[PASSED] - Reducing light pollution

[Sedgistan]

Introduction

Under dark skies you can see stars down to mag. 6.5 with the naked eye, but light pollution can cut this to just a handful of first magnitude stars. There is a valid case for reducing light pollution and to promote astronomy, especially for amateurs playing with their telescopes. I am not personally very interested in amateur astronomy myself but I do have some interest in space, as, in real life, we are probably but a peck of dust in the grand scheme of things across the universe.

In a way this is inpsired by GAR#687 Star Gazing Day but it's not a direct replacement, as I don't get philosophical about it, whereas Star Gazing Day is more about naming a particular day "Star Gazing Day"). The two resolutions strictly speaking can co-exist even though I expect a repeal of Star Gazing Day to come any day.

Note: the definition of "light pollution" is never defined since "light pollution" for one species might not be the same as another. Herby probably wants more light than a hibernating bear. The preamble gives plenty of examples of what constitutes "light pollution", but the term is not explicitly defined.

Draft 2

Category: Environment / All Business - Mild (this seems very slightly closer than "Regulation - Energy"

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that, for some WA states, light pollution harms their environments such as wildlife habitats (say migrating songbirds, fireflies and animals requiring darkness), aquatic ecosystems (say algae brooms) and the opportunity to observe the night sky for astronomers, as well as impacting the health of some sapient species such as interrupting their sleep patterns and confusing their circadian rhythms;

Further noting that in some cases light pollution is also resulting from excess lighting which in turn creates unnecessary energy use, which may be detrimental to the welfare of some WA states;

Acknowledging that, for WA states sharing a common border or in proximity to each other, the requirements for lighting can significantly differ, such as differences in sapient species inhabiting the relevant WA state(s), and land use (such as a wildlife reserve in one state bordering a bustling city in another state), and for differing needs to potentially come into conflict due to the ability of light pollution to creep across national boundaries via sky glow, the rusty orange haze cast by the massed lights over a wide area through the atmosphere in some WA states;

Desiring a common approach that resolves such issues through the WA in a coherent manner; hereby

1. Defines:
   
   1. IAO to mean the Independent Adjudicative Office of the WA;
   2. WASP to mean the Scientific Programme of the WA;
2. Requires WA states to, subject to their levels of technology sophistication, take reasonable steps in good faith to reduce light pollution without compromising on the health and safety of its own inhabitants through (merely as examples) the following means:
   
   1. Adopt energy-saving lighting equipment, such as lower-energy use light bulbs, dimmers and automatic switch-off lights;
      
   2. Proactively reduce outdoor lighting pointing skywards, such as street lighting with downward directions, motion detectors, low energy electronic billboards and low-pressure sodium lamps;
      
   3. Adopt land use measures to protect the habitat of species that require darkness, such as light shields and darkness reserves in national parks;
3. Permits a WA state to require the assistance of WASP in implementing measures to reduce light pollution, with all reasonable costs incurred by WASP fully indemnified by the said state;
   
4. Permits, if a WA state ("requesting state") shares a border with, or is in close proximity to, another WA state ("responding state"), to expressly raise a request for the responding state to reduce light pollution in areas near shared borders or other areas where the two states are close to each other, subject to the following conditions:
   
   
   1. The requesting state is to fully indemnify the responding state for all reasonable costs incurred to reduce light pollution;
      
   2. Either state may request the assistance of WASP in implementing measures to reduce light pollution, with all reasonable costs incurred by WASP fully indemnified by the requesting state;
      
   3. The responding state is permitted to reject or negotiate on the implementation of such a request if it reasonably believes that such reductions in light pollution (or lighting use in general) will harm the health and wellbeing of its own inhabitants, subject to appeals by either state to the IAO;
5. Clarifies that the IAO shall have the final authority on interpreting this resolution and on adjudicating any disputes regarding clause 4.

Char count: 3,485

[Wallenburg]

"To the extent the WA state deems necessary and desirable" reduces the mandate of this proposal to nil, since member states will do what they deem necessary and desirable free of WA instruction.

[Simone Republic]

"To the extent the WA state deems necessary and desirable" reduces the mandate of this proposal to nil, since member states will do what they deem necessary and desirable free of WA instruction.

I changed it to just say "reduce" now and rely on RNT. But any thoughts on wording appreciated.

Edit: I'd think about the cross border angle as well, because if lights spew from one city to another country and the latter prefer their skies to be darker, it's kind of an international issue. Similar to mining and drilling near borders.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Believing that, for some WA states, light pollution harms their environments, wildlife habitats (such as migrating songbirds, fireflies and animals requiring darkness), aquatic ecosystems (through increased algae brooms) as well as the health of some intelligent lifeforms, such as (merely as examples) humans, where nocturnal light interrupts their sleep patterns and confuse their circadian rhythm;

Affirming that reduced light pollution increases opportunities to observe the night sky, and will potentially lead to heightened interest in astronomy among inhabitants of WA states and aid scientific development, in line with the aims of the WA implemented through resolutions GAR#451 and GAR#460;

Acknowledging that light pollution is an international issue for some WA states, especially smaller states with land boundaries with other states, due to the ability for light pollution to creep across national boundaries via sky glow, the rusty orange haze cast by the massed lights over a wide area through the atmosphere in some WA states;

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. ASTRO to mean the Astronomic Science and Technical Research Organization’ of the WA Scientific Programme of the WA;
   2. IASA to mean the International Aero-Space Administration
2. Hereby requires WA states to, subject to their levels of technology sophistication, reduce light pollution through (merely as examples) the following means:
   
   
   1. Adopt energy-saving lighting equipment in both outdoor and indoor environments, such as, merely as examples, lower-energy use light bulbs, dimmers and automatic switch-off lights;
      
   2. Reduce outdoor lighting pointing skywards through the use of more advanced technologies, such as, merely as examples, street lighting with downward directions, motion detectors, low energy electronic billboards and low pressure sodium lamps that are astronomer-friendly;
      
   3. Other advanced methods of reducing lighting subject to the technological sophistication of the relevant WA state, such as, merely as examples, brightness on satellites, light shields and darkness reserves in national parks;
3. Hereby mandates ASTRO and IASA to expand their remits to include promoting astronomy, aerospace, and related sciences to wider audiences in conjunction with the governments of individual WA states, especially to the younger members of intelligent lifeforms of WA states, through means such as, merely as examples, education and training programmes, exhibitions and easily-accessible published materials that accommodate the varying technological levels of different WA states.

[Simone Republic]

This has been comprehensively rewritten to remove the part on astronomy and to put in place a dispute settlement mechanism in cases where cities border natural reserves or where light pollution in general creeps over from one state to another.

The first operative clause is now "take reasonable steps in good faith to reduce light pollution without compromising on the health and safety of its inhabitants through (merely as examples) the following means"

[Makko Oko]

Rochelle reads the proposal and is absolutely delighted by the idea, wishing for themselves that they had thought of it first, but then, they thought of major cities, and they clear their throat and say to the author: "His Emperor's Government is in full support of this proposal and will provide any resources necessary to ensure its enactment. One suggestion to increase the strength would be to add a provision mandating that governments turn off all lights, or even power, at night when they are sitting unoccupied. That would greatly decrease light pollution from skyscrapers etc." - Minister Of Energy, Infrastructure & Environment Rochelle Vangelis

[Simone Republic]

Bump. Draft 2 is quite different from draft 1 because I dropped all the parts about astronomy and what not.

(IC)

Bump on the World Assembly Official Bumper, while stocks last! Buy one today at the Strangers' Bar! Prices keep going up!

[Isabella van der Feltz]

"with all reasonable costs incurred by WASP fully indemnified by the said state"

WA Ambassador Isabella van Der Feltz:

"Okay, so our government can use the approved financial products of insured depository institutions - in full compliance with the regulations created and enforced by GAR#625 - which are also authorised World Microcredit Foundation lenders (GAR#94) in our nation at the same time, then by following the actual and reasonable costs principles ('with all reasonable') in relation to the 'costs incurred by WASP,' use that for our repayment^* to the philanthropic Scientific Programme of the WA?"

---

*Including longer repayment terms, with principal and interest repayment not exceeding the "all reasonable costs incurred by WASP" criteria

[Simone Republic]

"with all reasonable costs incurred by WASP fully indemnified by the said state"

WA Ambassador Isabella van Der Feltz:

"Okay, so our government can use the approved financial products of insured depository institutions - in full compliance with the regulations created and enforced by GAR#625 - which are also authorised World Microcredit Foundation lenders (GAR#94) in our nation at the same time, then by following the actual and reasonable costs principles ('with all reasonable') in relation to the 'costs incurred by WASP,' use that for our repayment^* to the philanthropic Scientific Programme of the WA?"

