[PASSED] Repeal GA#510 "Marine Protection Act"

[Tinhampton]

On the 29th of June 2023, Repeal "Marine Protection Act" became GA#671!

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 1504 BST on the 8th of June 2023, this proposal reached quorum with the resignation of a WA Delegate called Rizina, which brought the number of approvals required from 65 to 64. Vennos deposited the 64th approval at 1456 BST and Dabme the 65th at 1614 BST.

---

Character count: 1,412
Word count: 218

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: The Tinhamptonian delegation has always believed that the World Assembly should not be creating nor enforcing highly arbitrary laws.

On September 7th 2020, Marine Protection Act by Cretox State passed with approximately 76.5% support. It had attained 89 of the 63 approvals required for queue.
On September 11th 2020, Repeal "Marine Protection Act" by Mestington was marked illegal and failed to reach vote, after attaining 2 of the 63 approvals required.
On September 3rd 2021, Repeal "Marine Protection Act" by Imperium Anglorum failed to reach vote after attaining 52 of the 53 approvals required.
On January 5th 2022, Repeal "Marine Protection Act" by Tinhampton began drafting. It will be submitted in the coming weeks a bit less than 18 months.

Repeal "Marine Protection Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#510

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #510 “Marine Protection Act” (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that GA#510 authorises the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to declare certain "areas within international waters" to be sanctuaries, and tasks it with making and enforcing "regulations in said areas to further the purpose for which said sanctuaries were designated,"

Moderately annoyed that GA#510 grants the CPME excessive power in regards to sanctuaries, because:

1. it defines regulations as "reasonable restrictions" on certain marine activities, allowing the CPME to see reasonability through whatever lens it desires to get the outcome it desires, and
2. its Article 4 authorises member states to request that sanctuaries be delisted or regulations applicable to them be amended, yet only requires CPME to "thoroughly review" those requests without setting any rules for under what conditions it must accept and reject them,

Utterly infuriated that Article 2a(i) allows CPME to designate a sanctuary merely because it is "critical to the survival and growth of a species," even if that species is invasive or destroying marine habitats local to the area, eviscerating the kinds of biodiversity that it may wish to protect elsewhere via Article 2a(ii) designations, and

Believing that any resolution which creates or focuses on as much redundant red tape as GA#510 should not stand...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#510 "Marine Protection Act."

Co-author: Magecastle Embassy Building A5

Noting that GA#510 authorises the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to declare certain "areas within international waters" to be sanctuaries, and to make and enforce "regulations in said areas to further the purpose for which said sanctuaries were designated,"

Concerned that the CPME cannot directly enforce the regulations it makes under Article 2b of GA#510 and (since the areas covered by that Article are by definition not the responsibility of any member state) members cannot be punished for not enforcing them, making them useless, and

Believing that any resolution which creates or focuses on as much redundant red tape as GA#510 should not stand...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#510 "Marine Protection Act."

[Bears Armed]

The GA can tell member nations what to do in international waters or in other territories that they do not own: Witness, for example, all of the resolutions limiting nations' actions in wartime which do not contain exemptions for such locations.
Do you want nations to be able to commit atrocities against POWs, for example, simply because those are being held on foreign soil? Or to unleash chemical weapons against an enemy nation's civilians?

OPPOSED, therefore, because of the precedent that this would set.

[Tinhampton]

I am not arguing that the World Assembly should not "tell member nations what to do in... territories that they do not own" - only that members "cannot be punished for not enforcing" CPME regulations created for sanctuaries in international waters. (If they actually can, I'll happily throw my hands up in despair )

[Apatosaurus]

Full support to repeal in principle. However, I'm not sure if this draft is a sufficient case for repeal. There are a lot more reasons for repeal, such as that there are no actual mandates for which regulations will be enacted due to the use of "Defines "regulations" as reasonable restrictions ...", that "Permits" has no mandates on when and how these requests would be accepted and that a lot of the clauses ("Urges" and "Recommends") being non-binding.

[Untecna]

I am not arguing that the World Assembly should not "tell member nations what to do in... territories that they do not own" - only that members "cannot be punished for not enforcing" CPME regulations created for sanctuaries in international waters. (If they actually can, I'll happily throw my hands up in despair )

From Subclause b of Clause 2, which is being referenced:

"designating such areas as sanctuaries, and implementing and maintaining regulations in said areas to further the purpose for which said sanctuaries were designated"

Color mine. "Regulations" is defined before in Clause 1 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; or
   
4. industrial activities, such as oil drilling and refinement;

"

Bold mine. The resolution in question goes as far as it realistically can in defining these restrictions and saying that the CPME will enforce these regulations, or as it words it:

"maintaining regulations"

In that case, while no formal punishment is described, you may assume their would be some form of sanction or general punishment, similar to the punishment of not following proposals in the first place.

I, however, would believe that the word "reasonable" in this resolution is vague as always, so perhaps that could be a focus if this proposal can continue without arguing against punishments.

[Unibot III]

Concerned that the CPME cannot directly enforce the regulations it makes under Article 2b of GA#510 and (since the areas covered by that Article are by definition not the responsibility of any member state) members cannot be punished for not enforcing them, making them useless, and

“Our delegation must voice its reservations with the core premise of this repeal argument,” said Ms. Wager-Freeman, taking a drag on a cigarette before continuing on with her remarks: “I question how this line of argument interacts with the World Assembly’s previous positions on international piracy. Unibot, as a commercial agent, has often looked to the WA for help in combating international piracy - a problem which routinely disrupts our national exports. If it’s not the pirates boarding our shipping vessels, it’s the damn peaceniks. Any argument that finds the WA should not enforce international law in neutral territory implies to me that the WA should neglect international piracy and space pollution as issues. And yet both of these problems have a very real economic impact on member-states regardless of which side of whose border or not they originate in.”

[Merni]

members "cannot be punished for not enforcing" CPME regulations created for sanctuaries in international waters.

Why not? Who says that the Compliance Commission's mandate is restricted only to actions taken within the territory of a member state? Resolutions 390 and 440 certainly don't seem to. What matters is who is committing the noncompliance, not where it's committed. (And of course, non-member states could not be punished, but that is an inherent limitation of the WA anyway.)

[Unibot III]

members "cannot be punished for not enforcing" CPME regulations created for sanctuaries in international waters.

Why not? Who says that the Compliance Commission's mandate is restricted only to actions taken within the territory of a member state? Resolutions 390 and 440 certainly don't seem to. What matters is who is committing the noncompliance, not where it's committed. (And of course, non-member states could not be punished, but that is an inherent limitation of the WA anyway.)

“Requiring nations to actively enforce international law in neutral territory could have the undesirable impact of forcing a kind of pseudo-imperialist foreign policy upon member-nations, but in this particular case it is the CPME that is the enforcement agency, so the whole point is moot,” said Ms Wager-Freeman.

[Tinhampton]

Full support to repeal in principle. However, I'm not sure if this draft is a sufficient case for repeal. There are a lot more reasons for repeal, such as that there are no actual mandates for which regulations will be enacted due to the use of "Defines "regulations" as reasonable restrictions ...", that "Permits" has no mandates on when and how these requests would be accepted and that a lot of the clauses ("Urges" and "Recommends") being non-binding.

Amen, brother.

[The Ice States]

Support as written.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support repeal.

[Simone Republic]

I think the bigger issue is the lack of any clear jurisdiction due to a garbled Law of the Sea (168) which makes all the subsequent resolutions on marine and maritime affairs messier than they should be.

It ends up being like me having to define "ships carrying WA cargo" and "ships under the flag of a WA state" type of thing to avoid an explicit definition of what waters are under WA jurisdiction and what not

[Tinhampton]

If you want to repeal LOTS, then repeal LOTS. I'm just here to repeal MPA.

This will be submitted around June 8th.

[Tinhampton]

Penultimate call, much?

[Tinhampton]

Last call, as semi-threatened! Planning to submit on June 7th absent criticism

[Honeydewistania]

Odds of this one also failing to reach queue?

Support as always btw

[Tinhampton]

Odds of this one also failing to reach queue?

Support as always btw

Only if I accidentally submit two seconds after minor! and thanks

[Tinhampton]

This proposal did, in fact, reach quorum - and within 22 hours at that. It will be at vote between the major updates of Sunday 25th June and Thursday 29th June.

AS OF 1705 BST ON THURSDAY: Approvals: 67 out of 65 needed (Tinhampton, Magical Girl Emi, Moukden and Kirin, Lesser Velutaria, Overthinkers, Sedgistan, OF Courscant, Marim Grunzy, Suomalainem, Vulxo, Altys, The Sunshine Republic, Haaton Prime, Kingdom of Castille, British Arzelentaxmacone, Angladen, Jishuan, Kakastania, Untecna, The 2nd Facepunch Republic, Madrocea, Lave Deldederady, Lackadaisia, Wolfs Brigade, Smudges Followers, Savonir, New Pan Am, Mark, A G O T I FNF Mod, Kelzay, His Majestys Royal Guard, Deims Kir, Xinhao, Natzinville, Sul American, Heneraton, Joy to the World 1, Polenika, Felix Femboi, Passeig de Sant Joan, Sum Tash, The Perfect Utopian Society, Zombiedolphins, Jiguo, Anasychkinark, NinjitsUtopia, Low Woodland, Arcurric, Cato Aurellia, Joeyist Union, Uckraine, Holy Anderele, Indusse, Rasika, Oogway, Qeru Iaslnd, Djeeta, The Cure, The Divin Fist, New Isman, Corust, NewTexas, Nova Cyanis, Vennos, Dabme, Union Soviet International, Experience Eternal)

[Cretox State]

"I consider my predecessor's work on this to be a failed experiment. This has our support."

[Long Live The Henrarchy]

Office of the President of Sophia & WA Affairs Ministry of the Empire of Great Britain
WORLD ASSEMBLY VOTING RECOMMENDATION

---

General Assembly: Repeal "Marine Protection Act" (GA#510), by Tinhampton with Magecastle Embassy Building A5

Recommendation: FOR

Rationale: Resolutions that create needless bureaucracy and establish regulations without means for them to be effective must be repealed. GA#510, the resolution in question today, is a resolution that fits the bill.

Tinhampton, author of the repeal, highlights how GA#510 “defines regulations as ‘reasonable restrictions’ on certain marine activities, allowing the CPME to see reasonability through whatever lens it desires to get the outcome it desires.” There is meaning behind every word we use and usage of the word “reasonable” leaves the door open for a multitude of interpretations as to what exactly that means, ultimately rendering such “reasonable restrictions” toothless due to a lack of clarity and rigidness necessary to ensure their proper functioning.

Furthermore, Tinhampton outlines how GA#510 “only requires CPME to "thoroughly review" those requests without setting any rules for under what conditions it must accept and reject them…” In essence, GA#510 gives the CPME it creates a carte blanche approach to its proceedings, giving it the freedom to act according to its own interpretations and interests, owing to the lack of proper guidelines within the resolution.

