NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Terra Nullius Protection Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT] Terra Nullius Protection Act

Postby Lower Nubia » Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:43 am


Terra Nullius Protection Act
Category: Global Disarmament | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, as being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius, where applicable, as either:

    1) Territory free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s), as the result of territorial dispute.

    2) Territory that is uninhabited by people, or by people expressing sovereign claim, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘WA’ & ‘non-WA’ states.

CONCERNED with potential loopholes from prior WA legislation, which are occupied with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) & 2).

SEEKING to define territory that is not sovereign & limit, & make reprehensible, those actions which exploit these territories, in contravention of the principles of existing legislation, & in the absence of this resolution.

HOPING that the measures taken by this resolution allow both a peaceful response to international tensions surrounding terra nullius & provide assistance for judicial & police proceedings by having common regulations concerning illicit activities within terra nullius.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

    1) That any WA states' actions within terra nullius be consistent with prior & later supranational law, where applicable, as outlined by the WA, & this resolution.

    2) That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, who are given their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA.

    3) Concerning the responsibility of WA states, their citizens and corporations, when acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national state, or this resolution:

      a) A WA state is not liable for the actions of their citizens, or corporations unless said actions are coerced, or commanded, by that state where,

      b) Those individuals, or parties, may then be prosecuted, by, or through that respective state, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be brought before international courts of law; as per clauses 1 & 2.

    4) That WA states are not constrained by this resolution for terra nullius territory artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, by non-WA treaties. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treaties, are under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory.

    5) That terra nullius, being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null & void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings concerning actions within terra nullius:

      a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national & international and,

      b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.

    6) That this resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas.

    7) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work with disputing parties to uphold the rights for that within terra nullius & seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands expansionist members of the WA & their ‘effective occupation’, as the control of terra nullius by their power & jurisdictions in the absence of a proper sovereign. While recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of expansionist WA-nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim & establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

    1) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any WA resolutions prior to its claim.

    2) The claim is not contested legally by any power, people, or species, who maintain an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by the WA.

FURTHERMORE that dispute(s) resulting in terra nullius are both unsustainable & undesirable, encouraging WA states to act accordingly by need:

    1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

    2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

    3) To work with TNPC, & WANC, to assure the proper treatment & maintenance of supranational law for those, & that, located in terra nullius.

Co-authored by Lislandia.


Section I: Preamble:

Section I describes definitions and intent of this resolution:

"1) Territory free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s), as the result of territorial dispute.

2) Territory that is uninhabited by people, or by people expressing sovereign claim, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.
"

Definitions 1 & 2, both describe the situations from which terra nullius territory may exist. The distinction in these situations is important allowing discretion based on the circumstance, while not overstepping the WA's position on certain matters. As stated in definition 1, terra nullius that exists from dispute is a non-WA international issue, therefore is ultimately a national issue. The WA can, based on her principles, expect certain actions and restraint within terra nullius, but it can do little beyond this except seeking resolution (in dispute), Section IV, Clauses 1-3. Definition 2, however, covers areas of terra nullius which is free of inter-dispute, but may have intra-dispute under Section III, Clause 3, but is open for ownership through colonisation, and migration. To state that such areas are untouchable would be an affront to member state rights for which they may desire to expand, relocate, etc, within these territories. Of course in both definitions, being members of the WA, means they are obligated to WA principles: both acquired; in the form of resolutions, and ultimate; in the form of fairness, equality, etc. and of course consequences when such principles are broken, even in those territories which have no national, or even international, law. If we are to disregard these lands, we are to assume that the WA's universal principles simply be cuius regio, eius dogma, and therefore not universal principles, but regional principles. A self-defeating proposition unless we believe that it is simply land that manifests the WA's ultimate principles, i.e. fairness and equality. Of course, all of this is not to say that this resolution extends the GA's jurisdiction to res nullius but that an area having no law, does not discount from morally ir/reprehensible actions (as defined in other resolutions) from consequence - which should, with fairness, be administered or bought to order only within GA jurisdiction.

Meta: The above draft discusses 'sovereignty', but does not define it. This is primarily because the definition is contained somewhat ipse dixit in GA resolution #2 (as well as any other resolution discussing, and using the term, sovereignty). Membership covers a wide spectrum of societal forms from hunter-gatherers, 21st-century states, and dimensional empires. Therefore, to expect qualities of members, is, not only an assumed sovereignty for their membership, but also that allowing member states to have choice in it's government, is to crown authenticity for that vast spectrum of sovereign governance (or even lack thereof: anarchists) and therefore regardless of how that 'sovereignty', i.e. governance, jurisdiction, etc, is manifested for that group. Making, I feel, definitions simply impractical without some basic assumptions on what a "state" is. Likewise, used here, is that reasoning: if it is a state (member or non-member) it is sovereign, anything else of territory, is not. I do not believe it is necessary (or possible) to define here, even where it is not defined elsewhere.

Section II: Active Clauses 1-7:

Section II describes the allowances for terra nullius in both definition 1 & 2.