---

*Including longer repayment terms, with principal and interest repayment not exceeding the "all reasonable costs incurred by WASP" criteria

(OOC)

As far as I am aware, the WA has never really defined a monetary policy or common currency or something similar, so, um, yeah, I guess that's possible in-game. Inflation doesn't seem to affect the multiverse, which I guess makes sense if your lifetime is infinite and therefore you do not need to demand a cost for your capital. The NS economics model itself rudimentary anyway - it doesn't properly model non income taxes for example.

[Strye Treossow]

In one of the small offices in the capital, a woman reads the draft in her laptop. The silence was almost deafening, the only thing challenging it was the small antique clock, on the opposite tea-green coloured wall.
After reading the last line, she placed her glasses on the table, threwing herself on the soft reclining chair and letting a heavy sigh.
It was her first week on the job, and she was feeling the work load. Reunions with the State Ministries, hours upon hours searching for solutions on the eletric systems across the nation, alternatives to consiliate the growing population with the essential services needs with eletricity.
She looked behind her, to a photo on the wall. In the past, other Eletricity Ministers used to place a photo of their Leaders or Presidents.
She placed a photo of her familly. She and her wife were smiling, while the oldest son was holding his younger sister. She was a surprise that was discovered 2 weeks after they started seeing each other, fruit of a past relationship that didnt land with her wife.
They were in a park, at night, while looking at the stars, even though the lights of the city behind her were a bit of trouble. Her son always said about how much the lights was disturbing to see through the telescope. And her wife always complained about the street lamps shining trough their bedroom window.
She always felt how they gave a "boost" of energy to her, even though her mind was beging to relax.
She looked back at the laptop, close it, and standed up, getting out of her office and going to the Common Hall.

-So thats just a draft?- Asked the recently elected president, a young guy that had just made 26 years old.
-Yep- she said. -And I think it would be a good idea if we adopted it here. I mean, most of the houses are somewhat self suficient in all aspects. This would take a huge amount of stress off the system.
-My problem is that the street lights helps the police, and our buses and trolleys need to have them to alert other people.
-I thought about those problems too.- she said, a little nervous. Even though the stories about the president said that he was an understanding smart man, she never had a one-on-one meeting with him, as he liked to do. -Soooo.... I thought about a compromise.
-Whats your idea?
-We can change the voltage of the lamps to a lower, and change their color to red. We'll still be able to see everything fine. For transit, we can instal some self iluminated signals, maybe hook them up to the street solar panels, to recharge their batteries. The trams and buses would just need to circulate less at night or lower their head lights. Police, ambulance firetrucks and the army are exceptions I think everybody would understand.
Slowly, the president nodded, before grabing a pen and a empty paper. He started to write things in a fantastic speed.
-If we decide to do this, how much time would we need, and how much efficient can we make this?
-Here, in Vibrannis, it would take..... 2 to 3 weeks. 4 if we do it while the new "extention" of the city is being made. The rest of the country ill need to make a bit more of math that my head can process right now.
He nodded, while finishing the quick letter he wrote. With a smile, he handed it to Sofia, his Minister of Energy.
-When the draft becomes official, I would like that you be at the ready to apply in the quickest way possible. Heres the liberty to make a task-force with however you need and whant. When you make a plan, show me, and well call the other ministers to help pitch in.
-Will do. Thanks.- she said, smilling and taking the paper. She was already planning in her head, and she knew that her familly would love to help.



(Hey, OOC speaking. English is my second language, so if theres some words written wrong, sry. I also really liked the idea about this draft. Light pollution is a very underrated topic, and I like that im not the only one thinking about it.)

