NationStates Jolt Archive

Please review and give support if warranted. Constructive criticism is invited but not necessarily read.

Description: No NationState shall deprive any other NationState of access to water by the damming, diverting, or channeling of any body of water which flows from one NationState to another. Nor shall any NationState arbitrarily reduce the flow of any such body of water within the confines of its territorial boundaries thus depriving other NationStates of the benefits of its tributaries.

Any such action shall be deemed a Crime Against Humanity.

The United Nations is granted authority either directly or through a designated proxy NationState or States to correct any such action using whatever means are deemed appropriate.

submitted: Nilserb of Monacatootha

This proposal recognizes the ancient principle of "riparian rights" and deserves support.

We will continue to protect our borders. Pthers may use water which crosses the border naturally, but they may not enter for purposes of laying pipelines, changing drainage, diverting streams or removing water. If they do, it wil be regarded as an act of war.

Constructive criticism is invited but not necessarily read.

Superb! Of course, proposals are invited but not necessarily voted upon. :D

Description: No NationState shall deprive any other NationState of access to water by the damming, diverting, or channeling of any body of water which flows from one NationState to another. Nor shall any NationState arbitrarily reduce the flow of any such body of water within the confines of its territorial boundaries thus depriving other NationStates of the benefits of its tributaries.

Sounds good. The second bit may need to be re-worded; as it stands, someone up-river from you can't use that water for their own agriculture; and neither can you, because that would reduce the amount of water for use downstream. Is that what you meant, or were you thinking of someone reducing water flow as a hostile act?

The other thing is maybe to put in something about pollution. If a nation upstream is using the water for industry, they may not reduce the overall flow but may dump stuff in the water that you would have to remove before using it.

SC

Constructive criticism is invited but not necessarily read.

Superb! Of course, proposals are invited but not necessarily voted upon. :D

Description: No NationState shall deprive any other NationState of access to water by the damming, diverting, or channeling of any body of water which flows from one NationState to another. Nor shall any NationState arbitrarily reduce the flow of any such body of water within the confines of its territorial boundaries thus depriving other NationStates of the benefits of its tributaries.

Sounds good. The second bit may need to be re-worded; as it stands, someone up-river from you can't use that water for their own agriculture; and neither can you, because that would reduce the amount of water for use downstream. Is that what you meant, or were you thinking of someone reducing water flow as a hostile act?

The other thing is maybe to put in something about pollution. If a nation upstream is using the water for industry, they may not reduce the overall flow but may dump stuff in the water that you would have to remove before using it.

SC

You make some excellent points. I was specifically thinking about hostile intentions and should have more clearly defined flow restriction not including those amounts drawn for industry or agriculture.

The pollution point is obvious and I missed it. Good point. I do not believe that contributing to pollution would warrant intervention by UN as outlined and that appears to be the only remedy.

Thanks for the insights.

N of M

Catholic Europe 100% supports this resolution, believing that it addresses a very important isue and deals with it effectively.

Please review and give support if warranted. Constructive criticism is invited but not necessarily read.

Description: No NationState shall deprive any other NationState of access to water by the damming, diverting, or channeling of any body of water which flows from one NationState to another. Nor shall any NationState arbitrarily reduce the flow of any such body of water within the confines of its territorial boundaries thus depriving other NationStates of the benefits of its tributaries.

Any such action shall be deemed a Crime Against Humanity.

The United Nations is granted authority either directly or through a designated proxy NationState or States to correct any such action using whatever means are deemed appropriate.

submitted: Nilserb of Monacatootha

I can't see how anyone can support this. Hydroelectric generators require the damming and channeling of large bodies of water. How do you expect to supply water to inland areas if you don't dam it and pump it ?

A very good point. But damming a flowing river for hydroelectic generation implies that the flow is merely diverted temporarily to preform generation functions and then merges back in with the main stream to continue on its merry way.

The key word in the proposal is "deprive" which is intended to deal with any state which totally blocks the flow of a body of water.

I was thinking of what the US BLM is doing in the western US which is to totally redirect the flow of a river away from areas which depend upon it for replenishment of naturally-occuring aquifers and for agriculture.

Water is a weapon in the Mideast with the Jordan River being dammed and flow slowed to a mere trickle.

Nilserb of Monacatootha

Turkey is also controlling water supplies to its neighbors.

Overirrigation can reduce a river to a dry gulch, depriving downstream neighbors of their regular water supply.

Turkey is also controlling water supplies to its neighbors.

Overirrigation can reduce a river to a dry gulch, depriving downstream neighbors of their regular water supply.

Those EVIL turkeys. We should stuff and cook them. That would learn them.

Does that include swamp land? What about the needs of my nation? If I control the river, then it is MY river and I should be able to charge people to use it. That's how it works.

Please review and give support if warranted. Constructive criticism is invited but not necessarily read.

Description: No NationState shall deprive any other NationState of access to water by the damming, diverting, or channeling of any body of water which flows from one NationState to another. Nor shall any NationState arbitrarily reduce the flow of any such body of water within the confines of its territorial boundaries thus depriving other NationStates of the benefits of its tributaries.

Any such action shall be deemed a Crime Against Humanity.

The United Nations is granted authority either directly or through a designated proxy NationState or States to correct any such action using whatever means are deemed appropriate.

submitted: Nilserb of Monacatootha

Suppose this passes, and low-lying parts of a poor neighboring country are flooded by a suddenly swollen river. This technically means no other nation can come to its aid by diverting it temporarily.

"using whatever means are deemed appropriate" ... needs re-wording to specific terms. "Whatever means" could be dropping an H-bomb (extreme, but some people are idiots). Or it could mean economic sanctions. Or playing barbra streisand over a nation-wide PA system. What does "whatever means" mean?

"deemed appropriate" refers, of course, to whatever means the UN general assembly authorizes. Probably conferences, more resolutions, dramatic assembly debates... the usual stuff.

"deemed appropriate" refers, of course, to whatever means the UN general assembly authorizes. Probably conferences, more resolutions, dramatic assembly debates... the usual stuff.

The Confederacy supports this proposal. Located as we are just north of Buhairat ath-Tharthar, in a somewhat arid area - if the available water supply began shrinking the people would be in dire straits.

Shaviv
Emissary