[DRAFT #1] Repeal GA#526 "Land Reclamation Regulation"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,869
Word count: 286

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Some of you might already be missing my and Alex's supposedly long-running war on waste; thanks for helping me out again, Suzie. I'm hopeful that my interpretation of Articles 1b and 4 - and the subsequent conclusion that governments cannot deliver independent oversight of their own actions - will pass muster as a tailored argument.

Repeal "Land Reclamation Regulation"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#526

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #526 “Land Reclamation Regulation” (Category: Environmental; Area of Effect: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that:

1. Article 4 of GA#526 requires member states "to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate" its provisions, and that
2. Article 1b thereof defines an impact study as "an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation,"

Deducing that member states (unlike private enterprises) are completely prohibited from embarking on land reclamation under GA#526, given that they cannot conduct "an independent survey" of the "potential ecological impacts" of their own projects,

Concerned that GA#526 requires that member states submit the results of their Article 4 impact studies to the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA) to determine if the land reclamation projects in question should receive a permit, that ESWA grant permits only to land reclamation projects that comply with GA#526's provisions (or where not granting them would "severely imperil the health of a nation’s population" or harm the environment more than doing so), and that no land reclamation may commence without an ESWA permit,

Believing that individual member states - not ESWA - are best placed to determine whether any land reclamation planned within their jurisdiction complies with international law, never mind whether it offers better health or environmental benefits than doing nothing, and to grant or deny permits accordingly, and

Convinced that the establishment of an international bureaucracy to approve or reject all proposed land reclamation projects in member states is not a more worthy, needly or timely goal of this body than (for example) requiring member states to enact and enforce measures to protect the rights of all sex workers within their jurisdiction...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#526 "Land Reclamation Regulation."

---

reserved for old drafts

[Imperium Anglorum]

No objection to repeal in principle.

[Tinhampton]

Thanks, IA!

[Honeydewistania]

Convinced that the establishment of an international bureaucracy to approve or reject all proposed land reclamation projects in member states is not a more worthy, needly or timely goal of this body than (for example) requiring member states to enact and enforce measures to protect workers from serious injury or harmful levels of chemical exposure...

Why haven't you written a proposal to protect workers from serious injury or chemical exposure then? That would be much more worthwhile than writing proposals to protect the rights of states to criminalise drug possession or mobile data...

Believing that individual member states - not ESWA - are best placed to determine whether any land reclamation planned within their jurisdiction complies with international law, never mind whether it offers better health or environmental benefits than doing nothing, and to grant or deny permits accordingly, and

Opposed if this is included.

[Tinhampton]

Why haven't you written a proposal to protect workers from serious injury or chemical exposure then?

You'd better believe I'm mad that Health and Safety Act failed. (Alistia should hopefully come up with a redraft soon but that isn't exactly the point of this thread.)

Believing that individual member states - not ESWA - are best placed to determine whether any land reclamation planned within their jurisdiction complies with international law, never mind whether it offers better health or environmental benefits than doing nothing, and to grant or deny permits accordingly, and

Opposed if this is included.

Why?

[Honeydewistania]

Why haven't you written a proposal to protect workers from serious injury or chemical exposure then?

You'd better believe I'm mad that Health and Safety Act failed. (Alistia should hopefully come up with a redraft soon but that isn't exactly the point of this thread.)

Oh yeah. My bad, I forgor :skull: about that proposal.

Opposed if this is included.

Why?

It endorses environmentally reckless land reclamation practices, and sets a precedent that environmental resolutions can be repealed because "member nations know better". You've got a strong enough argument about the study thing already, focus on that.

[Xanthorrhoea]

I’d argue this comes down to semantics, and how broadly you want to interpret the meaning of the word “conducts.” Do we interpret it as requiring that the study be performed by members of the state’s bureaucracy, or do we interpret it more broadly to include, for example, commissioning an independent 3rd party to conduct the study (an extremely common practice IRL)? I’d be in favour of the latter interpretation, but I’d happily hear some arguments from the legal experts.

If the latter interpretation is allowed, I see no problem here, and no need for repeal.

Convinced that the establishment of an international bureaucracy to approve or reject all proposed land reclamation projects in member states is not a more worthy, needly or timely goal of this body than (for example) requiring member states to enact and enforce measures to protect workers from serious injury or harmful levels of chemical exposure...

I don’t see the point of the paragraph. Just because you think other issues are more worthy of passing does not mean this should be repealed. That’s like saying all food not made in a Michelin star restaurant should be thrown in the bin.

[Tinhampton]

...I’d happily hear some arguments from the legal experts.

Same!

[Tinhampton]

bump

[Honeydewistania]

I wonder if we’ll be back here again after Health and Safety Act III fails

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Affairs: While we are unsure if the first part of the argument has merit (if it is true that member nations are prohibited from carrying out land reclamation, full support), we will not support this without a replacement. The damage caused by land reclamation through the excavation of sand and the mass murder of marine life is too devastating to ignore. As the proposal text suggests that a replacement is undesirable, we are opposed.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“I see no reason to reject this.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Barfleur]

"I support this proposal. The environment is not helped by forbidding those land reclamation projects which are found to be of little to no harm, and which happen to be carried out by the state. I am a little more wary of the clause asserting that member nations know best, so to speak, and that there is no need for any international oversight on this subject. Perhaps that is true; perhaps not, but it is clear that banning all state-run land reclamation is not the answer."

[Mangrove Roots]

Full support. This seems like a well-thought-out and presented proposal, and we look forward to seeing this one at vote! Best of luck!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Noting that:

1. Article 4 of GA#526 requires member states "to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate" its provisions, and that
2. Article 1b thereof defines an impact study as "an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation,"

Deducing that member states (unlike private enterprises) are completely prohibited from embarking on land reclamation under GA#526, given that they cannot conduct "an independent survey" of the "potential ecological impacts" of their own projects,...

OOC: Could you explain how "conduct" can't possibly include "pay a reputable agency to carry out" a study of potential impacts?

[Barfleur]

...Noting that:

1. Article 4 of GA#526 requires member states "to conduct impact studies to determine if proceeding with land reclamation will not violate" its provisions, and that
2. Article 1b thereof defines an impact study as "an independent survey conducted to determine the potential ecological impacts of land reclamation,"

Deducing that member states (unlike private enterprises) are completely prohibited from embarking on land reclamation under GA#526, given that they cannot conduct "an independent survey" of the "potential ecological impacts" of their own projects,...

OOC: Could you explain how "conduct" can't possibly include "pay a reputable agency to carry out" a study of potential impacts?

OOC: Not Tinhampton ( ) but I would imagine that paying or directing someone else to carry out a study would make it not independent, given the indirect level of influence wielded by the state. Also, what's to stop a state from doing what you suggest, then doing the same for a second study once the first doesn't give them the answer they want? The only way I can see the target not forbidding state reclamation projects is if a person makes an environmental-based challenge, and then both sides (state and challenger) together appoint an impartial investigator to carry out the study. But even that is far from on firm ground, as the target requires all reclamation projects to pass an environmental audit, regardless of whether there is a challenge lodged.

[Tinhampton]

Not Barfleur but I agree with him (also, as far as I'm concerned, you can't "conduct" something if you're not actually doing it)

[Tinhampton]

Bump. I stand by my analysis of Article 4.

[Honeydewistania]

Is this draft just for you to be salty about defeated proposals?