[PASSED] Volcanic Activity Convention

[Trellania]

"I have one problem with this... What happens if WA #105 gets repealed and the World Assembly Disaster Bureau is dissolved as a result? I would suggest removing the WADB and just having nations liase with each other."

[Wallenburg]

"I have one problem with this... What happens if WA #105 gets repealed and the World Assembly Disaster Bureau is dissolved as a result? I would suggest removing the WADB and just having nations liase with each other."

Committees are not destroyed when the first resolution to include them is repealed. They continue to operate according to the needs of all standing resolutions.

[Trellania]

"I have one problem with this... What happens if WA #105 gets repealed and the World Assembly Disaster Bureau is dissolved as a result? I would suggest removing the WADB and just having nations liase with each other."

Committees are not destroyed when the first resolution to include them is repealed. They continue to operate according to the needs of all standing resolutions.

"Objection withdrawn, then. Trellania fully supports this as it stands."

[Minskiev]

I mean. Alright, then. I'll be looking to submit this relatively soon; however, I'll try to see what I can improve on the old parts.

[Minskiev]

Bumping once more. Will submit by end of month, most likely.

[Wallenburg]

It's been quite a process, but the current draft looks pretty good to me. Good luck.

[Minskiev]

It's been quite a process, but the current draft looks pretty good to me. Good luck.

Thank you

It shouldn't have taken this long but I'd be far too embarrassed to have a proposal fail in front of thousands, hah.

[Araraukar]

OOC: See my TG especially about the category.

[Minskiev]

Will be submitting this as soon as I can.

[Minskiev]

Submitted aaaaa

[Araraukar]

OOC: You get lots of apologies from me, but I apologize for absence again. This time viral respiratory illness with fever and snot niagara and coughing and all, tested negative for COVID19, but being properly sick during a heatwave is still sucky enough that I've not paid much attention to the outside world, not to mention NS.

[Minskiev]

OOC: You get lots of apologies from me, but I apologize for absence again. This time viral respiratory illness with fever and snot niagara and coughing and all, tested negative for COVID19, but being properly sick during a heatwave is still sucky enough that I've not paid much attention to the outside world, not to mention NS.

No problem! It's not like there's anything left for you to do.

[Minskiev]

It's reached quorum. Thanks to everyone who helped me.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You get lots of apologies from me, but I apologize for absence again. This time viral respiratory illness with fever and snot niagara and coughing and all, tested negative for COVID19, but being properly sick during a heatwave is still sucky enough that I've not paid much attention to the outside world, not to mention NS.

No problem! It's not like there's anything left for you to do.

OOC: Doesn't help my guilt about not being around, much, but thanks.

[Minskiev]

No problem! It's not like there's anything left for you to do.

OOC: Doesn't help my guilt about not being around, much, but thanks.

It's alright, you were around plenty.

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1572478

[The Great Boom]

For several reasons, our delegation is against the resolution.

1. The definition of volcanic activity is silly and unhelpful

2. section 2, subsection 1, clause i states: "preparing for volcanic activity while working to minimize the loss of life, property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity, and when reasonable damage to the environment" - Many nations including the Great Boom have indigenous communities with sacred sites and traditional lands within potential (but astronomically unlikely to erupt) ash zones. These communities are largely autonomous, and the Great Boom has no authority to evacuate them or move them off their land. In accordance with other resolutions on disaster preparedness, national and local governments do liaise to ensure reasonable cooperation with existing resolutions. However, "minimizing" the loss of life cannot actually be done without completely evacuating more than 1,000 square acres of the Great Boom, mostly inhabited by indigenous Tobo people, as their is no existing scientific answer to surviving ash, meteors, and pyroclastic flows from an eruption aside from advanced notice evacuation. Logistics aside, warning systems aren't enough! The only way The Great Boom could honestly comply with this resolution is permanent resettlement, which would be illegal and immoral. People who live in volcanic ash basins are well aware of the (astronomically small) risks. It is not the responsibility of an international body to overrule their life choices on that issue. They are hurting no one but themselves, and not even really themselves, since none of the volcanoes in our lands are forecasted to erupt in next 2,500 years.

3. section 2 subsection b is completely infeasible. We have severed diplomatic relations with a neighboring authoritarian colonial state. They are not a WA member but they ARE in the ash basin of some volcanoes. In fact, some dormant volcanoes in the Great Boom are powerful enough to have worldwide impacts (although they are dormant and not likely to erupt for several millennia). The fact that this resolution insists we work with non-WA members to effectively enforce this resolution is grounds alone for its rejection.

4. Section 2 subsection D clause iii implies the need to create infrastructure in indigenous areas we don't have complete sovereignty over. And indeed, the rural areas at "risk" of ash deposits are largely underdeveloped wilderness. You would have us annihilate our untouched rainforests to build roads and shelters for, in some cases, single digits of people who choose to live in these secluded areas to be near their sacred sites? We cannot do this feasibly and no one, least of all the indigenous inhabitants, would want us to.

For these reasons and more, the Great Boom will draft or assist in repealing if this passes.

[Outer Sparta]

For several reasons, our delegation is against the resolution.

1. The definition of volcanic activity is silly and unhelpful

2. section 2, subsection 1, clause i states: "preparing for volcanic activity while working to minimize the loss of life, property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity, and when reasonable damage to the environment" - Many nations including the Great Boom have indigenous communities with sacred sites and traditional lands within potential (but astronomically unlikely to erupt) ash zones. These communities are largely autonomous, and the Great Boom has no authority to evacuate them or move them off their land. In accordance with other resolutions on disaster preparedness, national and local governments do liaise to ensure reasonable cooperation with existing resolutions. However, "minimizing" the loss of life cannot actually be done without completely evacuating more than 1,000 square acres of the Great Boom, mostly inhabited by indigenous Tobo people, as their is no existing scientific answer to surviving ash, meteors, and pyroclastic flows from an eruption aside from advanced notice evacuation. Logistics aside, warning systems aren't enough! The only way The Great Boom could honestly comply with this resolution is permanent resettlement, which would be illegal and immoral. People who live in volcanic ash basins are well aware of the (astronomically small) risks. It is not the responsibility of an international body to overrule their life choices on that issue. They are hurting no one but themselves, and not even really themselves, since none of the volcanoes in our lands are forecasted to erupt in next 2,500 years.

3. section 2 subsection b is completely infeasible. We have severed diplomatic relations with a neighboring authoritarian colonial state. They are not a WA member but they ARE in the ash basin of some volcanoes. In fact, some dormant volcanoes in the Great Boom are powerful enough to have worldwide impacts (although they are dormant and not likely to erupt for several millennia). The fact that this resolution insists we work with non-WA members to effectively enforce this resolution is grounds alone for its rejection.

4. Section 2 subsection D clause iii implies the need to create infrastructure in indigenous areas we don't have complete sovereignty over. And indeed, the rural areas at "risk" of ash deposits are largely underdeveloped wilderness. You would have us annihilate our untouched rainforests to build roads and shelters for, in some cases, single digits of people who choose to live in these secluded areas to be near their sacred sites? We cannot do this feasibly and no one, least of all the indigenous inhabitants, would want us to.

For these reasons and more, the Great Boom will draft or assist in repealing if this passes.

1. (IC) How would you define "volcanic activity?"
2. (OOC) You do realize that irl, there are plenty of volcanoes located near urban areas or areas of human settlement? Mount Nyiragongo (a volcano actively monitored) in the DR Congo towers over the city of Goma, home to around 600,000 people. Mount Vesuvius is an active volcano over Napoli, Mount Etna is also an active volcano with the city of Catania below it, and Sakurajima is over the Japanese city of Kagoshima. Not all volcanoes are located in remote areas, contrary to what you believe.
3. (IC) I really don't think your complaints have much weight to them.
4. (IC) Again, more national sovereignty arguments against the resolution. Also, if a major volcano in your nation did erupt and pyroclastic flows and lahars destroy your untouched rainforests and your indigenous habitants are victims, then doesn't that invalidate everything else you said?

[Minskiev]

I'll try to paraphrase so I can actually understand this

For several reasons, our delegation is against the resolution.

1. The definition of volcanic activity is silly and unhelpful

Does there really need to be a definition?

2. 2ai states: "preparing for volcanic activity while working to minimize the loss of life, property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity, and when reasonable damage to the environment" - Many nations including the Great Boom have autonomous communities that we're unable to move with sacred sites and traditional lands within potential ash zones. Per other resolutions on disaster preparedness, national and local governments do liaise to ensure reasonable cooperation with existing resolutions. However, "minimizing" the loss of life requires a lot of evacuating. Logistics aside, warning systems aren't enough! The only way The Great Boom could honestly comply with this resolution is permanent resettlement, which would be illegal and immoral. It is not the responsibility of an international body to overrule their life choices on that issue.

Read closely. You're working to minimizing the loss of life, not always minimizing the loss of life. This entire point is also moot considering your indigenous communities live next to extremely unlikely ash zones. Warning systems would practically never go off. If they've lived there that long, it can't be too dangerous for them to stay. Be reasonable.

3. 2b is completely infeasible. We have severed diplomatic relations with a neighboring authoritarian colonial state. They are not a WA member but they ARE in the ash basin of some volcanoes. In fact, some dormant volcanoes in the Great Boom are powerful enough to have worldwide impacts (although they are dormant and not likely to erupt for several millennia). The fact that this resolution insists we work with non-WA members to effectively enforce this resolution is grounds alone for its rejection.

Hmm, a decent point. Although where were you in the drafting stage of 3 months if volcanoes are so important to your nation? I also think that's a bit petty of your nation and I find this complaint to be niche.

4. 2diii implies the need to create infrastructure in indigenous areas we don't have complete sovereignty over. And indeed, the rural areas at "risk" of ash deposits are largely underdeveloped wilderness. You would have us annihilate our untouched rainforests to build roads and shelters for, in some cases, single digits of people who choose to live in these secluded areas to be near their sacred sites? We cannot do this feasibly and no one, least of all the indigenous inhabitants, would want us to.

The use of infrastructure doesn't imply annihilating rainforests to build roads. How would any nation even have the time for that? You're even downplaying how "at risk" your indigenous peoples are.

[Outer Sparta]

I'll try to paraphrase so I can actually understand this

For several reasons, our delegation is against the resolution.

1. The definition of volcanic activity is silly and unhelpful

Does there really need to be a definition?

2. 2ai states: "preparing for volcanic activity while working to minimize the loss of life, property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity, and when reasonable damage to the environment" - Many nations including the Great Boom have autonomous communities that we're unable to move with sacred sites and traditional lands within potential ash zones. Per other resolutions on disaster preparedness, national and local governments do liaise to ensure reasonable cooperation with existing resolutions. However, "minimizing" the loss of life requires a lot of evacuating. Logistics aside, warning systems aren't enough! The only way The Great Boom could honestly comply with this resolution is permanent resettlement, which would be illegal and immoral. It is not the responsibility of an international body to overrule their life choices on that issue.

Read closely. You're working to minimizing the loss of life, not always minimizing the loss of life. This entire point is also moot considering your indigenous communities live next to extremely unlikely ash zones. Warning systems would practically never go off. If they've lived there that long, it can't be too dangerous for them to stay. Be reasonable.

3. 2b is completely infeasible. We have severed diplomatic relations with a neighboring authoritarian colonial state. They are not a WA member but they ARE in the ash basin of some volcanoes. In fact, some dormant volcanoes in the Great Boom are powerful enough to have worldwide impacts (although they are dormant and not likely to erupt for several millennia). The fact that this resolution insists we work with non-WA members to effectively enforce this resolution is grounds alone for its rejection.

Hmm, a decent point. Although where were you in the drafting stage of 3 months if volcanoes are so important to your nation? I also think that's a bit petty of your nation and I find this complaint to be niche.

4. 2diii implies the need to create infrastructure in indigenous areas we don't have complete sovereignty over. And indeed, the rural areas at "risk" of ash deposits are largely underdeveloped wilderness. You would have us annihilate our untouched rainforests to build roads and shelters for, in some cases, single digits of people who choose to live in these secluded areas to be near their sacred sites? We cannot do this feasibly and no one, least of all the indigenous inhabitants, would want us to.

The use of infrastructure doesn't imply annihilating rainforests to build roads. How would any nation even have the time for that? You're even downplaying how "at risk" your indigenous peoples are.

I was echoing how point 4 would be moot if there is a major volcanic eruption that destroy said rainforest and indigenous inhabitants especially without a proper warning system.

[Kurogasa]

Hmm, a decent point. Although where were you in the drafting stage of 3 months if volcanoes are so important to your nation? I also think that's a bit petty of your nation and I find this complaint to be niche.

As petty as it may sound to you, my nation refuses to spend a cent on nations that are outside of the WA, so unless the WA itself is paying for it, we would bend the interpretation of the resolution to leave it at exchanging messages and information.

[Minskiev]

Hmm, a decent point. Although where were you in the drafting stage of 3 months if volcanoes are so important to your nation? I also think that's a bit petty of your nation and I find this complaint to be niche.

As petty as it may sound to you, my nation refuses to spend a cent on nations that are outside of the WA, so unless the WA itself is paying for it, we would bend the interpretation of the resolution to leave it at exchanging messages and information.

Alright. Information is aid.

[The Great Boom]

I'll try to paraphrase so I can actually understand this

For several reasons, our delegation is against the resolution.

1. The definition of volcanic activity is silly and unhelpful

Does there really need to be a definition?

2. 2ai states: "preparing for volcanic activity while working to minimize the loss of life, property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity, and when reasonable damage to the environment" - Many nations including the Great Boom have autonomous communities that we're unable to move with sacred sites and traditional lands within potential ash zones. Per other resolutions on disaster preparedness, national and local governments do liaise to ensure reasonable cooperation with existing resolutions. However, "minimizing" the loss of life requires a lot of evacuating. Logistics aside, warning systems aren't enough! The only way The Great Boom could honestly comply with this resolution is permanent resettlement, which would be illegal and immoral. It is not the responsibility of an international body to overrule their life choices on that issue.

Read closely. You're working to minimizing the loss of life, not always minimizing the loss of life. This entire point is also moot considering your indigenous communities live next to extremely unlikely ash zones. Warning systems would practically never go off. If they've lived there that long, it can't be too dangerous for them to stay. Be reasonable.

3. 2b is completely infeasible. We have severed diplomatic relations with a neighboring authoritarian colonial state. They are not a WA member but they ARE in the ash basin of some volcanoes. In fact, some dormant volcanoes in the Great Boom are powerful enough to have worldwide impacts (although they are dormant and not likely to erupt for several millennia). The fact that this resolution insists we work with non-WA members to effectively enforce this resolution is grounds alone for its rejection.

Hmm, a decent point. Although where were you in the drafting stage of 3 months if volcanoes are so important to your nation? I also think that's a bit petty of your nation and I find this complaint to be niche.

4. 2diii implies the need to create infrastructure in indigenous areas we don't have complete sovereignty over. And indeed, the rural areas at "risk" of ash deposits are largely underdeveloped wilderness. You would have us annihilate our untouched rainforests to build roads and shelters for, in some cases, single digits of people who choose to live in these secluded areas to be near their sacred sites? We cannot do this feasibly and no one, least of all the indigenous inhabitants, would want us to.

The use of infrastructure doesn't imply annihilating rainforests to build roads. How would any nation even have the time for that? You're even downplaying how "at risk" your indigenous peoples are.

I understood the distinction you're trying to draw between results and attempts on "minimizing the loss of life." I didn't mean to imply that your resolution demands results. I have an issue with even making the attempt. It is too arduous, contradictory to my nation's more important laws and unnecessary as our volcanoes aren't imminently erupting. And your resolution mandates making an attempt to build infrastructure in my untouched natural wilderness and violating the sovereignty of indigenous people who are making perfectly reasonable choices to live in ash zones.

Critically, I brought up the point that our volcanoes aren't at imminent risk because scientifically, the vast, vast majority of volcanoes are not. But your resolution makes no distinction for this. The actionable clauses mandate that we deal with all predicted volcanic activity by doing as your resolution says. Even volcanic activity predicted 2,500 years from now in my nation's case, or perhaps 100,000 years from now in other cases. The only way to resolve this honestly would be to make compliance optional, which is of course, absurd, since in that case no resolution is even needed. Thus my point, this resolution isn't needed, arduously regulates people who live near volcanoes who know much better than you about the risk, and will do untold environmental damage for no good reason.

I would have loved to make these complaints during the draft process but I wasn't aware of your resolution. Regardless of when I found it, the issues are clear to me. I will begin plans to repeal.

[Outer Sparta]

I'll try to paraphrase so I can actually understand this



Does there really need to be a definition?



Read closely. You're working to minimizing the loss of life, not always minimizing the loss of life. This entire point is also moot considering your indigenous communities live next to extremely unlikely ash zones. Warning systems would practically never go off. If they've lived there that long, it can't be too dangerous for them to stay. Be reasonable.



Hmm, a decent point. Although where were you in the drafting stage of 3 months if volcanoes are so important to your nation? I also think that's a bit petty of your nation and I find this complaint to be niche.



The use of infrastructure doesn't imply annihilating rainforests to build roads. How would any nation even have the time for that? You're even downplaying how "at risk" your indigenous peoples are.

I understood the distinction you're trying to draw between results and attempts on "minimizing the loss of life." I didn't mean to imply that your resolution demands results. I have an issue with even making the attempt. It is too arduous, contradictory to my nation's more important laws and unnecessary as our volcanoes aren't imminently erupting. And your resolution mandates making an attempt to build infrastructure in my untouched natural wilderness and violating the sovereignty of indigenous people who are making perfectly reasonable choices to live in ash zones.

Critically, I brought up the point that our volcanoes aren't at imminent risk because scientifically, the vast, vast majority of volcanoes are not. But your resolution makes no distinction for this. The actionable clauses mandate that we deal with all predicted volcanic activity by doing as your resolution says. Even volcanic activity predicted 2,500 years from now in my nation's case, or perhaps 100,000 years from now in other cases. The only way to resolve this honestly would be to make compliance option, which is of course, absurd, since in that case no resolution is even needed. Thus my point, this resolution isn't needed, arduously regulates people who live near volcanoes who know much better than you about the risk, and will do untold environmental damage for no good reason.

I would have loved to make these complaints during the draft process but I wasn't aware of your resolution. Regardless of when I found it, the issues are clear to me. I will begin plans to repeal.

If you're going to make a repeal, don't just make it completely based on NatSov, you have to actually address the contents of the resolution. Also, draft first.

[The Great Boom]

For several reasons, our delegation is against the resolution.

1. The definition of volcanic activity is silly and unhelpful

2. section 2, subsection 1, clause i states: "preparing for volcanic activity while working to minimize the loss of life, property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity, and when reasonable damage to the environment" - Many nations including the Great Boom have indigenous communities with sacred sites and traditional lands within potential (but astronomically unlikely to erupt) ash zones. These communities are largely autonomous, and the Great Boom has no authority to evacuate them or move them off their land. In accordance with other resolutions on disaster preparedness, national and local governments do liaise to ensure reasonable cooperation with existing resolutions. However, "minimizing" the loss of life cannot actually be done without completely evacuating more than 1,000 square acres of the Great Boom, mostly inhabited by indigenous Tobo people, as their is no existing scientific answer to surviving ash, meteors, and pyroclastic flows from an eruption aside from advanced notice evacuation. Logistics aside, warning systems aren't enough! The only way The Great Boom could honestly comply with this resolution is permanent resettlement, which would be illegal and immoral. People who live in volcanic ash basins are well aware of the (astronomically small) risks. It is not the responsibility of an international body to overrule their life choices on that issue. They are hurting no one but themselves, and not even really themselves, since none of the volcanoes in our lands are forecasted to erupt in next 2,500 years.

3. section 2 subsection b is completely infeasible. We have severed diplomatic relations with a neighboring authoritarian colonial state. They are not a WA member but they ARE in the ash basin of some volcanoes. In fact, some dormant volcanoes in the Great Boom are powerful enough to have worldwide impacts (although they are dormant and not likely to erupt for several millennia). The fact that this resolution insists we work with non-WA members to effectively enforce this resolution is grounds alone for its rejection.

4. Section 2 subsection D clause iii implies the need to create infrastructure in indigenous areas we don't have complete sovereignty over. And indeed, the rural areas at "risk" of ash deposits are largely underdeveloped wilderness. You would have us annihilate our untouched rainforests to build roads and shelters for, in some cases, single digits of people who choose to live in these secluded areas to be near their sacred sites? We cannot do this feasibly and no one, least of all the indigenous inhabitants, would want us to.

For these reasons and more, the Great Boom will draft or assist in repealing if this passes.

1. (IC) How would you define "volcanic activity?"
2. (OOC) You do realize that irl, there are plenty of volcanoes located near urban areas or areas of human settlement? Mount Nyiragongo (a volcano actively monitored) in the DR Congo towers over the city of Goma, home to around 600,000 people. Mount Vesuvius is an active volcano over Napoli, Mount Etna is also an active volcano with the city of Catania below it, and Sakurajima is over the Japanese city of Kagoshima. Not all volcanoes are located in remote areas, contrary to what you believe.
3. (IC) I really don't think your complaints have much weight to them.
4. (IC) Again, more national sovereignty arguments against the resolution. Also, if a major volcano in your nation did erupt and pyroclastic flows and lahars destroy your untouched rainforests and your indigenous habitants are victims, then doesn't that invalidate everything else you said?

1. I would rely on a scientific definition which doesn't simply re-state the term itself and add nothing of value. There are countless RL definitions such as "Volcanic activity is the process by which superheated magma rises due to pressure, seismic activity, and other factors into the caldera of a volcano. The subsequent pressure increases may eventually cause an eruption which can cause adverse effects such as: pyroclastic flows, ash clowds, meteor strikes, shockwaves." I am a diplomat not a volcanologist and even my amateur, original attempt would be a lot more helpful. The reason why I think it's helpful is because definitions, in general, form the criteria for nation states to comply with or bend the legislation in their nation. It also helps inform the vote.

2. I do not believe the volcanoes are only located in rural areas. I never said or implied I did. But this regulates all volcanic activity, per its own terms. My nation is rural, so I brought up rural issues. Since the resolution regulates rural and urban volcanic activity, it needs to be tailored for both, and it is not tailored for rural volcanic activity, which also happens to be the vast majority, at least in RL. And given that mountains are typically adverse to dense urban life, it's reasonable to think that most NS volcanic activity is rural.

3. Well what I wrote plainly stands for itself so if you have no argument there I'll let it be.

4. Unfortunately you are incorrect on the ecobiological effects of eruptions on rainforests. Lava is a super fertilizer which can contribute to sustaining rainforests. Of course, most of the life in the rainforest is ended from the ash cloud (in a relatively small area most of the time), but as long as any of the rain forest survives it will grow back stronger because of the suddenly open lands, exposed canopy-to-floor, lack of pests and humans, and better soil. RL regions such as Costa Rica and Mozambique have rainforests fed in part by volcanic activity, and there are others too. As for the indigenous inhabitants near the volcanoes, yes, some may die. But they are aware of the risks, they choose to live there, and the odds of an eruption in their life time is far less than death by basically any other random apocylapitic event such as an asteroid impact.