[PASSED] Promoting Sustainable Timber

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: Unfortunately, the author was eager to strike it out, and I don't have "standing" to force him to include it, so the challenge is moot unless the author wants to make such a challenge.

Then, I'll go for this, until such time that a challenge on this proposal is ruled upon: I will vote against this proposal if the author does not include that line. I will vote for this proposal if the author does include that line.

Is this necessary? This is only my second attempt at writing a resolution and I have no interest in this long-standing dispute over the house of cards rule which has completely hijacked my drafting thread. Now I either get my proposal used as a vehicle for, and thus obscured by, your rules challenge or I get someone of your influence campaigning against it. Surely someone of your standing can orchestrate a test proposal which is designed to facilitate your challenge. My interest is in getting some environmental legislation passed if I can. Please leave me out of it.

[Uan aa Boa]

I would point out that the committee only rule has not yet been changed. At the moment, I can't see anything here that mandates or urges any action by member states completely independent of the committee.

Please can you explain why urging or mandating nations to use WAFC approved timber in publicly funded works and tax/tariff approved timber products favourably not sufficient?

[Bananaistan]

I would point out that the committee only rule has not yet been changed. At the moment, I can't see anything here that mandates or urges any action by member states completely independent of the committee.

Please can you explain why urging or mandating nations to use WAFC approved timber in publicly funded works and tax/tariff approved timber products favourably not sufficient?

OOC: If you strip out the committee from the urges clause, you are left with nothing. If there's no committee, there's no committee approved timber. And also, on closer inspection, I'd be concerned that the clause about taxes and tariffs contradicts GAR#17 WA General Fund clause 8 which "affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies".

[Araraukar]

OOC: And also, on closer inspection, I'd be concerned that the clause about taxes and tariffs contradicts GAR#17 WA General Fund clause 8 which "affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies".

OOC: Taxation has been urged before with the wording "[protective measures] such as tariffs and taxes", so changing the wording to that should clear the issue.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: If you strip out the committee from the urges clause, you are left with nothing. If there's no committee, there's no committee approved timber. And also, on closer inspection, I'd be concerned that the clause about taxes and tariffs contradicts GAR#17 WA General Fund clause 8 which "affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies".

OK, food for thought. Thanks.

[Ransium]

Is the "Requires" clause compatible with GAR 68?

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

In "Trade of Endangered Organisms" I made arguments that species extinction could potentially cause an extreme hazard to populations, perhaps similar arguments could be made here?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The precedent on GA c. 68 is that you simply need to provide something in the preamble plausibly justifying a connection between inaction and an extreme harm.

[Ransium]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the 'extreme harm' argument needed to be about endangered species I just wrote that sentence poorly. I only meant some justification in the preamble is needed, as you say.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: If you strip out the committee from the urges clause, you are left with nothing. If there's no committee, there's no committee approved timber.

OOC: I'm not sure I agree with this.

From the Proposal Compendium: "Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal."

It seems to me that if the proposal seeks to do something - to discourage the import into WA nations of timber produced in ways that would be illegal within those nations - and to that end tasks a committee to take action, then it's a little overzealous to say the proposal is committee only. Surely many resolutions would fall to the same objection. It's effectively just saying that if you remove the instrument by which a proposal operates then it doesn't do anything, which seems close to a tautology.

Would it be helpful to word the proposal in a stronger way e.g. Seeking to prevent the import of... therefore tasks the committee to...?

[Araraukar]

It seems to me that if the proposal seeks to do something - to discourage the import into WA nations of timber produced in ways that would be illegal within those nations

OOC: Then do that without the committee, that'll solve your problem. Just define what you consider "illegal production of timber", make nations abide by it, and then if you must, slap on the committee. Though I don't see why you'd need to.

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: Then do that without the committee, that'll solve your problem. Just define what you consider "illegal production of timber", make nations abide by it, and then if you must, slap on the committee. Though I don't see why you'd need to.

That's certainly streamlined in terms of the committee rule, but how are WA member nations to know what is and isn't compliant? If you're importing from another WA nation then the good faith clause from GA#2 deals with that concern, but where that doesn't apply I think you're going to need some kind of system of inspection.

[Araraukar]

but how are WA member nations to know what is and isn't compliant?

OOC: You require paperwork from start to finish, of course. That is pretty much how it works in Real Life. And you don't need a committee for that. If you feel you must make a committee, then you can make it one that, when requested, will investigate cases where the nation/company/person receiving the timber suspects fraudulent paperwork.

If you're importing from another WA nation then the good faith clause from GA#2 deals with that concern, but where that doesn't apply I think you're going to need some kind of system of inspection.

You can't mandate anything for non-member nations, so having a committee that inspects things wouldn't be able to do that in non-member nations anyway. Unless for some reason the non-member nation wanted to let them, but you can't mandate it. What you can mandate, is to require member nations to not accept imports of timber/lumber/wood products made thereof, if they suspect the rules laid out in the resolution are not followed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: If you strip out the committee from the urges clause, you are left with nothing. If there's no committee, there's no committee approved timber.

OOC: I'm not sure I agree with this.

From the Proposal Compendium: "Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal."

It seems to me that if the proposal seeks to do something - to discourage the import into WA nations of timber produced in ways that would be illegal within those nations - and to that end tasks a committee to take action, then it's a little overzealous to say the proposal is committee only. Surely many resolutions would fall to the same objection. It's effectively just saying that if you remove the instrument by which a proposal operates then it doesn't do anything, which seems close to a tautology.

Would it be helpful to word the proposal in a stronger way e.g. Seeking to prevent the import of... therefore tasks the committee to...?

I made a similar argument about the interpretation of the Committees rule when drafting Ban on Secret Treaties.

It seems that the current GAS consensus is that the old (and dreadfully absurd) moderator system of dealing with the committee, that is, by stripping it out and pretending that it doesn't exist, still applies – ignoring the facts that (1) committees are primarily conceived of as bodies which make decisions, not as automata which undertake some actions without input (like publishing treaties), (2) organisations of all sorts can clearly have some kind of effect built into their actions absent direct requirements from the World Assembly (what's next, HM Treasury collects the taxes, so the government hasn't taxed me, praise be to the Tory government), and (3) this test is dreadful.

You'd want to take a look at the fantastical decision here.

[Robosia]

The Robison ambassador leaned back in his chair. "Eh, pass it if you like, we don't even have trees here."

[Uan aa Boa]

Esteemed Ambassadors and Assorted Representatives, after some delay we are pleased to present for your perusal the second draft of this resolution. It now centres on a simple prohibition with the committee in a supporting role.

[Kenmoria]

"The prohibits clause appears to jump from tense to tense. It could be corrected to: 'Prohibits member nations from importing from any source timber, or products made from timber, that have been produced in a way that is not compliant with the World Assembly legislation in force at that time.' However there are other ways it could be corrected.

[Aclion]

"It should be noted that International Transport Safety prevents us "from barring WA member state commercial transports in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight,"

Additionally, the prohibition clause can be read to apply only to Member states, and not to the entities under our jurisdiction."

[Uan aa Boa]

"The prohibits clause appears to jump from tense to tense. It could be corrected to: 'Prohibits member nations from importing from any source timber, or products made from timber, that have been produced in a way that is not compliant with the World Assembly legislation in force at that time.' However there are other ways it could be corrected.

Thank you Ambassador. The draft has been amended.

"It should be noted that International Transport Safety prevents us "from barring WA member state commercial transports in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight,"

Indeed, but this regulation is clearly intended to prevent transport being banned on the basis of its country of origin. I cannot believe it prevents restrictions being placed on what is allowed to be unloaded. If it did, it would be in contravention of the early resolution on slavery and trafficking.

Additionally, the prohibition clause can be read to apply only to Member states, and not to the entities under our jurisdiction."

That is true, thank you.

Also, I wish to put this back on the agenda with a view to submitting it soon.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: In the event that the relevant WA legislation on logging is repealed, what would this proposal actually do?

[Uan aa Boa]

Thank you Mr Robert. In the unlikely event that all three relevant resolutions were repealed without any new ones being passed, this legislation would have no effect until such time as a new resolution that affected logging was passed.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Thank you Mr Robert. In the unlikely event that all three relevant resolutions were repealed without any new ones being passed, this legislation would have no effect until such time as a new resolution that affected logging was passed.

Neville: There should be a name for proposals like these. Like...I don't know, a tower of cards, maybe? A house of straw? What's the phrase I'm looking for?

[Araraukar]

Thank you Mr Robert. In the unlikely event that all three relevant resolutions were repealed without any new ones being passed, this legislation would have no effect until such time as a new resolution that affected logging was passed.

Neville: There should be a name for proposals like these. Like...I don't know, a tower of cards, maybe? A house of straw? What's the phrase I'm looking for?

OOC: SoG has a fair point, although houses made of straw can be just as sturdy as houses made of bricks, when they're constructred properly...

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: There should be a name for proposals like these. Like...I don't know, a tower of cards, maybe? A house of straw? What's the phrase I'm looking for?

OOC: SoG has a fair point, although houses made of straw can be just as sturdy as houses made of bricks, when they're constructred properly...

OOC: Not if you're dealing with wolves.

[Uan aa Boa]

Here's why the House of Cards rule isn't an issue here. The rule is intended to prevent repeals from rendering other resolutions unworkable because they rely on the repealed one in order to make sense. This is the case when a proposal references a specific resolution. Once that specific resolution is gone it will never be passed again (overlooking Safeguarding Nuclear Materials) and so the proposal is irreparably damaged.

This isn't the case when a proposal references legislation in general. It's commonplace to include a clause saying something like "subject to existing legislation." The possibility of all existing legislation being repealed exists, even if it's extremely small, but the House of Cards rule isn't violated. In the worst case scenario that no resolutions that affect logging were in force, my proposal would be coherent but mandate nothing, just as the recently passed resolution on voting equality places no requirements on nations that have no elections. And when future logging resolutions arrived, the proposal would again mandate something, unlike the case of a proposal dependent on a specific resolution that, once repealed, is gone forever.

[Uan aa Boa]

Bump.