[DRAFT I] Repeal: "Law Of The Seas" GA#168

[BEEstreetz]

"Fourth resolution about this?!" Fifth hopefully, since my goal ultimately is to amend "regulations of the seas". The first one; The second one; and The one in question. Anyway, here's Draft I:

---

Repeal: Law Of The Seas
A resolution to repeal a previously passed maritime resolution. Categories which are: "Global Disarmament" | "Mild" in Strength.

Acknowledging the intentions of GA#168 to be codifying national waters and international sea zones as to limit conflicts surrounding the sea,

Applauding how much research has gone into constructing terms and measurements such as "territorial water" of 24nm and "exclusive economic zone" of 200nm,

Noting that the resolution's definition of sea border is at best impractical and at worst needless,

Concerned with the fact that 2 (A) allows members to enforce national laws within 24nm undistinguishing of which type of vessel is entering,

Alarmed that 2 (B) and 2 (D) are contradictory as the former provides the nation authority for exploration and exploitation within EEZ but the latter also provides the nation authority to extend its jurisdiction within the EEZ,

Appalled by the fact that clauses 3 and 4 simply encourage peaceful resolutions between member states who are conflicted over sea control,

Further noting that the intentions of GA#168 and its category are left to simple arbitration when conflicts over sea control arises,

Unnerved by the fact that EEZ are left to be exploited without regulating environmental concerns,

Further concerned with the fact that the resolution does not address its goal of avoiding conflicts in the domains of international sea at all,

Ultimately convinced of the fact that the resolution fails not only at completing its goal but also leaves many topics it should regulate ignored,

Hereby repeals "Law of the Seas"

---

I'm pretty sure that GA#168 is plagiarism and the WA might get sued by Gods from the other Universe again but addressing that might've been illegal.
Oh yeah. This is users first proposal, user is the sole author, this will probably take time hence why "Draft I" is already in the title.

[Tinhampton]

Law of the Seas was not designed to prevent war at sea, but to reduce border disputes.

Article 3 is binding, which makes your claim that it is not an Honest Mistake.

Member states may freely regulate what goes on in their Exclusive Economic Zones.

What vessels within territorial waters should the World Assembly regulate?

Where is your replacement - and even if it is not on hand, why do you believe it will be better than Law of the Seas?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Applauding how much research has gone into constructing terms and measurements such as "territorial water" of 24nm and "exclusive economic zone" of 200nm,

"How sarcastic is this, given your next arguments?"

Noting that the resolution's definition of sea border is at best impractical and at worst needless,

"Why?"

Concerned with the fact that 2 (A) allows members to enforce national laws within 24nm undistinguishing of which type of vessel is entering,

"Why is this a problem?"

Alarmed that 2 (B) and 2 (D) are contradictory as the former provides the nation authority for exploration and exploitation within EEZ but the latter also provides the nation authority to extend its jurisdiction within the EEZ,

"How is this contradictory at all?"

Appalled by the fact that clauses 3 and 4 simply encourage peaceful resolutions between member states who are conflicted over sea control,

Further noting that the intentions of GA#168 and its category are left to simple arbitration when conflicts over sea control arises,

"Good."

Unnerved by the fact that EEZ are left to be exploited without regulating environmental concerns,

"Fair enough."

Further concerned with the fact that the resolution does not address its goal of avoiding conflicts in the domains of international sea at all,

"That is not its goal."

Ultimately convinced of the fact that the resolution fails not only at completing its goal but also leaves many topics it should regulate ignored,

Hereby repeals "Law of the Seas"

"I am not convinced by these arguments."

---

I'm pretty sure that GA#168 is plagiarism and the WA might get sued by Gods from the other Universe again but addressing that might've been illegal.

Ooc: Do you have any evidence of this? The OP of the forum thread specifically says that _

This proposal is intended as a replacement for the recently-repealed GA Resolution # 47 ‘Law of the Sea’, and was drafted with permission from that previous law’s author Cobdenia to re-use any of his material that seemed suitable. It was drafted in these forums (here), but I’m starting this new thread for it

With Cobdenia added as a co-author.

[Gruenberg]

I'm pretty sure that GA#168 is plagiarism and the WA might get sued by Gods from the other Universe again but addressing that might've been illegal.

Accusing someone of breaking the site rules is serious. Looking forward to you preventing evidence of this.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Alarmed that 2 (B) and 2 (D) are contradictory as the former provides the nation authority for exploration and exploitation within EEZ but the latter also provides the nation authority to extend its jurisdiction within the EEZ,

Appalled by the fact that clauses 3 and 4 simply encourage peaceful resolutions between member states who are conflicted over sea control,

Further noting that the intentions of GA#168 and its category are left to simple arbitration when conflicts over sea control arises,

“Ambassador, I have displayed the three clauses I see issues for. First, how are exploring and usage of the natural resources of the EEZ and extension of authority polar opposites, let alone related at all? And second, are you using the WA to instigate war? It is clear from the last two clauses I have displayed that you are not a fan of peacefully settling disputes, and that you are encouraging nations to go to war over naval boundaries. If this repeal passes and you make a replacement that encourages going to war over naval boundaries, you might ruin the reputation of the WA! Everyone looks to the GA branch of the WA as a means of peacefully dealing with global issues, and the WA general as a peace promoter. Pass a war-supportive replacement, then people will riot in front of the WA headquarters. Given these statements I have made, the Clevesian Empire is opposed to this current draft.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Excidium Planetis]

"I uh, wholeheartedly support a r-repeal, of GA#168, that is, but, but to use a phrase that I believe I m-may have heard from someone or another, er, in these hallowed halls... 'this is not it'." Adelia declares.

[BEEstreetz]

Informing the community that this will be a slow approach, so replies to comments will usually be at least 24+ hours. Reason being, I don't want to rush my first proposal.

---

Law of the Seas was not designed to prevent war at sea, but to reduce border disputes.

That is what is stated as the main topic. However, it goes into trying to prevent conflicts at the sea as well when introducing EEZ which are not adjacent to territorial waters.

Article 3 is binding, which makes your claim that it is not an Honest Mistake.

I actually really need your clarification on this.

Member states may freely regulate what goes on in their Exclusive Economic Zones.

Which is an issue.

What vessels within territorial waters should the World Assembly regulate?

If it is to regulate international sea at all (which I believe it should); civilian-trade vessels should be differentiated from small or capital military vessels when entering territorial waters and which rights they are given.

---

In response to Magecastle Embassy Building A5 questions;

-The applaud was intended to be sarcastic in nature.
-Because the sea border is measured at low sea levels in the proposal as opposed to the median sea levels.
-I've mentioned why distinguishing vessels is an issue in the response to Sophia.
-It's contradictory as it essentially redefines EEZ's into "territorial waters in international sea".
-The goal issue was addressed in the response to Sophia.
-OOC: Compare the terminology and clauses used in this document to that of the proposal.

---

Implying that I'm "using the WA to instigate war?" when the draft is criticizing the lack or efficiency of regulation in the resolution to settle such issues is...interesting.

---

"I uh, wholeheartedly support a r-repeal, of GA#168, that is, but, but to use a phrase that I believe I m-may have heard from someone or another, er, in these hallowed halls... 'this is not it'." Adelia declares.

Yes and I would use this opportunity to also notify everyone that I've noticed the lack of an addressing clause in the draft I (e.g. "Dear World Assembly").

[Tinhampton]

Proposals are by, not to, the World Assembly.

Do you really need me to tell you what an Honest Mistake is?

[Juansonia]

"A resolution to repeal a previously passed maritime resolution. Categories which are: "Global Disarmament" | "Mild" in Strength.[/align]

OOC: All repeals have a category of "Repeal", and have a target resolution instead of a strength. The target's category and strength indicators usually are not in the repeal itself.

[align=justify]

Law of the Seas was not designed to prevent war at sea, but to reduce border disputes.

That is what is stated as the main topic. However, it goes into trying to prevent conflicts at the sea as well when introducing EEZ which are not adjacent to territorial waters.

"It's not about conflict prevention - Exclusive Economic Zones exist because territorial waters are insufficent to protect economic resources from foreign exploitation, especially in the case of overfishing. You could argue that, with territorial waters of 24 Nautical miles, EEZs are redundant or excessive, however." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

Article 3 is binding, which makes your claim that it is not an Honest Mistake.

I actually really need your clarification on this.

OOC: Claiming that article 3 simply encourages peaceful resolutions, when it actually imposes a binding mandate, is an inaccuracy. It doesn't matter that agreement is an exemption from the mandate, the mandate is imposed on nations with overlapping waters that can't or won't freely agree on a different border line. Claiming that article 3 does not impose a mandate, despite it imposing a mandate, is factually inaccurate, and therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule. If you want to know more, read this.

Member states may freely regulate what goes on in their Exclusive Economic Zones.

Which is an issue.

"How is it an issue that nations are free to regulate natural resources within their EEZs? It's an effective way to handle a variety of problems, such as overfishing. Do you want the WA to directly handle fishing regulation? Or do you want to see the downfall of Juansonia's trout industry caused by foreign overfishing?"- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

What vessels within territorial waters should the World Assembly regulate?

If it is to regulate international sea at all (which I believe it should); civilian-trade vessels should be differentiated from small or capital military vessels when entering territorial waters and which rights they are given.

"Why not have this matter regulated by the entities which control the territorial waters? After all, it's a polity's right to define the circumstances under which foreign militaries are welcome in its territories." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

-It's contradictory as it essentially redefines EEZ's into "territorial waters in international sea".

"It does no such thing. An EEZ is an area composed of waters, territorial or international, in which resource exploration and use are regulated by the controlling entity." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Outer Sparta]

Doesn't make good arguments for a repeal.

[BEEstreetz]

OOC: Claiming that article 3 simply encourages peaceful resolutions, when it actually imposes a binding mandate, is an inaccuracy. It doesn't matter that agreement is an exemption from the mandate, the mandate is imposed on nations with overlapping waters that can't or won't freely agree on a different border line. Claiming that article 3 does not impose a mandate, despite it imposing a mandate, is factually inaccurate, and therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule. If you want to know more, read this.

Proposals are by, not to, the World Assembly.

Do you really need me to tell you what an Honest Mistake is?

Thank you both for pointing this out. I know what they are, I just didn't know whether you were addressing the repeal or the resolution nor the mechanisms by which it would classify as an "Honest Mistake".

Doesn't make good arguments for a repeal.

If you mean the underlying arguments I've listed in Draft 1 and in the replies, that's your opinion.
If you mean the Draft 1 as itself, I agree. The formulations of sentences poorly demonstrate the arguments.

[BEEstreetz]

Draft II should be available on Monday.

[WayNeacTia]

Draft II should be available on Monday.

With completely new, and relevant arguments I hope.....