.

For the shipping companies, sure, because they aren't the ones paying for all the costs and doing all construction and relocation work necessary. In fact, make the shipping companies wanting the expansion of the canal to be 100% responsible for all the costs of widening the canal (also deepening) and all the measures to stop invasive species from hitching a ride through them, and see if they're still interested in getting their superwhatevers through there.

Changed it, that is a good idea. I do want to hear from others if that will lose their support.

That's common sense. I don't think you need to have a common sense clause. Or if you must, then instead of "certain large ships" make it "ships too large to fit the canal".

Changed.

Also, something entirely missing here, that should be there, given your title has "safety" on it, is for canal authorities to have any kind of rescue equipment for emergencies, or active communication with the ships passing through them or even tracking of the ships currently in transit through the canal.

Added

You should also require compensation from the shipping companies or ship owners (if they're not the same thing) if their ships damage the structures of the canal or block the passage of other traffic through the canal for longer than normal transit through it takes in the weather conditions at the time.

Added

[Free Ravensburg]

I must ask, even though that this might have already been answered, but is this related to the ship that got stuck in the Suez this year?

[Walfo]

I must ask, even though that this might have already been answered, but is this related to the ship that got stuck in the Suez this year?

Yes, I asked IA on how to find inspiration, and this stood out!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Rather than debate every single point with you, I decided it'd be easier to show what I mean with a complete overhaul of your proposal. If you like this rewrittal and want to base your proposal on it, I would like co-author credit. If you decide you don't want it, let me know and I'll remove it.

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 personnell 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.

Reasons for changes and additions:

Preamble: Streamlining, really, and removing the "make them bigger" stuff (more on that later).

Clause 1:

1. Decided there was no reason to not include freshwater canals as long as they are part of an important shipping route. Internationality emphasized as I understood that to be the whole point of this.
2. Tried to write the thing without this and realized I really need to have it properly defined. Remote bit allows air traffic control style control to happen from further away (might be necessary for safety reasons to avoid terrorist attacks or whatever).
3. Also I got tired of repeating "commercial civilian vessel" so it was easier to define a ship as such. Passenger travel included to not stop ships carrying both passengers and cargo from being included.

Clause 2:

1. Should be obvious.
2. Combines the bits about pilots and tugboats, and the "on-call" bit means that they're not required to be used by ships that don't need them.
3. This really replaces all of the "make them bigger", and it does so in far fewer words and in a far less "in your face" manner. Upgrade when necessary, not just because someone thinks they need a bigger boat. Do note that it is a requirement, here, but contains the "when necessary" to give some leeway to the people in charge of them.
4. Leaving it as "necessary" so as to not need to separately specify fire suppression and airlifting and whatnot. Emergency services covers it all.
5. It makes more sense to have weather monitoring instead of wind monitoring alone, and the "communication capability" suggests automation, but to account for various levels of technology, does not require it. You might have a dude with a loudspeaker yelling from the shore, if it meant the people on the ships heard it.

Clause 3: Separate from requirements for canals because it made no sense to lump an inanimate object and people looking after it, under same category.

1. I tried various wordings of "don't discriminate" but then went for the opposite. The bit about previous resolutions is there because trade embargoes exist and are even mandated in certain situations.
2. Should be quite obvious.
3. Should also be obvious.
4. The "area of jurisdiction" might involve more than just the canal itself, given they might also be in control of the traffic near the ends of the canal, hence left a bit more open for nations to decide on their own.
5. I live far enough north that ice is an annual hazard for shipping, hence "changing conditions and emerging hazards", because I can totally see a situation where one end of the canal acquires an ice pack that needs to be dealt with, before more ships can get through. Or an ice breaker needed to re-open the canal itself for traffic.

Clause 4: The crews are responsible for their actions, so they should have their minimum responsibilities listed.

1. This does away with all the faff about windspeeds and ship draft and width and engine power and whatever. And makes it the responsibility of the crew to find out if their ship can go through. Clause 5 deals with what happens if they don't.
2. This is there partially to be in line with existing resolutions and also because it's an effing big issue with canals and traffic through them. And ships' crews should make sure they've had their ships cleaned of zebra mussels anything they might transfer from one body of water to another.
3. This is kinda no-brainer and also is repetition of previous resolution(s), but in case those are ever repealed, at least this clause will keep canals still reasonably safe.
4. This ties back to the on-call pilots and tugboats.
5. This should be obvious.
6. This is important. Not everyone understands everyone else, so every ship should have someone to understand what the heck the canal authority people are talking about. Technically something the shipping companies need to take care of, but putting it in the crew section means they actually need to have the translator person on duty at the time.
7. Should be obvious. Lifejackets save lives!
8. Should also be obvious. The "hazards ... they were not already made aware of" is a shoutout to 3.e.

