NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Marine Protection Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

[DRAFT] Marine Protection Act

Postby Cretox State » Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:06 am

"While national parks and the like are (naturally) best left for individual governments to administer, we feel that regulating the activities of member nations in international waters in order to preserve marine ecosystems is certainly in the interests of an international body."

Edit: Draft 3 is up; less power to the gnomes!

Marine Protection Act
Alternatively: International Administration of Marine Sanctuaries

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses - Mild

The World Assembly,

Noting the importance of a healthy marine environment in maintaining biodiversity, enabling sustainable fishing and other commercial activities, and ensuring that people are fully able to enjoy recreational and cultural activities,

Applauding the commitment of this august body to the preservation of environmental health, including the integrity of marine environments,

Lamenting the lack of existing World Assembly resolutions designed to address destructive practices in essential marine environments, including unsustainable harvesting of marine organisms, heavy tourist traffic, waste dumping, and industrial activities, and

Wishing to remedy this deficiency by establishing an international framework for the protection of marine environments, hereby:

  1. Defines "regulations" as reasonable restrictions on any of the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
    1. the types and scale of fishing and other harvesting of marine organisms;
    2. the dumping of waste;
    3. access to tourists and the activities tourists may undertake; and
    4. industrial activities, such as oil drilling and refinement;
  2. Establishes the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to oversee the protection of critical marine environments in international waters, with the following responsibilities:
    1. identifying areas within international waters which would benefit from sanctuary designation due to said areas meeting any of the following conditions:
      1. being critical to the survival and growth of a species due to serving as a major spawning, breeding, or feeding area;
      2. serving as a habitat containing a significant level of biodiversity;
      3. containing a notable shipwreck or other site of cultural or historical significance;
    2. designating such areas as sanctuaries, and implementing regulations in said areas to further the purpose for which said sanctuaries were designated;
    3. compiling and maintaining a comprehensive report on the state and health of the marine environment within each sanctuary as applicable to the purpose for which that sanctuary was designated, to be available upon request to any member nation; and
    4. ensuring that member nations are appraised of the regulations enacted within a sanctuary should they desire that information;
  3. Clarifies that any regulations implemented under this resolution must comply with other World Assembly resolutions;
  4. Permits member nations to petition the CPME to remove sanctuary designation from an area or modify regulations implemented pursuant to this resolution in that area, which the CPME shall thoroughly review before making a decision on the matter;
  5. Urges member nations to take further measures within their jurisdiction to protect marine environments.
Last edited by Cretox State on Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:03 pm, edited 17 times in total.

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:06 am

Convention on Marine Sanctuaries

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses (Mild)

The World Assembly,

Noting the importance of marine environments in ensuring cultural and social wellbeing, maintaining biodiversity, and providing economic opportunities for current and future generations;

Applauding prior efforts by this august body to protect specific environments and environmental health in general;

Lamenting the lack of existing protections for ecologically and culturally significant environments within international waters;

Wishing to remedy this deficiency by establishing an international framework for the protection of marine environments, hereby:
  1. Establishes the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to oversee the administration of sanctuaries and the protection of marine environments, with the responsibilities of:
    1. identifying areas within international waters which would benefit from sanctuary designation due to their ecological, cultural, recreational, or aesthetic value;
    2. designating such areas as sanctuaries after consulting with and giving due consideration to the responsible officials of any member nation whose industries may reasonably be directly impacted by said areas being designated as sanctuaries;
    3. implementing appropriate and reasonable regulations relating to any activities permitted within a sanctuary, in order to protect the environment within a sanctuary and further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;
    4. compiling and updating a report regarding the status of each sanctuary, to be available upon request to the responsible officials of any member nation and include:
      1. a comprehensive review of the actions undertaken pursuant to this resolution;
      2. a comprehensive report on the state and health of the marine environment within the sanctuary as applicable to the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated; and
      3. a report on future regulations deemed reasonable and necessary to further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;
    5. reviewing requests from the responsible officials of member nations to designate a sanctuary pursuant to this resolution within their territorial waters;
  2. Clarifies:
    1. the CPME may:
      1. remove or modify regulations enacted pursuant to this resolution within a sanctuary should removal or modification serve to further the purpose of that sanctuary;
      2. remove sanctuary designation from an area after consulting with and giving due consideration to the responsible officials of any member nation whose industries are directly impacted by the sanctuary existing in that area;
    2. no authorization regarding activities performed within a sanctuary shall be valid unless the CPME certifies that said activities comply with the regulations implemented under this resolution;
    3. any regulations implemented under this resolution must comply with established international law;
    4. no regulations implemented under this resolution shall be applicable to nations lacking World Assembly membership;
  3. Urges member nations to take measures to protect marine environments.