"1) That any WA states' actions within terra nullius be consistent with prior & later supranational law, where applicable, as outlined by the WA, & this resolution. "

Clause 1: Many GA resolutions have a set of principles: from a fair (criminal) trial to the protection of species, which are only limited at current from being enforced by jurisdiction (member or, where allowed, non-member state). These resolutions can be extended, as they cover ideas which are not specifically confined to a jurisdiction, yet criminal actions against their content could only be considered criminal assuming they are within some jurisdiction of a member state or, where allowed, non-member state. Of course, with areas of no legal jurisdiction, that then have actions performed by member states, member corporations, member citizens, etc, within them are not crimes, for there is no law, which this resolution deems unacceptable. This clause extends the principles of those resolutions set to terra nullius, and therefore actions in contravention to those resolutions can come to trial within GA jurisdiction: that of member states. Assuming, of course, it is an area of terra nullius, as outlined in definition 1) & 2). This removes potential exploitation of these areas, as allowed under GA resolution #116, Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with exploiting sovereign member or non-member territory, but not non-sovereign territory, i.e terra nullius.

"2) That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA."

Clause 2: A general clause on the protections offered within Terra nullius, should such other protection resolutions be repealed. However, this clause requires member states be responsible in terra nullius' protection, by informing (whether through immediate law, or even other forms of government communication) nationals (citizens) and corporations of that member state, where applicable, of the consequences of their actions. Of course, a member state is not, necessarily*, culpable for their citizens or corporation action, for they are ultimately independent.

*Unless coercing, or commanding said group, or are irresponsible (see above).

"3) Concerning the responsibility of WA states' citizens or corporations acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national state;

    a) A WA state is not culpable for the actions of their citizen's, or corporation's, unless evidence of coercion, command, or irresponsibility, of that state, is identified.

    b) May have charged, by, or through that respective state, those individuals, or parties, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be charged under international law; as per clauses 1 & 2.


Clause 3a) & b): Allows actions which the GA does not cover, but member state's law does cover, to hold those accountable within that state's legal system. This is only acceptable for actions done by, or on, that states citizens, corporations, assets, etc, it does not allow a member state's law to bring to trial any other member states citizens and corporations, unless they act in some way against that member's citizens, corporations, assets, etc. according to their law. Therefore demanding a degree of responsibility by a member state's for their citizens and corporations. Of course, this clause demands a degree of cooperation between states such as for extradition, but ultimately this is a national issue. For which this clause is under the assumption of a fair criminal trial (GA resolution #37) and extradition rules (GA resolution #147), and other forms of apparatus for removing inappropriate responses or, potential, corruption.

"4) That WA states do not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, through independent treatise. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treatise, are to remain under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory."

Clause 4:

After some thought, it occurred to me that this legislation can not condone forcing compliance with treatise based terra nullius agreements. For at least two reasons: 1) these treatises establish a land that isn't inherently no-ones as belonging to no-one. Technically they could include any land, the inhospitable as well as the hospitable. 2) It would mean national treaty becomes an international treaty, simply by demanding that any land that is recognised as terra nullius by any single nation, is counted as terra nullius to all nations, which is patently absurd.

"5) That terra nullius, being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null & void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings;

    a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national & international.

    b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.


Clause 5: Understands that individuals, corporations, and even states, may capitalise on a lack of legal system in terra nullius to deny criminal activity or intent, or circumvent international law. Clause 4a makes such positions, as a defence against that potential activity, to be null, and that such actions are fully culpable if against international or, with respect to clause 3, national law. Clause 4b may seem obsolete in terms of Section II, clause 4a & clause 1, however, certain resolutions may demand actions between jurisdictions to have treaty, therefore an extension of that resolution, provided in clause 1, does not alleviate the lack of treaty here (who can ratify for res nullius?). Therefore clause 4b outlines that terra nullius cannot be used as exemption from that need of treaty.

One may rule that GA resolution #197 makes clause 4b obsolete, however, it is noted that GA resolution #197 is only concerned with civilian rights, and not other forms of treaty concerning, potentially, any other non-civilian interactions which may require a treaty, e.g trade.

A convoluted, and not necessarily valid, case could also be made, against the spirit of the resolution #197, that it does not define areas of "no jurisdiction", only those having jurisdiction. To say that a negation of something is a variety of that very something leads to the conclusion: 'This resolution being not a table, is thus, a variety of table.' A logical curiosity.

"6) That this resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas."

Clause 6: Terra nullius is not limited to enclaves or exclaves, but may exist as semi-enclaves or semi-exclaves, such connection between terra nullius and the sea/ocean brings in a new dimension concerning jurisdiction of that coastal waters, which may require other arbitration through the World Assembly Nautical Commission (WANC). Of course the seas in connection with terra nullius is beyond the jurisdiction of this resolution, and comes under the jurisdiction of any resolution, or authority (WANC), concerning seas and ocean, but currently GA resolution #168.

"7) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius & seek resolution to dispute."

Clause 7: It is expected that terra nullius, being potentially high stakes, could lead to difficult and ongoing dispute which would require arbitration. In addition to this, as terra nullius has no representation for: demarcation, expected standards, and inhabited species would require some body to oversee the representation for the safeguarding of the given area.

Finally, Clauses 1-6 cover all (hopefully) bases of responsibility: 1) Respect of prior or future resolutions for international law. 2) Independent protection guaranteed by this resolution. 3) Member state sovereignty, respect in law, and responsibility for actions within terra nullius concerning themselves. 4) Safeguard of the above law in courts by recognising terra nullius's odd legal status. 5) Limitation of boundaries, and authority, of this resolution. 6) Representation of terra nullius.

