NationStates Jolt Archive

ACCEL would like to announce it's first attempt at a repeal. This proposal was mainly written by Sarcodina.

In strong support of the sentiment of Resolution 35 though feeling that Resolution 34 (Oceanic Waste Dumping) is far better spoken and more feasible for this international body to support,

Moreover, citing the many uses of either incorrect or poorly worded grammatical statements occur within the resolution (see line 1 “Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment”, line 5 “These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!” and more) that do not bode well for the professionalism that this body strives towards,

Moreover, noting the various improbabilities and flaws in the actual policy initiation, including though not exclusively:

a-Poor Standards for Law Enforcement without proper distinction between offenses both large and small see Section 3 “Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.”

b-Poor Limits Set, Section 1, for example uses “etc.” in list of illegal public water systems to dump in as well as not designating if private dumping is fine (for instance in many nationstates allow for selling of their beaches),

c-Lack of Definition of terms designated with a “”, see Section 2, “Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes”, that causes lack of clarity for many businesses by not defining what “filter” is or if it is up to the businesses or government.

Be it Repealed: Resolution #35 “Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning”

Co-Authored with Sarcodina

We hope you will support this.

let me refresh our minds:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #35
Stop dumping - Start Cleaning

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Description: Our nations have gotten far 'out-of-hand.' Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment. We need to not only make it illegal to dump wastes into our streams, oceans, and city water removal systems; but we need to start non-profit, donation only organizations to start cleaning up what we have already destroyed! These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!

I hereby propose that we; UN members:

1.) Make it illegal, where not already, to dump wastes of any sort into public water systems. i.e.: Rivers, streams, oceans, ponds, city water removal systems, etc.

2.) Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes.

3.) Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.

4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’

Votes For: 9,429
Votes Against: 5,490

Implemented: Tue Nov 4 2003

I agree on the point the resolution must be repealed in favor of a stronger one,
->fines up to $10 000 000 added to prison and/or communityservice
->creation of a UN comittee to determine "levels" of pollution severity to aid local or international courts in their decisions this task may be delegated to the UNWCC that will be created by the proposal "Third World Water Recycling" we strongly support. the "filter" standards can also be defined by the UNWCC.

Before we start repealing every resolution to make them "stronger" lets make sure we have the SUPPORT this time? Our nation is weary of repealing resolutions based merely on the fact that a stronger one MIGHT be enacted at a later date.

Before we start repealing every resolution to make them "stronger" lets make sure we have the SUPPORT this time? Our nation is weary of repealing resolutions based merely on the fact that a stronger one MIGHT be enacted at a later date.
I'm in agreement with this.

As for the repeal; I don't think it makes a very convincing argument. Sure it's badly written but I just don't see it as dangerous.

You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Let me give it a go in more detail on the problems. Also, if you look at Resolution 34, I don't believe another "stronger" resolution is need.

From Opening Paragraph in Original:
We need to not only make it illegal to dump wastes into our streams, oceans, and city water removal systems;
Why should it be illegal to dump in a city water removal system? Isn't that its job? Though dumping is dangerous to the environment, it is not automatically bad in certain man-made disposal areas.

From 2nd Point in Original
2.) Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes.
What does filter mean? I think it would mean to make more solvent waste, yet what's the point if you can't dump in a source of water (so in many way no runing things down a drain!). It seems a large waste of money, and then again why should only businesses. If a regular schmo can put food down a drain, why can't a restaurant?

From 3rd Point in Original
3.) Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.
Shouldn't multiple time offenders have different penalities? Also, I don't believe there should be such a blanket punishment. I don't believe the resolution gives enough discretion to tell the difference between a minor and major offense. This passage also could be used by dictator gov'ts to punish excessively. One package in a lake, its jail time for 7 years...that's too much.

4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ‘dumpers.’
If this is donation only...how is this supposed to work? Why 3?

Here's a copy of resolution #34:


Oceanic Waste Dumping
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Giedi

Description: Simply put, we ask that all oceanic dumping of toxic wastes in both territorial and international waters be banned.

Sovereignty arguments over territorial water rights are irrelevant because there is no way to prevent toxic waste dumped in one region from contaminating waters in neighbouring nations.

Votes For: 12,645
Votes Against: 2,286
Implemented: Thu Oct 30 2003

34 makes sense since it hones in on international waters. Its not really logical to make blanket statements on waters that only effect one area. The UN is not aware of all situations in all places. It should deal with worldly matters not each nation's garbage policy.

ACCEL would like to announce it's first attempt at a repeal.
So the Alliance of Capitalists, Conservatives, and Economic Libertarians is getting involved with the United Nations process? How interesting; I must contact my associates of the Red Liberty Alliance about this.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Founder
RLA C-Sov Member

Thank you for those words of wisdom.
I believe even the RLA can agree that the original resolution is unworthy of the UN governing body. I guess I will go to my ACCEL associates to discuss you going to your RLA associates...or wait maybe I'll make points not unveiled threats :)

Approvals: 20 (Wegason, Iznogoud, Grays Harbor, NeoAsiaEuropa, Little Carabetta, Asmodria, Kleinekatzen, Sithis, Krioval, Seattletonia, NewTexas, Domzalski, Stars of Sky, Windsor-Bainbridge, TheNightMare, The Apostle in Triumph, Agsaricum, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Wolfish, Mahonri Moriancumer)

Thanks to all who have supported the repeal thus far!
Three more days left to go!

I appreciate if anyone can find reason to keep this resolution...or support the repeal.
Please just read the original out loud to yourself (that should be relatively convincing).
:):(:o:D:&:@

Sarcodina

FTR, the writer has since ceased...

I fully support the repeal, and if the nation of Sarcodina would like we could help provide a list of Delegates to contact for approving the repeal.

OOC: Check out the list on the NSO forums. :)

Thank you for those words of wisdom.
I believe even the RLA can agree that the original resolution is unworthy of the UN governing body. I guess I will go to my ACCEL associates to discuss you going to your RLA associates...or wait maybe I'll make points not unveiled threats :)
In what way was Lord Evif's statement an 'unveiled threat'? And 'even the RLA...': what are you implying by this?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN