NationStates Jolt Archive

My proposal, the Law of the Sea, has reached quorum and is now on the UN page.

Don't forget to vote.

The Law of the Sea
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Serconea (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=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: 1632
Votes Against: 432
Voting Ends: Tue Sep 21 2004

The Law of the Sea
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.


My government is still reviewing the resolution, but I can already say that the above three clauses are consistent with my nation's position, meaning the Confederated City States supports these clauses.

Certainly this resolution debate is worthy of 5 stars, meaning this is considered very important UN business to my nation.

EDIT: The above post with text of the resolution is mine. I'll delete my text if the author would like to include the actual text in his post. I just put it there to get the debate moving. :)

It is important, but I wish Serconea hadn't tried to be so comprehensive. We're going to have to vote against it because of the clause about Flags of Convenience. Since that's actually about limiting free trade, we wish it hadn't been included.

Yes, we voted against it, but we won't be awfully disappointed if it passes.

Well at least I'll be disappointed if it passes. It's a good issue for the U.N. to be addressing, but I don't like the manner in which it was addressed. As always, there's this whole "national sovereignty" concern that I have.

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.

20 kilometres isn't much, but whatever.

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.

Good deal.

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

U.N. quotas! Gah!

4. That a UN Commission be established to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty or high ecological sensitivity and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones.

Meh. That's fine.

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.

Whatever.

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.

Hmmm...I don't like that last sentence. It's too much of an absolute when IMO it needs to leave room for national/personal decisions.

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.

*sigh* Fine.

8. Piracy is prohibited in international and territorial waters.

Good.

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.

Sounds fair.

10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.

Good clause!

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.

This is a bit much for me, but I can accept it.

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.

Fair, but annoying I'm sure.

13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.

You're giving the U.N. more power than I would like with this clause.

14. All UN resolutions affecting member nations also apply to actions carried out by them or their citizens in international waters.

Okay.

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.

Whatever.

This is the only portion that gives us some pause:

The Law of the Sea
...
10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.
...


While certainly not restrictive, 'utmost' will likely vary from nation to nation. Our ability to prosecute pirates in international waters will probably not be an especially high priority owing to current domestic issues. Nevertheless we are voting for the resolution with this sole reservation; nicely done.

It is important, but I wish Serconea hadn't tried to be so comprehensive. We're going to have to vote against it because of the clause about Flags of Convenience. Since that's actually about limiting free trade, we wish it hadn't been included.

Yes, we voted against it, but we won't be awfully disappointed if it passes.

RE: Detail / Comprehensive:
Doomed if you do, Doomed if you don't.

I was getting zapped for focusing on just beer instead of alcohol. I completely understand why Secronea was so through.

Is this the bit you don't like:

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.


First, my government supports clause 7, without hestitation.

The only part I may have a reservation with in clause 6 is the sentence "These vessels must be duly owned and operated by citizens". But the general idea behind even that clause is clear: it seeks to establish resonsibility for nations.

However, you are in fact right. That is a law placed on businesses. That particular clause is not Free Trade (go to the Technical forum where I've asked for advice on the category). The larger question is to me, is the rest of the proposal on balance promote increased trade or does it regulate it?

I don't know yet. If it regulates trade, would your government have a suggestion for a more appropriate UN category? As the text itself does seem appropriate and benefical.

We would firstly like to applaud this resolution as being one of the very few that have actually dealt with a legitimate international topic worthy of the UN's interf--- er attention.

The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint finds only one objectionable point in this resolution, that being the 20 km limit of territorial waters. The MMA of Greenspoint currently recognizes a limit of 322 km, and do not wish to lessen that. We were all prepared to vote for this resolution until that one item was brought to our attention. I'm afraid it's a deal-breaker for us.

We are therefore voting against this resolution.

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.
It's the bold portion we don't like. Some of our non-UN trading partners don't trade with anyone save their own flagged vessels. We build the ships, crew them, run them, flag them under the other nation's flag, and keep all the profits for ourselves, as is only right and proper. Flag of convenience becomes flag of necessity under certain circumstances.

We've got a few quibbles with other points, especially the protection clauses that should require thier own resolution ... but we can live with them (or afford the fines).

The limit to territorial waters is a big problem. Given the range of cruise missiles and even long range artillery, this gives naval vessels the ability to bombard population centers from well outside territorial waters or perform depressed trajectory SLBM launches. Chardonay has seen too many naval conflicts devolve into standoffs just outside territorial waters to doubt that this is a vital issue.

Voting against.

I think that 20km national waters is too small, that flags of conveniance are fine, and that responding to a SOS should be discretionary rather than compulsory.

Free trade is good. Next time keep it short and sweet.

It's the bold portion we don't like. Some of our non-UN trading partners don't trade with anyone save their own flagged vessels. We build the ships, crew them, run them, flag them under the other nation's flag, and keep all the profits for ourselves, as is only right and proper. Flag of convenience becomes flag of necessity under certain circumstances.

We've got a few quibbles with other points, especially the protection clauses that should require thier own resolution ... but we can live with them (or afford the fines).

Well the flagging issue has some justification. I think the idea of outlawing flags of convience is to reinforce the notion that ships have to really have one nationality. Basically a government has to be willing to accept the liability of that ship or rather the responsibility for the actions of that ship.

But I actually do agree that this protection / law is certainly a barrier, in much the same way that I felt that using the UN to promote telecommuting laws on businesses is also a law or restriction places on businesses. In the case of flagging, since the ships travel acorss borders, my government agrees this is a good thing. In the case of trying to sneak a government law in a free trade proposal, my government views that as a bad thing.

I'm starting to think that this proposal actually could fit into several UN categories. I do see free trade (increasing economic freedom) issues here in the form of clauses 3 and 15. I see some environmental ideas, some general security ideas, some humanitarian / emergency aid ideas. Since the focus of the entire resolution is on international activities, my government is seriously leaning towards voting yes.

This I think is a bad idea!I just hope my the delegate votes against it.325 votes can make some nice votes.But the we meaning the Senate decided to say no.

Ahsmenistan will vote against this resolution due to the following 2 clauses:

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.

We deem the working hours and safety of persons sailing under the Ahsmenistan flag not to be the concern of anyone besides Ahsmenistan. Ahsmenistan is fully cabable of providing for the safety of its citizens and does not require UN regulations to do this.

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.

Ahsmenistan fully endorses the policy against piracy, and finds article 12 to be contradictory to article 9 of this resolution. Unauthorized detention and searching of any Ahsmenistanian vessels will be considered an illegal act of piracy by this government, whether or not colors are displayed.

If these articles are stricken, then we shall reconsider our position.

Outrageous! How can the UN be so bold as to think it has control over international waters! Those waters belong to no man. How can we pass laws over territory that is not ours? I agree that piracy is wrong and that there are certain environmental cares that must be made, but what gives the UN the right to control these waters? I for one will be voting against this resolution.

-Azarath, Holy Emperor of Platymos

13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.

This line is vague, for example, if the U.N. has allowed fishing i can also pollute. just an example on how it can be miss interperted.

Can someone clarify what they mean by flag of Convienience. As delegate for KTL several of the nations that endorse me are against this new resolution since its in violation of their sovereignty thus The Emirate is voting against the resolution. It does not give ample freedom to Nations

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.

My problem is with this clause is that it leaves little room for national defense. Twenty kilometers is absolutely nothing. it reminds me too much of the proposal to elminate nuclear weapons. I'm against this

Definitely don't care for the "20 km" bit... that's tiny in comparison to weapon capabilities. Nor do I relish the idea of the UN allowing privateering. By the by, clause 2 is contradictory with 9, 12, and 13, because it states that nations have no control over "international waters". Clauses 9, 12, and 13 are all about member control of said waters!

And this is supposed to be a resolution to "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce"? I find it revolting that again such an important issue is being hijacked to push "social justice" and "environmental" issues.

The Law of the Sea
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.
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. No state shall permit the establishment of a "flag of convenience".
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.
13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.


I think it is revolting. How can this possibly be presented as free trade?

But you'll see that it will pass. They always pass. I'm getting so goddamn sick of it. WHY did the "law of the sea" have to include the establishment of not one, but TWO left-wing committees with unlimited powers?

You can bet that, if I do not leave this idiotic body before the passage of yet another "WE CONTROL YOU!!!" resolution, I will be ICly ignoring this UN resolution wholesale. Sue me. No control over our own damn fishing, UN bureaucrats flatly determining the terms of OUR contractual agreements with workers, not being allowed to flag ships where it is cheaper (so as to get rid of the whaling clause, even if the resolution cannot apply to non-un nations) AND making ships more expensive due to silly regulations which will require all sorts of extreme modifications. Really.

I'm sure the person who submitted it did his best on it, but again it got hijacked by the commie crowd to push their ideological agenda.

Outrageous! How can the UN be so bold as to think it has control over international waters! Those waters belong to no man. How can we pass laws over territory that is not ours? I agree that piracy is wrong and that there are certain environmental cares that must be made, but what gives the UN the right to control these waters? I for one will be voting against this resolution.

-Azarath, Holy Emperor of Platymos
This is also the line I will be following, btw.

The UN setting rules for international waters that it has just renounced sovereignty over. This is exterritorial legislation and thus the resolution cannot be seen as valid even if it is adopted. I can make a law saying that I own the world, but that does not make it so.

Definitely don't care for the "20 km" bit... that's tiny in comparison to weapon capabilities. Nor do I relish the idea of the UN allowing privateering. By the by, clause 2 is contradictory with 9, 12, and 13, because it states that nations have no control over "international waters". Clauses 9, 12, and 13 are all about member control of said waters!

OOC: Just for fun I looked up the UN Law of the Sea Convention (1982) (http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_1.htm#part_ii_territorial_sea_and_contigu).


Section 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA
Article 3 Breadth of the territorial sea
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.

Q: So what is 12 nautical miles?

http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/nautical-miles-to-kilometers.htm

A: 22.2 km.


It is very hard to write something for NationStates UN. If your proposal isn't deleted by a moderator, it will be described as being too simple. If it isn't too simple it might also be called, "Ugh this makes my head hurt. Your words are too big."

You are free to roleplay as you like, but I'm pretty impressed and want to be the first to offer Serconea my congratulations for addressing not a domestic issue, but a true international issue and for doing some homework first! :)

(ooc: again, i want to say congratulations on a great resolution topic and a good one for debate. However, time to repeat in-character objections...)

As we have previously stated, we must oppose this resolution in the stongest possible terms. Although currently at war with an invasion force from Knootoss, and although we have radically different economic and political philosophies from their insane worship of the Market, we share their government's objections to this omnibus resolution.

The 20-km limit to territorial waters is completely unacceptable.
- we depend on fish caught within our 200-km territorial waters limit for food. If these waters are opened to international fishing, our country will face starvation.
- our economic plans envision use of the sea-bed off our coasts, to a 200-km limit, for farming and resource exploitation. If these sea-bed areas are opened to international exploitation, our country's future prosperity will be threatened.
- most waters are declared "international" and thrown open on a first-come, first-served basis. This will ensure a scramble for maritime resources in which the wealthy and powerful will have an unfair advantage. This is actualyl a regressive step comapred to existing customary international law.

We are voting against the resolution. We call for it to be defeated and re-submitted with a 200-km limit to territorial waters. We would be very happy to accept binding environmental standards for these territorial waters, but frankly the current resolution provides less environmental protection than our national laws.

If the resolution does pass, we would be very interested in working with other states to submit an amendment to extend territorial waters to 200-km.

Failing that, Tanah Burung will declare a 200-km exclusive economic zone and reserves the right to prevent foreign vessels from over-fishing in these waters.

As a by-the-way, the real Law of the Sea does allow for a 200-km exclusive economic zone, in article 57.

http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_2.htm#Part_V

The coastal state is given stewardship of this area. This is the amendment i'm talking about, essentially.

Koopman snickers upon hearing the United Provinces representative. "As if they can catch fish now anyway."

Then he leaves the general assembly to pack up in his UN office, as the chance that his nation will be leaving the UN after the adoption of this resolution has become very big. Walking back to his office, he hums "always look on the bright side of life" while making a note of all the anti-business resolutions that would not have to be enforced anymore. On the way, he does wave for a moment to a Komokom representative passing by.

((OOC: I plan to make a full declaration when this resolution is accepted and when I have some time to make a long post. I'll be cutting non-reciprocating aid to all UN nations and all that nifty stuff. Probably change a whole lot of laws too as a result. Just so you know, I understand that the person who proposed this resolution meant well and tried to incorporate the demands of the local crowd, but for me it is the final straw. I should have listened to pretty much the whole IRC crowd long ago. The UN is worthless. Just make the UN part of IFTA already and slap a hammer and sickle on that blue flag. Needless to say, I am very dissapointed. I'm betting that there will be a satisfied offsite flame thread when I leave but you can have your laugh. I no longer care.

I'll have to think about finishing my planned research project and/or those resolutions I wanted to propose. OOCly I think it would be nice if *some* people appreciate it that is. I'll think about it. ))

As a by-the-way, the real Law of the Sea does allow for a 200-km exclusive economic zone, in article 57.

http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_2.htm#Part_V

The coastal state is given stewardship of this area. This is the amendment i'm talking about, essentially.

From the resolution before us:


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

This is *not* an exclusive zone, but a pretty honest attempt to allow nations to use the region you speak of. Part V, article 55 of that "other" Law of the Sea says:

The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.

It isn't terrorial water, but as you suggested ... an amendment. If this passes, perhaps "exclusive economic zones" could be created for "environmental" justifications (obvioulsy exclusive and free trade don't fit well together IMHO).

If the resolution does pass, we would be very interested in working with other states to submit an amendment to extend territorial waters to 200-km.

Failing that, Tanah Burung will declare a 200-km exclusive economic zone and reserves the right to prevent foreign vessels from over-fishing in these waters.

First, my nation will recognize your nation's right to manage this zone, since it is not forbidden under any international law. Second, my nation would like to maintain that the spirit of this resolution would suggest that ships bearing the flag of the CCSM would still have right of passage through this economic zone and my government hopes your government would recognize that. Third, my nation would be interested in working with your government to define the legal rights of this "new" region.

(OOC: Don't use the word amendment around the moderators, it implies changing the spirit of a prior resolution. If Serconea agrees, we may be able to do this legal and on the top. I'm optimistic.)

Hell, I'm a communist state, and this resolution doesn't appeal to me at all! Look at it, it's saying I cannot claim enough territorial waters to defend myself, if need be! If it passes, I will too declare an exclusive economic zone, as well as an exclusive defense zone where my fleet will have the same authority as it would in my territorial waters!

Vote down the resolution, or watch everyone duck around it anyway!

La Commonwealth Socialiste de Caras Galadon est: AGAINST


The Law of the Sea
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Serconea (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=serconea)


All in order, I'm a little concerned about the category and significance but hey, it helps my wonderful economy and advances some anticapitalist things so great.


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.

Sounds fine to me. Although perhaps something about exclusive economic zones or the like would have been more to the liking of some nations. And of course a larger zone would be better liked by the imperialist/warmongering nations but 20KM is really quite sufficient.


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.

by definition


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

Every capitalist nation in the bloody world should vote for this. Mind, I do not support this due to environmental concerns about overfishing, pollution caused by leaky pipelines and installations, and the like but that's likely anyway so it's sorta moot and isn't what makes me not like the proposal.


4. That a UN Commission be established to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty or high ecological sensitivity and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones.

No IC objections to this
OOC: Do you actually intend to get nations to roleplay this council.. Otherwise this in itself is reason to vote agaisnt this resolution

IC:


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.

See previous. Also, I firmly beleive the UN can meddle in anything there is an option to make a proposal about.


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.

This should be two clauses not one BTW. The first part about "flags of convenience" I do not like and is my biggest objection. It has been Galadisian policy to allow ships from responsible and sane nations, orginizations, and individuals to register Galadisian ports as "ports of call" or "home ports" and fly Galadisian flags/colors regardless of nation of origin, crew composition, ect. We are rather fond of this policy and we of course revoke this privilege from anyone we beleive to be abusing it and refuse to allow those we deem as unworthy to have such a privilege.

The second part about "SOS" or distress calls is well in order and in good form. I beleive this should be enshrined in international law. All sentient creatures have an obligation to help fellow sentient creatures in need. The only possible exception that perhaps vessels who are ill-equipped or unable to render assistence should be exempt form this clause. Par Example: A fishing trawler is hardly an appropriate vessel to respond to a distress call from a cruise liner.


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.

This is generally a good idea and an international standard is definately needed. Resolution "Ban Single Hulled Tankers" and the such must of course be taken into account.


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.

Outlawing Piracy=Good... Pravateers= Pirates in the Opinion of La Commonwealth and as such shall be treated as such. Utmost is of course a very subjective term.


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.

This is very subjective to individual interpretation. Normally, any action by the warships of any nation would be regarded as an act of war. We beleive this should be re-worded as flagged "customs and police vessels".


13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.

No comment


14. All UN resolutions affecting member nations also apply to actions carried out by them or their citizens in international waters.

I guess this had to be in there or SOMEONE would undoubtably abuse it...


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.

Very reasonable


All-told however, the point we raised objections ot have caused us to vote AGAINST this proposal. We must now begin a systematic telegramming campaing AGAINST this proposal.


~The Entire UN Team
La Commonwealth Socialiste de Caras Galadon

With respect to those who proposed 'the Law of the Sea', and those who have debated it in this thread, I must say that I agree with a lot of the clauses. The sea is one of the most bizarre phenomena in the world, and cannot exist without some form of monopoly being played out on its surface, be it capitalist or hostile.