Section III: Clauses a-c:

Section III describes the allowances of terra nullius in definition 2, the reasons for which are presented in Section I.

The nature of a claim (which could be by any spectrum of means, by word of desire, to active annexation) is an integral part of incorporating land for recognition by the international community. However, standards must exist so that such "integration" of territory, by WA members, is done in proper order as demanded by WA principles.

"a) The claim is made by a sovereign WA state."

Clause a: Technically circular reasoning, because the only WA member states that exist, must likewise be sovereign states. Though, in this case, the obvious should be stated, simply for clarification.

"b) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim."

Clause b: The desire to have control over terra nullius must be recognised as being in accord with international law, a failure here should result in questioning of that control over that territory. As presented in Section II, clause 2 & 3, member states have a responsibility, but are not culpable, for their citizens and corporations. If a corporation of member state A commits a crime in terra nullius (as per clause 2 & 3) and member state A, failed/fails to inform, warn, and then discipline (if possible and where necessary) such actions, it would be culpable through negligence of their responsibility to terra nuliius (Section II, clause 2) and of responsibility for their citizens and corporations (Section II, clause 3).

"c) The claim is not contested legally by any power, people, or species, who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation."

Clause c: Notable that the TNPC, being the representative for species (non sapient and sapient), protected within terra nullius, may contest a claim if the respective claimant is in contravention to privileges given by WA law, as presented through Section II, clauses 1-4. Clause c allows the TNPC to contest a claim, but also allows sapient natives to contest a claim, independently, within the courts of the claimant nation, but also within WA courts. A failure of the claimant nation to comply by their national law (potentially in an area which does not contravene WA law) is not a valid reason for contestation, as per clause c, in a WA court, which do not cover national issues.

When a claimant fails to meet any one of the three criteria, his claim will be in jeopardy and may be seen as invalid, assuming no reason is given to the contrary.

One may ask: "Why shouldn't a member state immediately colonise a section of terra nullius to alleviate the need for the claim system?"

There is no desire in this resolution to slow, or, even, hasten the speed of colonisation. The aim of this resolution is the protection of anything, needing protection, within terra nullius. If a nation colonises terra nullius, they admit that territory into the GA's jurisdiction, and therefore all applicable territory and, species, would be de facto protected by GA resolutions. If a nation wanted to forcibly relocate inhabitants in an area before colonisation, he would fail section II, clause 1 & 2, and therefore their claim would be unrecognised. It simply forces a "catch-22" for the colonising member state: deny the privileges given to that in terra nullius, and lose recognition of ownership of this land, or respect privileges given to that in terra nullius, and gain recognition.

"Why couldn't nation A, seeking to stall nation B's colonisation, place an individual in terra nullius who then contests nation B's future occupation to slow down B's legal colonisation?"

Clause c only allows effective occupants (those living in or given power) of terra nullius to lay a contestation. For member A to do so, he would need to strip that individual of their statehood, and then place them into terra nullius, which would be in contravention to GA resolution #386, reducing statelessness. In addition to this, the resolution gives no statutes of limitations, as long as the action was within the claiming period, recognition is not a singular moment occasion, nation b could colonise the territory and nations A's individual bring it before a court, be rejected, and nation b's claim would retroactively be seen as valid and recognised.

Likewise, in a different scenario, if nation C colonised the territory and effectively placed their jurisdiction over that terra nullius. Yet did do some action to jeopardise their claim, whose action was then bought before the court and found to be in contravention to international law, their current colonisation could be retroactively unrecognised. Assuming that their action could be legitimately placed before their occupation, if before that period, it would simply be a violation of GA law under Section II, clause 1 & 2). If after colonisation, it would simply be violation of GA law.

Section IV: Clauses 1-3:

Section IV is a series of guidelines for a civil, stable, and peaceful resolution to disputes (which may arise under definition 1 or from Section III).

"1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

3) To work closely with TNPC, & WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, & that, located in terra nullius.
"

Not much can be expected other than reasonable discourse. However, such discourse is rare and may have to enter into arbitration with aid of the TNPC or WANC.

Joint effort for this proposal draft by Lislandia and Lower Nubia

...


On Terra Nullius
Category: Political Stability | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, as being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius as:

1) A territorial dispute, or treatise, resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s).

2) A territory that is uninhabited or unoccupied by people, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

ESTABLISHED terra nullius exists for international, political, cultural, religious, ecological or economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly; or territory which has no current or previous sovereign claim.

IDENTIFYING the existence of disputes, or international treatise, which produce territory without any jurisdictions; under definition 1.

AWARE of the existence of territories around the world that are not presently under the jurisdiction of any power; under definition 2.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to adherence to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘members’ and ‘non-members’.

CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing potential loopholes as per GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).

SEEKS to define territory which is not sovereign and therefore limit exploitation of that territory, by member states, in contravention of existing legislation.

FORMULATES and requires that any member states' actions within terra nullius is both consistent and acts as an extension of prior and later supranational law, outlined by the World Assembly and this resolution.

NECESSITATES member states' actions be in accord with what has been defined regarding terra nullius, both with respect to this resolution and other WA resolutions. Protecting those species; sapient, non-sapient, and biomes, who utilise and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights defined by the World Assembly.

