[Groot Gouda]

Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #106


Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -? restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters, violating treaties and trade pacts between nations respecting said waters, and placing special restrictions on any future such treaties; and

WHEREAS, many member states' economies are heavily reliant on fishing and related industries, and this act severely damages their national economies; and

WHEREAS, it is decidedly outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations to place such precise restrictions on international trade and commerce; and

WHEREAS, dolphins are not an endangered species requiring special protection; and

WHEREAS, the sale and consumption of dolphin meat is prevalent in many cultures, and the Protection of Dolphins Act is culturally insensitive in that regard; and

WHEREAS, the Protection of Dolphins Act does little to advance the central purpose of the United Nations, namely, the promotion of human rights; and

WHEREAS, the provision in the Protection of Dolphins Act, calling specifically for the prevention of "dolphin abuse, in any way that (member states) see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives," is insufficient for the protection of human lives and livelihood:

1. THE U.N. PROTECTION OF DOLPHINS ACT IS HEREBY REPEALED.

[Groot Gouda]

Although I don't like the reasons for repealing, which are too national sovereignity-based in my opinion, I will vote for. I have opposed the dolphin act from the beginning and will be glad to see it repealed and replaced. A resolution for general protection of animals has already reached quorum.

[Grosseschnauzer]

On the other hand, I supported the original adoption of the Protection of Dolphins resolution, and see nothing in the repeal proposal that pursuades me to change my mind on the original proposal.

As I noted at the time of the vote on the original, there were news reports (at washingtonpost.com, and when I googled, there were other earlier scientific articles as well) that continue to document the existence of not just social learning, but culture among the dolphin speices.....the existence of cultural traditions is something that requires a higher level of thinking that merely being able to remember learned behavior.

For this reason, there is a rationale for special protection for dolphins, and I vote against the repeal proposal.

[Mikitivity]

I actually believe my government abstained on the original resolution, but in principal, we believe that just claiming a resolution violates national sovereignty can be said by any opponent of any resolution. In this particular case, my government strongly disagrees with the argument presented by the repeal, namely the idea that the UN does not have legal jurisdiction of international waters.

International waters are beyond "sovereign" borders, and to throw out the sovereignty card in the first clause of a repeal and claim that a true international resource is beyond the scope of the UN seems irresponsible to my government.

Had the repeal been worded differently, we would have been receptive to the repeal, but we don't want a statement being established that international resources are beyond the scope of the UN. That in fact SHOULD be the basis of all UN resolutions, and agree or disagree with the structure of the original resolution, this issue strikes at the heart of the international organization itself and my government would urge those leaning towards supporting the repeal to consider abstaining on it for these grounds.

With that in my, we've voted against.

[Baranxtu]

I vote 'no' for a reason that has already been worded by Mikitivity; I'd like to add that I fear that if this resolution passes, it weakens the standing of the UN in the world and voting yes would be counterproductive to the IDU value of a powerful UN in my eyes.

A second reason is that the UN in my oppinion sometimes has to pass culturally insensitive proposals (and has done so many times) for the 'greater good', as pathetic as it may sound.

And as it cannot be guaranteed that the UNCoESB will indeed pass, I will not support this repeal proposal. If it passes, we can repeal the Dolphin Protection Act to reduce paperwork, of course.

[Groot Gouda]

I'm still fiercely for the repeal, also because I never supported the dolphin resolution in the first place.

Okay, first the argument that dolphins are intelligent. I think that's not an argument. An animal is an animal, a living being, and that alone should mean that it has to be treated well.

Secondly, the repeal text. It's not how I would have written it, and I have in fact telegrammed with the author of the repeal explaining why I couldn't support his repeal. However, now that it's hit the floor, the possibility of repealing the dolphin resolution is more important to me than the argument, which has no influence on future resolutions.

As for protecting animals, there are several proposals in queue of which one has already reached quorum and will be up next, outlining protection of species, a UN agency to oversee that and most importantly, sanctions against countries violating the rules. Exactly what we need.

