Advertisement
by Australian Asia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:10 am
by Flibbleites » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:14 am
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:18 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:33 am
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:39 am
by Absolvability » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:51 am
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:02 am
by Absolvability » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:32 am
Sydia wrote:"9) Depending on the nature of the salvage operation and the skill and risk involved to the salvor, the salvor is entitled to payment for services should the party owning the vessel seek to re-acquire it,"
by Balluchillish » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:35 am
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:53 am
Balluchillish wrote:"6) Any crewmen on board a salvageable vessel must co-operate fully with the salvors in order to ensure their own safety and the safety of all involved vessels,"
It seems to me, in the case of any vessel with live crew aboard, it would become a rescue operation and not a salvage operation.
by Absolvability » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:57 am
by Altrulia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:15 am
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:18 am
by Absolvability » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:24 am
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:25 am
Altrulia wrote:Instead of debating the technicalities of how this bill should be categorized(in my opinion we need an "other" category), lets focus on the actual bill itself.
Regarding section 3, am I correct in assuming that the decision of a captain to refuse to undertake a salvage operation is not punishable by international law? If not, is the captain required to produce adequate evidence of the dangers posed by said operation?
by Sydia » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:29 am
Absolvability wrote:I'm beginning to see, as I've said, that my concern is fairly negligible. However... yes, the key word is indeed 'declared.'
"Any salvaged vessel which has been lost or otherwise deemed irretrievable by the party originally owning it shall be considered become the property of the salvor."
Where does 'declared' appear in the clause? It says 'been lost' OR... blahblah. Lost should be better defined. Lost can mean... gone forever... or it can simply mean not yet found.
I've decided to support this legislation though. My arguement is valid, I think, but shouldn't stand in the way of an otherwise well written piece.
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:37 am
by Absolvability » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:46 am
Sydia wrote:In other words, if a vessel is lost it's fair game regardless of the opinions of the owning party. However, the proper interpretation, clearly unfortunately hampered by wording, is that the owning party is the one declaring it lost, or otherwise irretrievable. The 'or' in there is to include vessels which are irretrievable, but not lost. As mentioned, the owning party may be perfectly aware of where the vessel is, yet still consider it irretrievable for whatever reason.
by Allech-Atreus » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:44 pm
by Mikeymckay » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:44 pm
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:47 pm
Allech-Atreus wrote:The ambassador from Sydia's attitude toward the rules of this organization is disheartening, and despite my government's favorable impression of both his writing and legislative ability, we are forced to vote AGAINST because of the manner in which the Sydian delegation has decided to play fast and loose with the rules of the World Assembly.
and I shall repeat the mantra of the Hackians and Frisbeteerians: Write the proposal FOR the category.
Wens Foroun
Symposium Subjugant
Ambassador Plenipotens
by Allech-Atreus » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:40 pm
Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:Elena blinked. "In my experience, playing fast and loose would mean some actual abuse. I am aware of no rule in this institution that requires proposals to be drafted for a category, rather than categorizing legislative initiatives after envisioning them, and would be quite disturbed if that were the case. Finally, since the clerks have clearly recognized that this proposal has been filed correctly, I feel it is inappropriate for us to usurp the clerks' prerogatives in that procedural process and claiming they have accepted a miscategorized proposal. Does your nation oppose the resolution on its merits, or only for its source?"
by The Altan Steppes » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:59 pm
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:25 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement