NationStates Jolt Archive

The nation of Sarcodina has proposed repealing resolution 34 (it regards putting a stop to oceanic dumping.) The problem Sarcodina has is resolution 35 regards well...the exact samething and passed 5 days later. Resolution 35 just uses more detail and dives into the issue more. Thus resolution 34 is by default repealed all ready. What? Well if Resolution 34 states solely about two things (in paraphased form: no dumping and no excuses about sovereignty there will be no dumping.) 35 states these both (not in the exact words of 34 but covers all the same ground.)

So, the reason to repeal (I hear the inevitable clamor about the enviroment in ruins) has NOTHING to do with philosophy or policy but just clutter. The UN has passed a lot of resolutions (not too mention recently when it has been a free for all), so I propose letting the world unite over putting one to rest which only amounts to ink (or its computer equivalent.) But rest assured, it will all be done on computer and nothing will be dumped in aquatic habitats.

The location of the proposal is first on the list that will expire on Friday the 31st.

You would probably have better luck repealing the second one. The first one passed by an extreme majority and is not likely to even be reconsidered against just due to that.

Though it was closer in voting, repealing 35 is definitely apt to fail because a majority UN members would likely not want any change to oceanic dumping. But, resolution 34 due to its absolute lack of purpose I hope can be supported by both enviromentalist and economist on common ground of its frivolity.

Though it was closer in voting, repealing 35 is definitely apt to fail because a majority UN members would likely not want any change to oceanic dumping. But, resolution 34 due to its absolute lack of purpose I hope can be supported by both enviromentalist and economist on common ground of its frivolity.
Not nessecarily, "Required Basic Healthcare" was replaced (before the rules were in place prohibiting that sort of thing) with "RBH Replacement" and still nobody has managed to get the original repealed.

I'd have to check but the health care replacement might have not fully replaced the original. Even still, there is not a reason why we need resolution 34.

I was wondering if anyone believes there is anything wrong with my proposal. ...Other than my flamboyant writing.

I was wondering if anyone believes there is anything wrong with my proposal. ...Other than my flamboyant writing.

I've only read resolutions 34 and 35, and while they are slightly different, I feel they both are poorly written. Though my government agrees with the ideal behind both resolutions, if the purpose of a repeal were to clear the way for a better worded environmental resolution, I'm certain that my government would vote in favour of such a repeal.

[OOC: Sarcodina, good catch in finding the similarities between the two resolutions! :) It is obvious to me that you are carefully reading the old resolutions and I'd like to encourage you to keep on doing so!]