[Simone Republic]

Bump

[The Ice States]

"I am confused, Ambassador, as to what this achieves. I do apologise for not having noticed these issues until now, I had honestly not fully read this proposal until one of my interns brought it to my attention upon its submission. However, while it is certainly a noble goal to reduce light pollution, none of the Sections here appear to achieve anything meaningful. We will not be voting against, as it is ultimately not harmful, but we can foresee these issues resulting in a potential repeal of this resolution. Section 2, in particular, establishes a very ambiguous standard of 'reasonable and good faith'; the latter of which is redundant, as good faith compliance is expressly mandated by 'The Civil Charter of the World Assembly'; and the former of which appears to be very open to member nation exploitation and does not appear to establish any clear standard at all. The examples given in that Section are merely that, examples, and so Section 2 is ultimately nugatory. Before your mission claims Reasonable Nation Theory, as you have previously done during this debate, Ambassador*, if anything that goes against your point; a reasonable nation which chooses to interpret this resolution as forcing them to institute a certain measure is likely already enforcing that measure, otherwise it would prefer to preserve its freedom of action."

"As to the other Sections, Section 3 appears to be the only mandatory clause, and we do not object to it in general although we would prefer that member nations not be forced to indemnify all costs incurred by the Wasp as a result, as that would seem to clearly discourage a member nation from invoking that Section. Section 4 appears to achieve nothing at all; it establishes a mechanism which a member nation need not invoke, and it can simply request the same of a neighbouring member nation regardless without having to pay to do so. The only advantage given -- as the neighbouring nation is not required to even consider complying with the request -- is support from the Wasp which is already guaranteed by Section 3. The clause merely creates bureaucracy which will never be used."

"Ultimately, we see a small benefit from this resolution in Section 3, and the rest by doing nothing causes no harm either. We can only hope that future missions see through it and do not view stronger mandates as redundant because of this. However, these issues render the resolution nugatory and vulnerable to repeal."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.


Ooc: *I'm treating your comment earlier as if it were Ic, let me know if you'd prefer I not do that.

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

"Nice surroundings", the Halloween bear says to nobody in the particular. "I am not a member of the Simone Republic cabinet, unlike the Milky white bear, and it's my first time here, so I am just answering questions with answers supplied by our staff."

"I am confused, Ambassador, as to what this achieves. I do apologise for not having noticed these issues until now, I had honestly not fully read this proposal until one of my interns brought it to my attention upon its submission.

The Halloween bear, standing in for the Milky white bear, rips a wolf into two, flings it onto the barbeque, and tries to apply bottles of HP source imported from Earth to wolve meat on the barbeque, replies, "(chomp), I mean, as far as I know, we do the same thing to your mission's resolutions all the time and ignore most of them until it hits vote anyway, so no need to apologize".

We will not be voting against, as it is ultimately not harmful, but we can foresee these issues resulting in a potential repeal of this resolution. Section 2, in particular, establishes a very ambiguous standard of 'reasonable and good faith'; the latter of which is redundant as good faith compliance is expressly mandated...

The Halloween bear reads out a text from its office, "assuming it doesn't get repealed again".

...very open to member nation exploitation and does not appear to establish any clear standard at all.

The Halloween bear reads out a text from its office, "standards differ between species, so what's reasonable for one species may not be reasonable for another, so a test is needed both here and in clause 4. It's also to prevent some annoying folks building a sports stadium in one nation right next to a wildlife reserve in another, which we would deem "unreasonable" and assume that IAO would agree".

"As to the other Sections, Section 3 appears to be the only mandatory clause, and we do not object to it in general although we would prefer that member nations not be forced to indemnify all costs incurred by the Wasp as a result, as that would seem to clearly discourage a member nation from invoking that Section.

"Ummm... more as a matter of principle than to use WAGF money, given Simone Republic's capitalist stance". The Halloween bear reads out another text from the office, while chewing on wolf meat.

Section 4 appears to achieve nothing at all; it establishes a mechanism which a member nation need not invoke, and it can simply request the same of a neighbouring member nation regardless without having to pay to do so. The only advantage given -- as the neighbouring nation is not required to even consider complying with the request -- is support from the Wasp which is already guaranteed by Section 3. The clause merely creates bureaucracy which will never be used.

"It forces a nation to the negotiating table and for the IAO to ultimately force a reduction in light pollution if a nation refuses to negotiate or to be "reasonable" about it, with "reasonable" defined by the IAO. We agree that it's not a mechanism that's likely to be used frequently, on the assumption that many nations have their own planets or at least their islands."

"...render the resolution nugatory and vulnerable to repeal."

"So do a lot of your resolutions, or so I've been told by my staff, but that's Milky white bear's problem", says the Halloween bear. "Oh, can we get a bigger barbeque? I eat more than the Milky white bear."

