[Groot Gouda]

Protection of Dolphins Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Real Paradise

Description: The United Nations,

RECONGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,

ALARMED by the killing of dolphins around the world, whether intentional of accidental,

OBSERVING that the prevention of dolphin killings will not in any way hurt any of the states' economies,

RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted dolphins,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.

[Groot Gouda]

As I sent the author when I was approached to support the proposal:

1. I don't think dolphins are in big danger
2. Why do we need a resolution singling out dolphins when there are so many endangered species?

With the request for regional input, I point out that the position of my nation is AGAINST.

[Sober Thought]

Marginal YES vote.

[Malabra]

We vote yes.

--Prime Minister of Malabra

[Keeslandia]

The Empire supports, but don't see it as a burning issue. We'll wait for the Delegate to make a final decision and support the vote of the Region.

[Duechlander]

Seeing as the issue is not a pressing concern, Duechlander votes no.

[Lloegr-Cymru]

Lloegr-Cymru votes no, as we're unclear why dolphins must receive special attention, and yet other forms of wildlife do not.

[Mikitivity]

Mikitivity actually voted in favour of this resolution (and did in the poll as well), but the reality is my government really has no position on this issue and is considering changing our yes vote to an absention.

It isn't that dolphins are the only animals that can be protected. The liberals of Mikitivity also feel that clubbing baby seals is bad. Nobody has happened to make those resolutions yet.

What is lacking, however, is a justification in the resolution explaining why dolphins are being singled out for complete protection, whereas whales were just regulated via the Ban on Whaling resolution from last year. Interestingly my government feels that older resolution was better designed.

[Duechlander]

The main reason is why this resolution is bond to fail is that it singles out JUST DOLPHINS! The last time I checked, it was failing.

[Grosseschnauzer]

What's interesting is the real life news item yesterday that seems to demonstrate that dolphins have a culture:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050607/sc_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Now, that might justify dolphin protection as very few speices have ever been demonstrated to have both tool making and using skills, plus a cultural behavior as part of their sentenence.

But the resolution does not justify its action very well, and that is the real weakness of the proposal.

We haven't decided yet was to do, but an absention is likely.

[Groot Gouda]

DuechlanderJun 8 2005, 06:27 PM The last time I checked, it was failing. [/quote]
That must've been long ago, then:

Votes For: 7,662

Votes Against: 3,041


Anyway, because the region seems divided on this, I will abstain from voting, unless the For voters don't object to me voting against.

[Mikitivity]

I'd propose that the Delegate may break votes in tie-breakers *or* when nations indicate a willingness to "swing vote" that the Delegate again should be encouraged to vote according to their popular domestic wishes.

[Federation of Disjunction]

Although I'm too late as I've been on vacation, I'm happy to see it has passed for this reason. All of you who seemed to be on the fence or against this proposal objected due to singling out one species. I ask this question to all of you. Do you realistically feel that a resolution that includes all applicable endangered species is realistic? I feel we must begin somewhere.

Going beyond whales, dolphins seem as reasonable a place to start as any. We could go on and bring a series of resolutions regarding appropriate species, including baby Harp Seals. There may have been an issue with the writing of the Dolphin resolution but my idea behind specific resolutions is that each species would require specific language regarding their conservation and penalty for violation of the resolution.

D

[Groot Gouda]

"Do you realistically feel that a resolution that includes all applicable endangered species is realistic?"

I'll bounce that question back with "do you realistically feel that a resolution for each individual endangered species is realistic?". And the answer, in my opinion, is of course "no".

The answer to your question is yes. It is not up to the UN to go into too much detail, because that would mean each detail requires a seperate resolution. A resolution offering general protection to endangered species is possible. The UN can condemn the hunting on endangered species, call for action, define endangered species broadly yet suitably or even mandate that the ecological wildlife in the NS world must be preserved.

For this reason, I am slightly sad that such a poor resolution passes, and I have used the "vote-breaking" vote to vote against this resolution (knowing, though, that this would have no influence on the end result).

[Federation of Disjunction]

O.K. Groot, you're right, it's not realistic. But in my utopia we could have separate and far reaching resolutions.

I also see everyone's point in not wanting a weak resolution to pass but to send it back to be reworked. I'll defer to you as the more experienced writer but isn't part of the process to have a potential resolution reviewed and modified based on feedback?

BTW, I must have been tired since I used "realistic" twice in the same sentence. I really hate it when I really do that... Nice of you not to ridcule!

In the end I'm passionate about animal treatment and environmental issues so I tend to give them a lot of leeway.

D

[Groot Gouda]

Federation of DisjunctionJun 13 2005, 08:48 PM I also see everyone's point in not wanting a weak resolution to pass but to send it back to be reworked. I'll defer to you as the more experienced writer but isn't part of the process to have a potential resolution reviewed and modified based on feedback? [/quote]
It is, but the author must want to incorporate the feedback. This one didn't. And because it's a "feel-good" resolution, hardly anyone voted against it. Usefull behaviour when you're launching your own proposal, but irritating when a bad proposal like this one hits the floor.

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaJun 14 2005, 12:53 AM Federation of DisjunctionJun 13 2005, 08:48 PM I also see everyone's point in not wanting a weak resolution to pass but to send it back to be reworked. I'll defer to you as the more experienced writer but isn't part of the process to have a potential resolution reviewed and modified based on feedback? [/quote]
It is, but the author must want to incorporate the feedback. This one didn't. And because it's a "feel-good" resolution, hardly anyone voted against it. Usefull behaviour when you're launching your own proposal, but irritating when a bad proposal like this one hits the floor. [/quote]
That is exactly my take on it as well.

But the people of Mikitivity spoke and said that they didn't see a harm in the resolution. Being landlocked and having a leadership that is responsive to even the craziest ideas of the population, we voted yes.