Ideas for General Assembly Proposals

[Bears Armed]

First, welcome. Please make drafts in the proper place, as this thread is for ideas.
Second, not of international importance.
Third, probably illegal.

1. sorry. where should I post drafts?
2. please clarify what you mean by that.
3. why? like I said, I'm very new to this, so any feedback is greatly appreciated.

1. If you are drafting a proposal then it should have a thread of its own -- one thread, for all versions of the draft, preferably with the first post containing the current version of the text and also (in spoilers) any pervious versions -- in this section of the forum.
2. People disagree about how wide the scope of G.A. legislation should be, the extremes being "everything that a national government could" and "only matters where one nation's actions would directly affect other nations". Your proposal clearly falls towards the more inclusive end of that scale*. (It might be opposed, therefore, not only by nations opposed to 'gun control' but also by some nations that already have similar laws themselves but think that these decisions should be made nationally rather than internationally...)
3. Contradiction of existing G.A. legislation, as Tinhampton said in the post just before this one.

_____________________________________________________________________________

* You might see the terms 'IntFed' and 'NatSov' sometimes used in this forum: they are short for 'International Federalist' and 'National Sovereigntist' respectively, reflecting which end of that line a proposal or a nation is seen as closest to.

[The republic of Jackalopetopia]

has there been any resolutions about militaries targeting civilians?

[Bears Armed]

has there been any resolutions about militaries targeting civilians?

Yes.

(You can search passed resolutions @ viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30 .)

[Yaak]

Any resolutions on fishing regulations?

[Tinhampton]

Any resolutions on fishing regulations?

GA#199 "Sustainable Fishing Act."

[Untecna]

If the species is endangered then there's already a resolution that covers it.
If it the species isn't endangered, but is hunted, then Res.#267 'Sensible Hunting Act'

2. Requires all member nations to regulate hunting within their borders, according to relevant expert advice, so as to keep the animal stocks involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels (except that they need not protect ‘invasive’ species, species parasitic on people or domestic livestock, or species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people);

... and, as I read it anyway, fragmenting the range would split the former united stock into several smaller stocks (one per fragment, essentially) so that each & every fragment's population of the species would have to be given that protection.
So, you would need to consider only those species that are neither endangered nor hunted

Fair point, but this resolution could also serve as an enhancement or support for the endangered species one, while also covering all animals in general. Hunting does not really contribute to that at all, so I don't see 267 as a barrier.

I would assume legality has been established, so I'll get to work drafting.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have some resolution ideas:
-A resolution on the assistance of fragmented animal populations (essentially, when a population of animals is fragmented, it is split by natural and artificial blockers, which can slow or even remove growth of a population, so the target would be to create ways for those animals to access areas of food and mates)

I don't understand why you want to prevent or otherwise artificially stop speciation.

[Untecna]

I have some resolution ideas:
-A resolution on the assistance of fragmented animal populations (essentially, when a population of animals is fragmented, it is split by natural and artificial blockers, which can slow or even remove growth of a population, so the target would be to create ways for those animals to access areas of food and mates)

I don't understand why you want to prevent or otherwise artificially stop speciation.

I don't understand how you misunderstood the point of the idea.

[New Union of Soviet communist Republics]

create the Warsaw Pact

[Untecna]

create the Warsaw Pact

Illegal and irrelevant.

[Bears Armed]

create the Warsaw Pact

Not something that the G.A. could do. Illegal for 'RL Reference', obviously, in addition to any other problems. Have you actually read the rules?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't understand why you want to prevent or otherwise artificially stop speciation.

I don't understand how you misunderstood the point of the idea.

"Scientists think that geographic isolation is a common way for the process of speciation to begin: rivers change course, mountains rise, continents drift, organisms migrate, and what was once a continuous population is divided into two or more smaller populations". https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_43. The end impact of your proposal, which is currently seems mostly to be reintegrating "fragmented animal populations", would prevent speciation from geographic isolation.

This is an issue that I found hilarious earlier, when someone wanted to protect all coastlines from all erosion, saying that doing so would protect existing coastlines, ignoring that existing coastlines are created by... erosion. To paraphrase something that Wally said,

This underlying assumption on the part of the authoring delegation that the [species] of the future [are] somehow inherently inferior to the [species] of the past is worthy of the utmost mockery.

But sure, write your proposal. Perhaps the way you write it avoids putting the hand of man towards reducing future biodiversity.

[Aratunda]

So I had this idea for a proposal (not considering anything too seriously, so no draft yet) to ban government emergency services from being allowed to strike. I know resolution #43 sets the standard to allow national governments to set rules for their own employees to form unions but mine is more focused on emergency services (police, fire department, EMS) and their right to strike, not the entire right to unionize. I wanna know if this is at all a reasonable idea before I move on with writing a draft.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So I had this idea for a proposal (not considering anything too seriously, so no draft yet) to ban government emergency services from being allowed to strike. I know resolution #43 sets the standard to allow national governments to set rules for their own employees to form unions but mine is more focused on emergency services (police, fire department, EMS) and their right to strike, not the entire right to unionize. I wanna know if this is at all a reasonable idea before I move on with writing a draft.

Also from GA 43:

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes or other industrial actions which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

[Aratunda]

So I had this idea for a proposal (not considering anything too seriously, so no draft yet) to ban government emergency services from being allowed to strike. I know resolution #43 sets the standard to allow national governments to set rules for their own employees to form unions but mine is more focused on emergency services (police, fire department, EMS) and their right to strike, not the entire right to unionize. I wanna know if this is at all a reasonable idea before I move on with writing a draft.

Also from GA 43:

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes or other industrial actions which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

I read that, and while it's a good step, the idea is based on banning the right to strike for emergency services outright. Leaving it up to the governments of each nation would mean some are bound to let them strike, which would be a disaster.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also from GA 43:

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes or other industrial actions which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

I read that, and while it's a good step, the idea is based on banning the right to strike for emergency services outright. Leaving it up to the governments of each nation would mean some are bound to let them strike, which would be a disaster.

If nations "may" exempt them, would not forcing them to exempt them be a contradictory reduction of discretion?

[Aratunda]

I read that, and while it's a good step, the idea is based on banning the right to strike for emergency services outright. Leaving it up to the governments of each nation would mean some are bound to let them strike, which would be a disaster.

If nations "may" exempt them, would not forcing them to exempt them be a contradictory reduction of discretion?

I suppose so.

[Dungtoper]

I have an Idea for an Anti Piracy Act.
I'm planning for it to be on better ocean security and more coast guards.
Do you have any advice or something i should add in the proposal?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I have an Idea for an Anti Piracy Act.
I'm planning for it to be on better ocean security and more coast guards.
Do you have any advice or something i should add in the proposal?

You'd need to basically just make it a mandatory increase of national military (especially naval) budgets, since piracy is already illegal under GA law, including a mandate for all member states to take an active role in denying pirates safe haven or passage within their spheres of power. I don't know if that'll fly.

What you really should do is take a look through the rest of that thread to see how proposals are properly written, and what areas of international law have already been adequately covered (and which have gaping loopholes that need filling or patching).

[Bears Armed]

I have an Idea for an Anti Piracy Act.
I'm planning for it to be on better ocean security and more coast guards.
Do you have any advice or something i should add in the proposal?

Take a look at the existing G.A. Resolution #20 'Suppress International Piracy', which you would have to avoid either duplicating or relying on.

[Dungtoper]

Ok scratch that.
What Proposals or Repeals should I do?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Ok scratch that.
What Proposals or Repeals should I do?

What you really should do is take a look through the rest of that thread to see how proposals are properly written, and what areas of international law have already been adequately covered (and which have gaping loopholes that need filling or patching).

[Yaak]

A resolution regulating the size of toilet seats. Not original, but not taken.

[Untecna]

A resolution regulating the size of toilet seats. Not original, but not taken.

Didn't I suggest plumbing standards and then Wayneatica said something on those lines?

I think they did. I guess they would like that.

[The republic of Jackalopetopia]

A resolution creating a international suicide prevention hotline