By supporting the dolphin resolution, you're basically saying that the UN should protect animals species by species. Now, on a scale of 35.000 UN members, with associated wildlife crossing borders and swimming in international waters, this is going to take quite a few resolutions to protect them all. And that could mean that some cuddly little animal might be protected, but a hugely important (and rather ugly) species of cockroach might not. Undesirable, in my opinion.

The dolphin resolution is exactly what I dislike about the UN at the moment. UN resolutions that fail to cover a wide scope, and instead micromanaging issues up to (in the Sex Education) the classroom. It is, like I said on the forum, like the greengocers worrying about their shops while it's the street they're in that matters. We need a firm signal against crappy proposals. One is by writing good proposals ourselves (and we have 3 on the line), the other it by repealing undesirable legislation.

That's why I, despite the obvious flaws, maintain my FOR vote.

[Mikitivity]

Well, as you pointed out on the UN forum, I'd love to see an end to the "sovereignty" debates, and the propopent Ohtheykilledkenny (?) clearly has now publically demonstrated that he does not understand what sovereignty is ... I'd rather not encourage resolution or repeal authors to referencing the term in their text unless it is the proper context.

Hmmm, I'm going to check on our IDU discussions about the original resolution. Maybe we can find a regional middle ground there.

[Mikitivity]

http://s10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=192

It seems that my nation actually voted in favour before, but it was a marginal vote. I noticed a few other marginal votes for the original resolution.

I'd say that the resolution itself is repealable, but that this particular repeal contains text that given its legal flaws (implying that sovereignty extends beyond national borders into international waters) is serious enough to simply warrant our no vote.

If a future repeal were proposed without the misuse of "sovereignty" in the text, we'd seriously consider favoring the repeal.

[Antrium]

Antrium has voted against this resolution. I voted for it originally, and right now I don't see any reason to repeal it.

Quote: A resolution for general protection of animals has already reached quorum. [/quote]

If this passes, I may see more of a reason to repeal it.

[Keeslandia]

The Empire too votes against the repeal at this time. We appreciate the validity of the points made by Groot Gouda and would be pleased to support a repeal once a broader resolution is in place.

[Lloegr-Cymru]

OOC - IRL I am a parliamentarian (as in, professionally trained to chair meetings according to parliamentary procedure, not as in a member of parliament), so poorly worded resolutions in general antagonise me. So, for that reason I support the repeal. On principle, bad resolutions should be repealed and replaced by good ones. In my experience chairing groups, committees, and organisations a poorly crafted resolutions always creates unintended harm. That harm can frequently be greater in magnitude than the intended benefit. Having said that, the NSUN would be immeasurably improved with a repeal and replace mechanism that was done in one motion. If people had an alternative with which they were immediately presented, then they might be able to better appreciate difference in quality, leading to greater support for better crafted resolutions.

IC - The Holy and Serene Republic respects the views of the members of the IDU, but lends its support to the views expressed by Groot Gouda. Lloegr-Cymru will vehemently support, regardless of the outcome of this repeal, the upcoming resolution to protect all animals regardless of species.

[Lawtonia]

The People of The Free Land of Lawtonia consider the dolphin a sentient species and have directed the government to vote against this proposal.

Dolphins are one of the few species apart from homo sapiens that engage in sexual activity purely for pleasure

[Sober Thought]

LC (official IDU abbreviation) wrote:

Quote: Having said that, the NSUN would be immeasurably improved with a repeal and replace mechanism that was done in one motion. If people had an alternative with which they were immediately presented, then they might be able to better appreciate difference in quality, leading to greater support for better crafted resolutions.[/quote]

This has cropped up before. Like my Lloegr-Cymru colleague has written, this is the better system. I see no reason why it couldn't work in NationStates, and every reason why it should. Certainly, as LlC (official national abbreviation) has writen, seeing a poorly thought out proposal beside a well thought out one is bound to make people see that merely having a laudable goal is not enough.

This is how real legislation often works, and perhaps by adopting it it would force people to explicitly repeal previous UN resolutions rather than do so implicitly by adopting proposals which are incompatible with previous ones.