[DEFEATED] Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals

[Walfo]

Hello everyone. Due to the observations and comments that Ara and I have received, we will be doing a major re-write to this proposal. I also changed the condition back to draft, because we still have some time before we will submit it for good. The re-write will be coming soon!

Thanks!

[Imperium Anglorum]

You are only liable for things you break in a store if you were acting negligently. This is basic tort law. If there were contributory negligence at hand, depending on the jurisdiction, a shop might not be able to impose any damages at all for the tort. Searching online over the last 30 seconds: 1, 2, 3. This concept also isn't limited to common law. Eg lex Aquilia. Imposing strict liability would be unjust to a ship's crew taking all the proper precautions and crashes into the canal bank (damaging infrastructure) or leading to the ship jamming traffic for some time regardless.

Interesting, but still when you think about it, in RL the owners of the Suez Canal are asking for compensation for the obstruction of the canal. The owners of the ship are actually in agreement about providing such compensation. The captain of the Ever Given did not purposely crash the ship into the canal, it was an accident, but still, compensation is being asked of them. Perhaps the "You Break it You Buy it" mantra was not a good example, but I said that when a ship enters the canal, they understand the dangers and risks they are taking to make a shortcut or maneuver through a canal. In this way, the actions of the captain and their crew should be taken accountable even if they took all the precautions possible. Also, these incidents are very rare, because most of the time the people on board the ships are smart and don't take unnecessary risks. With the Ever Given incident, although most would agree that it was an accident, somebody made the mistake to allow an area that ships have gone flawlessly for years to become blocked. If it is found that something or someone on board the ships caused the accident, then they are responsible and need to pay for compensation. If the canal's owners or the canal was at fault, they are the ones to blame. Finally, in the case (I know I am milking this thing) of the Ever Given once again, the majority of the compensation that they will pay is for the efforts of the teams that moved the ship out of its obstruction point. In this example, regardless if it was an accident or not, the only way the ship would ever get out is with the help of others, and that costs money. Due to this, it is completely justified that they pay. I think this fairly explains why we have such a strict liability.

Imposing strict liability (a term of art, not merely a descriptor for 'liability',) in the case where a ship does nothing wrong is like saying you walked into a store and are talking with the owner about purchasing some expensive Ming dynasty vase. Then a car comes straight through and smashes you into the vase, destroying it. The store owner then sues you for damages instead of the driver because the driver is judgement-proof.

Strict liability is not the same was "If it is found that something or someone on board the ships caused the accident". Strict liability in the terms you and Ara have constructed is the ship is liable if an accident happens, even if the canal authorities purposefully shove the ship into the bank. This is not acceptable.

[Araraukar]

even if the canal authorities purposefully shove the ship into the bank. This is not acceptable.

OOC: This is getting fixed.

EDIT: More generally (not just at you, IA, but Bears and others too), see viewtopic.php?p=408#p408 clause 7 especially.

[Walfo]

Hello everybody! Draft XIII is out and has been made from your suggestions and comments. It will be submitted soon if there are no large complications.

Thanks!

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Hot topic issues de jour from RL do not make for good resolutions.

IC: "This is a whole pile of unnecessary micromanagement. Member states have every right to control a they see fit canals which are part of a their sovereign territory. Opposed."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Hot topic issues de jour from RL do not make for good resolutions.

IC: "This is a whole pile of unnecessary micromanagement. Member states have every right to control a they see fit canals which are part of a their sovereign territory. Opposed."

OOC: It started out like that. It's no longer that.

IC: "Not true, you cannot prevent a ship conforming to the transport committee's flimsy minimum requirements from using your waterways."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Hot topic issues de jour from RL do not make for good resolutions.

IC: "This is a whole pile of unnecessary micromanagement. Member states have every right to control a they see fit canals which are part of a their sovereign territory. Opposed."

OOC: It started out like that. It's no longer that.

IC: "Not true, you cannot prevent a ship conforming to the transport committee's flimsy minimum requirements from using your waterways."

OOC: Fair point. But then, given the existence of GAR#34 and its mandate to the ITSC to set regulations on training of personnel maintaining these canals and the requirement for "relevant infrastructures" to abide ITSC requirements, what's the point of this? It has all been done already and there's an implicit contradiction in the wider exemptions granted here for refusal of access than in GAR#34.

[Pan-Asiatic States]

Hopefully this will increase the overall economic capacity of the World Assembly. We fully support this proposed resolution and are further willing to provide the resources necessary to ensure its execution in the event that it passes.

Such a relevant issue as well following that whole Suez kerfuffle...

[Walfo]

OOC: It started out like that. It's no longer that.

IC: "Not true, you cannot prevent a ship conforming to the transport committee's flimsy minimum requirements from using your waterways."

OOC: Fair point. But then, given the existence of GAR#34 and its mandate to the ITSC to set regulations on training of personnel maintaining these canals and the requirement for "relevant infrastructures" to abide ITSC requirements, what's the point of this? It has all been done already and there's an implicit contradiction in the wider exemptions granted here for refusal of access than in GAR#34.

OOC: As Ara said before, the ITSC sets flimsy requirements. It does not mention a canal specifically, and as you said, the requirement for the maintaining of "relevant infrastructures" is really the only time that a canal would be present in that proposal. This proposal sets to set a standard for canals, which has not been done before on this scale of complete focus. With the exemptions for refusal of access, 3a states: "do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with canal operation requirements, safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution". This therefore includes the mandates of GAR#34 within the clause. Hope this helps!
Waffles

[Araraukar]

OOC: If #34 was the be all end all resolution for anything to do with transporting, then anything that came after it that in any way addressed transporting goods and/or passengers would have been pointless and unjecessary. But like with CoCR you guys are always telling me that it's not pointless duplication to expand on a tiny subset of what the overarching resolution covers.

[Imperium Anglorum]

EDIT: More generally (not just at you, IA, but Bears and others too), see viewtopic.php?p=408#p408 clause 7 especially.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Insofar as member nations are permitted to refuse entry based on war, economic sanctions, etc perhaps there is an internal tension between the two clauses. I would also imagine that member nations seeking to prohibit the passage of enemy vessels would prioritise the second subsection in their interpretation rather than the first.

7) PROHIBITS nations from barring WA member state commercial transports in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight,
a) Nations are permitted to introduce reasonable requirements of prior notification and authorisation, but such are not to be refused on the grounds of the nation of the transport’s origin
b) Nations may refuse entry &c., if there are necessary practical reasons for doing so, such as limited capacity or quarantine, or in times of war or economic sanctions.

I believe also that the ambassador for Bears Armed's remarks on nuclear vessels and those of the ambassador for Bananaistan on sovereign territory are sufficiently vindicated to again bring this point up to the fore. I will note also that payment of canal fees are not "necessary" for the operation of the canal. If I sail up with a large naval squadron and practice sufficiently intimidating gunboat diplomacy in the vein of our ancestors, I will be able to transit the canal without paying the fee, establishing clearly that it is not "necessary" for the canal's operation to pay the fees.

[Kenmoria]

“You are missing finishing punctuation on clause 4i. I believe that there should be a semicolon there. In terms of technical writing, this is the only error. With regards to content, I hold my judgement for now.”

[Walfo]

EDIT: More generally (not just at you, IA, but Bears and others too), see viewtopic.php?p=408#p408 clause 7 especially.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Insofar as member nations are permitted to refuse entry based on war, economic sanctions, etc perhaps there is an internal tension between the two clauses. I would also imagine that member nations seeking to prohibit the passage of enemy vessels would prioritise the second subsection in their interpretation rather than the first.

7) PROHIBITS nations from barring WA member state commercial transports in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight,
a) Nations are permitted to introduce reasonable requirements of prior notification and authorisation, but such are not to be refused on the grounds of the nation of the transport’s origin
b) Nations may refuse entry &c., if there are necessary practical reasons for doing so, such as limited capacity or quarantine, or in times of war or economic sanctions.

