Navigable Streams and Waterways Act

[Grasmere]

OOC: I was confused about the category on this one, so if anyone knows which one is the most applicable, please let me know.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that certain streams and waterways are under the jurisdiction of two or more countries

DEFINES a "Navigable Stream or Waterway" as a landlocked body of water within the borders of two of more nations OR a body of water that has water claims from two or more countries with no international waters seperating them at any point

REALIZING that insufficient legislation governing these waterways leads to smuggling of illegal materials, such as the Immigrant Oil Incident, in which Balcandoran Immigrants stole and exported large amounts of resources illegaly to foreign nations.

NOTING that this legislation does not apply to international waters or ships with proper documentation to travel to a certain country

CLARIFYING that nations can still set size maximums for watercraft travel in these streams/waterways

Hereby:

MANDATES nations to enforce laws that allow personal/recreational watercraft and other non-commercial or non-military watercraft to cross into waters controlled by another nation, providing they do not make contact with any other water vessel or dock on the shore of that nation.

REQUIRES nations to enforce these laws and set aside funding for units, such as a coast guard or similar, to help stop the smuggling of illegal goods

Any comments/criticism or things I should add would be appreciated. This is my first resolution so I welcome any criticism

MANDATES that ships

[The Ainocran Embassy]

Opposed

We will deal with our territorial waters as we see fit. Nice idea though

[Unibot]

Nautical Pilotage Act? GA#104? See sig for details.

[Grasmere]

Nautical Pilotage Act? GA#104? See sig for details.

I guess, but I am specifically referring to bodies of water landlocked and restrictions on what citizens of other nations can do when they are in the waters of other nations. But your resolution does cover parts of mine.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Land locked waters are a nations property as they fall within territorial borders. An internal matter for each nation. Simple as that.

[Vitoriasa]

I think this can be seen as a purely national issue, or one between 1 or 2 nations, but not international.
It's up to each nation to set aside it's laws for nautical navigation of its' waterways.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Nautical Pilotage Act? GA#104? See sig for details.

Don't see how that has anything to do with what this proposal would be doing.

Also, to people already muttering out 'national sovereignty', you make no sense. This proposal talks about waterways within the borders of multiple nations. That's by definition international.

[Grasmere]

Nautical Pilotage Act? GA#104? See sig for details.

Don't see how that has anything to do with what this proposal would be doing.

Also, to people already muttering out 'national sovereignty', you make no sense. This proposal talks about waterways within the borders of multiple nations. That's by definition international.

Yes, although many of these are owned by only two nations, there are rare cases where waterways can be shared by multiple countries.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

If a waterway is shared by multiple nations and is divided by clear borders then each nations laws would apply on their own side of said border. I see no reason for the WA to involve ourselves in that.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If a waterway is shared by multiple nations and is divided by clear borders then each nations laws would apply on their own side of said border. I see no reason for the WA to involve ourselves in that.

You're also not seeing what this proposal does. It allows civilian ships to cross over invisible borders during recreation, so that they aren't arrested for illegally entering a nation. Unless you happen to have a fence clearly dividing your water borders (which would probably be a violation of WA environmental laws), the common sailer is vulnerable to unfair laws.

This proposal isn't great, or even good, but the idea is there and I do happen to think it's worth our time.

[Mikedor]

DEFINES a "Navigable Stream or Waterway" as a landlocked body of water within the borders of two of more nations OR a body of water that has water claims from two or more countries with no international waters seperating them at any point

'Captain! We're aground!'
'But the charts showed this as WA defined navigable!'
'Sir, it's a puddle on the northern border.'
'Goddammit! It says it's navigable, it's a landlocked body of water within the borders of two nations!'
'Sir, you can't sail a supertanker on a puddle.'

[Sucrati]

Mandating others to go into other countries, no matter what precautions is just asking for a hot headed... country to declare war.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It's a nice idea, but the Law of the Sea should take care of waters under no national territory. What about ensuring the safe passage on essential shipping canals?

[Glen-Rhodes]

... but the Law of the Sea should take care of waters under no national territory.

The proposal isn't about non-territorial waters; you can travel through those freely already.

[Northern Itasca]

As the Representative of Northern Itasca I feel that this legislation would be beneficial for many nations throughout the world. I do not feel as though it would impede on the sovereignty of any nation as it is only applied civilian and recreational vessels. As for the argument that it may only apply to 2 nations, which as previously stated still makes it international by definition. Think rivers. Not only lakes, bays, seas, etc. Are there not many rivers throughout the World than share borders with many different nations? If this proposal made it to a vote I would certainly vote for it on behalf of people of The Democratic Republic of Northern Itasca.

[Serrland]

MANDATES nations to enforce laws that allow ships and other non-commercial watercraft to cross into waters controlled by another nation, providing they do not make contact with any other water vessel or dock on the shore of that nation.

Does the above mean that a submarine from a nation with less-than-amicable relations with Serrland would be allowed to travel up a river from a neighboring state into Serrland without repercussions? There seems to be nothing in here to address either a) subamarine vehicles or b) military vessels, and the Serri delegation sees that as a major flaw in this proposal.

[Grasmere]

MANDATES nations to enforce laws that allow ships and other non-commercial watercraft to cross into waters controlled by another nation, providing they do not make contact with any other water vessel or dock on the shore of that nation.

Does the above mean that a submarine from a nation with less-than-amicable relations with Serrland would be allowed to travel up a river from a neighboring state into Serrland without repercussions? There seems to be nothing in here to address either a) subamarine vehicles or b) military vessels, and the Serri delegation sees that as a major flaw in this proposal.

Your right, I don't know how to say it, like a personal/recreational craft. I'll edit that.

[Enn]

Nautical Pilotage Act? GA#104? See sig for details.

Don't see how that has anything to do with what this proposal would be doing.

Also, to people already muttering out 'national sovereignty', you make no sense. This proposal talks about waterways within the borders of multiple nations. That's by definition international.

Yes, although many of these are owned by only two nations, there are rare cases where waterways can be shared by multiple countries.

OOC: The Nile and Lake Victoria.
If I can come up with those off the top of my head from the RW, it's a fairly certain thing they exist in numbers within NS.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I was confused about the category on this one, so if anyone knows which one is the most applicable, please let me know.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that certain streams and waterways are under the jurisdiction of two or more countries

DEFINES a "Navigable Stream or Waterway" as a landlocked body of water within the borders of two of more nations OR a body of water that has water claims from two or more countries with no international waters seperating them at any point

REALIZING that insufficient legislation governing these waterways leads to smuggling of illegal materials, such as the Immigrant Oil Incident, in which Balcandoran Immigrants stole and exported large amounts of resources illegaly to foreign nations.

NOTING that this legislation does not apply to international waters or ships with proper documentation to travel to a certain country

Hereby:

MANDATES nations to enforce laws that allow personal/recreational watercraft and other non-commercial or non-military watercraft to cross into waters controlled by another nation, providing they do not make contact with any other water vessel or dock on the shore of that nation.

REQUIRES nations to enforce these laws and set aside funding for units, such as a coast guard or similar, to help stop the smuggling of illegal goods

Any comments/criticism or things I should add would be appreciated. This is my first resolution so I welcome any criticism

MANDATES that ships

1. Decide on the category first, and then write the proposal to fit it. Allowing passage for (people in) personal/recreational watercraft would be 'Human Rights', but anti-smuggling measures would probably be 'Moral Decency' instead, so you might need to focus more closely on one or the other of these aspects and make the other one clearly subordinate to that.
2. You can't mention details such as "the Immigrant Oil Incident, in which Balcandoran Immigrants stole and exported large amounts of resources illegaly to foreign nations", because that would make the proposal illegal for 'Branding'. (You have read the rules about writing proposals, right?)
3. Please clarify that nations can still impose upper limits on the sizes & speeds of the vessels that are allowed access to any particular waters, and enforce restrictions for environmental & conservation reasons, as long as those rules apply just as much to watercraft owned by their own people as they do to foreigners' vessels. Yes?

[Grasmere]

OOC: I was confused about the category on this one, so if anyone knows which one is the most applicable, please let me know.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that certain streams and waterways are under the jurisdiction of two or more countries

DEFINES a "Navigable Stream or Waterway" as a landlocked body of water within the borders of two of more nations OR a body of water that has water claims from two or more countries with no international waters seperating them at any point

REALIZING that insufficient legislation governing these waterways leads to smuggling of illegal materials, such as the Immigrant Oil Incident, in which Balcandoran Immigrants stole and exported large amounts of resources illegaly to foreign nations.

NOTING that this legislation does not apply to international waters or ships with proper documentation to travel to a certain country

Hereby:

MANDATES nations to enforce laws that allow personal/recreational watercraft and other non-commercial or non-military watercraft to cross into waters controlled by another nation, providing they do not make contact with any other water vessel or dock on the shore of that nation.

REQUIRES nations to enforce these laws and set aside funding for units, such as a coast guard or similar, to help stop the smuggling of illegal goods

Any comments/criticism or things I should add would be appreciated. This is my first resolution so I welcome any criticism

MANDATES that ships

1. Decide on the category first, and then write the proposal to fit it. Allowing passage for (people in) personal/recreational watercraft would be 'Human Rights', but anti-smuggling measures would probably be 'Moral Decency' instead, so you might need to focus more closely on one or the other of these aspects and make the other one clearly subordinate to that.
2. You can't mention details such as "the Immigrant Oil Incident, in which Balcandoran Immigrants stole and exported large amounts of resources illegaly to foreign nations", because that would make the proposal illegal for 'Branding'. (You have read the rules about writing proposals, right?)
3. Please clarify that nations can still impose upper limits on the sizes & speeds of the vessels that are allowed access to any particular waters, and enforce restrictions for environmental & conservation reasons, as long as those rules apply just as much to watercraft owned by their own people as they do to foreigners' vessels. Yes?

I didn't think it was too much branding because I am not saying they sponsor it in any way, I am just using an example of RP to prove the point. But I can edit it out.

[Enn]

1. Decide on the category first, and then write the proposal to fit it. Allowing passage for (people in) personal/recreational watercraft would be 'Human Rights', but anti-smuggling measures would probably be 'Moral Decency' instead, so you might need to focus more closely on one or the other of these aspects and make the other one clearly subordinate to that.

Anti-smuggling could also come under 'International Security' if it's about strengthening policing powers or the like, or sharing information between nations. Drug Trafficking Act ended up there for that reason.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[The Ainocran Embassy]

would this also cover the drainage ditch we dug that leads into unibot? it's big enough for kids to float on inner tubes. I promise that it isn't raw sewage
really