PASSED: International Salvage Laws

[Sydia]

International Salvage Laws

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: FlagSydia

Description:
Description: SEEING the need to build an international understanding on salvage laws;

NOTING that international salvage laws have yet to be defined by the WA;

AWARE of the benefit such laws would provide for salvage operations;

RECOMMENDS the following measures:

1) All personnel involved in a salvage operation shall take due care to avoid unnecessary risks to human health and not to damage the surrounding environment,

2) When needed, salvors must co-operate with the salvage operations of other nations to ensure the upkeep of 1),

3) Every vessel must, by all practical means, assist any other stricken vessel unless the vessel poses any threat to the salvors, including the potential risk of the salvage operation itself. The decision not to undertake a salvage operation on the grounds of safety is left to the captain of the salvor vessel,

4) Any vessel that encounters a stricken vessel must immediately contact their own nation of the salvor and the nation which owns the stricken vessel, or if the nation owning the stricken vessel is unknown, the home nation of the stricken vessel, or if the stricken vessel’s home nation is unknown, the nearest friendly nation to the salvage site,

5) Vessels which have been designated war graves are not eligible for salvage, unless explicitly stated by the nation which owned the craft at the time of its destruction or the home nation of the vessel at the time of destruction. Any salvor breaking this clause shall be subject to the appropriate laws of said nation,

6) Any crewmen on board a salvageable vessel must co-operate fully with the salvors in order to ensure their own safety and the safety of all involved vessels,

7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,

Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor.

9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,

10) This resolution shall only apply to international waters only.

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

Edited to show the current incarnation. Discuss away, etc.

[Bears Armed]

Considering the number of rules that this would establish, it looks like 'Moral Decency' rather than 'Human Rights' to me...

[Absolvability]

8) Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor.

9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,

10) This resolution shall only apply to international waters only.

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

I'm not so sure 'lost' means irretrievable. I'm also not so sure that it is consistant with human rights OR moral decency that a salvor suddenly possesses a vessel because they had certain capabilities than another nation did not have. Are we seriously establishing a "finders keepers," policy?

Salvage that is of historical interest is probably significally more interesting to the party that lost it than the party that found it. But this is fairly synonymous with my last arguement, so I won't dwell on that point. I wonder why the salvor would still be entitled to compensation, though. Wouldn't this "finders keepers," policy imply that keeping what they find IS their compensation?

[Sydia]

8) Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor.

9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,

10) This resolution shall only apply to international waters only.

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

I'm not so sure 'lost' means irretrievable. I'm also not so sure that it is consistant with human rights OR moral decency that a salvor suddenly possesses a vessel because they had certain capabilities than another nation did not have. Are we seriously establishing a "finders keepers," policy?

Salvage that is of historical interest is probably significally more interesting to the party that lost it than the party that found it. But this is fairly synonymous with my last arguement, so I won't dwell on that point. I wonder why the salvor would still be entitled to compensation, though. Wouldn't this "finders keepers," policy imply that keeping what they find IS their compensation?

I believe you may have misunderstood somewhat; the purpose of the resolution is not to establish a "finders keepers" policy. The purpose is to regulate international salvage operations. I'll elaborate on the points quoted;

8) Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor.

In other words, if the nation or any other party has deemed that one of their vessels has is in any way irretrievable (sunk, beached, written off because of hull damage, etc), then the parties which salvage said vessel are to be considered its owner. The same applies to a vessel that has been lost (understanding the meaning of the word 'lost' to be "No longer in the possession, care, or control of someone or something"). If a salvage team retrieves it, then they should be paid for that service if the party seeks to reacquire it. 'Lost' and 'deemed irretrievable' can indeed be seen as two seperate things; we'll elaborate on that in the next point:

9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,

If the original owning party seeks to reacquire their vessel, the salvor should be compensated for their efforts in retrieving the vessel. Salvage operations can often be dangerous work, work that should require payment as a service.
The bolded part is crucial to the understanding of the prior point; a vessel that has been 'lost' could well be one that has been adrift because of a technical fault, and deemed lost because it has not reported to the intented destination, or a ship that has been blown off course, etc. In this case the operation to retrieve it would be simpler than if a vessel were deemed irretrievable in the case of sunken vessels and the like. The compensation given by the original party (should they seek to reacquire it) should reflect this. If they do not wish to reacquire it, then the problem solves itself; the salvor has the vessel in their possession.

10) This resolution shall only apply to international waters only.

Self explanatory. WA nations reserve the right to conduct salvage operations in their own waters as they see fit.

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

Historical salvage is a special case, which is why salvors require special training in order to conduct salvage operations. Historical salvage is eligable to be claimed back by the nation closest to the site (so that it may be put on public display). Salvors aren't charities however, and compensation for services rendered (especially in potentially complex operations) should still apply.

There is no 'finders keepers', merely a guarantee that work in salvage will be compensated one way or the other.

[Studly Penguins]

Congrats on this bill reaching quorum!!!

[Absolvability]

You should add a clause stating, "If the party of original ownership does wish to reaquire said vessel then the salvors MUST return it, pending adequate compensation."

Otherwise, and regardless of explaination or intention, you are establishing a "finders keepers," policy.

[Sydia]

Um...

"7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Proposals submitted under the wrong category can earn you mod warnings if you're not careful. This proposal has been reported. Please review the Rules for WA Proposals before submitting, and posting here BEFORE you submit can't hurt, either.

[Sydia]

Don't talk to me like I'm some turnip who was born yesterday. The category was debated and it was decided that human rights was the most fitting. The proposal has been debated, on the Jolt forums not long ago, and on several forums several years ago.

The main thrust of the resolution is concerning the rights of salvors, owning parties and crewmembers. All of the aforementioned are human. Therefore, human rights.

Edit: What the...

Has the proposal been deleted?! On the day it comes to vote? Without any warning or consultation whatsoever?

Fantastic.

[The Altan Steppes]

The main thrust of the resolution is concerning the rights of salvors, owning parties and crewmembers. All of the aforementioned are human. Therefore, human rights.

Considering that not everyone in the WA is "human", and that not everyone who's going to try to salvage something is going to be "human" either, that's a tenuous argument at best.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

[Sydia]

The main thrust of the resolution is concerning the rights of salvors, owning parties and crewmembers. All of the aforementioned are human. Therefore, human rights.

Considering that not everyone in the WA is "human", and that not everyone who's going to try to salvage something is going to be "human" either, that's a tenuous argument at best.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It was only a matter of time before somebody came back with the RP angle. Yes, RP that you control a nation full of cosmic giraffes for all I care. The WA doesn't have categories that accomodate the imaginations of several thousand players, so if you have a problem with 'human' rights that's your issue with WA categories, not mine. Human Rights, magical elf rights, whatever.

Let's analyse the other categories, shall we?
Environmental: Does contain environmental clauses, but only a small part of the resolution. Most of the clauses do not consider the environment at all, so that's out.
Social Justice: The strongest case is for this, but most of the resolution has nothing to do with either welfare or inequalility.
Free Trade: Some aspects of trade, perhaps, but a very tenuous link.
Furtherment of Democracy: Nothing to do with democracy.
International Security: Has little military aspect, more aimed at civilian salvors.
Gambling: Obviously not.
Global Disarmament: No mention of disarmament.
Recreational Drug Use: No, unless 'salvage' is some kind of youth slang.
Moral Decency: Places no restrictions in the name of moral decency.
Political Stability: Makes no regulations of a political nature.
Gun Control: Clearly not.
Advancement of Industry: Could make a case of this, but given the varied clauses this doesn't fit.
Education and Creativity: Nothing to do with either of those.

Human Rights: A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Let me count the ways...

1) All personnel involved in a salvage operation shall take due care to avoid unnecessary risks to human health and not to damage the surrounding environment,

Ensure right to life/safety in salvage operations.

2) When needed, salvors must co-operate with the salvage operations of other nations to ensure the upkeep of 1),

Futher ensurement of right to life/safety.

3) Every vessel must, by all practical means, assist any other stricken vessel unless the vessel poses any threat to the salvors, including the potential risk of the salvage operation itself. The decision not to undertake a salvage operation on the grounds of safety is left to the captain of the salvor vessel,

Futher ensurement of right to life/safety.

4) Any vessel that encounters a stricken vessel must immediately contact their own nation of the salvor and the nation which owns the stricken vessel, or if the nation owning the stricken vessel is unknown, the home nation of the stricken vessel, or if the stricken vessel’s home nation is unknown, the nearest friendly nation to the salvage site,

Right to knowledge of the salvage operation, don't want people ignorant of the state their own vessels and crew (who are human/magical space cow/whatever).

5) Vessels which have been designated war graves are not eligible for salvage, unless explicitly stated by the nation which owned the craft at the time of its destruction. the home nation of the vessel at the time of destruction. Any salvor breaking this clause shall be subject to the appropriate laws of said nation,

Obviously human rights, basic human dignity and ensuring relatives are not distressed.

6) Any crewmen on board a salvageable vessel must co-operate fully with the salvors in order to ensure their own safety and the safety of all involved vessels,

I feel like a broken record; right to safety.

7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,

Establishing the rights of owners.

8) Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor.

Establishing rights of salvors.

9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,

Further rights of salvors.

10) This resolution shall only apply to international waters only.

Clarity of the jurisdiction of the resolution.

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

Rights of the public.

Rights here there and everywhere. No other category would best suit it. It was (re)written with human rights in mind.

The fact that the proposal has been resubmitted since April (and been on the Jolt forums since that time) without any issue whatsoever and suddenly, the day it's reached quorum, it is suddenly found to be illegal stretches credulity of the 'rule break' reason beyond belief.

Edited for typos and vitriol.

[Sydia]

Resubmitted under Social Justice, since that's the only other category that vaguely fits. If any one has an issue, how about speaking up before it reaches quorum next time, eh? No wonder the game is on the bones.

[Flibbleites]

Resubmitted under Social Justice, since that's the only other category that vaguely fits. If any one has an issue, how about speaking up before it reaches quorum next time, eh? No wonder the game is on the bones.

And maybe you shouldn't be in such a rush to submit, there's no way that Social Justice is the right category for this proposal. Show me where this reduces income inequality or increases basic welfare.

To be perfectly honest, it looks to me like you've run into one of the pitfalls that frequently befall proposal authors, you wrote the proposal first and now are trying to shoehorn it into a category, when you should've picked the category first and then written the proposal to fit.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Sydia]

If Human Rights wasn't correct, Social Justice is the only other one that fits. Welfare; welfare of salvors and crew. Income inequality, salvage compensation. If the WA doesn't like it, they can lump it.

The proposal was a very old one (2005), inspired by the Kursk incident about ten years ago. Noted that the UN/WA doesn't have any resolution of this nature, it's an international issue, so there we go.

[Flibbleites]

If Human Rights wasn't correct, Social Justice is the only other one that fits. Welfare; welfare of salvors and crew. Income inequality, salvage compensation. If the WA doesn't like it, they can lump it.

The proposal was a very old one (2005), inspired by the Kursk incident about ten years ago. Noted that the UN/WA doesn't have any resolution of this nature, it's an international issue, so there we go.

Actually, I already told you what fits, NOTHING. There is no category that this proposal fits into. Of course, if you want to ignore my advice that's your prerogative, after all what do I know, I only helped write the current proposal rules.

[Sydia]

Then that is a clear flaw with the WA categories, not the proposal. You gave no advice, so no need to take offence at me following nothing. Unless you were insinuating that I give up, which I'd rather not, thanks.

It also shows that the original complaint/deletion was an error in judgement on behalf of the original complainer and NS mods.

[Flibbleites]

You know what, if you want to get kicked out of the WA for submitting illegal proposals, who am I to stop you. I've told you that you need to rewrite the proposal so it matches a category, if you're not willing to do that then it's out of my hands.

Although I will point out that since the UN and WA have managed to pass almost 300 resolutions between them (and several more that failed) it's fairly obvious that the problem here lies with the proposal, not the categories.

[Sydia]

Given the amount of nonsense that passes unchallenged I highly doubt I will be 'kicked out' of anything, so I will gladly dismiss your hyperbole.

The proposal does fit in Human Rights. Look above. Refute if you wish.

Or Social Justice. At a push, admittedly.

Edit:
On reflection, I think it fits SJ more than HR. I'm human, we all make mistakes.

On this basis:
SJ are classed as "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.".
In this case, the basic welfare being increased is that of the salvors, crew, and families of those lost at sea, as evident by numerous safety clauses at the start of the resolution. What is that, if not welfare?
It also reduces income equality, with the target here being salvors. Before this resolution, there would no guarantee of any sort of payment for work in international waters. After, they are guaranteed compensation according to their efforts. What is that, if not income equality?

I therefore repudiate any claims that the proposal is illegal in any way or does not fit any categories and requires a rewrite. If you wish to argue that, you will have to prove the intent of the resolution is not welfare and/or income based. Which you'd have a hard time doing, seeing as numerous clauses deal with both these issues.

