[DEFEATED] Regulating International Transport

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 21st and 25th of November, 2024.
It was defeated by a margin of 9,164 votes (about 77%) to 2,787 (about 23%).

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Free Trade Board.
NOTE: at 0039 GMT on the 8th of November 2024, this proposal reached quorum with Sasilen's approval, the 57th all told. (I think it was, anyway; I was sleeping.)
NOTE 2: at 2015 GMT on the 17th of November 2024, this proposal won its 114th approval - double the number required for quorum - from Ancientania.

---

Character count: 3,648
Word count: 550

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: This proposal will be submitted the day after the American Presidential Election is won.
OOC: I was famously unhappy and befuddled at Simone's GA#34 repeal and would like to see WA regulation of international non-road transport be restored again. But at the same time, I truly believe that there is a strong international consensus in favour of standards being literally identical between international and domestic transport; Article e tries to accommodate that without infringing on my NatSov sensibilities.

Regulating International Transport
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recalling that GA#34 "International Transport Safety" was repealed because it impeded ITSC regulation of purely domestic transportation standards, but

Believing that it would be sensible to also have at least a baseline international transport standard in place, as to enable people and goods to travel across borders with confidence...

The General Assembly hereby enacts as follows.

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "international vessel" means any land, sea, air, or road vehicle that is piloted for commercial reasons to or from a member state,
   2. an "international route" means any road or railway in a member state through which an international vessel can be reasonably expected to travel,
   3. an "international port" means any port in a member state from which any international vessel arrives or departs, including service stations on international routes and border crossings, and
   4. "the ITSC regulations" mean those regulations outlined in Article b.
2. The International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) shall make and publish regulations, coherent with the mandates of prior and standing WA law, in order to ensure that:
   
   1. the people on board international vessels, and within international ports, face the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate,
   2. pilots of international vessels face the minimal foreseeable risk of danger to their lives or vessels as a result of faults or other issues with the international routes they pilot through (such as flat tyres incurred as a result of potholes),
   3. any reasonably foreseeable emergencies that arise in international vessels and ports can be swiftly, safely, and effectively resolved,
   4. authorised communications to and from international vessels and ports, including signage and signals, are made clear to their intended recipients,
   5. border crossings are designed such that they facilitate the passage of international vessels through them without excess burden to time or finances,
   6. international vessels only carry those loads which they are realistically able to carry,
   7. international vessels do not travel on international routes that are not safe for them (including via signage directing travel through suitable alternative international routes), and
   8. the pilots and crew of international vessels, and the mission-critical staffers of international ports, obtain minimum levels of training and experience before they can start or continue work as appropriate.
3. Members must provide such support to the keepers of international vessels, routes, and ports (which may include financial and technical support) as they require to become compliant with the ITSC regulations.
4. No member may enforce regulations on international vessels, routes and ports that are stricter than the ITSC regulations except as prior and standing WA law provides.
5. Each member is strongly urged to transpose the ITSC regulations into its own law such that they apply to purely domestic vessels, routes, and ports; and to support the keepers of such vessels, routes, and ports in complying with them.
6. The ITSC shall assist any member which seeks its assistance in enforcing Articles c and e as appropriate.
7. Nothing in this resolution:
   
   1. regulates vehicles that would be international vessels but are piloted for personal reasons, such as private jets and family vehicles, nor
   2. affects the right of members or the World Assembly to investigate crashes and accidents involving international vessels or international ports.

[Tinhampton]

Beep beep!

[Tinhampton]

Article d is now subject to prior and standing WA law to avoid any contradiction concerns. As my main concern in this venue is GA#83, which I'm planning to get rid of, there should be little concern here. Carry on.

[Apatosaurus]

Recalling that GA#34 "International Transport Safety" was repealed because it impeded WA regulation of purely domestic transportation standards, but

"We are still of the opinion that #34 did not do this, and was wrongly repealed on those grounds. It prohibited only ITSC regulation of such transportation; which makes sense when the resolution and committee both have 'international transport' in their names. We would rather that this claim not be perpetuated, or at least that this be worded in a manner that does not imply the claim was true."

