Advertisement
by Outer Sparta » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:45 am
by Walfo » Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:14 am
Outer Sparta wrote:Does you proposal address any problems with ships potentially getting stuck (like the Suez Canal with that Evergreen ship )?
by Minskiev » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:53 pm
1. Defines a shipping canal as an artificial waterway that is built along important seawater routes to allow for the transit of vessels, and for the object of creating a shortcut or between two land-locked water bodies,
All shipping canals are to be equipped with:
by Walfo » Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:57 pm
Minskiev wrote:Some notes:
Why the bold? Purely stylistic concern, by the way.
I'd rewrite Clause 1 as simply1. Defines a shipping canal as an artificial waterway that is built along important seawater routes to allow for the transit of vessels, and for the object of creating a shortcut or between two land-locked water bodies,
Some of the points in your preamble and clauses end with periods, however the rest end in commas. Which is it? (I'd go with commas/semicolons)
2a should be:All shipping canals are to be equipped with:
2a section iv should be 2b
The 'Requires' in 3 and the 'Recommends' in 4 should be lowercase
The spacing between your main clauses is inconsistent
Who exactly is doing all of this? Clarify if it's a WA org or member states. If the former, I'll probably oppose. If the latter, clarify that this is for member states with canals.
I'm sure there's some reorganization to be done, as this proposal currently looks a little sloppy.
by Minskiev » Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:23 pm
Walfo wrote:Minskiev wrote:Some notes:
Why the bold? Purely stylistic concern, by the way.
I'd rewrite Clause 1 as simply1. Defines a shipping canal as an artificial waterway that is built along important seawater routes to allow for the transit of vessels, and for the object of creating a shortcut or between two land-locked water bodies,
Some of the points in your preamble and clauses end with periods, however the rest end in commas. Which is it? (I'd go with commas/semicolons)
2a should be:All shipping canals are to be equipped with:
2a section iv should be 2b
The 'Requires' in 3 and the 'Recommends' in 4 should be lowercase
The spacing between your main clauses is inconsistent
Who exactly is doing all of this? Clarify if it's a WA org or member states. If the former, I'll probably oppose. If the latter, clarify that this is for member states with canals.
I'm sure there's some reorganization to be done, as this proposal currently looks a little sloppy.
1st point, fixed, changed to italics.
2nd point, What did you change? It looks the same!
3rd point, fixed, all commas now
4th point, fixed, reworded, added "are"
5th point, fixed
6th point, fixed
7th point, fixed
8th point, this applies (because how the WA works) to all WA members by default. I do not know if I can change that. Also, we have to assume that the only nations that will really be affected and deal with this legislation are ones with shipping canals, or will in the future.
by Walfo » Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:52 pm
Minskiev wrote:Walfo wrote:1st point, fixed, changed to italics.
2nd point, What did you change? It looks the same!
3rd point, fixed, all commas now
4th point, fixed, reworded, added "are"
5th point, fixed
6th point, fixed
7th point, fixed
8th point, this applies (because how the WA works) to all WA members by default. I do not know if I can change that. Also, we have to assume that the only nations that will really be affected and deal with this legislation are ones with shipping canals, or will in the future.
I meant that things such as the canal sizing regulations should only be applicable for nations with canals, but things like ship regulations are fine for all nations, canals or not. And your second point doesn't answer my question. Are WA orgs that are paid for by all member states doing work in only some member states? Or are member states with canals doing this work on their canals?
Oh, and my first point was just saying that making the text "special" was pointless. Italicizing it didn't fix anything, however, remember that it's your proposal, so stylize it how you want.
My second point made 1. Defines: [new line] ... into 1. Defines...
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:57 am
Walfo wrote:this makes it necessary for wind sensors to be equipped.
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 Walfo » Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:22 am
Araraukar wrote:Walfo wrote:this makes it necessary for wind sensors to be equipped.
OOC: You didn't answer what wind sensors are or why existing ones for weather forecast services are not adequate?
Also, why should canals be expanded to deal with bigger vessels if the bigger vessels were never intended to go through canals?
