[PASSED] Convention on International Oil Spills

[Rovikstead]

Thank you, everyone, who has supported my proposal. Hopefully, it will do well on the voting floor.

Convention on International Oil Spills
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
| Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Mining | Proposed by: Rovikstead |

The World Assembly,

Recognizing oil as a natural resource relied upon by many as a common source of fuel and energy, and forms the basis of a lucrative industry for most member nations;

However concerned with the many dangers of the extraction of oil in oceanic bodies, especially towards the marine ecosystem and quality of the nation’s water sources, posing risks including but not limited to:

1. Poisoning and killing off maritime life;
2. Spurring unnatural growth in certain algae populations that could threaten underwater plants’ ability to produce oxygen;
3. Stunting larval development and growth of maritime creatures;
4. Contaminating the nations' drinking water and spreading hazardous carcinogens including cancer-causing agents;

Fearing the demanding, nearly insurmountable task of cleaning up after an oil spills in international waters, and the inevitable threats that come with the spillage;

Desiring to prevent future oil spills in international waters, and facilitate their clean-up through a series of measures member nations are urged to take and through the dedication and work of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau;

Hereby:

1. Obligates member nations to establish appropriate legislation prohibiting the usage of faulty equipment in maritime oil extraction, create and uphold standards of safety of efficiency, and design oil spill emergency response plans;

2. Urges member nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and switch to alternate, eco-friendly energy sources including solar, wind, or geothermal energy;

3. Mandates that all oil extraction operations working in international waters take the following precautions to prevent oil spillage:

1. Inspect the operation thoroughly and check for any deterioration and leaks in equipment annually, especially oil drums, generators, and associated piping;
2. Test oil containers for integrity regularly;
3. Clean oil tanks every couple of years to prevent the corrosion and rusting of the tank;
4. Ensure that spill kits are easily accessible at oil extracting operations;

4. Strongly urges member nations do the following in the event of an oil spill:

1. Spray dispersants, a type of chemical agent that breaks up oil molecules and make them more easily biodegraded, on the area of oil spillage;
2. Use biological agents (nutrients, enzymes, and microorganisms) to further facilitate the biodegradation of oil spills;
3. Set booms made of absorbent material in the water along the edge of the oil spillage to contain the oil;
4. Rinse oiled shorelines and ruses using hoses that supply low or high-pressure water streams, and collect the runoff with plastic-lined trenches and sorbent materials;
5. Till and rake the shores and land penetrated by oil so that it can be exposed and evaporated, left to degrade naturally, or washed with pressure hoses;

5. Extends the authority of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to:

1. Launch extensive relief efforts in the event of an oil spill in international waters;
2. Investigate allegations of dangerous and reckless mismanagement of maritime oil extraction;
3. Finance national projects to establish more safeguards against international oil spills at the request of the member nation;

[Stoskavanya]

I think there's a resolution that already covers much of this.
GA #95

[Kenmoria]

I think there's a resolution that already covers much of this.
GA #95

(OOC: I’ve just checked, and there doesn’t seem to be enough duplication to fall afoul of the duplication rule; this mostly just adds onto, rather than restating, the protections of GA 95.)

[Uan aa Boa]

This looks a lot better than Convention on Freshwater Shortages, by why on earth no drafting prior to submission? While the error count is lower this time around, in your very first sentence you have

"Recognizing oil as a natural resource relied upon by many as a common source of fuel and energy, and forms the basis of a lucrative industry for most member nations"

You could say "Recognising that oil is...., and forms...." or "Recognising oil as..., which forms..." and in either of those cases the two parts of the sentence agree with each other. In your version they don't. This is exactly the kind of thing drafting will catch for you, and while you do seem to be managing to get resolutions passed despite the writing I would imagine you want to make your resolution as good as it can be.

It may well be that English is not your first language, in which case I greatly admire what you're doing here. Honestly, though, free constructive help is yours for the asking. Why wouldn't you take advantage?

[Kuriko]

"I agree strongly with what you're trying to achieve here," says Princess Kagawi Yuuki. "However, I notice that there isn't a single mention of ways to help wildlife affected by spills. Why is that not in the proposal? Is it covered by a different proposal?"

[Rovikstead]

"I agree strongly with what you're trying to achieve here," says Princess Kagawi Yuuki. "However, I notice that there isn't a single mention of ways to help wildlife affected by spills. Why is that not in the proposal? Is it covered by a different proposal?"

"Although the proposal does not have operative clauses that specifically deal with wildlife affected by maritime oil spills, clause four should expedite the clean-up of oil spills through extremely fast, thorough, and non-hazardous methods, benefiting the wildlife affected incredibly. Additionally, clause five tasks the World Assembly Disaster Bureau with making extensive efforts to deal with oil spillage, which would reasonably entail the protection of wildlife that would be affected. This proposal does not block future proposals from dealing with the rehabilitation of wildlife in the event of an oil spill, but I believe the actions 'Convention on International Oil Spills' are great steps in the right direction to reducing the damage done on the environment and wildlife."

[Rovikstead]

This looks a lot better than Convention on Freshwater Shortages, by why on earth no drafting prior to submission? While the error count is lower this time around, in your very first sentence you have

"Recognizing oil as a natural resource relied upon by many as a common source of fuel and energy, and forms the basis of a lucrative industry for most member nations"

You could say "Recognising that oil is...., and forms...." or "Recognising oil as..., which forms..." and in either of those cases the two parts of the sentence agree with each other. In your version they don't. This is exactly the kind of thing drafting will catch for you, and while you do seem to be managing to get resolutions passed despite the writing I would imagine you want to make your resolution as good as it can be.

It may well be that English is not your first language, in which case I greatly admire what you're doing here. Honestly, though, free constructive help is yours for the asking. Why wouldn't you take advantage?

OOC: Insults aside, I appreciate your praise towards my proposal; I know you weren't too happy on the passage of "Convention on Freshwater Shortages." For both the sake of my limited amount of time and to explore possibly more efficient ways to draft a proposal, I decided to work on this privately with my friends on "Convention on International Oil Spills." I've worked on this - on and off - since last May and, after making final edits, I felt confident enough to submit it to the GA.

I understand you have many reservations on my writing skills, but I feel confident for how this proposal is structured and what legislative actions it takes to prevent and remedy international, maritime oil spills. Though, I do regret not approaching the God of Grammar to ask to check my grammar... :^)

[Xanthal]

The Federation doesn't have a horse in this race; we abstain.

[Ransium]

I have to say, I'm not a fan of many of the environmental proposals that are being written lately. I find them overly detailed and prescriptive. Honestly, I feel like between "Responsible Offshore Drilling" and "Reducing Spills and Leaks" this proposal covers very little new ground. These hugely specific mandates make me cringe because, as much as I hate RPed tech level arguments, tech levels do vary for different nations. In fact, it's not inconceivable that in the next 5-10 years which this resolution will last the recommendations will be outdated. All this could have easily been summarized with wording like "puts into place all reasonable measures". I'll probably end up voting for this resolution, because I'm informally bound to vote with my region, and my region is Forest, but it'll be another environmental measure that I won't be too pleased about. I worry we're draining the well of good will for environmental resolutions by putting nice titles on things, but having proposal that are largely redundant, needlessly overly specific, and otherwise bit shoddy. I will say between the asbestos one, convention on freshwater shortages, and this, this is at least the most clearly international issue and least bad.

I'm sorely tempted to start repealing these, and given my pro-environmental bias I kind of can't believe others haven't already.

[Imperial Polk County]

Drane enters the chamber. “I want so badly to vote for this, but when I see indeterminate language like ‘every couple of years’ in a legal proposal, it makes me choke on my gator jerky. International law is no place for inexact numbers like ‘a couple’. If you mean two years, say two years, not a couple of years. I’ve voted against.”

[Ru-]

Ru stands in favor of this very common sense proposal. We hope to celebrate it's swift passage and are glad to see the assembly returning to it's proper business. Protecting our international waters and enviroment is all of our responsibilities. This resolution manages to both protect against abuses while not stomping over national sovereignty.

Full support.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

"I have voted for"

[Lord Dominator]

"I've voted Against"

[Agarntrop]

"This is useless, you should change where it says 'urges' to 'mandates' for it to succeed. Until that happens, I am voting against."

[Ragnaria]

"Sure, why not, seems fair."

[The Rhenish League]

"No issues with it, seems legit. The Rhenish League votes for."

[Kenmoria]

“I can see a few mistakes in the proposed legislation, and would have preferred a few of the strongly urging clauses to be mandates instead, due to being easy to accomplish and having very positive effect. Despite that, we tentatively offer a vote FOR the proposal.”

[True Spain]

This looks a lot better than Convention on Freshwater Shortages, by why on earth no drafting prior to submission? While the error count is lower this time around, in your very first sentence you have

"Recognizing oil as a natural resource relied upon by many as a common source of fuel and energy, and forms the basis of a lucrative industry for most member nations"

You could say "Recognising that oil is...., and forms...." or "Recognising oil as..., which forms..." and in either of those cases the two parts of the sentence agree with each other. In your version they don't. This is exactly the kind of thing drafting will catch for you, and while you do seem to be managing to get resolutions passed despite the writing I would imagine you want to make your resolution as good as it can be.

It may well be that English is not your first language, in which case I greatly admire what you're doing here. Honestly, though, free constructive help is yours for the asking. Why wouldn't you take advantage?

OOC: Insults aside, I appreciate your praise towards my proposal; I know you weren't too happy on the passage of "Convention on Freshwater Shortages." For both the sake of my limited amount of time and to explore possibly more efficient ways to draft a proposal, I decided to work on this privately with my friends on "Convention on International Oil Spills." I've worked on this - on and off - since last May and, after making final edits, I felt confident enough to submit it to the GA.

I understand you have many reservations on my writing skills, but I feel confident for how this proposal is structured and what legislative actions it takes to prevent and remedy international, maritime oil spills. Though, I do regret not approaching the God of Grammar to ask to check my grammar... :^)

I'm going to understand that you've both had your issues with each other in the past, but your answer seems overly defensive to very well placed constructive criticism. It is incredible that a serious resolution gets to the voting ground with just a single mistake, not to speak more.

Always, always let the draft sit around for at least a couple weeks. Most of the garbage resolutions we've recently had were so mainly because they were fired before they could receive proper criticism. I'm as proud of my work as anyone else, but refusing constructive criticism and defending your work as "good enough" without it is rarely, if ever, going to work very well for you.

There's also someone that made a very good point about the language of your proposal being overly specific, yet vague and weak in its form at the same time. Your proposal may be obsolete in a matter of a few years and is not binding enough to force many nations to do what you want to accomplish. All this could have been solved with letting your draft sit, but you just chose not to.

I would probably vote for if this resolution addresses these points and the ones that will undoubtedly come up in the near future, but for now I will be abstaining. I may change that vote to against if nothing is done to correct the mistakes, but for the time being an abstention would seem enough.

Edits: fixing grammar and stuff.

[Czethuania]

- OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE OF THE CZETHUANIAN BUREAU OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - [OSt.O Diplomatic Missive RM#00135] (The Czethuanian Bureau of Resource Management, Benelux Square, Consotega - Published 6:6/8:12 167 UE)

To Whom It May Concern,

Regarding the recent proposals viz. 'Convention on International Oil Spills' proposed by the nation of Rovikstead;

Czethuania, being a landlocked nation, does not engage in any form of offshore extraction. Furthermore due to our Alpine location, our borders contain no significant liquid or gaseous fossil fuel deposits. A number of private corporations within Czethuania currently trade in fuel commodities and related financial devices. In addition many of these companies, including the Sovereign Trusts of Proper and Alter, invest heavily in international logistics, a portion of which is concerned with the transportation of fossil fuels. Practices and standards regarding ethical trading and purchasing guidelines are outlined across a selection of national legislation, but to summarise, state that Czethuanian investors are ultimately not responsible for the negligence of foreign corporations. In the event that a prima facie collusion may be established between Czethuanian investors and environmental damage, these cases are sent to arbitration through The Order of St. Olaf, or The International Criminal Court of Den Haag, The Netherlands [OSt.O Legislative Document FRM#0116].

At this time Czethuania derives approximately 80% of its power from two high pressure fission reactor facilities in the municipalities of Wermunz and Manfreisch, with the remaining 20% coming from a variety of renewable sources, primarily hydroelectric generators located along the Aut and the Lox rivers.

It should also be noted that Czethuania has a longstanding position of neutrality within intra/international affairs, and rarely votes to ratify cross border legislation.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I have been informed by The Office of The Patrician of The Order of St. Olaf that Czethuania will be abstaining from voting on the aforesaid proposals at this moment in time.

Yours in fraternity,

Juliette Carollax
[Minister of Resource Management, OSt.O, BRM]

[Crelmania]

We would have liked to see double-hulled tankers mandated here.

[Carrotopia]

I don’t support this proposal

[Jamariche]

While we wholly agree with the majority of the stated proposal and the Allied Systems would be honored to help assure that the world waterways and our resources are clean and secure we cannot support this proposal as its language further takes power from sovereign nations and places that power within the WA. We speak, of course, of Section Five of the proposal:

5. Extends the authority of the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to:

Launch extensive relief efforts in the event of an oil spill in international waters;

Investigate allegations of dangerous and reckless mismanagement of maritime oil extraction;

Finance national projects to establish more safeguards against international oil spills at the request of the member nation;

If this final section were to be removed the Allied Systems would be much more willing to accept the proposal and the guidelines it brings to bear. Unfortunately, it seems far to late for that.

[Ru-]

The proposal and cited articles concern international waters. why shouldn't the WA regulate global waters that have no one national owner?

To suggest the WA doesn't have authority over a purely international domain is to suggest there should hardly even be a WA in the first place.

If this issue of all things should be left up to national soverignty then we would ask what exactly is the WA's proper business.

respect individual nations' rights to do whatever the heck they please to waters that do not belong to them I guess. *the Ruvian ambassador shakes his head*

[Tigrexia]

Oil. So uncivilized.

[Atzcapotzalco]

You know, we wouldn't have to use oil if we used singularity cores instead. Sure, they increase the chance of a black hole slightly, but they are a great source of power!