Convention on Marine Sanctuaries

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: All Businesses (Mild)

The World Assembly,

Noting the importance of marine environments in ensuring cultural and social wellbeing, maintaining biodiversity, and providing economic opportunities for current and future generations;

Applauding prior efforts by this august body to protect specific environments and environmental health in general;

Lamenting the lack of existing protections for ecologically and culturally significant environments within international waters;

Wishing to remedy this deficiency by establishing an international framework for the protection of marine environments, hereby:
  1. Defines a "sanctuary" as an area subject to special regulation pursuant to this resolution;
  2. Establishes the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to oversee the administration of sanctuaries and the protection of marine environments, with the responsibilities of:
    1. identifying areas within international waters which would benefit from sanctuary designation due to their ecological, cultural, recreational, or aesthetic value;
    2. designating such areas as sanctuaries after consulting with and giving due consideration to the responsible officials of any member nation whose industries may reasonably be directly impacted by said areas being designated as sanctuaries;
    3. implementing appropriate and reasonable regulations relating to any activities permitted within a sanctuary, in order to protect the environment within a sanctuary and further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;
    4. releasing an annual report regarding the status of each sanctuary, to include:
      1. a comprehensive review of the actions undertaken in the previous year pursuant to this resolution;
      2. a comprehensive report on the state and health of the marine environment within the sanctuary as applicable to the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated; and
      3. a report on future regulations deemed reasonable and necessary to further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;
    5. reviewing requests from the responsible officials of member nations to designate a sanctuary pursuant to this resolution within their territorial waters;
  3. Clarifies:
    1. no authorization regarding activities performed within a sanctuary shall be valid unless the CPME certifies that said activities comply with the regulations implemented under this resolution;
    2. any regulations implemented under this resolution must comply with established international law;
    3. no regulations implemented under this resolution shall be applicable to nations lacking World Assembly membership;
  4. Urges member nations to take measures to protect marine environments.
Last edited by Cretox State on Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:44 am

OOC: Aside from "All Businesses: Mild", the AoEs have a hidden strength of Strong, and at least Significant. You're having the committee do everything with a single urges clause for nations, which is Mild strength approach. Try rewriting it so that you make the member nations do everything the committee now does? I don't really see anything (aside from subclause e. which wouldn't be necessary anyway) that couldn't or shouldn't be delegated to the member nations to begin with.

Aside from that, the AoE seems appropriate, but have you checked all the other relevant extant resolutions?
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:52 am

May be relevant: SOMETHING NOT RELEVANT (probably)
Last edited by Honeydewistania on Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:55 am

Honeydewistania wrote:May be relevant: *snipped link to a defunct draft*

OOC: Not really, given the thread hasn't been posted in 3 years, and that it never got passed. You might want to remove the link to prevent someone unintentionally gravedigging it.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:58 am

Araraukar wrote:
Honeydewistania wrote:May be relevant: *snipped link to a defunct draft*

OOC: Not really, given the thread hasn't been posted in 3 years, and that it never got passed. You might want to remove the link to prevent someone unintentionally gravedigging it.

Hmm yeah.
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6231
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:27 am

“I don’t think that you need clause 1, since clauses 2a and 2b define a sanctuary more accurately.”
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
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:26 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I don’t think that you need clause 1, since clauses 2a and 2b define a sanctuary more accurately.”

“Clause 1 has been removed.”
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Aside from "All Businesses: Mild", the AoEs have a hidden strength of Strong, and at least Significant. You're having the committee do everything with a single urges clause for nations, which is Mild strength approach. Try rewriting it so that you make the member nations do everything the committee now does? I don't really see anything (aside from subclause e. which wouldn't be necessary anyway) that couldn't or shouldn't be delegated to the member nations to begin with.