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:15 am
Walfo wrote:1st point. For some weather stations, to record the wind they use wind sensors
so having a private system that the canal uses will be just as useful.
As well, I am assuming that a weather service only gives you the speed in a certain area.
In canals, the wind speed can vary in many places, so why I stated this part of the proposal is to make sure that the accurate picture of the whole area is covered.
Just ask the Americans why they expanded the Panama canal!
This means that the ships that are larger than the canals request transport several times.
If we can understand that shipping companies have an interest in traveling through the canals (but some might not because of the toll) then it makes perfect sense to renovate it.
they are strongly recommended that "the canal does not allow for certain large ships to enter"
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 Walfo » Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:05 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: So for the third time, what are wind sensors?
Private?
...and the ships are going to get the information exactly how? By communicating with the canal authorities to get the local weather data? Like I said they should do.
...but they wouldn't request to be allowed into a canal they know they're too big to fit in...
For the shipping companies, sure, because they aren't the ones paying for all the costs and doing all construction and relocation work necessary. In fact, make the shipping companies wanting the expansion of the canal to be 100% responsible for all the costs of widening the canal (also deepening) and all the measures to stop invasive species from hitching a ride through them, and see if they're still interested in getting their superwhatevers through there.
That's common sense. I don't think you need to have a common sense clause. Or if you must, then instead of "certain large ships" make it "ships too large to fit the canal".
Also, something entirely missing here, that should be there, given your title has "safety" on it, is for canal authorities to have any kind of rescue equipment for emergencies, or active communication with the ships passing through them or even tracking of the ships currently in transit through the canal.
You should also require compensation from the shipping companies or ship owners (if they're not the same thing) if their ships damage the structures of the canal or block the passage of other traffic through the canal for longer than normal transit through it takes in the weather conditions at the time.
by Free Ravensburg » Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:09 am
INT:| Canada "Gives Up" on Hiding Aliens and UFOs/ NAT:| Ravenian Astronauts That Went on the EELOO Mission Report Seeing a Mass of "Squidlike Handlike Starships"
by Walfo » Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:03 am
Free Ravensburg wrote:I must ask, even though that this might have already been answered, but is this related to the ship that got stuck in the Suez this year?
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:50 am
Draft Suggestion wrote:The World Assembly,
Aware of the importance of canals acting as shortcuts on important trade routes,
Seeking to prevent congestion of traffic through such canals while also making transit through the canals safe,
Wishing to encourage nations in charge of such canals to continue allowing their use for international trade and to consider improvements on their infrastructure if necessary,
Hereby,
1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines
- a "canal" as an artificial waterway built along important shipping routes to allow for the transit of commercial vessels, and creating a shortcut between two large bodies of water, or a large body of water and an international port,
- "canal authorities" as personnel authorized to allow or deny the transit of any one ship through the canal, whether on-site or remotely,
- a "ship" as a commercial civilian vessel transporting trade goods or passengers;
2. Requires that all canals
- be observed by the canal authorities assigned to them at all times,
- have on-call pilots and tugboats to assist ships to pass through the canal safely,
- have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary,
- have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident, and
- are equipped with weather monitoring with communication capability to warn ships of adverse weather conditions;
3. Also requires that canal authorities
- do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with safety and passability of the canal at the time, unless otherwise required by a previously passed and still extant General Assembly resolution,
- remain aware of how many vessels and of which size are within the boundaries of the canal at any one time,
- take care to not allow more ships to begin the transit through the canal than is safe,
- keep in contact with all ships within their area of jurisdiction, and
- react to changing conditions and emerging hazards by quickly alerting the ships in transit and those waiting to enter the canal;
4. Mandates that the crews of all ships wishing to pass through the canal,
- have made sure that their ship is capable of traveling through the canal in its current condition and the current weather conditions,
- take necessary measures to minimize the spread of invasive species,
- have competent personnell in control of the ship, at all times when within the canal,
- request help from canal authorities to enable safe transit, when necessary,
- are able to abide by maritime laws and local regulations,
- are able to understand and follow the instructions of canal authorities,
- have personal safety equipment for all members of the crew and in the case of passenger ships for all passengers as well, and
- stay aware of traffic around them and inform canal authorities of any accidents they witness or of any hazards they encounter that they were not already made aware of;
5. Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships
- damage the canal's infrastructure,
- endanger or damage other ships within the canal,
- hold up traffic unnecessarily,
- or their crews fail any of the duties in clause 4.
