[Draft] Maritime Assistance and Rescue Efforts

[Separatist Peoples]

Maritime Assistance and Rescue Efforts

Regulation | Safety

Recognizing maritime travel and commerce bears inherent risks,

Believing that the cost of reciprocal obligations between member states are always outweighed by the gains of an international safety protocol to rescue vessels and persons,

Concerned that the risks of rescue to vessels bears a corresponding obligation of the rescued and society to offset those risks, and

Declaring that salvage operations are distinctly separate from rescue operations for the purposes of international regulation,

The World Assembly enacts the following:

“Vessel” means any vehicle that travels on or below the surface of a water body which engages in, enables, or otherwise supports commerce,

Member states must require vessels registered in their nations render, to the best of their ability, aid to any credible emergency request for aid that meets the following criteria:

1. The act of rendering aid will not place the vessel, its crew, or its passengers at credible risk of serious physical harm beyond the generalized risks of maritime travel;

2. The act of rendering aid does not credibly risk depletion of fuel, water, or sustenance necessary to maintain the safety and health of the crew or passengers below what is necessary to reach safety without assistance; and

3. The act of rendering aid will not divert the vessel from its current destination to a prior credible mayday request or interfere with another response to a credible mayday request.

All rescuing vessels are presumed capable of relaying an emergency request for aid to a vessel or entity capable of rescue as the vessel requesting aid requires.

Member states must further require vessels maintain logs that include, at minimum, the vessel’s daily path traveled, an estimate of remaining fuel range and stock of essential supplies, and records of any emergency request received to validate claims relative to maritime rescue.

Member states must allow the owner of a rescuing vessel, other than state-owned craft tasked with providing rescue services, to place and enforce a lien in the amount necessary to recoup:

• the cost of fuel used during rescue,
• the cost of medicine, water, and sustenance provided to rescued persons,
• the cost of repairs for any damage sustained during rescue, and
• the cost of medical expenses not otherwise insured for injuries sustained during rescue.

Lienholders may place the rescue lien, less any salvage claim they may have, on the following assets in the following order of priority to guarantee payment: on the assets of the owner of the rescued craft, the rescued craft itself, or against the value of the vessel’s commercial cargo. No such lien is enforceable against the personal property of the crew, passengers, or non-commercial cargo, except where a passenger or crew member is also an owner, in part or in whole, of the vessel or commercial cargo. Such liens will have priority over all other liens or encumbrances.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) establishes the Maritime Rescue Fund (MRF) to disburse funds accordingly:

• To reimburse rescuing vessels when a rescuer’s costs is not satisfied by the lien; and
• To fund the return of any rescued passengers or crew.

The GAO will ensure the MRF is adequately funded from the following sources in order of priority:

• Any General Assembly fines stemming from the violation of this resolution or any other resolution addressing maritime safety,
• Charitable contributions, and
• From the World Assembly General Fund.

Member states must allow the passengers and crew of rescued vessels legal entry and exit for the purpose of returning any rescued passengers to either the nation of their destination or origin, and any crew to their nation of either domicile, destination, or from which the rescuing vessel operates. This does not apply to captured prisoners of war, criminal suspects subject to a member state’s criminal jurisdiction or extradition policies, or any individual to whom member states have contradictory rights or obligations created by a General Assembly resolution.

"The Jedistino delegation is attempting to repeal extant law on maritime salvage. While I believe that this proposal can pass while extant law on maritime salvage exists, I believe that my legal position goes from arguable to unassailable upon its repeal. As such, I intend to submit this after the repeal of GAR#50.

"Further, I anticipate that this will fall best under Regulation | Safety. However, there is an argument in favor of Advancement of Industry | CE. I think that is a more tenuous argument, but the specific category has rarely been a concern for me. One is as good as the other.

"Finally, I recognize the formatting is terrible. That will be addressed in the future (ooc: when I am not hijacking work wifi)."

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood wanders in, then sighs.

"Okay, seriously. This route has taken me to the bar every time before today! How did I end up here?"

She pauses as she looks at the proposal, then leans down to read it.

Recognizing maritime travel and commerce bears inherent risks,

Believing that the cost of reciprocal obligations between member states are always outweighed by the gains of an international safety protocol to rescue vessels and persons,

Concerned that the risks of rescue to vessels bears a corresponding obligation of the rescued and society to offset those risks, and

Declaring that salvage operations are distinctly separate from rescue operations for the purposes of international regulation,

"We are already in agreement that this is an area that needs proper legislation."

The World Assembly enacts the following:

“Vessel” means any vehicle that travels on or below the surface of a waterbody, and

"Does this include amphibious vehicles? I am asking for clarification purposes only."

Member states must require vessels registered in their nations render, to the best of their ability, aid to any credible emergency request for aid that meets the following criteria:

1. The act of rendering aid will place the vessel, its crew, or its passengers at credible risk of serious physical harm beyond the generalized risks of maritime travel;

2. The act of rendering aid credibly risks depletion of fuel, water, or sustenance necessary to maintain the safety and health of the crew or passengers below what is necessary to reach safety without assistance; and

3. The act of rendering aid will not divert the vessel from its current destination to a prior credible mayday request.

She frowns as she leans back. "Ambassador, I must suggest this section be editted. While I applaud the intent, the problem I see is that, as worded, it requires ships to take risks that have a high chance of rendering them also in need of rescue, which will complicate and strain the resources of any ongoing rescue operation.

"It will also require ships to attempt to provide aid even when emergency responders have already begun to try to handle the emergency situation and emergency responders to account for and try to manage every ship within range of the distress signal, potentially diverting resources from the rescue operation itself to just making certain those other vessels are not in the way.

"But I also agree that in scenarios in which there is not a rescue operation in play, assistance must be attempted as long as it is possible; the wording is fine in that regard. May I suggest the addition of 'when there is not an ongoing rescue operation' after 'to the best of their ability' and before the comma?"

All rescuing vessels are presumed capable of relaying an emergency request for aid to a vessel or entity capable of rescue as the vessel requesting aid requires.

Member states must further require member states maintain logs that include, at minimum, the vessel’s daily path traveled, an estimate of remaining fuel range and stock of essential supplies, and records of any emergency request received to validate claims relative to maritime rescue.

"May I suggest replacing the second 'member states' in the second paragraph with 'registered vessels?'"

Member states must allow the owner of a rescuing vessel, other than state-owned craft tasked with providing rescue services, to place and enforce a lien in the amount necessary to recoup:

• the cost of fuel used during rescue,
• the cost of medicine, water, and sustenance provided to rescued persons,
• the cost of repairs for any damage sustained during rescue, and
• the cost of medical expenses not otherwise insured for injuries sustained during rescue.

Lienholders may place the rescue lien, less any salvage claim they may have, on the following assets in the following order of priority to guarantee payment: on the assets of the owner of the rescued craft, the rescued craft itself, or against the value of the vessel’s commercial cargo. No such lien is enforceable against the personal property of the crew, passengers, or non-commercial cargo, except where a passenger or crew member is also an owner, in part or in whole, of the vessel or commercial cargo. Such liens will have priority over all other liens or encumbrances.

"May I suggest this instead be reimbursed by the nation the craft is registered in or by the Maritime Rescue Fund you establish in the next clause? That would help avoid unduly burdening people who just survived an emergency situation."

The General Accounting Office (GAO) establishes the Maritime Rescue Fund (MRF) to disburse funds accordingly:

• To reimburse rescuing vessels when a rescuer’s costs is not satisfied by the lien; and
• To fund the return of any rescued passengers or crew.

The GAO will ensure the MRF is adequately funded from the following sources in order of priority:

• Any General Assembly fines stemming from the violation of this resolution or any other resolution addressing maritime safety,
• Charitable contributions, and
• From the World Assembly General Fund.

"May I also suggest an additional funding source of voluntary contributions from the nations themselves? Some nations may be willing to add additonal funding directly to this. I know my own is on that list."

Member states must allow the passengers and crew of rescued vessels legal entry and exit for the purpose of returning any rescued passengers to either the nation of their destination or origin, and any crew to their nation of either domicile, destination, or from which the rescuing vessel operates. This does not apply to captured prisoners of war, criminal suspects subject to a member state’s criminal jurisdiction or extradition policies, or any individual to whom member states have contradictory rights or obligations created by a General Assembly resolution.

"I don't think this needs to be rewritten, but I have concerns this may discourage criminals and pirates from aiding in maritime rescues. I know Trellania policy is that criminals who take actions to aid the public good, such as maritime rescues, are given a stay of warrant until they have resupplied and left. It helps keep our crime rate down and encourages a certain civility. But I believe that is an issue for a different resolution than this."

