NationStates

A few months ago, I submitted a proposal to the WA entitled Ban Whaling, and then a follow-up, Ban Exploitation of Marine Mammals. In both cases, they were declared illegal by the Secretariat. On the second occasion, I telegrammed Bananaistan and asked them why. They said it was in contravention of GA #267, Reasonable Limits on Hunting, as in both cases the proposals banned whaling and marine-mammal exploitation everywhere, and GA #267 allows hunting of non-endangered animals in a nation's territory. I wrote this proposal to try and circumvent that.
Anyways, here it is:

The General Assembly,
DEFINES whaling as the practice of killing cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises etc.) for the purpose of a) acquisition of resources such as whale oil, blubber, whale meat or b) study of the species in question

BELIEVES that whaling is a deplorable and unnecessary practice and should be banned entirely,

NOTES, however, that not all species of cetacean covered by this resolution are endangered, and are thus subject to GA #267 'Sensible Limits On Hunting', which permits them to be hunted according to a nation's laws in its territorial waters, thus negating any ability of this august body to ban whaling entirely,

ALSO NOTES that GA #267 does not cover international waters, and thus wishing to exploit this to provide additional protection to cetaceans,

DEFINES international waters as areas of sea or ocean not within the officially-recognized territorial waters of any nation that is not landlocked,

OUTLINES means by which the few remaining economies dependent on oceanic whaling can have a just and fair transition to alternative and less harmful practices,

1. URGES all nations that still practice the exploitation of cetaceans in international waters by hunting or other means that will harm the animals in question cease to do so immediately,
RECOMMENDS that any nations which have detained environmental activists because of acts of resistance against exploitation of cetaceans in international waters release and pardon them immediately,
URGES all World Assembly member nations lift all restrictions stopping environmental activists from acting against nations, companies and individuals engaged in cetacean exploitation in international waters,
CALLS UPON World Assembly member nations to embargo all marine mammal-based products, that can be confirmed to originate from international waters and boycott their trade,

Thus the General Assembly hereby bans whaling in international waters.

I forgot to add the numbers to the clauses

How is the Assembly to enforce this ban on whaling in international waters? And what is to stop the whalers from just changing their boat flags to non-member nations?

The wording here

NOTES, however, that not all species of cetacean covered by this resolution are endangered, and are thus subject to GA #267 'Sensible Limits On Hunting', which permits them to be hunted according to a nation's laws in its territorial waters, thus negating any ability of this august body to ban whaling entirely,

arguably makes it look as though you're saying it's the endangered species that are subject to G.A. Res#267.

Also, referring to an earlier resolution as being in existence is legally very iffy, because of the hypothetical possibility that it might get repealed while this is in force: You're not depending on that resolution to make this on work, so the 'House of Cards' rule as such arguably wouldn't apply, but I'm not sure how GenSec as a whole would feel about the reference's legality. Saying just something long the lines of

NOTES, however, that earlier legislation by this Assembly hinders its ability to ban the hunting of non-endangered cetaceans in member nations' own waters, thus preventing any ability of this Assembly to ban whaling entirely,

would be better. Note that this also covers the fact that even if G.A. Res#267 didn't exist the earlier G.A. Res#199 'Sustainable Fishing Act' recognizes member nations as having those rights over all non-endangered aquatic animals (which, of course, would include cetaceans and other marine mammals) within their own waters -- including not only territorial waters but also the wider & GA-recognized 'Exclusive Economic Zones' too -- so your earlier proposals would have been illegally in contradiction of that as well.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For future reference:
Both Res.#267 and Res#403 'Trade Of Endangered Organisms' heavily restrict trade in products from endangered species, including endangered cetaceans (& other marine mammals) of course, so anybody exploiting the non-endangered species from those groups would have to be able to prove exactly which species they had taken animals from.

G.A. Res#465 'Preventing Species Extinction'...

And have you seen Res#510 'Marine Protection Act' yet?

Thank you for information, Bears Armed. I was not aware of the existence of several of those resolutions. I also didn't know that the GA recognised the 200-mile EEZ on this world. I thought that was IRL only. I will update the draft somewhat.

Onionist Randosia wrote:Thank you for information, Bears Armed. I was not aware of the existence of several of those resolutions. I also didn't know that the GA recognised the 200-mile EEZ on this world. I thought that was IRL only. I will update the draft somewhat.

If you cannot make that distinction, then you basically should drop the draft entirely. What's the point of submitting a resolution that overlaps with others?

"Ambassador, you define 'whaling' to include 'killing cetaceans […] for the purpose of […] study of the species in question.' You then proceed to 'ban[] whaling in international waters.' What is the point of banning the controlled killing of cetaceans for legitimate scientific purposes, such as identifying or monitoring animal diseases or observing the effects of pollution on the bodies of the cetaceans, especially when these studies may be extremely helpful for the populations in question? If there is a new disease ravaging the dolphin population, and it is necessary to kill one dolphin in order to conduct a study on the transmissibility of this new disease, it would do no favors to the population to spare one dolphin's life and allow the whole herd to suffer as a result."

DRAFT #2:
The General Assembly,
DEFINES whaling as the practice of killing cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises etc.) for the purpose of a) acquisition of resources such as whale oil, blubber, whale meat or b) study of the species in question

BELIEVES that whaling is a deplorable and unnecessary practice and should be banned entirely,

NOTES, however, that previously passed WA legislation prevents the World Assembly from doing so in a nation's territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as the legislation in question allows nations to hunt non-endangered animals in their territorial waters and EEZ, and not all cetaceans are endangered,

ALSO NOTES that the legislation in question does NOT cover international waters outside of a nation's EEZ (200 miles from their coastline), and thus wishes to exploit this to provide further protection for cetaceans,

DEFINES international waters, for the purpose of this resolution, as areas of sea or ocean not within the officially-recognized territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of any nation that is not landlocked,

AFFIRMS that this Resolution does not effect any activities within territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones of nations

ACKNOWLEDGES that it will be difficult to police international waters for illegal whaling vessels,

OUTLINES means by which the few remaining economies dependent on oceanic whaling can have a just and fair transition to alternative and less harmful practices,

1. URGES all nations that still practice the exploitation of cetaceans in international waters by hunting or other means that will harm the animals in question cease to do so immediately,
2.RECOMMENDS that any nations which have detained environmental activists because of acts of resistance against exploitation of cetaceans in international waters release and pardon them immediately,
3.URGES all World Assembly member nations lift all restrictions stopping environmental activists from acting against nations, companies and individuals engaged in cetacean exploitation in international waters,
4.RECOMMENDS that the World Assembly create an Economic Development Fund to assist the few remaining economies still dependent on oceanic whaling transition into other sectors, such as ecotourism,
5.CALLS UPON world navies to cooperate with each other and other organisations, including activist ones, in policing illegal whaling in international waters,

Thus, the General Assembly bans whaling in international waters.

Barfleur wrote:"Ambassador, you define 'whaling' to include 'killing cetaceans […] for the purpose of […] study of the species in question.' You then proceed to 'ban[] whaling in international waters.' What is the point of banning the controlled killing of cetaceans for legitimate scientific purposes, such as identifying or monitoring animal diseases or observing the effects of pollution on the bodies of the cetaceans, especially when these studies may be extremely helpful for the populations in question? If there is a new disease ravaging the dolphin population, and it is necessary to kill one dolphin in order to conduct a study on the transmissibility of this new disease, it would do no favors to the population to spare one dolphin's life and allow the whole herd to suffer as a result."

The primary reason behind this was to prevent 'scientific' whaling such as what Japan practices IRL, which is in fact less of scientific purpose and more for profit. However, although I did not in fact consider legitimate scientific purposes in this resolution, it can still be conducted, according to national law, within a nation's EEZ or territorial waters, strictly for research purposes. However, I may include something pertaining to said 'legitimate scientific purposes' in my third draft.

Onionist Randosia wrote:

Barfleur wrote:"Ambassador, you define 'whaling' to include 'killing cetaceans […] for the purpose of […] study of the species in question.' You then proceed to 'ban[] whaling in international waters.' What is the point of banning the controlled killing of cetaceans for legitimate scientific purposes, such as identifying or monitoring animal diseases or observing the effects of pollution on the bodies of the cetaceans, especially when these studies may be extremely helpful for the populations in question? If there is a new disease ravaging the dolphin population, and it is necessary to kill one dolphin in order to conduct a study on the transmissibility of this new disease, it would do no favors to the population to spare one dolphin's life and allow the whole herd to suffer as a result."

The primary reason behind this was to prevent 'scientific' whaling such as what Japan practices IRL, which is in fact less of scientific purpose and more for profit. However, although I did not in fact consider legitimate scientific purposes in this resolution, it can still be conducted, according to national law, within a nation's EEZ or territorial waters, strictly for research purposes. However, I may include something pertaining to said 'legitimate scientific purposes' in my third draft.

I hate to break it to you, but it won’t make any difference. Banning whaling in international waters is impossible as the WA cannot affect non-member nations, which outnumber WA nations by about 5-1.

Onionist Randosia wrote:Thank you for information, Bears Armed. I was not aware of the existence of several of those resolutions. I also didn't know that the GA recognised the 200-mile EEZ on this world. I thought that was IRL only. I will update the draft somewhat.

For reference: G.A. Res#168 'Law of the Seas', clause 2.B.

Re the scientific whaling: You could improve the chance that allowing this isn't misused by requiring that the research plans be pre-approved by 'WASP' (That's the 'W.A. Scientific Programme', established by an earlier committee & allowed to be given new jobs...

Onionist Randosia wrote:

DRAFT #2:
The General Assembly,
DEFINES whaling as the practice of killing cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises etc.) for the purpose of a) acquisition of resources such as whale oil, blubber, whale meat or b) study of the species in question

BELIEVES that whaling is a deplorable and unnecessary practice and should be banned entirely,

NOTES, however, that previously passed WA legislation prevents the World Assembly from doing so in a nation's territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as the legislation in question allows nations to hunt non-endangered animals in their territorial waters and EEZ, and not all cetaceans are endangered,

ALSO NOTES that the legislation in question does NOT cover international waters outside of a nation's EEZ (200 miles from their coastline), and thus wishes to exploit this to provide further protection for cetaceans,

DEFINES international waters, for the purpose of this resolution, as areas of sea or ocean not within the officially-recognized territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of any nation that is not landlocked,

AFFIRMS that this Resolution does not effect any activities within territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones of nations

ACKNOWLEDGES that it will be difficult to police international waters for illegal whaling vessels,

OUTLINES means by which the few remaining economies dependent on oceanic whaling can have a just and fair transition to alternative and less harmful practices,

1. URGES all nations that still practice the exploitation of cetaceans in international waters by hunting or other means that will harm the animals in question cease to do so immediately,
2.RECOMMENDS that any nations which have detained environmental activists because of acts of resistance against exploitation of cetaceans in international waters release and pardon them immediately,
3.URGES all World Assembly member nations lift all restrictions stopping environmental activists from acting against nations, companies and individuals engaged in cetacean exploitation in international waters,
4.RECOMMENDS that the World Assembly create an Economic Development Fund to assist the few remaining economies still dependent on oceanic whaling transition into other sectors, such as ecotourism,
5.CALLS UPON world navies to cooperate with each other and other organisations, including activist ones, in policing illegal whaling in international waters,

Thus, the General Assembly bans whaling in international waters.

Did you make your edit in the OP?

Outer Sparta wrote:

Onionist Randosia wrote:

DRAFT #2:
The General Assembly,
DEFINES whaling as the practice of killing cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises etc.) for the purpose of a) acquisition of resources such as whale oil, blubber, whale meat or b) study of the species in question

BELIEVES that whaling is a deplorable and unnecessary practice and should be banned entirely,

NOTES, however, that previously passed WA legislation prevents the World Assembly from doing so in a nation's territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as the legislation in question allows nations to hunt non-endangered animals in their territorial waters and EEZ, and not all cetaceans are endangered,

ALSO NOTES that the legislation in question does NOT cover international waters outside of a nation's EEZ (200 miles from their coastline), and thus wishes to exploit this to provide further protection for cetaceans,

DEFINES international waters, for the purpose of this resolution, as areas of sea or ocean not within the officially-recognized territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of any nation that is not landlocked,

AFFIRMS that this Resolution does not effect any activities within territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones of nations

ACKNOWLEDGES that it will be difficult to police international waters for illegal whaling vessels,

OUTLINES means by which the few remaining economies dependent on oceanic whaling can have a just and fair transition to alternative and less harmful practices,

1. URGES all nations that still practice the exploitation of cetaceans in international waters by hunting or other means that will harm the animals in question cease to do so immediately,
2.RECOMMENDS that any nations which have detained environmental activists because of acts of resistance against exploitation of cetaceans in international waters release and pardon them immediately,
3.URGES all World Assembly member nations lift all restrictions stopping environmental activists from acting against nations, companies and individuals engaged in cetacean exploitation in international waters,
4.RECOMMENDS that the World Assembly create an Economic Development Fund to assist the few remaining economies still dependent on oceanic whaling transition into other sectors, such as ecotourism,
5.CALLS UPON world navies to cooperate with each other and other organisations, including activist ones, in policing illegal whaling in international waters,

Thus, the General Assembly bans whaling in international waters.

Did you make your edit in the OP?

OOC: If & when you do make changes, it's customary to keep the old version in a Spoiler (using the relevant tags) and post your revised version above this.

Wayneactia wrote:

Onionist Randosia wrote:The primary reason behind this was to prevent 'scientific' whaling such as what Japan practices IRL, which is in fact less of scientific purpose and more for profit. However, although I did not in fact consider legitimate scientific purposes in this resolution, it can still be conducted, according to national law, within a nation's EEZ or territorial waters, strictly for research purposes. However, I may include something pertaining to said 'legitimate scientific purposes' in my third draft.

I hate to break it to you, but it won’t make any difference. Banning whaling in international waters is impossible as the WA cannot affect non-member nations, which outnumber WA nations by about 5-1.

While an outright ban is probably not within WA remit, nothing prevents a similar clause to that which encourages nations to actively fight piracy in international waters (OP: see clauses 5-6 for inspiration in this area).

I don't buy that the provision in the original international piracy legislation:


Isn't a contradiction of GA 2's provision's against ratifying use of military force.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't buy that the provision in the original international piracy legislation:

Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

Isn't a contradiction of GA 2's provision's against ratifying use of military force.

Fris said that it was [just] legal... and he wrote that provision.

Bears Armed wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't buy that the provision in the original international piracy legislation:

Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

Isn't a contradiction of GA 2's provision's against ratifying use of military force.

Fris said that it was [just] legal... and he wrote that provision.

Gonna have to agree with IA on this one. Urges have been ruled over and over as being strong enough to act as an operative clause on their own in a resolution.

Bears Armed wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't buy that the provision in the original international piracy legislation:

Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

Isn't a contradiction of GA 2's provision's against ratifying use of military force.

Fris said that it was [just] legal... and he wrote that provision.

Yea, I don't see how that's compatible with:


Even if an author (Fris or not) intended something different by this language, the true intent of the law is to be collected chiefly from its words. Cf 4 Wheat 122, 202.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Fris said that it was [just] legal... and he wrote that provision.

Yea, I don't see how that's compatible with:

the WA will not engage in ... ratifying ... or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Even if an author (Fris or not) intended something different by this language, the true intent of the law is to be collected chiefly from its words. Cf 4 Wheat 122, 202.

Maybe the fact that the action would be specifically against non-state actors? It arguably thus falls into the same category as telling nations to arrest people who commit certain crimes, which has also been considered legal when discussed in the past.

If we take the interpretation that "police action" refers only to action against state actors, then there's a substantial amount of work that could be done even in the confines of GA 2's provisions.

EDIT. Also, that interpretation would massively subsume police action into meaningless. Almost all police action occurs against non-state actors. When a constable arrests someone, they aren't arresting a sovereign state (to the chagrin of many sovereign citizens).

EDIT. Corrected typo.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Fris said that it was [just] legal... and he wrote that provision.

Yea, I don't see how that's compatible with:

the WA will not engage in ... ratifying ... or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Even if an author (Fris or not) intended something different by this language, the true intent of the law is to be collected chiefly from its words. Cf 4 Wheat 122, 202.

Ooc: I am not sure I buy that encouraging enforcement, even enforcement that requires force of arms, is ratification of a police action. The WA is ratifying enforcement. The method of enforcement is not strictly armed conflict.

This interpretation suggests the WA is ratifying police action, not unlike what BA said, by directing states to prosecute war criminals, even if it requires a shootout to apprehend them.

I'm just not sure, intended or not, that this is a plausible interpretation of ratification. It's possible that we need to dig deeply into statutory construction to be sure.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yea, I don't see how that's compatible with:

the WA will not engage in ... ratifying ... or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Even if an author (Fris or not) intended something different by this language, the true intent of the law is to be collected chiefly from its words. Cf 4 Wheat 122, 202.

Ooc: I am not sure I buy that encouraging enforcement, even enforcement that requires force of arms, is ratification of a police action. The WA is ratifying enforcement. The method of enforcement is not strictly armed conflict.

This interpretation suggests the WA is ratifying police action, not unlike what BA said, by directing states to prosecute war criminals, even if it requires a shootout to apprehend them.

I'm just not sure, intended or not, that this is a plausible interpretation of ratification. It's possible that we need to dig deeply into statutory construction to be sure.

I'm taking note at the 'authorises' portion, rather than the 'urges'.

OOC: As I meant it -- although of course that might not be how GenSec as a whole now interprets it -- the "authorises' just meant "It's legal under GA law to do that".

Maybe the distinction we should consider under GA Res#2 is between authorizing a general course of action (legal) and authorising action in specific cases (illegal)?
ALSO, maybe we should ask the Mods to move the last few posts -- and any more made on the subject of GA Res#20 & how it interacts with GA Res#2-- into a separate thread of their own?

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: As I meant it -- although of course that might not be how GenSec as a whole now interprets it -- the "authorises' just meant "It's legal under GA law to do that".

Maybe the distinction we should consider under GA Res#2 is between authorizing a general course of action (legal) and authorising action in specific cases (illegal)?
ALSO, maybe we should ask the Mods to move the last few posts -- and any more made on the subject of GA Res#20 & how it interacts with GA Res#2-- into a separate thread of their own?

This whole convo has been going on the entire thread and the OP has not responded or made any major edits since then.

I am still here, my forum just wasn't working for a while.