I must say that as a representative of the Bynzeki Government, I would gladly accept UN dominion over waters outside Bynzeki Control. It is a great step towards complete globalisation and the maintenance of peace. And I would like to forward my name as an applicant to become a member on either the Maritime Standards Bureau or the Maritime Preservation Committee. However, if my application is accepted, I will be suggesting some rather radical changes in the 'politics' of these two governing bodies, some which may scrape against the original clauses of the 'Law of the Sea'.

I will be suggesting that for the Standards Bureau, every nation has a say or a vote on what should or should not become UN legislation. That way, the UN is not seen as some shining beacon of oppression trying to seize control of the aforementioned monopoly on the high seas. With the Preservation Committee, I will be proposing that the Committee hold control of a database of contacts for each UN nation....these people could be diplomats, politicians, environmentalists or otherwise. These people will be contacted immediately via way of a telegram, if their waters are being examined by the UN Committee for preservation. These nations will have the option to maintain their own control of their waters or accept UN assistance.

The above ideas and proposals are my own ideas and perspectives on this UN resolution. Debate over them as you will, and please feel free to contact me if you have any queries or issues.

Yours sincerely,

President Bynschev
Bynzekistan

I'm definitely voting for. This resolution tackles economic and environmental problems at the same time, which I'm happy to see someone besides me trying to do. The only solid argument against it is the 20km restriction, but I feel that this is adequate and realistic.

What you have to keep in mind is that waters beyond 20km are considered international - just because you don't control them doesn't mean you can't be there. There's nothing stopping you from pursuing or destroying enemy vessels outside 20km, you just can't lay claim of sovereignty to the waters.

This is preposterous! Pirates are a rich and neccesary part of the world culture! Where would we be without such great icons as Redbeard, or Captain Hook, or LeChuck? Simply stated, Piracy on the open sea is the last opportunity for a man with modest means to make an isolated living on his own, while still enjoying the relative comforts of civilization. The Holy Empire of Evil Pope has already voted against this resolution, and I believe that all of Goontopia stands behind me on this one.

[QUOTE=Mikitivity1. 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.
[/QUOTE]
the way I read this, it leaves too much room for a vague, but justifiable interpretation. Does this apply to "research" ships anchored far enough off my coast to float a weather balloon once a month? I believe there should be an ammendment that the research station must be land based, permanent, and populated by a year round group of non-military citizens of the host nation.
And what of deep-sea research facilities that are not attached to a landmass? Does the the 20 kilometer barrier extend only on the vertical plane, or does it apply to in a sphere. Let's say that our team of scientists put down the hash pipe long enough to actually build the D.O.P.E. (Deep Ocean Pimp Explorer) that was designed to drift on the currents for an undetermined time studying the sea. It will not remain stationary for any length of time. The unofficial motto of the vessel is "no rock to call home". What rights will it have with respect to the resolution? It will be manned by over 800 civilian and military scientist and families, living as a free-roaming colony of the Fiefdom of Disco Pimp. Are the colonist within their right to defend their home from invasion to the same degree as their surface brothers and sisters? A little clarification on international boundries would be helpful before we can vote.

First, my nation will recognize your nation's right to manage this zone, since it is not forbidden under any international law. Second, my nation would like to maintain that the spirit of this resolution would suggest that ships bearing the flag of the CCSM would still have right of passage through this economic zone and my government hopes your government would recognize that. Third, my nation would be interested in working with your government to define the legal rights of this "new" region.

(OOC: Don't use the word amendment around the moderators, it implies changing the spirit of a prior resolution. If Serconea agrees, we may be able to do this legal and on the top. I'm optimistic.)

"New resolution" it is. I would not wish to tempt the hand of the moderators (praise be upon them). ;)

We intend to manage this zone in such a way that foreign fishing, cable-laying and the like will be prevented while our own fishing is permitted within designated limits and the sea-bed is developed by our own cooperatives. Since the resolution defines anything beyond 200 km as international waters, we will cast our vote against it. Of course, the right of passage for foreign ships will be recognized.

Once the resolution passes, we would be interested in working with others to create a new resolution that permits 200-km exclusive economic zones. A brief glance at the evil communist conspiracy's offsite board shows that they are also of the same opinion, so optimism seems warranted.

(I'm thinking of a RL example: Canada's "illegal" impounding of Spanish fishing boats in "international waters" on on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, which Canada could do under the RL Law of the Sea but as i read it would be prevented from doing under this resolution. Knoot, just fyi, the evil commies at CACE seem to be mostly against this one too.)

I'm definitely voting for. This resolution tackles economic and environmental problems at the same time, which I'm happy to see someone besides me trying to do. The only solid argument against it is the 20km restriction, but I feel that this is adequate and realistic.

What you have to keep in mind is that waters beyond 20km are considered international - just because you don't control them doesn't mean you can't be there. There's nothing stopping you from pursuing or destroying enemy vessels outside 20km, you just can't lay claim of sovereignty to the waters.

Simultaniously, there is no reason why a foreign flag vessel with cruise missiles couldn't sit 21km off shore and threaten inland positions.

There's always going to be a missile capable of exceeding whatever range is set. This needs to be seen as the territorial definition it is rather than trying to apply military tactics that will exist with or without this limit in place.

If you don't want your enemy to sit in international waters within range of your nation, go chase them away. They're international waters.

Eh, this proposal is typical of most other of these trade/armorment/restrictive proposals... the Porposal bears the idea that the NSUN is a global organization (it is not). This proposal merely attempts to pass regulations upon a region where the UN has no authority. (Yep, you heard me, no authority). And thereby would be literally un-enforceable.

Overal the NSUN is representative of about 30.9% of the NS World, and a majority of the NSUN members are economically weak nations, so we make up even less of the 'global' market. IOW, the NSUN has less tangible power than the RL EU, NAFTA, NATO, etc. NSUN is a toy government for activists to pretend like they are making a difference, since they are unable to get anyone to agree with them in RL (nor in NS in all actuality). And most of these nations, being too incompitent to think for themselves, join the UN merely so they can have some other group telling them how they should think and believe.

At then end, I'd like to remind these nations, that close to 70% of NationStates exist outside the scope, control and authority of any NSUN resolution, and this should be a factor existing in the minds of all proposal writers. So while you might be pushing your idea under the belief of a globalist agenda... Got news for you, by doing so, you've made your philosophy about as functional as a left-handed Nerf Foot-ball bat....

I vote against this due to clause #5. The UN will not interfere with our maritime labor laws, period.

THere is a big difference between having foreign warships sitting 200nm off your coast and 20km... certainly there will always be longer range missiles, ICBMs even, but the 20km doesn't give domestic forces enough room to manouver. As for chasing them away, it's internationa waters, they have as much right to be there as we do. Also, how will this deal with the standard 200km marinetime economic exclusion zone? This resolution is far too restrictive and attempts to lay unenforcible and unfair restraints on memberstate's DOMESTIC policy.

At this point, it appears this one will pass by a three to one margin.

Thanks for your constructive criticism. If you wish to propose anything to clear up loopholes, go ahead.

In fact, I based a lot of this on the 1958 Law of the Sea. I chose 20 kilometres because that's 12 ordinary miles. A little confusion there.

Thank you to all the delegates who backed this and everyone who has voted.

Thanks for your constructive criticism. If you wish to propose anything to clear up loopholes, go ahead.

In fact, I based a lot of this on the 1958 Law of the Sea. I chose 20 kilometres because that's 12 ordinary miles. A little confusion there.

Thank you to all the delegates who backed this and everyone who has voted.

IOW you're legally raping NSUN members to have even less rights, in an enviroment where the UN has even less world power, due to ignorance? It wasn't "12 miles" it was 12 nautical miles, which means, overall we're being raped of almont 3 kilometers worth of territory. Not to mention, your version is based off of a defunct law, which was replaced years later with one with a 12nm (22km) territorial claim, 24nm (44.5km) patrol zone, and 200nm (370.1km) military control zone....(circ. 1986).

Had the proposal been equitabily written, and based within the concepts we must deal with between NSUN and NS nations, I might have voted for it. On the flip side, I could not because the proposal is ignorant, baseless, and patently fraud against all NSUN members.

Anyone who votes for this proposal is classified as mentally retarded in my book.

You can still patrol areas outside the 20km limit, you just can't claim sovereignty over it.

I didn't use the 1986 version because I wasn't initally aware of it and it's 300 pages long.

If you want to cover loopholes, do so. Just don't flame people.

This is very very bad and terrible - e.g. Gaupe has a 200 km economical zone for our fisheries and oil.

20 km is not good. and should UN control quotas????

Should they perhaps control grain fields as well? Say and 20 km zone inwards from the sea on land??

Our seas are Gaupe territory, and we will defend it.

I think the problem with the proposal is that it mixes territory, where 20km is fine, with economical zones for control of fisheries and oil.

VOTE NO!!!