I believe also that the ambassador for Bears Armed's remarks on nuclear vessels and those of the ambassador for Bananaistan on sovereign territory are sufficiently vindicated to again bring this point up to the fore. I will note also that payment of canal fees are not "necessary" for the operation of the canal. If I sail up with a large naval squadron and practice sufficiently intimidating gunboat diplomacy in the vein of our ancestors, I will be able to transit the canal without paying the fee, establishing clearly that it is not "necessary" for the canal's operation to pay the fees.

There is currently no clause that states in this draft that a fee is necessary for the operation of the canal, and that decision to make a fee or not is left up to the decision of the canal authorities. I understand your thoughts about gunboat diplomacy, but once again, the need for a fee is not present in the resolution. With your comments, Ara and I can once again revisit section 3, and perhaps add a similar clause like the one shown above from GAR #34 7b.

“You are missing finishing punctuation on clause 4i. I believe that there should be a semicolon there. In terms of technical writing, this is the only error. With regards to content, I hold my judgement for now.”

Fixed!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Bumping this as it's about to get submitted and it had escaped all the way to page 4.

The new clause 6 should cover any issues about the fees by including them in the necessities yet otherwise leaving them up to the nations operating the canals.

[Wallenburg]

The smuggling issue remains unresolved.

[Araraukar]

The smuggling issue remains unresolved.

OOC and EDIT: Which smuggling issue that isn't caught by "safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution"?

[Wallenburg]

The smuggling issue remains unresolved.

OOC and EDIT: Which smuggling issue that isn't caught by "safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution"?

The same issue that I've been bringing up all throughout this thread. Most smugglers do not jeopardize the safety of a canal they transit nor national security, and thus this proposal requires their free transit through canals in member states.

[Araraukar]

The same issue that I've been bringing up all throughout this thread. Most smugglers do not jeopardize the safety of a canal they transit nor national security, and thus this proposal requires their free transit through canals in member states.

OOC: Is there a resolution that addresses smuggling?

1. Yes? Then covered already.
2. No? Go write one, this one won't stop you.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Is there a resolution that addresses smuggling?

1. Yes? Then covered already.
2. No? Go write one, this one won't stop you.

Or you could try fixing your proposal instead of knowingly doing harm to member states.

In your own words:

OOC: If you're not going to address the problems, there's no point in bumping.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is there a resolution that addresses smuggling?

1. Yes? Then covered already.
2. No? Go write one, this one won't stop you.

Or you could try fixing your proposal instead of knowingly doing harm to member states.

In your own words:

OOC: If you're not going to address the problems, there's no point in bumping.

OOC: We fixed the problem (use fees) that was a problem. Smuggling is outside of the scope of this proposal. This isn't about border control. It's not International Security. Smuggling is complex enough issue that it shouldn't be addressed in a random swipe buried in an unrelated resolution.

And even then, border control is part of "national security", and thus already included.

Further EDIT: Having re-read the proposal text, I'm still seeing nothing that's stopping you from having your border control people check the ship prior to allowing it enter the canal.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Is there a resolution that addresses smuggling?

1. Yes? Then covered already.
2. No? Go write one, this one won't stop you.

Or you could try fixing your proposal instead of knowingly doing harm to member states.

In your own words:

OOC: If you're not going to address the problems, there's no point in bumping.

I am guessing GAR# 20 and #90 don't actually exist? They are just figments of everyone's imagination?

[Araraukar]

I am guessing GAR# 20 and #90 don't actually exist? They are just figments of everyone's imagination?

OOC: Added links.

There's also clause 7 of GA #34.

[Cereskia]

I'm in on this, i support of this idea!

_{As long as there is no Evergreen event again, that is.}

[WayNeacTia]

I am guessing GAR# 20 and #90 don't actually exist? They are just figments of everyone's imagination?

OOC: Added links.

There's also 7 of GA #34.

Touche.

"All in all this looks like a fine piece of authorship. It actually addresses a legitimate international concern. I look forward to fully supporting this endeavor."

Wayne

[Wallenburg]

I am guessing GAR# 20 and #90 don't actually exist? They are just figments of everyone's imagination?

OOC: Added links.

There's also clause 7 of GA #34.

Except for pirates, those do not require member states to deny transit, and therefore are not exceptions to section 3. We've been over this before.