Oh, and I kept the strength 'mild' given the impact the proposal would have; it's very specifically aimed at salvors, sea-goers in need of salvors and owning parties, who in any given nation will make up a small percentage of the populace.

[Bears Armed]

The 'Moral Decency' category isn't just about "morality" in the 'sex-&-drugs-&-(rock-&-roll)' sense, it's for any proposals that suggest or require governments set limits on people's [non-'political'] behaviour... which your proposal's clauses #1-7 & #11 would do. Clear fit.

[Sydia]

I don't believe moral decency would fit with the spirit of the proposal. Social justice, however, does fit very well, points 1 - 6 concerning increasing welfare of several different parties and points 7 - 11 addressing income equality in the case of salvors.

[Bears Armed]

I don't believe moral decency would fit with the spirit of the proposal.

It definitely fits the wording, which is what officially counts: I've used bold type to indicate the relevant details here...

1) All personnel involved in a salvage operation shall take due care to avoid unnecessary risks to human health and not to damage the surrounding environment,

2) When needed, salvors must co-operate with the salvage operations of other nations to ensure the upkeep of 1),

3) Every vessel must, by all practical means, assist any other stricken vessel unless the vessel poses any threat to the salvors, including the potential risk of the salvage operation itself. The decision not to undertake a salvage operation on the grounds of safety is left to the captain of the salvor vessel,

4) Any vessel that encounters a stricken vessel must immediately contact their own nation of the salvor and the nation which owns the stricken vessel, or if the nation owning the stricken vessel is unknown, the home nation of the stricken vessel, or if the stricken vessel’s home nation is unknown, the nearest friendly nation to the salvage site,

5) Vessels which have been designated war graves are not eligible for salvage, unless explicitly stated by the nation which owned the craft at the time of its destruction. the home nation of the vessel at the time of destruction. Any salvor breaking this clause shall be subject to the appropriate laws of said nation,

6) Any crewmen on board a salvageable vessel must co-operate fully with the salvors in order to ensure their own safety and the safety of all involved vessels,

7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,

*(snip)*

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

[Sydia]

Yes, the wording compels action, which can (in one interpretation) be MD. But the intent of the wording is SJ;

SEEING the need to build an international understanding on salvage laws;

NOTING that international salvage laws have yet to be defined by the WA;

AWARE of the benefit such laws would provide for salvage operations;

RECOMMENDS the following measures:

1) All personnel involved in a salvage operation shall take due care to avoid unnecessary risks to human health and not to damage the surrounding environment,

2) When needed, salvors must co-operate with the salvage operations of other nations to ensure the upkeep of 1),

3) Every vessel must, by all practical means, assist any other stricken vessel unless the vessel poses any threat to the salvors, including the potential risk of the salvage operation itself. The decision not to undertake a salvage operation on the grounds of safety is left to the captain of the salvor vessel,

4) Any vessel that encounters a stricken vessel must immediately contact their own nation of the salvor and the nation which owns the stricken vessel, or if the nation owning the stricken vessel is unknown, the home nation of the stricken vessel, or if the stricken vessel’s home nation is unknown, the nearest friendly nation to the salvage site,

5) Vessels which have been designated war graves are not eligible for salvage, unless explicitly stated by the nation which owned the craft at the time of its destruction. the home nation of the vessel at the time of destruction. Any salvor breaking this clause shall be subject to the appropriate laws of said nation,

6) Any crewmen on board a salvageable vessel must co-operate fully with the salvors in order to ensure their own safety and the safety of all involved vessels,

7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,

Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor.

9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,

10) This resolution shall only apply to international waters only.

11) Salvage that is of legitimate historical interest is eligible to be claimed by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display. A salvor is still entitled to compensation in this case. Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck.

Admittedly, there are many aspects that could fit in another category. In fact, I'd go so far to wager that many, many resolutions have aspects that technically belong in another catergory. Clause 5 perhaps fits MD better than SJ. Bits of clause 1 are environmental.

However, should we split the proposal up and submit each of these points separately? Of course not, they're all on the same topic, might as well keep it together and coherent.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Congratulations on reaching Quorum, again!

[Sydia]

Thanks, ZS! After a minor typo correction and category change it's finally at vote.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Also update the leading post with the current category and text so WA ambassadors do not mistake for the actual version.