NationStates

IC: Delegates of the member nations, we present before you a draft to repeal Resolution #417, to anticipate a replacement. Before you is the current draft on a holoscreen, updating as we make updates.

OOC: Taking what I said from this post and making a proposal out of it.

---

The General Assembly,

Appreciating the efforts of #417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracking" to lower incidents of fracking-related problems,

Finding, on the contrary, that the resolution is somewhat unable to perform its duties,

Citing:

• Sections 2a and 2b, do not state the organization(s) that would enforce their requirements, in checking for contamination from fracking both in general and in water supplies. This is not remedied by Section 2c, which only states, for its purposes, the World Health Authority as the enforcer.
  
  
• Section 3, which attempts to ensure that restrictions are still enforced on fields on the borders between states; the section does not mention instances where borders are shared between members and non-members, and where fracking by non-members could cause damages in the member country which could not be fixed by the intervention of the target.*

Needing a way for a replacement to remedy the issues cited here,

Hereby repeals GAR#417 "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracking".

---

* = This section, as mentioned in the linked post, is a bit dubious to me. I added it here in case it was true. A review on that portion would be nice.

[reserved]

"Due to the target's infringement upon economic freedom, we support repeal of the target in principle."

Untecna wrote:Sections 2a and 2b, do not state the organization(s) that would enforce their requirements, in checking for contamination from fracking both in general and in water supplies. This is not remedied by Section 2c, which only states, for its purposes, the World Health Authority as the enforcer.

"Would member nations not be responsible for enforcing these?"

Section 3, which attempts to ensure that restrictions are still enforced on fields on the borders between states; the section does not mention instances where borders are shared between members and non-members, and where fracking by non-members could cause damages in the member country which could not be fixed by the intervention of the target.*

"Borders between member nations and non-member nations are still 'national boundaries'. However, a non-member, by virtue of not being under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, cannot be prohibited from engaging in fracking -- what is your proposed alternative policy to address fracking by non-members?"

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

The Ice States wrote:"Due to the target's infringement upon economic freedom, we support repeal of the target in principle."

Untecna wrote:Sections 2a and 2b, do not state the organization(s) that would enforce their requirements, in checking for contamination from fracking both in general and in water supplies. This is not remedied by Section 2c, which only states, for its purposes, the World Health Authority as the enforcer.

"Would member nations not be responsible for enforcing these?"

"If that was stated, yes. I suppose it could be inferred, but at the same time, why leave it to member states to enforce the regulations, when it is more likely that it may become a loophole to be exploited? In shorter form, why trust the members to not exploit a vague portion of a proposal?"

Section 3, which attempts to ensure that restrictions are still enforced on fields on the borders between states; the section does not mention instances where borders are shared between members and non-members, and where fracking by non-members could cause damages in the member country which could not be fixed by the intervention of the target.*

"Borders between member nations and non-member nations are still 'national boundaries'. However, a non-member, by virtue of not being under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, cannot be prohibited from engaging in fracking -- what is your proposed alternative policy to address fracking by non-members?"

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"We do not wish to stop non-members from fracking; however, the fact that damages to the environment in member nations from fracking by non-members, and the lack of ways for this proposal to stop it, pushes us to believe that Section 3 is flawed. An alternative to Section 3, or rather, an addition, would be to allow for assistance from the WA in the cleanups of those damages, and the encouragement of members to prevent the effects of fracking from non-members from seeping in. Whether or not this would be effective is up for the rest to tell, and I can not be sure if we would be the ones to replace the target resolution."

“I would not disavow on principle to a repeal of Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracking. However, I am not sure that these arguments are convincing.” Lewitt gestures to Ambassador Hemming. “The delegation from the Ice States has raised many of my points already, so I will be focusing more on your responses to his argumentation.”

Untecna wrote:

The Ice States wrote:"Due to the target's infringement upon economic freedom, we support repeal of the target in principle."


"Would member nations not be responsible for enforcing these?"

"If that was stated, yes. I suppose it could be inferred, but at the same time, why leave it to member states to enforce the regulations, when it is more likely that it may become a loophole to be exploited? In shorter form, why trust the members to not exploit a vague portion of a proposal?"

“Suppose that it is not inferred that nations directly enforce these. A state still has an obligation to ensure that it is in compliance with the legislation of the General Assembly. No matter who enforces the regulations, in an immediate sense, it is ultimately the nation in question that must ensure that the regulations are enforced. By whom seems irrelevant, provided that there is an enforcement. Of course, an enforcement which does not truly enforce is not enforcement, so there must be capable enforcement of these regulations. I am not certain how states could exploit this vagueness, nor to what end.”

"Borders between member nations and non-member nations are still 'national boundaries'. However, a non-member, by virtue of not being under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, cannot be prohibited from engaging in fracking -- what is your proposed alternative policy to address fracking by non-members?"

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"We do not wish to stop non-members from fracking; however, the fact that damages to the environment in member nations from fracking by non-members, and the lack of ways for this proposal to stop it, pushes us to believe that Section 3 is flawed. An alternative to Section 3, or rather, an addition, would be to allow for assistance from the WA in the cleanups of those damages, and the encouragement of members to prevent the effects of fracking from non-members from seeping in. Whether or not this would be effective is up for the rest to tell, and I can not be sure if we would be the ones to replace the target resolution."

“This is not a good argument for a repeal, because it addresses the resolution only in negative grounds: what it does not do. There is likely an infinite number of good things that any given resolution does not do, both because of limits to the size of the proposal and, more simply, because that can be left for other resolutions. In this case, there is nothing to prevent a future resolution specifically on addressing fracking by nations which are not members of the World Assembly. However, due to the lack of power that the General Assembly has over that area, this would achieve rather little. Perhaps this is why Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracking does not do so.”

OOC: I will respond in due time. Putting this here to make sure that is made clear.

Edit: Didn't realize Cretox had made a repeal. Looking at it... yeah, I missed a lot. I'll kill this.

Who is responsible for the enforcement of these??