[DEFEATED] Repeal GA#526 "Land Reclamation Regulation"

[Flydale North]

Support.

[Tinhampton]

This resolution will now be submitted on Wednesday 11th June due to my NationStates World Cup commitments. Your statutory rights are not affected.

[Tinhampton]

Final bump for commentary

[Dengist China]

Final bump for commentary

Against - I'd like to see the GA pass things on racism and such, this is no less NatSov than the resolution at vote

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I think the deducing clause is dubious. Take RL auditing for example, auditors are paid by the company they audit yet they still issue an independent audit report. You have the likes of revenue collection agencies operating at arms length from the government and are independent per se. In UK and Ireland you have people known as the Auditor and Comptroller General (or Comptroller and Auditor General) operating independently of the executive despite still being civil servants. If you build a house, you pay for everything including the engineers/architects to sign off on works. These people are independent.

In sum, I don't buy the idea that you can't pay for an independent report.

[Tinhampton]

This was already discussed and DEDUCING will not be changed, unless ruled illegal by the mods. Ergo, submitted.

[Bisofeyr]

Support!

[Bananaistan]

This was already discussed and DEDUCING will not be changed, unless ruled illegal by the mods. Ergo, submitted.

OOC: This comment you've linked to takes no account of the RL examples of paid for independent reporting I provided. It's a long stretch well past the bounds of credibility and into outright misrepresentation to say that member states are "completely prohibited". Even without any RL examples there's no reason why one member state could organise independent peeps to come in from another member state.

[Tinhampton]

This was already discussed and DEDUCING will not be changed, unless ruled illegal by the mods. Ergo, submitted.

OOC: This comment you've linked to takes no account of the RL examples of paid for independent reporting I provided. It's a long stretch well past the bounds of credibility and into outright misrepresentation to say that member states are "completely prohibited". Even without any RL examples there's no reason why one member state could organise independent peeps to come in from another member state.

The focus is on the word "conduct," not "independent." An auditor can audit a company on its request independently of that company's interests. However, the company itself is not conducting its own audit, but rather PwC or KPMG are.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This comment you've linked to takes no account of the RL examples of paid for independent reporting I provided. It's a long stretch well past the bounds of credibility and into outright misrepresentation to say that member states are "completely prohibited". Even without any RL examples there's no reason why one member state could organise independent peeps to come in from another member state.

The focus is on the word "conduct," not "independent." An auditor can audit a company on its request independently of that company's interests. However, the company itself is not conducting its own audit, but rather PwC or KPMG are.

OOC: This is a distinction without a difference. You haven't demonstrated that it is completely prohibited because of either the word conduct or independent. Member states conduct independent things all the time: fair trials by independent judiciary under the principle of judicial independence. It's still the member state, it still that has been conducted, and has been conducted independently.

[Tinhampton]

This was submitted and will be at vote between the minor updates of Saturday 28th June and Wednesday 2nd July.

AS OF 1510 EEST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 83 out of 53 needed (Tinhampton, Walkabout, Varanius, Gagium, Solringen, Marinas Island, Treadwellia, Well-Sprung Jack, Katowicq, Lionsroar, Bloodblaze, Cream Soda, The Byrdlands, The Flyin, Arkadia Universalis, SinCorp, New England INC, Sedgistan, Midlona, Floyssauu, Karma Pirate, Oi Barbaroi, UPC, Sunny Glade, Tinell, Alinek, Kabran, Voopmont, Vintrel, Zombiedolphins, Roylaii, The Central Islands, Yellow Transcaucasia, Apollo123, North kosia, Cynland, Ajakor, Gideon, Velinium, VolksBund Europa, Kzinkzs, The Emerald Cities, Republic of Handalia, Divarion, Torkeland, Global Americana, Freedaria, Cutias, Lyriandre, Alto Ipiranga, Minnelica, Macedon Peoples, Empire of Dabiristan, Foot Sniffers, Chipoli, Eco-Paris Reformation, PresPollia, Potatoville, Wannon, Urlaska, Arstotskiano, Remenents Of The Enclave, Elwher, Criboutit, James Forsyte II, Eyrar, Comunest Frog, Granjek, Zstantvia, Lunix, Polmenania, Hangextan, Futurist State of Agladnare, The United Royal Islands of Euramathania, Japuile, Ingrian territory, East Nichibotsu, Urcea, Enotovka, Glorious Land Vegemite, The Anarchist European States, Azov steel 2022, Wyrmland)

[Sea Dome WA Mission]

We must apologize for not attending to this matter sooner. It is with considerable regret we note the esteemed delegation's choice to include an ideological argument that member nations know best. We are aware of member nations with all possible degrees of hostility to ecological protections, arguably the most international issue possible. Here the environment respects no border and problems- from the climate and weather itself to refugee rights crises- are sure to follow in any number of member nations through no fault of their own. In this area NatSov is your government choosing to reduce your opportunities and liberties as a citizen of the world. IntFed is individual freedom. While we have no cause to doubt the good intentions of esteemed delegate's government, we simply cannot support a repeal on an ideological basis.

The language we use matters. Our speech acts- "resolving," and so forth- give a proposal literally all of its meaning. If all member nations are owed something in this area, instead of a paean to how few rights people and octopi ought to have according to the politics of the day, it is rather more scrutiny toward our governments for the mutual and equal benefit of our peoples (and whomever else). The false freedom of deregulation will soon have its effect. How do we enforce this? Sanctions? Go ahead- build alternate supply chains under the gun, generating more pollution than each industry requires for your whole nation to enjoy the products in peacetime. Cold war? Hot war? Military action even in a cold war would itself be an environmental risk, to be studied in itself, which can be done using a boost of labor productivity or new jobs which also has a nonzero ecological impact of its own.

We must fight and win. Repeals that legislate our intention to deregulate are a mistake in this area. We need to conduct political education and ideological struggle on this very floor, as we are called to do in representing the interests of our constituents to begin with. Now is the time to start fighting back. Vote AGAINST this statement and fight for replacement with a better law as soon as feasible. We can fight on the repeal and fight on the replace. We can fight in the drafts and fight in proposals. We can never surrender to attempts to exploit or pollute our worlds at governmental discretion, and if we do surrender to this, we should be overthrown by our citizens and replaced with governments that value the worlds that make our lives possible more. This is the main and perhaps only issue on which we cannot afford to be lenient.

We cannot just let 'imperfect' statements pass from our own pens and mouths against our intentions to live free from waste, erosion, radiation and who knows what heavy metals. We have a right to protect our nations from potentially catastrophic decision-making by the least reasonable possible member(s) of this assembly. Kind intentions to save us from overreach are sweet, and we value them greatly, including the author's attempt in this proposal. But good intentions just aren't enough to save us from underreach.

Respectfully yours with concern,
WA Division
Octopus Government

[Bisofeyr]

I find the conflict between independent investigatory bodies and member nations themselves, along with the inevitably backlog of approvals from the ESWA in approving all relevant actions to be a compelling reason for repeal. Bisofeyr is supportive of a replacement coming around, and we wish that such a wish had been present in this repeal given the international importance of such provisions, but we regardless see the inherent flaws in the target.

[Eireann Fae]

"The objectively wrong Believing clause having never been excised, we continue to stand AGAINST this repeal effort."

[Great Britain-and Northern Ireland]

[WA Floor – Representative of the United Kingdom, MP Amelia Graves rises to speak]

“Esteemed delegates,

The United Kingdom has carefully reviewed the repeal proposal concerning General Assembly Resolution #526 Land Reclamation Regulation and wishes to offer its considered view on the matter.

We recognise the concerns raised regarding procedural rigidity — particularly the critique that the resolution’s demand for independent impact assessments may, in practice, preclude sovereign governments from conducting such studies on their own initiatives. There is indeed a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the scope of bureaucratic oversight and the role of the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly in authorising all reclamation efforts, regardless of local context or national expertise.

That said, we must also weigh this against the original resolution’s intent: to safeguard ecological balance and prevent environmentally destructive land reclamation from proceeding without due scrutiny. In an era where coastlines, wetlands, and marine ecosystems are under constant threat from human intervention, it is not unreasonable for the international community to set minimum standards of review and transparency.

The United Kingdom is of the view that, while some procedural elements of GA#526 may warrant refinement or clarification, repealing the resolution outright — without offering a robust and immediate alternative — risks sending the wrong signal. Environmental governance should not be weakened without a clear replacement ready to uphold the same principles.

As such, the United Kingdom shall vote against this repeal, and urges fellow member states to consider reform over abandonment. If this resolution is flawed, let us correct it — not discard it entirely.

Thank you.”

[She nods soberly and retakes her seat.]

[South Socialism]

Deducing that member states (unlike private enterprises) are completely prohibited from embarking on land reclamation under GA#526, given that they cannot conduct "an independent survey" of the "potential ecological impacts" of their own projects,

I don't see why the state would have to, necessarily, conduct it's own impact study. Not all states are hardcore socialists, and even if they are, it's necessary to define "independent", because the creation of a corporation in a socialist state (not owned by a private individual, the ones USSR had) implies the free conduction of any work inside of it. Of course, it would have to follow some regulamentations, but the distribution of the profits is decided internally by assemblies, as well as any other production or administrative decision, making it independent while regulated by the state in some measure.
Therefore, in my view, even in communist or socialist states it is possible to conduct "independent" studies. In the other types of state, there isn't even a question of if it is possible: the government just hires some private company to do it and we are good to go.

So, I find the repeal unecessary in these terms. The rest of your caveats are evidently because #526 limits the freedom to destroy the enviornment for profits.

[Macedon Peoples]

"The council has reached a decision." Olivre states, clearing his throat. "While we believe the resolution to be absolutely right, we cannot support this without a replacement made to keep regulation on the topic of land reclamation. The council votes AGAINST the resolution and dismisses this session."

[Suzunaan]

It's unfortunate that most of the Outside World nations of the World Assembly are voting against this repeal. We would love for the foolish Outside World humans to destroy more of their ecology and forget that a clean environment has ever existed in their countries, which will all end up getting transported into the good hands of Gensokyo. Think of all the coral reefs we Gensokyans miss out (because we don't have a sea)!

Kosuzu Motoori, Chief Librarian of Suzunaan

[Caldesia]

Nations can conduct "independent" surveys. In the matter of surveys, independence is less about who commissions the survey, and more about the impartiality of the results. Survey conductors can be mandated to be open about their funding, and disclose any conflicts of interest. The nation itself can initiate the survey, as long as those involved are qualified and transparent. This is unnecessary, and the General Assembly's attention is better utilized elsewhere. Caldesia rejects this resolution.

[Honeydewistania]

ANOTHER TWENTY TRILLION TONNES OF SAND TO CHANGI!!!