Aside from that, the AoE seems appropriate, but have you checked all the other relevant extant resolutions?

OOC: An issue I have with the draft previously linked by Honeydewistania is that it attempts to legislate for member nations and enforce treaties on their behalf. Regardless, I’ll write a draft without the committee and see what comes of it. I’ll also look at the categories of previous marine resolutions.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:16 am

Cretox State wrote:I’ll also look at the categories of previous marine resolutions.

OOC: If you're only looking per category/AoE in some kind of list, you might miss some, since not everything related has been passed in Environmental category. And many things that have an effect on any marine sanctuary (as the term is understood in RL at least), have to do with coastal things and, more generally, pollution.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:22 am

Araraukar wrote:
Cretox State wrote:I’ll also look at the categories of previous marine resolutions.

OOC: If you're only looking per category/AoE in some kind of list, you might miss some, since not everything related has been passed in Environmental category. And many things that have an effect on any marine sanctuary (as the term is understood in RL at least), have to do with coastal things and, more generally, pollution.

OOC: I changed the AoE to All Businesses - Mild, since the proposal could easily lead to regulation of things that have nothing to do with fishing, like waste dumping (industry in general), scuba diving (tourism), drilling, etc.
Last edited by Cretox State on Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:22 am

Cretox State wrote:waste dumping (industry in general) *snip* drilling, etc.

OOC: Check if the waste dumping into oceans one ever made it through vote, and quite sure there's one specifically about offshore drilling. There's also at least one about economic zones and coastal waters and what nations can and can't do in them.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6997
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 06, 2020 12:19 pm

Araraukar wrote:Check if the waste dumping into oceans one ever made it through vote

Discarded for duplication of GA#441.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador ~ Achievements
3 SC Resolutions + 0 co-authored:
A: SC#250, Repeal "Liberate Femdom Empire" (87%)
A: SC#251, Commend Alasdair I Frosticus (91%)
A: SC#267, Repeal "Liberate The East Pacific" (90%)

1 GA Resolution + 1 co-authored:
A: GA#484, Disease Naming Compact (54%)
C: GA#491, Rights of the employed (54%)

0 Issues + 1 co-authored:
C: #1115, One in the Arm for @@LEADER@@?

73rd Cup of Harmony - CHAMPIONS

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:25 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Check if the waste dumping into oceans one ever made it through vote

Discarded for duplication of GA#441.

I think any possible duplication should be covered by clause 2(b).

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:11 am

Added clarification for the removal/modification of CPME regulations. Personally, I feel that a committee would be the best option for establishing regulated zones in international waters. Otherwise, the proposal would stray too close to legislating and enforcing treaties on behalf of member nations for my liking.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:00 pm

Cretox State wrote:Otherwise, the proposal would stray too close to legislating and enforcing treaties on behalf of member nations for my liking.

OOC: It still does that, except it also does it for non-member nations. Honestly, the WA should stay on its own turf; legislate for member nations rather than international waters that are literally not the WA's to control.

And I know I promised to do the thorough feedback today, but the *bleep*s that live in the apartment above mine, have made night-time rest a rare and precious resource that's in short supply, so I'm going to try and get some sleep when they're being somewhat quieter for a bit.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:31 pm

OOC: And while the CPME decides whether to let a member nation destroy a marine sanctuary for oil or dumping waste, a non-member will have come, built that oil rig, dumped the waste, destroyed any semblance of a 'sanctuary' and now by the time the decision is made, the member nation has neither the sanctuary nor the oil while the non-member is pissing black gold on the former sanctuary as well as this resolution. :rofl:
Last edited by Ardiveds on Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zaberaz Hapang
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Apr 29, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Zaberaz Hapang » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:26 am

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: And while the CPME decides whether to let a member nation destroy a marine sanctuary for oil or dumping waste, a non-member will have come, built that oil rig, dumped the waste, destroyed any semblance of a 'sanctuary' and now by the time the decision is made, the member nation has neither the sanctuary nor the oil while the non-member is pissing black gold on the former sanctuary as well as this resolution. :rofl:

OOC: agree, some type of surveillance should be applied to assure non-member nations don't destroy the sanctuaries, maybe some type of patrol or something like that (I'm just thinking out loud right now)
Last edited by Zaberaz Hapang on Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:58 am

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: And while the CPME decides whether to let a member nation destroy a marine sanctuary for oil or dumping waste, a non-member will have come, built that oil rig, dumped the waste, destroyed any semblance of a 'sanctuary' and now by the time the decision is made, the member nation has neither the sanctuary nor the oil while the non-member is pissing black gold on the former sanctuary as well as this resolution. :rofl:

OOC: agree, some type of surveillance should be applied to assure non-member nations don't destroy the sanctuaries, maybe some type of patrol or something like that (I'm just thinking out loud right now)

OOC: Well the WA can't have a military so the patrols will have to be done by a member nation but I'm not sure whether a resolution can ask members to go to war with non-members if they don't back down especially since we are talking about international waters here which is owned by neither the WA nor its members (also not sure many people would even accept that).
Last edited by Ardiveds on Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:50 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

OOC: agree, some type of surveillance should be applied to assure non-member nations don't destroy the sanctuaries, maybe some type of patrol or something like that (I'm just thinking out loud right now)

OOC: Well the WA can't have a military so the patrols will have to be done by a member nation but I'm not sure whether a resolution can ask members to go to war with non-members if they don't back down especially since we are talking about international waters here which is owned by neither the WA nor its members (also not sure many people would even accept that).

Here's the problem: this argument can be applied to literally every GA resolution ever passed. Protections for workers? Useless, because companies can just outsource to non-WA nations. War crimes? What's to stop non-member nations from shooting civilians and using gas? Do you want to make nations lose wars just for being in the WA? Environmental proposals? Non-member nations are just going to pollute all over the place and destroy the environment. Salvage operations? Refugee protection? Land erosion? Same thing.

No resolution applies to non-WA nations. A WA committee can't enforce its will on non-member nations. The point of this proposal is to regulate the activities of member nations in certain areas, thereby allowing for the preservation of those areas for ecological or cultural reasons. I don't see "it doesn't apply to non-members" as a valid argument. That's what treaties are for.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:15 am

Cretox State wrote:Here's the problem: this argument can be applied to literally every GA resolution ever passed. Protections for workers? Useless, because companies can just outsource to non-WA nations. War crimes? What's to stop non-member nations from shooting civilians and using gas? Do you want to make nations lose wars just for being in the WA? Environmental proposals? Non-member nations are just going to pollute all over the place and destroy the environment. Salvage operations? Refugee protection? Land erosion? Same thing.

No resolution applies to non-WA nations. A WA committee can't enforce its will on non-member nations. The point of this proposal is to regulate the activities of member nations in certain areas, thereby allowing for the preservation of those areas for ecological or cultural reasons. I don't see "it doesn't apply to non-members" as a valid argument. That's what treaties are for.

OOC: Regulating activies in a member nation's territory is understandable but we are talking about international waters here which does not belong to the WA or its members. Of corse, if that doesn't matter to you, its your resolution, do with it what you want.

User avatar
Zaberaz Hapang
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Apr 29, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Zaberaz Hapang » Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:42 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

OOC: agree, some type of surveillance should be applied to assure non-member nations don't destroy the sanctuaries, maybe some type of patrol or something like that (I'm just thinking out loud right now)

OOC: Well the WA can't have a military so the patrols will have to be done by a member nation but I'm not sure whether a resolution can ask members to go to war with non-members if they don't back down especially since we are talking about international waters here which is owned by neither the WA nor its members (also not sure many people would even accept that).

I had said I was just thinking out loud :)

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:43 am

Cretox State wrote:No resolution applies to non-WA nations. A WA committee can't enforce its will on non-member nations.

OOC: Your proposal doesn't agree with you. You're mandating international areas with the committee "implementing appropriate and reasonable regulations relating to any activities permitted within a sanctuary, in order to protect the environment within a sanctuary and further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated". How is that NOT imposing a WA committee's will over nonmembers as well? Nothing in that clause says the committee's decisions only apply to member nations' activities. The b. and e. subclauses specifically refer to member nations. The rest of clause 1. doesn't.