QUALIFIES the established parameters and law within seas and oceans, in accordance with GA Resolution #168: Law of the Seas; which this resolution does not overrule and falls in submission to the parameters surrounding territorial dispute in sea and ocean.

UNDERSTANDS the expansionist members of the World Assembly and their “effective occupation” as the control of terra nullius exercised by a power in the absence of a proper sovereign, while also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the right of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim and establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

a) The claim is made by a sovereign member state.

b) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim.

c) The claim is not contested by any power, people, or species who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation.

ADDITIONALLY, understands the existence of direct/indirect disputes which result in terra nullius, as defined here, as being both undesirable and unsustainable;

ENCOURAGES parties engaged in dispute over terra(e) nullius to seek peaceful resolution to their rival claims;

RECOMMENDS parties consult the World Assembly in the event they are unable to reach peaceful resolution on their own;

HEREBY establishes the formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC) to work closely with disputing parties, as well as WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, which is located in terra nullius.

Joint effort for this proposal draft by Lislandia and Lower Nubia


On Terra Nullius
Category: Political Stability | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius as:

    1) A territorial dispute, or treatise, resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s).

    2) A territory that is uninhabited or unoccupied by people, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

ESTABLISHED terra nullius exists for international, political, cultural, religious, ecological or economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly; or territory which has no current or previous sovereign claim.

RECOGNISES the existence of disputes, or international treatise, which produce territory without any jurisdictions; under definition 1.

AWARE of the existence of territories around the world that are not presently under the jurisdiction of any power; under definition 2.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to adherence to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘members’ and ‘non-members’.

CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing potential loopholes, as per GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).

SEEKS to define territory which is not sovereign and therefore limit exploitation of that territory, by member states, in contravention of existing legislation.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

    1) That any member states' actions within terra nullius is both consistent and acts as an extension of prior and later supranational law, outlined by the World Assembly and this resolution.

    2) That member states protect those species: sapient, non-sapient, and biomes, who utilise, and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights as defined by the World Assembly.

    3) That the established law within seas and oceans, is not usurped by this resolution which falls in submission to resolutions concerning territorial disputes in sea and ocean.

    4) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work closely with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius and seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands the expansionist members of the World Assembly and their “effective occupation”, as the control of terra nullius exercised by their power in the absence of a proper sovereign, while also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim and establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

    a) The claim is made by a sovereign member state.

    b) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim.

    c) The claim is not contested by any power, people, or species, who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation.

FURTHERMORE the existence of direct/indirect disputes which result in terra nullius, as defined here, are both undesirable and unsustainable;

ENCOURAGES member states to act accordingly by need:

    1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

    2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

    3) To work closely with TNPC, as well as WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, located in terra nullius.

Joint effort for this proposal draft by Lislandia and Lower Nubia


Terra Nullius Protection Act
Category: Global Disarmament | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, as being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius, where applicable, as either:

    1) Territory free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s), from the result of territorial dispute.

    2) Territory that is uninhabited by people, or by people expressing sovereign claim, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to adherence to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘members’ and ‘non-members’.

CONCERNED with potential loopholes from prior WA legislation, which are concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).

SEEKING to define territory which is not sovereign and limit, and make reprehensible, those actions which exploit these territories, in contravention of the principles of existing legislation, and in the absence of this resolution.

HOPING that the measures taken by this resolution, allow both a peaceful response to be sought for international tensions surrounding terra nullius and provide assistance for judicial and police proceedings by having common regulations concerning illicit activities within terra nullius.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

    1) That any member states' actions within terra nullius be consistent with prior and later supranational law, where applicable, as outlined by the World Assembly, and this resolution.

    2) That member states protect those biomes and species, sapient and non-sapient, who utilise, and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights as defined by the World Assembly.

    3) Concerning the responsibility of member states' citizens or corporations acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national member state;

      a) A member state is not culpable for the actions of their citizen's or corporation's actions, unless evidence of coercion, command, or irresponsibility, on the part of that state, is identified.

      b) May have charged, by, or through that respective state, those individuals, or parties, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be charged under international law; as per clauses 1 and 2.

    4) That member states shall not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius which is artificially created by member, or non member, states, through independent treatise, except for those signatory member states, of said treatise, who recognises that territory as terra nullius, who must comply with the statutes of this resolution.

    5) That terra nullius being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null and void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings;

      a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national and international.

      b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.

    6) That this resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas.

    7) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work closely with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius and seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands expansionist members of the World Assembly and their ‘effective occupation’, as the control of terra nullius by their power and jurisdictions in the absence of a proper sovereign. While also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim and establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

    1) The claim is made by a sovereign member state.

    2) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim.

    3) The claim is not contested legally by any power, people, or species, who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation.

FURTHERMORE the existence of direct/indirect dispute(s) which result in terra nullius, are both undesirable and unsustainable; leading to international instability.

ENCOURAGES member states to act accordingly by need:

    1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

    2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

    3) To work closely with TNPC, as well as WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, located in terra nullius.

Co-authored by Lislandia.


Terra Nullius Protection Act
Category: Global Disarmament | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, as being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius, where applicable, as either:

    1) Territory free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s), as the result of territorial dispute.

