Repeal "The Law of the Sea"
#1

Quote: Repeal "The Law of the Sea"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #74

Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: UN Resolution #74: The Law of the Sea (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

OBSERVING that non-UN members outnumber UN members 3 to 1,

ASSERTING that the attempts of "The Law of the Sea" to claim UN jurisdiction over international waters are misguided, impractical, and illegal,

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by "The Law of the Sea" are far too small without allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,

BELIEVING that the allotment of fishing quotas is inefficiently administered by "The Law of the Sea", but now falls under the jurisdiction of the UNCoESB,

APPALLED at the extensive bureaucracy created by "The Law of the Sea", which would be largely rendered ineffectual by the presence of non-UN navies, and the lack of legislation governing relations between these and UN navies,

CONCERNED by the conflict between the obligations of ships under "The Law of the Sea", and of declared neutral ships,

DEPLORING the designation of definition of piracy to bilateral definition, which would in fact allow ships at will to disrupt trade, in effect fuelling, rather than preventing, international piracy,

NOT BELIEVING 'reasonable grounds' is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary, aggressive boarding of ships, and appalled at the breach of confidentiality created by the UN database of searches,

DISREGARDING the claim that the UN can designate no-fishing areas, given the presence of non-UN fishing boats,

DISBELIEVING the sweeping nature of "The Law of the Sea", in attempting to connect a number of entirely separate concerns, such as international security and ecology, to be a productive approach to internationally binding legislation,

FULLY CONDEMNING "The Law of the Sea" for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory:

1. REPEALS "The Law of the Sea";

2. IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.

Voting Ends: Fri Jan 20 2006 [/quote]

The original resolution reads:

Quote: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #74
The Law of the Sea

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Serconea

Description: The United Nations,

RESOLVES:
1. That all areas of sea more than 20 kilometres from an internationally recognised settled landmass or scientific research station are described as international waters. The UN may permit archipelagos to have the 20 kilometre limit start from the outside islands and allow waters inside the archipelago to be claimed by the nation who owns it.
2. That all 'international waters' shall be outside the sovereignty of any member nation and that no nation can claim to have sovereignty over them.
3. That all nations shall have in or above international waters, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone:
a) Freedom to fish in designated fishing areas, subject to UN quotas.
b ) Freedom to fly
c) Freedom of navigation
d) Freedom to lay cables, pipelines and underwater installations, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone
4. That a UN Commission be established to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty or high ecological sensitivity and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones.
5. An International Maritime Standards Bureau will be created to set international rules on navigation, working hours and other matters it deems appropriate to ensure safety at sea.
6. All states can have ships under their flag. Any state may establish a registry for ships permitted to fly their nations flag. These vessels must be duly owned and operated by citizens of the respective country to be allowed to register with said country. No state shall permit the establishment of a "flag of convenience". Any vessel receiving an "SOS" or distress call should render immediate assistance, no matter their country of origin or current war status.
7. All states shall ensure that vessels under their flag are built and kept to proper seaworthy standards, as defined by the International Maritime Standards Bureau.
8. Piracy is prohibited in international and territorial waters.
9. Piracy shall be defined as any illegal acts of violence, detention, theft or damage committed by a private vessel or aircraft, or its crew or passengers, against another vessel or aircraft, or the passengers, crew or property of the latter. "Illegal" will be defined by bilateral diplomacy, with the UN intervening if the two nations cannot agree.
10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.
11. That no nation shall shelter pirates. Nations may only employ privateers (which are defined as pirates who work officially for a government) in a time of declared war.
12. That any flagged warship may board a ship if it has reasonable grounds to believe it is engaged in an international crime, such as but not limited to terrorism, piracy or smuggling. If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated by the warship's nation to a mutually agreeable value. A database of searches shall be kept by the UN to aid law enforcement. On boarding or attacking a vessel, the warship must immediately run up its national colours or the action will be considered an act of piracy.
13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.
14. All UN resolutions affecting member nations also apply to actions carried out by them or their citizens in international waters.
15. All nations with navigable waterways linking their coast and a landlocked country are encouraged to reach agreements on their use by vessels of the latter country.

Votes For: 10,656
Votes Against: 4,684

Implemented: Tue Sep 21 2004

[/quote]
Reply
#2

EDIT: In light of recent arguments, Ceorana changes its vote to NAY.
Reply
#3

Lawtonia agrees with repealing this resolution
Reply
#4

Nope, don't buy it. "Nay."
Reply
#5

Antrium votes for.

This is what decided it:
Quote: 2. IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.[/quote]

I'm worried that no one will replace all these recent repealed resolutions, some of which are fairly essential.
P.S. I'm going to submit my chemical weapons proposal again soon Smile
Reply
#6

Based upon the precedent set by the initial failure of the repeal of the Save The Dolphins resolution, I'd much rather prefer to set the specific topics preserved in new, adopted resolutions first, and then seek repeal on the basis of redundacy.

I personally am uncertain whether in the current environment of UN membership whether much is actually going to be enacted to replace many of these resolutions that are being repealed. If one looks at the proposal queue, a lot of it are proposals for repeals, and very few if any well written replacement proposals, and I'm not sure that I want to see the repeal of the nationstates equivalent of a basic statement of international law.

I also have concern over the claims of the sponsor that the SNUN cannot adopt an international law that applies to non-UN members. In real life, many international treaties are founded on actions adopted by the UN, and other international agreements and treaties created mechanisms that have been incorporated into the UN (thus making the original treaty part of UN-based law.) It is one aspect of some of the recent repeals that I find troubling, and perhaps inconsistent with the stated values of the IDU.

I'm not casting a vote yet, but I do want to stimulate some conversation amongst us about this resolution. I'm troubled by the efforts to repeal it for the reasons I've just stated, and I had expected to see more discussion here than what has been posted so far.
Reply
#7

I'm against this. The UN is the best organisation to create jurisdiction over international waters.
Reply
#8

AntriumJan 16 2006, 08:44 PM Antrium votes for.

This is what decided it:
Quote: 2. IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.[/quote]

I'm worried that no one will replace all these recent repealed resolutions, some of which are fairly essential.
P.S. I'm going to submit my chemical weapons proposal again soon Smile [/quote]
Well, I've been talking to Gruenberg on the #nswiki channel on mIRC, and he actually has *three* resolutions / proposals that he feels it would take to replace the Law of the Sea. He is interested in putting something else back up, but he also admits that it is going to be difficult.

If this gets repealed, our regional proposal about emergency landing rights might need to be a higher priority.

I'm still debating this. There are some problems with the resolution, but I also agree with what others said here: the UN is simply the best agency to have some say over international waters.
Reply
#9

At first LL-C voted for, but then having read the comments here, we're going to switch our vote to an abstain. (Too late to change it at the top of this poll, I know). I like the idea of propose better, and then repeal redundant. Although I am curious as to whether the opposite is true ... better rez defeated on grounds of redundancy (vis-a-vis bad rez).
Reply
#10

Lloegr-CymruJan 18 2006, 03:49 AM I like the idea of propose better, and then repeal redundant. [/quote]
I was under the impression that the proposal would be illegal for redundancy? We're considering changing our vote to against or abstain in light of the previous comments.

:unsure:
Reply
#11

Honestly, there needs to be a better mechanism to the whole repeal process. We should be able to "strike and replace."
Reply
#12

The reason why it is possible to enact a replacement before a repeal is to adopt one or more propoals that cover the same subject matter in a different way. Once the new resolutions are in place, then it is possible to claim redundacy because it would be possible to show how newer resolutions cover all of the "territory" or substantive content of the older proposal.
Then the argument is over the defects in the older proposal and not over leaving a void in a subject matter of concern. It takes a lot a careful drfting, planning and luck to make such a game plan work.
Reply
#13

GrosseschnauzerJan 18 2006, 10:23 AM The reason why it is possible to enact a replacement before a repeal is to adopt one or more propoals that cover the same subject matter in a different way. Once the new resolutions are in place, then it is possible to claim redundacy because it would be possible to show how newer resolutions cover all of the "territory" or substantive content of the older proposal.
Then the argument is over the defects in the older proposal and not over leaving a void in a subject matter of concern. It takes a lot a careful drfting, planning and luck to make such a game plan work. [/quote]
That is an incredibly logical argument, and has swayed my government to support the original resolution and vote against the repeal.
Reply
#14

MikitivityJan 18 2006, 02:31 PM GrosseschnauzerJan 18 2006, 10:23 AM The reason why it is possible to enact a replacement before a repeal is to adopt one or more propoals that cover the same subject matter in a different way. Once the new resolutions are in place, then it is possible to claim redundacy because it would be possible to show how newer resolutions cover all of the "territory" or substantive content of the older proposal.
Then the argument is over the defects in the older proposal and not over leaving a void in a subject matter of concern. It takes a lot a careful drfting, planning and luck to make such a game plan work. [/quote]
That is an incredibly logical argument, and has swayed my government to support the original resolution and vote against the repeal. [/quote]
Us too. I also thought that you had to repeal first, but if not, then I would like to see a replacement passed before this.

Our vote is changed to against.
Reply
#15

Likewise, Ceorana changes its vote to nay.
Reply
#16

NAY.

I've dragged this fundamental issue of repleals before replacements up before, and I think perhaps there is pressure building on the gameplay side to address this. Remember, repeals only became legal fairly recently, including the absurd ones in the first few weeks and months of the game in 2003.

On a related note, when did the ability to do inexact searches in the "World"'s "Find Nation" and "Find Region" fields start? It has really helped me a lot in my quests for half-remembered recruiting prospects or really cool flags. For instance, I found the nicely animated flag of the Grendels easily even if I don't include the leading article of "the."
Reply
#17

Sober ThoughtJan 18 2006, 09:20 PM NAY.

I've dragged this fundamental issue of repleals before replacements up before, and I think perhaps there is pressure building on the gameplay side to address this. Remember, repeals only became legal fairly recently, including the absurd ones in the first few weeks and months of the game in 2003.

On a related note, when did the ability to do inexact searches in the "World"'s "Find Nation" and "Find Region" fields start? It has really helped me a lot in my quests for half-remembered recruiting prospects or really cool flags. For instance, I found the nicely animated flag of the Grendels easily even if I don't include the leading article of "the." [/quote]
I don't know ... last telegram campaigns had the same complete name issue. My guess would be about the time they added the ability to spell check telegrams and regional forum posts. Smile
Reply
#18

Sober ThoughtJan 19 2006, 04:20 AM On a related note, when did the ability to do inexact searches in the "World"'s "Find Nation" and "Find Region" fields start? It has really helped me a lot in my quests for half-remembered recruiting prospects or really cool flags. For instance, I found the nicely animated flag of the Grendels easily even if I don't include the leading article of "the." [/quote]
Pythagasaurus, the new tech admin, put it in place, along with the sidebar dossier link. It was after the spellcheck.

[/offtopic]
Reply
#19

Because of the number of position switches on this proposal, I am disregarding the poll itself, and looking at the posts instead.

My count of the posts (and who posted which), I come up with 0 FOR, 7 AGAINST, 1 ABSTAIN.

Based upon this, I currently plan to cast the region's vote against the proposal (to repeal the Law of the Sea resolution).

But I will be monitoring this thread for the next 24 hours to check on any further changed or additional votes.
Reply
#20

I'm pleased to see others have begun to become frustrated with the lack of a "strike & replace" clause for UN resolutions. I'd been blathering on about having difficulty voting to repeal some well intentioned, but poorly drafted resolutions because without a replacement on the books I find it problematic to ignore the larger policy statement made by the original. As I'd said my piece, I just decided to shut up and vote as I saw fit.

Anyway, as a Region, is there some way to appeal to the PTB for a change in the rules?
Reply
#21

KeeslandiaJan 20 2006, 01:34 PM I'm pleased to see others have begun to become frustrated with the lack of a "strike & replace" clause for UN resolutions. I'd been blathering on about having difficulty voting to repeal some well intentioned, but poorly drafted resolutions because without a replacement on the books I find it problematic to ignore the larger policy statement made by the original. As I'd said my piece, I just decided to shut up and vote as I saw fit.

Anyway, as a Region, is there some way to appeal to the PTB for a change in the rules? [/quote]
Personally, I think it may be an issue of how to code it into NationStates. So it may not be an easy thing.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)