Either change b. so that it applies to all nations - there are precedents of non-members being able to opt in, to WA schemes, so I think hearing from them before making international restrictions of area use, would be a good idea - or specify that c. only applies to member nations.

Also, 1.d. - is annual reporting really necessary? Who is the committee reporting anything to? Itself? And 1.d.i., "actions undertaken", by whom? The committee? Private citizens? Every nation in existence? What about 1.d.ii.? Are you aware of this resolution?

Consider the following the OOC part of the help on this proposal, for combing through the resolutions list for anything applicable. (I may have missed one or two.)

More generally, this resolution. And this, given that it only mandates oil producers to comply with that particular committee's restrictions. This is quite relevant. This applies to sea animals as well (in RL many fish and cetacean species), if they cross national borders (and coastal waters are basically counted as part of the nation's sovereign territory by this resolution).

As for pollution, clause 1 of this doesn't specify it doesn't apply to seas. (This is perhaps slightly less relevant, but rivers tend to end up in seas eventually.) This is actually relevant. This you might want to ban happening in the sanctuaries specifically (the resolution doesn't stop you from doing so, I checked). Relevant. Sound pollution has its own resolution. This would seem to apply in marine environments as well. Clause 6 of this. And I guess that this doesn't say anything about applying only close to shore.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:05 am

Araraukar wrote:--Snip--

That's a lot to comb through; thanks for taking the time to do that. Clauses 2c and 2d are supposed to limit the proposal to only apply to WA nations. I'll look through the resolutions you've linked.

User avatar
Cretox State
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 438
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Cretox State » Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:14 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Cretox State wrote:No resolution applies to non-WA nations. A WA committee can't enforce its will on non-member nations.

OOC: Your proposal doesn't agree with you. You're mandating international areas with the committee "implementing appropriate and reasonable regulations relating to any activities permitted within a sanctuary, in order to protect the environment within a sanctuary and further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated". How is that NOT imposing a WA committee's will over nonmembers as well? Nothing in that clause says the committee's decisions only apply to member nations' activities. The b. and e. subclauses specifically refer to member nations. The rest of clause 1. doesn't.

Either change b. so that it applies to all nations - there are precedents of non-members being able to opt in, to WA schemes, so I think hearing from them before making international restrictions of area use, would be a good idea - or specify that c. only applies to member nations.

OOC: Isn't that covered by clauses 2(c) and 2(d)? Specifically the latter, which states "no regulations implemented under this resolution shall be applicable to nations lacking World Assembly membership."

Araraukar wrote:Also, 1.d. - is annual reporting really necessary? Who is the committee reporting anything to? Itself? And 1.d.i., "actions undertaken", by whom? The committee? Private citizens? Every nation in existence? What about 1.d.ii.? Are you aware of this resolution?

Good point. I changed that part to mandate an up-to-date report be maintained by the committee, which is available upon request.

Edit: Available to the governments of member nations specifically.

Edit 2: This is a bump for additional feedback, by the way.
Last edited by Cretox State on Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 19, 2020 6:58 am

OOC: So I'm only like 3-4 days late in getting back to you... *waves hand in a Jedi manner* ...these are not the droids you are looking for I am completely on time. Do Sith have that kind of trick? I'd really prefer using the Dark Side of the Force.

Cretox State wrote:OOC: A proposal to establish an international system of marine sanctuaries for the purpose of protecting, researching, and reporting on marine environments with special ecological, cultural, or other value. My biggest concern at the moment is the category.

OOC: You can delete this. The category is no longer your biggest concern, and the rest of it looks like trying to write yourself the boilerplate description the game code attaches to proposals, which depends entirely on the category it's submitted in.

“While national parks and the like are (naturally) best left for individual governments to administer, we feel that regulating parts of international waters to preserve marine ecosystems is certainly in the interests of an international body.”

IC: "Given the World Assembly is not an organization that all nations in the multiverse belonged to, I really don't see what business it has in trying to legislate for the 88% of all nations that do not belong to it?"

Convention on Marine Sanctuaries

OOC: "Convention on" is only marginally better than just "on", and since you're mandating stuff on nations, instead of the nations coming to an agreement between themselves, it's not really a convention either, so try to think of something else, please? You could simply name it "Marine Sanctuaries" or "International Marine Sanctuaries" to be more accurate. That would be enough. No need to stuff in an artificial act or convention or agreement or whatever Legalese buzzword.

