Advertisement
by Ithania » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:39 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:04 am
Ithania wrote:TLDR - Am I a very silly goose for thinking there might be space to regulate some persistent pollutants? Separately, for thinking there might be room to address consequences of long-range air pollution?
Thank you so much again x
by Ithania » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:48 am
Kenmoria wrote:Ithania wrote:TLDR - Am I a very silly goose for thinking there might be space to regulate some persistent pollutants? Separately, for thinking there might be room to address consequences of long-range air pollution?
Thank you so much again x
I believe you have captured all of the relevant legislation, and although there are a few that touch on similar topics, they are sufficiently separate from long-term and air pollutants that you should be able to avoid them with a good draft. Duplication is allowable to focus in on specific issues, and I can’t see any reason why you would need to contradict anything, so you should be fine.
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:57 pm
Ithania wrote:I just hope that I'm competent enough at drafting to ensure no contradictions occur.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Ithania » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:23 pm
Araraukar wrote:Ithania wrote:I just hope that I'm competent enough at drafting to ensure no contradictions occur.
Write a draft and put it up on the forum - and prepare to have it there for weeks as it slowly gets made better. Much on draft legality (and quality) depends on the exact wording and how a problem is tackled. I have a nagging feeling there was one resolution missing from your list, but I'm currently too tired to go hunting for the nagging feeling's source.
by Sylvai » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:56 pm
Pro: Egalitarianism, democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, worker ownership, unionism, feminism, LGBTQ+ ally, progressivism, internationalism, individualism, Sanders, Corbyn, democracy, freedom, activism, rain.
Neutral: Historical materialism (Marxism), communism, anarchocommunism, religion, collectivism, Marxism-Leninism, social democracy, partly cloudy.
Anti: Capitalism, lassiez-faire, authoritarianism, fascism, interventionism, imperialism, colonialism, moralism, conservatism, racism, Biden, Trump, sun.
Nation: Sylvai
Region: Roller Rink
History: Founding
Geography: Maps
Politics: Major Parties
by Araraukar » Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:42 am
Sylvai wrote:Would it be within the purview of the GA to propose a bioethics resolution mandating the use of clean syringes in disease prevention and healthcare? Any relevant legislation I should read up on? Thanks in advance.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:03 pm
by Araraukar » Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:31 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I see no problem with the proposed syringe resolution.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:50 pm
by Sylvai » Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:44 pm
Araraukar wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:I see no problem with the proposed syringe resolution.
As a bioethics one? What you seem to talk about would not be bioethics.
To prospective author: remember that you need at least significant strength equivalent effect out of the mandates for a category with areas of effect (like Healthcare). Just mandating clean syringes is not anywhere near enough, especially as since that's pretty basic stuff, the assumption would be that clean syringes would already be a requirement and thus demanding them by law would not have any effect for the majority of nations.
But if you really want to give it a go, write a proposal draft and post it in its own thread on this forum. Name the thread "DRAFT: Proposal Name", obviously with the actual proposal name.
Pro: Egalitarianism, democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, worker ownership, unionism, feminism, LGBTQ+ ally, progressivism, internationalism, individualism, Sanders, Corbyn, democracy, freedom, activism, rain.
Neutral: Historical materialism (Marxism), communism, anarchocommunism, religion, collectivism, Marxism-Leninism, social democracy, partly cloudy.
Anti: Capitalism, lassiez-faire, authoritarianism, fascism, interventionism, imperialism, colonialism, moralism, conservatism, racism, Biden, Trump, sun.
Nation: Sylvai
Region: Roller Rink
History: Founding
Geography: Maps
Politics: Major Parties
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:51 pm
Sylvai wrote:Araraukar wrote:As a bioethics one? What you seem to talk about would not be bioethics.
To prospective author: remember that you need at least significant strength equivalent effect out of the mandates for a category with areas of effect (like Healthcare). Just mandating clean syringes is not anywhere near enough, especially as since that's pretty basic stuff, the assumption would be that clean syringes would already be a requirement and thus demanding them by law would not have any effect for the majority of nations.
But if you really want to give it a go, write a proposal draft and post it in its own thread on this forum. Name the thread "DRAFT: Proposal Name", obviously with the actual proposal name.
I’m working on it at the moment and will try to make it more complex than simply “clean syringes”; maybe giving financial assistance to poorer countries to supply clean syringes, etc. What would you suggest as the category besides bioethics? I’m not sure where it would fall within healthcare
by Sylvai » Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:58 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:If the financial assistance to poorer countries is the main bit, then it's easily Health/International Aid. Otherwise it's either Health/Healthcare (as you are increasing spending on medical supplies and improving people's health outcomes) or Social Justice/Mild (as you are aiding drug-addicted people who are otherwise incapable of helping themselves), depending on what you emphasize. Hope that's helpful.
Pro: Egalitarianism, democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, worker ownership, unionism, feminism, LGBTQ+ ally, progressivism, internationalism, individualism, Sanders, Corbyn, democracy, freedom, activism, rain.
Neutral: Historical materialism (Marxism), communism, anarchocommunism, religion, collectivism, Marxism-Leninism, social democracy, partly cloudy.
Anti: Capitalism, lassiez-faire, authoritarianism, fascism, interventionism, imperialism, colonialism, moralism, conservatism, racism, Biden, Trump, sun.
Nation: Sylvai
Region: Roller Rink
History: Founding
Geography: Maps
Politics: Major Parties
by Araraukar » Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:00 am
YOGANANDA wrote:ITS EXCLUDING MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS AND FELINE ANIMALS..
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Dome Artan » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:19 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:21 pm
Dome Artan wrote:Apologies in advance if this is a common question in this thread but I unfortunately do not have the patience for 121 pages of scrolling before asking.
The line "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" is included twice in GAR #002 Rights And Duties Of WA States, once each in Section 1 Article 2 and Section 1 Article 3. Now I have an idea of what I think it means, but I would like the opinion of other players on their understanding of that line and the context its placed in.
by Dome Artan » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:42 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:The line "subject to the immunities recognized by international law" is included twice in GAR #002 Rights And Duties Of WA States, once each in Section 1 Article 2 and Section 1 Article 3. Now I have an idea of what I think it means, but I would like the opinion of other players on their understanding of that line and the context its placed in.
Where the GA restricts its own power, the WA is so bound, basically.
by Lord Dominator » Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:02 pm
Dome Artan wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
Where the GA restricts its own power, the WA is so bound, basically.
So would "Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." mean that member states have jurisdiction over everything not addressed by the GA but everything the GA does address supersedes member state law on the same subject?
by Dome Artan » Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:45 pm
Lord Dominator wrote:Dome Artan wrote:So would "Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." mean that member states have jurisdiction over everything not addressed by the GA but everything the GA does address supersedes member state law on the same subject?
Yes (presumably unless member state law agrees but goes further on the subject without contradiction)
by Morover » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:50 am
As a new body, its mission and rules are not yet fully formed. Discussion is welcomed in the General Assembly forum.
by Araraukar » Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:29 pm
Morover wrote:On the GenSec page of the main site, the following text can be seen:As a new body, its mission and rules are not yet fully formed. Discussion is welcomed in the General Assembly forum.
Considering GenSec has been in existence for almost three and a half years now, will this be changed anytime soon?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Apabeossie » Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:58 pm
Yahlia wrote:Surely everyone likes penguins? Who doesn't like penguins? I refuse to believe there are people out there who have an opinion of them worse than 'indifferent'
Einswenn wrote:For me it always was and is obscure why would people be so blind and shortsighted to allow themselves unsolicited hate. I’ve already posted this before: take care of your own life, live your own life, and don’t tell the others how they should live theirs
Dizgovzy wrote:Please go read a book or play outside instead of spending your youth behind a computer screen. Don’t waste your time on this site.
New Skandenivia wrote:AFAB ❌
AMAB ❌
Apab ✅
by Morover » Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:01 pm
Apabeossie wrote:Cultural Site Preservation
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Proposed by: Temple of the Maat
Description: The World Assembly,
Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,
Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,
1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),
2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,
3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,
4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,
5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,
6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,
7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.
Hi, I'm thinking about writing an issue about this but I'm a bit confused, can nations submit sited to WATCH or does the WATCH choose the sites and the nations have to obey?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:33 pm
Morover wrote:Apabeossie wrote:Cultural Site Preservation
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Proposed by: Temple of the Maat
Description: The World Assembly,
Recognizing the abundance of sites with cultural significance within member nations and the need to preserve them for future generations,
Acknowledging the World Assembly as the perfect medium to assist with such preservation,
1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),
2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site, as culturally relevant,
b. Create an archive including, but not limited to, visual, verbal, and literary works that pertain to culturally relevant sites,
c. Recommend specific preservation practices to nations for their culturally relevant sites,
d. Fulfill requests by nations to assist in the preservation of sites when the nation in question is unable to do so,
3. Urges nations to follow the preservation recommendations of the WATCH,
4. Encourages all nations to make a good faith effort to preserve their culturally relevant sites, and to assist other nations in the preservation of their culturally relevant sites,
5. Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,
6. Further mandates that nations shall not willingly use culturally relevant sites to house military or intelligence assets,
7. Requires the WATCH to grant exemptions in good faith to the protections and requirements of sections 5 and 6 for a site currently used as an intelligence or military asset in order to preserve its use as such.
Hi, I'm thinking about writing an issue about this but I'm a bit confused, can nations submit sited to WATCH or does the WATCH choose the sites and the nations have to obey?
So, this may be better suited for the issues subforum.
That being said, if I recall accurately, GA stat effects are an independent entity to issues stat effects. Thus, in the realm of issue-answering itself, WATCH (and all other committees) don't actually exist.
More knowledgeable people may be behind me to correct my misinformation.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Tigrisia
Advertisement