(OOC)

I don't really write replies in IC, but in this case, fine.

[The Ice States]

We will not be voting against, as it is ultimately not harmful, but we can foresee these issues resulting in a potential repeal of this resolution. Section 2, in particular, establishes a very ambiguous standard of 'reasonable and good faith'; the latter of which is redundant as good faith compliance is expressly mandated...

The Halloween bear reads out a text from its office, "assuming it doesn't get repealed again".

"Until it does, that is irrelevant. Even if it was repealed, it is more than likely that a replacement will be introduced which mandates good faith in compliance. The point is that as #654 is still standing, the 'good faith' standard establishes nothing new. In fact, any resolution can be essentially avoided if it is interpreted in bad faith, that is not anything specific to this resolution."

The Halloween bear reads out a text from its office, "standards differ between species, so what's reasonable for one species may not be reasonable for another, so a test is needed both here and in clause 4. It's also to prevent some annoying folks building a sports stadium in one nation right next to a wildlife reserve in another, which we would deem "unreasonable" and assume that IAO would agree".

"In that case, a clearer standard should be used. What factors does your mission believe affects whether something is reasonable? These factors should be explicitly stated. If species is a relevant factor, then that can be expressly stated. As of now, simply 'reasonable' establishes no real standard."

"It forces a nation to the negotiating table and for the IAO to ultimately force a reduction in light pollution if a nation refuses to negotiate or to be "reasonable" about it, with "reasonable" defined by the IAO. We agree that it's not a mechanism that's likely to be used frequently, on the assumption that many nations have their own planets or at least their islands."

"It appears you are correct in this regard, and I apologise for not having fully understood the clause prior to commenting on it. In that case, we still believe that Section 2 is effectively nugatory although this conversation has reinforced at least my, and presumably my mission's, support of the overall proposal due to better understanding of Section 4."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

The Halloween bear reads out a text from its office, "standards differ between species, so what's reasonable for one species may not be reasonable for another, so a test is needed both here and in clause 4. It's also to prevent some annoying folks building a sports stadium in one nation right next to a wildlife reserve in another, which we would deem "unreasonable" and assume that IAO would agree".

"In that case, a clearer standard should be used. What factors does your mission believe affects whether something is reasonable? These factors should be explicitly stated. If species is a relevant factor, then that can be expressly stated. As of now, simply 'reasonable' establishes no real standard."

""Reasonable" is deliberately vague to avoid issues where different species have different lighting requirements etc., and having to make a delicate balance in terms of public safety for some WA states vs wanting a darkness reserve and wild outdoors for others," the Halloween bear reads from the screen, "and we feel having a more ambiguous term that IAO can define based on the unique circumstances of different states (if anyone complains) is more efficient rather than trying to set objective standards. This is analogous to use of the term "reasonable doubt" being largely defined by case law in many jurisdictions rather than codified."

"It forces a nation to the negotiating table and for the IAO to ultimately force a reduction in light pollution if a nation refuses to negotiate or to be "reasonable" about it, with "reasonable" defined by the IAO. We agree that it's not a mechanism that's likely to be used frequently, on the assumption that many nations have their own planets or at least their islands."

"It appears you are correct in this regard, and I apologise for not having fully understood the clause prior to commenting on it. In that case, we still believe that Section 2 is effectively nugatory although this conversation has reinforced at least my, and presumably my mission's, support of the overall proposal due to better understanding of Section 4."

The Halloween bear continues to read from the screen, "roughly, section 2 is roughly akin to an encouragement to save energy and be a nice neighbor if there are shared borders, section 4 is where the carrot doesn't work because your neighbor is behaving badly and the stick from IAO is required".

[The Ice States]

"In that case, a clearer standard should be used. What factors does your mission believe affects whether something is reasonable? These factors should be explicitly stated. If species is a relevant factor, then that can be expressly stated. As of now, simply 'reasonable' establishes no real standard."

""Reasonable" is deliberately vague to avoid issues where different species have different lighting requirements etc., and having to make a delicate balance in terms of public safety for some WA states vs wanting a darkness reserve and wild outdoors for others," the Halloween bear reads from the screen, "and we feel having a more ambiguous term that IAO can define based on the unique circumstances of different states (if anyone complains) is more efficient rather than trying to set objective standards. This is analogous to use of the term "reasonable doubt" being largely defined by case law in many jurisdictions rather than codified."

