[Closed] Ban on Intentionally Caused Extinctions

[Morover]

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.

OOC: I will make changes to remedy your issues with the proposal.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I will make changes to remedy your issues with the proposal.

OOC: Changing "biological agent" into "pestilence" was not an improvement, nor does it fix the issue.

Also, current title is a bit misleading as you're not preventing extinctions so much as banning the intentional causing of them. An animal species might be slowly going extinct because of a natural climate change, and your proposal wouldn't lift a finger in its defence.

[Morover]

OOC: I will make changes to remedy your issues with the proposal.

OOC: Changing "biological agent" into "pestilence" was not an improvement, nor does it fix the issue.

Also, current title is a bit misleading as you're not preventing extinctions so much as banning the intentional causing of them. An animal species might be slowly going extinct because of a natural climate change, and your proposal wouldn't lift a finger in its defence.

OOC: I actually rewrote the entire clause, changing some other issues I had with it. The clause now is better worded and continues to allow the eradication of disease, unless you can see a loophole that I'm simply not seeing.

As for the title, do you have any suggestions? I agree it doesn't exactly fit, but I don't know what would fit.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I actually rewrote the entire clause, changing some other issues I had with it. The clause now is better worded and continues to allow the eradication of disease, unless you can see a loophole that I'm simply not seeing.

OOC: "Disease or pestilence" is same as saying "X or X". This is still unaddressed:

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.

As for the title, do you have any suggestions? I agree it doesn't exactly fit, but I don't know what would fit.

"Ban on Intentionally Caused Extinctions" is only about 40 marks long. The maximum is something like 52, so you still have room to fiddle with it.

[Morover]

OOC: I actually rewrote the entire clause, changing some other issues I had with it. The clause now is better worded and continues to allow the eradication of disease, unless you can see a loophole that I'm simply not seeing.

OOC: "Disease or pestilence" is same as saying "X or X". This is still unaddressed:

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.

As for the title, do you have any suggestions? I agree it doesn't exactly fit, but I don't know what would fit.

"Ban on Intentionally Caused Extinctions" is only about 40 marks long. The maximum is something like 52, so you still have room to fiddle with it.

OOC: Ah, I didn't quite understand the quote before, and believed I answered it. I more closely read it now, and would like to know the resolutions that allow for GMOs to be eradicated.

Also, that name is satisfactory. If you give me permission, I will use that (or something very close to it).

[Araraukar]

OOC: I more closely read it now, and would like to know the resolutions that allow for GMOs to be eradicated.

OOC: Not necessarily only GMOs but any invasive/harmful species. It's just that removing an escaped GMO organism from the wild, while keeping it alive in labs would fall foul of your resolution.

Things on topic of pest/invasive species that I found with a couple of quick searches (not got time/energy to comb through all the resolutions that might be even mildly relevant):

viewtopic.php?p=731470#p731470
viewtopic.php?p=20668869#p20668869
viewtopic.php?p=34237180#p34237180
viewtopic.php?p=29812447#p29812447
viewtopic.php?p=17266501#p17266501
viewtopic.php?p=9653061#p9653061

Also, that name is satisfactory. If you give me permission, I will use that (or something very close to it).

Go for it.

[Morover]

OOC: I more closely read it now, and would like to know the resolutions that allow for GMOs to be eradicated.

OOC: Not necessarily only GMOs but any invasive/harmful species. It's just that removing an escaped GMO organism from the wild, while keeping it alive in labs would fall foul of your resolution.

Things on topic of pest/invasive species that I found with a couple of quick searches (not got time/energy to comb through all the resolutions that might be even mildly relevant):

viewtopic.php?p=731470#p731470
viewtopic.php?p=20668869#p20668869
viewtopic.php?p=34237180#p34237180
viewtopic.php?p=29812447#p29812447
viewtopic.php?p=17266501#p17266501
viewtopic.php?p=9653061#p9653061

Also, that name is satisfactory. If you give me permission, I will use that (or something very close to it).

Go for it.

I have changed the name.

I will also address each proposal you sent:

#66 ("Endangered Species Protection"): I don't necessarily see how this is relevant. Sure, it hits in the same areas as this proposal, but this proposal does not duplicate or contradict anything from GAR#66.

