[Closed] Ban on Intentionally Caused Extinctions

[Morover]

Category: Environmental, All businesses
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Disgusted at the acts of nations that intentionally kill off a species for personal gain.

Believing that extinction is detestable and should be avoided at all costs.

Hereby,

1. Defines extinction as there being no living members of a species left.
   
   
2. Outlaws knowingly driving a species to extinction.
   
   
3. Clarifies that the unintentional killing of a species will not have legal repercussions, unless it was willful ignorance that led to it.
   
   
4. Allows for nations to drive directly harmful diseases or pestilence to extinction.
   
   
5. Prohibits the captivity of a species with the sole intent to wipe out the wild population of that animal.

I know this is my second proposal today, but I'd rather get it out while it's fresh in my mind.

I know the definition of "extinction" is weak, and I'm more than open to suggestions to make it stronger.
This is the only prior legislation I could find on the subject, but if there is more that I missed that actually affects the target that this proposal does, please let me know.

EDIT: I've added an exception towards harmful bacteria, viruses, and other biological agents which cause disease.

The World Assembly,

Disgusted at the acts of a nation that intentionally kill off a species for personal gain.

Believing that extinction is detestable and should be avoided at all costs.

Hereby,

1. Defines extinction as there being no living members of a species left.
   
   
2. Outlaws the intentional killing of a species, resulting in extinction for an ulterior motive.
   
   
3. Clarifies that the unintentional killing of a species will not have consequences, unless it was willful ignorance that led to it.
   
4. Mandates that all nations must report all newly-endangered species to the WA Endangered Species Committee.

[Karteria]

"We are likely to support this, as long as there is more detail added later, and I'm sure you'll do that.

Some concerns do rise immediately, for now; what if some species, perhaps, should be eradicated? Invasive species immediately come to mind, as most of them hurt their environment's biodiversity more than they contribute to them. Additionally, there may be some species that present a significant harm towards a nation's populace. Should those nations be prohibited from protecting themselves, ambassador?"

[Morover]

"We are likely to support this, as long as there is more detail added later, and I'm sure you'll do that.

Some concerns do rise immediately, for now; what if some species, perhaps, should be eradicated? Invasive species immediately come to mind, as most of them hurt their environment's biodiversity more than they contribute to them. Additionally, there may be some species that present a significant harm towards a nation's populace. Should those nations be prohibited from protecting themselves, ambassador?"

"I believe you misunderstand, this does not prohibit the killing of animals, merely of a species-wide eradication. For example, if an invasive species were to be introduced to an area, then it would be reasonable to kill them off in that area (though relocation would obviously be preferable), so long as there is a sustainable population of that species elsewhere."

"Similarly, if a species presents a significant harm towards the populace of a nation, it can be assumed that they can either be relocated or have significant numbers elsewhere in the world. So long as you do not bring about the extinction, you should be in the clear. However, that being said, you cannot simply go around killing off animals for the sake of killing them off, and if they go extinct, claim that you didn't know it would happen. It would fall under willful ignorance, and would be a clear violation of this resolution (should it pass)."

[Karteria]

"I believe you misunderstand, this does not prohibit the killing of animals, merely of a species-wide eradication.

"Killing animals that are the last of their species would be a 'species-wide eradication,' would it not? Nonetheless, I think I know what you're implying, and it's non-consequential to the proposal."

"For example, if an invasive species were to be introduced to an area, then it would be reasonable to kill them off in that area (though relocation would obviously be preferable), so long as there is a sustainable population of that species elsewhere."

"Similarly, if a species presents a significant harm towards the populace of a nation, it can be assumed that they can either be relocated or have significant numbers elsewhere in the world. So long as you do not bring about the extinction, you should be in the clear. However, that being said, you cannot simply go around killing off animals for the sake of killing them off, and if they go extinct, claim that you didn't know it would happen. It would fall under willful ignorance, and would be a clear violation of this resolution (should it pass)."

"That is good reasoning, so our concerns are alleviated, as long as you specify such exemptions in the draft itself."

[Kenmoria]

“The definition of extinction would perhaps be better as: ‘Defines extinction as the state where no member of a given species survive,’ as this flows slightly better.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: Relevant: viewtopic.php?p=731470#p731470

[Morover]

OOC: Relevant: viewtopic.php?p=731470#p731470

OOC: As I mentioned in the OP post, I did see this resolution, but it does not concern directly causing the extinction of a species. It merely restricts encroachment into habitats of already endangered animals. It does not mention animals that have not yet been classified as endangered, but are wiped out incredibly quickly.

[Bears Armed]

See also GA Resolution #267.

[Morover]

See also GA Resolution #267.

Ah, I did miss that one. However, I don't believe that would interfere with this proposal, as this does not directly mention hunting. Of course, you're GenSec, so you'd know more about it than I would.

[Araraukar]

2. Outlaws the intentional killing of a species, resulting in extinction for an ulterior motive.

OOC: This currently sounds like you weren't allowed to kill any individuals of (any) species, or alternatively that you can freely extinct species as long as you don't have ulterior motives - isn't it one and same if there is an ulterior motive or not, when it comes to causing an extinction? I would also suggest using "causing the extinction of a species" over "killing a species", for more professional and exact wording.

Now, what about extirpation?

[Morover]

2. Outlaws the intentional killing of a species, resulting in extinction for an ulterior motive.

OOC: This currently sounds like you weren't allowed to kill any individuals of (any) species, or alternatively that you can freely extinct species as long as you don't have ulterior motives - isn't it one and same if there is an ulterior motive or not, when it comes to causing an extinction? I would also suggest using "causing the extinction of a species" over "killing a species", for more professional and exact wording.

Now, what about extirpation?

I phrased it the way I did (with 'ulterior') because I do not want a legitimate mistake to bring significant harm to a nation due to "non-compliance." For example, if a species thought to be extinct was inside a forest that a nation chose to cut down, but the nation was not aware of the frog, and this resulted in the death of the frog, it was not an intentional cause of extinction, nor was it caused because of willful ignorance.

I do think I will reword it to what you suggested. It does better demonstrate what I mean, in a nearly as concise manner.

As for your last topic, I must be confused. Isn't extirpation essentially the same thing as extinction? A quick google search backs me up in this regard, as well. Is that not what we have been discussing this entire time?

[Araraukar]

I phrased it the way I did (with 'ulterior') because I do not want a legitimate mistake to bring significant harm to a nation due to "non-compliance." For example, if a species thought to be extinct was inside a forest that a nation chose to cut down, but the nation was not aware of the frog, and this resulted in the death of the frog, it was not an intentional cause of extinction, nor was it caused because of willful ignorance.

OOC: You can still drop the ulterior motive simply rewording it as "knowingly causing the extinction of a species". That way a nation would only get in trouble for cutting down that forest if they knew it was the last place the frog lived, and cut it down anyway.

Isn't extirpation essentially the same thing as extinction? A quick google search backs me up in this regard, as well.

Don't google when you can wiki.

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creative genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.

[The New Nordic Union]

Don't google when you can wiki.

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creating genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.

OOC:
Also, to add to that, the current draft not only does not differentiate between extinction and extirpation, it also does not differentiate between extinctions in the wild and extinctions overall. If you just catch enough individuals to maintain a population, put them in a zoo, and then go on to eradicate the entire species in all other places in the world, surely that should be adressed by this proposal.

[Kenmoria]

“In the ‘Disgusted’ clause, it should be ‘nations’ and ‘kill’ or ‘a nation’ and ‘kill’. Currently, they do not agree.”

[Morover]

I phrased it the way I did (with 'ulterior') because I do not want a legitimate mistake to bring significant harm to a nation due to "non-compliance." For example, if a species thought to be extinct was inside a forest that a nation chose to cut down, but the nation was not aware of the frog, and this resulted in the death of the frog, it was not an intentional cause of extinction, nor was it caused because of willful ignorance.

OOC: You can still drop the ulterior motive simply rewording it as "knowingly causing the extinction of a species". That way a nation would only get in trouble for cutting down that forest if they knew it was the last place the frog lived, and cut it down anyway.

Isn't extirpation essentially the same thing as extinction? A quick google search backs me up in this regard, as well.

Don't google when you can wiki.

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creative genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.

OOC: Ah, I see. That is better worded. I'll change that.

As for extirpation, I believe that this legislation will not (if passed) concern it. The proposal merely concerns global and final extinction. I will clarify that extinction refers to global extinction, however. Extirpation, however, seems to be up to the will of an individual nation.

Don't google when you can wiki.

Extinction is the complete disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist anywhere anymore. Extirpation is the local disappearance of a species, so that it doesn't exist in that given area anymore.

The basic difference being that extirpation is often reversable, as you can re-introduce the species (often after restoring the habitat it needs to live) to the area. Extinction isn't, barring some creating genetics fiddling.

A real life example species that causes some issues because of legislation similar to what you want to implement: Siberian flying squirrel. In the EU it's only found in Estonia, Finland and Latvia, because we're the western edge of its range. Its IUCN designation is Least Concern, which basically means it's in no danger at all of going extinct. Yet, because it exists only in 3 out of 28 EU nations, and not very numerously (because we're right at the edge of its natural habitat), it's tightly protected by EU, more tightly than the giant panda is in China.

This makes timber-growers and landowners hate the creature, because finding a flying squirrel living on their land means that you can't do diddly squat to its living area, despite the creature not being at all endangered globally. EU legislation wants to avoid extirpation within its own area, not paying any attention to its global population. So be very careful how you word your proposal.

OOC:
Also, to add to that, the current draft not only does not differentiate between extinction and extirpation, it also does not differentiate between extinctions in the wild and extinctions overall. If you just catch enough individuals to maintain a population, put them in a zoo, and then go on to eradicate the entire species in all other places in the world, surely that should be adressed by this proposal.

This would be very strictly prohibited by GAR#66.

“In the ‘Disgusted’ clause, it should be ‘nations’ and ‘kill’ or ‘a nation’ and ‘kill’. Currently, they do not agree.”

Ah, that makes sense. I will change that, thank you.


Additionally, I have added the following clause to the proposal:

Mandates that all nations must report all newly-endangered species to the WA Endangered Species Committee.

[The New Nordic Union]

This would be very strictly prohibited by GAR#66.

OOC:
Not necessarily, GAR#66 is mainly concerned with habitats and pollution and only states that "The WAESC may also severely restrict the hunting of endangered species", thus, if a nation were to neither encroach on or pollute a species' habitat, and only hunt it, and the WAESC did not exercise their power to restrict hunting... then the scenario would still be possible. (Although yes, the WAESC would have to release specimens back into the wild.)


(Side note: Is there any policy on reduction to zero of administrative discretion pertaining to WA Committees? If so, then my point might be moot.)

[Morover]

This would be very strictly prohibited by GAR#66.

OOC:
Not necessarily, GAR#66 is mainly concerned with habitats and pollution and only states that "The WAESC may also severely restrict the hunting of endangered species", thus, if a nation were to neither encroach on or pollute a species' habitat, and only hunt it, and the WAESC did not exercise their power to restrict hunting... then the scenario would still be possible. (Although yes, the WAESC would have to release specimens back into the wild.)


(Side note: Is there any policy on reduction to zero of administrative discretion pertaining to WA Committees? If so, then my point might be moot.)

I was referring to this clause in GAR#66:

"- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations "

[Tsuki]

*thumbs up*
Yes we need the EPA

[The New Nordic Union]

I was referring to this clause in GAR#66:

"- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations "

OOC:
Yes, and the important part there is 'based on WAESC determinations'. If the WAESC determines not to restrict hunting, which is within their rights by the wording of the resolution, which employs the word 'may', the nation would be free to hunt down the species if they do not encroach onto the habitat or pollute it.

[Morover]

I was referring to this clause in GAR#66:

"- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations "

OOC:
Yes, and the important part there is 'based on WAESC determinations'. If the WAESC determines not to restrict hunting, which is within their rights by the wording of the resolution, which employs the word 'may', the nation would be free to hunt down the species if they do not encroach onto the habitat or pollute it.

OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.

*thumbs up*
Yes we need the EPA

Thank you for your support.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.

OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

[Morover]

OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.

OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

OOC: Perhaps I will add a clause which prohibits the captivity of a species solely for it to become legal to drive them to extinction. However, I will have to think about it, and, more importantly, how to word it, as it is a rather awkward thing to say in just one clause, but I believe it would become redundant if I were to use more than one clause.

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

OOC: Perhaps I will add a clause which prohibits the captivity of a species solely for it to become legal to drive them to extinction. However, I will have to think about it, and, more importantly, how to word it, as it is a rather awkward thing to say in just one clause, but I believe it would become redundant if I were to use more than one clause.

(OOC: Redundancy is always better than under-comprehensiveness. There is also the option of giving it one clause, with some subclauses for clarification and expansion.)

[Morover]

OOC: Perhaps I will add a clause which prohibits the captivity of a species solely for it to become legal to drive them to extinction. However, I will have to think about it, and, more importantly, how to word it, as it is a rather awkward thing to say in just one clause, but I believe it would become redundant if I were to use more than one clause.

(OOC: Redundancy is always better than under-comprehensiveness. There is also the option of giving it one clause, with some subclauses for clarification and expansion.)

OOC: I think it is more than reasonable to assume that an organization put in place to prevent the extinction of animals would not allow a nation going out of their way to hunt an animal to extinction, under a technicality that they have some of the animals in captivity. On the other hand, I think it is absurd to think that the WAESC would not have restrictions on hunting an animal to extinction.

OOC:
Yes, it is somewhat absurd, but still possible and legal (if there is no reduction of discretion).

I am just aksing you to think about including maybe a definition for 'extinction in the wild' and a prohibiton of the same into the proposal.

Otherwise, one could argue the whole proposal becomes moot, because at some point during anyone driving a species to extinction it becomes endangered, and then the provisions of GAR#66 would apply and outlaw any further reduction of the species, anyway.

"I have added the requested clause in what I believe to be an acceptable and succinct manner, in clause five."

[Araraukar]

Clarifies that the unintentional killing of a species will not have consequences, unless it was willful ignorance that led to it.

OOC: Killing off a species will always have consequences, perhaps specifying "legal consequences on the WA level" should be done? I mean, I'm sure Araraukar isn't the only nation that already criminalizes willfully causing the extinction of a natural species.

Also, if you're using "biological agent" in the usual meaning, then are you intentionally banning the willfull eradication of genetically altered organism that is a higher form of life (animal, plant) even if it was harmful (invasive species threatening to cause extinctions of natural species/directly harmful to sapient people/causing serious issues in agriculture, etc.) and specifically allowed to be eradicated by existing resolutions? Or indeed eradicating anything outside of the lab where it escaped from (clause 5)? Because if yes, that's going to be a problem.