[DRAFT] Preventing Natural Resource Theft

[Ransium]

As written the definition of resource excludes most fishery resources. That's unfortunate since illegal fishing is among the most common forms of international resource theft.

Also "citizens or registered corporations" would exclude individuals who are not citizens as well as other legal entities. Just use "people".

While I agree with you about the importance of preventing the theft of marine stock, I think crafting effective regulation on the matter would take enough dedicated clauses to be about the same length as what I have here, making me thing it could and should be it's own resolution. This proposal certainly doesn't block that.

Your other change has been made.

[Kenmoria]

Also "citizens or registered corporations" would exclude individuals who are not citizens as well as other legal entities. Just use "people".

Your other change has been made.

(OOC: Through creative compliance, a member nation may claim that the legislation only targets natural persons. I suggest using ‘natural and legal persons’, as this covers all possibilities while not being open to interpretation.)

[Aclion]

Your other change has been made.

(OOC: Through creative compliance, a member nation may claim that the legislation only targets natural persons. I suggest using ‘natural and legal persons’, as this covers all possibilities while not being open to interpretation.)

(OOC: might as well, though we already have a gensec ruling that people refers to all people, not just natural ones.)

[Bananaistan]

(OOC: Through creative compliance, a member nation may claim that the legislation only targets natural persons. I suggest using ‘natural and legal persons’, as this covers all possibilities while not being open to interpretation.)

(OOC: might as well, though we already have a gensec ruling that people refers to all people, not just natural ones.)

OOC: Hmmm, I'm reasonably sure we did not do this. Perhaps I've forgotten though, can you link please?

But in any case, the way clause 5 is currently written, it seems obvious that it only refers to the natural people considering that it's rather hard to extradite a corporation or association.

Also 5a into 5b doesn't flow right atm. The "or" part of 5a is left hanging as far as I can see.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: might as well, though we already have a gensec ruling that people refers to all people, not just natural ones.)

OOC: Hmmm, I'm reasonably sure we did not do this. Perhaps I've forgotten though, can you link please?

But in any case, the way clause 5 is currently written, it seems obvious that it only refers to the natural people considering that it's rather hard to extradite a corporation or association.

Also 5a into 5b doesn't flow right atm. The "or" part of 5a is left hanging as far as I can see.

(OOC: In that case, there’s a rather large loophole in that a corporation can steal and sell items with no penalty. Given it was supposed to replace wording that included corporations, I thought ‘people’ was intended to include both natural and legal ones.)

[Bananaistan]

OOC: If I understand the text of the current draft properly, the intention is to extradite suspects to the jurisdiction in which they are suspected of having engaged in (or funded or profited from) resource theft. Extradition cannot apply to organisations but it can apply to individual members, owners, employees etc. So I'd recommend a bit of a rejig to make it clear that:

1) Individuals get extradited where possible.
2) Individuals should include company officers, employees etc.
3) If extradition is not possible (EG no extradition treaty or it's extradition to a dodgy jurisdiction), local prosecution happens instead.
4) Whether real people or unreal people were responsible for the theft, profits and stolen resources are forfeited (and perhaps returned to the rightful owner?).
5) Further action against both real and unreal people when found guilty?

Perhaps something like this (hopefully others might help to make it better):

5. Requires member nations to take action against suspects when there is reasonable suspicion that they are participating in, funding, or directly profiting from stealing a resource from another nation as follows:

a. If the suspect is an individual, extradite the individual to the relevant foreign jurisdiction where permitted by World Assembly or local legislation;
b. If the suspect is an organisation (or legal person), extradite directors, employees or members responsible for the suspected offence to the relevant foreign jurisdiction where permitted by World Assembly or local legislation;
c. If extradition is not possible, prosecute suspected individuals or directors, employees or members of suspected organisations;
d. Seize stolen resources and profits from the stolen resources (and return to rightful owner???) where guilt is proven;
e. Enact additional punitive action against individuals or organisations found guilty locally;

Also, regarding clauses 3 and 4, is the intention just to prohibit member nations from undertaking these actions and not everyone? Perhaps an outright prohibition would be feasible? EG clause 3 could be "Bans resource theft" and clause 4 could be "Bans the purchasing of resources for which there is reasonable suspicion ...."

[Ransium]

I've made several alterations base on Bananaistan's critics.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause currently 6 only covers clauses 2 and 3, since the remainder of the mandates are not prohibitions but requirements. Is this intentional?”

[Araraukar]

“Clause currently 6 only covers clauses 2 and 3, since the remainder of the mandates are not prohibitions but requirements. Is this intentional?”

OOC: I think you mean 3 & 4.

[Ransium]

Okay, added a couple words.

[Ransium]

Any more feedback on this?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Definition 1.a., instead of "and will stay where it is" should have "that will stay where it is". EDIT: And 1.b. should probably have "in their lives" rather than "in its life", since it's referring to plural things.

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 4, you should have ‘purchasing of resources’ rather than ‘purchasing resources’.”

[Ransium]

I've done the above two things.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 3 slash can be replaced with "or", and 5.b. round brackets can be removed.

[Kenmoria]

“For clause 1b, materials derived from living organisms don’t really have a life, only the original creature does. For this reason, the clause doesn’t quite make sense.”

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Clause 3 should have 'resource theft' without the 's' to be aligned with the definition in clause 2 and the title.

[Araraukar]

“For clause 1b, materials derived from living organisms don’t really have a life, only the original creature does. For this reason, the clause doesn’t quite make sense.”

OOC: The way I understood it, it's supposed to also refer to living organisms.

[Ransium]

I've made changes for Ara and The New Nomadic Union. For Kenmoria, the clause is more about the lifeforms than their products, although it could be applied to either I suppose. I personally don't think changes need to be made.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps a simple addition will solve the problem of the definition?

living organisms, or material derived from living organisms, that are extremely unlikely to leave a nation's sovereign territory in their life without sapient intervention

It's a bit of repetition, but it makes it clearer what the "that" is referring to.

[Ransium]

OOC: Perhaps a simple addition will solve the problem of the definition?

living organisms, or material derived from living organisms, that are extremely unlikely to leave a nation's sovereign territory in their life without sapient intervention

It's a bit of repetition, but it makes it clearer what the "that" is referring to.

Okay.

[Aclion]

OOC: Perhaps a simple addition will solve the problem of the definition?

living organisms, or material derived from living organisms, that are extremely unlikely to leave a nation's sovereign territory in their life without sapient intervention

It's a bit of repetition, but it makes it clearer what the "that" is referring to.

living organisms, or material derived thereof, that are extremely unlikely to leave a nation's sovereign territory in their life without sapient intervention

[Kaiserholt]

What protections does this legislation provide to nations that have legal and contractual rights to obtain resources in another nation, and yet an incoming party wins an election and accuses the foreign nation of “stealing” resources, rejecting and ignoring all legal and legitimate documentation to the contrary? As a nation that has existed for over three millennia, we know firsthand that not all accusations are true.

[Araraukar]

What protections does this legislation provide to nations that have legal and contractual rights to obtain resources in another nation, and yet an incoming party wins an election and accuses the foreign nation of “stealing” resources, rejecting and ignoring all legal and legitimate documentation to the contrary? As a nation that has existed for over three millennia, we know firsthand that not all accusations are true.

"Would depend on the exact wording of your contract. If they tried to violate a legal contract, then no WA committee - which are considered to be more or less infallible - would give the new regime any credit. If your contract was tied to that particular regime, however, then you would be at fault, if you continued the resource extraction."