Clause 5: I just added a little to what you already had.

1. You basically had this already, just a little rewrite to make it more professional.
2. This is quite important. And pretty much in line with RL.
3. I'm not entirely certain if "unnecessarily" is the right word here, because I would really like to make this something that would apply to the Suez hassle, and "unnecessarily" would mean it wouldn't, as they had an accident and didn't intentionally jam their ship in the canal. And I'm not certain what would be necessary traffic hold-up by a single ship. If the canal authorities tell a ship to come to a halt, they also need to inform all the ships behind it, and then it's on them and not the ship or shipping company.
4. Since ignoring clause 4's mandates pretty much either violates an existing resolution or causes dangerous situations, that the canal authorities then have to deal with, the shipping companies should be held responsible too.

I'm uncertain if it also needed clause 6 to specify that no-one needs to let military ships through if they don't want to, but given definition of ship includes the word "civilian", I don't think that's necessary. A wartime exception is unnecessary as well, as "safety" (in 3.a.) covers wars, which are generally not safe. Especially for civilian vessels.

[Tinhampton]

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Transport
Strength: Significant

Regulation - despite what you may have implied from the allegedly "Regulation/Mild" resolutions listed in RexisQuexis Categories - has areas of effect only, not strengths.

[Walfo]

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Transport

Regulation - despite what you may have implied from the allegedly "Regulation/Mild" resolutions listed in RexisQuexis Categories - has areas of effect only, not strengths.

Fixed.

[Walfo]

Hello everyone! The plan right now is to keep this as a draft for a week and submitting it on Friday. What we would like in the next days is for opinions, but specifically opinions from delegates if they would support this proposal. Also, we would like one post from any secretary to confirm that this proposal is legal before we submit it.

Thanks!

[Tinhampton]

GenSec, not "moderator[s]," determine proposal legality and have done since 2016.

[Barfleur]

"I support this proposal. Obviously global shipping routes are a matter of international concern, and the intrusion on national governments is not nearly as egregious as such a proposal would have the potential to impose. I suggest, in section 2(c), replacing 'have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary' with 'ensure that their infrastructure is kept at the maximum standard to which the canal authorities are capable of attaining, including by means of regular inspections and upgrades in technologies'."

OOC: In section 4(c), "personnell" should be "personnel".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We would not support a proposal which would require canals to be kept to some kind of maximum standard. Rather, we would prefer an economical standard. The former would be like saying that the government should ban all pollution and then have every single person start chasing down wasted paper flying down the Alps, floating through Germania Inferior, and lodged in the endless sands of Syria Palaestina. Such a policy is something we view as uneconomical and foolhardy. A more cost effective standard should be applied.

[Araraukar]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We would not support a proposal which would require canals to be kept to some kind of maximum standard. Rather, we would prefer an economical standard. ... A more cost effective standard should be applied.

"Doesn't the current 2.c. do just that? Or were you just trying to educate the Barfleurian ambassador? I have heard that can be difficult."

[Walfo]

Hello everybody! As I said, I have changed the status to last call as it will be submitted most likely on Friday. Please grant us opinions, questions, and if you will be supporting the resolution, and if not, why. Thanks!

[Palcania]

lol.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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

I recommend, as ever, removing the bolding.

The definition of canal would include something like a very small canal meant for pleasure craft which happens to be situated on isthmus of Panama or something like that. I'm not sure whether that is intentional, given that section 2 then talks about ships and other large infrastructure requirements.

In section 2(e), for the first "are" substitute "be".

Section 3(a) is objectionable on national security grounds. If I control Suez and I am at war with Shaustria-Hungary, why should I let their ships through, even if they are sea worthy and swear up and down that they will not scuttle their ship in the canal? Even excluding the war question, if I merely dislike Shaustria-Hungary's, say nuclear proliferation, I still ought to be allowed to sanction their merchants by denying them passage. Or if I control a canal with locks, the passibility 'of the canal at the time' is irrelevant if there is not enough water in my lake to operate the locks through the whole year. Or what if a ship refuses to pay the canal fee? Must I let her through?

In section 3(c) I would phrase as 'not to allow' so not to split the infinitive. Regardless, I would imagine that any commercially operated canal would find themselves in a pickle if they were operating in a manner that would delay or otherwise damage the ships or cargo traversing it. But a rational inevitability argument aside, I'm under the impression that it is generally not the number of ships transiting that would be difficult, but rather, their density. Or, if not speaking of collisions and rather of blockages, like with the Ever Given, just luck.

