[Separatist Peoples]

Quote: Environmental | All Business

Recognizing that most states will require harm befall a party prior to allowing them to bring a suit;

Working to create a mechanism by which litigation can proceed where no person is individually harmed, but a public interest is threatened;

Further recognizing that, even with adequate standing, many such suits may fail;

Totes adopts the following:

Environmental object is defined as an environmentally significant entity, including lakes, rivers, and discrete ecological communities.

Standing is defined as the ability of a party to demonstrate sufficient connection to and harm from an act to support that party's participation in a legal case.

Member states must confer standing upon environmental objects to allow suit to be brought on their behalf through representation, for their own preservation.

Member states may restrict this legal fiction solely to adjudicatory processes.

Member states may restrict remedies in such cases to those in equity.

Member states must otherwise apply the same legal rules, balancing tests, and various analytical methods to suits brought under this law as they would in doctrinally similar cases.
[/quote]

Half my reason for going with this is to see how many people I can upset with the policy, but I'm curious to see if there are issue I've missed.

Also, fun emoji: :jump:

[Sanctaria]

You haven't actually defined what standing is

[Separatist Peoples]

SanctariaSep 11 2017, 07:59:45 PMYou haven't actually defined what standing is [/quote]I'm not sure I have to. Standing in this context is a fairly common legal term, and I'm using it in that context. ICly, that should be sufficient for member governments.

I could include it, which would clarify the reason of having this law, but I'm hesitant to add too many definitions. Hows this sound:

Quote: Standing is defined as the ability of a party to demonstrate sufficient connection to and harm from an act to support that party's participation in a legal case.[/quote]

[Sanctaria]

Separatist PeoplesSep 11 2017, 08:05:44 PMSanctariaSep 11 2017, 07:59:45 PMYou haven't actually defined what standing is [/quote]I'm not sure I have to. Standing in this context is a fairly common legal term, and I'm using it in that context. ICly, that should be sufficient for member governments.

I could include it, which would clarify the reason of having this law, but I'm hesitant to add too many definitions. Hows this sound:

Quote: Standing is defined as the ability of a party to demonstrate sufficient connection to and harm from an act to support that party's participation in a legal case.[/quote][/quote]It is a common theory, but I'm not sure how used or known it is in civil law jurisdictions, as opposed to the common law ones that we are used to.

[Separatist Peoples]

SanctariaSep 11 2017, 08:15:46 PMSeparatist PeoplesSep 11 2017, 08:05:44 PM
Quoting limited to 2 levels deep[/quote]It is a common theory, but I'm not sure how used or known it is in civil law jurisdictions, as opposed to the common law ones that we are used to.[/quote]I'm not sure I follow why that would be an issue. Do not civil law countries also have rules on who can sue somebody else and in what circumstances? All I can tell is that they'd have to amend a statute or write a new one somewhere, which is probably how common law countries would have to react to this.

[Sanctaria]

Separatist PeoplesSep 11 2017, 08:17:33 PMSanctariaSep 11 2017, 08:15:46 PM
Quoting limited to 2 levels deep[/quote]I'm not sure I follow why that would be an issue. Do not civil law countries also have rules on who can sue somebody else and in what circumstances? All I can tell is that they'd have to amend a statute or write a new one somewhere, which is probably how common law countries would have to react to this. [/quote]I don't know if they do or not, but if they don't, you can't expect players (or countries) with an IC knowledge of civil law only to implement a component of the common law system if they don't know what it means.

That's why we include definitions.

[Separatist Peoples]

SanctariaSep 11 2017, 08:20:10 PMSeparatist PeoplesSep 11 2017, 08:17:33 PM
Quoting limited to 2 levels deep[/quote]I don't know if they do or not, but if they don't, you can't expect players (or countries) with an IC knowledge of civil law only to implement a component of the common law system if they don't know what it means.

That's why we include definitions.[/quote]Included to avoid difficulties downstream.

[Sanctaria]

Quote: Definitely adopts the following[/quote]

Definitely? Or should this be Definitively?

[Separatist Peoples]

SanctariaSep 12 2017, 04:30:38 PMQuote: Definitely adopts the following[/quote]

Definitely? Or should this be Definitively?[/quote]It says definitely. I thought a little long-haired informality would be, like, totally rad, broheim. We'll totes get the hippie vote, my dude.

[Laeral]

What are you planning for the operative clauses?

[Sanctaria]

LaeralSep 15 2017, 10:28:07 PMWhat are you planning for the operative clauses?[/quote]I know I'm not the author but I'm not sure what you mean by what is he planning for them.

Do you mean if he's planning any updates on them or ... ?

[Laeral]

It's just that the operative clauses seem incomplete somehow.

[Separatist Peoples]

LaeralSep 16 2017, 03:22:01 PMIt's just that the operative clauses seem incomplete somehow.Er[/quote]Erm...those are pretty complete. Do you see a grammatical error that suggests an incomplete sentence?

[Laeral]

No, I see now. What are your plans for the future of this draft?

[Fauxia]

Definitely adopts the following sounds a little clunky to me.

[Laeral]

Maybe just 'adopts the following'?

[Separatist Peoples]

LaeralSep 25 2017, 07:48:31 PMNo, I see now. What are your plans for the future of this draft?[/quote]To submit it and see what happens? I'm mostly hoping to see how upset a legal proposal can make the GA.

[Separatist Peoples]

FauxiaSep 30 2017, 07:34:40 PMDefinitely adopts the following sounds a little clunky to me.[/quote]Noted and adjusted.

[Laeral]

Is there anything wrong with: "Hereby adopts the following"?

[Separatist Peoples]

LaeralOct 3 2017, 08:28:33 PMIs there anything wrong with: "Hereby adopts the following"?[/quote]An unwillingness to treat the General Assembly with formality, mostly.

Also, why is the image for this topic a flaming folder? Not that I oppose that, it's fairly accurate, but still.

[Railana]

What exactly is the scope of the right to "preservation" that environmental objects possess? Unless such a right can be clearly established, how can it realistically be enforced through legal proceedings?

[Separatist Peoples]

RailanaOct 24 2017, 10:33:53 PMWhat exactly is the scope of the right to "preservation" that environmental objects possess? Unless such a right can be clearly established, how can it realistically be enforced through legal proceedings?[/quote]Whatever the WA has already established plus individual nation states' laws. The issue isn't one of identifying specific reasons to preserve something as much as it being difficult for a preservation group to establish sufficient standing to enforce environmental laws. A factory can be releasing waste that seriously damages, say, a nature preserve, but if the government is willing to turn a blind eye to a specific scenario despite having environmental protections, its damn hard to have the standing to bring suit unless you're harmed personally.

Its a stepping stone to avoid work-arounds for environmental legislation in the future.

[Darcness]

Separatist PeoplesOct 6 2017, 06:25:05 PMLaeralOct 3 2017, 08:28:33 PMIs there anything wrong with: "Hereby adopts the following"?[/quote]An unwillingness to treat the General Assembly with formality, mostly.

Also, why is the image for this topic a flaming folder? Not that I oppose that, it's fairly accurate, but still.[/quote]'Hot' topic?