[DEFEATED] Repeal Resolution #83: International Road Safety

[Free Azell]

"VERSION WITH SUGGESTED EDITS INCORPORATED" (Draft 7)

The World Assembly,

Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;

Disappointed that the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in the resolution - although the target does state that the standards put out by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must to some extent improve traffic safety, by regulation roads, vehicles, or training for their operators, and must be reasonable in terms of cost, no specific benchmark for these regulations is ever stated;

Convinced that this is likely to cause significant inefficiency and inadequacy in addressing the concerns stated in the target itself;

Dissatisfied that, given the absence of an upper limit on the stringency of the committee’s regulations, said regulations could have unnecessary adverse effects regarding other matters, such as disruption to local wildlife;

Believing that a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance;

Hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety.”

Co-authored by Maowi

The World Assembly,

Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;

Disappointed that the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in the resolution - although the target does state that the standards put out by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must concern road safety, vehicle safety, or training standards for operators of the vehicles; must be reasonable in terms of cost; and must at least to some extent improve safety, no specific benchmark for these regulations is ever stated;

Convinced that this is likely to cause significant inefficiency and inadequacy in addressing the concerns stated in the target itself;

Dissatisfied that, given the absence of an upper limit on the stringency of the committee’s regulations, said regulations could have unnecessary adverse effects regarding other matters, such as disruption to local wildlife;

Believing that a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance;

Hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety.”

Co-authored by Maowi

The World Assembly,

Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;

Disappointed that the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in the resolution - although the target does state that the standards put out by the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) must concern road safety, vehicle safety, or training standards for operators of the vehicles; must be reasonable in terms of cost; and must at least to some extent improve safety, the specific intended effects of these regulations are never stated;

Adamant that a resolution with the purpose of increasing safety should stipulate what safety measures it wishes to enact, or to what extent it wishes the committee to regulate safety;

Vexed that the target does not instruct the committee on what the regulations it promulgates must cover, so that the committee may issue anything from no regulations at all to a huge number with member nations forced to comply with them all;

Outraged that under the target resolution, the regulations promulgated by the committee must not necessarily be limited to improving road safety and may cause a whole plethora of negative effects on other aspects of the member nation, given the resolution's extraordinary vagueness;

Believing that a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance;

Hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety.”

Co-authored by Maowi

[Free Azell]

I have made some updates to the proposal based on some feedback I have received.

[Maowi]

OOC: Hey there, welcome to the General Assembly This is a very good start for a proposal - it reads like a GA repeal and has a clear sense of direction. I've left some feedback here below:

Noting that road, bridges, and tunnels that are used for international travel between nations need to be kept up to a certain standard.

Applauding the intentions of this resolution to prevent death from accidents on public highways that are connected in more than one nation.

Realizing that regulations are needed for vehicles that are on these roads and all roads in general need to kept to a certain standard as well.

You can certainly recognise the good intentions of a target resolution - many successful repeals have done so - but generally it's a good idea to keep that quite succinct and to the point, ideally in just one clause.

Disappointed that regulations for said roads and vehicles are not clearly laid out in the resolution.

To be properly convincing, you need to go into the details. Where, specifically, is there ambiguity, and why exactly is that a problem? I agree that there is a lack of clarity in the target's mandates but you need to be precise in your reasoning in the repeal.

Concerned that the resolution states it will “ recommend safety standards for domestic roads and related infrastructure” and then goes on to state it “requires compliance of standards”later in the resolution

It's worth noting that in terms of domestic infrastructure, compliance with the ITSC's safety standards is only ever "strongly urged" by the target - never made a binding mandate.

Appalled that the creation of the International Transport Safety Committee allowed the Committee to regulate standards in individual nations when it clearly oversteps a nation's right to regulate roads and vehicles in there nation.

Believing that all nations have the right to regulate the roads, tunnels, bridges, and vehicles in their said nations without oversight of a World Assembly created Committee.

Troubled that member states are required to keep standards not set by themselves for signage, roads, gates, customs plazas, sidewalks, curbs, and streetlamps.

I think you again need more justification here. The only binding mandates regulate standards related to roads where they cross borders, which is a very light, narrow-ranging burden, and vehicles which will cross borders, which is less specific but - to me - pretty reasonable. You either need to flesh out these points and make them more convincing, or scrap it and focus on expanding your point about the target's general ambiguity (or do that but leave these three as one condensed point at the end rather than as the meat of the proposal).

[Free Azell]

deleted post.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: put new drafts into the first post and spoiler previous drafts.

[Free Azell]

Sorry about that! I have updated it. I will delete my previous post.

[Araraukar]

I will delete my previous post.

OOC: You don't have to do that. It's okay to post a new draft in a separate post (it works as a bump for the draft, too) as long as you also add it to the first post.

[Free Azell]

Thanks for letting me know. Would love feedback on improvements if more are needed?

[Maowi]

OOC: To make sure your proposal follows standard GA formatting conventions, it should be phrased as one long sentence which reads "The World Assembly, [insert clauses with justification], hereby repeals GAR #83, "International Road Safety"." So you need to add "The World Assembly," to the very start and make sure each of your clauses reads as one continuous phrase and ends with a comma or semicolon.

Noting that road, bridges, and tunnels that are used for international travel between nations need to be kept up to a certain standard. Applauding the intentions of this resolution to prevent death from accidents on public highways that are connected in more than one nation.

So as an example of what I said above, the two parts of this clause need to be merged into one single phrase. Something along the lines of: "Applauding the target resolution's intentions of setting standards for roads, bridges, and tunnels used for international travel to increase safety on public highways connected in more than one nation;".

Disappointed that regulations for said roads and vehicles are not clearly laid out in the resolution. For example in section 5 and 6 it only authorizes the International Transport Safety Committee to “Promulgate Regulation” for commercial vehicles and persons that operate them. Though they do not specify the actual regulation themselves.

Again, this needs to be one unbroken clause. It could be phrased a little better; you could focus more on the fact that the committee is pretty much left to its own devices. The resolution only stipulates that the standards set out by the committee must be related to road safety, vehicle safety, or training standards for operators of the vehicles, must be reasonable in terms of cost, and have to at least to some extent improve safety. In a resolution where pretty much the whole point is to increase safety, you'd expect that the committee only set out standards that improve safety - so you can capitalise on that here. Also, in this clause and the rest, there's no need to number the target's clauses and refer to them specifically. You do need to refer to what they do specifically, but you don't particularly need to name them.

Noting the word Promulgate mean “promote or make widely known (an idea or cause).” How can a resolution require nations to comply with something that is simply an idea or cause?

In fact, "promulgate" does have another, more relevant meaning - "put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation." That in itself doesn't particularly matter as far as this clause goes, because member nations can still take the interpretation you've mentioned if it is advantageous to them. But I do think the target would still put the same burden on a member nation under each reading of it. The Google definition of "promulgate" mentioning that what is promulgated is an "idea or cause" is pretty generic. The target has specified that the committee is promulgating standards, and then requires member nations to meet some of those standards. That seems pretty clear-cut to me, and I don't think there's ambiguity in this case.

Concern with what this resolution requires but does not state. In sections 10-14 it requires compliance to standards that have not been set in the resolution. This could lead to a misuse of power based on the vagueness of the requirements in the said resolution.

To be honest, this to me seems like it is pretty much the same point as your "Disappointed" clause. If you flesh that one out more, you can afford to get rid of this one - unless you did mean something different by it, in which case you should make your point very clearly and directly.

Convinced that prohibiting nations from making higher standards than that of ITSC which is stated in the last section of the resolution. Limits a nation's ability to go above an beyond with safety standards.Considering the vagueness of what these standards actually are in the resolution.

