[DRAFT] Global Naval Restrictions

[Popolojo]

Sidebar: I will probably end up tweaking this, so please point out any mistakes

The Security Council,

Recognizing the concept of "gunboat diplomacy," in which a more powerful nation shows enormous naval power as a threat to a weaker nation,

Noting the historical wars started by stationing warships in or near foreign waters,

Recognizing the immense power navies hold in international warfare,

Hereby:

1: Creates a naval permit system in the hopes of restricting the naval power of WA member-states:
1a: WA member-states will need a Security Council permit before stationing any warships in or near foreign waters,
1b: WA member-states will be forbidden from stationing ships armed with nuclear warheads in or near foreign waters in any case other than declared warfare,
1c: If a WA member-state requests a naval permit, WA delegates will hold a vote. If the majority of delegates approve the permit, that country will be permitted to station warships in foreign waters,

2: If a WA member-state acquires a permit, they will be subject to these permit restrictions:
2a: WA member-states applying for a naval permit will have to choose a member-state that they want to station warships near. Permits are active only for this nation; you may not station warships near any other nation,
2b: Permits can be revoked with a Security Council resolution at any time,
2c: If violation of this resolution occurs, the Security Council will immediately create a joint task force to quorum raid the region,

3: Places these restrictions on the compositions of the navies of WA member-states:
3a: A member-state must not construct more than 10 nuclear warships,
3b: A member-state's aircraft carriers must not be able to hold more than 24 tactical aircraft, 2 transports, or 2 bombers.

4: Garnishes 1% of all WA member-states' GDP in order to fund the "No Naval Force" propaganda campaign, which will educate the masses about the danger of gunboat diplomacy.

[Outer Sparta]

Are you going to submit this without getting any feedback like you've always done?

[WayNeacTia]

Metagaming makes it illegal. There is so a contradiction issue which makes it illegal as well. Hard numbers are pointless as nations vary in size significantly. The idea is somewhat creative and novel, but in the end is pointless. Very unlikely to pass.

Hard pass from me.

[Tsaivao]

Even if this weren't illegal, why would there be a requirement for "every" delegate to vote on whether or not nation A-istan can move through B-land's waters?

And then what if the navy has to reposition to another country, or crosses several nations in succession to get to where is needed? How would this work for transit via canals? This resolution is just not thought out very well, and needs a lot more time and thought for it to even make sense, let alone be legal and possible to support

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Under the current interpretation of the rules, even a simple mention of the Security Council in a G.A. proposal is illegal for 'Meta-gaming' (I myself would be open to loosening that interpretation slightly, although you still wouldn't be able to give the S.C. a new function like this because of the 'Game Mechanics' rule, but am in the minority among GenSec on this point...) Mandating SC-organised quorum raids of regions is definitely Meta-Gaming, for three separate reasons. [/one-sixth of GenSec]

[Picairn]

1: Creates a naval permit system in the hopes of restricting the naval power of WA member-states:
1a: WA member-states will need a Security Council permit before stationing any warships in or near foreign waters,

Even in a war? Or combating piracy in cooperation with the host nation? Also define "near" and "foreign waters", can we station our warships in a nation's 200-nautical-mile EEZ or the 12-nautical-mile contiguous zone outside of said nation's territorial sea, for instance?

1b: WA member-states will be forbidden from stationing ships armed with nuclear warheads in or near foreign waters in any case other than declared warfare,

Not even to enforce Freedom of Navigation?

1c: If a WA member-state requests a naval permit, WA delegates will hold a vote. If the majority of delegates approve the permit, that country will be permitted to station warships in foreign waters,

Metagaming.

2: If a WA member-state acquires a permit, they will be subject to these permit restrictions:
2a: WA member-states applying for a naval permit will have to choose a member-state that they want to station warships near. Permits are active only for this nation; you may not station warships near any other nation,
2b: Permits can be revoked with a Security Council resolution at any time,
2c: If violation of this resolution occurs, the Security Council will immediately create a joint task force to quorum raid the region,

Metagaming.

3: Places these restrictions on the compositions of the navies of WA member-states:
3a: A member-state must not construct more than 10 nuclear warships,
3b: A member-state's aircraft carriers must not be able to hold more than 24 tactical aircraft, 2 transports, or 2 bombers.

Utterly nonsensical. Nuclear warships include submarines and aircraft carriers, this will reduce a global power's navy to less than a regional one. The aircraft limit also makes no sense, what is "tactical aircraft"?

4: Garnishes 1% of all WA member-states' GDP in order to fund the "No Naval Force" propaganda campaign, which will educate the masses about the danger of gunboat diplomacy.

Hahaha, no.

[Grays Harbor]

A member-state's aircraft carriers must not be able to hold more than 24 tactical aircraft, 2 transports, or 2 bombers.

Brilliant. So all navies are permitted only WW2 era Casablanca class escort carriers. SMH

[Barfleur]

"My delegation opposes this proposal in its entirety, and we have several reasons to show for it.

"First, this proposal seems designed to target seafaring nations in particular. A landlocked nation, or a nation which depends on its ground forces or on missiles as its primary defense, would not be much affected by a restriction on naval power. But an island nation, or a nation such as my own Barfleur, which has an extensive coastline and which draws a large percentage of its revenue from maritime trade, would be devastated at an inability to operate warships in international waters to fight modern-day pirates and deter foreign aggression.

"Second, why is it required for the World Assembly to approve each nation's request to station or deploy warships in international and contested waters? That is a gross infringement not only on national sovereignty, but on the ability to effectively deter aggression. If a rogue nation knows that it can make threats against a member nation, and can carry out those threats, it would surely love to hear that the member nation cannot respond with a show of force before groveling before the World Assembly for a permit and waiting for it to be approved.

"Third, I need not mention the potential for abuse in allowing nations to control each others' armed forces. If Maxtopia and Manama are historic rivals, and are competing for the same resources, why would Manama allow Maxtopia to utilize its navy to protect its trade when Manama stands to benefit from eliminating Maxtopia as a trading rival?

"And fourth, as this proposal, if enacted as law, would only bind member nations, it would place nations like mine and yours at a large disadvantage when facing hostile member nations, which are not subject to the whims of this Assembly and can legitimately station their warships as they desire. I would rather let member nations defend themselves than give a helping hand to despots and warlords."

[Shazbotdom]

"Systematically Opposed. The Empire will not be limited in our Naval Forces by the General Assembly and make us weak in comparison to unregulated non-Members."