    2) Territory that is uninhabited by people, or by people expressing sovereign claim, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘WA’ & ‘non-WA’ states.

CONCERNED with potential loopholes from prior WA legislation, which are occupied with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) & 2).

SEEKING to define territory that is not sovereign & limit, & make reprehensible, those actions which exploit these territories, in contravention of the principles of existing legislation, & in the absence of this resolution.

HOPING that the measures taken by this resolution allow both a peaceful response to international tensions surrounding terra nullius & provide assistance for judicial & police proceedings by having common regulations concerning illicit activities within terra nullius.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

    1) That any WA states' actions within terra nullius be consistent with prior & later supranational law, where applicable, as outlined by the WA, & this resolution.

    2) That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA.

    3) Concerning the responsibility of WA states' citizens, or corporations, acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national state;

      a) A WA state is not culpable for the actions of their citizens, or corporations, unless evidence of coercion, command, or irresponsibility, of that state, is identified.

      b) May have charged, by, or through that respective state, those individuals, or parties, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be charged under international law; as per clauses 1 & 2.

    4) That WA states do not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, through independent treatise. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treatise, are to remain under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory.

    5) That terra nullius, being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null & void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings;

      a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national & international.

      b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.

    6) That this resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas.

    7) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius & seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands expansionist members of the WA & their ‘effective occupation’, as the control of terra nullius by their power & jurisdictions in the absence of a proper sovereign. While recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim & establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

    1) The claim is made by a sovereign WA state.

    2) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any WA resolutions in the process of its claim.

    3) The claim is not contested legally by any power, people, or species, who maintain an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by the WA.

FURTHERMORE that dispute(s) resulting in terra nullius are both unsustainable & undesirable, encouraging WA states to act accordingly by need:

    1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

    2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

    3) To work with TNPC, & WANC, to assure the proper treatment & maintenance of supranational law for those, & that, located in terra nullius.

Co-authored by Lislandia.
Last edited by Lower Nubia on Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:37 am, edited 59 times in total.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Dunmoyle
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Feb 23, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Dunmoyle » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:09 pm

I would say that I support this. It does seem like common sense that we have to deal with unclaimed/disputed territory, and I encourage this resolution's purpose to resolve that.

Overall, the writing is pretty clear and straightforward, and while I'm pretty new here, it doesn't seem like it will have any problems with GenSec. I will say however, it might have trouble getting a quorum of endorsements from delegates, as it's a resolution that isn't all that interesting to a lot of players, and it could seem like the issue it addresses doesn't really need a resolution to address it.

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 640
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:33 pm

So what of nations without a single human citizen? I may read through this more thoroughly later but that should be addressed.
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
Elyreia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 166
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:01 pm

Arasi Luvasa wrote:So what of nations without a single human citizen? I may read through this more thoroughly later but that should be addressed.

The previous ambassador brings up a glaring point. You'll need to remove humanocentrism from the document and account for those civilizations that also live in the air or in the water of certain landmasses.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki

World Assembly Ambassador: Āeksio Korus Vaelans (Character Dossier) << New, more to come.

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:48 pm

Elyreia wrote:
Arasi Luvasa wrote:So what of nations without a single human citizen? I may read through this more thoroughly later but that should be addressed.

The previous ambassador brings up a glaring point. You'll need to remove humanocentrism from the document and account for those civilizations that also live in the air or in the water of certain landmasses.


I’ve removed the “human” reference and replaced it with people, to fulfill the ambassadors desire for inclusivity. I believe the water species here are strictly under the authority of other resolutions especially #168. While air space is such a divulgent matter it may require other relations. Assuming they don’t already exist as proposals or law.
Last edited by Lower Nubia on Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Karteria
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 146
Founded: Jun 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Karteria » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:22 pm

OOC
These seems like a good idea, but it could use an overhaul on the wording. The entire proposal reads like a preamble; I would suggest numbering the clauses that you wish to be the body of the proposal, so that nations can distinguish. Right now, it feels redundant and tedious. When you section off the body from the preamble, I would put the TNPC clause above the rest, since it seems to be the most important part.

Also, is this a double negative, or am I reading it wrong?
CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither, producing potential loopholes as with GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).
World Assembly Delegate and Secretary-General for the New West Indies region.

References: | Wiki | Resume | Regional Government Overview |

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 640
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:21 pm

OOC:
More the wording is just incredibly clunky. I suggest rewording the sentence to be more clear. Don't try to stuff as much information as possible into a sentence.

CONCERNED that territory not occupied by either member nation or non-member nation could potentially produce loopholes within GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).


I think that is what you were trying to say. The problem may stem from that the clause in the original actually just restates the obvious (something obviously doesn't cover what it excludes), instead just focus on the fact that there are territories which may not be occupied by either.
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
East Gondwana
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 405
Founded: Jun 24, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby East Gondwana » Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:22 pm

This is a good idea, I'm in support of it.

Wording could be made a bit clearer in parts, especially this:
"ESTABLISHED either through international treaty on the part of member states whereby land is acknowledged as terra nullius...or territory which has no previous sovereign claim."

It's difficult to keep track of what it's saying, I had to reread it a few times. Maybe try dividing into multiple points, the latter building on the notion established in the former? Or maybe try incorporating it into the active clauses instead.