I see your point but I think you should consider the caveat at the end of that clause in the target: having higher safety standards is prohibited "unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers." The general idea there seems pretty reasonable to me, but it doesn't completely invalidate your point. Where vehicles come in from a foreign member nation which don't really have a domestic equivalent, it would be very hard for member nations to apply more stringent safety standards on them - as those standards simply wouldn't exist domestically - so they would have to default to the ITSC's standards which, as you say, are weak. I think a rewrite to focus on that would be helpful.

Appalled that the creation of the International Transport Safety Committee allowed the Committee to regulate standards in individual nations when it clearly oversteps a nation's right to regulate roads and vehicles in there nation.

Believing that all nations have the right to regulate the roads, tunnels, bridges, and vehicles in their said nations without oversight of a World Assembly created Committee even in the event that the road or structure continues into another nation.

Troubled that member states are required to keep standards not set by themselves for signage, roads, gates, customs plazas, sidewalks, curbs, and streetlamps as stated in section 14 of the resolution

I still think you are trying to make three clauses out of one here, which isn't even your strongest point - as below:

I think you again need more justification here. The only binding mandates regulate standards related to roads where they cross borders, which is a very light, narrow-ranging burden, and vehicles which will cross borders, which is less specific but - to me - pretty reasonable. You either need to flesh out these points and make them more convincing, or scrap it and focus on expanding your point about the target's general ambiguity (or do that but leave these three as one condensed point at the end rather than as the meat of the proposal).

Hereby Repeal Resolution #83 International Road Safety.

Rewrite this as "Hereby repeals GAR #83, International Road Safety."

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Doesn’t it make more sense to put the similarly named ones together?

Like the noteds ?

[The COT Corporation]

Concern with what this resolution requires but does not state. In sections 10-14 it requires compliance to standards that have not been set in the resolution. This could lead to a misuse of power based on the vagueness of the requirements in the said resolution.

"A good point. As the resolution states in paragraph 5 (The fifth paragraph past the "Hereby" mark), the ITSC may only recommend safety standards, although it states nowhere what those standards are or if the ITSC themselves may set them. Maybe you should add that in, it would back up the point without having to actually read the previous resolution."

Convinced that prohibiting nations from making higher standards than that of ITSC which is stated in the last section of the resolution. Limits a nation's ability to go above an beyond with safety standards.Considering the vagueness of what these standards actually are in the resolution.

"Although, yes, there are no standards as you have previously mentioned, limiting a nation's ability to go above and beyond may in fact increase the general safety, as first:
The travel standard is currently the same worldwide, and if nations could increase it as they please, the standard may change per nation hence becoming a hinderance to tourists or travellers,

And:
The increasing of the standard is up to the nations, and that could be definitely manipulated by nations, as the can increase it as they see fit. For example, they could mandate "safety checkpoints" along all roads, with the added perk that you have to pay to get through - reminiscent of the infamous "toll gate"."

[Maowi]

Convinced that prohibiting nations from making higher standards than that of ITSC which is stated in the last section of the resolution. Limits a nation's ability to go above an beyond with safety standards.Considering the vagueness of what these standards actually are in the resolution.

"Although, yes, there are no standards as you have previously mentioned, limiting a nation's ability to go above and beyond may in fact increase the general safety, as first:
The travel standard is currently the same worldwide, and if nations could increase it as they please, the standard may change per nation hence becoming a hinderance to tourists or travellers,

"In actual fact, the target doesallow member nations to implement higher safety standards, as long as those standards are also in place in that nation's domestic roads. So, to some extent, they can "increase it as they please."

And:
The increasing of the standard is up to the nations, and that could be definitely manipulated by nations, as the can increase it as they see fit. For example, they could mandate "safety checkpoints" along all roads, with the added perk that you have to pay to get through - reminiscent of the infamous "toll gate"."