"This fundamentally not how the IAO has been established to interpret resolutions. It is not tasked with determining the precise interpretaiton of ordinary words; it is simply tasked with ruling on whether a member nation is complying with any reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution in question. This is a result of Resolution #440, which establishes the Office, mandating that adjucation be on whether the relevant act is compliant with a 'reasonable interpretation of international law'; as well as this being extended by Resolution #654, which explicitly mandates good faith. As long as a member nation is adhering to any reasonable, good faith interpretation of what is reasonable, a member nation cannot be penalised by the IAO under #440."

~Robert Desak,
World Assmebly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

""Reasonable" is deliberately vague to avoid issues where different species have different lighting requirements etc., and having to make a delicate balance in terms of public safety for some WA states vs wanting a darkness reserve and wild outdoors for others," the Halloween bear reads from the screen, "and we feel having a more ambiguous term that IAO can define based on the unique circumstances of different states (if anyone complains) is more efficient rather than trying to set objective standards. This is analogous to use of the term "reasonable doubt" being largely defined by case law in many jurisdictions rather than codified."

"This fundamentally not how the IAO has been established to interpret resolutions. It is not tasked with determining the precise interpretaiton of ordinary words; it is simply tasked with ruling on whether a member nation is complying with any reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution in question. This is a result of Resolution #440, which establishes the Office, mandating that adjucation be on whether the relevant act is compliant with a 'reasonable interpretation of international law'; as well as this being extended by Resolution #654, which explicitly mandates good faith. As long as a member nation is adhering to any reasonable, good faith interpretation of what is reasonable, a member nation cannot be penalised by the IAO under #440."

~Robert Desak,
World Assmebly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

(Strictly OOC)

Yeah I know, but there isn't anything that says I can't put additional tasks into a committee. I've dumped plenty of new responsibilities onto old committees, like all the technical stuff into WANC on my maritime shipping ones. I probably could have put in the Judiciary Committee or make up a new panel and it'd achieve the same thing.

[Fire Islands]

To our fellow nations,

While we agree on the premise of this proposal, and we agree that light pollution is an area that should have some kind of regulation, we cannot vote in favor of the resolution in its current shape due to article four's requirement that requester nations pay for a responder's implementation costs in case of any international disputes over light pollution.

This assumes that all potential requesters would be able to afford the costs of the responder's implementation, and that is simply not the case.

The language in the resolution is simply out of line for us, as it leaves no room for any agreement to be reached by the involved parties regarding the costs. It makes the requester paying for it the default option and we think that is harmful to the very purpose of the resolution, as some nations may simply not be able to afford such actions.

Just as an example, we are fortunate enough to have a fairly large tourism industry. The Wild Isles are probably our most well known touristic destination, since they are the natural habitat of the Firese Firefly, a rare firefly species that lights up orange at night and that originally gave name to our territory. A sizable part of the success of this destination is heavily reliant on light pollution to be strongly regulated.

We are lucky enough that our territory is mostly an archipelago, meaning there we share no land borders with our neighboring nations. Regardless, in order to provide assurances to our tourism industry and thus guarantee its stable development, we decided decades ago to reach out to our neighbors and reached an agreement, the South Pacific Light Pollution Accord, more commonly referred to as the Firefly Accord, with the interest of reducing light pollution near the islands where Firese Firefly colonies are found, as it is considered a threatened species and it is such a great part of our national identity and culture.

However, because World Assembly legislation takes precedent over international agreements, this piece of legislation would give carte blanche to any of the participants in the Firefly Accord or any other similar international agreement to void it, deliberately or otherwise, and it would also supersede any arbitration clauses in these agreements with the imposition that the impacted nation has to pay for the cost of righting any wrongdoings carried out by the inflictor.

We simply cannot stand for that.

We encourage fellow nations to vote No on the resolution in its current state to allow for further discussion on its language. We look forward to a revised version of this resolution and we are eager to support it.

Thank you.

Lena Myers
Fire Islands Chief of Mission to the World Assembly

[Waffia]

"The resolution requires that nations take steps to reduce light pollution, enables nations to seek help from the WA scientific programme to develop novel technologies to do so, and establishes a WA-based dispute resolution mechanism for light pollution near nations' national borders.