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 Tinhampton » Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:55 pm
Walfo wrote:Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Transport
Strength: Significant
by Walfo » Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:17 pm
by Walfo » Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:28 am
by Tinhampton » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:52 am
by Barfleur » Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:21 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat May 01, 2021 5:33 pm
by Araraukar » Mon May 03, 2021 2:51 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We would not support a proposal which would require canals to be kept to some kind of maximum standard. Rather, we would prefer an economical standard. ... A more cost effective standard should be applied.
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 Walfo » Thu May 06, 2021 4:50 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri May 07, 2021 11:15 pm
Walfo wrote:Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: TransportThe World Assembly,
Aware of the importance of canals acting as shortcuts on important trade routes,
Seeking to prevent congestion of traffic through such canals while also making transit through the canals safe,
Wishing to encourage nations in charge of such canals to continue allowing their use for international trade and to consider improvements on their infrastructure if necessary,
Hereby,
1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines:
- a "canal" as an artificial waterway built along important shipping routes to allow for the transit of commercial vessels, and creating a shortcut between two large bodies of water, or a large body of water and an international port,
- "canal authorities" as personnel authorized to allow or deny the transit of any one ship through the canal, whether on-site or remotely,
- a "ship" as a commercial civilian vessel transporting trade goods or passengers;
2. Requires that all canals:
- be observed by the canal authorities assigned to them at all times,
- have on-call pilots and tugboats to assist ships to pass through the canal safely,
- have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary,
- have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident, and
- are equipped with weather monitoring with communication capability to warn ships of adverse weather conditions;
3. Also requires that canal authorities:
- do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with safety and passability of the canal at the time, unless otherwise required by a previously passed and still extant General Assembly resolution,
- remain aware of how many vessels and of which size are within the boundaries of the canal at any one time,
- take care to not allow more ships to begin the transit through the canal than is safe,
- keep in contact with all ships within their area of jurisdiction, and
- react to changing conditions and emerging hazards by quickly alerting the ships in transit and those waiting to enter the canal;
4. Mandates that the crews of all ships wishing to pass through the canal,
- have made sure that their ship is capable of traveling through the canal in its current condition and the current weather conditions,
- take necessary measures to minimize the spread of invasive species,
- have competent personnel in control of the ship, at all times when within the canal,
- request help from canal authorities to enable safe transit, when necessary,
- are able to abide by maritime laws and local regulations,
- are able to understand and follow the instructions of canal authorities,
- have personal safety equipment for all members of the crew and in the case of passenger ships for all passengers as well, and
- stay aware of traffic around them and inform canal authorities of any accidents they witness or of any hazards they encounter that they were not already made aware of;
5. Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships:Co-authored by Araraukar
- damage the canal's infrastructure,
- endanger or damage other ships within the canal,
- hold up traffic unnecessarily,
- or their crews fail any of the duties in clause 4.
Draft IX
by Walfo » Tue May 11, 2021 8:16 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Walfo wrote:Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: TransportThe World Assembly,
Aware of the importance of canals acting as shortcuts on important trade routes,
Seeking to prevent congestion of traffic through such canals while also making transit through the canals safe,
Wishing to encourage nations in charge of such canals to continue allowing their use for international trade and to consider improvements on their infrastructure if necessary,
Hereby,
1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines:
- a "canal" as an artificial waterway built along important shipping routes to allow for the transit of commercial vessels, and creating a shortcut between two large bodies of water, or a large body of water and an international port,
- "canal authorities" as personnel authorized to allow or deny the transit of any one ship through the canal, whether on-site or remotely,
- a "ship" as a commercial civilian vessel transporting trade goods or passengers;
2. Requires that all canals:
- be observed by the canal authorities assigned to them at all times,
- have on-call pilots and tugboats to assist ships to pass through the canal safely,
- have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary,
- have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident, and
- are equipped with weather monitoring with communication capability to warn ships of adverse weather conditions;
3. Also requires that canal authorities:
- do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with safety and passability of the canal at the time, unless otherwise required by a previously passed and still extant General Assembly resolution,
- remain aware of how many vessels and of which size are within the boundaries of the canal at any one time,
- take care to not allow more ships to begin the transit through the canal than is safe,
- keep in contact with all ships within their area of jurisdiction, and
- react to changing conditions and emerging hazards by quickly alerting the ships in transit and those waiting to enter the canal;
4. Mandates that the crews of all ships wishing to pass through the canal,
- have made sure that their ship is capable of traveling through the canal in its current condition and the current weather conditions,
- take necessary measures to minimize the spread of invasive species,
- have competent personnel in control of the ship, at all times when within the canal,
- request help from canal authorities to enable safe transit, when necessary,
- are able to abide by maritime laws and local regulations,
- are able to understand and follow the instructions of canal authorities,
- have personal safety equipment for all members of the crew and in the case of passenger ships for all passengers as well, and
- stay aware of traffic around them and inform canal authorities of any accidents they witness or of any hazards they encounter that they were not already made aware of;
5. Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships:Co-authored by Araraukar
- damage the canal's infrastructure,
- endanger or damage other ships within the canal,
- hold up traffic unnecessarily,
- or their crews fail any of the duties in clause 4.
Draft IX
I recommend, as ever, removing the bolding.
The definition of canal would include something like a very small canal meant for pleasure craft which happens to be situated on isthmus of Panama or something like that. I'm not sure whether that is intentional, given that section 2 then talks about ships and other large infrastructure requirements.
In section 2(e), for the first "are" substitute "be".
Section 3(a) is objectionable on national security grounds. If I control Suez and I am at war with Shaustria-Hungary, why should I let their ships through, even if they are sea worthy and swear up and down that they will not scuttle their ship in the canal? Even excluding the war question, if I merely dislike Shaustria-Hungary's, say nuclear proliferation, I still ought to be allowed to sanction their merchants by denying them passage. Or if I control a canal with locks, the passibility 'of the canal at the time' is irrelevant if there is not enough water in my lake to operate the locks through the whole year. Or what if a ship refuses to pay the canal fee? Must I let her through?
In section 3(c) I would phrase as 'not to allow' so not to split the infinitive. Regardless, I would imagine that any commercially operated canal would find themselves in a pickle if they were operating in a manner that would delay or otherwise damage the ships or cargo traversing it. But a rational inevitability argument aside, I'm under the impression that it is generally not the number of ships transiting that would be difficult, but rather, their density. Or, if not speaking of collisions and rather of blockages, like with the Ever Given, just luck.
Canal authorities need not be legal state-like entities with jurisdiction (ie the right to, or area in which one can have the ability to, direct justice). Substitute the word 'jurisdiction' with something else. States have jurisdictions, police have jurisdiction. The Chipotle across the street does not.
Section 4(b) ought already be done with the environmental protection legislation. The competent personnel requirement in the next section probably differs depending on the type of canal. A major artery of global trade is going to be different from a canal running across (along the important shipping route that is the Potomac) from the Anacostia to the Potomac. Ships ought to cede control to pilots along major arteries, in other cases it may not be so critical.
The strict liability requirement in section 5 doesn't seem entirely justified. If someone takes all the proper precautions and crashes into the canal bank (damaging infrastructure) or leading to the ship jamming traffic for some time, compensation should not be required unless such compensation was agreed to beforehand.
Given these issues, I would advise waiting for more feedback. As to the strict liability and possible solutions, I would encourage taking feedback on the topic from Separatist Peoples.
by Araraukar » Sun May 16, 2021 1:37 am
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement