[DRAFT] Repeal “Uranium Mining Standards Act”

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Uranium Mining Standards Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Abacathea

Description: The World Assembly, noting its consistent efforts at bettering the environment for future and current generations;

Observing that the uranium mining industry plays a pivotal role in the economies of many member nations;

Concerned that whilst this industry is indeed of great importance to many member nations, this is often to ecological detriment;

Determined to ensure the least possible impact on the services this industry provides and the revenue it generates;

However refusing to allow this to take precedent over the often severe impact made on the landscape and environment;

Hereby;

i: Mandates that nations allowing uranium mining within their territory conduct an annual audit of each operational mine to ensure that basic radiation precautions are in place and being utilized.

ii: Charges all national governance with the responsibility of assessing operational mines for any issues relating to waste product disposal, radiation containment and structural integrity.

iii: Further requires all nations to conduct a survey on surrounding flora and fauna at potential mine sites and currently operational mine sites to ensure that the construction and resultant operation of the mine will not endanger nor has endangered any species in the general vicinity.

iv: Instructs nations who discover flora or fauna indigenous solely to the potential mine site to make documented efforts to relocate either the mine, or the relevant species to ensure that the species suffer as little impact as possible.

iv(a): In relation to mandate iv; should a nation be required to relocate a species they are required to coordinate these efforts with the Protection of Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) to ensure maximum efforts made at preservation.

v: Charges all national governments with assessing the areas directly around mining operations currently in progress and annually thereafter on all active mines, to ensure that no significant contamination of water supplies or soil has occurred and take all possible measures to treat and prevent the further spread of contamination if such is discovered.

vi: Re-establishes the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) with the provision to assist nations with the testing requirements under this act should they require it.

vii: Directs the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) to conduct these tests on behalf of nations and to give government mandates based off of these findings.

viii: Makes provision for nations to apply to the WA General Fund on the provision that they can show verified needs for assistance in order to conform to directives given by the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission (NESC) or by their own self audits.

ix: Empowers the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct any and all essential financial checks required to verify a nations economic requirements to conform to this act and to approve or deny funds appropriately.

Votes For: 6,868
Votes Against: 4,126

Implemented Sat Sep 14 2013

[WAR263 on NS] [WAR263 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]

Argument: The World Assembly,

Noting that World Assembly Resolution #263, “Uranium Mining Standards Act”, fails to identify any distinctly international component to the impact of uranium mining,

Arguing that economic activity without any demonstrated international impact can be adequately addressed by regulation at the national level,

Rejecting the need for specific international workplace safety legislation targeted at uranium mining given that the World Assembly has already passed Resolution #7, “Workplace Safety Standards Act”,

Further rejecting the need for specific international endangered species legislation targeted at uranium mining given that the World Assembly has already passed Resolution #66, “Endangered Species Protection”,

Yet further rejecting the need for specific international water contamination legislation targeted at uranium mining given that the World Assembly has already passed Resolution #107, “Clean Water Act”,

Deeply concerned that the power of the Nuclear Energy Safety Commission to give “government mandates”, granted by Resolution #263, is totally unchecked by any democratic input or oversight, or ability of nations to appeal such mandates,

Considering that World Assembly Resolution #357, “Promotion of Clean Energy”, has identified nuclear energy as a form of “clean energy”,

Asserting that deliberately targeting the uranium mining industry, the chief source of fuel for nuclear energy, with burdensome and unnecessary legislation is likely to curb the potential to fully employ nuclear energy and thereby produce an overall net negative environmental impact through a return to polluting fossil fuel industries,

Unconvinced that Resolution #263 advances any interest of overall international benefit, and,

Assured that repealing Resolution #263 will not allow any retreat on worker safety, endangered species protection, or water safety,

Repeals World Assembly Resolution #263, “Uranium Mining Standards Act”.

“This draft was written a number of years by my predecessor, Frau Doktor von Ausserkundszell, but we don’t believe any of the referenced elements have changed in the interim. We are presenting it again for further consideration.”

~ Hanna-Cäcilia von Treibknurfel im Ostruhntuhnkuhnland
First-and-a-Half Deputy Under-Secretary to the Foreign and Colonial Office

[Gaine Moon]

Noting that World Assembly Resolution #263, “Uranium Mining Standards Act”, fails to identify any distinctly international component to the impact of uranium mining,

"That is correct"

Arguing that economic activity without any demonstrated international impact can be adequately addressed by regulation at the national level,

"I agree with that. Unless an issue is international in scope, or affects the entire world, it should not be up to the World Assembly to legislate it."

Unconvinced that Resolution #263 advances any interest of overall international benefit

"This, for me, is the biggest issue. There is no reason why national governments cannot regulate the industry themselves. For example, in Gaine Moon, the Bureau of Mining efficiently regulates all mines without any help from the World Assembly."

-Roger McGeorge, Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"A lot of your arguments rely on the fact that there are other resolutions in place for dealing with certain issues, which means this repeal's arguments wouldn't work if said resolutions were repealed. That constitutes a violation of the House of Cards Rule."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"A lot of your arguments rely on the fact that there are other resolutions in place for dealing with certain issues, which means this repeal's arguments wouldn't work if said resolutions were repealed. That constitutes a violation of the House of Cards Rule."

Read the rules. No it doesn’t.

[Kenmoria]

"A lot of your arguments rely on the fact that there are other resolutions in place for dealing with certain issues, which means this repeal's arguments wouldn't work if said resolutions were repealed. That constitutes a violation of the House of Cards Rule."

Read the rules. No it doesn’t.

The rules say:

Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

This proposal relies on other resolutions to support it, it goes far beyond merely referencing them.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This is still valid precedent.

Also, the section of the rules you're quoting is "Proposal basics". Repeals have their own "basics" group of rules.

[Sciongrad]

Read the rules. No it doesn’t.

The rules say:

Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

This proposal relies on other resolutions to support it, it goes far beyond merely referencing them.

Gonna nip this in the bud right off the bat. Mentioning previous resolutions in repeals is never a violation of the HoC rule, provided no other rule is also being broken. For a proposal to violate the HoC rule, it must depend on some aspect of a previous resolution. If that previous resolution is repealed, then some aspect of the proposal in question would no longer be functional. This is not the case for a repeal. If every resolution mentioned in a repeal is repealed, that has no bearing on whether the repeal functions. Its only operative clause is the repeals clause, which can't ever depend on previous resolutions. You might think that the argument presented in the repeal depends on the continued existence of previous resolutions mentioned in the repeal, but that doesn't matter either. There is no rule against basing one's argument on the state of international law at any given time. As I've said before, for a proposal to violate the house of cards rule, it must, in fact, create a house of cards.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The purpose of the HoC rule is to prevent legislative requirements from no longer making logical sense due to repeals. Repeals cannot enact any requirements. Arguments are exempt from HoC. Any interpretation applying HoC to repeals, which cannot enact legislative requirements, cannot possibly be valid given the purpose of the rule.

---

It's nice to see you're back in the GA. Hopefully, the disappointment that the forum is still consumed with boring and pointless legality challenges hasn't soured its taste too much. After some reflection since the original posting of this post, I've decided that I will support the proposal. Well, subject to the possibility of future major concerns that might come up.

[Terra Novae Libero]

"The government of Terra Novae Libero will support this repeal. We wish to have greater freedom with our nation's uranium mines."

-Francis Johnson, Ambassador to the World Assembly