"The Jedistino delegation is attempting to repeal extant law on maritime salvage. While I believe that this proposal can pass while extant law on maritime salvage exists, I believe that my legal position goes from arguable to unassailable upon its repeal. As such, I intend to submit this after the repeal of GAR#50.

"Further, I anticipate that this will fall best under Regulation | Safety. However, there is an argument in favor of Advancement of Industry | CE. I think that is a more tenuous argument, but the specific category has rarely been a concern for me. One is as good as the other.

"Finally, I recognize the formatting is terrible. That will be addressed in the future (ooc: when I am not hijacking work wifi)."

"I think the Safety category under Regulation will be best, personally. It would also fit with the suggestions I made. And I agree the timing would work well."

[Hulldom]

“This looks perfectly fine to us, Ambassador. Though I would ask what (3) means? Is that to say that ships in harbor can’t go out to deal with mayday requests? Or am I misunderstanding it?”

[Jedinsto]

"Thank you for writing this replacement, ambassador. I suppose due to the international nature of international rescue and salvage operations this has my support, criticisms pending."

[Bears Armed]

OOC post
You need to add the boilerplate along the lines of "except as limited by any earlier resolutions that are still in force", because otherwise you would -- unfortunately -- be in contradiction of GA Res#20 'Suppress International Piracy' (clause 8 ). Either that, or specify that known vessels of international pirates are excluded from those to be assisted.
Oops!

[Imperium Anglorum]

specify that known vessels of international pirates are excluded from those to be assisted.

I myself see no problems with excluding support for the hostis humanis generis.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC post
You need to add the boilerplate along the lines of "except as limited by any earlier resolutions that are still in force", because otherwise you would -- unfortunately -- be in contradiction of GA Res#20 'Suppress International Piracy' (clause 8 ). Either that, or specify that known vessels of international pirates are excluded from those to be assisted.
Oops!

OOC: I disagree with this interpretation. GAR#20 in relevant part requires that "3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;"

Rescue is not support for piracy any more than rescuing a drug dealer from a gunshot wound is support for drug distribution. Providing notably more supplies or fuel than necessary to rescue may be support for their operations, but not the limits required by this proposal. While there is a possibility of a vessel violating GAR#20, I do not see this as axiomatic in the requirements herein.

[Separatist Peoples]

Dame Allania Trueblood wanders in, then sighs.

"Okay, seriously. This route has taken me to the bar every time before today! How did I end up here?"

"That's a feature, not a bug."

"Does this include amphibious vehicles? I am asking for clarification purposes only."

"I'm not sure why not, but it strikes me as exceedingly unlikely any amphibious vehicle of note would be able to broadcast a distress call. That said, I believe there is enough ambiguity for members to exclude amphibious vessels that are not operating on the surface of the water when they are in distress."

She frowns as she leans back. "Ambassador, I must suggest this section be editted. While I applaud the intent, the problem I see is that, as worded, it requires ships to take risks that have a high chance of rendering them also in need of rescue, which will complicate and strain the resources of any ongoing rescue operation.

"Edits are in progress."

"It will also require ships to attempt to provide aid even when emergency responders have already begun to try to handle the emergency situation and emergency responders to account for and try to manage every ship within range of the distress signal, potentially diverting resources from the rescue operation itself to just making certain those other vessels are not in the way.

"I'm not sure a vessel currently being rescued constitutes one in distress."

"May I suggest replacing the second 'member states' in the second paragraph with 'registered vessels?'"

"Edits in progress."

"May I suggest this instead be reimbursed by the nation the craft is registered in or by the Maritime Rescue Fund you establish in the next clause? That would help avoid unduly burdening people who just survived an emergency situation."

"I do not believe that the international community should bear the cost of maritime rescue without first ensuring the cost of rescue is born by the party rescued. This is an incentive against taking unreasonable risks and to ensure proper insurance is retained."

"May I also suggest an additional funding source of voluntary contributions from the nations themselves? Some nations may be willing to add additonal funding directly to this. I know my own is on that list."

"That seems to be addressed by #2 on the list."

"I don't think this needs to be rewritten, but I have concerns this may discourage criminals and pirates from aiding in maritime rescues. I know Trellania policy is that criminals who take actions to aid the public good, such as maritime rescues, are given a stay of warrant until they have resupplied and left. It helps keep our crime rate down and encourages a certain civility. But I believe that is an issue for a different resolution than this."