Canal authorities need not be legal state-like entities with jurisdiction (ie the right to, or area in which one can have the ability to, direct justice). Substitute the word 'jurisdiction' with something else. States have jurisdictions, police have jurisdiction. The Chipotle across the street does not.

Section 4(b) ought already be done with the environmental protection legislation. The competent personnel requirement in the next section probably differs depending on the type of canal. A major artery of global trade is going to be different from a canal running across (along the important shipping route that is the Potomac) from the Anacostia to the Potomac. Ships ought to cede control to pilots along major arteries, in other cases it may not be so critical.

The strict liability requirement in section 5 doesn't seem entirely justified. If someone takes all the proper precautions and crashes into the canal bank (damaging infrastructure) or leading to the ship jamming traffic for some time, compensation should not be required unless such compensation was agreed to beforehand.

Given these issues, I would advise waiting for more feedback. As to the strict liability and possible solutions, I would encourage taking feedback on the topic from Separatist Peoples.

[Walfo]

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

I recommend, as ever, removing the bolding.

The definition of canal would include something like a very small canal meant for pleasure craft which happens to be situated on isthmus of Panama or something like that. I'm not sure whether that is intentional, given that section 2 then talks about ships and other large infrastructure requirements.

In section 2(e), for the first "are" substitute "be".

Section 3(a) is objectionable on national security grounds. If I control Suez and I am at war with Shaustria-Hungary, why should I let their ships through, even if they are sea worthy and swear up and down that they will not scuttle their ship in the canal? Even excluding the war question, if I merely dislike Shaustria-Hungary's, say nuclear proliferation, I still ought to be allowed to sanction their merchants by denying them passage. Or if I control a canal with locks, the passibility 'of the canal at the time' is irrelevant if there is not enough water in my lake to operate the locks through the whole year. Or what if a ship refuses to pay the canal fee? Must I let her through?

In section 3(c) I would phrase as 'not to allow' so not to split the infinitive. Regardless, I would imagine that any commercially operated canal would find themselves in a pickle if they were operating in a manner that would delay or otherwise damage the ships or cargo traversing it. But a rational inevitability argument aside, I'm under the impression that it is generally not the number of ships transiting that would be difficult, but rather, their density. Or, if not speaking of collisions and rather of blockages, like with the Ever Given, just luck.

Canal authorities need not be legal state-like entities with jurisdiction (ie the right to, or area in which one can have the ability to, direct justice). Substitute the word 'jurisdiction' with something else. States have jurisdictions, police have jurisdiction. The Chipotle across the street does not.

Section 4(b) ought already be done with the environmental protection legislation. The competent personnel requirement in the next section probably differs depending on the type of canal. A major artery of global trade is going to be different from a canal running across (along the important shipping route that is the Potomac) from the Anacostia to the Potomac. Ships ought to cede control to pilots along major arteries, in other cases it may not be so critical.

The strict liability requirement in section 5 doesn't seem entirely justified. If someone takes all the proper precautions and crashes into the canal bank (damaging infrastructure) or leading to the ship jamming traffic for some time, compensation should not be required unless such compensation was agreed to beforehand.

Given these issues, I would advise waiting for more feedback. As to the strict liability and possible solutions, I would encourage taking feedback on the topic from Separatist Peoples.

Ok! Finally got around to make edits!
1st comment, fixed, removed the bolding.
2nd comment regarding the definition. I understand your thinking, but this is meant for trade canals. Regular civilian craft that are especially small would be very rare, so there is no need to create this in the definition.
3rd comment regarding 2e, fixed
4th comment regarding 3a, discussing it with Ara, you make a good point, but I still am on the fence about changing it. I think I will be removing it.
5th comment regarding 3c, fixed, I changed it
6th comment regarding jurisdiction, fixed
7th comment regarding 4b, how would I link it with such legislation? And, perhaps do you think that the resolution could do without this?
8th comment, regarding section 5, interesting, but think about this. When you walk into a shop, and accidentally break something, for example, a glass pitcher, you need to pay the store for breaking it, regardless of accidental or not. Also, I would assume then that I could add an amendment (if canals don't do it yet) that requires captains to sign a waiver of liability for using the canal. So yes, I do believe that this section is justified. Does this seem like something you could support now?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not dead (yet), just been struggling with health recently. Will get back to this project ASAP.