#290 ("Protecting Migratory Animals"): While GAR#290 does protect specific animals, it is far more specific than this proposal, and also hits on several other areas as well. Once more, I don't see entirely how this is relevant.

#431 ("Agricultural Invasive Species Act"): While I can see your issues concerning this resolution and my proposal, I must disagree. GAR#431 concerns invasive species, but does not mention whether or not they are permitted to be eradicated totally. It merely states that local populations may be eradicated. The only real issue I can see with this is with clause 5 of GAR#431, which states that Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service may aid in the "destruction of invasive species." However, this is easily explained by the language of the proposal, and it can be assumed that the "destruction" refers to local populations, and specifically the ones that directly cause harm to the ecosystem.

#382 ("Environmental Warfare Act"): I don't see how this is relevant.

#267 ("Sensible Limits on Hunting"): Once more, this is a specific area of environmental regulation, which does not interfere with this proposal at large.

#199 ("Sustainable Fishing Act"): Essentially the same as GAR#267.

All in all, I don't necessarily see a coherent argument. Normally I would not ask for the critics of my proposals to look for the relevant resolutions for me, but I simply cannot find resolutions that support your argument fully (after a brief search) and I do not remember any, either (I searched through all resolutions I thought were remotely relevant to this proposal).

While I can see what you're saying, I simply do not agree with you, because this only prohibits the absolute extinction, and, in nearly all cases of invasive species, they are not solely present in the areas they invade.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Outlaws knowingly driving a species to extinction [unless they are ... ] directly harmful diseases or pestilence to extinction.

Prohibits the captivity of a species with the sole intent to wipe out the wild population of that animal.

Non placet.

[Cosmosplosion]

"While Cosmosplosion values its environment more than nearly any other nation, a proposal like this one is...not ideal. I question whether this is truly a necessity. As we already have protections on endangered species, this simply makes it illegal to eradicate a species. If your goal is to eradicate a species, it will eventually become endangered on that path, and if you continue to kill said animal after that, then you are in violation of GAR #66 and GAR #267. I don't see any reason for this, and therefore, we are opposed."

[Morover]

"While Cosmosplosion values its environment more than nearly any other nation, a proposal like this one is...not ideal. I question whether this is truly a necessity. As we already have protections on endangered species, this simply makes it illegal to eradicate a species. If your goal is to eradicate a species, it will eventually become endangered on that path, and if you continue to kill said animal after that, then you are in violation of GAR #66 and GAR #267. I don't see any reason for this, and therefore, we are opposed."

"The issue with GAR#66 is that it relies on a committee to determine which species are considered endangered. This requires the committee to become somewhat dependent on member-states to be somewhat truthful when reporting numbers of species. Quite frankly, a committee cannot accurately ensure the numbers of all species all the time, which can create an interesting loophole in GAR#66, which this proposal would solve. Typically, I would repeal GAR#66 and replace it with a better resolution, without the loopholes, but it is, quite frankly, unnecessary. I see no reason to repeal perfectly good resolution when the only major flaw can be addressed independently."

"As for GAR#267, while it does cover the loophole somewhat, it is very limited in scope, and only refers to hunting, while this proposal has a much wider range of effect."

Outlaws knowingly driving a species to extinction [unless they are ... ] directly harmful diseases or pestilence to extinction.

Prohibits the captivity of a species with the sole intent to wipe out the wild population of that animal.

Non placet.

"Quite frankly, I don't see why these parts of the resolution lead you to not support it."

[Cosmosplosion]

"Ambassador, were a nation to not report something regarding a species, they would be non-compliant, which is not allowed in WA nations. That is not a loophole at all, that is simply how our laws work. GAR 66 and 267 adequately cover this issue. I can only assume that hunting would also involved poisoning a species to death or carpet bombing beaver dams."

[Morover]

"Ambassador, were a nation to not report something regarding a species, they would be non-compliant, which is not allowed in WA nations. That is not a loophole at all, that is simply how our laws work. GAR 66 and 267 adequately cover this issue. I can only assume that hunting would also involved poisoning a species to death or carpet bombing beaver dams."