"Though we agree with the goals stated in the resolution, we vote against, believing that the proposal is ineffective due to the lax requirement that nations merely 'take reasonable steps in good faith'. Nations that do not consider light pollution a problem will find any investment in light reduction unreasonable, and will legally not take any steps. Meanwhile, nations that do consider light pollution a problem will take these steps regardless of the existence of WA law.

"Even if one argued that the IAO can somehow set objective rules for what steps are 'reasonable', then this would merely result in a contradiction, as the dispute resolution mechanism would not be necessary if the resolution were unambiguous in its definition of 'reasonable'."

[Zerphen]

I tend not to post or care much about GA resolutions, but since someone decided that I needed to know about and vote against this resolution in an automated telegram:

"Having heard the debate between two venerable and respected ambassadors, I have to concur that this resolution, especially Section 2, is lacking teeth. However, our biggest concern rises in the usage of WASP. We find that Section 3's requirement that "all reasonable costs incurred by WASP (be) fully indemnified by the said state" discourages the usage of this body by less economically advantaged nations.

We also have concerns with clause 4a "The requesting state is to fully indemnify the responding state for all reasonable costs incurred to reduce light pollution" and 4b "all reasonable costs incurred by WASP (be) fully indemnified by the requesting state." We believe the responding state should incur a share of the reasonable cost, as they are partly responsible for the problem and the implementation of it's solution, and we hold that usage of "fully indemnified" in regards to WASP is poor for the above stated reason.

Nevertheless, Zerphen will be tentatively voting FOR this resolution. In spite of these problems, we find that this resolution is overall a positive in the necessary fight against light pollution, and we recognize that the concerns we have are perhaps moot as this resolution will still help the majority of nations address light pollution."

This is my first time trying to write anything IC, so I apologize if there are any poor phrases, especially since I'm not all that well versed in GA politics, but I figured I ought to since everyone else was doing it

[The Ice States]

The telegram in question:

%nation% this request is made to bring attention to the currently at vote WA GA requesting your esteemed nation votes AGAINST the proposal for the following reasons.

Noting the exceptionally long, verbally poetic preamble. Which contained such beauty as to bring tears to this governments eyes. As much so as to requre this most needed use of resources, as to contact your esteemed nation. This beautiful preamble is completely made redundant by the legitimate legislation proposed.

Noting 2. Takes into account only technological advancement and not economic output or any other indicators of State development to enforce the legislation, which makes it almost completely without tooth to enforce for this body.

Noting 3. Leaves no room for the less advanced states which are most likely poorer to combat a legitimate problem nature and most states face.

Then nothing 4. Which is such beauty. In point A. completely destroys a less advanced and rich state from litigation in the courts and then goes to remove said state from paying for their own legitimate needs and uses.

4.b also does as mentioned above by not utilising the great ammount funds available to this most dedicated and beautiful body ad the WAGA

Then noting 4.c allows those richest nations to be in as our own Ambassador to the WA has sated, "...In thousands of years in legal arbitration to fight these 'shitty' resoultions." Which a rich nation can do. But then forces it on the other states dollar....

Then 5. Which is the saddest point of all, allows wholly for what the Ambassador has stated to occur, as the IAO may take decades to come to a decision which then may be disputed, at the requesting or environmentally concerned nations expense.

Therefore we implore nations to vote AGAINST the World Assembly General Assembly resolution currently at vote.

[Orifna]

Voting FOR. I need to see my stars. Skies need to be clear anyways, as we’re big time space operators.

[Wallenburg]

I'd call this incredibly weak, but ICly Wallenburg would actually be all about this as a milquetoast waste reduction bill, so:

"My office is happy to record its vote for this resolution," says Trevanyika, decked out in regalia made to make her look like Catherine Gratwick. "By the supreme authority of me over all World Assembly states, I declare this resolution passed. Congratulations, my ursine subject."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I greatly dislike the use of the phrase "reasonable costs", §§ 3–4, where that is not defined; asserting that it is decided by the IAO is not a solution either because we do not know what the IAO would decide because it does not in reality exist. See eg "Interpreting committee provisions", WA Symposium conference paper (2020), https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192857/.

[Libertarian peoples]

As a developing nation, I can speak for other young countries in saying that any limitations of our industry would seriously effect our development.

[Juansonia]

This passed before the thread title was changed to [AT VOTE].