[Draft] International Marine Sanctuaries

[Ransium]

Category: Environmental
Area of Impact: Fishing

The World Assembly,

Praising this august assembly's previous efforts to maintain sustainable levels of fish stocks internationally,

Noting that fishery management in international water poses particular challenges in terms of determining what a sustainable removal of fish is and international enforcement, and therefore, as many tools as possible are needed to attempt to address the problem,

Further noting that marine sanctuaries, defined as setting off a certain, biologically determined to be optimal, area of water to be a no-fishing zone for a certain target species, set of target species, or all species of fish, in exchange for reduced or eliminated quotas outside of the marine sanctuary, to be one such tool that has been found to be effective at maintaining sustainable fishing levels, while at the same time being relative cheap to enforce,

Aware, however, that in international waters, marine sanctuaries require an international legal framework to be successfully implementable,

Defines "area of consideration" as a specific area where a marine sanctuary is being considered for a species, target species, or all marine animals in the area,

Further defines "nations of interest" as a nation with members of its population fishing in the area of consideration historically or currently, or highly likely to begin fishing in the area in the foreseeable future; nations can be of interest regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with the World Assembly,

Hereby declares a marine sanctuary to be established in international waters if:

1. All nations of interest to the area of consideration are invited to cooperate in the consideration of whether the reserve should be established;
2. Cooperating nations of interest form an international team to study the evidence related to the area of consideration; the biological nature of the species, group of species, or all marine life in the area of consideration; and the sentient species current use in the area of consideration;
3. After reviewing the body of evidence, the cooperating nations of interest unanimously approve the establishment of the reserve;

Mandates that once a fishing sanctuary is established, no World Assembly member nations may fish in the marine sanctuary for the target species;

Further mandates that if nations fish for target species within the marine sanctuary, World Assembly member nations shall endeavor cooperatively and diplomatically to end the disruption;

Allows for a marine sanctuary to be temporarily or permanently disbanded by a majority vote of all the original signatory nations that wish to continue to participate;

Recommends that continued biological study is made to assure that conditions and assumptions made in the establishment in terms of the marine sanctuary's ability to maintain sustainable fish stock levels continue to be valid;

Clarifies that the establishment of a marine sanctuary does not relieve a nation from any other international legal obligation towards sustainable fishing.

Note: earlier drafts moved 2 posts down.

[Araraukar]

Hereby declares a fishing sanctuary to be established in international waters if, after reviewing the specific biological and human use evidence to the area and species, a delegation composed of all nations who have a historic, current, or legitimate probable future fishing use claim in the area unanimously approve its implementation;

Isn't that a "trying to legislate for non-WA nations" violation? Also, replace "human" with some species-neutral, please. Also, this reads very clumsily, with wordings like "future fishing use claim". I suggest breaking it up into a definition or two and an active clause.

Mandates that once a fishing sanctuary is declared, no World Assembly member nations may fish in the fishing sanctuary for the target species;

Which target species? Definitions, please. Also, exactly how are you going to avoid bycatch?

Allows for appropriate retaliatory action for non-World Assembly member nations that violate the fishing sanctuary;

What's "appropriate retaliatory action"? Diplomatic letters? Trade sanctions? Acts of war?

Further allows for a fishing sanctuary to be temporarily or permanently disbanded by a majority vote of the original signatory nations;

Again, legislating for non-member nations...

Recommends that continued biological study is made to assure that conditions and assumptions made in the establishment in terms of the fishing sanctuary's ability to maintain sustainable fish stock levels continue to be valid;

"Continued" study? Where does it say it even has to be started?

Clarifies that the establishment of a fishing sanctuary does not relieve a nation from any other international legal obligation towards sustainable fishing.

Now, exactly what is the fishing sanctuary - and it probably should be named something like "marine sanctuary" instead, since you're prohibiting fishing in them - for, if not to avoid overfishing? And if it's to avoid overfishing, that's already being done by GA #199, Sustainable Fishing Act.

[Ransium]

I'm trying to create a legal framework so that fishing sanctuaries can be used as a tool to regulate overfishing. Just because GA 199 illegalized overfishing doesn't mean it created and implemented a perfect legal framework for all possible tools to accomplish this goal.

As for the issue of regulating non-WA nations, I wasn't aware the rules against it went so far as you can't require WA nations to possibly take action against non-WA nations. That may be a fatal flaw as there doesn't seem to be any point to setting up a no-fishing zone that only 10% of nations will actually obey. Might have to abandon this idea.

Category: Environmental
Area of Impact: Fishing

The World Assembly,

Praising this august assembly's previous efforts to maintain sustainable levels of fish stocks internationally,

Noting that fishery management in international water poses particular challenges in terms of determining what a sustainable removal of fish is and international enforcement, and therefore, as many tools as possible are needed to attempt to address the problem,

Further noting that marine sanctuaries, defined as setting off a certain, biologically determined to be optimal, area of water to be a no-fishing zone for a certain target species, set of target species, or all species of fish, in exchange for reduced or eliminated quotas outside of the marine sanctuary, to be one such tool that has been found to be effective at maintaining sustainable fishing levels, while at the same time being relative cheap to enforce,

Aware, however, that in international waters, marine sanctuaries require an international legal framework to be successfully implementable,

Defines "area of consideration" as a specific area where a marine sanctuary is being considered for a species, target species, or all marine animals in the area,

Further defines "nations of interest" as a nation with members of its population fishing in the area of consideration historically or currently, or highly likely to begin fishing in the area in the foreseeable future; nations can be of interest regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with the World Assembly,

Hereby declares a marine sanctuary to be established in international waters if:
All nations of interest to the area of consideration are invited to cooperate in the consideration of whether the reserve should be established;
Cooperating nations of interest form an international team to study the evidence related to the area of consideration; the biological nature of the species, group of species, or all marine life in the area of consideration; and the sentient species current use in the area of consideration;
After reviewing the body of evidence, the cooperating nations of interest unanimously approve the establishment of the reserve;
Mandates that once a fishing sanctuary is established, no World Assembly member nations may fish in the marine sanctuary for the target species;

Further mandates that if nations violate the marine sanctuary, World Assembly member nations shall endeavor cooperatively and diplomatically to end the violation;

Allows for a marine sanctuary to be temporarily or permanently disbanded by a majority vote of all the original signatory nations that wish to continue to participate;

Recommends that continued biological study is made to assure that conditions and assumptions made in the establishment in terms of the marine sanctuary's ability to maintain sustainable fish stock levels continue to be valid;

Clarifies that the establishment of a marine sanctuary does not relieve a nation from any other international legal obligation towards sustainable fishing.

Category: Environmental
Area of Impact: Fishing

The World Assembly,

Praising this august assembly's previous efforts to maintain sustainable levels of fish stocks internationally,

Noting that fishery management in international water poses particular challenges in terms of determining what a sustainable removal of fish is and international enforcement, and therefore, as many tools as possible are needed to attempt to address the problem,

Further noting that marine sanctuaries, defined as setting off a certain, biologically determined to be optimal, area of water to be a no-fishing zone for a certain target species, set of target species, or all species of fish, in exchange for reduced or eliminated quotas outside of the marine sanctuary, to be one such tool that has been found to be effective at maintaining sustainable fishing levels, while at the same time being relative cheap to enforce,

Aware, however, that in international waters, marine sanctuaries require an international legal framework to be successfully implementable,

Defines "area of consideration" as a specific area where a marine sanctuary is being considered for a species, target species, or all marine animals in the area,

Further defines "nations of interest" as a nation with members of its population fishing in the area of consideration historically or currently, or highly likely to begin fishing in the area in the foreseeable future; nations can be of interest regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with the World Assembly,

Hereby declares a marine sanctuary to be established in international waters if:

1. All nations of interest to the area of consideration are invited to join an international committee to consider whether the reserve should be established;
2. Once formed, the committee creates an international team to study the evidence related to the area of consideration; the biological nature of the species, group of species, or all marine life in the area of consideration; and the sentient species use in the area of consideration;
3. After reviewing the body of evidence the committee unanimously approves the establishment of the reserve;

Mandates that once a fishing sanctuary is established, no World Assembly member nations may fish in the marine sanctuary for the target species;

Further mandates that if non-World Assembly nations violate the marine sanctuary, all World Assembly nations join in punitive, non-violent measures against that nation, such as sanctions, asset freezing, and targeted embargos;

Allows for a marine sanctuary to be temporarily or permanently disbanded by a majority vote of all the original signatory nations that wish to continue to participate;

Recommends that continued biological study is made to assure that conditions and assumptions made in the establishment in terms of the marine sanctuary's ability to maintain sustainable fish stock levels continue to be valid;

Clarifies that the establishment of a marine sanctuary does not relieve a nation from any other international legal obligation towards sustainable fishing.

Category: Environmental
Area of Impact: Trout Fishing

The World Assembly,

Praising this august assembly's previous efforts to maintain sustainable levels of fish stocks internationally,

Noting that fishery management in international water poses particular challenges and uncertainties in terms of determining what a sustainable removal of fish is, as well as international enforcement, and therefore, as many tools as possible are needed to attempt to address the problem,

Further noting that fishing sanctuaries, defined as setting off a certain, biologically determined to be optimal, area of water to be a no-fishing zone for a certain species, set of species, or all species of fish, in exchange for reduced or eliminated target quotas outside of the fishing sanctuary, to be one such tool that has been found to be effective at maintaining sustainable fishing levels, while at the same time being relative cheap to enforce,

Aware, however, that in international waters, fishing sanctuaries require an international legal framework to be successfully implementable,

Hereby declares a fishing sanctuary to be established in international waters if, after reviewing the specific biological and human use evidence to the area and species, a delegation composed of all nations who have a historic, current, or legitimate probable future fishing use claim in the area unanimously approve its implementation;

Mandates that once a fishing sanctuary is declared, no World Assembly member nations may fish in the fishing sanctuary for the target species;

Allows for appropriate retaliatory action for non-World Assembly member nations that violate the fishing sanctuary;

Further allows for a fishing sanctuary to be temporarily or permanently disbanded by a majority vote of the original signatory nations;

Recommends that continued biological study is made to assure that conditions and assumptions made in the establishment in terms of the fishing sanctuary's ability to maintain sustainable fish stock levels continue to be valid;

Clarifies that the establishment of a fishing sanctuary does not relieve a nation from any other international legal obligation towards sustainable fishing.

[Araraukar]

As for the issue of regulating non-WA nations, I wasn't aware the rules against it went so far as you can't require WA nations to possibly take action against non-WA nations.

OOC: They don't, but the clause about creating the sanctuary by requiring cooperation of all nations whom it concerns, would realistically - because 85% of all nations are non-members, and I doubt most member nations encompass the whole planet they're on - include non-members. It is possible to legally extend a right to something to non-member nations who abide by some rules laid down for member nations, but requiring participation from them is not.

Also, you ban member nations from fishing in the sanctuary (extending the ban to non-members would, again, violate the rule), but then in the next clause say that non-member nations can be punished for doing something that you cannot ban them from doing and don't even try to ban them from doing. Which, I think, actually would break the "no punishment without law" resolution.

That may be a fatal flaw as there doesn't seem to be any point to setting up a no-fishing zone that only 10% of nations will actually obey.

15% of nations, but yeah, pretty much that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As for the issue of regulating non-WA nations, I wasn't aware the rules against it went so far as you can't require WA nations to possibly take action against non-WA nations.

OOC: They don't, but the clause about creating the sanctuary by requiring cooperation of all nations whom it concerns, would realistically - because 85% of all nations are non-members, and I doubt most member nations encompass the whole planet they're on - include non-members. It is possible to legally extend a right to something to non-member nations who abide by some rules laid down for member nations, but requiring participation from them is not.

Also, you ban member nations from fishing in the sanctuary (extending the ban to non-members would, again, violate the rule), but then in the next clause say that non-member nations can be punished for doing something that you cannot ban them from doing and don't even try to ban them from doing. Which, I think, actually would break the "no punishment without law" resolution.

That may be a fatal flaw as there doesn't seem to be any point to setting up a no-fishing zone that only 10% of nations will actually obey.

15% of nations, but yeah, pretty much that.

Requires member nations to destroy any nation which violates the exclusive fishing zones established by this resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: peer enforcement gets around this. Mandate members engage in punitive measures such as sanctions and asset freezing and targeted embargoes against nonmembers in violation. Then the WA isn't going anything illegal and the enforcement happens.

I wrote a WALR article on exactly this. I believe it's legal.

[Ransium]

There's still the problem of establishment. Can non-WA nations have a say in establishment/disbandment or is that regulating non-WA nations? If they cannot, a possibility I didn't fully consider at first, there doesn't seem to me to be a fair way to establish them to me.

[Bears Armed Mission]

There's still the problem of establishment. Can non-WA nations have a say in establishment/disbandment or is that regulating non-WA nations? If they cannot, a possibility I didn't fully consider at first, there doesn't seem to me to be a fair way to establish them to me.

OOC: As long as they are only offered the chance to participate, without stronger wording being used, it should be legal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: As long as they are only offered the chance to participate, without stronger wording being used, it should be legal.

OOC: ^That. You can't require them to do anything, but you can offer/let them join in if they want to.

As for the combined IA-SP approach, I think you might want to make it clear that acts of war would be going too far...

[Ransium]

Okay thank you everyone! I see a path forward to legality. I will try to make a revised draft soon.

[Ransium]

I've created a new draft to try to address the various legal concerns brought to my attention relating to the first draft. I'm not sure if the definition of "area of consideration" is helpful or overly complex. Any and all continued feedback would still be appreciated.

[Bears Armed]

I suggest

Defines "nations of interest" as a nation whose has had members of its population fish in a specific area historically, currently, or is highly likely to begin fish in an area in the foreseeable future;

=>

Defines "nations of interest" as a nation with members of its population fishing in a specified area historically or currently, or highly likely to begin fishing there in the foreseeable future;

[Ransium]

Done. I was still tweaking the draft so I just folded that in as part of the second draft.

[Bakhton]

nations can be of interest regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with the World Assembly,

"Ambassador, I'm not sure this is possible. The World Assembly's purview is over the legislation of member nations, it cannot impose itself onto non-member nations. We recommend this suggestion be stricken from the document in future drafting process."

Hereby declares a marine sanctuary to be established in international waters if:
[list=1][*]All nations of interest to the area of consideration are invited to join an international committee to consider whether the reserve should be established;

"So a marine sanctuary can be established under the prerequisite that nations affected be invited to a committee? This clause appears out of place."

Further mandates that if non-World Assembly nations violate the marine sanctuary, all World Assembly nations join in punitive, non-violent measures against that nation, such as sanctions, asset freezing, and targeted embargos;

"Again, I stress this is not possible. The World Assembly cannot coerce or allow the coercion of any non-member nation to join our policies. That is the job of unaffiliated international organizations. What you are attempting is a gross violation of nation's sovereignty and extending the powers of our Assembly's influence. I'm sure you do not wish this to be seen this way and change it at the nearest convenience."

Lara talks for a brief moment with a bewildered staffer. "We didn't know such a simple and positive proposal could end up so terribly wrongheaded. Please take our advice into account upon revision."

[Separatist Peoples]

nations can be of interest regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with the World Assembly,

"Ambassador, I'm not sure this is possible. The World Assembly's purview is over the legislation of member nations, it cannot impose itself onto non-member nations. We recommend this suggestion be stricken from the document in future drafting process."

"So long as nonmember compliance is voluntary, and any benefits are predicated on their voluntary adherence to the law, precedent suggests the opposite, ambassador."

Hereby declares a marine sanctuary to be established in international waters if:
All nations of interest to the area of consideration are invited to join an international committee to consider whether the reserve should be established;

"Though, this does seem to be an issue. The committee staffing guidelines already provide that member states cannot seat or send representatives to seat a committee. Merely requiring cooperation from those nations without reference to a committee would evade this legality issue."

"Again, I stress this is not possible. The World Assembly cannot coerce or allow the coercion of any non-member nation to join our policies. That is the job of unaffiliated international organizations. What you are attempting is a gross violation of nation's sovereignty and extending the powers of our Assembly's influence. I'm sure you do not wish this to be seen this way and change it at the nearest convenience."

"This isn't entirely accurate, ambassador. The World Assembly absolutely can do this, and has done so. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking has one such clause. National Economic Freedoms further limits this to situations where the World Assembly would have the authority to intervene anyway, which is fairly well established in the preamble. So long as the WA doesn't manage these efforts, and the impetus and implementation comes from member states, such a requirement would not be illegal. So, while the WA itself can't coerce nonmembers into compliance, individual members absolutely can."

[Araraukar]

"This isn't entirely accurate, ambassador. The World Assembly absolutely can do this, and has done so. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking has one such clause.

Clause 11? Because "concerted diplomatic effort" doesn't quite equal trade embargoes and possibly even armed response.

National Economic Freedoms further limits this to situations where the World Assembly would have the authority to intervene anyway

But the WA doesn't have the authority to intervene in the case of non-member nations.

So, while the WA itself can't coerce nonmembers into compliance, individual members absolutely can."

Which is why a resolution cannot legally demand compliance or coerce non-members into compliance with anything punitive.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"This isn't entirely accurate, ambassador. The World Assembly absolutely can do this, and has done so. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking has one such clause.

Clause 11? Because "concerted diplomatic effort" doesn't quite equal trade embargoes and possibly even armed response.

Fairburn: What on Earth does it mean, then? Sending a strongly-worded letter of complaint to the nations involved?

[Araraukar]

Fairburn: What on Earth does it mean, then? Sending a strongly-worded letter of complaint to the nations involved?

Probably¹. *folds one copy of the draft into a paper airplane and throws it at Fairburn*

OOC: This is what Finland does every time a Russian military plane "gets lost" and violates our airspace...

[Ransium]

I've made a new draft to reflect comments. While we are in the firm belief that inviting non-member nations to participate as is implied by the combination of the wording in the "nation of interest" definition and first operative clause is legal and therefore have not made changes there; we have made other changes to the first operative clause so that it is not implied that a formal WA committee is doing this work. We have also adjusted the enforcement clause so that the wording is vaguer and certainly fall within the lines drawn by 'Ban on Slavery and Trafficking'

[Bakhton]

After being thoroughly wined and dined by the Ransium ambassador, Lara Qzu sits at her desk. "Our group was rather rash in their appraisal of this draft. However, me and the ambassador of Ransium have spoken extensively, and we are fully confident in the changes to be made in the future. We are cautiously optimistic and supportive of this proposal."

[Ransium]

I've made further tweaks to clause related to dealing with non-WA fishing in the reserve.

[Uan aa Boa]

I'm concerned that this might actually mandate very little. Marine sanctuaries as defined aren't something that happen under the auspices of the WA - it would be entirely possible to have sanctuaries where none of the nations of interest are WA members. So all this basically says is that when a WA nation signs up to a certain type of agreement, it has to abide by the obligations of that agreement. Isn't that bordering on being redundant?

It would be better if the resolution did something to bring about the creation of marine sanctuaries, perhaps by requiring or urging members to instigate the process in appropriate circumstances.