Noting the importance of marine environments in ensuring cultural and social wellbeing, maintaining biodiversity, and providing economic opportunities for current and future generations;

IC: "I really don't understand how cultural and social wellbeing are affected, so you might instead go for something like "Noting the importance of healthy marine environment in maintaining marine biodiversity, enabling sustainable fishing and other marine harvesting, as well as making it possible for people to enjoy recreational activities" or something like that. I would also add a separate clause for "Aware of hotspots of marine life biodiversity and other significant areas, such as those used for spawning or feeding", as those are the areas most in need of protection."

Applauding prior efforts by this august body to protect specific environments and environmental health in general;

IC: "I might reword this slightly as "Applauding the commitment of the General Assembly on ensuring environmental health and similar protections, including those for marine environments", because, let's be honest, it's not like marine environments hadn't been legislated on before, so you should acknowledge that and then move on to the specific issue you want to address."

Lamenting the lack of existing protections for ecologically and culturally significant environments within international waters;

IC: "The cultural significance bit just doesn't belong here, and also, while there might be some issues with World Assembly legislation, there certainly isn't on international level otherwise! For example, Araraukar is fully committed to Marine Mammal Hunting Ban, as well as Shark Breeding Grounds Protection Act and Jellyfish Proliferation Prevention Convention, all of which are international agreements in effect on our planet, and specifically target marine life hotspots in international waters. So, I suggest changing your text there to specify the lack of World Assembly resolutions, as well as, again, dropping the cultural mention."

OOC: Why do you keep the cultural thing in at all? Also, you've neglected any mentions of what would damage the areas you want to protect, such as harmful or locally non-sustainable harvesting of marine organisms, too much traffic through the area interfering with marine life, and tourists bugging the animals.

Wishing to remedy this deficiency by establishing an international framework for the protection of marine environments, hereby:

IC: "You're not really doing that, though. You're establishing a committee and making it do everything."

OOC: What she said. I still urge you to try to do everything with minimum committee interference, rather than the other way round.

Establishes the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to oversee the administration of sanctuaries and the protection of marine environments, with the responsibilities of:

IC: "What does "administration of sanctuaries" even mean? Are the gnomes going to be sitting in boats in the area?"

identifying areas within international waters which would benefit from sanctuary designation due to their ecological, cultural, recreational, or aesthetic value;

IC: "Again, the baffling inclusion of "cultural" in there. Also, "would benefit" includes everything under the sky, so you're very far off from your target already. What you should be doing, is to protect the areas that are biodiversity hotspots or necessities for the survival of marine species, such as spawning grounds or the most important feeding grounds."

OOC: There's a resolution named something like "Researching Unique Environments" or something like that. I suggest having a look-see, in case there's significant overlap and/or you could use that to exclude bits from this that are already covered by it.

designating such areas as sanctuaries after consulting with and giving due consideration to the responsible officials of any member nation whose industries may reasonably be directly impacted by said areas being designated as sanctuaries;

IC: "So you're going to completely overrule 88% of the nations with this? Why do they not have a say in it? And why are you giving any nations any say to begin with? Of course industries are going to be impacted by any environmental protections, that's the whole point to begin with!"

OOC: Also, if it means that any area that would cause "direct impact" on industries, then the sanctuaries wouldn't be implemented, then you're very likely not going to be implementing any relevant sanctuaries to begin with.

implementing appropriate and reasonable regulations relating to any activities permitted within a sanctuary, in order to protect the environment within a sanctuary and further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;

IC: "If you want there to be regulations, write the fucking regulations yourself! Giving committees basically unlimited licence - "reasonable" is a very subjective word - to create regulations on anything is a very bad idea."

OOC: Also, if you're going to use these regulations to restrict what member nations can and can't do, while not being able to restrict any non-member nations from doing so, you should definitely have the regulations spelled out, so member nations know what they're signing up for, when this comes to vote. I understand that writing the regulations will by necessity include weaselwords like "necessary" and "reasonable" and "significant", but even that's better than being entirely unaware of what's going on.

compiling and updating a report regarding the status of each sanctuary, to be available upon request to the responsible officials of any member nation and include:

IC: "How? Are the gnomes going to maintain permanent presence in the area?"

a comprehensive review of the actions undertaken pursuant to this resolution;

IC: "Actions taken by who? And what the hell does "pursuant" even mean in the context?"