[Simone Republic]

I'd prefer to regulate international shipping, aviation ,rail and other forms of transit separately.

[Tinhampton]

Recalling that GA#34 "International Transport Safety" was repealed because it impeded WA regulation of purely domestic transportation standards, but

"We are still of the opinion that #34 did not do this, and was wrongly repealed on those grounds. It prohibited only ITSC regulation of such transportation; which makes sense when the resolution and committee both have 'international transport' in their names. We would rather that this claim not be perpetuated, or at least that this be worded in a manner that does not imply the claim was true."

Smith: This has been done.

I'd prefer to regulate international shipping, aviation ,rail and other forms of transit separately.

As I said, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of this approach, nor do I think such regulations would have been impossible had GA#34 never been repealed In any event, "regulat[ing]... forms of transit separately" wasn't the matter at issue with your GA#34 repeal, rather the issue of ITSC regulation of domestic transport (see above). I hope that Article e's provisions on transposing the ITSC regulations into domestic law will allay the concern you expressed in your repeal.

This proposal will still be submitted on the day after a media consensus emerges on who has won the US Presidential Election! In the event of a 269-269 tie or otherwise no media call by the 14th, submission will be antiexpedited to November 15th.

[Second Sovereignty]

"The Sovereign would be quite interested to hear the justification for this proposal eliminating all Sovereign transportation and safety regulations in favor of an international regime that, to be quite frank, is almost certain to be vastly substandard, to the extent that it can even be predicted, given the lack of any actual regulation within the text of the draft itself. Moreover, we question the exception of 'personal' vehicles from the mandates; what great reason is there to permit a 'private' craft to operate in violation of safety regulations?"

[Allied Friendly States]

"Admittedly I seem to have ended here by some bizarre malfunction of one of those new-fangled hypergates that are being tested, and don't expect to be here long enough to have enough time to read through all the existing regulations already governing the functioning of this place and the nations gathered here, so please excuse my ignorance of pre-existing wording in one or more of those, but while it seems to me that "port" is meant to include spaceports on planetary surfaces, what of space habitats or industrial orbiters, or even largest class of processing vessels? In planet-bound terms these might be likened to residential areas, factories and, well, perhaps commercial fishing fleet's processing ship where smaller craft bring their catch rather than needing to head to land.

In the name of security concerns, including incompatibility of systems, we do not allow foreign spacecraft to land on our planets, but do allow limited and obviously controlled amount of both passenger and trade vessels to pass through our border zones. However, these lanes of traffic between and within our solar systems are tightly regulated and all foreign spacecraft must be accompanied by Fleet escorts. Any sudden deviation from the preagreed route is treated as an attempt of espionage or terrorism and acted upon appropriately.

We do have what one might call "border crossings", which are places where the foreign visitors and cargo are processed, but these are Fleet-run orbiters in the foreign craft's target solar system, not the actual border system where they are required to stop only for long enough to acquire their Fleet escorts. This can take mere minutes, for a well-prepared foreign craft that has traversed through the border before. Just out of pure curiosity, would these still count in the language of the law proposed here?

And if space travel sounds too exotic to you to include in your text, take the lower technological equivalence of air traffic. In all systems that have, prior to integration to the AFS, had multiple nations on a single planet, international air traffic has been required to follow specific flight corridors within their airspace and deviation from such has been treated as suspiciously as we treat deviations of pre-agreed routes in space. And international waterways, such as channels dug through thin strips of land, are also excluded from the definition. Is the omission of these deliberate? And if yes, then could not the mentions of sea and air vessels be excluded entirely, given they rarely if ever travel on roads or railways?

Air travel also has similar problem of the concept of "border crossing" as our space travel, where the actual check point for travellers and cargo is within the borders of the nation, rather than at the border.

As a personal note, I do quite like the inclusion of b. iii. that allows for the international vessel to be destroyed to solve the problems they might pose to the security of the inhabitants of the area they are passing through, as the swiftest, safest and effective solution. Too often are emergencies aboard vessels, whether caused by acts of sabotage unknown to the lawful operators of the vessels, or deliberately done so by the actual pilots, be used as an excuse to drop out of warp early, falsely thinking our spacecraft could not react fast enough to do so as well.

Though I do find it concerning that the pilots be required to have only minimal training, before crossing international borders. Would it not make much more sense for them to first practice within their own borders, rather than risk an international incident simply due to lack of experience in operating their vessel?

Clause c. would be unacceptable, though, as while we would provide emergency repairs to a foreign vessel, we would definitely bill their system of origin for the repairs done on their vessel, rather than pay its "keepers", whether that means owners or operators, to bring their vessel up to our standards! Especially as our standards are usually much higher than what foreign operators can produce or even operate.

Even if read less critically, in terms of what maximal enforcement of regulations entails, that clause still seems to imply that the nation through whose territory the international route passes, is required to finance the bringing up to standard of any foreign vessel or operator of such, and even the international ports in foreign nations! If this was not the intention, the wording probably needs to change to suit the intent.

But, again, I reiterate my unfamiliarity with the previously passed rules and legislation, so if these concerns are addredsed elsewhere, my apologies."

- N'leyar Cr'ense, Representative of the Defensive Fleet of the Allied Friendly States

[Tinhampton]

"The Sovereign would be quite interested to hear the justification for this proposal eliminating all Sovereign transportation and safety regulations in favor of an international regime that, to be quite frank, is almost certain to be vastly substandard, to the extent that it can even be predicted, given the lack of any actual regulation within the text of the draft itself. Moreover, we question the exception of 'personal' vehicles from the mandates; what great reason is there to permit a 'private' craft to operate in violation of safety regulations?"

Smith: This will not get rid of your nation's laws. Article e exists because it is the overwhelming sense of the World Assembly that the ITSC should have at least some power to regulate domestic transport. It is an opinion I vehemently disagree with. It is one that Lydia vehemently disagrees with - and she will take over the mission in a few months, after I lose my fight against cancer. But it is an opinion I reflect in this draft, because the people demand it. As to regulation, I genuinely believe that the mandates of this resolution are just as clear as the ones that came before it; as to the question of personal vehicles, it has historically never been the WA's place to regulate them.

"Admittedly I seem to have ended here by some bizarre malfunction of one of those new-fangled hypergates that are being tested, and don't expect to be here long enough to have enough time to read through all the existing regulations already governing the functioning of this place and the nations gathered here, so please excuse my ignorance of pre-existing wording in one or more of those, but while it seems to me that "port" is meant to include spaceports on planetary surfaces, what of space habitats or industrial orbiters, or even largest class of processing vessels?"

Smith: You should adopt the common-sense definition of "port" for your nation. I personally do not feel as though I can regulate spacecraft, as the charter of the IASA prevents me. If you have a compelling argument, however, I will make clear that they should be regulated.

"We do have what one might call "border crossings", which are places where the foreign visitors and cargo are processed, but these are Fleet-run orbiters in the foreign craft's target solar system, not the actual border system where they are required to stop only for long enough to acquire their Fleet escorts. This can take mere minutes, for a well-prepared foreign craft that has traversed through the border before. Just out of pure curiosity, would these still count in the language of the law proposed here?"

Smith: That, they would be.

"And if space travel sounds too exotic to you to include in your text, take the lower technological equivalence of air traffic. In all systems that have, prior to integration to the AFS, had multiple nations on a single planet, international air traffic has been required to follow specific flight corridors within their airspace and deviation from such has been treated as suspiciously as we treat deviations of pre-agreed routes in space. And international waterways, such as channels dug through thin strips of land, are also excluded from the definition. Is the omission of these deliberate? And if yes, then could not the mentions of sea and air vessels be excluded entirely, given they rarely if ever travel on roads or railways?"

Smith: Air traffic corridors are deliberately excluded, as not all nations might follow them, and in any event pilots on spherical planets such as my own are sensible enough to follow the great circles and adhere to no-fly zones... the likes of which certain parties in the Tinhamptonian Assembly I dislike wish to enforce upon every warzone they know of. It is not possible for anybody to regulate the atmosphere, like they can regulate physical, material roadways. Waterways are excluded as they are often purely international with no controlling nation, such as oceans; and those which are not, such as rivers and canals, can be effectively upkept by the member states under their control without any international standardisation necessary or required. I still believe that it would be of great value for the vessels that travel within them to be safely and effectively regulated.

"I do find it concerning that the pilots be required to have only minimal training, before crossing international borders. Would it not make much more sense for them to first practice within their own borders, rather than risk an international incident simply due to lack of experience in operating their vessel?"

Smith: The pilots do not require "minimal" training. They require basic training of a duration to be prescribed by the ITSC. I trust the gnomes to get this point right.

"Clause c. would be unacceptable, though, as while we would provide emergency repairs to a foreign vessel, we would definitely bill their system of origin for the repairs done on their vessel, rather than pay its "keepers", whether that means owners or operators, to bring their vessel up to our standards! Especially as our standards are usually much higher than what foreign operators can produce or even operate.

Even if read less critically, in terms of what maximal enforcement of regulations entails, that clause still seems to imply that the nation through whose territory the international route passes, is required to finance the bringing up to standard of any foreign vessel or operator of such, and even the international ports in foreign nations! If this was not the intention, the wording probably needs to change to suit the intent.

Smith: When you see a non-compliant vessel, the reasonable response is to turn that vessel away. It is not to retrofit it on the spot at unlimited cost to provide for its compliance. Such vessels can be easily referred to a private technician, who may bill them on their own time. The expectation for Article b(i) in particular - as that seems to be your concern - is that the vessel is "good to go," and that the highways it travels on will not give it much grief. I can make this clear in the draft, if you wish; do let me know how you would foresee this being enforced, or if I have the right of it.

[Simone Republic]

Recalling that GA#34 "International Transport Safety" was repealed because it impeded WA regulation of purely domestic transportation standards, but

"We are still of the opinion that #34 did not do this, and was wrongly repealed on those grounds. It prohibited only ITSC regulation of such transportation; which makes sense when the resolution and committee both have 'international transport' in their names. We would rather that this claim not be perpetuated, or at least that this be worded in a manner that does not imply the claim was true."

(OOC)

That wasn't what I said in the repeal. GA34 said "domestic transport need not comply with ITSC regulations" and I complained that "WA states face severe difficulties when domestic transport of significantly lower standards shares the same space as international transport" in GA732. This was very specifically aimed at things like shared roads, where the existing resolution basically allows domestic clunkers to share the road with international traffic, causing significant issues in traffic control and safety.

Also oppose this resolution on the grounds that I didn't work on repealing GA732 expecting a replacement to use even less precise language.

[Tinhampton]

As all major news outlets have called the election for Donald Trump, I will submit this in roughly 18 hours.

[The Ice States]

"In Section b we would use 'consistent' in place of 'coherent'. We do not see a clear purpose to Subsection b.v and b.vi, and would suggest either substantially rewriting them to be clearer as to their scope or otherwise removing them. More clarity as to what 'maximal possible extent' entails in Section c would be desirable. Assuming these matters are addressed, the Eternal Union will support this legislation."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Tinhampton]

"In Section b we would use 'consistent' in place of 'coherent'. We do not see a clear purpose to Subsection b.v and b.vi, and would suggest either substantially rewriting them to be clearer as to their scope or otherwise removing them. More clarity as to what 'maximal possible extent' entails in Section c would be desirable. Assuming these matters are addressed, the Eternal Union will support this legislation."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Smith: Article b(vi) will remain in force as stated, following discussions with Madam Lindner. Otherwise, appropriate changes have been issued - including to Article e, which contained similar provisions. I will submit this at 5pm Tinhampton time (OOC: 5pm GMT; noon Eastern; 9am Pacific; 6am New Zealand) today.

[Simone Republic]

"Vastly sub-standard and imprecise resolution and far inferior to even the dreadful one that we repealed. This deserves to go up in flames in the train wrecks that this resolution is literally proposing."

[Tinhampton]

This is now in queue and will be at vote between the minor updates of Monday 25th November and Friday 29th November, the day before St Andrew's Day.

AS OF 1420 GMT ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 80 out of 57 needed (Tinhampton, Deims Kir, Floyssauu, Marquess of Marchmain, Grisylow, Japuile, New Bradfordsburg, Haymarket Riot, Treadwellia, IMPROPER CLASSIFICATIONS, The Age of Dystopia, Republic and Town, The Greater Solev Union, Weaven, Hatful, Sedgistan, L V M H, Torchertopia, Repreteop, Yanor, Aestheria, Kohr, Thinngy, Oprizek, Golladonia, Sardeigna, Jorovia, Achias, Mystic Dragon, Of The Revived Soviet Union, Xoriet, Red Prosperity, Clanbrasil, The Kamabo Co Deepsea Metro Service Area, Levont, Vaal Ishvalda, Afria New, Perendinate, Battadia, TheGoldenEmpireGermany, South Newlandia, Vraene, Mikeswill, Tamilias, Dragania WA, The Kingdom of Germany-KD, Oldemburgos, United Desri, Zombiedolphins, French New Wake Island, Varnash, Thessallonika, Toerana, Westerd, Fortis Argentum, Sasilen, Scotsgale, Nerodanus, Insannus, Danjou, Jakapil Island, Awesomeness, Couch Empire, Kolatis, Bennathia, Bresinnia, Alfolin, The Divin Fist, Keennani, Khancanburi, Darastrixethe, Dezmondia, Analogous, Sonvia, Unified Academy of Japan, Merinaya, Secret Agent 99, Andech, Beeducalm, First Republican Autocracy of Slavyia)

[Simone Republic]

(OOC)

Against. Also opposed in the forum thread. This is one of the worst @Tinhampton word salads to date. The regulations are worded even looser than the original (GA34). It's ridiculously buggy:

1. Why would anyone define "a vessel" to include air vehicles?

2. Are vessels "piloted" if it is run by AI?

3. The definition of "international port" includes gas stations, rest stops and what not - not sure how much people would buy having their convenience stores regulated by the WA.

4. The point about regulating roadways is to make sure that older vehicles not meeting highway standards on domestic/village roads don't really interfere with international traffic, creating safety issues. EU and US/CA obviously harmonized anyway.

5. No car is 100% safe (at the moment) at high speed. The ITSC rules in (b) about "the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate" mean that highways should basically drive at 15 miles an hour (roughly the speed of AI vehicles now)

6. "No member may enforce regulations on international vessels, routes and ports that are stricter than the ITSC regulations except as prior and standing WA law provides." <- This blocker is a non-starter in the sense that I think if you have countries that have switched to fully autonomous driving (Mainland China is starting to, I haven't travelled on a non-autonomous vehicle for months now in the Mainland side, except on highways), there are reasons to enforce stricter regulations.

7. "Members must provide such support to the keepers of international vessels, routes, and ports (which may include financial and technical support) as they require to become compliant with the ITSC regulations." <- Oh great we are now subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles.

8. "regulates vehicles that would be international vessels but are piloted for personal reasons, such as private jets and family vehicles" <- again this misses the point, which is for highways frequently used by international vehicles in countries without harmonized traffic rules (ie ex UK/EU) to have some consensus. "Family vehicles" can be commercial as well, and muddy the waters further.

(IC)

A human assistant walks into the WA hall, and promptly sets printouts of this resolution on fire.




"Wait, we called the Office of Building Management in advance right for this stunt?"

"Yeah. Also told the Tinhampton folks in advance."

[The Overmind]

(OOC)

Against. Also opposed in the forum thread. This is one of the worst @Tinhampton word salads to date. The regulations are worded even looser than the original (GA34). It's ridiculously buggy:

1. Why would anyone define "a vessel" to include air vehicles?

2. Are vessels "piloted" if it is run by AI?

3. The definition of "international port" includes gas stations, rest stops and what not - not sure how much people would buy having their convenience stores regulated by the WA.

4. The point about regulating roadways is to make sure that older vehicles not meeting highway standards on domestic/village roads don't really interfere with international traffic, creating safety issues. EU and US/CA obviously harmonized anyway.

5. No car is 100% safe (at the moment) at high speed. The ITSC rules in (b) about "the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate" mean that highways should basically drive at 15 miles an hour (roughly the speed of AI vehicles now)

6. "No member may enforce regulations on international vessels, routes and ports that are stricter than the ITSC regulations except as prior and standing WA law provides." <- This blocker is a non-starter in the sense that I think if you have countries that have switched to fully autonomous driving (Mainland China is starting to, I haven't travelled on a non-autonomous vehicle for months now in the Mainland side, except on highways), there are reasons to enforce stricter regulations.

7. "Members must provide such support to the keepers of international vessels, routes, and ports (which may include financial and technical support) as they require to become compliant with the ITSC regulations." <- Oh great we are now subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles.

8. "regulates vehicles that would be international vessels but are piloted for personal reasons, such as private jets and family vehicles" <- again this misses the point, which is for highways frequently used by international vehicles in countries without harmonized traffic rules (ie ex UK/EU) to have some consensus. "Family vehicles" can be commercial as well, and muddy the waters further.

(IC)

A human assistant walks into the WA hall, and promptly sets printouts of this resolution on fire.




"Wait, we called the Office of Building Management in advance right for this stunt?"

"Yeah. Also told the Tinhampton folks in advance."

As author of a few word salads yourself, you could be a little more charitable about how you frame your criticisms.

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

"The ambassador from Heavens Reach is rather kind."

"That's not true. Almost ALL 51 resolutions we have authored to date have been stomach churning, diarrhea inducing word salads, with notable exceptions such as the resolutions written by Imperium Anglorum, several ones involving Cretox State, and SC#482, which was a musical."

[Tinhampton]

(OOC)

Against. Also opposed in the forum thread. This is one of the worst @Tinhampton word salads to date. The regulations are worded even looser than the original (GA34). It's ridiculously buggy:

1. Why would anyone define "a vessel" to include air vehicles?

2. Are vessels "piloted" if it is run by AI?

3. The definition of "international port" includes gas stations, rest stops and what not - not sure how much people would buy having their convenience stores regulated by the WA.

4. The point about regulating roadways is to make sure that older vehicles not meeting highway standards on domestic/village roads don't really interfere with international traffic, creating safety issues. EU and US/CA obviously harmonized anyway.

5. No car is 100% safe (at the moment) at high speed. The ITSC rules in (b) about "the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate" mean that highways should basically drive at 15 miles an hour (roughly the speed of AI vehicles now)

6. "No member may enforce regulations on international vessels, routes and ports that are stricter than the ITSC regulations except as prior and standing WA law provides." <- This blocker is a non-starter in the sense that I think if you have countries that have switched to fully autonomous driving (Mainland China is starting to, I haven't travelled on a non-autonomous vehicle for months now in the Mainland side, except on highways), there are reasons to enforce stricter regulations.

7. "Members must provide such support to the keepers of international vessels, routes, and ports (which may include financial and technical support) as they require to become compliant with the ITSC regulations." <- Oh great we are now subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles.

8. "regulates vehicles that would be international vessels but are piloted for personal reasons, such as private jets and family vehicles" <- again this misses the point, which is for highways frequently used by international vehicles in countries without harmonized traffic rules (ie ex UK/EU) to have some consensus. "Family vehicles" can be commercial as well, and muddy the waters further.

1. To ensure that aircraft - the most stereotypically international form of transport - are regulated.
2. Yes.
3. This is deliberate. I am not trying to regulate the conveniences that are available at international ports; they can be as Spartan or as Cobhamian as you like.
4. ...I suppose?
5. Faults and issues mean things such as mechanical damage. User-initiated dangers such as high speeds do not fall under this category, according to plain English.
6. The ITSC can issue regulations for all forms of international vessel, including self-driving vessels. See answer #2.
7. Notwithstanding your catalytic converters repeal, which I support out of principle, I have never been fond of your attempts to promote EVs in the WA. "Support" for international vessels means repairs to bring them into compliance, or referrals for such repairs depending on the financial situation (as I discussed with AFS earlier).
8. A vehicle can both be piloted for commercial and non-commercial reasons, although not at the same time. Such mixed-use vehicles are international vessels. I'm also not comfortable just regulating the passenger vehicle industry - beyond the obvious minimums - purely for the sake of WA-wide standardisation.

[Kay Pacha]

1. the people on board international vessels, and within international ports, face the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate,
2. pilots of international vessels face the minimal foreseeable risk of danger to their lives or vessels as a result of faults or other issues with the international routes they pilot through (such as flat tyres incurred as a result of potholes),
3. any reasonably foreseeable emergencies that arise in international vessels and ports can be swiftly, safely, and effectively resolved,
4. authorised communications to and from international vessels and ports, including signage and signals, are made clear to their intended recipients,
5. border crossings are designed such that they facilitate the passage of international vessels through them without excess burden to time or finances,
6. international vessels only carry those loads which they are realistically able to carry,
7. international vessels do not travel on international routes that are not safe for them (including via signage directing travel through suitable alternative international routes), and
8. the pilots and crew of international vessels, and the mission-critical staffers of international ports, obtain minimum levels of training and experience before they can start or continue work as appropriate.

Committee merchantry only blocks this subject from productive resolutions that can address real, demonstrable problems. It's reasonable to assume that member state would already be abiding by the above measures, even if for nothing other than, apologies for using the meme term, profit motive. This sort of thing needs case-by-case resolutions, preferably addressing issues with RL parallels. As it was submitted, GArot microcosm.

I do appreciate that you at least put in the effort to make these proposals well-written, despite how much it disturbed my peace. You've gone above and beyond the standards that are held for other breakinflation termspam latinflourish clauseslop /organ/magic black hole general fund spending policywonk "convenient, appropriate, qualified, competent" thesaurusposturing proposals.

[Bananaistan]

"Secondary legislation is bad. This is nothing but a committee going off making secondary legislation with no input from anyone. It is the archetype one size fits nobody proposal which the IntFed lot continuously shove down our throats. And not only that, it also abolishes domestic regulations.

"Completely and utterly opposed."

[Tinhampton]

"Secondary legislation is bad. This is nothing but a committee going off making secondary legislation with no input from anyone. It is the archetype one size fits nobody proposal which the IntFed lot continuously shove down our throats. And not only that, it also abolishes domestic regulations.

"Completely and utterly opposed."

The regulations are deliberately reserved to committees. Committees can write concrete rules of infinite length and details, while we mere mortals can only write individual resolutions of 800 words or so, and even then their passage is not guaranteed. The technicalities of each of the things discussed would not be appropriate for a resolution, as such resolutions would be extremely technical and unlikely to be well-understood by the average voter.

As for the issue of domestic laws:

Smith: This will not get rid of your nation's laws. Article e exists because it is the overwhelming sense of the World Assembly that the ITSC should have at least some power to regulate domestic transport. It is an opinion I vehemently disagree with. It is one that Lydia vehemently disagrees with - and she will take over the mission in a few months, after I lose my fight against cancer. But it is an opinion I reflect in this draft, because the people demand it.

[Tinhampton]

This was approved by 12.87% of all delegates - just short of my personal best (Repeal "On Multilateral Trade Talks" was approved by 12.93%) - and will be at vote until the minor update of Monday 25th November.

AS OF 1659 GMT ON THURSDAY: Approvals: 122 out of 57 needed (Tinhampton, Deims Kir, Floyssauu, Marquess of Marchmain, Grisylow, Japuile, New Bradfordsburg, Haymarket Riot, Treadwellia, IMPROPER CLASSIFICATIONS, The Age of Dystopia, Republic and Town, The Greater Solev Union, Weaven, Hatful, Sedgistan, L V M H, Repreteop, Aestheria, Kohr, Oprizek, Golladonia, Sardeigna, Jorovia, Achias, Mystic Dragon, Of The Revived Soviet Union, Xoriet, Red Prosperity, Clanbrasil, The Kamabo Co Deepsea Metro Service Area, Levont, Afria New, Perendinate, Battadia, TheGoldenEmpireGermany, South Newlandia, Vraene, Mikeswill, Tamilias, Dragania WA, The Kingdom of Germany-KD, Oldemburgos, United Desri, Zombiedolphins, French New Wake Island, Varnash, Thessallonika, Toerana, Westerd, Fortis Argentum, Sasilen, Nerodanus, Jakapil Island, Awesomeness, Couch Empire, Kolatis, Bennathia, Alfolin, The Divin Fist, Khancanburi, Darastrixethe, Sonvia, Unified Academy of Japan, Merinaya, Secret Agent 99, Andech, Beeducalm, First Republican Autocracy of Slavyia, The Imperial Atlas, Ter Landia, Economy Stimulators, Mark, Kantabria, Poppyland, Maxfax, Yurtishka, Darkarion, Akhand Bharatam, WaffenBrightonburg, Donynezia, Klanbergia, Kanalania, Foxsylvania, Southern Polish, Eco-Paris Reformation, Crypthic, Picairn, The Hill Republic, Lurusitania, Alscopia, Hault Louth, Gabrasicaly, Franconia Empire, The Goh Dynasty, Torvien, The Earths people, Hopal, Hiloooooo, The Hurricane, Bali Kingdom, Wozmania, Electrum, Qudrath, Strogamehouf, Roylaii, Unicross, Inco, Konigsreich Von Prussen, Ancientania, Flourish, Weemen, National Coraland of Fishery, South Boston Irishmen, Doslonsu, Catopes, Lakenbird, The Two Islands, Silver-Tree, Lorai, Hawkwas Sovustian, America the Greater)

[The Overmind]

"Secondary legislation is bad. This is nothing but a committee going off making secondary legislation with no input from anyone. It is the archetype one size fits nobody proposal which the IntFed lot continuously shove down our throats. And not only that, it also abolishes domestic regulations.

"Completely and utterly opposed."

Support precisely because this is both needed and impossible to write in a general enough way to accommodate every nation from horse and buggy and nomadic trekkers to flying cars and space shuttles. This is the smartest way to write this and it's hardly "IntFed" when it enforces nothing domestically.

[Opiachus]

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

FInally, a significant, pro-economic resolution-at-vote for the GA. A much-needed break from all the anti-economic over-regulatory dribble in recent GA history. I applaud the author for making the choice, when the choice presented itself, to pick a resolution category that makes WA state economies stronger, rather than weaker, as is unfortunately the case for most authors when they pick resolution categories. Support on this choice alone, although the resolution text itself is meritorious as well.

1. Why would anyone define "a vessel" to include air vehicles?

Air vehicles are indeed traditionally considered vessels. The wide ranging authority and responsibility of an aircraft pilot (ability to order passengers to be removed from the aircraft at will even if the passenger didn't actually do anything illegal, the ultimate responsibility for the safety of all souls on board including the tradition of being the last to abandon ship) stems from the identical authority and responsibility of captains of vessels at sea. Just like vessels at sea, aircraft have port and starboard sides, not left and right. Aircraft navigation lights have the same colour coding as other vessels: a red light on the port side, a green light on the starboard side, and a white light on the stern. Like other vessels, aircraft have a country and flag of registry and default to that jurisdiction's laws when outside other jurisdictions (for example, nationality laws when a child is born at sea or in the air, and laws on certain vices such as alcoholic beverage service). Even the radio distress calls are the same: mayday and pan-pan are used by both air vehicles and other vessels.

(edit: indeed, aircraft designs also have keels and waterlines which really demonstrate the nautical roots of aviation as both are perceived as exclusively water vessel terms)