"But it is a loophole that low-population species may be wiped out, so long as the WAESC has not yet classified it as an endangered species."

[Kakastania]

What exactly do you mean by "harmful"?

[Morover]

What exactly do you mean by "harmful"?

"I assume you're referring to clause four. If you are, then it means diseases that directly cause harm to either local populations or the ecosystem at large."

[Cosmosplosion]

"Ambassador, were a nation to not report something regarding a species, they would be non-compliant, which is not allowed in WA nations. That is not a loophole at all, that is simply how our laws work. GAR 66 and 267 adequately cover this issue. I can only assume that hunting would also involved poisoning a species to death or carpet bombing beaver dams."

"But it is a loophole that low-population species may be wiped out, so long as the WAESC has not yet classified it as an endangered species."

"They would...still be in violation."

[Araraukar]

"Quite frankly, I don't see why these parts of the resolution lead you to not support it."

OOC: I know I'm making a big assumption here about IA's thoughts, but given that he pointed out the exact same two that I have a problem with, I think he's on the same lines; you're in essence banning keeping samples of a "pestilence" while eradicating it from wild. That can't be intentional, because you'd be shooting your proposal in the foot over nothing (and possibly contradicting one of the epidemics resolutions, or even the bioweapons one, as I'm fairly sure you're encouraged to keep samples of diseases while trying to wipe them out, in one of the previous resolutions). I don't know why you'd want to ban doing the same to invasive species or serious parasites/pests either.

[American Pere Housh]

"Hmmm.... very interesting, I will stay neutral on this issue until you submit your final version which I will make my decision on whether I'm for or against."

[The Sect Meces]

In the "Disgusted" line I'd suggest replacing "Kill off" with "Exterminate".

[Hatzisland]

In support. We do think intentionally caused killings of animals for no reason(excluding hunting) should be restricted.

[Araraukar]

In support. We do think intentionally caused killings of animals for no reason(excluding hunting) should be restricted.

OOC: Crop/livestock protection? Protection of sapients (humans or equivalent)? Disease reduction/eradication? Killing off invasive species (that has gone extinct in its original range) that's decimating your ecosystems?

If this was aimed at just "killing for no reason", then I'd agree it was a good idea as is, but the problem is that you'd also make the eradication of certain parasites pretty much impossible (as you're not allowed to kill off their hosts, like, say, the malaria parasite and the malaria mosquito).

[Marxist Germany]

In support. We do think intentionally caused killings of animals for no reason(excluding hunting) should be restricted.

OOC: Crop/livestock protection? Protection of sapients (humans or equivalent)? Disease reduction/eradication? Killing off invasive species (that has gone extinct in its original range) that's decimating your ecosystems?

If this was aimed at just "killing for no reason", then I'd agree it was a good idea as is, but the problem is that you'd also make the eradication of certain parasites pretty much impossible (as you're not allowed to kill off their hosts, like, say, the malaria parasite and the malaria mosquito).

OOC:This^

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

"What if the species was introduced as an invasive species and the nation is now the only place where they exist? What about when the species is extremely hazardous to sentient life and puts people at major risk when their population grows out of check? What about situations where a disease such as smallpox is being eradicated for the sake of humanity? This resolution isn't conclusive enough to gain our Delegations support."

[Araraukar]

extremely hazardous to sentient life and puts people at major risk

OOC: *whispers* Sapient, not sentient. Cats and dogs are sentient, humans are sapient.

[Ransium]

It’s always been a fever dream of mine to repeal and replace #66 due to its language being a bit less general, a bit too assumptive, and a bit loophole filled for my liking. Still, I’m not convinced this resolution is needed due to the protections of 66 and sensible limits on hunting. What conceivable reason would a nation have to drive a species to extinction on purpose when the species is not harmful, the species isn’t being hunted to extinction, and the habitat of the species isn’t being industrialized? What situation does this cover that existing legislation does not?

[Bears Armed]

"What if the species was introduced as an invasive species and the nation is now the only place where they exist?"

OOC
Optimum behaviour would probably be to collect enough of its members to form a viable stock for captive breeding, and for eventual re-release [hopefully] back in its original home, before wiping out the 'invasive' population.