Also as mentioned above, it's generally a good idea to separate active clauses from the preamble (the justification for the resolution).
Looking forward to seeing this polished and finalised!
PRO: LGBTI rights and liberation, social democracy, libertarian socialism, trade unions, Uluru Statement From The Heart, democracy, human rights, feminism, climate action and environmentalism, BLM/SOSBA, two-state solution

ANTI: capitalism, fascism, authoritarianism, communism (all kinds), Australian immigration policy, cops at pride, corporate 'activism', racism, fossil fuels industry, state violence

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:15 am

Karteria wrote:OOC
These seems like a good idea, but it could use an overhaul on the wording. The entire proposal reads like a preamble; I would suggest numbering the clauses that you wish to be the body of the proposal, so that nations can distinguish. Right now, it feels redundant and tedious. When you section off the body from the preamble, I would put the TNPC clause above the rest, since it seems to be the most important part.

Also, is this a double negative, or am I reading it wrong?
CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither, producing potential loopholes as with GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).


I've produced a small draft here limiting the amount of preamble and then separating that preamble from active clauses in this rought draft:


On Terra Nullius
Category: Political Stability | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius as:

1) A territorial dispute, or treatise, resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s),

2) A territory that is uninhabited or unoccupied by people, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

ESTABLISHED terra nullius exists for international, political, cultural, religious, ecological or economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly; or territory which has no current or previous sovereign claim.

IDENTIFYING the existence of disputes, or international treatise, which produce territory without any jurisdictions; under definition 1.

AWARE of the existence of territories around the world that are not presently under the jurisdiction of any power; under definition 2.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to adherence to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘members’ and ‘non-members’.

CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing potential loopholes as per GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).

SEEKS to define territory which is not sovereign and therefore limit exploitation of that territory, by member states, in contravention of existing legislation.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

1) That any member states' actions within terra nullius is both consistent and acts as an extension of prior and later supranational law, outlined by the World Assembly and this resolution.

2) Member states protect those species; sapient, non-sapient, and biomes, who utilise and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights defined by the World Assembly.

3) That the established law within seas and oceans, in accordance with GA Resolution #168: Law of the Seas; which this resolution does not overrule and falls in submission too, surrounding territorial dispute in sea and ocean.

4) Establishes the formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC) to work closely with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius and seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands the expansionist members of the World Assembly and their “effective occupation”, as the control of terra nullius exercised by their power in the absence of a proper sovereign, while also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim and establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

a) The claim is made by a sovereign member state.

b) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim.

c) The claim is not contested by any power, people, or species who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation.

FURTHERMORE, understands the existence of direct/indirect disputes which result in terra nullius, as defined here, as being both undesirable and unsustainable;

ENCOURAGES member states are to act accordingly by need:

1) To respect the territorial integrity of all rival claimants;

2) Parties engaged in dispute over terra(e) nullius are to seek peaceful resolution on their own to rival claims;

3) That the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC) are to work closely with disputing parties, as well as WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, which is located in terra nullius.


Joint effort for this proposal draft by Lislandia and Lower Nubia


I've also looked at the double negative and added "neither party" to alleviate confusion. (An updated version of the above draft is presented on the OP)

Arasi Luvasa wrote:OOC:
More the wording is just incredibly clunky. I suggest rewording the sentence to be more clear. Don't try to stuff as much information as possible into a sentence.

CONCERNED that territory not occupied by either member nation or non-member nation could potentially produce loopholes within GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).


I think that is what you were trying to say. The problem may stem from that the clause in the original actually just restates the obvious (something obviously doesn't cover what it excludes), instead just focus on the fact that there are territories which may not be occupied by either.


I've reworded the "CONCERNED" section to:

"CONSERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing potential loopholes as per GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2)."

However, I do believe the argument from precedent, especially concerning nuclear waste, adds power to the concerned section.

But if you were looking for a more streamlined statement I believe the section could be:

"CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing the exploitation, by member states, of territory which is defined in 1) and 2)."

East Gondwana wrote:This is a good idea, I'm in support of it.

Wording could be made a bit clearer in parts, especially this:
"ESTABLISHED either through international treaty on the part of member states whereby land is acknowledged as terra nullius...or territory which has no previous sovereign claim."

It's difficult to keep track of what it's saying, I had to reread it a few times. Maybe try dividing into multiple points, the latter building on the notion established in the former? Or maybe try incorporating it into the active clauses instead.

Also as mentioned above, it's generally a good idea to separate active clauses from the preamble (the justification for the resolution).
Looking forward to seeing this polished and finalised!


I believe this clears up the wording of the prior "ESTABLISHED" section:

"ESTABLISHED terra nullius exists for international, political, cultural, religious, ecological or economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly; or territory which has no current or previous sovereign claim
Last edited by Lower Nubia on Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:18 am

I believe all of the concerns of the ambassadors are resolved in this particular draft of the above proposal:


On Terra Nullius
Category: Political Stability | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius as:

1) A territorial dispute, or treatise, resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s),

2) A territory that is uninhabited or unoccupied by people, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

ESTABLISHED terra nullius exists for international, political, cultural, religious, ecological or economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly; or territory which has no current or previous sovereign claim.

IDENTIFYING the existence of disputes, or international treatise, which produce territory without any jurisdictions; under definition 1.

AWARE of the existence of territories around the world that are not presently under the jurisdiction of any power; under definition 2.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to adherence to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘members’ and ‘non-members’.

CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing potential loopholes as per GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).

SEEKS to define territory which is not sovereign and therefore limit exploitation of that territory, by member states, in contravention of existing legislation.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

1) That any member states' actions within terra nullius is both consistent and acts as an extension of prior and later supranational law, outlined by the World Assembly and this resolution.

2) Member states protect those species; sapient, non-sapient, and biomes, who utilise and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights defined by the World Assembly.

3) That the established law within seas and oceans, in accordance with GA Resolution #168: Law of the Seas; is not usurped by this resolution and falls in submission to it concerning territorial dispute in sea and ocean.

4) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC) to work closely with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius and seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands the expansionist members of the World Assembly and their “effective occupation”, as the control of terra nullius exercised by their power in the absence of a proper sovereign, while also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim and establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

a) The claim is made by a sovereign member state.

b) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim.

c) The claim is not contested by any power, people, or species who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation.

FURTHERMORE, understands the existence of direct/indirect disputes which result in terra nullius, as defined here, as being both undesirable and unsustainable;

ENCOURAGES member states to act accordingly by need:

1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

3) To work closely with TNPC, as well as WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, located (with)in terra nullius.


Joint effort for this proposal draft by Lislandia and Lower Nubia


If I believe this does work around the issues of wording I will make it the official draft.

Edit: Several grammatical changes as noted by co-author Lislandia have been ammended: section 3) and 4) of HEREBY aswell as sections 1) 2) and 3) of section Encourages.
Last edited by Lower Nubia on Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Karteria
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 146
Founded: Jun 28, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Karteria » Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:00 am

Lower Nubia wrote:I believe all of the concerns of the ambassadors are resolved in this particular draft of the above proposal:


On Terra Nullius
Category: Political Stability | Effect: Mild |



The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius as:

1) A territorial dispute, or treatise, resulting in land free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s),

2) A territory that is uninhabited or unoccupied by people, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.

ESTABLISHED terra nullius exists for international, political, cultural, religious, ecological or economic reasons, whether directly or indirectly; or territory which has no current or previous sovereign claim.

IDENTIFYING the existence of disputes, or international treatise, which produce territory without any jurisdictions; under definition 1.

AWARE of the existence of territories around the world that are not presently under the jurisdiction of any power; under definition 2.

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to adherence to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘members’ and ‘non-members’.

CONCERNED that the extent of non-member and member territory does not cover areas belonging to neither party, allowing potential loopholes as per GA Resolution #116: Nuclear Waste Safety Act, which is concerned with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) and 2).

SEEKS to define territory which is not sovereign and therefore limit exploitation of that territory, by member states, in contravention of existing legislation.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

1) That any member states' actions within terra nullius is both consistent and acts as an extension of prior and later supranational law, outlined by the World Assembly and this resolution.

2) Member states protect those species; sapient, non-sapient, and biomes, who utilise and are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities and rights defined by the World Assembly.

3) That the established law within seas and oceans, in accordance with GA Resolution #168: Law of the Seas; is not usurped by this resolution and falls in submission to it concerning territorial dispute in sea and ocean.

4) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC) to work closely with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius and seek resolution to dispute.

ADDITIONALLY understands the expansionist members of the World Assembly and their “effective occupation”, as the control of terra nullius exercised by their power in the absence of a proper sovereign, while also recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim and establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

a) The claim is made by a sovereign member state.

b) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any World Assembly resolutions in the process of its claim.

c) The claim is not contested by any power, people, or species who maintains an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by World Assembly Legislation.

FURTHERMORE, understands the existence of direct/indirect disputes which result in terra nullius, as defined here, as being both undesirable and unsustainable;

ENCOURAGES member states to act accordingly by need:

1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;

2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;

3) To work closely with TNPC, as well as WANC, to assure the proper treatment and maintenance of supranational law for those, and that, located (with)in terra nullius.


Joint effort for this proposal draft by Lislandia and Lower Nubia

You should spoiler the previous drafts and leave the most current draft viewable.
World Assembly Delegate and Secretary-General for the New West Indies region.

References: | Wiki | Resume | Regional Government Overview |

User avatar
Denieria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 12
Founded: Jun 18, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Denieria » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:53 pm

I would like to voice my support for this draft resolution as the issue of terra nullius has never been defined and no provisions have been made for the resolving of this issue. I hope to see it in the GA chamber soon.
Last edited by Denieria on Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A resident of The West Pacific, currently serving as the WA Affairs Minister for the region.

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:10 pm

Denieria wrote:I would like to voice my support for this draft resolution as the issue of terra nullius has never been defined and no provisions have been made for the resolving of this issue. I hope to see it in the GA chamber soon.


Most courteous of you ambassador.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4754
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:06 am

“This looks good, if slightly over-complicated, and the idea has my support. I do however encourage you to indent your active clauses and check through the whole draft for grammatical mistakes, of which there are a few.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:48 am

Kenmoria wrote:“This looks good, if slightly over-complicated, and the idea has my support. I do however encourage you to indent your active clauses and check through the whole draft for grammatical mistakes, of which there are a few.”


I believe I’ve repaired the grammar in this proposal, ambassador, I’m not entirely sure, but is your concern over the apostrophe in resolutions’ in NOTING and member states’ in HEREBY section 1)?
Last edited by Lower Nubia on Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:08 pm

"After trawling through grammar, myself and Lislandia have submitted the draft proposal."
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2183
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:13 pm

OOC:

That was quick. Too quick in this case. At least one illegality at first glance. Your hereby clause 3 is a straightforward House of Cards.

I suggest more drafting regarding the layout as well. It's bloody hard to read!
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:23 pm

Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

That was quick. Too quick in this case. At least one illegality at first glance. Your hereby clause 3 is a straightforward House of Cards.

I suggest more drafting regarding the layout as well. It's bloody hard to read!


Clause 3) of HEREBY or ESTABLISHED?
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 548
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:24 pm

Lower Nubia wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC:

That was quick. Too quick in this case. At least one illegality at first glance. Your hereby clause 3 is a straightforward House of Cards.

I suggest more drafting regarding the layout as well. It's bloody hard to read!


Clause 3) of HEREBY or ESTABLISHED?


Of hereby. You can't rely on currently extant resolutions in your proposals; what if they get repealed?
Maowi


User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:26 pm

Maowi wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
Clause 3) of HEREBY or ESTABLISHED?


Of hereby. You can't rely on currently extant resolutions in your proposals; what if they get repealed?


Oh. Of course, so if " in accordance with GA Resolution #168: Law of the Seas," was removed, and the sentence read:

"That the established law within seas and oceans, is not usurped by this resolution and falls in submission to resolutions concerning territorial dispute in sea and ocean."

OOC: I've removed the quorum proposal, we were greatly mistaken to produce such a rushed draft apparently, and have reverted the discussion to draft format. At least it got everyone's attention. :)
Last edited by Lower Nubia on Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Hatzisland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 377
Founded: Feb 05, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Hatzisland » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:45 pm

WA delegate George Reagan glances at the page on March 1st. "Wow! This is very long! I'll read it later."
March 2nd: "Maybe tomorrow. This plan, especially considering its length, will take months to make it to the floor."
March 3rd: "What! It's been proposed already?"

In all seriousness, this was way to short of a drafting time, especially for a plan as long as this(last I read, it was struck down as illegal.) You should wait and take more input from the community. Reading through it, should it be upheld as legal, we would probably support it, though Mr. Reagan will probably have to read though it one more time. He's never read so many words before.
Last edited by Hatzisland on Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The world dies when freedom dies"
-A wise man(me)
Dedicated to repealing GAR #286 and GAR #457, as well as fighting the radical globalists in the WA.
Currently Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, which goes to show how flawed the naming system is.
Passed Biology knowing there are two genders, and passed History knowing conservatism works.

User avatar
Lower Nubia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 688
Founded: Dec 22, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lower Nubia » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:47 pm

Hatzisland wrote:WA delegate George Reagan glances at the page on March 1st. "Wow! This is very long! I'll read it later."
March 2nd: "Maybe tomorrow. This plan, especially considering its length, will take months to make it to the floor."
March 3rd: "What! It's been proposed already?"

In all seriousness, this was way to short of a drafting time, especially for a plan as long as this(last I read, it was struck down as illegal.) You should wait and take more input from the community. Reading through it, should it be upheld as legal, we would probably support it, though Mr. Reagan will probably have to read though it one more time. He's never read so many words before.


"I believe the best way to learn is through abject failure. At least it got everyone's attention."
  1. Graduated
    in Biochemistry
  2. Christian
  3. Aspergers
    Syndrome
  4. English
  5. Centre-right
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 1st July, 2019

User avatar
Hatzisland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 377
Founded: Feb 05, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Hatzisland » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:48 pm

Lower Nubia wrote:
Hatzisland wrote:WA delegate George Reagan glances at the page on March 1st. "Wow! This is very long! I'll read it later."
March 2nd: "Maybe tomorrow. This plan, especially considering its length, will take months to make it to the floor."
March 3rd: "What! It's been proposed already?"

In all seriousness, this was way to short of a drafting time, especially for a plan as long as this(last I read, it was struck down as illegal.) You should wait and take more input from the community. Reading through it, should it be upheld as legal, we would probably support it, though Mr. Reagan will probably have to read though it one more time. He's never read so many words before.


"I believe the best way to learn is through abject failure. At least it got everyone's attention."


True. We hope to see this plan back on the floor soon.
"The world dies when freedom dies"
-A wise man(me)
Dedicated to repealing GAR #286 and GAR #457, as well as fighting the radical globalists in the WA.
Currently Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, which goes to show how flawed the naming system is.
Passed Biology knowing there are two genders, and passed History knowing conservatism works.

User avatar
Freed Australia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Dec 19, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Freed Australia » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:03 am

I'm in favour, simply

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13217
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:16 pm

OOC: You define this Latin term as both a dispute/treatize and a place. That doesn't work. Also, I bet if I googled those definitions, I'd get Wiki or dictionary hit. Are you aware that plagiarism can get you thrown out of the WA? And that copying from an online source (or changing a word here and there) counts as plagiarism?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret

Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Araraukar, Mettaton-EX, Morover, Redawnia

Advertisement

Remove ads