"And what stops them putting in toll gates anyway? As far as I know, and I'm willing to be corrected, there is no General Assembly resolution that bans member nations from having toll gates. In any case, I think increasing safety standards is a pretty clear directive with not much scope for manipulation. Adding a requirement of payment for passage does not increase safety."

[The COT Corporation]

"Perhaps I did not state: a government could create an absurd amount of toll gates under the guise of safety checkpoints. That seems a bit strange; to me."

[Maowi]

"But the point is they could do that anyway, without needing to disguise them as safety checkpoints ..."

[Quirinum]

If a nation has conquered 49 per cent of the world and has created a massive road network of (straight) roads stretching from the metropole to the furthest limes, why ought they spend massive sums to retrofit their entire network to fit standards set by the other 51 per cent?

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

If a nation has conquered 49 per cent of the world and has created a massive road network of (straight) roads stretching from the metropole to the furthest limes, why ought they spend massive sums to retrofit their entire network to fit standards set by the other 51 per cent?

World as in world assembaky or world as in or nation ?

[Araraukar]

If a nation has conquered 49 per cent of the world and has created a massive road network of (straight) roads stretching from the metropole to the furthest limes, why ought they spend massive sums to retrofit their entire network to fit standards set by the other 51 per cent?

World as in world assembaky or world as in or nation ?

OOC: Given there's no such thing as one nation accounting for half the WA, they're obviously RPing for their own nation, likely their own planet.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

World as in world assembaky or world as in or nation ?

OOC: Given there's no such thing as one nation accounting for half the WA, they're obviously RPing for their own nation, likely their own planet.

But do articles in the world assembly address them in rp or as all member nations ?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Given there's no such thing as one nation accounting for half the WA, they're obviously RPing for their own nation, likely their own planet.

But do articles in the world assembly address them in rp or as all member nations ?

(OOC: A good WA resolution should consider the legislative impact on all different types of member nations. Due to the one WA nation per player rule, a lot of WA states don’t interact with any other WA states in their canon, and this is something that ought to be taken into consideration.)

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

But do articles in the world assembly address them in rp or as all member nations ?

(OOC: A good WA resolution should consider the legislative impact on all different types of member nations. Due to the one WA nation per player rule, a lot of WA states don’t interact with any other WA states in their canon, and this is something that ought to be taken into consideration.)

In that case what if you made it so you could differentiate empires countries and the like. Either cooperation average or some kind of standard ?

[Free Azell]

I have posted the 3rd draft with suggested edits above.

[Araraukar]

C/O Authored by Maowi

OOC: Is it really? Remember that you need permission from the person you're naming as co-author.

[Maowi]

C/O Authored by Maowi

OOC: Is it really? Remember that you need permission from the person you're naming as co-author.

OOC: It is. We discussed the drafting and stuff privately. But yeah, my bad, I should probably have specified here.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Is it really? Remember that you need permission from the person you're naming as co-author.

OOC: It is. We discussed the drafting and stuff privately. But yeah, my bad, I should probably have specified here.

OOC: Then maybe one of you can explain how the target could have been specific without becoming either micromanagement or one-size-fits-none? I mean, like, could it be done, or is the currently existing resolution the best one that can be had? And if you believe it could, are you going to try writing a better replacement?

[Maowi]

OOC: It is. We discussed the drafting and stuff privately. But yeah, my bad, I should probably have specified here.

OOC: Then maybe one of you can explain how the target could have been specific without becoming either micromanagement or one-size-fits-none? I mean, like, could it be done, or is the currently existing resolution the best one that can be had? And if you believe it could, are you going to try writing a better replacement?

OOC: Something a bit like the current one would probably be the best attempt, if it actually mandated that the committee lay out some regulations instead of just authorising it to do so, and if it made sure that the purpose of each of those regulations was to increase safety, which it currently doesn't. I think I'd like to have a go at drafting a replacement, but it'll have to wait a couple of weeks because I have exams and I'll have to be away from NS in that time. Although if someone else decides to write one up before then, I'll happily help out if necessary.