We will not leave UN if this passes, but our coast guard will continue to patrol and control our economical resources in a 200 km zone. And our lawyers will fine loopholes, I am sure ! but again

VOTE NO!

The People's Republic of Dalobar is undecided on the issue regarding Serconea's resolution. On one hand, it promotes peace and equality (Ref. Clauses 2, 8-12). On the other hand, however, the resolution is overly restrictive in its terms (Ref. Clause 1).

The People's Republic of Dalobar currently maintains a boundary of 200km off our coastline, and it would be a major blow to our economy were this resolution to be passed. To round off, Dalobar recommends The Grand Delegacy of Nendeln to vote against this resolution, but we wouldn't shed any tears were it to be passed.

Bloody Hell....

This is what I get for not patrolling the UN Proposal List regularly. :rolleyes:

Okay, first, Knootoss: Calm down. Just a friendly piece of advice.

Second, this proposal is in violation of NationStates rules. If I had noticed it before it went to the floor, I'd have deleted it.

This proposal crosses multiple categories. Clauses 5 and 7 are "Social Justice". Clauses 4 and 13 are "Environmental". Clauses 8 through 12 are "International Security". I can't find anything in here that qualifies it for "Free Trade", but this is a cursory inspection.

Now, as the resolution is on the floor of the UN, there's nothing I can technically do about it. I am now discussing the matter with the Admins and the other Mods.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC:
Just ICly *that* angry, Cog. And I have a very rude UN rep.

That does not change the fact that this proposal is illegal though, and that I have argued that it was illegal before. (Which was ignored.) :)

EDIT: and no, I did not run crying to the mods arguing for its deletion if anyone is wondering.

I didn't know there was a rule against crossing multiple categories. It's hard not to with some issues. I think article 3 and the sections dealing with piracy are what is intended to boost free trade. You can't do much more and still call it mild.

As far as the 20km discussion, I'm only going to say it one more time, because we're saying the same things to each other over and over. You're free to fish, mine, explore, park your navy, sail, build underwater or above water structures, or whatever else you may want to do in international waters. You're just not free to claim them as part of your country. If you sail out farther than that to destroy an enemy ship, this resolution does not care. If your navy regularly patrols outside that boundary, this resolution does not care. If you move your entire population and all of your industry and infrastructure into the ocean beyond that boundary and refrain from claiming sovereignty over the waters, this resolution does not care.

Mr. Secretary, if I may address this body:

There is no precedent for upholding a point of order against and removing a resolution the time when it has reached a vote. However, the ruling of the Acting General Secretary and Delegate from the Realm of Ambrosia sustaining the point of order against the resolution at vote does create an interesting situation for debating a resolution that has been ruled unlawful.

Incidentally, if this resolution is removed somehow, I would request that my outstanding point of order against "'RBH' Replacement" be addressed.

Lord Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Observer
Former DU Regional Delegate

We need to spend more time in the UN on things that matter. I could care less about the law of the sea. We need to spend more time on the economy's of our country's and the threat of terrorism in our world. :upyours:
:upyours:
:upyours:

If the proposal is illegal but can't be nuked directly, perhaps the mods could, like, add 999999999 nay votes or something? :confused:

I realize that non-members have no say in the way you do things, but since the whole point of the UN is to reduce friction with both member and non-member states, I'd like to point something out:

Large Battleship guns have a range of 44,000 plus yards. My country and its small group of islands maintains a buffer with our territorial waters: 40 miles from the most external shores of the most external islands. Maybe that seems excessive, but when you're proposing a little over half that, it leaves me in a bad position with all those ungodly large fleets with 328094802394 battleships, each one of which without doubt has a full battery of 18 inch guns that could hit the other side of some of our islands from only 15 miles out.

I know once your resolution has been called to a vote, you can't ammend it, but consider that while you debate it.

If the proposal is illegal but can't be nuked directly, perhaps the mods could, like, add 999999999 nay votes or something? :confused:

You know, that sounds like a rather good idea. Have you taken it to the Technical forum?

You know, that sounds like a rather good idea. Have you taken it to the Technical forum?

Not yet, but I'll do so right now.

Not yet, but I'll do so right now.

Excellent. I stopped by the modcave IRC channel just to draw their attention to it, so with any luck you might get an answer soonish.

As this resolution looks doomed whether people vote for it or not, Mattikistan will not concern itself with it. However, give the fact that there were a fairly even number of pros to cons in our book, we would have abstained from voting anyway.

An a non-member, The Grand Duchy of Caerwine is not bound by this rediculous resolution, However, just in case this or some similar resolution becomes UN policy, I am claiming all waters within 18 nautical miles of my coast which are closer to my coast than some other country's coast and an Economic Exclusion Zone of 216 nautical miles where free transit will be allowed, but any economic activities must be done by Caerwine owned or licensed vessels.

THIS THING TRAMPLES NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are some other things in there which seem to be a pretty clear violation of national soveriegnty (not to mention common sense), but I will skip right to the big one. operative clause 12. it is INSANE! international law is very clear. you cannot stop and board ships in international waters, even if you know for a fact that they are doing something illegal. the u.s. coast guard can only board a ship if that ship (a) is in american teritorial waters, (b) is flying an american flag, or (c) they have the permision of whoevers flag the ship is flying. they cannot board a foriegn vesel in international waters just because they think it is doing something illegal. to do so would violate national soveriegnty, and national soveriegnty is the basis of our whole international system. it is well recognized in the u.n. charter and in numerous u.n. resolutions over the past 6 decades. to allow any navy to forcibly board foriegn ships in international waters, under any circumstances, is a total contradiction of long-established international law. it cannot be allowed.

THIS THING TRAMPLES NATIONAL SOVERIEGNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are some other things in there which seem to be a pretty clear violation of national soveriegnty (not to mention common sense), but I will skip right to the big one. operative clause 12. it is INSANE! international law is very clear. you cannot stop and board ships in international waters, even if you know for a fact that they are doing something illegal. the u.s. coast guard can only board a ship if that ship (a) is in american teritorial waters, (b) is flying an american flag, or (c) they have the permision of whoevers flag the ship is flying. they cannot board a foriegn vesel in international waters just because they think it is doing something illegal. to do so would violate national soveriegnty, and national soveriegnty is the basis of our whole international system. it is well recognized in the u.n. charter and in numerous u.n. resolutions over the past 6 decades. to allow any navy to forcibly board foriegn ships in international waters, under any circumstances, is a total contradiction of long-established international law. it cannot be allowed.

The international laws you speak of do not exist in Nationstates at this time. If you want them to, better submit a proposal to the UN :)

Bloody Hell....

This is what I get for not patrolling the UN Proposal List regularly. :rolleyes:

Okay, first, Knootoss: Calm down. Just a friendly piece of advice.

Second, this proposal is in violation of NationStates rules. If I had noticed it before it went to the floor, I'd have deleted it.

This proposal crosses multiple categories. Clauses 5 and 7 are "Social Justice". Clauses 4 and 13 are "Environmental". Clauses 8 through 12 are "International Security". I can't find anything in here that qualifies it for "Free Trade", but this is a cursory inspection.

Now, as the resolution is on the floor of the UN, there's nothing I can technically do about it. I am now discussing the matter with the Admins and the other Mods.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator


More to the point, clause 9 is illegal, being game mechanics.

It does rather disturb that this was not reviewed for... how long? before it ended up approved and on the floor of the UN.

Nothing terrible against the moderators - I respect their positions - I'm simply rather... well, rattled.

Outrageous! How can the UN be so bold as to think it has control over international waters! Those waters belong to no man. How can we pass laws over territory that is not ours? I agree that piracy is wrong and that there are certain environmental cares that must be made, but what gives the UN the right to control these waters? I for one will be voting against this resolution.

-Azarath, Holy Emperor of Platymos
And we, the governing body of the Democratic States of Mirwa, shall vote against as well.
This is simply unacceptable!

Incidentally, if this resolution is removed somehow, I would request that my outstanding point of order against "'RBH' Replacement" be addressed.

My dear representative, pulling a resolution off the floor may be possible by the direct intervention of the Grand High Poobah, Her Awesomeness [violet], or her agent High Lord Big Nose, there is little that can be done to destroy resolutions that have already been entered into the Big Book of Resolutions, for it is completely indestructable.

We are currently hoping to grab the attention of either Her Awesomeness or High Lord Big Nose, but their ways are mysterious and often incomprehensible to most mortals, and even to those of us who have the keys to those back rooms in the UN building that you aren't allowed to go into.

While, technically, we could vote the resolution down, it would require cloning ourselves, joining the UN and voting against it. Then again, maybe Her Awesomeness or High Lord Big Nose could stuff the ballot box. I'm sure they are looking into their options.

- Daargan Zarad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Semi-Autonomous Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

While I believe the UN has the power to help "guide" nations on their laws and behavior, The Sea is one issue it does not have jurisdiciton over.

It is not reasonable to expect that the governing body of the UN has the ability to take actions on protecting the seas, especially if the culprits are pirates.
If such attacks are nation sponsored, these attacks can then be addressed individually by the attacked nation and then diplomatic or other such measures can be taken.

Pirates are too small, and too hard to locate for the UN to make proposals about. Its small fry stuff.

Next, the UN should not have the right to set the boundaries of international waters of where it begins and does not. We need to keep such issues to be set by the nations, and if any problems do arise due to abuse of the limits which they set, other nations may take action.

The biggest point is non UN countries will take no regard to this resolution making international waters and other such items defined in this document even more confusing and ambiguous to interpret on a nation to nation basis.

VOTE NO

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.


Although Danov has voted in favour of this proposal, our leader does not agree with the compensation clause. Any vessel, its captain and crew should be more than willing to assist any nation with any inspection for supposed contraband. The idea of compensating is quite ludicrus.

Just making our views known.

The Law of the Sea
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.


Unfortunantly I don't trust any government enough for this to pass.

I vote nay.

This law is insane! Everyone withdraw your vote and vote Agianst it! :mad:
:mp5:

I dont care about the stinking wildlife man must have the ocean!

RESOLVES:
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.

You'll all note that the obligation to respond to an "SOS" call is not limited to UN members so any nation must be responded to. The fact that there are no exceptions means that an immoral nation could put out a distress call in order to lure a military enemy into a trap. We urge a vote against this motion.

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

I'll repeat that

d) Freedom to lay cables, pipelines and underwater installations, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone

This is perfect! This is what we've all be waiting for! Think about it. It is finally LEGAL to put down those installation we've always wanted in the middle of oceans, or nearer to enemies coasts. These installations, for... um... research? And if they just HAPPEN to have nuclear capabilties, well, thats still legal according to this resolution. Your enemies won't be able to stop you without commiting a crime themselves. Think about it. You can have weapons platforms anywhere in international waters, and no one can complain.

The international laws you speak of do not exist in Nationstates at this time. If you want them to, better submit a proposal to the UN :)

since when?!?!? international law isn't just writen in new york. most of it is just tradition, the ways nations historically interact. its culture on an international scale. it dates back hundreds of years, so of course it exists in Nationstates. something as absurd as this resolution, something so contradictory to existing international law, would never have even been proposed in the real U.N., let alone voted on.

since when?!?!? international law isn't just writen in new york. most of it is just tradition, the ways nations historically interact. its culture on an international scale. it dates back hundreds of years, so of course it exists in Nationstates. something as absurd as this resolution, something so contradictory to existing international law, would never have even been proposed in the real U.N., let alone voted on.

Since always? NS Earth isn't real Earth and the same laws do not apply unless passed.

Heck, unlike the real world, most of the game isn't in the UN and isn't bound by their decisions.

Since always? NS Earth isn't real Earth and the same laws do not apply unless passed.

Heck, unlike the real world, most of the game isn't in the UN and isn't bound by their decisions.

most of the real world isn't bound by the UNs decisions. but thats beside the point. we aren't talking about some resolution the real u.n. ever passed. this is much older, much more firmly established than any particular IGO. it is taken as a premise in the u.n., it is not something that they debated and decided, it is not somethign that they can question without casting doubt on the UN itself. think about that, the UN is made up of 191 nations. without nationals, the u.n. does not exist. and here we have a resolution which threatens national soveriegnty. it is a u.n. resolution which threatens the basis of the u.n. does that make any sense? of course not. this is not some little law that can be changed at will, it is the basis of the international system, it is the premise on which all interaction between nations is based. the basics of the international system, that nations exist, they control and make decisions for there own people, they trade, etc., the basics of the international system are the same in the real world and in nation states.

bottom line, this existed long before the u.n. so the distinction you seem to be making between real u.n. resolutions and nation states u.n. resolutions is simply not applicable.

Thanks for your constructive criticism. If you wish to propose anything to clear up loopholes, go ahead.

In fact, I based a lot of this on the 1958 Law of the Sea. I chose 20 kilometres because that's 12 ordinary miles. A little confusion there.

Thank you to all the delegates who backed this and everyone who has voted.

Actually, although I voted against this, I'm glad you wrote up a resolution and had it get this far. And pirating things from existings law (Arrrrr! it be Internationla Talk Like a Pirate Day, my hearties and my beauties!) is perfectly fine. I've done it myself in drafting up documents for the foreign affairs of The South Pacific.

That said, the Rootinest Tootinest Shindig of Caer Rialis announces today that it is beginning the construction of satellite ciites on artificial islands located between 50 and 100 kilometers of my shoreline, thereby annexing this territory to provide living space for my burgeoning population. As these artificial islands are part of TRTS of Caer Rialis, my territorial wats shall be measured from these points.

this was posted on the regional message board of the Socialist Union by The United Socialist States of Coronatia:


Overall the bill looks fairly well. However, there are a few points I'd like to bring up which may just be due to bad wording, but none the less, are looking for problems.

As anyone who respects the law should be well aware, laws have loopholes. These loopholes are either placed deliberately by the law makers to allow certain people/groups to get away with something, or they are mistakes in wording which simply permit something to happen that the law was not designed to do.

As of right now the major issue I have with the law is the following:

10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.

This assumes it is the responsibility of nations to tackle piracy in international waters. While this may sound all well and good it means that certain nations are pushed to spend further amounts of money which they might not have, or further labor resources on something which may not even apply to them because they only trade regionally. It is a very broad statement which could be enforced multiple ways depending on how the majority of UN members see it, thus it should either be removed from the proposal or reworded.

13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.

Here we once again see something that I can only hope is a miswording. This implies that fishing would be the only accepted form of marine wildlife harm in UN permitted fishing areas. However, it is worded as such that pollution would not be prevented in UN permitted fishing areas, nor would harm to marine life. This is one of those loopholes that needs to be patched up if we're going to protect the quality of the worlds water resources. It is an issue where we all know what the lawmaker is trying to say, but he's saying it in such a way that it's not what he's saying at all. This miswording on the lawmakers part could legitimize the dumping of toxic waste and any other form of waste in international waters, and more particularly only in the areas where fishing is legal. If you think that Corporations won't be aware of this loophole and use it to their full advantage then you must be mistaken. Furthermore, even if the pollution portion was removed, it still allows harm to be done to all marine wildlife -- this would include things like dolphins and whales as he does not stipulate as he had in earlier points that the UN Fishing regulations would apply.

Cthenthar, if you can I would debate this thoroughly with the UN and propose that a new resolution be drafted which properly words these terms or removes them alltogether. This current proposal/resoultion could be modified easily to fit that description an be voted back within days if all UN Delegates made it a point. Overall I am for the resolution, thus I have cast a vote FOR, however, I think these things need to be addressed.

this was posted on the regional message board of the Socialist Union by The United Socialist States of Coronatia:


Overall the bill looks fairly well. However, there are a few points I'd like to bring up which may just be due to bad wording, but none the less, are looking for problems.

As anyone who respects the law should be well aware, laws have loopholes. These loopholes are either placed deliberately by the law makers to allow certain people/groups to get away with something, or they are mistakes in wording which simply permit something to happen that the law was not designed to do.

As of right now the major issue I have with the law is the following:

10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.

This assumes it is the responsibility of nations to tackle piracy in international waters. While this may sound all well and good it means that certain nations are pushed to spend further amounts of money which they might not have, or further labor resources on something which may not even apply to them because they only trade regionally. It is a very broad statement which could be enforced multiple ways depending on how the majority of UN members see it, thus it should either be removed from the proposal or reworded.

13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.

Here we once again see something that I can only hope is a miswording. This implies that fishing would be the only accepted form of marine wildlife harm in UN permitted fishing areas. However, it is worded as such that pollution would not be prevented in UN permitted fishing areas, nor would harm to marine life. This is one of those loopholes that needs to be patched up if we're going to protect the quality of the worlds water resources. It is an issue where we all know what the lawmaker is trying to say, but he's saying it in such a way that it's not what he's saying at all. This miswording on the lawmakers part could legitimize the dumping of toxic waste and any other form of waste in international waters, and more particularly only in the areas where fishing is legal. If you think that Corporations won't be aware of this loophole and use it to their full advantage then you must be mistaken. Furthermore, even if the pollution portion was removed, it still allows harm to be done to all marine wildlife -- this would include things like dolphins and whales as he does not stipulate as he had in earlier points that the UN Fishing regulations would apply.

Cthenthar, if you can I would debate this thoroughly with the UN and propose that a new resolution be drafted which properly words these terms or removes them alltogether. This current proposal/resoultion could be modified easily to fit that description an be voted back within days if all UN Delegates made it a point. Overall I am for the resolution, thus I have cast a vote FOR, however, I think these things need to be addressed.

*thwack!* Yo, dude - if it passes YOU CANNOT MODIFY IT IN ANY WAY EVER AGAIN. No modification, it would stand as written forever.

Read the rules and change your vote.

most of the real world isn't bound by the UNs decisions. but thats beside the point. we aren't talking about some resolution the real u.n. ever passed. this is much older, much more firmly established than any particular IGO. it is taken as a premise in the u.n., it is not something that they debated and decided, it is not somethign that they can question without casting doubt on the UN itself. think about that, the UN is made up of 191 nations. without nationals, the u.n. does not exist. and here we have a resolution which threatens national soveriegnty. it is a u.n. resolution which threatens the basis of the u.n. does that make any sense? of course not. this is not some little law that can be changed at will, it is the basis of the international system, it is the premise on which all interaction between nations is based. the basics of the international system, that nations exist, they control and make decisions for there own people, they trade, etc., the basics of the international system are the same in the real world and in nation states.

bottom line, this existed long before the u.n. so the distinction you seem to be making between real u.n. resolutions and nation states u.n. resolutions is simply not applicable.


Bottom line, you're discussing the Real Life (RL) UN, not the Nation States (NS) UN. As such, your arguement has no validity. The basics of the International System are not the same, have no similarity to each other, and cannot be related in the method you are attempting to relate them.

Thank you for your time.

Bottom line, you're discussing the Real Life (RL) UN, not the Nation States (NS) UN. As such, your arguement has no validity. The basics of the International System are not the same, have no similarity to each other, and cannot be related in the method you are attempting to relate them.

Thank you for your time.

that is absurd. the idea of nationstates is to simulate, you know, nation states. well I've got news for you, a state is not some divine entity, it was not created by god, it was not created by nature, it was created my man. I'll say that again, the idea of a state was created by human beings. a state is a governmental entity wich excercises control (more formally known as soveriegnty) over a particular geographic area. states interact with eachother on the premis that each government has the exclusive right to control what goes on within its own borders (which generally extend 12 miles from its coast). this idea, called national soveriegnty, is the basis of the international system. the idea of what a state is and the basics or our international system cannot be seperated from eachother. therefor, anything which attempts to simulate states interacting must also attempt to simulate an international system similar to ours, especially as regards national soveriegnty. what part of this is hard for you to grasp? why do you not even seem to understand that I'm not really even talking about the u.n.? I am talking about the type of international system which is necesary for anything even remotely resembling the u.n. to exist.

This is ridiculous! You nations voting for this haven't even thought of the consequences of this vote. If the UN is simply given control over international waters, what next? Will it have the power to make laws within our own nations? Will it eventually become one vast nation in control over all the free peoples of the world? LUDICROUS! I warn you, if this resolution passes, the UN will have overstepped its bounds. How many of you have even read the resolution? How many of you simply jump on to any resolution that even seems remotly helpful? You'll damn us all!

-Azarath, Most Holy Emperor of Platymos

that is absurd. the idea of nationstates is to simulate, you know, nation states. well I've got news for you, a state is not some divine entity, it was not created by god, it was not created by nature, it was created my man. I'll say that again, the idea of a state was created by human beings. a state is a governmental entity wich excercises control (more formally known as soveriegnty) over a particular geographic area. states interact with eachother on the premis that each government has the exclusive right to control what goes on within its own borders (which generally extend 12 miles from its coast). this idea, called national soveriegnty, is the basis of the international system. the idea of what a state is and the basics or our international system cannot be seperated from eachother. therefor, anything which attempts to simulate states interacting must also attempt to simulate an international system similar to ours, especially as regards national soveriegnty. what part of this is hard for you to grasp? why do you not even seem to understand that I'm not really even talking about the u.n.? I am talking about the type of international system which is necesary for anything even remotely resembling the u.n. to exist.

What international system? As far as the game is concerned, the UN is just a bunch of people from various nations who get together to decide policy for each other.

What international system? As far as the game is concerned, the UN is just a bunch of people from various nations who get together to decide policy for each other.

IDIOT! were you not paying attention to anything I said? the u.n., even in nationstates, is not floating in some vacume, it exists in the context of a larger international system, wether that system is formally simulated or not. one of its main functions (the function this resolution takes to far) is to regulate the interaction of its member states. this is pointless if its member states do not otherwise interact. I'll use this resolution as an example. the whole thing tells us how vesels from different nations will interact in international (and sometimes national, which is the problem) waters. that would be totally unecesary if we did not all have ships sailing around interacting with eachother. true the specific ships are never simulated, nor should they be, but the idea that we all have ships sailing around out there, that our nations ships, and therefor our nations, are interacting, beyong what is formally simulated by the game, is essential to any understanding of the nation states united nations. we have to accept that we are interacting quite regularly outside the u.n., otherwise the u.n. itself is meaningless.

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

I'll repeat that

d) Freedom to lay cables, pipelines and underwater installations, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone

This is perfect! This is what we've all be waiting for! Think about it. It is finally LEGAL to put down those installation we've always wanted in the middle of oceans, or nearer to enemies coasts. These installations, for... um... research? And if they just HAPPEN to have nuclear capabilties, well, thats still legal according to this resolution. Your enemies won't be able to stop you without commiting a crime themselves. Think about it. You can have weapons platforms anywhere in international waters, and no one can complain.

Under UN law, yes, internationally, no..... non-UN members are under no obligation or authority to obey UN law. (A Factor the NSUN seems to keep forgetting). It would be perfectly within the non-UN nations rights to blow anything you put anywhere near their coastlines, and you would realistically have zero recourse (another problem with this proposal).

*As a RL example, this resolution is equivalent of the EU declaring the USA's 200nm control zone illegal. Sure they can 'declare' that all they want. But they actually lack all authority to do so. So their declaration is merely a statement of opinion, in the international scope. The NSUN is the same, it is a large intranational body, but it does not have absolute international authority, being that it does not even comprise 1/3 of the planet.

IDIOT! were you not paying attention to anything I said?
Pal, you need to chill out a bit. Despite what you may think, there are plenty of people here who understand international systems and interactions. A number of them are even Masters and Doctorate level students or working professionals. A much larger number are young players who are learning this for the first time, and frankly the system is substantially simplified for their benefit. That, and the fact that this entire game and forum exist first and foremost for the purpose of promoting a piece of satirical fiction.

Now do you think you could climb down off of your high horse for a few minutes, and perhaps enjoy this for what it is, rather than what you think it should be?

A number of them are even Masters and Doctorate level students or working professionals.

... perhaps enjoy this for what it is, rather than what you think it should be?

OOC: Bear in mind that MS and PhDs can *also* be working professionals. And you are right, as I know of a few playing the game whom enjoy the hybrid between fun and seriousness.

Though on the other hand, I can speak for one of those MS working propofessionals and say that he actually agrees with some of Frankiology's points.

I've been extremely frustated by what I'd call rampant McCarthyism (sp?) used instead of debating issues (much of it has been directed at me personally) and then a trend to pick and choose which resolutions to abid by ... so much so that I was actually comtemplating calling it quits myself. That said, sometimes you just have to realize that some nations / players aren't really going to play as a "nation state", but in fact are playing "divine entities". It is frustrating beyond belief, but this too is part of the game.

It does rather disturb that this was not reviewed for... how long? before it ended up approved and on the floor of the UN.

Nothing terrible against the moderators - I respect their positions - I'm simply rather... well, rattled.

Oh, I think there is a bit of a serious problem with consistency with the amount of moderation going on, and I'm not happy with this at all.

That said, I'm under the impression that most proposals are going to either be of the quality of the "illegal logging" or "prostitution" resolutions (i.e. simple and totally within the scope of a single category) or will incorporate elements of several different categories.

Clauses 3 and 15 are clearly traditional free trade issues:


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

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.

I'd say that clause 2 is pretty darn close ...


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.


Outside the sovereignty means *no barriers*.

But there certainly are environmental provisions here as well. Is that a bad thing? My government thinks not.

OOC: The NS UN proposal categories are very limited, and I think that for the proposals they do delete, that the should understand this and work with the authors to find an appropriate category. I'm certainly glad when they do delete things and would encourage this more frequently, but they also should give more than a one line "Wrong category" warning. :(

If the proposal is illegal but can't be nuked directly, perhaps the mods could, like, add 999,999,999 nay votes or something? :confused:

No, the votes should only come from active UN members, as many of us actually record the votes, and 1 billion no votes would imply at least 500 million UN members. We've been running in the 30-35 thousand count for the past 9 months.

The appropriate action (and I'm not happy by the flamebaiting / personal attacks on me earlier in this thread that seems to not have been addressed) would be to ask the proposal author about possibly changing the category, and blanking out all the votes and having us start over again.

The problem with starting over, it it is hard to say how many endorsements came from Delegates looking at the category and how many came from the proposal text.

Long-Term, I think you should allow UN resolutions, like daily issues, to have multiple categories. I'd recommend limited them to 3 categories and requiring that only one of the three can be "Strong" and only one of the three can be "Significant". The problem there ... a new nation is going to be less skilled at doing this.

I'd like to point something out:

Large Battleship guns have a range of 44,000 plus yards.

You mean your nation's large battleship guns have a range of 44k yards. But my nation's helicarrier fleets have reflex cannons capable of hitting targets within line of sight. (Translation: If we started drawing Star Trek styled neutral zones around our countries based on who can throw a rock the furtherest, there wouldn't be any room left for our nations!) ;)

IDIOT! were you not paying attention to anything I said? Hey hey, lay off on the ad hominem and be nice here.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Whatisthisia can not agree to any law that puts its fisheries under control of other nations. We wholeheartidly agree with the position put forward by Tanah Burung in this matter and we will have our 200 nm territorial waters and fishing stocks within them protected.

We will accept agreements where other nations may fish within our waters but the quotas will be decided by Whatisthisia and not the UN or other nations.

I'm disappointed but unsurprised at the conduct of many delegates who have made spurious comments about infringements of national sovereignty and delivered personal attacks on those who endorse this proposal. While Ecopoeia votes against on a couple of technical grounds, I can confirm that debates in our government revealed widespread admiration for the research put into the proposal and support for the subject matter being within the UN's remit.

The delegates from Serconea have delivered a decent attempt to address a fiendishly complicated area of international law. These delegates have shown themselves amenable to constructive criticism. That this proposal reached the floor in a flawed state is not the fault of the Serconeans, who gave this body every opportunity to revise the proposal. The fault lies with those who did not ensure that it was drafted in an acceptable manner prior to submission.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The Commonwealth of Imperial Protectorates finds the current resolution, while admirable in spirit, far too restricting on our options, specifically in three areas:

1)Privateers: In the 16th Century, the Royal Navy employed privateers to attack Spanish ships laden with gold from the New World. The reason for this tactic was twofold. Firstly, we wanted to get in on that gold action. Secondly, it meant we didn't have to declare war directly. Thus, we fought Spain with no war, and just at sea. It follows that if we restrict the actions of privateers to war, their point in somewhat negated, as they would just then be regular sailors on warships

2) International Waters: 20km is, we believe, far too small a distance for national waters to extend. Just take a look at the North Sea Oil Rigs, and how far away they are from the UK to see my point - and yet Britain still claimed them.

3) UN Quotas: Perhaps it is the British press that has got me against these things, but as far as I can tell, the EU quotas are a mess - British fishermen have to compete with Spanish next to the British coast, and the fish stocks are still being depleted to dangerous levels. The quota system is one riddled with bureaucracy, and thus is usually flawed. I would prefer a more nationalistic approach, with each nation farming its own waters, with the UN only ensuring that the fish stocks remained healthy.

If the resolution was reduced in scope in these areas, then the Commonwealth would be glad to lend its support. As it stands, we feel obliged to vote against.

This resolution is so upalling! 20 kilometers is too diminuative a buffer zone for my likings. I don't want a bunch of fascist/nazi sons of female dogs parading around my borders with cruise missiles free to fly into my lands at any time they please. Also, the clause that allows people to fish in my waters is horrible-my economy is struggling already, and I will not allow my food supply to be disrupted by corporate fishing junkies! The UN will get too much power if this resolution passes, and I don't want the all pervasive powers to be laying whatever communications cables they want to spy on my peaceful communist paradise.

*sigh* frustrated-----> :headbang:

By the power invested in me, I have the following to say on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Goontopia.

After careful consideration of the resolution laid before us, we have concluded that we must vote AGAINST it.

We, as a brotherhood of peace loving nations of equality and prosperity, are absolutely APPALLED by the BLATANT DISCRIMINATION against pirates and pirate culture, as contained in this horrible proposal.


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.

Throughout history, pirates have been relentlessly demonized, prosecuted, raped, murdered, and crucified under the guise of advancing peace. They have been chastised by their communities, banned into exile, jailed, tortured, and exposed to weapons of mass destruction. We believe it is long past due to STOP this crusade and embrace our pirate brothers.

FACT: Pirates don't play by the rules; they make their own rules.
FACT: Most pirates are fun loving and like to say 'YARRRRR.'
FACT: A pirate hides his booty and marks the spot on a map with an 'X.'

It must not surprise you therefore, that the International Brotherhood of Goontopia votes AGAINST, and invites others to do the same for advancement of our repressed pirate brothers.

Hey it may be annoying if you are simply a peaceful country wanting to be left alone or if you are a massicists country attempting to destroy the world, to be spyed on but personally I want security for my country.

Spoonskia aggreements much with Goonspeaker. Pirates necassary for wording of fun. YAR THAT BE A GOOD BOOTY.

FACT: no pirate ever said no to a plate of ice cream.
FACT: pirates turn to dust when you sneeze on them
FACT: keanu reeves is a pirate of the actor variety
FACT: Spoonskia lives forever!!!

By the power invested in me, I have the following to say on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Goontopia.

After careful consideration of the resolution laid before us, we have concluded that we must vote AGAINST it.

We, as a brotherhood of peace loving nations of equality and prosperity, are absolutely APPALLED by the BLATANT DISCRIMINATION against pirates and pirate culture, as contained in this horrible proposal.


Throughout history, pirates have been relentlessly demonized, prosecuted, raped, murdered, and crucified under the guise of advancing peace. They have been chastised by their communities, banned into exile, jailed, tortured, and exposed to weapons of mass destruction. We believe it is long past due to STOP this crusade and embrace our pirate brothers.

FACT: Pirates don't play by the rules; they make their own rules.
FACT: Most pirates are fun loving and like to say 'YARRRRR.'
FACT: A pirate hides his booty and marks the spot on a map with an 'X.'

It must not surprise you therefore, that the International Brotherhood of Goontopia votes AGAINST, and invites others to do the same for advancement of our repressed pirate brothers.


The Dictatorship of Nimonito is in agreement with this line of thinking. It is high time that pirates are granted the same respect and rights as all other people. This discrimination against the pirate culture is unfounded and to be frank, we are living in a day and age when we should be celebrating our differences. Otherwise what will be next, forced removal of gypsies and mountain men?

Edit: And could you say no to Johnny Depp in his pirate outfit? COULD YOU??

Edit: And could you say no to Johnny Depp in his pirate outfit? COULD YOU??

Yes I could.

I know this has already been said many times, but 20km just isn't big enough. I understand that we'd still be allowed to fish and patrol international waters, so don't anyone throw that back at me. My point, as someone else also pointed out, is that an enemy nation could easily sit their ships out there just past that 20km line and bombard my nation, and there's not a lot I can do about it. They aren't breaking any laws, because they're in international waters. I can't chase them off, because I have no right to do that, if they aren't in my 20km area.

My nation has voted against this resolution, and we encourage others to vote against it as well.

It does rather disturb that this was not reviewed for... how long? before it ended up approved and on the floor of the UN.

Nothing terrible against the moderators - I respect their positions - I'm simply rather... well, rattled.

I think this only sat in the top of the queue (i.e. "status achieved quorum" or however it is actually phrased) for a day.

But I agree. The Olympics proposal was deleted in the day it took to sit around. Typically proposals gain more endorsements while sitting around at the top of the queue.

This isn't the first time that a resolution has had its "category" debated. If you look at prior resolutions, a number of them have questionable "categories" as well.

Personally I think that if "on balance" a resolution's clauses tend to follow a category that this is good enough. In this case, are there some "Free Trade" issues in this resolution? I think: yes, clauses 2, 3, and 15. Are there some clauses that regulate businesses in this resolution? Again, I think yes. But I find clauses 3 and 15 to be important enough warrant a yes vote.

Please look at the original "International Red Cross Organization" resolution (actually titled "The IRCO"). The resolution category is "Human Rights". This suggests that the resolution improves worldwide human and civil rights. The text of the resolution talks about voluntary funding for a non-profit organization called the International Red Cross, with its goal to be to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid.

Providing aid, food, shelter ... this is not a human right. Rights are just that, legal rights. I'd suggest that the IRCO is for either a "welfare" program (which is basically the Social Justice category), i.e. a tool used to implement the basic human right to having aid, food, or shelter, or that there should be another category called "global assistance".

Scientific research is another classic example of something that does happen on an international level, and yet we've had to make use of police budgets to "simulate" this.

Bottom line, the game and NS UN were poorly designed. I couldn't have done a better job, but I think now that we know some of the holes in the system that we can in fact build a better system.

However, given the large number of prior resolutions that are in the wrong category, if we yank the rug here, shouldn't we also start over again with most all of the previous resolutions?

I think we should focus on the text of the resolution. Why my government finds the claims to needing "neutral zones" larger than 20 km to be ill-founded (as we don't believe a security perimeter of 200 km ensures any increased security), my government does in fact consider these arguments used against the resolution to be opinions that my government must in fact accept. Ill-founded opinions are still opinions and the principles of sovereignty mean my government must accept these arguments. [OOC: I actually do appreciate that and many of the other debates focusing on the text of the resolution.]

I know this has already been said many times, but 20km just isn't big enough.

I think the fact that many nations have said this many times, means it is important and should be addressed / explored.

What is a "better" distance? And why?

I go under the 200nm (~340km) 'defensive umbrela' rule.

While yes, longer distances don't mean as much in the present tehcnology. The principles is of keeping it far enough out to have a realistic reaction time buffer. at 200nm about the only thing can engage you with is missiles (which can be engaged and shot down). at only 11nm (12 miles) they would be able to pound you with missiles, cannons, and land troops in minutes.

The 12mile (20km) rule, simple isn't enough for the interests of national defense, especially for the more "internationally proactive" nations actually operating in alliances and dealing with the rest of the NS world (including the plethora of NON-UN nationstates which proposal writers seem to keep conveniently forgetting).

If the UN is simply given control over international waters, what next?

According to this resolution, no UN member would recognize any claims over international waters. How is that putting them under UN control?

Will it have the power to make laws within our own nations?

I'll refer you to the FAQ.

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

I think the fact that many nations have said this many times, means it is important and should be addressed / explored.

What is a "better" distance? And why?

I don't know exactly how much area each nation should have. Strictly speaking from a defensive standpoint, I'd say minimum of 200km, probably more like 250km, though I'm sure others would say this still isn't enough. The reason I believe this to be better is that it would limit the potential threat from enemy nations. If they have to sit farther out in the water, they couldn't get troops to shore as quickly as they could if we only had the proposed 20km. Missiles fired from 200-250km out would have a better chance of being shot down. The nation under attack would have a marginally larger window in which they could discover this attack and pursue a course of action to divert the damages.

Whatisthisia can not agree to any law that puts its fisheries under control of other nations. We wholeheartidly agree with the position put forward by Tanah Burung in this matter and we will have our 200 nm territorial waters and fishing stocks within them protected.

We will accept agreements where other nations may fish within our waters but the quotas will be decided by Whatisthisia and not the UN or other nations.

If you're in the UN and this passes, you have no choice whatsoever in the matter.

Bloody Hell....

....this proposal is in violation of NationStates rules. If I had noticed it before it went to the floor, I'd have deleted it.

This proposal crosses multiple categories. Clauses 5 and 7 are "Social Justice". Clauses 4 and 13 are "Environmental". Clauses 8 through 12 are "International Security". I can't find anything in here that qualifies it for "Free Trade", but this is a cursory inspection.

Now, as the resolution is on the floor of the UN, there's nothing I can technically do about it. I am now discussing the matter with the Admins and the other Mods.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Question...since this resolution is essentially illegal, and you as moderators can't delete it at this stage or vote it off, would it be possible to make an exception to the rule stating that no proposals can amend previously passed UN resolutions? From what I've seen, the main complaint with this resolution is the first clause. 20km is not enough. If someone were to submit a proposal that would change that to 250km (or some other number), would that affect any of the game programming? I know there are other issues, but that's the one that decided my vote, and the votes of many others.

Perhaps the mods could create a proposal to correct the mistakes that many UN members feel need to be corrected?

I have been reading your comments and will submit an annex should this pass.

As for the category issue, I chose Free Trade Mild after suggestion Frisbeeteria in the original discussion:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6963780&postcount=28

This may have perhaps been the wrong category and if the mods force me to resubmit, I will try another category.

What time does the vote end?

This may have perhaps been the wrong category and if the mods force me to resubmit, I will try another category.

What time does the vote end?

I think voting ends today with the next regular UN update. My guess (and it is nothing more than that) would be in the next 3.5 hours. I could be wrong here.

If you are going to have to resubmit, I'd use Cog's post as a guideline and break the Law of the Sea into several different proposals / articles. I'm being forced to do the same thing with my Global Disaster Assistance proposal. The lower half will be hopefully called "Good Samaritan Laws" and the upper half might end up being "Long-Term Disaster Recovery".

I'd like to ride your resolution out and see what the final vote is like, but after that I'll certainly be willing to offer any advice I can, as I still believe your idea is ideally suited for international law.

Voting against.

I think that 20km national waters is too small, that flags of conveniance are fine, and that responding to a SOS should be discretionary rather than compulsory.

Free trade is good. Next time keep it short and sweet.

I was with you up until the SOS part. I think that unless you have a very, very compelling reason not to (such as you are sinking yourself) you have no excuse not to help someone else. Because otherwise you might find yourself in trouble, and no one comes to rescue you because they were having a volleyball championship and couldn't be bothered.

I know this has already been said many times, but 20km just isn't big enough. I understand that we'd still be allowed to fish and patrol international waters, so don't anyone throw that back at me. My point, as someone else also pointed out, is that an enemy nation could easily sit their ships out there just past that 20km line and bombard my nation, and there's not a lot I can do about it. They aren't breaking any laws, because they're in international waters. I can't chase them off, because I have no right to do that, if they aren't in my 20km area.

My nation has voted against this resolution, and we encourage others to vote against it as well.

Surely if an enemy nation is attacking you you have the right to self defence, which would involve sailing out to their ship and blowing it up. Just because they are international waters doesn't give them carte-blanche to attack whomever they choose. Otherwise that would mean you could just sink some other ship in international waters without retribution as well.

Well actually, the text of the (now passed) resolution is "Any vessel receiving an "SOS" or distress call should render immediate assistance, no matter their country of origin or current war status."

Since it says "should, not "must", I'm interpreting this as a strong recommendation.

As the resolution has now passed, i believe the appropriate course is to submit a new resolution to address the most common reason cited for opposition: 20 km is not enough for national economic security.

Our initial thoughts on a new resolution are contained in this thread started three days ago: Exclusive Economic Zones, http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358625

As the resolution has now passed, i believe the appropriate course is to submit a new resolution to address the most common reason cited for opposition: 20 km is not enough for national economic security.

Our initial thoughts on a new resolution are contained in this thread started three days ago: Exclusive Economic Zones, http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358625

I'd suggest we move that discussion into a new thread, and you've already got a great working title: "Exclusive Economic Sea Zones". Sadly that might be a few characters too long for the proposal queue, but for now I think it is a good working title. :)

The way I'd do this, is repost just the post (not thread) link to your earlier comments. They are still perfectly valid, and copy the key points in that thread.

The preamble can make reference to the 20 km sovereign territorial water limit, but also make note (MAKING NOTE) of the fact that many nations claim exclusive use rights beyond that limit. For now, just start with a bulletted outline of what you consider both justifications and operating / activating clauses.

The category is kinda hard to figure out. "Exclusive" rights are not free trade. I'll think about that some more.

I didn't receive a Compliance Ministry TG for this resolution, anyone else? Maybe the mods are stalling it out while they debate what to do.

I didn't receive a Compliance Ministry TG for this resolution, anyone else? Maybe the mods are stalling it out while they debate what to do.
Maybe it takes a while to TG 34,526 member nations. Hmmm. Never timed it before.

The resolution "The Law of the Sea" was passed, 10656 votes to 4684, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Maybe I saw the UN page and assumed that the TGs were an automated process on a server. I could have printed each TG on its own sheet of paper faster.

Maybe I saw the UN page and assumed that the TGs were an automated process on a server. I could have printed each TG on its own sheet of paper faster.

OOC: I would guess that some of the delay was actually programmed into the process, since the telegram is from each of our compliance ministries, and is designed to simulate actual laws taking place. We don't immediately resolve our daily issues either. :)

For some reason the compliance ministry telegrams don't count against my 15 telegram quota either ... for which I'm glad, as sometimes I hold onto old telegrams.

Mikitivity, since the proposal passed, I'm going to use one of the loopholes to build a ton of underwater missile silos off your coast :D

BTW, this resolution doesn't affect me at all since I'm a landlocked nation :p

Just so you're aware, I'll have my amphibious anti-silo ninja squad patrolling international waters off Mikitivity's coast for scientific research.

Just so you're aware, I'll have my amphibious anti-silo ninja squad patrolling international waters off Mikitivity's coast for scientific research.

This Conflict Is Now Being Monitored By
TNNN - The NationStates N00B Network
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/Hoverjet_sm.jpg (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359039)
Unarmed TNNN Hoverdrone ® platforms and HD CamSats ®
have been deployed for your protection and our amusement. Be warned:
All n00bish behavior and godmodding will be broadcast to all TNNN subscribers.


(... all in good fun, kiddies ... ::grin:: Click the pic for the slick schtick)

Mikitivity, since the proposal passed, I'm going to use one of the loopholes to build a ton of underwater missile silos off your coast :D

BTW, this resolution doesn't affect me at all since I'm a landlocked nation :p

Good luck finding a coast line.

(Warning: may take a while to load)

http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=1170

My nation is in the third panel. :p

Thank you for your votes. I'll let you cover the loopholes in your own resolutions. If I was a delegate, I'd approve them, but I'm not, so I can't.