"This does sound external to this proposal.

"Thank you kindly for your feedback, ambassador. I will be making many of these proposed changes."

[Bears Armed]

OOC post
You need to add the boilerplate along the lines of "except as limited by any earlier resolutions that are still in force", because otherwise you would -- unfortunately -- be in contradiction of GA Res#20 'Suppress International Piracy' (clause 8 ). Either that, or specify that known vessels of international pirates are excluded from those to be assisted.
Oops!

OOC: I disagree with this interpretation. GAR#20 in relevant part requires that "3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;"

Rescue is not support for piracy any more than rescuing a drug dealer from a gunshot wound is support for drug distribution. Providing notably more supplies or fuel than necessary to rescue may be support for their operations, but not the limits required by this proposal. While there is a possibility of a vessel violating GAR#20, I do not see this as axiomatic in the requirements herein.

OOC post
I didn't say clause '3', I said clause '8':

8. Defines the knowing provision of unforced support for international pirates to be an act of conspiracy to commit those pirates’ crimes, and requires all WA member nations to treat such acts as they would conspiracy to commit any other crimes of comparable seriousness, unless that support is
A/ given only to captive pirates, and within the limits of help that can legally be given to prisoners in general, or
B/ given only to ex-pirates, with whom the legal system has already dealt, and is to help them live honest lives;

That requires member nations to criminalise aiding international pirates, whereas your clause

Member states must require vessels registered in their nations render, to the best of their ability, aid to any credible emergency request for aid that meets the following criteria:

would require them to legalise such assistance when the pirates' vessels are in danger of sinking/wreck.
Arresting pirates when they are contacted would be compliant, but your current wording does not require this... and as I interpret it helping to keep their vessels afloat, or helping them to reach shore without arresting them would fall foul of this.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I disagree with this interpretation. GAR#20 in relevant part requires that "3. Requires that all WA member nations refrain from giving any international pirates safe haven, or markets for their plunder, or any other support for their operations;"

Rescue is not support for piracy any more than rescuing a drug dealer from a gunshot wound is support for drug distribution. Providing notably more supplies or fuel than necessary to rescue may be support for their operations, but not the limits required by this proposal. While there is a possibility of a vessel violating GAR#20, I do not see this as axiomatic in the requirements herein.

OOC post
I didn't say clause '3', I said clause '8':

8. Defines the knowing provision of unforced support for international pirates to be an act of conspiracy to commit those pirates’ crimes, and requires all WA member nations to treat such acts as they would conspiracy to commit any other crimes of comparable seriousness, unless that support is
A/ given only to captive pirates, and within the limits of help that can legally be given to prisoners in general, or
B/ given only to ex-pirates, with whom the legal system has already dealt, and is to help them live honest lives;

That requires member nations to criminalise aiding international pirates, whereas your clause

Member states must require vessels registered in their nations render, to the best of their ability, aid to any credible emergency request for aid that meets the following criteria:

would require them to legalise such assistance when the pirates' vessels are in danger of sinking/wreck.
Arresting pirates when they are contacted would be compliant, but your current wording does not require this... and as I interpret it helping to keep their vessels afloat, or helping them to reach shore without arresting them would fall foul of this.

OOC: Clause 3 governs the support clause 8 references. The same definition of "support" applies. Rescue is not support for illegal action here any more than providing medical aid to a drug dealer is conspiracy to deal drugs. This is not a good-faith interpretation of "support".

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Trellania]

Member states must allow the owner of a rescuing vessel, other than state-owned craft tasked with providing rescue services, to place and enforce a lien in the amount necessary to recoup:

• the cost of fuel used during rescue,
• the cost of medicine, water, and sustenance provided to rescued persons,
• the cost of repairs for any damage sustained during rescue, and
• the cost of medical expenses not otherwise insured for injuries sustained during rescue.

Lienholders may place the rescue lien, less any salvage claim they may have, on the following assets in the following order of priority to guarantee payment: on the assets of the owner of the rescued craft, the rescued craft itself, or against the value of the vessel’s commercial cargo. No such lien is enforceable against the personal property of the crew, passengers, or non-commercial cargo, except where a passenger or crew member is also an owner, in part or in whole, of the vessel or commercial cargo. Such liens will have priority over all other liens or encumbrances.

"Please forgive me for this, ambassador. But after considering your proposal, I still think this section does need some rework. In particular, I think a national government should be able to pay the debt incurred by the rescue. I understand concern about incentive against taking unreasonable risks, but knowing one will have to answer to their government for a debt incurred on that government's behalf would also be just as much an incentive against unreasonable risks. And a government could choose not to pay the debt should they believe the risk is unreasonable anyway, thus the lien would always remain as a deterrence."

[Separatist Peoples]

Member states must allow the owner of a rescuing vessel, other than state-owned craft tasked with providing rescue services, to place and enforce a lien in the amount necessary to recoup:

• the cost of fuel used during rescue,
• the cost of medicine, water, and sustenance provided to rescued persons,
• the cost of repairs for any damage sustained during rescue, and
• the cost of medical expenses not otherwise insured for injuries sustained during rescue.

Lienholders may place the rescue lien, less any salvage claim they may have, on the following assets in the following order of priority to guarantee payment: on the assets of the owner of the rescued craft, the rescued craft itself, or against the value of the vessel’s commercial cargo. No such lien is enforceable against the personal property of the crew, passengers, or non-commercial cargo, except where a passenger or crew member is also an owner, in part or in whole, of the vessel or commercial cargo. Such liens will have priority over all other liens or encumbrances.

"Please forgive me for this, ambassador. But after considering your proposal, I still think this section does need some rework. In particular, I think a national government should be able to pay the debt incurred by the rescue. I understand concern about incentive against taking unreasonable risks, but knowing one will have to answer to their government for a debt incurred on that government's behalf would also be just as much an incentive against unreasonable risks. And a government could choose not to pay the debt should they believe the risk is unreasonable anyway, thus the lien would always remain as a deterrence."

"Government coverage of rescue efforts will incentivize risk taking because it shifts the cost of failure off the risk taker. Liens don't work if they are optional or subject to political revision. No.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Clause 1 still lacks a negation, ambassador. Otherwise, we have no serious issues with this proposal."

[Trellania]

"Government coverage of rescue efforts will incentivize risk taking because it shifts the cost of failure off the risk taker. Liens don't work if they are optional or subject to political revision. No.

"The cost of failure is still on the risk taker. It simply offers a different option for who they have to answer to for that risk."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Government coverage of rescue efforts will incentivize risk taking because it shifts the cost of failure off the risk taker. Liens don't work if they are optional or subject to political revision. No.

"The cost of failure is still on the risk taker. It simply offers a different option for who they have to answer to for that risk."

"There is no consistent disincentive if member states will only inconsistently recoup on rescue costs. The bearer of the cost must be the party taking the risk to modify behavior. Introducing the state as a middleman will create needless complications as to the creditor, collection, and priority status of a lien. No. The risk of needing rescue on the high seas belongs to the owner of the vessel. Populations should not subsidize risks on such ventures when owners can readily take the necessary steps. Especially when the state is not involved in the rescue or voyage. I will not make this proposed modification."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Truly a moral hazard.

[Trellania]

"There is no consistent disincentive if member states will only inconsistently recoup on rescue costs. The bearer of the cost must be the party taking the risk to modify behavior. Introducing the state as a middleman will create needless complications as to the creditor, collection, and priority status of a lien. No. The risk of needing rescue on the high seas belongs to the owner of the vessel. Populations should not subsidize risks on such ventures when owners can readily take the necessary steps. Especially when the state is not involved in the rescue or voyage. I will not make this proposed modification."

"There is nothing in there that requires a rescuer to place a lien to begin with; there will already be an inconsistent recoup on losses for that reason alone and an inconsistent burden of responsibility on the party taking the risky behavior. Allowing for the state to step in and pay the rescue costs allows for a recoup of rescue expenses without burdening the people being rescued who did not take unnecessary risks, while at the same time still allowing for those who take risky behavior to be punished for it.

"Look, all I'm asking is to avoid punishing those who did not take unnecessary risks and ended up in trouble; I'm in no way asking for those who took foolish risks to get away with it. And I'm still wanting those who performed the rescue and were not rescue services to be compensated for their actions. I do think it would be fair if governments paid for their people who ended up in trouble through no fault of their own to be rescued, and fair that those who acted like idiots get punished. In the current version everyone is at risk of getting punished regardless of if they acted dumbly or not, and when there is no difference between safe and stupid behavior in outcome there is no incentive for the safe behavior."

[Separatist Peoples]

"There is nothing in there that requires a rescuer to place a lien to begin with; there will already be an inconsistent recoup on losses for that reason alone and an inconsistent burden of responsibility on the party taking the risky behavior. Allowing for the state to step in and pay the rescue costs allows for a recoup of rescue expenses without burdening the people being rescued who did not take unnecessary risks, while at the same time still allowing for those who take risky behavior to be punished for it.

"Foreign vessels under WA jurisdiction do not operate on an incentive to rescue. They operate on an obligation. Recoupment is meant to compensate for costs, not reward rescue. The likelihood of refusing to recoup is much less than the likelihood of subsidizing risky behavior."

"Look, all I'm asking is to avoid punishing those who did not take unnecessary risks and ended up in trouble; I'm in no way asking for those who took foolish risks to get away with it.

"Debt is not punitive. One is not punished for over borrowing on a credit card, even when the reasoning is justified. That does not eliminate the obligation or inventive against overborrowing."

And I'm still wanting those who performed the rescue and were not rescue services to be compensated for their actions. I do think it would be fair if governments paid for their people who ended up in trouble through no fault of their own to be rescued, and fair that those who acted like idiots get punished.

"Maritime travel is risky. People ought not engage in it if they are unprepared for the risks."

"In the current version everyone is at risk of getting punished regardless of if they acted dumbly or not, and when there is no difference between safe and stupid behavior in outcome there is no incentive for the safe behavior."

"Debt is not punishment. There is an incentive against taking risk in the form of avoiding the need for rescue regardless of the cause. The incentive exists. No."

[Trellania]

"Foreign vessels under WA jurisdiction do not operate on an incentive to rescue. They operate on an obligation. Recoupment is meant to compensate for costs, not reward rescue. The likelihood of refusing to recoup is much less than the likelihood of subsidizing risky behavior."

"It's not that unlikely. And while the obligation exists, there are still going to be people who see the idea of recouping their losses as being rewarded for the rescue. So I'm pretty certain you are seriously underestimating how many people would turn down recoupment and overestimating how many governments would be happy with the idea of paying debts for people doing foolish things."

OOC: It's weird being on the other end of this one.

"Debt is not punitive. One is not punished for over borrowing on a credit card, even when the reasoning is justified. That does not eliminate the obligation or inventive against overborrowing."

"A credit card foisting a loan upon people when they have not agreed to take out the debt is itself a form of predatory lending and fraud. Your proposal foists a debt on people who have not agreed to it; you have just argued your proposal is committing fraud upon those who work maritime industries or who sail the seas. Is that what you intended to say?

"Also, losing everything related to your maritime business and then ending up with a lien against you would be a punishment. After all, your proposal does impact maritime industries as well."

"Maritime travel is risky. People ought not engage in it if they are unprepared for the risks."

"And there is no way to prepare for all the risks to the point they are not taken. If there were, I suspect we would be debating that piece of legislation rather than this one."

"Debt is not punishment. There is an incentive against taking risk in the form of avoiding the need for rescue regardless of the cause. The incentive exists. No."

"Debt very much is a punishment, as I pointed out above. At this point, you are needlessly punishing industries for events that may be beyond their control. As it stands, I have to recommend opposition to this proposal because of the way it impacts maritime-dependent industries and a number of nations that are heavily dependent upon those industries."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It's not that unlikely.

"It is fiscally irrational.

And while the obligation exists, there are still going to be people who see the idea of recouping their losses as being rewarded for the rescue

"Their error is not my problem."

So I'm pretty certain you are seriously underestimating how many people would turn down recoupment and overestimating how many governments would be happy with the idea of paying debts for people doing foolish things."

"I await your data."

"

A credit card foisting a loan upon people when they have not agreed to take out the debt is itself a form of predatory lending and fraud.

"Fraud invitiates contracts. This analogy fails on a bare technical basis."

Your proposal foists a debt on people who have not agreed to it; you have just argued your proposal is committing fraud upon those who work maritime industries or who sail the seas. Is that what you intended to say?

"As noted, I'm not sure you're aware of the details of fraud, ambassador. Nonetheless, it is so common as to be a trope in common law traditions that distress invites rescue. Any individual placing themselves at risk of needing rescue consents to the obligation to their rescuer."

"

Also, losing everything related to your maritime business and then ending up with a lien against you would be a punishment

"No, it would be payment of an obligation."

After all, your proposal does impact maritime industries as well."

"Deliberately so, even."

"Maritime travel is risky. People ought not engage in it if they are unprepared for the risks."

"And there is no way to prepare for all the risks to the point they are not taken. If there were, I suspect we would be debating that piece of legislation rather than this one

."
"If the risk puts you off, don't engage in maritime travel."

"Debt very much is a punishment, as I pointed out above.

" Incorrectly."

At this point, you are needlessly punishing industries for events that may be beyond their control. As it stands, I have to recommend opposition to this proposal because of the way it impacts maritime-dependent industries and a number of nations that are heavily dependent upon those industries."

"You were always allowed to oppose this."

[Trellania]

"It is fiscally irrational.

"So is the senseless risk that you seek to have liens against, given the typical cost of even most recreational vessels capable of going far enough into the water to be at risk of ever needing a rescue. If fiscal irrationality is a reason to dismiss certain actions, you have no logical reason for the liens to begin with."

"Fraud invitiates contracts. This analogy fails on a bare technical basis."

"And it fails when you used it for the same reason; the liens imposed by this law are not those imposed by contracts. So far, you are only eliminating your own argument for the liens."

"As noted, I'm not sure you're aware of the details of fraud, ambassador. Nonetheless, it is so common as to be a trope in common law traditions that distress invites rescue. Any individual placing themselves at risk of needing rescue consents to the obligation to their rescuer."

"I must admit that our nation is not based on a common law tradition. It may be that we are different enough that our definition of fraud is too different from this body's. I will concede the point, but also still point out that you have still discredited your own argument based on credit cards."

"No, it would be payment of an obligation."

"An obligation can still be a punishment; fines, for example, are incurred obligcations to the government or local nearby legal body for illegal actions as imposed by courts."

"Maritime travel is risky. People ought not engage in it if they are unprepared for the risks."

"That does not counter or negate anything I have said. I am uncertain why you even stated it."

"If the risk puts you off, don't engage in maritime travel."

"Once again, not countering anything I said.

"Incorrectly."

"Correctly. It is not my fault if you are unaware obligations can be punishments."

"You were always allowed to oppose this."

"I was on the verge of supporting it until you successfully argued me out of that position."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is fiscally irrational.

"So is the senseless risk that you seek to have liens against, given the typical cost of even most recreational vessels capable of going far enough into the water to be at risk of ever needing a rescue. If fiscal irrationality is a reason to dismiss certain actions, you have no logical reason for the liens to begin with."

"Liens are to ensure there exists no moral hazard and to bring the rescuer to their pre-rescue position."

"And it fails when you used it for the same reason; the liens imposed by this law are not those imposed by contracts. So far, you are only eliminating your own argument for the liens."

"Not really. My analogy indicated debt was not a punishment. Liens are a product of debt. Not punishment. I never argued Liens were a purely contractual concept."

"I must admit that our nation is not based on a common law tradition. It may be that we are different enough that our definition of fraud is too different from this body's. I will concede the point, but also still point out that you have still discredited your own argument based on credit cards."

" Not really."

"An obligation can still be a punishment; fines, for example, are incurred obligcations to the government or local nearby legal body for illegal actions as imposed by courts.

"Incorrect. Fines are imposed beyond a debt. Debt balances the scales. Fines tip them."

"That does not counter or negate anything I have said. I am uncertain why you even stated it."

"Once again, not countering anything I said.

"I'm sure."

"Correctly. It is not my fault if you are unaware obligations can be punishments."

"I, already addressed the functional difference between debt and fines. Your argument is unpersuasive."

"I was on the verge of supporting it until you successfully argued me out of that position."

"Noted."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Are there any other concerns?"

[Trellania]

"Liens are to ensure there exists no moral hazard and to bring the rescuer to their pre-rescue position."

"And from the moral hazard standpoint, there is no reason to put liens on people who did everything safely and ended up in trouble through circumstances beyond their control."

"Not really. My analogy indicated debt was not a punishment. Liens are a product of debt. Not punishment. I never argued Liens were a purely contractual concept."

"Not really."

"Incorrect. Fines are imposed beyond a debt. Debt balances the scales. Fines tip them."

"Fines are a type of debt. A court-ordered debt is still a debt, and usually a priority debt. Your argument on this is factually incorrect."

"I, already addressed the functional difference between debt and fines. Your argument is unpersuasive."

"You have addressed it in a way that is creating a difference beyond what actually exists. You have no factual reason for the liens to be placed on everyone or to say they are not a punishment."