[OLD] Safety At Sea Act

[Gadalland and Aspern]

The General Assembly,

i. Recognising the importance of sea vessels in international trade,

ii. Observing the inherent danger of sea vessel transport due to many uncontrollable factors and entities,

iii. Hopeful that Member Nations are willing and able to perform sea rescue tasks,

iv. Acknowledging that the World Assembly is held by its own laws and resolutions to a certain standard of human rights,

1. Hereby defines a "Sea Vessel" as:

I. Any transport device whose main or supplementary mode of transport is open water;

II. Any device that either submerges or floats on the surface of the water that can carry goods, resources or living creatures;


2. Hereby defines a "Sea Distress" signal as:

I. The utilisation of any tool, device, or instrument on a sea vessel meant for signalling aid;

II. The utilisation of a distress signal from any vessel whose main mode of transport is not water;

III. A 'mayday' call via radio or other media;

3. Hereby defines a Successful Rescue (SR) as:

a. The salvaging of ALL or MANY entities, defined in 1(II), by a respondent sea vessel to a Sea Distress Signal

I. If not all of these conditions are met, the rescue must be categorised as "Unsuccessful."

4. Hereby mandates:

I. The aid to a sea vessel, who has signalled distress pursuant to 2(I, II, III), from the nearest sea vessel registered in a World Assembly Member Nation,

II. The establishment of the World Assembly Sea Rescue Index (WASRI) for the purpose of:

a. Recording the shortcomings of unsuccessful vessel journeys to aid in future creation of maritime law;

b. Recording the shortcomings of unsuccessful Sea Rescues to aid in future technological reference for the purpose of making sea rescues safer and more ethical.

III. The rescue vessel to be non-discriminatory against any nationality, ideology, or belief when conducting a rescue.

IV. There shall be no legal punishment for an Unsuccessful Rescue, defined by 3.a.I, and this bill hereby establishes the authority to the International Transport Safety Committee, as created in GA #34 to enforce this and all other mandates established by this law.

V. The sole authority of radio communications, for the purposes of Civilian Sea Rescues, defined as:
a. A Sea Rescue carried out per the guidelines of this law,

to the International Radiocommunications Authority (IRA) created in GA#532 "International Radio Standards Act", to oversee and assist in carrying out a rescue.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This isn't really "safety at sea" but more like "rescue at sea".

[Tinhampton]

This is no longer a draft:

45 minutes ago: The Six Unions of Gadalland and Aspern submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Regulation Board entitled "Rescue At Sea".

[Outer Sparta]

To the OP: You do realize you aren't supposed to submit it immediately once you made a draft? What even is your justification for submitting it without others taking a deep look at your proposal?

[Araraukar]

OOC: It's been submitted as Regulation: Safety.

Given AoE resolutions need to have minimum strength of Significant, and given the proposal only specifies transport ships should to help other transport ships (3.I. with the definition of "sea vessel"), and even then apparently only if they have the capacity and tools necessary (3.III.), I don't exactly see how this either fits the AoE description and "enforces stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm" or does so in any kind of significant manner.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It's been submitted as Regulation: Safety.

Given AoE resolutions need to have minimum strength of Significant, and given the proposal only specifies transport ships should to help other transport ships (3.I. with the definition of "sea vessel"), and even then apparently only if they have the capacity and tools necessary (3.III.), I don't exactly see how this either fits the AoE description and "enforces stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm" or does so in any kind of significant manner.

Ooc: this was right on the line to my mind. But given that it imputed a notable duty to rescue on other vessels, I erred on the side of leniency. That said, and I want to be perfectly clear, this is on the line between mild and significant.

The aoe is reasonable. Shipping is an industry that has workers and bystanders aboard their vessels. It is a novel interpretation over that which I had envisioned when I wrote it, but I don't think it's wrong.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: this was right on the line to my mind. But given that it imputed a notable duty to rescue on other vessels, I erred on the side of leniency. That said, and I want to be perfectly clear, this is on the line between mild and significant.

The aoe is reasonable. Shipping is an industry that has workers and bystanders aboard their vessels. It is a novel interpretation over that which I had envisioned when I wrote it, but I don't think it's wrong.

OOC: Fair enough on the AoE then - though does that apply to all workers of all industries? I mean, for something that addresses something about safety beyond the workplace safety resolution.

But the underlined bit I kinda disagree with, because it either requires all transport vessels to have capability to rescue (undefined, so presuming to mean the ship too) all other transport vessels and their crews (which is frankly speaking insane) OR it talks about some undefined outsider "rescue vessel" that may or may not have anything to do with any transport vessel OR only other transport vessels that ARE capable of the rescue mission, are the ones required to attempt a rescue. From the language (what little there is), I read it as the last one, which likely touches on very small number of transport vessels out there.

