[WITHDRAWN] Repeal GA#50: International Salvage Laws

[Port Ember]

Greetings Honourable Ambassadors of the World Assembly!

I would like to point out that this is but my second attempt at writing a proposal for the World Assembly (although my first attempt was a proper failed attempt which I withdrew before it was submitted).

I am looking forward to, and am humbled by the future prospects of receiving inputs from the skilled and experienced community - so I would like to thank all in advance!

---

Notification Table

---

1. 15 May 2020: First Draft submitted to the World Assembly Community for Input/Debate.

2. 16 May 2020: First Draft edited due to inputs from the World Assembly Community. Second Draft submitted.

3. 08 July 2020: Repeal Submitted.

4. 09 July 2020: Repeal Withdrawn

---

Overview Table

---

Resolution Category: Repeal.

Resolution in Question: GA#50: International Salvage Laws.

---

DraftsTable

---

Draft 1

Draft 1: "Repeal GA#50: International Salvage Laws

The General Assembly,

Acknowledges the vital necessity of the existence of International Salvage Laws, especially considering the vast amount of ocean going vessels traversing the oceans on a daily basis,

Applauds the Resolution in question for its attempts to establish clear and fair guidelines for International Salvage operations,

Concerned however by the fact that the Resolution fails to properly define what constitutes a salvage operation and the minimum requirements of what makes such an operation needed,

Concerned that Clause 2 of the Resolution in question is dangerously vague, technically allowing any nation - whether involved in the operation or not - to lay claim inclusion into a specific salvage operation, thus possibly leaving this clause open to malice interpretation,

Concerned that Clause 4 fails to identify a specific entity whom must be contacted within the home nation of the salvor and the stricken vessel before the commencement of the salvage operation, possibly leaving this clause open to malice interpretation,

Concerned that Clause 5 fails to specifically dictates which specific process is to be followed by the salvor to determine whether a wreck is designated as a war grave or not, possibly leaving this clause open to malice interpretation,

Appalled by the fact that Clause 6 forces the Captain and the crew of a stricken vessel to abide by the instructions of the Salvor crew, without neccesating consent from the Captain of the stricken vessel to commence a salvage operation,

Concerned that Clause 9 fails to determine the process which must be followed to determine the monetary value which must be paid by the owner of the salvaged vessel to the salvor for services rendered in order to regain possession of the salvaged vessel, possibly leading this clause open to malice interpretation,

Concerned that Clause 9 can be interpreted as to immediately ceding ownership of the salvaged vessel to the Salvor,

Comcerned that Clause 11 fails to determine the standard and degree of training required by the salvor before commencing a salvage operation of a historical wreck, noting that different nations and different institutions will always have differing standards,

Convinced that the mentioned errors and omissions described renders the resolution inoperable and a threat to fair world trade practices and the environment,

Hereby repeals "International Salvage Laws".

---

Draft 2: "Repeal GA#50: International Salvage Laws

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES the vital necessity of the existence of International Salvage Laws, especially considering the vast amount of ocean going vessels traversing the oceans on a daily basis,

APPLAUDS the Resolution in question for its attempts to establish clear and fair guidelines for International Salvage operations, intending to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare across the multiverse,

CONCERNED however by the fact that the Resolution fails to properly define what constitutes a salvage operation and also fails to define the minimum requirements of what makes such an operation needed, thus leaving the definition open to various and differing interpretations,

CONCERNED that Clause 2 of the Resolution in question is dangerously vague by stating "... salvors must co-operate with the salvage operations of other nations...", without setting any legal perimeters, technically allowing any nation - whether involved in the operation or not - to lay claim inclusion into a specific salvage operation, which may potentially lead to lengthy, difficult and unnecessary legal challenges between the involved parties or even cause diplomatic strain between the nations involved,

CONCERNED that Clause 4 fails to identify a specific entity whom must be contacted within the home nation of the salvor and the stricken vessel before the commencement of the salvage operation, by stating "... must immediately contact their own nation of the salvor and the nation which owns the stricken vessel,..." allowing the legal oppertunity to contact any entity, regardless of that entity's authority, expertise or sense of fairness, which may potentially lead to lengthy, difficult and unnecessary legal challenges between the involved parties,

CONCERNED that Clause 5 fails to specifically dictate which specific process is to be followed by the salvor to determine whether a wreck is designated as a war grave or not, allowing the legal oppertunity to contact any entity, regardless of that entity's authority, expertise or sense of fairness, which may potentially lead to lengthy, difficult and unnecessary legal challenges between the involved parties or even cause diplomatic strain between the nations involved,

APPALLED by the fact that Clause 6 forces the Captain and the crew of a stricken vessel to abide by the instructions of the Salvor crew, without neccesating consent from the Captain of the stricken vessel to commence a salvage operation, by stating "Any crewmen on board a salvageable vessel must co-operate fully with the salvors...", thus effectively robs the Captain of the stricken vessel of their free will by not requiring consent for the operation to continue,

CONCERNED that Clause 9 fails to determine the process which must be followed to determine the monetary value which must be paid by the owner of the salvaged vessel to the salvor for services rendered in order to regain possession of the salvaged vessel, by only stating "...the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,...", thus creating the oppertunity for unfairness in the subsequent transaction and thus defeating this resolutions aim of ensuring fair practices in this matter,

CONCERNED that Clause 11 fails to determine the standard and degree of training required by the salvor before commencing a salvage operation of a historical wreck, only stating "...Salvors dealing in wrecks which have historical value must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck." - noting that different nations and different institutions will always have differing standards,

CONVINCED that the mentioned errors and omissions described renders the resolution inoperable and a threat to fair world trade practices and the environment,

Hereby repeals "International Salvage Laws".

