PASSED: International Salvage Laws

[Australian Asia]

Looks like a pretty good idea.

[Flibbleites]

I still maintain that this is illegal because it was submitted in the wrong category. There is no way that this reduces income inequality or increase basic welfare. Therefore The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is OPPOSED.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Sydia]

You can believe what you want, but it doesn't make it true.

You are objectively wrong. I shall prove how:
Resolution improves welfare. In this case the welfare (& safety) of salvors and crewmen.
Resolution reduces income inequality. In this case by guaranteeing salvors payment for services rendered.

Prove to me the resolution does neither of these (despite explicitly stating both several times) and I will concede the point.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yeah, well you're lucky all the WA mods were either too sick or too preoccupied with C&C to give this proposal much thought.

If I still had a vote, it would be against.

[Sydia]

Why? You give no argument or any reasons.

[Absolvability]

I vote opposed because my original concerns (when this was just a wee proposal,) were never addressed. Or, never satisfied, at any rate. A sufficient definition of "lost" and "irretrievable" was never included within the text to imply to me that this resolution is anything other than a "finders keepers" policy.

Sure, the proposal says:
"7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,"

But I fear later it defines 'rightful owner,' as:
"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."

All I really wanted added was a little clause to the extent of, "In such case as the party of original ownership should wish to re-acquire their possession the salvors are obligated to comply, pending appropriate compensation."

I'm opposed.

[Sydia]

i would imagine your concerns are met my point 9:

"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,"

There will be many cases where the original owner no longer deems the vessel worth retrieval, or worth compensation, hence why the salvors (who rendered the service) come first in this clause however nothing is excluding original owners from re-acquiring it, bar their ability to provide compensation for the risk involved. In either case the needs of the salvor and the owner are met:
The first situation is that salvors retrieve a vessel, receive adequate compensation and return the vessel to its owner.
The second situation is that the original owners do not wish to reacquire it, in which case the salvors compensation is the vessel itself.

[Absolvability]

"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,"

But again, you're protecting the salvors more than the original owners. Which is indeed the way it should be... but you've expressed it so very clearly through-out I would think a single clause expressing the fact that salvors are OBLIGATED (which is not at all congruent with 'entitled to,') to return property when the original party would like it would be in order. All your clause does is guarantee the salvors appropriate payment in such a case as they, by their own volition, decide to return the vessel.

[Balluchillish]

"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.

[Sydia]

"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.

True if it were just rescuing the crew. A salvage operation, by definition, seeks to ensure the survival of the vessel also.

@ Absolvability; you propose a situation whereby -
A vessel is salvaged, the original owners want it back, but the salvors do not comply despite appropriate compensation being offered?

I direct you to point 7:
7) Once a salvaged vessel has been safely retrieved the salvor must make arrangements to deliver the vessel to its rightful owner as soon as possible,

They are obligated - bolding is mine. Your situation would be forbidden under this point; as the salvors would clearly not be making arrangements to deliver the vessel to the rightful owner.

[Absolvability]

Yes, but how does your point 7 stand up when working in conjunction with the other points I've highlighted? To say 'rightful owner' is not enough when you've granted the salvors such privileges elsewhere.

At any rate, I'm satisfied by your intentions, but still think this is a slight loop-hole. I'm beginning to think it's not as serious as I once considered it to be... but it's still disconcerting. I've yet to vote on the Resolution, officially.

[Altrulia]

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?

[Sydia]

I see your point; you worry that the rightful owner of the vessel is a matter of confusion given the that salvors official own it if it declared lost.

The keyword here is 'declared'. If the owners declare a ship lost or irretrievable, it is a write-off; they clearly lack either the inclination or means to recover it. The fact that a salvor recovered it means nothing - they've not lost anything; the ship was already deemed lost by their own admission:

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.

Bolding mine. The original owning party makes the call as to whether they consider the vessel lost (or irretrievable in any other fashion - the reason for this wording is that lost and irretrievable are not the same thing. A vessel may have been deemed irretrievable whilst the owning party knows exactly where it is) or not. Point 9 still applies, the original party may still seek to reacquire it pending compensation. The salvors are not obliged to return the vessel, however, as the original party wrote it off and made no effort on their part to retrieve it (as they have declared it lost/irretrievable). Without the salvors it would still be on the sea bed (or in similar perilous circumstances).

[Absolvability]

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.

[Sydia]

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?

Yes. There are a multitude of reasons why a salvage operation could be deemed unsafe to crew or salvors, so forcing salvage operations in the case of stricken vessels would be great folly indeed, verging on the suicidal (if proper equipment is lacking, if the time taken to establish the salvage operation is too long to assist, if flotsam and jetsam pose a physical risk to the salvor vessel, etc etc)

Every vessel must, by all practical means, assist any other stricken vessel unless the vessel poses any threat to the salvors, including the potential risk of the salvage operation itself. The decision not to undertake a salvage operation on the grounds of safety is left to the captain of the salvor vessel,

The crew on the stricken vessel in such an instance are not in peril; bolding makes clear that should the vessel pose a danger it should not be attempted to be salvaged.

The decision to abandon a salvage operation on a sticken vessel may well be made in dire circumstances and I felt best left to the captain (who will likely have the most experience) of the salvor vessel.

[Sydia]

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.

I can see your concerns about the wording of point 8, your interpretation is that
"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."

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.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

"After consulting with President Menshikov's office, I am pleased to say that the Soyedinyonniyi Schtati believe that this proposal adequately protects the property rights of shipmasters, salvors, and nations. While we question the necessity of the historic artefacts clause, we understand that some governments do not objectively judge such things. I cast Zemnaya Svoboda's vote in favour of this resolution, and encourage other nations to do likewise."

[Absolvability]

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.

Agreed. And I wouldn't say it's hampered by wording, really. But in such case as interpretation is required, I go to the source first. You've satisfied me with clarity and intent.

[Allech-Atreus]

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

[Sydia]

Yeah, great, thanks.

[Mikeymckay]

it this really going to help the people and if sohow when and were ????

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

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

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?"

[Allech-Atreus]

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?"

OOC: It's too much trouble to respond IC, but suffice to say you can do a search of Jolt and any of the drafting threads throughout UN/WA history, as well as a glance over the Jolt rules thread and comments thereon and find ample evidence for the moderators requiring proposals to be written for the category they are to be submitted under, and not the other way round. Just because it's not a clearcut, written rule doesn't mean the moderators don't enforce it- and just because a proposal might get to quorum doesn't mean it's not illegal- it just means Ard or Hack or Fris were busy with something else at the time and missed it.

It's good legislation, but it's misclassified, and Sydia doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that.

[The Altan Steppes]

After reviewing the debate to this point, and noting the Sydians' disdainful attitude towards both the rules of this assembly and towards anyone trying to help correct their error in that regard, the Federation will be strongly encouraging its region, and its allies, to vote against this legislation. It is the height of hypocrisy to draft rules that the international community is expected to follow when the government of Sydia apparently sees itself as above any rules.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

"Again, I wonder what rules the Sydian delegation is supposed to have violated. Additionally, my dossier on Sydia from the Department of State says that Sydian observance of its regional agreements has been exemplary, so I certainly don't believe the government of Sydia sees itself as above any rules."