[PASSED] Repeal "Nautical Pilotage Act"

[Moronist Decisions]

Please vote!

Original proposal: Nautical Pilotage Act.

Several clauses in the proposal are written in a manner that prohibit member nation action to the point that it paradoxically prevents good maritime pilotage.

The definition for pilotage that I've used in this particular Merriam-Webster defines pilotage as

the action or business of piloting

where the verb pilot is defined as

to act as a guide to : lead or conduct over a usually difficult course
2
a : to set and conn[sic] the course of <pilot a ship>
b : to act as pilot of <pilot a plane>

which is similar to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary

The function or office of pilot on a vessel; the employment of a pilot, esp. as prescribed by local law for shipping in particular stretches of water. Also: the art or skill of piloting a vessel, esp. in shallow or treacherous waters.

and is in line with that found in Wikipedia.

use of fixed visual references on the ground or sea by means of sight or radar to guide oneself to a destination, sometimes with the help of a map or nautical chart.

Here's the text

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES the importance of ensuring the safety of travelers at sea.

BELIEVES that the term “pilotage”, which is left undefined in this resolution, is best defined as “the act of navigating a ship”.

ACKNOWLEDGES that effective pilotage is important for travelers due to the presence of underwater hazards which may cause ships to run aground or capsize.

NOTES that while oversight zones, defined as the sum total of “international waters that are known to be traveled annually by at least a small, but steady subsection of the traveling population”, are required to be “equipped with proper buoyage, lighthouse or mark systems as defined by the World Assembly”, no agency or member nation is held responsible for creating these navigational markers.

QUESTIONS the ability of member nation authorities to sufficiently protect pilotage “from harm, vandalism or theft” in international waters, as WA member nations lack jurisdiction over vessels originating from non-member nations.

POINTS OUT that, since authorities and citizens of member nations “do not have the right or duty to pilotage an area that is within an Oversight-Zone”, voyagers from member nations will, in international waters designated as "Oversight Zones", either have to engage unregulated pilots from non-member nations or alternatively sail without any form of pilotage whatsoever, thus paradoxically increasing the perils of sailing in oversight zones.

REPEALS GA Resolution #104.

Co-authored by [nation=short]Mousebumples[/nation]

Questions, comments, concerns, and complaints, please.

[Inconsistence]

This proposal looks good to me. Of course I'm pretty new, but as far as I can tell it looks good.

[Ainocra]

Full Support, The Star Empire is responsible for several oceans on several worlds and this act has been nothing but a headache since it's inception.

[Moronist Decisions]

Thanks for your support.

I've removed a couple of clauses, and plan to submit soon if there are no more comments.

[Dashiopolis]

Dashiopolis extends full support. A resolution cannot be without a good definition.

[Ossitania]

Full support.

[Moronist Decisions]

Submitted!

[Flibbleites]

First to approve.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Philimbesi]

Support, does the ambassador foresee writing a replacement?

[The Altani Confederacy]

Approved, and supported.

-Sophie Fournier etc.

[Moronist Decisions]

I'd like to thank everyone for their support thus far.

Support, does the ambassador foresee writing a replacement?

The usual reminder that the repealing nation is not responsible for writing a replacement applies.

Due to the schedule of our staff and the rather difficult nature of having something that works well across the multiverse (given the fact that non-member nations outnumber member nations), we are not currently planning to write such a replacement ourselves.

[Philimbesi]

The usual reminder that the repealing nation is not responsible for writing a replacement applies.

The question was simple curiosity, not a demand. Thanks.

[Mousebumples]

Hrmm ... I come back from vacation and find a submitted proposal with my name on it as co-author? And with no public drafting involvement on my part either?

Anyhow: approved.

[Wu Wei Shan]

Since there is no replacement in the works we withhold support at this time.

[Philimbesi]

Since there is no replacement in the works we withhold support at this time.

Because a law that does the wrong thing is better than no law?

[Moronist Decisions]

Since there is no replacement in the works we withhold support at this time.

You're more than welcome to try and write a replacement, if you wish.

[Wu Wei Shan]

Since there is no replacement in the works we withhold support at this time.

Because a law that does the wrong thing is better than no law?

I will ponder this.

[Moronist Decisions]

I would like to remind delegates that I still need approvals for this. :-) Please approve!

[Knootoss]

Full support. 13 more approvals needed in 20 hours! Go go go!


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Gourgess]

Approved.

[Flibbleites]

We've got quorum!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Sanctaria]

We've got quorum!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Huzzah.

[Free South Califas]

[quote="Moronist Decisions";p="9534826"
Here's the text

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES the importance of ensuring the safety of travelers at sea.

BELIEVES that the term “pilotage”, which is left undefined in this resolution, is best defined as “the act of navigating a ship”.

[/quote]

We cannot help but notice that the resolution also failed to define "the", "a", "ship" and "navigating", which are also glaring omissions from this proposal. We suggest that international delegations should work around the clock to rectify similar issues in other existing legislation.

ACKNOWLEDGES that effective pilotage is important for travelers due to the presence of underwater hazards which may cause ships to run aground or capsize.

NOTES that while oversight zones, defined as the sum total of “international waters that are known to be traveled annually by at least a small, but steady subsection of the traveling population”, are required to be “equipped with proper buoyage, lighthouse or mark systems as defined by the World Assembly”, no agency or member nation is held responsible for creating these navigational markers.

According to our conversations in these halls, we are not the only delegation which suspects that the opposite might have occasioned a repeal for micromanagement.

QUESTIONS the ability of member nation authorities to sufficiently protect pilotage “from harm, vandalism or theft” in international waters, as WA member nations lack jurisdiction over vessels originating from non-member nations.

POINTS OUT that, since authorities and citizens of member nations “do not have the right or duty to pilotage an area that is within an Oversight-Zone”, voyagers from member nations will, in international waters designated as "Oversight Zones", either have to engage unregulated pilots from non-member nations or alternatively sail without any form of pilotage whatsoever, thus paradoxically increasing the perils of sailing in oversight zones.

The Califan delegation must be missing something; how does this disastrous state of affairs unravel from the status quo, exactly? Walk us through the process, please. Just pretend it isn't obvious.

[Ossitania]

Here's the text

We cannot help but notice that the resolution also failed to define "the", "a", "ship" and "navigating", which are also glaring omissions from this proposal. We suggest that international delegations should work around the clock to rectify similar issues in other existing legislation.

I think "pilotage" is a somewhat more technical term than the definite and indefinite articles of the English language, ambassador, especially since it's probably the bad definition that lead to the need for a repeal (I could be wrong but it seems like Uni thought that "pilotage" as a verb meant "to put navigational markers in an area" rather than "to navigate a ship" and that's where the problem originates).

According to our conversations in these halls, we are not the only delegation which suspects that the opposite might have occasioned a repeal for micromanagement.

Apparently ensuring that essential aspects of a resolution are carried out is "micromanagement" now. Oh wait, no it's not. Micromanagement is when the details of a resolution are mandated to an excessively specific degree. If you're going to use the lingo, use it right. It would be micromanagement if the resolution had stipulated the exact type and colour of the marking systems and the method of their placement. As it is, it's deficient because it doesn't require any particular group to be responsible for the placing of the the marking systems, meaning either some areas of international waters are without such markers or that some member-states have had to pick up the flack for other nations who've refused to participate in the deployment of the marking systems.

The Califan delegation must be missing something; how does this disastrous state of affairs unravel from the status quo, exactly? Walk us through the process, please. Just pretend it isn't obvious.

Nah, I'm going to make it seem as obvious as it is. Because of the misuse of the word "pilotage", the resolution text states that authorities and citizens of member-states do not have the right to navigate ships through frequently-sailed international water routes, which means that we must either charter navigators from non-member-states or sail without navigating, which should, fairly obviously, increase the danger of sailing in these routes rather than decrease it, as is the resolution's intent. Additionally, member-states are required to protect the marking systems deployed in international waters from being damaged, even though those waters are used by non-member-states, over which we have no jurisdiction.

Overall, I am unimpressed by this attempt at debate. You were quite snarky but didn't actually say anything of substance. We'll give it a 2/10 for plucky overconfidence and some effort.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We support this proposal, although we claim jurisdiction over all of the surface waters of the oversight zone nearest to our territories.