[Imperium Anglorum]

No need to bold words at the start of sentences.

[Atheris]

No need to bold words at the start of sentences.

Honestly, I kind of like them bolded. I don't think you can bold words in resolutions, so it should be fine. I'm no issue guy, though.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You can bold words in resolutions; it looks terrible.

[Atheris]

Well, if they aren't bolded in the resolution, I'd be fine with it. I kind of like the way bolded words look in the draft, but what do I know? I've only drafted one issue.

[Port Ember]

Thank you for the input! If you do not mind, I will keep them bolded for the draft, but I will certainly remove it once I submit (if that day ever comes). Thank you!

[Imperium Anglorum]

EMW:

Having read portions of the proposal, almost all of it spent saying that something or another is undefined or too vague. Given that courts exist to resolve such issues, can the author give guidance as to the substantive reasons why the target resolution has impactful flaws in those clauses?

I also recommend heartily that the authors quote the specific clauses which they claim have some problems. It is far more convincing to pin-point problems than simply assert they exist.

[Port Ember]

EMW:

Having read portions of the proposal, almost all of it spent saying that something or another is undefined or too vague. Given that courts exist to resolve such issues, can the author give guidance as to the substantive reasons why the target resolution has impactful flaws in those clauses?

I also recommend heartily that the authors quote the specific clauses which they claim have some problems. It is far more convincing to pin-point problems than simply assert they exist.

Humble gratitude for the wise advise! I have edited the draft, attempting to rectify those concerns you addressed.

[Port Ember]

This serves as a bumpidy bump. I would truly appreciate any input on where I went wrong/where I can improve.

Tia

[Port Ember]

Notice: I plan to submit this proposal soon, pending offcourse on not receiving any additional inputs.

[WayNeacTia]

All I see here is "This is too vague" and "This isn't defined well enough". None of those are actually legitimate arguments. There is a character count limit, and not everything can be defined or regulated down to bare earth in a single resolution. Henceforth why we have the gnomes who make the regulations after a resolution goes into effect.

Pass

[Tinhampton]

Clause 6 forces the Captain and the crew of a stricken vessel to abide by the instructions of the Salvor crew

Not true - the operative clauses in GA#50 are recommendations, not mandates. I'm not going to support the repeal of a (nice and fluffy/good old-fashioned NatSov - CIRCLE AS APPROPRIATE) resolution that does almost nothing but really urges an awful lot of things. =P

[Port Ember]

All I see here is "This is too vague" and "This isn't defined well enough". None of those are actually legitimate arguments. There is a character count limit, and not everything can be defined or regulated down to bare earth in a single resolution. Henceforth why we have the gnomes who make the regulations after a resolution goes into effect.

Pass

Thank you for your input.

I understand where you are coming from, but I personally feel that whilst keeping the character limit in mind, it is possible to address those listed concerns by referring most of these party to party disputes to a committee. The current resolution does not utilize a committee, but hopes on a just resolution between parties from different nations. This is why I believe the problem can be solved by rewriting this resolution.

Thank you again for your input.

Clause 6 forces the Captain and the crew of a stricken vessel to abide by the instructions of the Salvor crew

Not true - the operative clauses in GA#50 are recommendations, not mandates. I'm not going to support the repeal of a (nice and fluffy/good old-fashioned NatSov - CIRCLE AS APPROPRIATE) resolution that does almost nothing but really urges an awful lot of things. =P

Thank you for your input.

As I have mentioned above, this resolution can be redone in a manner which would make it a lot clearer and binding, with the introduction of a committee. This will ensure the possibility of making binding laws, and not suggestions, helping to clear up any possible conflict between nations.

Thank you again for your input.

[Araraukar]

this resolution can be redone in a manner which would make it a lot clearer and binding, with the introduction of a committee.

OOC: Okay, so...

1. Put your money where your mouth is and write a replacement. It's generally easier to repeal non-controversial resolutions when you have a good replacement ready to submit.

2. Don't use a committee if you can give the member nations the same tasks. Committees are beyond nations' control, so unless worded VERY carefully, you're potentially opening the doors to WA rule (which can easily backfire as the gnomes don't have to think like you, unless you put strict restrictions to their power, an yes I know the results of WA committee actions have to be RP'd, but again, nobody's forced to RP the way you'd prefer) that the nations would never have agreed to, in the first place, if they'd have had any say in it.

3. Do remember that back when the target was passed, the character count (which counts every keypress, including code and enter presses) was 3000 instead of the current 5000.

If you can do a better job without handing power over to a committee, do try, before calling the definitions bad or insufficent.

[Graintfjall]

“The arguments in this repeal aren’t very compelling. Not every word and phrase can plausibly be defined – nor should they have to be.

“There is one good, solid reason to repeal this resolution, which is that Article 11 gives a nation a right of salvage over ships that would not otherwise be under its jurisdiction. Given this repeal does not focus on this issue but instead demands interminable legalism, we will not be (notionally) supporting it – but we will be looking out for future opportunities to see this legislation repealed.”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall Observer Mission

[Port Ember]

Thank you all..

I have decided to withdraw this Repeal.

[Araraukar]

“There is one good, solid reason to repeal this resolution, which is that Article 11 gives a nation a right of salvage over ships that would not otherwise be under its jurisdiction.”

"Did it perhaps escape your notice that clause eleven of the target resolution only applies when it is "of legitimate historical interest" and can only be claimed "by the nation nearest to the salvage site provided the wreck is put on public display"? Given the salvors on such occasions also "must receive training in archaeological techniques in order to prevent damage to the wreck", I don't really understand what your point is? What do you have against archaeology?"