Repeal of this resolution will hopefully pave the way for proper, common sense, clear regulations that allow for our marine environments to thrive and be protected where they need to be, all while allowing for proper action in the face of invasive and destructive species.

~~~~~~~~~~

This recommendation was written by Long Live The Henrarchy, HRH Prince Henry in the Empire of Great Britain. Sophia concurs. If you liked this, please upvote our recommendation dispatch here!

This resolution will be at vote between the major updates of June 25th 2023 and June 29th 2023.

This recommendation was jointly issued between Sophia and Empire of Great Britain. This does not mean that the President's opinion of this resolution was influenced by what Empire of Great Britain believes. Under the Constitution, the President must always cast their vote in line with the interests of Sophia, not some other region; this recommendation reflects the sincere beliefs of all regions involved.

[Tinhampton]

Repeal "Marine Protection Act" was passed 8,502 votes to 2,820. (75.09% support)

For: 8,502: Tepertopia (673), Altys (505), Overthinkers (458), Imperium Anglorum (430), Fooooooooo (278), Mechanocracy (216), Malphe II (216), Le Libertia (202), Socialist Platypus (184), Sylh Alanor (175), The Glorious Hypetrain (94), Witchcraft and Sorcery (91), New Asden (83), Deims Kir (83), Vancouvia (73), Suomalainem (64), Lesser Velutaria (62), Wintermoot (60), The Earths people (59), New United Common-lands (59), Marim Grunzy (57), Long Live The Henrarchy (52), Mikeswill (49), Oogway (45), Romanovskaya (38), Bearded Dragones (35), Ysengrim (31), Particle (31), Sanctaria (28), Kartof (26), Tostandia (25), France Europe (24), Lamoni (23), Bethersontonia (22), NewTexas (22), Sudoeste (22), Magical Girl Emi (20), Tinhampton (20), Cruciland (20), Shanlix (20), Kiev-Russ (19), Felix Femboi (17), Eshington (17), Mark (17), Holy Anderele (16), Wolfs Brigade (16), Ynys Dywyll (16), Densaner (14), Untecna (14), Equa Lib (12), Lennonia (12), Kakastania (11), Baloo Kingdom (11), Brocklandia (10), Thee Imperium 0f Man (10), Leoland3 (9), The Voltarum (9), Coneiconia (9), Phydios (9), Siluvia (9), Rulsolia (9), Anfield Kop (8), Acroticus (8), Sul American (8), The Scarfish (8), Rogue River (7), The Spanish Coast (7), The Bolivian Socialist Falange (7), Madrocea (7), Aura Banitia (7), British Arzelentaxmacone (7), Lurusitania (6), New Roheau Gallis (6), Kartunesia (6), Jibuti (6), The AFOE 67th regiment (5), South Sulphur (5), Chodean Kal (5), The Palentine (5), Coders (5), Ulissebuerg (5), The Ruby Ranch Republic (5), Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations (5), Comunist Land1 (5), The Shadow Fold (5), Niater (5), OF Courscant (5), The Soviet state of Svalbard (5), Heneraton (4), Svedish (4), Cyrisk (4), Zhensheng Xue (4), Olfasgesvet (4), Gatchina (4), Lysset (4), Rust Islands (4), Voxija (4), Hinlyia (4), Toriniall (4), Gregandua (4), Rookerand (4), Wabacha (4), The Immortal Fire Nation (4), Island of Avalon (4), EducatedPlum (4), Velvoinka (4), Angladen (4), The Genovese Family (3), Nytocho (3), Jishuan (3), Arazian (3), Panamer (3), Kabarovsk (3), PnGlaggleland (3), The 2nd Facepunch Republic (3), Mancel Rictor (3), Polandorus (3), World Enlightenment (3), These North American States (3), Pulastan (3), Pirates and Buccaneers (3), Ayodhyadesha (3), Astreopa (3), Almerdonia (3), Phoenicia- (3), Jiguo (3), Kleinekatzen (3), Imperial Holia Myzkaaria (3), Hochi Junerland (3), Kolloquia (3), Radio TV Solutions (3), Chairman Cities (3), Xostaria (3), Helio (3), Redshirts (3), Awesomeness (3), Denathor (3), CHAMPER OF ANTARCTICA (3), Abdu (3), Flor-Fina (3), Kylarnatia (3), Qudrath (3), Glaazia (3), Golanchia (3), Joeyist Union (3), Omogatu (3), Chap Ven (3), New Isman (2), Von Zeischter (2), Boarder Princes (2), Nouvel Acadie (2), The Rising Aura (2), Torvien (2), Kinkerland (2), Shady Trees (2), United Countries of North America (2), Bernelia (2), Northern Bucovina (2), Hetairaea (2), Anairam Solaria (2), Rhys (2), Theoscafia (2), Djeeta (2), Raccquesi (2), New Pan Am (2), Polenika (2), TheSovietUnion (2), Stata Pontificia (2), Dytarma (2), DoubleCross (2), Kolechniya (2), The Isles of Bermuda (2), East grim reapers (2), Apocalypse Borg (2), Transsobor (2), Experience Eternal (2), Communo-Slavocia (2), The Good Nation Of Americana Christening (2), COUCHBURG (2), New Cornavia (2), Gandoor (2), Nouveau Strasbourg (2), The Grand Kingdom of Elsweyr (2), Bonkberg (2), Djisland (2), GraySoap (2), Sierra Grand (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Shuora (2), Sedgistan (2), Eemeria (2), NiCrawlosis (2), Chi naa (2), Charliston (2), Terasmaa (2), Hustlertwo (2), The Silver Swans (2), NinjitsUtopia (2), Davefunia (2), Adeiatic (2), Making Catgirls Real (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Molson Iceland (2), Galactic Powers (2), Kingdom of Castille (2), Lower Slobbovia (2), Seluvia (2), Akiniad (2), Imperial Felchah (2), Fannland (2), Cato Aurellia (2), The Commonwealth of Rylandia (2), Gakahid (2), Novoishim (2), Northern Seleucia (2), Stremia (2), New New Atlantis (2), Kinnies (2), New Kismet (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Seanat (2), Zombiedolphins (2), Hipearia (2), and (3,050) individual member nations.

Against: 2,820: Lenlyvit (301), Catalyse (228), South Boston Irishmen (110), Rayekka (95), Verdant Haven (77), The Salaxalans (67), Student Loan Debt (61), 9006 (46), Herya (29), Lave Deldederady (29), Nova Cyanis (28), Parkplace (24), Gran River (21), Gideon (20), Ignilacrim (18), Kyraina (16), Fachumonn (14), Kingdom of Englands (13), HoldersOfLife (10), The Scottish Republic (9), Ko-oren (9), Haaton Prime (9), Muizzuddin (8), Peoples Republic of the Philippines (7), OmegaShenron (7), Landbang Rkipo Islands (6), Vegaga (6), Wadelhelpia (6), Tiber and Rione (6), Hydroponic Nation (6), Natzinville (5), Merulla (5), Eclaire (5), New Delfos (5), Acelandia (5), Reactorland (5), West Siberian-Russia (4), Blazekinland (4), Jori Basu (4), Xvraks (4), Wobbegong (4), East Mindoor (4), Asase Lewa (4), Great Libertona (4), Free Scandanavia (3), Stettinburg (3), Crab (3), The Walking Human Corpse (3), Pusheen Country (3), Reapertorium (3), Knootoss (3), 11 Templar Knights (3), Aanlin Mra (3), Ganderlayia (3), New Korea NK (3), East Lago (3), United Dependencies (3), Balamara (3), Brazil FS (3), Silver-Tree (2), Kieora (2), Imperial British State (2), Yumerthia (2), Darapima (2), People freedom China (2), The Cure (2), Char Aznable Neo Zeon (2), Sunrise from the Sea (2), Texas and Florida (2), Dracos - Haven (2), Mitzvah (2), The Ancient World (2), CrossVegas (2), Mini Orchs (2), Poliski (2), John Browns Kansas (2), Kigasan (2), Ladolodia (2), Grand Principality of Sissania (2), President Pro Tempore (2), The Kingdom of the Kekistan State (2), Anarchy Central (2), Dolphinicus (2), United Bongo States of the New America (2), Paeliopolis (2), and (1,375) individual member nations.