OOC: You said you'd fix the bit about the actions. You didn't.

a comprehensive report on the state and health of the marine environment within the sanctuary as applicable to the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;

IC: "Again, how? Are the gnomes going to be constantly poking around the area? Why not make member nations who would be affected by this whole thing, to do that?"

a report on future regulations deemed reasonable and necessary to further the purpose for which the sanctuary was designated;

OOC: This shouldn't be buried in a subclause of a subclause, but be a subclause under the main clause. Unless you take my suggestion on getting off your arse and actually writing the regulations yourself.

reviewing requests from the responsible officials of member nations to designate a sanctuary pursuant to this resolution within their territorial waters;

IC: "...what? I thought this whole point was to be about international waters? Nations are entirely capable of establishing sanctuaries in their own waters."

OOC: Also, you can drop the "responsible officials", and instead just use "member nations". Applies on the earlier bit as well.

the CPME may:

OOC: Are you so constrained on character count that you can't use the full name of the committee? Also, I'd suggest merging this bit with the main clause, so it would read as "Clarifies that the [committee] may", and then making the other two bits separate "Also clarifies that", so make it more specific.

remove or modify regulations enacted pursuant to this resolution within a sanctuary should removal or modification serve to further the purpose of that sanctuary;

IC: "You already said that in the previous clause. You don't need to repeat it."

remove sanctuary designation from an area after consulting with and giving due consideration to the responsible officials of any member nation whose industries are directly impacted by the sanctuary existing in that area;

OOC: Minor wording quibbles; should have "the" before "sanctuary designation", don't need to have "from an area" or "responsible officials of".

IC: "Given you require the last bit to be considered even before establishing the things, then what good is it going to do here? You could instead have the member nations petition for the removal of the sanctuary designation and have the committee commit "a thorough review" before deciding one way or another."

no authorization regarding activities performed within a sanctuary shall be valid unless the CPME certifies that said activities comply with the regulations implemented under this resolution;

OOC: Doesn't work grammatically as "CPME may no authorization".

IC: "Exactly what does this mean? If pirates or human traffickers or smugglers or terrorists drive their boats across the sanctuary line, the pursuing authorities need to stop at the border and petition the committee for a permission to enter the sanctuary? I'm also sure that in a warfare situation where it was a member nation against a non-member nation, the latter would be absolutely delighted to have staging areas that the member nation couldn't enter before some international massive bureaucratic system gives them limited permission to. Also, you don't actually implement any regulations, so that part of the clause becomes absolutely meaningless."

any regulations implemented under this resolution must comply with established international law;

IC: "You don't actually implement any regulations."

OOC: This is why leaving all regulation-making to a committee is a bad idea. How can nations comply if they have no idea what they're supposed to comply with? Given some 24 thousand member nations, even if a third of them were completely land-locked and not affected by this (or owned the entire planet), that would still leave 16 thousand needing individualized regulation making and likely on multiple sanctuary areas, so unless you're saying "one ring set of regulations to rule them all" - in which case you should actually write the resolutions yourself - that's going to be one helluva bureaucratic nightmare.

no regulations implemented under this resolution shall be applicable to nations lacking World Assembly membership;

IC: "You. Do. Not. Implement. Any. Regulations."

OOC: You should allow non-members to opt in. That's been used before, so it's legal to do so. You can't mandate they do so, but you can allow them to voluntarily do so.

Urges member nations to take measures to protect marine environments.

IC: "Yeah, cause that's SUCH an effective thing to say. Also, should absolutely have "further measures", given you're trying to set up mandatory measures. Also, are the member nations supposed to take these measures in territorial or international waters? Because I know our coast guard would be totally happy to go hunting for non-sustainable fishers outside our claimed sea area, as well."

OOC: This proposal clearly falls under the “Environmental” category, but I’m not certain as to which Area of Effect it should be labeled with.

OOC: Remove this too.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads