NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT: This proposal has been edited and now awaits approval by the U.N. delegatorate. If you are a delegate, please consider approving this proposal. Thank you.

WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes a grave encroachment on national sovereignty and the right of member states to regulate commerce within their own borders; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 THE U.N. PROTECTION OF DOLPHINS ACT IS HEREBY REPEALED.

The Principality of Quadlia wholeheartedly endorses this draft. However, we would like to amicably suggest the removal of the parenthisized clause at the end of the 6th introductory segment, as it does not add any substantive content to the proposal.


Quadlia

The passage of "Save the Dolphins!" is all but assured at the United Nations, and when it does pass, what kind of support from the U.N. delegatorate should we expect from the proposal below? (OOC: Also, what improvements would you suggest, and, since I'm a U.N. delegate, can I "approve" my own proposal? :D)

To answer your question - next to none.

To get a repeal passed right now, you'd effectively be asking the UN to admit to made a mistake in passing the resolution which has only just been passed.

You need to give it time before expecting a repeal to get anywhere near passing. I'm talking months.

Hirota speaks from experience. In addition to waiting a month or so, you might want to collect the list of UN Delegates that voted against the resolution, and use them to get endorsements for your repeal ... in July or later.

The Great Nation of Anarchy Island 99 fully supports this propsal and will be glad to help in anyway so that this extreme encroachment on national autonomy will never again be perverted and abused by the UN again.

(OOC:since I'm a U.N. delegate, can I "approve" my own proposal? :D)
In a word, yes.

Why months? The UN Did make a mistake.

The Commonwealth of Great Betterton supports this repeal proposal unconditionally. The United Nations should not waste any time removing this absurd resolution which undermines our national sovereignty, and places excessive and unjustifiable costs on our fishing industry.

Why months? The UN Did make a mistake.

People don't like to have their idiocy pointed out to them immediately. They prefer if you wait until they have forgotten ever making the decision before you attempt to repair the damage.

It's the "media attention" scenario - you wait until their attention span has elapsed, then tell them the new version of whatever. By this time, 80% have forgotten the original, and you can again sway them however you like.

The US Republican Party uses this well.

I support the proposal, and I agree with those that say you should wait about a month before bringing this to the U.N. By waiting, we allow people to reconsider and form fresh ideas concerning this topic.

You don't want them to "reconsider", you want them to "forget they had an opinion in the first place". That way, you don't have to overcome a prior opinion, you just have to put one in place - the old meme has had time to die out all by itself.

Ilkland (at the request of its region) would rather suggest something along the lines of an Endanangered Species Act, which would be followed up by a resolution to repeal this and the whale act. With careful wording, it would make both of those redundant, while at the same time introducing something new.

If we really wanted to obfuscate the issue, we could simply name the proposal the "Protection of the International Fishing Industry Act."

No, we are not interested in making an Endangered Species Act.

The US Republican Party uses this well.OOC: Don't leave out the Clintons. They were the masters on this tactic. :p

BTW, Vastiva, aside from being a "p-p-proud Antarctican," what is your nationality?

*looks at you strangely* Vastivan.

Since the UN makes mistakes very often, the greater nations should jump at the opportunity to -fix- this one. We support your repeal. (As soon as I find it.)

The Armed Republic of Charleno will fully endorses this proposal and would love to see it pass.

*looks at you strangely* Vastivan.

:D

Good answer.

I think the best way to get the bally dolphin resolution repealed is to be what we in Cobdenia call "a complete and total bastard"; simply write a resolution that says that you are repealing it so a new and better version can pass, then don't write a second one.
Get's it repealed AND pisses off hippy scum simultaneous!

But would that not simply leave the door open for another nation to write such a proposal? I suppose this is the risk we take in such matters.

Whenever your proposal is accepted we will vote for it. Our fleets have already been decimated by our oversized and overfed Sea Bull dolphin population in our waters - the so-called "true" dolphins in our zoo/delphin embassy have been most apologetic about that but say they can't do anything to intefere with NSUN resolutions. It's only fortunate that other sectors of our economy are doing so well at the moment, despite the wide-reach of the resolution. In the meatime our navy has been recalled to avoid any more "incidents" with the damned dolphin.

But would that not simply leave the door open for another nation to write such a proposal? I suppose this is the risk we take in such matters.

An even better trick is to write a "better version" called, I don't know, "The Dolphin act" or something. And, using not very cunning language, make it mandatory for everyone to club a baby seal every Sunday. Therefore, if it does (miraculously) reach quorum, no-one would vote for it....

But would that not simply leave the door open for another nation to write such a proposal? I suppose this is the risk we take in such matters.

Whenever your proposal is accepted we will vote for it. Our fleets have already been decimated by our oversized and overfed Sea Bull dolphin population in our waters - the so-called "true" dolphins in our zoo/delphin embassy have been most apologetic about that but say they can't do anything to intefere with NSUN resolutions. It's only fortunate that other sectors of our economy are doing so well at the moment, despite the wide-reach of the resolution. In the meatime our navy has been recalled to avoid any more "incidents" with the damned dolphin.

The resolution, as I understand it, only protects the dolphins in international waters. You can still do whatever the heck you like to them in your own territorial waters so if they're decimating your fleets, as long as they're not outside your territorial zone, you can deal with them in whatever manner you choose :D.

I agree with the repeal by the way.

The resolution, as I understand it, only protects the dolphins in international waters. You can still do whatever the heck you like to them in your own territorial waters so if they're decimating your fleets, as long as they're not outside your territorial zone, you can deal with them in whatever manner you choose :D.

I agree with the repeal by the way.

Although you rather spoil your post by saying you support the repeal act (??) your central point about the restrictions of the proposals legal provisions to territoral waters is completely correct: it does not effect the waters of nation states and therefore is not an infringement on national soverignity.

And surely the point of the UN is to provide gudiance/laws on those areas where national soverignity has no remit (assuming you interpret it in this narrow manner)?

Also, to be perfectly frank, considering the huge scale of the Acts victory its a little bit daft to consider a repeal act so soon.

But the Non-Aligned Nations will consider your repeal act, but to be honest I doubt, like most regions, it has a chance of gaining support within our electorate.

But the Non-Aligned Nations will consider your repeal act, but to be honest I doubt, like most regions, it has a chance of gaining support within our electorate.Dude, what is the point of electing a delegate if he's just going to cast his votes the way the region tells him to anyway? The way I see it, the region elected me to represent their interests in the U.N., and if they don't like the way I vote, they can elect someone else.

It's sort of the point of representative democracy.

The region of Northwind and the delegate from Darkumbria will support this, as well. This will begin to undo the worthless resolution that might pass now.

Although you rather spoil your post by saying you support the repeal act (??) your central point about the restrictions of the proposals legal provisions to territoral waters is completely correct: it does not effect the waters of nation states and therefore is not an infringement on national soverignity.

And surely the point of the UN is to provide gudiance/laws on those areas where national soverignity has no remit (assuming you interpret it in this narrow manner)?

Maybe I should have been clearer.

The reasons I support this repeal (not that I can do much, not a delegate) has nothing to do with national soverignity.

Waterana's national animal is the moon dolphin. It is loved, venerated and protected in our nation. However we don't feel its right to force our feelings about this animal onto other nations who may or may not feel the same way. As was mentioned often in another thread, a lot of nations see and use the dolphins as food.

The resolution is also very narrow (only focusing on one animal) and not something we feel is worth the time of the UN. It was also mostly an "emotion" resolution that tugged heartstrings rather than presenting something practical and beneficial to UN members as a whole.

the region of the Banana Republics would support an Endangered Animal Act fully if anyone would like to make a proposal.

secondly, i did not support the dolphin act because (as i've stated in the official topic) a dolphin is actually a whale and therefore should be covered in the whale act. i have asked the prime minister of Real Paradise to explain why he thought whales do not include dolphins in the act but i am as of yet to get a reasonable answer. (he basically told me that because he has a phd in marine biology i was stupid...however i'm nearly a qualified zoologist now and my lecturer is doctor as well. ) so i would support a repeal but on the grounds that dolphins are already covered under another act...