To author (in case you want to make the proposal better instead of badgehunting): "Mandates aid to (a ship in distress) from the nearest (WA ship)" doesn't really mean much, especially if the nearest ship hasn't detected the distress signal. The WA can mandate all it wants, but if no other ship detects the distress signal (say, a flare, in daylight, which would not be very visible from far away, especially if no-one is looking in that direction), then the nearest ship under WA nation's flag obviously won't do anything because they have no idea someone needs help. Also, if they lack any rescue capability, or could not do so safely (an oiltanker getting anywhere near a small fishing vessel would endanger the small fishing vessel in addition to whatever problem they already have), the "aid" could be only them relaying the distress signal to local rescue authorities.

You could have made it instead "nearest (ship under WA nation's flag) that detects the distress signal, approach the estimated location of the ship in distress, if they can do so safely, and passes on the distress signal to other nearby ships if they lack rescue equipment themselves", or something like that. There also definitely should be something about not using distress signals unless actually in distress, and perhaps fines for frivolous uses of it (in RL you can get fined for using emergency flares as fireworks).

Also, were you aware of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan

[Gadalland and Aspern]

OP Here: Apologies, I am not sure what happened but I did NOT mean to submit it to the WA yet. I think I had an odd glitch or something; perhaps I was sleepwalking.
Thank you for all your suggestions, everyone, I have removed it from the queue and it will remain a draft.

To author (in case you want to make the proposal better instead of badgehunting): "Mandates aid to (a ship in distress) from the nearest (WA ship)" doesn't really mean much, especially if the nearest ship hasn't detected the distress signal. The WA can mandate all it wants, but if no other ship detects the distress signal (say, a flare, in daylight, which would not be very visible from far away, especially if no-one is looking in that direction), then the nearest ship under WA nation's flag obviously won't do anything because they have no idea someone needs help. Also, if they lack any rescue capability, or could not do so safely (an oiltanker getting anywhere near a small fishing vessel would endanger the small fishing vessel in addition to whatever problem they already have), the "aid" could be only them relaying the distress signal to local rescue authorities.

The idea was not only flares, but radio signals as well. To address the significance issue as well: should there be an established 'Mayday' radio station? Also, I believe there are ethical issues with a rescue if the vessel knows it can't be carried out safely.
Also, a clarification: This is not only for the shipping business, but for ALL vessels at sea, and for airplanes that must make a water landing in international waters.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Only briefly on right now, and on mobile, so just going to give you some pointers on how to research this further:

Check resolution 532 as it's about radios.
And resolution 478 is about ship navigation.
ESPECIALLY check resolution 34 as it is about transport safety and includes ships.
Resolution 50 is about salvage, so it might have something.
Resolution 51 weirdly enough also applies (in cases where many lives are in danger, as would likely be the case in airplane crashes and passenger ship situations) though its name doesn't suggest it does.

The resolutions are found in an easily searchable thread near the top of this forum, named "Passed General Assembly Resolutions". Please don't post in that thread.

[Rightport]

Replies

" To the member, we are please to inform you that our Government has made substantive steps over the last four (4) years to improve maritime safety here at home and in our Region. We have done so by investing in our Armed Forces and the capabilities of it's maritime branch, the Coast Guard.

On the matter of this proposal being debated here today, we understand and appreciate the objective of your proposal however , we also take note of a few issues with section 3. I. & III. pointed out by above member states. "

[Gadalland and Aspern]

Thank you for your feedback, Rightport.

I am going to make 3.I into more general terms to cover more ground. As for 3.III, though I believe there are ethical issues to not include that, it will be removed as I understand it would cut down on the punishment of unsuccessful rescues.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Only briefly on right now, and on mobile, so just going to give you some pointers on how to research this further:

Check resolution 532 as it's about radios.

And resolution 478 is about ship navigation.

ESPECIALLY check resolution 34 as it is about transport safety and includes ships.

Resolution 50 is about salvage, so it might have something.

Resolution 51 weirdly enough also applies (in cases where many lives are in danger, as would likely be the case in airplane crashes and passenger ship situations) though its name doesn't suggest it does.

The resolutions are found in an easily searchable thread near the top of this forum, named "Passed General Assembly Resolutions". Please don't post in that thread.

OOC: You really need to read those resolutions.

[Gadalland and Aspern]

OOC: Only briefly on right now, and on mobile, so just going to give you some pointers on how to research this further:

Check resolution 532 as it's about radios.

And resolution 478 is about ship navigation.

ESPECIALLY check resolution 34 as it is about transport safety and includes ships.

Resolution 50 is about salvage, so it might have something.

Resolution 51 weirdly enough also applies (in cases where many lives are in danger, as would likely be the case in airplane crashes and passenger ship situations) though its name doesn't suggest it does.

The resolutions are found in an easily searchable thread near the top of this forum, named "Passed General Assembly Resolutions". Please don't post in that thread.

OOC: You really need to read those resolutions.

Thank you. I will do that.