NationStates Jolt Archive

Members of the UN, i have come to you to seek your aid in repealing the following Resolution. The repeal has been submitted and is currently looking for approval of the Delegates which i am happy to do.
I am one of the Many delegates who Voted for this resolution in one of my fluffier moments as a delegate.

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #106
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters, violating treaties and trade pacts between nations respecting said waters, and placing special restrictions on any future such treaties; 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 THE U.N. PROTECTION OF DOLPHINS ACT IS HEREBY REPEALED.

Approvals: 2 (Omigodtheykilledkenny, Venerable libertarians)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 133 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Aug 11 2005

The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

My reason for supporting a repeal is simple! Look to the many endangered species on our planet and ask your selfs are we to have an individual Resolution for each one? I say No let us Repeal this so an organisation supporting the conservation of all endangered species may take its place.
Thank you for your time,
Esheram Byron.

My reason for supporting a repeal is simple! Look to the many endangered species on our planet and ask your selfs are we to have an individual Resolution for each one? I say No let us Repeal this so an organisation supporting the conservation of all endangered species may take its place.
Thank you for your time,
Esheram Byron.
You have a good point there. (Although, dolphins are most definetely the cutest in the endangered species category. And soooo intelligent.)

But seriously,
Our nation will only help repealing this resolution if the Animal Protection proposal will pass first!

Dolphins are actually not endangered!

If you support the repeal i will draft a Wildlife Conservation Bill have it tweaked here in the UN forum and Personally see it gets passed. You have my word as a gentleman on that.

i will not support the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act", until a general resolution concerning animals and endengered species is adopted

Approved

You can find the link to the repeal here (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=protection%20of%20dolphins%20act). If you can add it to your original post that might be better.

I agree: If we're gonna repeal, it's gonna happen now.

And you are correct, dolphins are not endangered.

Agreed - Dolphins need no special protection as they are not endangered species

i will not support the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act", until a general resolution concerning animals and endengered species is adopted
In order to have a legal and concise Proposal and Resolution this must be repealed or the New Resolution will not under current Proposal and resolution laws, protect dolphins if and when they become an endangered species.
Please support the resolution Repeal!

Dolphins are actually not endangered!

If you support the repeal i will draft a Wildlife Conservation Bill have it tweaked here in the UN forum and Personally see it gets passed. You have my word as a gentleman on that.


What? I can't believe I just read that.



The People of New Hamilton calls "shenanigans" on Venerable libertarians.


Chilean Sea Bass are endangered. 90% of all aquatic life are either in decline or are endangered.



Please no Orwellian Double Speak here.

What? I can't believe I just read that.



The People of New Hamilton calls "shenanigans" on Venerable libertarians.


Chilean Sea Bass are endangered. 90% of all aquatic life are either in decline or are endangered.

Please no Orwellian Double Speak here.
OOC. this is NS United nations! this is not the REAL world!

IC. Here in the waters surrounding The Realm of Hibernia the waters are teeming with all forms of sea creatures due to progressive policies in fisheries adopted by the Nations of the Realm. These waters provide sustainance for no less than six species of Dolphin and their population is expanding nicely.

I repeat! there may be a treat to the extinction of the species where your nation is. A repeal of this Resolution will enable me to form the UN Wildlife conservation Association to help protect your fish populations.
I repeat my cry to the nations of the UN!
Support the Resolution Repeal!

Prince Esheram Byron,
Representative to the UN for the Realm of Hibernia Delegation.

OOC. this is NS United nations! this is not the REAL world!

IC. Here in the waters surrounding The Realm of Hibernia the waters are teeming with all forms of sea creatures due to progressive policies in fisheries adopted by the Nations of the Realm. These waters provide sustainance for no less than six species of Dolphin and their population is expanding nicely.

I repeat! there may be a treat to the extinction of the species where your nation is. A repeal of this Resolution will enable me to form the UN Wildlife conservation Association to help protect your fish populations.
I repeat my cry to the nations of the UN!
Support the Resolution Repeal!

Prince Esheram Byron,
Representative to the UN for the Realm of Hibernia Delegation.


OOC: I know, but to say there's 130,000 nations and no decline in Aquatic life is saying that there's no problems plaguing NationStates at all.

Dolphins are actually on the Endangered species list? Since when?

They are here in the People's Repoublic!

The Communoskayan Black Dolphin no longer graces our bays due to the old Union of Capitalism's awful libertarian views which destroyed many of the waters around the People's Republic.

I will not support this bill. I may support the Endangered Species act if it does not reference the RL endangered species act and instead allows a committee to determine what is endangered and what is not.

Slovakastania endorses this resolution fully. Dolphins are tasty.

Slovakastania endorses this resolution fully. Dolphins are tasty.


I agree they are tasty at that, but the issue here is protecting them so that those who do wish to eat them have them to eat.

Also I agree that we need to have a single resolution to define indanger species and then one rule or law to govern how we preserve them.. Thus not having people wondering which sea creature or other they might eat or can't because it's on somebodies indangered list. Thus with a UN Committee or whatever deciding the indanger animals and the resolution setting how we deal with them we all have common grounds for deciding what's for dinner without fear of violating one of say hundreds of single proposals on protection of one minor animal.. This will in the long run leave us to deal with more serious problem Humans...

Thus this repeal comes to vote will support it and looking forward to one Animal Protection Proposal being drafted and presented.

I need to ammend my earlier question

Are Dolphins endangered in RL?

I think they fall like some birds only the BAIJI DOLPHINS are endangered while the rest pretty much are pests.....

Thus you might see in one area Bottlenose are common and these Baiju only show up in certian areas so the rate endangered.

Some replying to my lobby telegrams are saying that U.N. resolutions do not affect civil rights, economy or political freedoms standings. Yet all along I've been told the exact opposite. So do all these things we gripe about have an effect on our nation stats??

Some replying to my lobby telegrams are saying that U.N. resolutions do not affect civil rights, economy or political freedoms standings. Yet all along I've been told the exact opposite. So do all these things we gripe about have an effect on our nation stats??
Yup. There are stat changes with each resolution. They may not make a "Powerhouse" Economy into a "Basketcase" with one resolution. But they have a definite effect.

But, generally, arguing for or against a proposal purely on grounds of their stat-changes (sometimes called statwanking) is not that convincing to delegates. I mean, I'm sure it will ocnvice some. But I think this group is smaller than the number that would be convinced using other arguments.

The fact that it has harmed the economies of some nations is only a small part of my argument, the main crux being national sovereignty and the U.N.'s exceeding its authority -- at least in my view. (You can read all the "Whereases" the get the full feel of it.) This proposal fell only about 20-30 votes short last time -- and that was because I was lazy and put off heavy telegramming till the last couple days. We shall see how it fares this round.

While some of the reasons for repeal make a tad bit of sense - not enough to sway me to take away a perfectly beneficial resolution, but sense nonetheless - your own particular line of argumentation is taking a tired argument too far.


My reason for supporting a repeal is simple! Look to the many endangered species on our planet and ask your selfs are we to have an individual Resolution for each one? I say No let us Repeal this so an organisation supporting the conservation of all endangered species may take its place.

There are two things, in particular, wrong with this entire mindset.

1) It implies a type of fuzzy "equal protection for all" idealism into a place where equal protection is utterly ridiculous. We're not talking about the rights of similar people of different races, genders and moralities, we're talking about completely different species. There is a limit to how much protection we want to extend to various creatures, especially if said creatures have nasty sharp pointy teeth or, in my case, breathe fire. In fact, as it specifically states in the resolution you wish to repeal, we wish to protect dolphins in particular not because they are endangered, but rather because they are friendly, helpful and possibly sentient creatures, in my own words.

RECOGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,

A dolphin is the third most intelligent creature on the planet (fourth, if you're counting me). It's not (depending on your RPing) endangered.

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal however, is a creature so marvelously stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you (although, if it does see you, it will rip you to shreds). There's only one of them, however.

Does my nation necessarily want to pour money into a commitee to protect endangered species that may or may not deserve to be endangered? Or does it want to protect a specific species with regard to the evidence that it has the capacity to think and feel?

2) The organization you propose is first a committee, second idiocy. The U.N. should not have to waste its time and effort on animals that mankind may not even be responsible for endangering. The fact is that as a part of the natural cycle of things, species come and go. When people step in to protect something simply because there is little of it left, they can wreak havoc on that cycle. You can't control this kind of thing. Pojonia has one of the best environments on the planet because of its understanding of where to place environmental spending.

3 (I'm long-winded, shut up)) Resolution 106 does not need to be repealed to introduce a resolution protecting endangered species.

That being said (in not so record time) lets have a look at the repeal itself


Argument: WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters, violating treaties and trade pacts between nations respecting said waters, and placing special restrictions on any future such treaties; and

Firstly, National Sovereignty? Not the issue here. We're not talking about how people run their governments, we're talking about how people kill their fish. This is too small an issue to be regarded by NS bits.
Now, my international law is a little fuzzy here, but I also seem to recall that the U.N. literally has no way of enforcing jurisdiction over international waters. It cannot, by sheer force of gnomes, affect nations that are outside the U.N. Therefore, while this concept of claiming jurisdiction over international waters seems valid, the fact is that the act does no such thing. It words it in a way that jurisdiction can be pulled out of said resolution, but even if we tried to weave it over international waters it would simply sink like a stone.

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

Damages economy? Sure. Severely damages? Unlikely. When a regulation such as this comes into effect, you will see a sharp decline - but not necessarily a deep one - in the fishing industry. But what happens after is this: the dolphin safe nets and fishing equipment that are suddenly needed by every fisherman gain support from the government as opposed to the unsafe ones. Under the increased demand for said products and possible governmental aid, the people who make the safer nets can A) develop cheaper methods of making safer equipment and B) increase the supply and drop the price of said equipment. After a short downturn, the red line climbs back up and stabilizes. Sometimes it even gets better, as a result of an improvement in fishing equipment (While a dolphin unsafe net is at first cheaper to make, one could speculate that a fleet of dolphins could wreck said net and possibly half a boat trying to free themselves.

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

Precise restrictions? Jurisdiction? The U.N. supplies neither of these. The thing to remember about the resolution is it's not that powerful. As it can only affect member nations and contains only five short regulations, two of which are simply suggestions in U.N. terms, we're not really talking about moving in and trying to take over

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

Not an endangered species, but worth the special protection. Cause we love em so, and oddly enough they don't seem to mind us.

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

Actually, this is perfectly true. However, here comes the fun phrase. "So what?" I'd go as far as to call Dolphins a culture of their own - they function in communities, communicate with each other, have their own distinctive mannerisms, and enough intelligence to make a difference - the difference, however, is that dolphins aren't running around eating humans.

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

It's not as though this resolution harms human rights in any manner either.But even so, there's no real central purpose to the United Nations. The promotion of human rights IS, however, important. Which is why we shouldn't be wasting time with a repeal that... how do I say it? "does little to advance the central purpose of the United Nations, namely, the promotion of human rights;".

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:

Same refutation here, actually. Just because this resolution doesn't protect human rights doesn't mean it's a detriment. Also, the repeal somewhat literally forces the U.N. into a stance that says it's central purpose is human rights - but there's a plethora of other goals that we strive to achieve as well. In fact, we've got human rights pretty well in the bag compared to some of the other problems we've tried to mount.

And that's the load of it. It's like a filibuster, only without the actual delay in legislative decisions!

2) The organization you propose is first a committee, second idiocy. The U.N. should not have to waste its time and effort on animals that mankind may not even be responsible for endangering. The fact is that as a part of the natural cycle of things, species come and go. When people step in to protect something simply because there is little of it left, they can wreak havoc on that cycle. You can't control this kind of thing. Pojonia has one of the best environments on the planet because of its understanding of where to place environmental spending.


So we have a so called committee that is spending on the protection of each and every endangered animal... Thus we have one for Winged Wolves at 2.3 million spent last year, Bargon Moles 1.2 million, Iberwands 6.1 million, and the list could go on and on as this only covers so called individual committees that deal with only one animal.. If you look at what they actualy do it would and could be reduced to one committee in once location and common equipment instead of each have a Telemortromiter at 1.4 billion each, where only about sixty are needed to effectively cover all endangered animals and those not covered.

Then figure each is spending funds in certain areas to build it up for their own concern while they destroy it for another then we have to form a new committee to thus protect that one and then spend to restore areas for it. This is part of the troubles we have now too many committees stepping on each other... When one would be able to handle more than just the Dangrat.. at 9.3 million over five years it's been endangered.. as well as all the rest noted prior and more...


Also on the --A dolphin is the third most intelligent creature on the planet (fourth, if you're counting me). It's not (depending on your RPing) endangered. -- in RL only one speices of dolpin is considered endangered.. The rest of them are not endangered... so here we have a problem of what might be a dolpin or another species... thus not covered as a dolphin...

Ah - now I know what it's like to run across one of my own rants

I'll get back to you when I have a bit more time with my own....lengthy response

NS does not equal RL. Just because dolphins aren't endangered in RL, doesn't mean they aren't endangered in NS. As said, the Communoskayan Black Dolphin is now held only in captivity.

NS does not equal RL. Just because dolphins aren't endangered in RL, doesn't mean they aren't endangered in NS. As said, the Communoskayan Black Dolphin is now held only in captivity.

I was not asking RL status of Dolphins for its application here - because for the most part, we have already made Dolphins non-endangered in NS (and you note that the resolution in question never claimed Dolphins were endangered) - but often we drift in and out of character and the comments regarding whether Dolphins are endangered or not kept popping up. I just wanted to know for future reference so I could fully determine my actual opinion for our marine cousin.

Firstly, National Sovereignty? Not the issue here. We're not talking about how people run their governments, we're talking about how people kill their fish.I'm afraid national sovereignty is at issue here. Whom do you think are the ones doing the fishing out there in international waters? Aliens? Mermaids? Men without a country? No, they are citizens of sovereign nations, and the United Nations has declared that the laws of their own nations, and the treaties their nations are party to, no longer apply, and have forced them to undertake tedious, costly procedures to come into compliance with a vague ban on "dolphin abuse." Furthermore, this act impedes on treaties regarding commercial activities in international waters made between member states and other sovereign nations. This not only violates national sovereignty but also endangers member states' trade pacts: non-affiliated nations may simply elect not to trade with member states if they decide it is too expensive.Now, my international law is a little fuzzy here, but I also seem to recall that the U.N. literally has no way of enforcing jurisdiction over international waters. It cannot, by sheer force of gnomes, affect nations that are outside the U.N. Therefore, while this concept of claiming jurisdiction over international waters seems valid, the fact is that the act does no such thing. It words it in a way that jurisdiction can be pulled out of said resolution, but even if we tried to weave it over international waters it would simply sink like a stone.So, the act is unenforceable? And in your mind, that is a reason to keep it on the books?!The thing to remember about the resolution is it's not that powerful.I wouldn't say so, for a resolution purporting to affect "all businesses" of industry.Not an endangered species, but worth the special protection. Cause we love em so, and oddly enough they don't seem to mind us.Following the same line, cats and dogs also warrant special protection. Shall I draw up the Protection of Domesticated Animals resolution, or will you do it?possibly sentient creaturesSeems to me if they're "possibly sentient," they'd learn to avoid fishing boats.I'd go as far as to call Dolphins a culture of their own - they function in communities, communicate with each other, have their own distinctive mannerisms, and enough intelligence to make a difference - the difference, however, is that dolphins aren't running around eating humans.No, dolphins eat other creatures. It's called the food chain. Look it up sometime.Just because this resolution doesn't protect human rights doesn't mean it's a detriment.Look, the resolution "calls upon" (and in my mind "calls upon" implies a mandate) member states "to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives," which basically means that even though the lives of dolphins should not be regarded over human lives, there is an implication that dolphin rights are on a par with human rights. That is demonstrably silly, and any person with the faintest capacity for common sense can see it is silly on its very face, in spite of the obfuscations you in your arguments offer.Also, the repeal somewhat literally forces the U.N. into a stance that says it's central purpose is human rightsAnd this is a bad thing?

Seems to me if they're "possibly sentient," they'd learn to avoid fishing boats.

You'd think that'd be true for Humans too - but alas, you get the odd Submarine that hits a fishing boat

NS does not equal RL. Just because dolphins aren't endangered in RL, doesn't mean they aren't endangered in NS. As said, the Communoskayan Black Dolphin is now held only in captivity.
Then your nation, and other nations interested in protecting that species of dolphin should take steps to preserve it. That that one species is in captivity, doesn't mean that all dolphins should be protected in all waters in all situations with blanket legislation.

I'm afraid national sovereignty is at issue here. Whom do you think are the ones doing the fishing out there in international waters? Aliens? Mermaids? Men without a country? No, they are citizens of sovereign nations, and the United Nations has declared that the laws of their own nations, and the treaties their nations are party to, no longer apply, and have forced them to undertake tedious, costly procedures to come into compliance with a vague ban on "dolphin abuse." Furthermore, this act impedes on treaties regarding commercial activities in international waters made between member states and other sovereign nations. This not only violates national sovereignty but also endangers member states' trade pacts: non-affiliated nations may simply elect not to trade with member states if they decide it is too expensive.
Again, it's true that it violates the NS of member nations in regards to the fishing business in regards to dolphin safety. But it's not true that this constitutes some grand economic failure of said nations that would cause a worrisome rise in prices. It's actually quite cheap to employ dolphin-safe equipment in comparison to normal nets, and it gets immediately cheaper when the government steps in - see previous arguments.
[/QUOTE]So, the act is unenforceable? And in your mind, that is a reason to keep it on the books?!
I didn't say the act was unenforceable, I said it was unenforcable on non-member nations. It works fine for member nations, but you seem to think that it affects sovereign (non-U.N.) nations as well - and it physically can't.

[QUOTE]I wouldn't say so, for a resolution purporting to affect "all businesses" of industry.Following the same line, cats and dogs also warrant special protection. Shall I draw up the Protection of Domesticated Animals resolution, or will you do it?[QUOTE]
I'll do it. Cruelty to domesticated animals is not something I want to see in U.N. member nations.
[QUOTE]Seems to me if they're "possibly sentient," they'd learn to avoid fishing boats.
They do. Given a creation called a "pinger", fisherman can generate a unique signal that essentially lets dolphins know where they are ahead of time, so a fast-moving dolphin does not collide with a net. But those are expensive. A simple dolphin safe gill net - visible by echolocation at further distances than a normal net - can reduce net related deaths by 97 percent, and is fully affordable by any fisherman.
You're forgetting that dolphins move hella fast in addition to being very smart, and non-safe nets, while not necessarily cheaper, are harder to see than safe nets. That's why they're not safe.
No, dolphins eat other creatures. It's called the food chain. Look it up sometime.
Sure they do. Squid and cephalopods, 20 or 30 pounds a day. Does that refute my argument? No. Non-responsive, and rather rude, I might add.

Look, the resolution "calls upon" (and in my mind "calls upon" implies a mandate)
Fascinating how your mind works. But while U.N. gnomes immediately enact all laws put forth by the U.N., the two clauses that call upon member states can be interpreted as a simple open invitation. What you believe it says doesn't necessarily mean that's what it says. Clauses like "Calls upon" or "urges" are used for a reason - to provide a solid direction but not an absolute inflexibility.

member states "to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives," which basically means that even though the lives of dolphins should not be regarded over human lives, there is an implication that dolphin rights are on a par with human rights. That is demonstrably silly, and any person with the faintest capacity for common sense can see it is silly on its very face, in spite of the obfuscations you in your arguments offer.And this is a bad thing?
While your use of italics is duly noted, the resolution says the opposite. In fact, this is a handy loophole that makes the resolution worthwhile. The resolution says that abuse of dolphins should be prevented - but only as long as dolphins are not preferred over human lives. (5th clause) In other words, in an economic crises of any form (which won't happen) member nations are obliged to protect their own lives first. Clause 2 mentions this as well.

A huge issue, I've noted, of putting forth a repeal is that people just can't seem to be bothered to look at the resolution again - in particular, you. Here it is, for easy reference.

Description: The United Nations,

RECONGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,

ALARMED by the killing of dolphins around the world, whether intentional of accidental,

OBSERVING that the prevention of dolphin killings will not in any way hurt any of the states' economies,

RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted dolphins,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.

Then your nation, and other nations interested in protecting that species of dolphin should take steps to preserve it. That that one species is in captivity, doesn't mean that all dolphins should be protected in all waters in all situations with blanket legislation.

Which is why we're lucky they're not protected in all waters in all situations with blanket legislation. The resolution has a lot of specific wording designed to stop that kind of idiotic reasoning.

Which is why we're lucky they're not protected in all waters in all situations with blanket legislation.

2 Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

That sounds pretty blanket to me. It presents one exception, and propogates the law throughout the whole of "extra-territorial waters". There are certain situations which this legislation certainly misses. That's why I say that it is too "blanket".

Ah, and do try to be civil. I'm sure you'd prefer it if I didn't call your thoughts "idiotic".

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is very sad that many nations want to repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"

ok, maybe this proposition have some flaws, maybe it goes to far, of course it's not perfect, we agree

but

1 there are no other resolution protecting animals ever passed at the UN, so if this one is repealed, this would create a "BIG HOLE" in UN Resolutions, and will be a sad exemple to our children worldwide

2 Dolphins, are intelligent animals,

- they can communicate (we have not yet deciphered their language but this is an evidence),

- they are one of the only animals along with bonobos, Chimps and Orangutans, who have passed the “Mirror-recognition test for self-awareness” (or mirror test) [for example: Cats and Dogs did not]

- they have a special "sense" that we human don't have: they can orientate themselves perceving the magnetic field of the magnetic north-pole and the magnetic South-pole, they use this sense especially when they migrate

- a recent scientific research had point out that dolphin can use tool, and learn their children how do do it:
you can read more about that here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475

So, of course, we cannot compare Dolphins with Human, this is not the question, but we need compassion, and as Dolphin are a nice species and human-friendly, we need to be Dolphin-friendly


in conclusion we need to keep this resolution until a better one (concerning dolphins or better concerning all animals) have been voted

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel has not yet taken any decision, but we are wondering about starting a TG campaign, with the aim the """Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"""" proposition will fail, we are pretty sure such a TG campaign will prevent it to be voted by the entire UN body

if any Nation want to join us, we will be very pleased

The Republic of Libertaville must agree with The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, in the statement that, until another, better developed Act to protect animals is put in place, we should not repeal this one.

As you stated, there are many other species that are far more endagered, and require a similar act, however, by repealing this one before instating another protective act, you are leaving a gap.

The Republic of Libertaville believes that in order to ensure that our worlds animals are safe from harm, we must first create an act saving all animals, and then repeal this one, only because it is unneccessary.

A dark and shadowy figure was listening into the conversation between the members and realised the fluffies were gathering against the repeal. Didnt they realise that in order to include Dolphins in a new conservation bill for ALL endangered wild life to pass, By the rules of NS United Nations the repeal had to go through or else no newer better resolution could protect Dolphin populations.

Time he thought to release some secret stuff to aid the repeal he thought to him self. He opened his comunicator and breathed the words "UP LOAD".
The words crossed the ether within a couple of miliseconds and a button on a terminal was pressed where the words had echoed from the speakers in the darkened room.

Within moments a file started printing in the offices of the UN Delegates and in the office machines of the UN press corps.

It read.......
Taken from a secret meeting of the UNOG

..................................
Is there a specific legal need to repeal this resolution before a newer all encompassing resolution can be proposed? What I’m thinking is even if we have this fuzzy resolution and we then do a bill to cover everything else would that not stop the floodgates and end the need for a repeal?

The short answer is YES! I firmly believe theres no point doing something unless your going to do it right. My point is simple, we can have two separate resolutions but why? when we can have one single resolution for the conservation of all wild Life. Also it would proove messy!

Example...
dear new UN WWF set up under new rules with new and improved regulations, we have the lesser spotted dolphin which has been overfished and there are only 100 left in the NS world. Please help us conserve this beautful creature!.


Dear applicant for a conservation order,
We do apologise but you must contact the other group which had been specifically set up for dolphins. We are a better funded and much larger organisation but unfortunately dolphins cant be covered by our conservation order as they are covered by a whole resolution unto them selves as the people drawing the bill at the time were too lazy to do it right! Apologies and best wishes
The new UN WWF bastard!
PS. Perhaps if you have them reclassified as seals we can help!??


OK, my example is very tongue in cheek but it conveys my message. We must repeal. We must do this right if we are going to do this at all.

Esheram Byron, UN rep for the Venerable Libertarians and the Region of the Realm of Hibernia.

.................. END TRANSMISSION

And you are correct, dolphins are not endangered.

i advice you to read the "United Nations Resolution # 106
Protection of Dolphins Act",

then maybe you will be able to told us where the 106 resolution states they are endangered, that is not at all the point of the resolution



If you support the repeal i will draft a Wildlife Conservation Bill have it tweaked here in the UN forum and Personally see it gets passed. You have my word as a gentleman on that.

can you show us your "Wildlife Conservation Bill", before repealling anything, please

Walking over to the Venerable Libertarians delegation, Lydia gave a distinct glare to the ambassador in charge. She was not at all happy to see her questions being used to aid support for the repeal.

“Respectfully Mr Ambassador if you would be so kind, I’d appreciate if you would not circulate my comments to all in sundry, particularly out of context. I feel my office has made our position quite clear and while we have sympathy for your position it is the argument against this repeal we have difficulty with, not it’s aim. I hope therefore you will not mind me bringing my previous comments to the floor so they may be viewed in context by the member body.”

Honoured members the government of Telidia can unfortunately not offer our support in favour of this repeal, simply because we feel the argument presented here against the resolution in question is not appropriate. Simply put the argument presented is basing a repeal on national sovereignty and cultural insensitivity grounds. In our humble opinion should we follow through with this repeal and pass it on these grounds we are indirectly opening a method by which all resolutions protecting other species, including the newly proposed legislation can be repealed on those grounds. After all if the member body see fit to pass this repeal for Dolphins on these grounds would we seriously be able to rebuttal calls for a repeal of another species on similar grounds? I think not because by passing this text we effectively agree the argument is valid.

However, the Telidian government do completely agree with the Venerable Libertarian delegation that a repeal is necessary, however we feel it should be brought with a different argument. For example an argument stating reasons why there is no need for this species to be specifically protected or an argument that this resolution lends to additional bureaucracy if we are to write resolutions for every endangered species will be far more appropriate in our humble opinion.

In closing we would like to add that the arguments we use in repeals should be given as much thought as the text of resolutions. What we say in repeals directly affect how view proposals and certainly how potential arguments against similar proposals/resolutions may be brought.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Prince Byrons Communicator buzzed. After reading the leaked document the Prince knew who was on the other end. He flipped the device open, opening the secured channel.
The one sided conversation followed, Yes your majesty, indeed, yes, I understand your majesty, i will as soon as i end this conversation your majesty." Byron closed the communicator and slipped it into his pocket. He turned and walked to the Telidian Delegacy and approached Lydia Cornwall.

My dear Delegate he sighed, I have been instructed to apologise to you personally for the severe breach in our security protocols. His majesty King James the First is absolutly livid and wishes me to convey to you that there will be an investigation into this breach and serious ramifacations for any one involved.
He bowed solemnly to the Telidian and made his way back to the Realm of Hibernia Delegation. He looked to his staff and motioned a return to the NSUN office to discuss the Breach.

That sounds pretty blanket to me. It presents one exception, and propogates the law throughout the whole of "extra-territorial waters". There are certain situations which this legislation certainly misses. That's why I say that it is too "blanket".
It may be singular, but it still is a pretty big loophole - the primary worry of this particular resolution is damaged economy, and a damaged economy can lead to certain fisherpeoples starving to death, so all I'm saying is that it made the exceptions needed. Plus, whether or not it is a blanket barely matters if it doesn't have a sincere effect on said blanket. Don't forget that A) it only applies restrictions to ensure the safety of dolphins, which is unlikely to cause any particularly strong effects on economy or anything else, and B) whether or not it extends over international waters, it still only effects U.N. nations in said international waters.


Ah, and do try to be civil. I'm sure you'd prefer it if I didn't call your thoughts "idiotic".

Apologies, that was a bit misleading. But I wasn't specifically referring to you as idiotic, I was talking about how the legislation had specific clauses to prevent IT from being idiotic. Still, snippish of me.

The Republic of Libertaville can find only one compromise in this situation.

If you want Libertaville to aid in the repeal, then you must first write a Wildlife Act that ensures the protection of all animals. When that Act is posted, and placed in front of me, then and only then will The Republic of Libertaville support the repeal of the Dolphin Act.

If and When a Wildlife Bill is created, The Republic of Libertaville will whole heartedly support the repeal of the Dolphin Act, with the assurance that a the Wildlife Bill will soon be put into the process of becoming Law.

Then your nation, and other nations interested in protecting that species of dolphin should take steps to preserve it. That that one species is in captivity, doesn't mean that all dolphins should be protected in all waters in all situations with blanket legislation.


Yes here would agree that it is up to a nation to deal with their own concerns over what is endangered and not. As the UN should only deal with giving that nation the right to do just that and then maybe some support in protecting those animals that might be considered endangered. Trouble is to form a new commettee every time one of the 34000 members find a new endangered animal would cost far more than one single committee that takes information from individual nations and prepares for the entire UN membership a list of those endanger species and the nation that declared them so along with other needed information on them.. The UN has many committees doing several funtions well in an area so why do we need separate Committees on Whale, Sharks, Dolphins, Elephants, Muddogs... and a host of others when one Committee could do the job.. I know that reducing it to one Committee will mean certain unnamed UN officials will have to lay off their family members that hold this Committe slots but it will be for the best...

01:10, Little Vagator Beach, Vagator, Capital of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was in conversation with The Minister of Environment and The president of the Senate Foreign-Affairs commission.
They were comfortably seated in a quiet small lounge bar, just few meters from the beach, just behind some palm threes. The agreeable lounge music was not so loud for they still be able to hear the sound of the waves on the shore.

They were worried, a coalition of UN Delegate having decided to repeal the United Nations Resolution # 106 Protection of Dolphins Act. The same proposition, so many teachers were proud to talk about to children in The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel and many Nations. The same proposition, that make many people worldwide feel happy about the existence of the UN body.

In the early evening they have found a solution, they have the possibility to make a TG campaign, and they were fully confident that this campaign will stop the repeal before it could be voted by the entire UN body. But they didn’t really want to do it. So at that time of the evening, in this time zone, they decided to report the question, have a good sleep, and take a decision the following day in the afternoon.

Yes here would agree that it is up to a nation to deal with their own concerns over what is endangered and not. As the UN should only deal with giving that nation the right to do just that and then maybe some support in protecting those animals that might be considered endangered. Trouble is to form a new commettee every time one of the 34000 members find a new endangered animal would cost far more than one single committee that takes information from individual nations and prepares for the entire UN membership a list of those endanger species and the nation that declared them so along with other needed information on them.. The UN has many committees doing several funtions well in an area so why do we need separate Committees on Whale, Sharks, Dolphins, Elephants, Muddogs... and a host of others when one Committee could do the job.. I know that reducing it to one Committee will mean certain unnamed UN officials will have to lay off their family members that hold this Committe slots but it will be for the best...
Finally someone gets It! Why single out dolphins and open the way for multiple resolutions and comittees and individually and innefficiently funded programmes when we can have a singl organisation with a single goal. The Protection of all endangered wild life. Why does it matter what way we repeal the resolution? So long as it is repealed leaving the way open for a new unilateral resolution.

In the early evening they have found a solution, they have the possibility to make a TG campaign, and they were fully confident that this campaign will stop the repeal before it could be voted by the entire UN body. But they didn’t really want to do it. So at that time of the evening, in this time zone, they decided to report the question, have a good sleep, and take a decision the following day in the afternoon.Your threats at a TG campaign to prevent this repeal from reaching the U.N. floor are oddly anti-democratic, especially for a left-wing nation as yourself, Love and esterel. So the U.N. should be denied the opportunity for a democratic vote on this repeal, simply because you disagree with it? I would expect behavior like this from a repressive dictatorship, not a proud "liberal" republic.

Well, I've RPed the great damage done by the Union of Capitalism before they were overthrown and dolphins are one of the creatures hurt here. Besides, beyond being endangered they are quite intelligent and are common casualties in commercial fishing. They do deserve protection.

As for the taste of dolphins, how would you know? It's not a common dish and I think you might just be confused. Usually when you see Dolphin on a menu, it is referring to dolphin FISH, also known as mahi-mahi and I can attest to its tastiness.

Run and hide, a forgottenlord ****ing long post is coming:

While some of the reasons for repeal make a tad bit of sense - not enough to sway me to take away a perfectly beneficial resolution, but sense nonetheless - your own particular line of argumentation is taking a tired argument too far.

There are two things, in particular, wrong with this entire mindset.

1) It implies a type of fuzzy "equal protection for all" idealism into a place where equal protection is utterly ridiculous. We're not talking about the rights of similar people of different races, genders and moralities, we're talking about completely different species. There is a limit to how much protection we want to extend to various creatures, especially if said creatures have nasty sharp pointy teeth or, in my case, breathe fire. In fact, as it specifically states in the resolution you wish to repeal, we wish to protect dolphins in particular not because they are endangered, but rather because they are friendly, helpful and possibly sentient creatures, in my own words.

So in otherwords, yes we have an individual resolution for each species we decide to protect. Thank you for proving the point being made. That's just plain ridiculous - and I have no intention to help this creature in any way shape or form - I feel no reason to protect it. Additionally, where (outside of, perhaps, those that are caged and trained) do you get the idea they are friendly or helpful? Sentience is even harder to argue - they either have been proven to be (which has not been proven - nor do their actions regarding humans suggest that they actually are) or it hasn't been proven (the current status afforded to them). If they could prove their sentience, I would classify them as being a "person" and therefore give them the rights I grant any and all sentient creatures.

A dolphin is the third most intelligent creature on the planet (fourth, if you're counting me). It's not (depending on your RPing) endangered.

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal however, is a creature so marvelously stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you (although, if it does see you, it will rip you to shreds). There's only one of them, however.

Thank you Douglas Adams - who also put the Bugblatter Beast of Traal on.....a different planet. If that one is still on another planet, how is in the scope of the UN's consideration?

Does my nation necessarily want to pour money into a commitee to protect endangered species that may or may not deserve to be endangered? Or does it want to protect a specific species with regard to the evidence that it has the capacity to think and feel?

Dolphins have proven that they can feel, they have not proven that they can think. Your point?

2) The organization you propose is first a committee, second idiocy. The U.N. should not have to waste its time and effort on animals that mankind may not even be responsible for endangering. The fact is that as a part of the natural cycle of things, species come and go. When people step in to protect something simply because there is little of it left, they can wreak havoc on that cycle. You can't control this kind of thing. Pojonia has one of the best environments on the planet because of its understanding of where to place environmental spending.

We can worry about that when we eventually hit discussion of a new resolution regarding this committee. In the mean time, Dolphins have no special characteristics in either sentience or being endangered to warrant protection whatsoever.

3 (I'm long-winded, shut up))

Me too, don't care

Resolution 106 does not need to be repealed to introduce a resolution protecting endangered species.

Your right, it just needs to be repealed

That being said (in not so record time) lets have a look at the repeal itself

Fine

Firstly, National Sovereignty? Not the issue here. We're not talking about how people run their governments, we're talking about how people kill their fish. This is too small an issue to be regarded by NS bits.

UN resolutions, as International Law, control what a nation's laws are. All nations MUST bring their laws into line with whatever the resolution states. If my nation decides that it doesn't care about whether dolphin meat is served, it would be required by this resolution that we do everything in our power to prevent Dolphin meat from entering our markets - after all, if there is no market, no person would actually hunt Dolphins

Also - there is NO INTERNATIONAL COURT that enforces things like "Dolphin killing" or stuff like that. The only one that exists is the TPP, and (iirc,) it only addresses Human Rights or (more specifically) Genocide issues. Dolphins do not fall under its jurisdiction. Therefore, the only court system that could enforce this resolution is a national one

Now, my international law is a little fuzzy here, but I also seem to recall that the U.N. literally has no way of enforcing jurisdiction over international waters. It cannot, by sheer force of gnomes, affect nations that are outside the U.N. Therefore, while this concept of claiming jurisdiction over international waters seems valid, the fact is that the act does no such thing. It words it in a way that jurisdiction can be pulled out of said resolution, but even if we tried to weave it over international waters it would simply sink like a stone.

As was stated earlier - more reason to deleted this resolution

Damages economy? Sure. Severely damages? Unlikely. When a regulation such as this comes into effect, you will see a sharp decline - but not necessarily a deep one - in the fishing industry.

If Dolphin is a delacacy in my nation, it will be QUITE a deep cut

But what happens after is this: the dolphin safe nets and fishing equipment that are suddenly needed by every fisherman gain support from the government as opposed to the unsafe ones.

Actually, the Dolphin safe nets would already have good revenues because.....I'd expect fishermen not hunting Dolphin to buy them anyways

Under the increased demand for said products and possible governmental aid, the people who make the safer nets can A) develop cheaper methods of making safer equipment and B) increase the supply and drop the price of said equipment. After a short downturn, the red line climbs back up and stabilizes. Sometimes it even gets better, as a result of an improvement in fishing equipment (While a dolphin unsafe net is at first cheaper to make, one could speculate that a fleet of dolphins could wreck said net and possibly half a boat trying to free themselves.

Undermined by my previous argument

Precise restrictions? Jurisdiction? The U.N. supplies neither of these. The thing to remember about the resolution is it's not that powerful.

Ever heard of stat wanking - the reason it's done occasionally is because UN resolution actually do have a considerable amount of power.

As it can only affect member nations and contains only five short regulations, two of which are simply suggestions in U.N. terms,

Not to mention game mechanics set ups, mode rulings, and extensive beliefs about proper "RPing"

we're not really talking about moving in and trying to take over

Actually, we're trying to defy mod rulings - hence the resolution is illegal, hence it should be repealed

Not an endangered species, but worth the special protection. Cause we love em so, and oddly enough they don't seem to mind us.

Ok - you protect them - and your dogs and cats. Just because my mom loves Penguins doesn't mean I'm banning hunting on them - or one girl I liked once doesn't mean my national delacacy isn't squirrels

Actually, this is perfectly true. However, here comes the fun phrase. "So what?" I'd go as far as to call Dolphins a culture of their own - they function in communities, communicate with each other, have their own distinctive mannerisms, and enough intelligence to make a difference - the difference, however, is that dolphins aren't running around eating humans.

Your right, and Lions have their own communities and DO go running around and eat humans from time to time. So what? They STILL AREN'T SENTIENT

It's not as though this resolution harms human rights in any manner either.But even so, there's no real central purpose to the United Nations.

Nor is it the UN's decision to enforce all nations to love Dolphins for more than just their taste

The promotion of human rights IS, however, important. Which is why we shouldn't be wasting time with a repeal that... how do I say it? "does little to advance the central purpose of the United Nations, namely, the promotion of human rights;".

Fine, I support the repeal for at least 3 reasons that were otherwise given - and your only actual argument so far is because you love Dolphins

Same refutation here, actually. Just because this resolution doesn't protect human rights doesn't mean it's a detriment. Also, the repeal somewhat literally forces the U.N. into a stance that says it's central purpose is human rights - but there's a plethora of other goals that we strive to achieve as well. In fact, we've got human rights pretty well in the bag compared to some of the other problems we've tried to mount.

Actually, the repeal does not do that - as repeals have only one active clause......and that's the line that's prewritten by the game: "$Resolution shall be rendered Null and Void" or something like that

And that's the load of it. It's like a filibuster, only without the actual delay in legislative decisions!

Yep

As a side note - considering Dolphins are not considered Sentient (not even by you - even you put a question mark to it), and considering the sheer NUMBER of species that exist in the various nations within the game (Dwarves, Elves, Martians - wow, I just got 3 that live on this planet, and are sentient), Dolphins.......can't be third

-----------------------------

Again, it's true that it violates the NS of member nations in regards to the fishing business in regards to dolphin safety. But it's not true that this constitutes some grand economic failure of said nations that would cause a worrisome rise in prices. It's actually quite cheap to employ dolphin-safe equipment in comparison to normal nets, and it gets immediately cheaper when the government steps in - see previous arguments.

Screw economics - it's still a National Sovereignty issue because you are telling my nation how to treat dolphins at a legislative level.

I didn't say the act was unenforceable, I said it was unenforcable on non-member nations. It works fine for member nations, but you seem to think that it affects sovereign (non-U.N.) nations as well - and it physically can't.

It's practically unenforcable because a lot, if not most, fishing for is done in International Waters - which are outside UN jurisdiction. Further, we just MOVED the fishing to International Waters. There's no logic to that

I'll do it. Cruelty to domesticated animals is not something I want to see in U.N. member nations.

Actually - I'll agree with you, but that doesn't mean we should be protecting dogs and cats - we should be protecting....pets. Why do I make the distinction - I have no problems with the death of a cat that's living in the forest - just as I'd have no problem with the death of a deer. Why should they get special protection just because a portion of their species lives in people's homes?

While we're at it - what about pet spiders? Would that mean we can't kill spiders in our attic? What if we're Arachophobic?

They do. Given a creation called a "pinger", fisherman can generate a unique signal that essentially lets dolphins know where they are ahead of time, so a fast-moving dolphin does not collide with a net. But those are expensive. A simple dolphin safe gill net - visible by echolocation at further distances than a normal net - can reduce net related deaths by 97 percent, and is fully affordable by any fisherman.
You're forgetting that dolphins move hella fast in addition to being very smart, and non-safe nets, while not necessarily cheaper, are harder to see than safe nets. That's why they're not safe.

Doesn't prove sentience, proves being able to see obstacles

Which is why we're lucky they're not protected in all waters in all situations with blanket legislation. The resolution has a lot of specific wording designed to stop that kind of idiotic reasoning.

Which again proves the uselessness of this resolution: the fishermen just move into International Waters. Sorry, not buying it.

Though that said - the resolution TRIED to put the ban into International Waters....which is clearly legal

1 there are no other resolution protecting animals ever passed at the UN, so if this one is repealed, this would create a "BIG HOLE" in UN Resolutions, and will be a sad exemple to our children worldwide

Why do Dolphins deserve protection?

2 Dolphins, are intelligent animals,

- they can communicate (we have not yet deciphered their language but this is an evidence),

So can dogs - or lions, or just about any species that can make a sound. We don't have evidence to the COMPLEXITY of their communication, but we know they can communicate. The complexity is a bit more important to determining Intelligence (or, more importantly, sentience)

- they are one of the only animals along with bonobos, Chimps and Orangutans, who have passed the “Mirror-recognition test for self-awareness” (or mirror test) [for example: Cats and Dogs did not]

Great - now about that sentience bit?

- they have a special "sense" that we human don't have: they can orientate themselves perceving the magnetic field of the magnetic north-pole and the magnetic South-pole, they use this sense especially when they migrate

So can many birds - are they intelligent?

- a recent scientific research had point out that dolphin can use tool, and learn their children how do do it:
you can read more about that here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475

Ok, you got me there. More research req'd. Still not convinced their sentient - therefore no conviction of necessity to protect

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel has not yet taken any decision, but we are wondering about starting a TG campaign, with the aim the """Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"""" proposition will fail, we are pretty sure such a TG campaign will prevent it to be voted by the entire UN body

Might work - and you might get a bit farther reach than I got, however my success went only so far as to keep pace with the number of yay votes.

The Republic of Libertaville must agree with The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, in the statement that, until another, better developed Act to protect animals is put in place, we should not repeal this one.

As you stated, there are many other species that are far more endagered, and require a similar act, however, by repealing this one before instating another protective act, you are leaving a gap.

The Republic of Libertaville believes that in order to ensure that our worlds animals are safe from harm, we must first create an act saving all animals, and then repeal this one, only because it is unneccessary.

The other resolution you are discussing has absolutely no relevance to Dolphins as THEY ARE NOT ENDANGERED (which is what the act will cover)

i advice you to read the "United Nations Resolution # 106
Protection of Dolphins Act",

then maybe you will be able to told us where the 106 resolution states they are endangered, that is not at all the point of the resolution

And thus, failing the sentience test, need not be protected or afforded additional rights

It may be singular, but it still is a pretty big loophole - the primary worry of this particular resolution is damaged economy, and a damaged economy can lead to certain fisherpeoples starving to death, so all I'm saying is that it made the exceptions needed. Plus, whether or not it is a blanket barely matters if it doesn't have a sincere effect on said blanket. Don't forget that A) it only applies restrictions to ensure the safety of dolphins, which is unlikely to cause any particularly strong effects on economy or anything else, and B) whether or not it extends over international waters, it still only effects U.N. nations in said international waters.

No, that is just A concern - not THE concern - or even THE concern regarding National Sovereignty. You're telling me how to run my country regarding a species that is neither sentient, nor endangered and therefore deserves no special protection or extra rights.

Your threats at a TG campaign to prevent this repeal from reaching the U.N. floor are oddly anti-democratic, especially for a left-wing nation as yourself, Love and esterel. So the U.N. should be denied the opportunity for a democratic vote on this repeal, simply because you disagree with it? I would expect behavior like this from a repressive dictatorship, not a proud "liberal" republic.

You're joking, right? A TG campaign is by FAR democratic. You are trying to explain to the populace why YOUR opinion is more valid than the opinion being held by the resolution. That's a VERY democratic situation.

BTW - Love and Esterel - no offense intended but I strongly suggest you get your planned TG campaigned edited before you launch it. Your grammatical and spelling errors are sometimes difficult to navigate, and those that you are generally convincing don't want to spend a lot of time trying to interpret what you are saying. Additionally, a well worded speech will make you seem more knowledgable and have a much more valid point than if it is a bunch of typoed words that looks like a Junior High School student threw it together in 2 minutes.

The Republic of Libertaville would like to say...

That is the longest post ever.

That alone deserves some support.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel could not sleep.

He wake up in the middle of the night, read the very logical post of Forgottenlands, appreciated his future help for grammatical and spelling errors correction, as english is not his native language, drafted a TG speech and posted it on the UN forum, with the hope some nations will help him in the redaction:

________________________________________________________________
Dear UN Delegate,

You have approved the repeal of the “"Protection of Dolphins Act" and we respect your decision.
But we would like to focus your attention on 2 points:

1 Dolphin are human friendly animals, are beloved by children worldwide, and this UN Resolution is one our Children like the most

2 This resolution almost don’t hurt any nation economy, nor any traditional or modern culture

So why the need to repeal it, while no other UN resolutions had ever been passed to protect animals?

As many nations present on the UN forum we are worried about this repeal

Best regards
_______________________________________________________________

a recent scientific research had point out that dolphin can use tool, and learn their children how do do it:


So can monkeys use tools.. and pass that on to their children.. so why not protect them.. Also some monkeys we have taught to communicate with us so... why not them. The key here is to single out one animal when others would argue another is more in need of protection would cause more troubles. A single committee to collect information and then decide what gets protection and what doesn't would be less costly than 34000 individual committees, one for each members own loved animal that they feel needs protection. Also by good enviromental protection proposals we in the long run do more for animals than single protection act might.. After all humans are still I hope considered an animal.. not a plant.. or stone.

________________________________
Dear UN Delegate,

You have approved the repeal of the “"Protection of Dolphins Act" and we respect your decision.
But we would like to focus your attention on 2 points:

1 Dolphin are human friendly animals, are beloved by children worldwide, and this UN Resolution is one our Children like the most

2 This resolution almost don’t hurt any nation economy, nor any traditional or modern culture

So why the need to repeal it, while no other UN resolutions had ever been passed to protect animals?

As many nations present on the UN forum we are worried about this repeal

Best regards
_______________________________________________________________

should we add
"you have the possibility to withdraw your approval"

Ok - I'm not going to discuss your arguments (unless they are painfully weak), but I'll do editing

Dear UN Delegate,

You have approved the repeal of the “"Protection of Dolphins Act" and we respect your decision.
But we would like to focus your attention on 2 points:

Interesting target audience, though I'm not sure how well it'll work

1 Dolphins are human friendly animals, are beloved by children worldwide, and this UN Resolution is one our Children like the most

I'm cringing at that last argument. Trying to push a resolution as good because children would love it.....I have a hard time seeing that working

2 This resolution almost don’tdoesn't hurt any nation's economy, nor any traditional or modern culture

I'm sure there's a culture out there that does believe in killing Dolphins - modern, doubtful, but traditional I have a hard time believing. Further, RP issues.......

So why theis there a need to repeal it, while no other UN resolutions hadve ever been passed to protect animals?

As one of many nations present on the UN forum, we are worried about this repeal

You could change that so it reads "We, a coalition of many nations present/active on/in the UN forum, we are worried about this repeal."

Best regards
_______________________________________________________________


You addressed Economy and culture concerns that were listed in the repeal - but a few of the other concerns have been brought to the forefront on these forums. Your strongest argument (IMO) of Dolphins showing a few signs of intelligence are not even mentioned. At the very least, you should take the original resolution and try to support many of the original points given there.

should we add
"you have the possibility to withdraw your approval"

No - but I do have a suggestion of changing your intro (that I missed completely in my editing)

You have approved the repeal of the “"Protection of Dolphins Act" and we respect your decision.
But we would like to focus your attention on 2 points:

To

We have noticed your endorsement/support/vote for the "Protection od Dolphins Act". While we respect your decision, we ask that you consider arguments against this repeal and perhaps think about whether your decision may need to be changed/ammended (or you could say "support may need to be withdrawn"). In particular, we would like to focus your attention on 2 points:

The Republic of Libertaville would like to say...

That is the longest post ever.

That alone deserves some support.

There are some moderator posts that have been longer (mainly at the start of stickied threads). This exceeds my longest by.....one screen (currently listed as 9.5 screens).

thanks a lot to Forgottenlands for all these advice, this is great

-we hope we understand all and taken into account of this nice stuff

-we don't see any other possibilities than targetting nation who have already approved the repeal

-maybe we are wrong but we are thinking the 1st point is "emotional"

-we added a third point about intelligence, hope that will not be too long
_______________________________________________________________Dear UN Delegate,

We have noticed your endorsement for the "Protection of Dolphins Act". While we respect your decision, we ask that you consider arguments against this repeal and perhaps think about whether your decision may need to be withdrawn.
In particular, we would like to focus your attention on 3 points:

1 Dolphins are human friendly animals, are beloved by children worldwide, and this UN Resolution is one our Children like the most

2 Dolphins, are intelligent animals, they can communicate, they are one of the only animals along with bonobos, Chimps and Orangutans, who have passed the “Mirror-recognition test for self-awareness” (or mirror test) [for example: Cats and Dogs did not]

furthermore, a recent scientific research had point out that dolphin can use tool, and learn their children how do it:
you can read more about that here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475

3 This resolution almost doesn’t hurt any nation’s economy, nor any culture

So why is there a need to repeal it, while no other UN resolutions have ever been passed to protect animals?

We, a coalition of many nations active in the UN forum, we are worried about this repeal

Best regards
_____________________________________________

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel have sand a polite telegram to The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny and to The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians to inform them we will start a TG campaign, to prevent the dolphin act to be repealed.

we hope these 2 nations and the others who supported the repeal will not be angry against us and, as this is a really democratic action, we hope whatever the issue of this repeal proposition, all the nations concerned will secures good contact between them

please, is the new TG draft Ok?

if some nation want to join us for the TG campaign they are welcome, otherwise we will do it ourself, 65 TG to send it's not that much

I'm really not sure that telegram is okay, but I'll have a look at it and see what I can come up with.

This is a little better, but I'm not affiliated with it in any manner. Seriously, man, "think of the children"? What were you thinking?

The citizens of ______ have recently noticed your endorsement for the repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act". While we will respect your decision in it’s full when the votes are tallied, we feel that you might not be hearing both sides of the argument.
In particular, we would like to focus your attention on 3 points:

1 Dolphins are firstly curious, intelligent and friendly animals, bordering on sentient beings and capable of forming communities, communicating with each other and using tools (for more on this visit http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475). They are the one of the few creatures to have passed the mirror recognition test for self awareness, proving that____ (What are you trying to get at here, anyways?) As a result, they have proven themselves deserving of a little respect and protection, which is what this resolution gives.

2. The concept of restrictions on economy that the repeal suggests are ludicrous – a dolphin safe net is not more expensive as much as constructed in a different manner than a non-safe net, to allow dolphins and larger fish to detect said nets at greater ranges through echolocation. These nets are affordable to all fisherman, and as a result of said resolution more money is put into making dolphin safe equipment cheaper and more efficient than non-safe, as opposed to producing non-safe equipment.

3. This resolution is one of the U.N.s first steps into the field of animal protection to creatures that deserve said protection, and as it stands can serve as a stepping stone to further encompassing resolution. As no other resolutions have been passed to protect animals of any sort, it creates a marker from which other resolutions can be built.

We, the people of nation X, feel that this repeal is a needless waste of U.N. resources towards a negative goal. We urge you to withdraw approval/a negative vote.

Best regards
_____________________

done
thanks for Forgottenlands for their precious help

This is a little better, but I'm not affiliated with it in any manner.

thanks for your help

It's great they can use tools and pass that on to their young but so can monkies and a number of other animals.. Why do we need to make a resolution on just one animal at a time? This is a waste of funds as any committee formed in general would be doing the same things. Are you working to get your relatives work by forming new committees they can work on. As you can post a lot of relatives if we have a committee on one animal per member nation.. Let's see just 3 members on that committe and their support staff say 7 that 10 people on the committee now how much do we pay them to serve on it. Then figure that times 34000 members at 10 on committee times what we pay them then figure office space rental fees equipment costs.. You could best use all this on one committee and spend what you don't on all the others to clean up where it's needed and do a lot more for all animals... of which humans are members... and need protection as much as any dolpin or whale might... or monkey... they communicate the use of tools to their young and even can tell who they are in a mirrow. Do we forget them trying to help the other 34000 animals..

And if you say what about the kids who love dolphins... What about the starving kids; who yes would love them served well done with maybe a butter sauce.. but we will be to busy trying to keep them from eating all the dogs, rats, and cats because somebody wants them protected..

The next single most important animal we need to work on getting protection for is the Pink Elephant... as they are the only thing that can sober up drunks faster than coffee or a cold shower,,,,, and from some of the comments here I think we need to bring in some pink elephants. Now if you will excuse me I've got to go explain the difference between white and red rum to a bad bartender.

Run and hide, a forgottenlord ****ing long post is coming:

Pojonia's bored enough to at least take its own buster back.
So in otherwords, yes we have an individual resolution for each species we decide to protect. Thank you for proving the point being made.
You're welcome, but you don't seem to get that it's my point. You see, the concept of protecting some animals as opposed to others is a good idea. Lets say that we write up a completely random checklist. How bout we protect animals that are
A) Not raised for food purposes specifically
B) Friendly towards humans
C) Killed or maimed as a result of apathetic designs
D) Not difficult or expensive to protect.
E) Intelligent and possibly sentient
There are a lot of different reasons to protect dolphins in particular. What I'm saying in the above comment is that a resolution isn't bad because it singles a species out. It's not like race or gender or sexuality, it's about whether or not you have eight foot claws or crap plutonium.
That's just plain ridiculous - and I have no intention to help this creature in any way shape or form - I feel no reason to protect it. Additionally, where (outside of, perhaps, those that are caged and trained) do you get the idea they are friendly or helpful? Sentience is even harder to argue - they either have been proven to be (which has not been proven - nor do their actions regarding humans suggest that they actually are) or it hasn't been proven (the current status afforded to them). If they could prove their sentience, I would classify them as being a "person" and therefore give them the rights I grant any and all sentient creatures.

The problem is, we're not really sure if they're sentient and we haven't been able to prove it. We have a pretty good idea that they are, but the species barrier makes it difficult to be at all sure. However, we need this resolution because they aren't necessarily proven as sentient creatures - if they were proven sentient creatures, they'd already have the rights of other U.N. species.
I don't want to protect dolphins just because they're smart. I want to protect dolphins because it's easy and beneficial to do so - because we don't have any reason to purposely harm them in the first place.


Thank you Douglas Adams - who also put the Bugblatter Beast of Traal on.....a different planet. If that one is still on another planet, how is in the scope of the UN's consideration?

You're missing the point and attacking the joke, which won't get you anywhere. Replace Bugblatter Beast of Traal with some other stupid dangerous creature and then you might get the idea. Heck, replace it with a cow. Cows suck enough to make the point.

Dolphins have proven that they can feel, they have not proven that they can think. Your point?
Firstly, they have proven they can think, if not yet at a level we consider sentient. Thinkings the EASY part. Most animals think. Emotion, however - that's pretty unique to the more intelligent creatures. Most animals operate on instinct - their only emotions are eat, sleep, sexify. Dolphins, however, are animals that are capable of play, of activities not related directly to survival - by the Scott Mcloud definition, art. That's worth protecting.


We can worry about that when we eventually hit discussion of a new resolution regarding this committee. In the mean time, Dolphins have no special characteristics in either sentience or being endangered to warrant protection whatsoever.

I made a list of special characteristics, and added the art bit for good measure.

We'll waltz through the snippy ridicule, which has no relevance.


UN resolutions, as International Law, control what a nation's laws are. All nations MUST bring their laws into line with whatever the resolution states. If my nation decides that it doesn't care about whether dolphin meat is served, it would be required by this resolution that we do everything in our power to prevent Dolphin meat from entering our markets - after all, if there is no market, no person would actually hunt Dolphins

Yes...

Also - there is NO INTERNATIONAL COURT that enforces things like "Dolphin killing" or stuff like that. The only one that exists is the TPP, and (iirc,) it only addresses Human Rights or (more specifically) Genocide issues. Dolphins do not fall under its jurisdiction. Therefore, the only court system that could enforce this resolution is a national one

Hrm, that's funny. I believe I said the exact same thing right here:

Now, my international law is a little fuzzy here, but I also seem to recall that the U.N. literally has no way of enforcing jurisdiction over international waters. It cannot, by sheer force of gnomes, affect nations that are outside the U.N. Therefore, while this concept of claiming jurisdiction over international waters seems valid, the fact is that the act does no such thing. It words it in a way that jurisdiction can be pulled out of said resolution, but even if we tried to weave it over international waters it would simply sink like a stone.


As was stated earlier - more reason to deleted this resolution

Because it doesn't have any actual effect on non-member nations?


If Dolphin is a delacacy in my nation, it will be QUITE a deep cut

To which I respond - why the hell are you eating dolphin? I'm willing to bet that until six seconds before you wrote that sentence, you'd never even considered dolphin being a delicacy in your nation. I'm willing to bet that 99.9 percent of the 37,000 U.N. Nations never thought about it either. And I'm definitely willing to bet that there isn't even going to be a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage that isn't completely and totally raving, and not really the type we'd want in here anyways. We're not talking about real economic damage here. It's easy to protect dolphins.
Finally, remember that if that percentage of a percentage of U.N. nations does get its economy damaged enough to starve its fishermen, as a result of said starvation it has a free pass OUT of said resolution for the time being(Clauses 2 and 5). We're talking about small effects, effects that have already taken place. It's a waste of time and a step backwards to repeal it.


Actually, the Dolphin safe nets would already have good revenues because.....I'd expect fishermen not hunting Dolphin to buy them anyways


So, in other words, Dolphin-safe practices already have the money to develop cheaper and cheaper products, because MOST fisherman aren't that dumb. So the transition is even easier.

Now here's where I get a little fuzzy. I said:

Under the increased demand for said products and possible governmental aid, the people who make the safer nets can A) develop cheaper methods of making safer equipment and B) increase the supply and drop the price of said equipment. After a short downturn, the red line climbs back up and stabilizes. Sometimes it even gets better, as a result of an improvement in fishing equipment (While a dolphin unsafe net is at first cheaper to make, one could speculate that a fleet of dolphins could wreck said net and possibly half a boat trying to free themselves.


YOU said:

Undermined by my previous argument

How does this work? How does the fact that dolphin-safe equipment is a smart choice already make it anything but more likely that this kind of thing will happen. How does it do anything but decrease the chances of there ever being a drop in economic growth? Explain it to me. I'm interested.


Ever heard of stat wanking - the reason it's done occasionally is because UN resolution actually do have a considerable amount of power.

If you're even considering the repeal of this resolution for the purpose of "Stat wanking", then I have nothing further to say to you. I can't change your mind, because you're not focusing on the logical effects of the resolution. I don't care what a resolution does to my stats. I care if it WORKS, and I care about what non-statistical effects it has on my country. This resolution probably raised the environment and probably decreased the economy. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what it actually does in terms of its wording.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in the spot here, so I'll move on to

Actually, we're trying to defy mod rulings - hence the resolution is illegal, hence it should be repealed
Moderators actually look carefully at each resolution - especially the ones near vote - to be sure that it IS legal before passing it. If a resolution is currently illegal and still in place (and there are a few of those, with the new rule changes) that doesn't mean anything.

Ok - you protect them - and your dogs and cats. Just because my mom loves Penguins doesn't mean I'm banning hunting on them - or one girl I liked once doesn't mean my national delacacy isn't squirrels
I hesitate to say it, but dogs and cats aren't a natural part of the environmental cycle of things. Dolphins eat specific type of fish (lots of squid and octopi, actually, which is something I didn't know,) reduce the amount of those fish, in doing so control the population of some other type of fish, and so on into a complicated web of effects that we've never been able to fully trace. The key to it is this: when something is a part of the natural cycle of, there is one thing that humans can do not to disrupt it: Leave it alone. Cause as little damage as possible in the pursuit of our own goals. Don't make a mess where we don't have to, essentially. Dolphins are a place where we can do exactly that cheaply and easily, and in doing so set a precedent for U.N. resolutions towards such a goal. It's not just about the species specific, it's about the starting point.


Pause for effect.




Your right, and Lions have their own communities and DO go running around and eat humans from time to time. So what? They STILL AREN'T SENTIENT

I don't care! And I don't see why you do either. Sentience isn't the only thing we have to look at here.


Nor is it the UN's decision to enforce all nations to love Dolphins for more than just their taste

It's not about taste. Well, it's partly about taste. You caught me, I think dolphins are cool, though not in comparison to Penguins, Prinnies, Pojos, and Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal. But I support this resolution for reasons other than personal taste. I support it for the benefits it has and the detriments it doesn't.


Fine, I support the repeal for at least 3 reasons that were otherwise given - and your only actual argument so far is because you love Dolphins

Ignoring your continued focus on me as a Dolphinophile (Aaagh! Bad mental image!) I have two things to say here: 1) You didn't list the three reasons and 2) the three reasons should be in the repeal. Precedent is important in the U.N.. [Hyperbole for your viewing pleasure] We can't pass a repeal because a resolution violates our national sovereignty regarding our treatment of war prisoners when the repeal text states "OMFG w3 shold kill this cos it sucks!"[end hyperbole]


Actually, the repeal does not do that - as repeals have only one active clause......and that's the line that's prewritten by the game: "$Resolution shall be rendered Null and Void" or something like that

This is called "Statwanking". It's about looking at only what the programming in the game does as opposed to the effects it has on players RPing and the minds of the players themselves. There's a lot to be said for the ideas set in the minds of the U.N. by resolutions and repeals that pass because of a specific goal.

As a side note - considering Dolphins are not considered Sentient (not even by you - even you put a question mark to it), and considering the sheer NUMBER of species that exist in the various nations within the game (Dwarves, Elves, Martians - wow, I just got 3 that live on this planet, and are sentient), Dolphins.......can't be third

Ooops, You're right. I'm third. Humans are sixteenth. Second and First are some sort of godlike things that I haven't quite figured out the names of yet. But I was thinking in RL terms, if that helps.

I'll try to be short as know others have more to say as seen in prior comments on this issue.

The reason I see for repealing this one is to allow a single proposal to be entered that will include ALL not just ONE animal.. Until this one is repealed that can't be done. The reason to have one is to avoid each member from having to submit through normal procedures a single proposal on it. Thus keeping us busy with them instead of more important issues. Aslo a single committee properly established to define what requirements give reason for any animal to be protected then add that animal to the ONE list of those that are. This would save funds to support more import needs and even could be used to improve the places where many of these animals might need protection, but if we are spending funds on many committees then it going to the wrong place.....

If a ALL animal protect proposal would pass it could not include Dolphins thus should ever this one be repealed then we'd be back to square one trying to protect them since they would be out.. To get them in any new one we would have to repeal it and then add dolphins.. to a new one.

Meanwhile kids still are starving and somebody is trying to make a bigger better nuke or some bug to kill us all anyway..

but we are debating over -- every gentle no fanged clawed animal; that uses tools, teaches their young, knows themselves in mirrors, and might one day be able to tell us how crazy we are -- to get protection one at a time. Do it once do it right and for all... To those say it can't be done... then look out cause if it can't then we will never stop them from bigger nukes and a better bug to kill us.

I read that telegram you people plan on peddling to the delegates who approved my repeal, and all I can say is, man, you guys are getting desperate. I am so suddenly not worried. Not worried at all.You're joking, right? A TG campaign is by FAR democratic. You are trying to explain to the populace why YOUR opinion is more valid than the opinion being held by the resolution. That's a VERY democratic situation.Ummm, sleazy backroom tactics to defeat a proposal before it even gets a vote? Sounds pretty "anti-democratic" to me.

BTW, Forgotten, your nation is not a U.N. member. Do you have a puppet nation who votes in your stead? If so, could you post under its name? It's hard enough navigating endless posts without knowing who's who here.

RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted dolphins,

This is found in the resolution in question.. and by what it says 106 was acknowledging that 70 omitted dolphins... this one was on whales only. And therefore is now trying to AMMEND that one to corrct the ommitted dolphins. Thus 106 should have been REPEALED rewritten as a new proposal to cover both the intented entries whales and dolphins.. rather than later slip in an AMMEND to it in 106.

This may have been addressed some place before but I'm new and still trying to catch up here. So forgive me if I'm bringing up old news.

Ummm, sleazy backroom tactics to defeat a proposal before it even gets a vote? Sounds pretty "anti-democratic" to me.

Considering the opposition has no opportunity to voice its opinion on the matter outside the forums (which are hardly ever read), I think it's quite fair to allow them this area of consideration. I fail to see why it would be less democratic for them to have the ability to campaign.

BTW, Forgotten, your nation is not a U.N. member. Do you have a puppet nation who votes in your stead? If so, could you post under its name? It's hard enough navigating endless posts without knowing who's who here.

The Empire of Forgottenlands which is the flagship nation of my three was given the mandate as Ambassador to the UN on behalf of the United Nations of Aberdeen, not Forgottenlord's puppet nation of The Colony of Forgottenlands UN (which is actually just a state within the Empire that decided it wanted to be part of the UN by referendum vote). While I understand your request, I respectfully decline to follow suit

If I could, I'd be posting under Forgottenlord - but I can't so I don't

Pojonia's bored enough to at least take its own buster back.

You're welcome, but you don't seem to get that it's my point. You see, the concept of protecting some animals as opposed to others is a good idea. Lets say that we write up a completely random checklist. How bout we protect animals that are
A) Not raised for food purposes specifically
B) Friendly towards humans
C) Killed or maimed as a result of apathetic designs
D) Not difficult or expensive to protect.
E) Intelligent and possibly sentient
There are a lot of different reasons to protect dolphins in particular. What I'm saying in the above comment is that a resolution isn't bad because it singles a species out. It's not like race or gender or sexuality, it's about whether or not you have eight foot claws or crap plutonium.

Yeah - I've got my own personal list:
-Is sentient
-Is endangered

If it matches either, I consider it protectable at a UN level. Nationally......meh - protect the ant for all I care, not my nation.

Quite frankly - by your list, just about any species that is hunted meats 4 of the 5 requirements. The Intelligence part......I still have a problem with that because it is such a difficult line to draw.

The problem is, we're not really sure if they're sentient and we haven't been able to prove it. We have a pretty good idea that they are, but the species barrier makes it difficult to be at all sure.

You got a source saying that, or are you just saying that? I've never heard of the idea that people think they might actually be sentient

However, we need this resolution because they aren't necessarily proven as sentient creatures - if they were proven sentient creatures, they'd already have the rights of other U.N. species.
I don't want to protect dolphins just because they're smart. I want to protect dolphins because it's easy and beneficial to do so - because we don't have any reason to purposely harm them in the first place.

Except perhaps there are cultures that either have rituals regarding Dolphins or nations that rather like the taste of Dolphin meat or industries that have found purposes for Dolphin blubber or on and on and on we could go about the various purposes of Dolphins. Not to mention, we're still asking the question of UN Jurisdiction of International waters

You're missing the point and attacking the joke, which won't get you anywhere. Replace Bugblatter Beast of Traal with some other stupid dangerous creature and then you might get the idea. Heck, replace it with a cow. Cows suck enough to make the point.

Actually, I would prevent the cow from coming to extinction for the same reason it hasn't been brought to the brink of extinction yet - its stupidity is quite frankly due to the fact that we've had them caged up for so many generations waiting to be slaughtered - and we keep them alive because they are tasty.

Give me one that we didn't cage up to put it in this condition (I can think of one example off the top of my head - and even then, that was because we put dogs on the same island as that creature)

Firstly, they have proven they can think, if not yet at a level we consider sentient. Thinkings the EASY part. Most animals think. Emotion, however - that's pretty unique to the more intelligent creatures.

AH - you meant feel emotions - I missed that. It's been proven? I've only ever heard of remorse amongst elephants being proven for feelings in an animal

Most animals operate on instinct - their only emotions are eat, sleep, sexify. Dolphins, however, are animals that are capable of play, of activities not related directly to survival - by the Scott Mcloud definition, art. That's worth protecting.

I still draw the line at sentience

I made a list of special characteristics, and added the art bit for good measure.

We'll waltz through the snippy ridicule, which has no relevance.


Yes...

Hrm, that's funny. I believe I said the exact same thing right here:



Because it doesn't have any actual effect on non-member nations?

No, because it claims that it can enforce regulations upon territories it does not have jurisdiction over. It can't even enforce those regulations on member nations in International waters

To which I respond - why the hell are you eating dolphin? I'm willing to bet that until six seconds before you wrote that sentence, you'd never even considered dolphin being a delicacy in your nation.

No, I'd been thinking about it most of the week because it was brought up as a thought quite early in this thread. Nor am I claiming that I do or that my nation does

I'm willing to bet that 99.9 percent of the 37,000 U.N. Nations never thought about it either. And I'm definitely willing to bet that there isn't even going to be a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage that isn't completely and totally raving, and not really the type we'd want in here anyways. We're not talking about real economic damage here.[QUOTE]

We're talking about National Sovereignty issue. It damages the economy of SOME nation out there - so it becomes a national sovereignty issue. Quite frankly, since I see no reason (still) to protect Dolphins, I feel no reason to push that nation to do such a thing with the resolution

[QUOTE]It's easy to protect dolphins.

Why? Because it isn't hard to get Dolphin safe nets? Already dealt with in my nation. Doesn't mean I need UN resolutions forcing stricter regulations or beliefs about Dolphins. Quite frankly, I don't care about Dolphins any more than I care about trout - nor do I see them as any more valuable than trout (except perhaps entertainment value - but even then.....I'm indifferent). I believe that we should create and utilize nets that minimize the number of fish being taken that are not the intended prey, but that doesn't mean we should do "everything possible to protect Dolphins from intentional and accidental death" (or something like that)

Finally, remember that if that percentage of a percentage of U.N. nations does get its economy damaged enough to starve its fishermen, as a result of said starvation it has a free pass OUT of said resolution for the time being(Clauses 2 and 5). We're talking about small effects, effects that have already taken place. It's a waste of time and a step backwards to repeal it.

Why is it that people think if you stop production of the natural resource, its just those that get the resource that are hurt?

Your right, the damage has already been done - but that doesn't mean it has been healed - and repealing the resolution would mean that the damage has a way to be healed that doesn't require a vast change in the industry. Again, I see no reason for Dolphins to be protected

So, in other words, Dolphin-safe practices already have the money to develop cheaper and cheaper products, because MOST fisherman aren't that dumb. So the transition is even easier.

Now here's where I get a little fuzzy. I said:


YOU said:

How does this work? How does the fact that dolphin-safe equipment is a smart choice already make it anything but more likely that this kind of thing will happen. How does it do anything but decrease the chances of there ever being a drop in economic growth? Explain it to me. I'm interested.

If one's actual fishing target IS Dolphins - which is the MAIN area of revenue drop (which is a drop for the fisherman and the shops that sell the Dolphin meat - not to mention any factory or industry that finds value in Dolphin blubber for any of its products and the stores that sell those products to the general populace) are all hurt by this resolution. However, there is no advantage to any industry because it only changes the intentional practices - the accidental practices are already banned (for the most part - if you run over a Dolphin, I'm not going to charge you). Your argument is that because fishermen are investing into products that deal with accidental deaths, we are offsetting the loss from intentional killings

If you're even considering the repeal of this resolution for the purpose of "Stat wanking", then I have nothing further to say to you. I can't change your mind, because you're not focusing on the logical effects of the resolution. I don't care what a resolution does to my stats. I care if it WORKS, and I care about what non-statistical effects it has on my country. This resolution probably raised the environment and probably decreased the economy. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what it actually does in terms of its wording.

Heh - I'm hardly arguing the repeal on behalf of stat-wanking. I'm arguing that your resolution is far from doing little. In fact, I see very little logic in your comment that it does little.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in the spot here, so I'll move on to


Moderators actually look carefully at each resolution - especially the ones near vote - to be sure that it IS legal before passing it. If a resolution is currently illegal and still in place (and there are a few of those, with the new rule changes) that doesn't mean anything.

Did you happen to notice Allemande's post on Resolution 113's I believe 8 areas of illegality due to conflict with previous resolutions? What about the one that defines national boundaries in water (I can't remember the name) - it is one of the REASONS Repeals were brought in - because the mods didn't delete it before it hit the floor. There are various other ones that the moderators have said "oh, we should've deleted that....." for some reason or another several times over. Illegal resolutions hit the floor and are passed on a fairly regular basis. Don't tell me that the mods are infallible.

I hesitate to say it, but dogs and cats aren't a natural part of the environmental cycle of things. Dolphins eat specific type of fish (lots of squid and octopi, actually, which is something I didn't know,) reduce the amount of those fish, in doing so control the population of some other type of fish, and so on into a complicated web of effects that we've never been able to fully trace.

And if we hunt squid and don't hunt Dolphins, the Dolphin population could get extensive and put the squid into the endangered species list. Considering both Squid and Octopi are considered delacacies in RL.....

And yes, I'm well aware of the ecological disaster point - but it is moot as by the time we get there, it'll already be too late.

The key to it is this: when something is a part of the natural cycle of, there is one thing that humans can do not to disrupt it: Leave it alone. Cause as little damage as possible in the pursuit of our own goals. Don't make a mess where we don't have to, essentially. Dolphins are a place where we can do exactly that cheaply and easily, and in doing so set a precedent for U.N. resolutions towards such a goal. It's not just about the species specific, it's about the starting point.

We already make a mess of it - and since both sources of food are hunted by us.......

Not to mention that we quite exceed our own spot in the environment. The current balance of species (both those that are endangered and those that are thriving) is actually more BECAUSE we interfere. This is less true in the sea than on land, but it is still true.

Pause for effect.




I don't care! And I don't see why you do either. Sentience isn't the only thing we have to look at here.

We've already proven that we're disagreeing on that point


It's not about taste. Well, it's partly about taste. You caught me, I think dolphins are cool, though not in comparison to Penguins, Prinnies, Pojos, and Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal. But I support this resolution for reasons other than personal taste. I support it for the benefits it has and the detriments it doesn't.

What benefits? That Dolphins stop being killed? Why is that a benefit? There's a lot of reason to protect a race from extinction, there is little reason to protect it from being killed at all

Ignoring your continued focus on me as a Dolphinophile (Aaagh! Bad mental image!)

Sorry - I just can't fathom another logical way you get to the specificality of this resolution

I have two things to say here: 1) You didn't list the three reasons and 2) the three reasons should be in the repeal. Precedent is important in the U.N.. [Hyperbole for your viewing pleasure] We can't pass a repeal because a resolution violates our national sovereignty regarding our treatment of war prisoners when the repeal text states "OMFG w3 shold kill this cos it sucks!"[end hyperbole]

Actually, if a majority of nations think it is the right of nations to determine, then we can. Texan Hotrodders (for one) has been rather stringent on the concept of National Sovereignty (one might argue, obsessed). If you make logical explanations which show no true advantage or logic to doing it the way the original resolution does it, it can be repealed on those grounds. Also, Required Basic Health Care and Free Education - two repealed resolutions that were removed on a very much "National Sovereignty" style argument of trying to go too far and not considering nations fully enough - in particular, specific spending policies. While most resolutions will never get repealed because of national sovereignty, when I see no logic to pushing the actual original resolution nor any reason for it to be under the UN's scope (and again - either endangered or sentient falls under the UN's scope IMO), I will support it to be repealed on grounds of National Sovereignty.

Anyways: like I said, at least 3 of the arguments in the repeal: so here they are:

WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters, violating treaties and trade pacts between nations respecting said waters, and placing special restrictions on any future such treaties; 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

Between those 4 quotes, there's arguably 5 things I support. I don't even have to touch economy to get there.

This is called "Statwanking". It's about looking at only what the programming in the game does as opposed to the effects it has on players RPing and the minds of the players themselves. There's a lot to be said for the ideas set in the minds of the U.N. by resolutions and repeals that pass because of a specific goal.

No, actually, it is the rules of Hack that state this. You can have no active clauses within your repeal EXCEPT the repeal. There can be absolutely nothing that changes any legislative properties of any nation at any level for any purpose other than to repeal the original resolution. You can have dozens of active clauses within any resolution, and they are the things that actually change how we RP.

Ooops, You're right. I'm third. Humans are sixteenth. Second and First are some sort of godlike things that I haven't quite figured out the names of yet. But I was thinking in RL terms, if that helps.

:)

done
thanks for Forgottenlands for their precious help

I'm definately going to suggest using Pojonia's suggested revision. From my perspective, it looks more neatly organized and slightly more coherent and doesn't try to play too heavilly to the heart strings (the inherent flaw in the "think of the children" argument - which is actually used so much that most people who are active in politics are getting sick of it).

To be honest, I often ignore any resolution or TG that has anything effectively saying "Think of the Children!"

I'm definately going to suggest using Pojonia's suggested revision. From my perspective, it looks more neatly organized and slightly more coherent and doesn't try to play too heavilly to the heart strings (the inherent flaw in the "think of the children" argument - which is actually used so much that most people who are active in politics are getting sick of it).

To be honest, I often ignore any resolution or TG that has anything effectively saying "Think of the Children!"

ok, we made an error with the children

This is a little better, but I'm not affiliated with it in any manner. Seriously, man, "think of the children"? What were you thinking?

The citizens of ______ have recently noticed your endorsement for the repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act". While we will respect your decision in it’s full when the votes are tallied, we feel that you might not be hearing both sides of the argument.
In particular, we would like to focus your attention on 3 points:

1 Dolphins are firstly curious, intelligent and friendly animals, bordering on sentient beings and capable of forming communities, communicating with each other and using tools (for more on this visit http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475). They are the one of the few creatures to have passed the mirror recognition test for self awareness, proving that____ (What are you trying to get at here, anyways?) As a result, they have proven themselves deserving of a little respect and protection, which is what this resolution gives.

2. The concept of restrictions on economy that the repeal suggests are ludicrous – a dolphin safe net is not more expensive as much as constructed in a different manner than a non-safe net, to allow dolphins and larger fish to detect said nets at greater ranges through echolocation. These nets are affordable to all fisherman, and as a result of said resolution more money is put into making dolphin safe equipment cheaper and more efficient than non-safe, as opposed to producing non-safe equipment.

3. This resolution is one of the U.N.s first steps into the field of animal protection to creatures that deserve said protection, and as it stands can serve as a stepping stone to further encompassing resolution. As no other resolutions have been passed to protect animals of any sort, it creates a marker from which other resolutions can be built.

We, the people of nation X, feel that this repeal is a needless waste of U.N. resources towards a negative goal. We urge you to withdraw approval/a negative vote.

Best regards
_____________________

ok Pojonia thanks for your help we will use yours then:
_________________________________________________________________________
Our citizens have recently noticed your endorsement for the repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act". While we will respect your decision in it’s full when the votes are tallied, we feel that you might not be hearing both sides of the argument.
In particular, we would like to focus your attention on 3 points:

1 Dolphins are firstly curious, intelligent and friendly animals, bordering on sentient beings and capable of forming communities, communicating with each other and using tools (for more on this visit http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7475). They are the one of the few creatures to have passed the mirror recognition test for self awareness. As a result, they have proven themselves deserving of a little respect and protection, which is what this resolution gives.

2. The concept of restrictions on economy that the repeal suggests are ludicrous – a dolphin safe net is not more expensive as much as constructed in a different manner than a non-safe net, to allow dolphins and larger fish to detect said nets at greater ranges through echolocation. These nets are affordable to all fisherman, and as a result of said resolution more money is put into making dolphin safe equipment cheaper and more efficient than non-safe, as opposed to producing non-safe equipment.

3. This resolution is one of the U.N.s first steps into the field of animal protection to creatures that deserve said protection, and as it stands can serve as a stepping stone to further encompassing resolution. As no other resolutions have been passed to protect animals of any sort, it creates a marker from which other resolutions can be built.

We, a coalition of many nations active in the UN forum, feel that this repeal is a needless waste of U.N. resources towards a negative goal. We urge you to withdraw approval.

Best regards
_____________________

I wish to make it clear that Ecopoeia has long made public the fact that certain communities within its jurisdiction practice dolphin hunting. We have established stringent criteria with regards cruelty and maintaining ecological balance - we're not known as ecopoets for nothing.

The original resolution in question was a woolly-headed waste of legislative time. The UN would be better served by repealing it and then devising a replacement that covers the issue of species protection in more general terms. perhaps an Endangered Species Act would be advisable?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

new TG speech sent to the new delegate who approved the repeal

the result of this TG campaign against the repeal is poor
but we will continue

Members, So as to encompass all Sea mammals in the New Proposed Wildlife conservation Bill ( Soon to follow) we have also lodged the following repeal.
We ask all delegates to Approve.
Prince Esheram Byron.

[QUOTE= Repeal "Banning whaling"]
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #70
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: UN Resolution #70: Banning whaling (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: We propose a repeal of this Resolution to make way for a new Conservation of endangered Wildlife Bill.
We believe a new Resolution covering all wildlife should also encompass all sea mammals and this resolution would hinder that.

We hereby ask you repeal this Resolution.
Thank you.

Approvals: 1 (Venerable libertarians)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 133 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Aug 13 2005

The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Members, So as to encompass all Sea mammals in the New Proposed Wildlife conservation Bill ( Soon to follow) we have also lodged the following repeal.
We ask all delegates to Approve.
Prince Esheram Byron.

[QUOTE= Repeal "Banning whaling"]
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #70
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: UN Resolution #70: Banning whaling (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: We propose a repeal of this Resolution to make way for a new Conservation of endangered Wildlife Bill.
We believe a new Resolution covering all wildlife should also encompass all sea mammals and this resolution would hinder that.

We hereby ask you repeal this Resolution.
Thank you.

Approvals: 1 (Venerable libertarians)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 133 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Aug 13 2005

The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]


Request that we at least begin drafting of a endangered species protection act - while the idea is still fresh in our mind

To be honest, I often ignore any resolution or TG that has anything effectively saying "Think of the Children!"

Seriously, man, "think of the children"? What were you thinking?

i should have listened you, i'm sorry, i receive a TG:
_________
Re: dolphins.

I'm sorry, I can't trust anything that smiles that much. It MUST be up to something; and that something must be stopped.
_____________________________________________

I just realized (it is late in the game, I know, but ...) that some of you in here intend to eat dolphins ... Shame on you! Just think of what your children will say? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Venerable libertarians]Members, So as to encompass all Sea mammals in the New Proposed Wildlife conservation Bill ( Soon to follow) we have also lodged the following repeal.
We ask all delegates to Approve.
Prince Esheram Byron.




Request that we at least begin drafting of a endangered species protection act - while the idea is still fresh in our mind
I aim to work on a draft at the week end as i will have the time to sit for a few hrs then. I will Post the draft here for tweaking for a week and then submit the tweaked proposal to the delegates for approval. I hope this will asuage your fears of a replacement, not being instituted.

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]
I aim to work on a draft at the week end as i will have the time to sit for a few hrs then. I will Post the draft here for tweaking for a week and then submit the tweaked proposal to the delegates for approval. I hope this will asuage your fears of a replacement, not being instituted.


we hope
but we have ask you that for a while, and we have see nothing yet!!!
until then, you can't be taken seriously

sadly, we must admit that our TG campaign did not bear fuits
but we will not stop
and if any nations have any other ideas to how, improve this campaign, we will be hapy

The discussion regarding the draft didn't come up until Sunday - which would've been early-morning Monday in Europe to begin with.

sadly, we must admit that our TG campaign did not bear fuits
but we will not stop
and if any nations have any other ideas to how, improve this campaign, we will be hapy
It's always the same thing (well I made a TG campaign once, but I think it would be like that the next time) If you're campaigning for a repeal, most people want to know your alternative. And if you say, well there isn't much point in my working on the alternative until I'm sure I'm gonna get the repeal voted (well, obviously, you don't say that - you always tell people that you are already working on it and that a draft will be completed soon ...) everyone prefers not to vote for the repeal. But I think with a resolution with such a catchy title as "Save the Dolfins" you just will have to finish a draft before people even thinking about possibly jeopordizing the life of these adorable creature (they even can TALK, and this is FACT! :p )

some nations are answering us that they like dolphin's taste


The Most Serene Republic of Love is pleased to announce that its booming private nanotech industries sector is working hard to create not expensive artificial food with the very same taste (or even better, will be your choice) as dolphin's

Members, So as to encompass all Sea mammals in the New Proposed Wildlife conservation Bill ( Soon to follow) we have also lodged the following repeal.
We ask all delegates to Approve.
Prince Esheram Byron.

[QUOTE= Repeal "Banning whaling"]<snip>

We have approved this repeal as well. We agree that it makes sense to cover all marine mammals in the new proposal (Endangered Species Act?). There is a part of the original resolution that we do like, specifically the last clause:
* Indigenous peoples who engage in 'aboriginal whaling' using traditional non-industrial methods and taking only a small number of whales each year, to be exempt from the ban. A register of such peoples to be set up by the UN.
The replacement resolution needs to take into account the rights of indigenous peoples to continue to take whales (and other animals) by traditional methods.

I'll try to be short as know others have more to say as seen in prior comments on this issue.

The reason I see for repealing this one is to allow a single proposal to be entered that will include ALL not just ONE animal.. Until this one is repealed that can't be done. The reason to have one is to avoid each member from having to submit through normal procedures a single proposal on it. Thus keeping us busy with them instead of more important issues. Aslo a single committee properly established to define what requirements give reason for any animal to be protected then add that animal to the ONE list of those that are. This would save funds to support more import needs and even could be used to improve the places where many of these animals might need protection, but if we are spending funds on many committees then it going to the wrong place.....

If a ALL animal protect proposal would pass it could not include Dolphins thus should ever this one be repealed then we'd be back to square one trying to protect them since they would be out.. To get them in any new one we would have to repeal it and then add dolphins.. to a new one.

Meanwhile kids still are starving and somebody is trying to make a bigger better nuke or some bug to kill us all anyway..

but we are debating over -- every gentle no fanged clawed animal; that uses tools, teaches their young, knows themselves in mirrors, and might one day be able to tell us how crazy we are -- to get protection one at a time. Do it once do it right and for all... To those say it can't be done... then look out cause if it can't then we will never stop them from bigger nukes and a better bug to kill us.

But the thing is that we can pass such aresolution while the current one is still in effect. Resoluitions have a little overlap space provided they're not directly referencing each other - but if you repeal the specific resolution first as opposed to after the more powerful resolution is in place, then you're taking one step backwards before attempting to leap across a chasm you don't even know you can breach.

Members of the UN, I can see tolerance has started to fade in this discussion.
The Matter at hand is simple. It has two facets.

1, I wish to repeal resolutions 106 and 70. My reason? As I see it having two separate resolutions which accomplish the same task but for different species, is both unnessessary and innefficient. We are at the moment through our UN fees being charged twice for what a single resolution could successfully accomplish.

2, I wish to introduce a single resolution which will not just cover the previous two but encompass all endangered species.

Your simple task as Delegates and if approved The General Assembly, is to either accept this or not. I have laid my plans on the table and outlined a time scale for the repeals and submission of the new Resolution which i will be titling "UN Conservation of Endangered Species Bill" or "UNCESB".

I again appeal to all delegates to approve both repeals and to approve the Bill when it is put before them.
I appeal to the General Assembly to vote for both repeals and the New bill, If they are approved by the Delegates. I will have a draft of the "UNCESB" submitted to these forums By 00:00 hrs GMT of monday morning.

I thank you all for your time and patience.
Prince Esheram Byron.

But the thing is that we can pass such aresolution while the current one is still in effect. Resoluitions have a little overlap space provided they're not directly referencing each other - but if you repeal the specific resolution first as opposed to after the more powerful resolution is in place, then you're taking one step backwards before attempting to leap across a chasm you don't even know you can breach.

The Dolphin resolution would (likely) not be covered by a new resolution - as Dolphins fail the endangered test (while sentience test is a rather different set of resolutions altogether....currently going through the UN proposal discussion) (yes, I am effectively agreeing with you). I think, for the most part, people are less interested in removing this resolution in favor of a general one - though if the new resolution were to cover Dolphins, this one would HAVE to disappear first (if you want, we can ask Hack or Fris to state this, but I'm pretty certain they'll say what I just said).

Considering the interest in the new resolution, the Whaling resolution must be repealed either way - as it will undoubtedly be covered by the new resolution.

We are at the moment through our UN fees being charged twice for what a single resolution could successfully accomplish.

"The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians is a massive, economically powerful nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 1.488 billion are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Law & Order, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 100%"

no comment

"The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians is a massive, economically powerful nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 1.488 billion are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Law & Order, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 100%"

no comment

Just because there's and extensive government budget doesn't mean that they don't try to make spending more efficient. Why fund the implementation and continued effect of two resolutions when you can do it with one?

Members, So as to encompass all Sea mammals in the New Proposed Wildlife conservation Bill ( Soon to follow) we have also lodged the following repeal.
We ask all delegates to Approve.
Prince Esheram Byron.


It is clear to me that both 70 Whaling and 106 Dolphins must go to make way for a single common proposal to protect any animal which a member nation might deam needing it. Also it is not cost effective to establish say 34000 committees that one well established committee would be enough to do the needed task of determining what animals need protection then making sure all members know at they must apply protection measures to those on the Protected List. Also a new proposal would better establish grounds for adding or removing an animal to that list and also how far those protections might go against people, or humans, or other species who might be proposing they favorate animal be protected. To debate all 34000 animals that each member nation might want protected would forget the most important animal... which the UN should be dealing with... people... it's members.. Why should we stop a nation from serving dolphins who can avoid toxic waste because they are smarter than sharks who will eat anything even toxic waste materials and leave them only the option of serving sharks. We should be working on cleaning up toxic waste so that all animlas have a clean water supply.. dolphins, whales, even people...

"The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians is a massive, economically powerful nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 1.488 billion are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Law & Order, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 100%"

no comment

I am not sure what the member intends by showing our nations information? May i be so bold to highlight some words from the same text?

The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians is a massive, economically powerful nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 1.488 billion are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Law & Order, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 100%"

Regardless of any insinuation, we are comitted to awareness of the endangerment of all wildlife and not just one or two individual species.
Prince Esheram Byron.

I just realized (it is late in the game, I know, but ...) that some of you in here intend to eat dolphins ... Shame on you! Just think of what your children will say? :rolleyes:


Here the children will say please pass the Dolphin sauce and some bread. Also can I have the finbone.. to make a pair or earrings for you mom...

we will agree to support the repeal, when someone tell us the very point(s) of the NEW DRAFT which absolutly need the the Dolphin Act to be repealed

I am not sure what the member intends by showing our nations information? May i be so bold to highlight some words from the same text?

The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians is a massive, economically powerful nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 1.488 billion are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Law & Order, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 100%"

Regardless of any insinuation, we are comitted to awareness of the endangerment of all wildlife and not just one or two individual species.
Prince Esheram Byron.


The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is sorry for the bold highlight

Just because there's and extensive government budget doesn't mean that they don't try to make spending more efficient. Why fund the implementation and continued effect of two resolutions when you can do it with one?

Cause it's statwanking, and a waste of the U.N.s valuable time.

Libertarians, it is your view on this resolution that I consider the MOST dangerous. Realize that you can pass a resolution encompassing all endangered species without repealing the resolution in question. In fact, what you should also realize is that it is perfectly acceptable to create a resolution that guarantees certain rights already declared on a grander scope without repealing the guaranteed rights to the smaller scope. Example: You don't have to repeal a resolution giving protection to a single endangered species in order to pass a resolution declaring that all endangered species should have such rights, in the same way that you don't have to repeal a resolution on free speech for males to pass a resolution declaring the freedom of speech for all genders, races and sexualities. The U.N. rules are against doing what has already been done before and against amending a current resolution, but writing your own further encompassing resolution can and has been done. Once that's in place, you can repeal the now obsolete resolution.

Keep in mind that by repealing a resolution on dolphins to write a resolution protecting all endangered species (which, as I explained, is defunct logic), you will first lose the dolphin resolution and then lose the endangered species resolution. The larger resolution will gather a tremendous amount of opposition in comparison to the smaller. Better to keep the resolutions you have and fall back on them until the U.N. is better adjusted to the idea.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel acknowledges he is not a NSUN law specialist and asks the advice of NSUN law specialists on the following point:
___________________________________________
4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.
__________________________________________

The points 4 and 5 of the UN RESOLUTION #106 Protections of Dolphins Act don’t pretend to legislate in international waters

__________________________________________
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.
__________________________________________

The points 1, 2 and 3 of the resolution 106 refer to international waters, but only by:
“Condemns in the strongest terms” “and “declare … is a crime”.

So, are these “declarations of crime” and “condemnations in the strongest terms” jurisdiction claims over international waters and restrictions of the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters (as it is stated in the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act")?

__________________________________________
WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters,
__________________________________________

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel hopes some NSUN law specialists will help him to understand this point.

Here the children will say please pass the Dolphin sauce and some bread. Also can I have the finbone.. to make a pair or earrings for you mom...
These animals already saved human lives which otherwise would have drowned! And that's FACT too! :p I mean, if we weren't there, they would probably rule the world. :cool:
One more thing the earring-statement from Zeldon made me think of: Has someone already saved the elefants in here?

I do think this resolution should be repealed but don't agree that it should be replaced by something that will be more restrictive or that protects all animals. An animal that is endangered in one part of the world could very well be abundant and a pest somewhere else. Individual nations also use animal resources in different ways. In Waterana the moon dolphin is protected by law (long before this resolution was passed) and loved, no citizen would consider harming one. The nation next door could well use them as an important food source. I don't believe we have the right to stop them hunting moon dolphins unless they enter our national waters to do so.

What I think would be much better is a resolution that manages the resources of international waters so all nations can benefit. To protect the food sources of those nations that depend on the sea for food but also protect the animals in the sea from overfishing and ending up put onto the endangered species list in the first place. With proper management of fishing ect all nations that use the resources of international waters will be able to use what they need and also know fish stocks will be kept at sustainable levels for future use. The sea is a very valuable resource and many nations use it. To put blanket restrictions on what nations can and can't use will just result in friction and anger between nations that want to protect and those that want to feed their people. Any seriously endangered animal could just be made hands off for a certain period of time until numbers increase, then quota's imposed on catches to sustain the population.

I kept my idea to international waters and not land because I think nations themselves are quite capable of managing wildlife within their borders.

Well it appears we have reached quorum on the dolphin repeal. Congratulations to Ohmygodtheykilledkenny. It is now up to the general assembly to decide.
May i remind the delegates that the repeal of Resolution 70 Ban whaling is also required in my scheme. I have begun work on the draft for the new conservation of wildlife bill and am on target for submitting it to these forums for consideration before submission for approval.
Again Many thanks to those who have supported the repeal of resolution 106.
I am starting a new thread to highlight the repeal of resolution 70 and have linked it below.

Link to whale resolution repeal thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9420005#post9420005)

congratulations to Venerable libertarians and to Ohmygodtheykilledkenny
we are surpised, but well done, this is impressive, from the "approval point of view"

but now, as our precedent post focus on, let's examine the "legal point of view"

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel acknowledges he is not a NSUN law specialist and asks the advice of NSUN law specialists on the following point:

up...

[QUOTE=Venerable libertarians] Request that we at least begin drafting of a endangered species protection act - while the idea is still fresh in our mind


If it has not been brought out, I'd suggest that it not be an Endangered Species Protection Act but simply an Animal Protection Act then let Endangered be among the reasons one might get an Animal added to a listing for protection...
Also you might included such things as they must not have fangs and bite peopel, nor smell.. or protecting them will not cause harm to human lives by taking a stable safe food source from them leaving only unstable food sources. In other words don't force them to give up Dolphins for mercury loaded salmon or other item.

As for what else they might do, be able to look at themselves in a mirrow (that mirrow test somebody mentioned), use tools with their young, follow orders given them by humans (possible communications). Also serve as medical aids to those who might need them. Anything that one might think of to keep an animal around.


Thus settng up what standards the committee would have to put any animal on a protection list. Endangered being a key point but not the only reason.

Oh! Don't forget the arguement one might use-- we evolve from this animal that now is seen as prey to anyone might find it tasty, we feel it's the same as eating our grandmother.

Or to make it simple say with proper reason given by members for the addition of an animal the committee will consider reason and thus decide if it fits the established standards to be added to the list.. and leave those to be assumed established by the committee and set in stone as is the committe.


Waterana-- but you must not forget that for animals they don't comply on land with human laws thus they migrate between joining nations. Just as they might in the oceans. Also it would not be practical to say that any Animal once considered endangered is always that so some provisions would need to be made to take one of protection once not endangered.... This might defete the intent to protect Animals.. and weaken benifits for people any Act might also achieve.. As the committee would be set to consider all Animals (humans are animals) for protection so as to keep it out of Endangered status.. as the best solution is to prevent them (humans) getting to Endangered status.. As it often means we clean up something that also will protect people (humans) living in the same area. Where they might not feel it worth doing for themselves (humans) they might get all fuzzy over doing it for Dolphins and Whales as shown by the (human) concern here.. Thus as a side effect we do something for ourselves (humans) as we also; I hope are still considered animals (human).

some stats, if some of you are interested in
we send 110 TG against the repeal to UN delegate who have approved it and only 2 or 3 withdrawal = 1.8~2.7%
whou,
our first 65 TG were very bad argumented indeed, but anyway, we were crushed

some stats, if some of you are interested in
we send 110 TG against the repeal to UN delegate who have approved it and only 2 or 3 withdrawal = 1.8~2.7%
whou,
our first 65 TG were very bad argumented indeed, but anyway, we were crushed


You might not take that so bad as was it not a Monday that you started this on... Many are back at work then and may not come in as often during the week thus they may not have seen it yet or didn't see it in time to change vote. Had you say done it on Friday getting it there for Weekend and still left time for them to read and make a change you might have done better.

You almost have to hit them as soon as they vote on it if you want to make sure they see your message. You may have lost by time factors of when you started to send messages.

You almost have to hit them as soon as they vote on it if you want to make sure they see your message. You may have lost by time factors of when you started to send messages.
i did exactly that for a while! lol!..... but no way
but at least i have tried anyway, no regret

Love and Esterel - the fact that we're declaring something a crime in international waters means we are trying to take jurisdiction over International waters. Section 2 is the main clause that is illegal.

Pojonia - the only reason Dolphins don't conflict with a general resolution is because they probably won't be covered by the general resolution. Whales, on the other hand, probably will be. You can ask Hack, but my understanding of the rules is that we can't pass a more general resolution that does the same thing as a more specific resolution to a creature that is covered by both resolutions (though, arguably, if we set it up ala committee, we might be able to get around it). I am saying that regardless of a new Endangered Species or Animal Protection resolution, I see no reason to protect Dolphins and this resolution needs to be repealed.

Waterana - a UN wide committee that is determining whether certain species deserve special protections would probably be focusing on global endangerment. If an animal were endangered at a global level, would you be willing to protect them. I agree with your point on local endangerment of an animal - and that definately should be something for individual nations to address

Love and Esterel - the fact that we're declaring something a crime in international waters means we are trying to take jurisdiction over International waters. Section 2 is the main clause that is illegal.


Forgottenlands, are you sure that this is not "free speech" instead? Do you deny the right of free speech of the NSUN? Do you deny the right of the MSUN to freelly “Condemns in the strongest terms” something and to freely “declare that something is a crime", when there are no demands to any nation , people, church, corporation ... to do anything, nor any sanction, nor whatever? (as the points 4 and 5 are not requested in international waters)

by contrast if the point 4 or point 5 of the resolution 106 were extended to international waters, then this would have been in aim to take jurisdiction over International waters:
______________________________________________
4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.
__________________________________________

we, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, will apreciate an impartial study of this legal point

Well it appears we have reached quorum on the dolphin repeal. Congratulations to Ohmygodtheykilledkenny. It is now up to the general assembly to decide.
May i remind the delegates that the repeal of Resolution 70 Ban whaling is also required in my scheme. I have begun work on the draft for the new conservation of wildlife bill and am on target for submitting it to these forums for consideration before submission for approval.
Again Many thanks to those who have supported the repeal of resolution 106.
I am starting a new thread to highlight the repeal of resolution 70 and have linked it below.

I have started a draft for the New wildlife conservation bill and will have it posted here in a new thread soon for the perusal of the members.

OOC. please be patient, I am juggling a hectic work and famly life in RL. :D


Link to whale resolution repeal thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9420005#post9420005)

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, want to focus on 2 points from "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]" :
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

1 ""UN members also need to be aware that being in queue is not proof against action. Just because enough Delegates support a proposal to lift it to the queue does not mean it won't be deleted for being illegal. The UN Gnomes are not swayed by appeals to popularity"""

2 """Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...)""""


as we have said, we, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, will apreciate an impartial study of this legal point

OOC. please be patient, I am juggling a hectic work and famly life in RL.^

So you are a responsible grown up? Why are you out playing NS so late? Go home to your wife and kids! ;)

^

So you are a responsible grown up? Why are you out playing NS so late? Go home to your wife and kids! ;)
I am a grown up. who said anything about being a responsible one?
:p

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel regrets, we will have to inform a moderator about the "international waters Honest Mistakes" case, and we will continue the legal action.

As the approval vote was overwhelming in favour of the Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act", The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel will send no more campaign TG and will post only one forum message to say again why we will oppose it, without arguing further, in both the 2 following scenarios:
-1- The legal action fail and the repeal is submitted to the entire UN body; or
-2- The legal action pass, the repeal is deleted, resubmitted without "the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act … claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters”, is approved overwhelming once more and then is submitted to the entire UN body.

As there are no whale and no whale specialist in the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel we will not take part at all in the process.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is very confident, the Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians’ “new draft” will be great and we will for sure endorse it. we will not send campaign TG against it, and will eventually post only one forum message about it.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, once more, want to apologize for our stupid bold post against the Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians, and in the same way want to say that we have been very surprised by the “anti democratic” accusation by the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny about our very democratic action by the mean of a polite TG campaign

Pazu-Lenny Nero the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel want to say he cheers the democratic spirit of this UN forum.

I have a hard time seeing the misread clause coming into action. The reason it applies to UN Taxation Ban in particular is people think it means the UN is unable to raise any money - which is false. The UN can still tax nations' budgets, but can't tax the people that pay the nation directly. Two others that come to mind is the bio/chem weapons bans getting repealed because they ban the other (so try to repeal chem weapons bans so people can build bio-weapons, etc) or National Systems of Tax under the idea that it "forces nations to adopt a progressive tax system" (before it was actually repealed)

The only possible clause that could be deemed illegal would be the last two claiming that the central purpose is advancing human rights - however, I have a hard time seeing that one fly

Members of the UN, I can see tolerance has started to fade in this discussion.
The Matter at hand is simple. It has two facets.

1, I wish to repeal resolutions 106 and 70. My reason? As I see it having two separate resolutions which accomplish the same task but for different species, is both unnessessary and innefficient. We are at the moment through our UN fees being charged twice for what a single resolution could successfully accomplish.

2, I wish to introduce a single resolution which will not just cover the previous two but encompass all endangered species.



And yet you make the whole issue weaker with one resolution... The idea of having multiple resolutions is to make the whole idea stronger. I am actually strongly against repealing on the basis of "lets make one all encompassing resolution!" I remember a proposal that tried to create a wildlife refuge that would allow for the protection of endangered species and still allow the protection of dolphins and whales resolutions to stay. With the combination of one resolution, you just make it easier to take those protections away at a later point.

Ambassador of the The People's Selected Membership to the General Assembly
Head of the "Responsibility in Repeals Comittee"
- Mnsgr. Stanley Felhorn - Son of Protectorate Steven Felhorn

The UN is suppose to get individual nations to respect each other and live in peace... Thus by one nation declaring they will hang anyone who abuses say, Whales, Dolphins, or Elephants is not bringing them together but separating them into Whale, Dolphin, Elephant, lovers.. By forming a committee that will gather information on what animals each nation member considers needing protection they in turn can EDUCATE the other members on why this one nation member might feel that way and thus allow them to share in the protection of that animal as they see fit but now are more aware of what another might feel about it,,.. They also can serve to mediate disputes between members of just how to protect it or not to, those get members to commuicate peacefully not fight violently. Also this committee can act on behalf of individual members when they are faced with dealing with nations outside the UN on this animals status.. As that member will have the support of the UN behind them to get a just settlement of disputes before war breaks out between one member and an outsider nation over a Dolphin or Whale or Elephany incident. As the UN then thru the committe can Educate that outside nation if they are willing to listing and if not offer other support to help it's membership with the peacefull backing of the full UN.. thru the resolution to protect each members rights... Example is say a non member nation comes into my waters and hunts an animal protect and is saling this to another member then I'd be able to go to the UN Committee and say what is happening and under a single Protection Act get the member to stop buying from the outside nation those animals killed that are listed by the UN as protected, but alone I'd have to nuke, gas, or bug em to stop them. What should and would the UN membership as a hole do for it's own. If we can't stand as one on animal rights how can we on human rights.


We fight among our own membership about should a dolphin be protected and whales or elaphants not be or should they be and dolphins not.. One committee one UN to face a hostile world beyond the UN borders. Let's bring peace inside them first.. by coming together to protect All Animals..... Humans included as they as the soul of the UN.



ON the comment of making one will weaken it more than making single issues. Again to make individual resoltions on each right to protect something makes individuals working on their own agend against anyone who might think they are wrong and should do it another way. By having a good single resolution that we all can live with we come together and thus are not weaker as one but stronger as many working for the good of all, which the one is only a very small weak part of alone.


Look at Gay Rights issue you have one group dealing with it on a marriage point thus a division over should they be married or not.. Then you have another looking at it on the gender issue or transgeneder.. Thus four groups maybe more depending if you figure one for it, one against it, one in middle of road.. and those really don't care either way. Now make that times two because Marriage is on and Trangender is another working toward Gay Rights in some way.
OOC: I know some will say just HUMAN but I'm this or that but for lack of better word used it. If anyone can provide one that might encompass Humans, Elves, Fairies, Dwarfs, Vampires, Dragons, Froggies, and all the species of our NSUN membersip let me know..

Love and esterel -- you just don't give up, do you? Your relentless quest to save us all from ourselves and our ill morality makes it most fitting that you should fly this new national flag (http://www.simpsonspark.com/images/whitepages/lovejoy_helen.jpg) -- and the obvious catchphrase that comes to mind with that image should be your new national motto.

Cheers.

01:10, Little Vagator Beach, Vagator, Capital of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was in conversation with The Minister of Environment and The president of the Senate Foreign-Affairs commission.
They were comfortably seated in a quiet small lounge bar, just few meters from the beach, just behind some palm threes. The agreeable lounge music was not so loud for they still be able to hear the sound of the waves on the shore.

They were worried, a coalition of UN Delegate having decided to repeal the United Nations Resolution # 106 Protection of Dolphins Act. The same proposition, so many teachers were proud to talk about to children in The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel and many Nations. The same proposition, that make many people worldwide feel happy about the existence of the UN body.

In the early evening they have found a solution, they have the possibility to make a TG campaign, and they were fully confident that this campaign will stop the repeal before it could be voted by the entire UN body. But they didn’t really want to do it. So at that time of the evening, in this time zone, they decided to report the question, have a good sleep, and take a decision the following day in the afternoon.

This is the fuzzy wuzzy poor dumb animal play on this one. I think these issue of think of the children has already been addressed... As I'd rather see starving children eating whales and dolphins than starving.. I think the children would agree that is more important issue than saving a few fuzzy wuzzy poor dumb animals. That get attention and become attractive every time somebody makes another dolphin or whale movie... Think about the poor abused shark and what the movies have done for them. A single committe would deal with each animal and add it.. to the list. thus Dolphins and Whales and Elaphants and others could be added without taking time from member trying to find replacement food supliments for whale, dolphans, and elaphants or others animals they no longer can eat thus have become endangered because their main food source is protected by a UN resolution binding on all members. So save me a seat on the beach an a beer I feel a need for some time out...

We were talking about a « legal » topic, and we don’t see why our questions are not important

1 Your repeal resolution states:

“WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters,”

2 The point 4 and 5 of Protection of Dolphins Act obviously don’t qualify for your argument

3 so all the question is two determine whether the points 1, 2 and 3 can qualify for your argument or not

If not, the repeal is subject to the “Honest Mistakes” violation and therefore can be deleted if this violation is proved (even if the quorum is reached), as many proposition are deleted everyday.

4 We are thinking that “condemnations in the strongest terms” (point 1) and “declarations of crime” (points 2 and 3)
- don’t seem to claims jurisdiction over international waters (we are not sure of this one but we think it’s important to raise the question); and even more:
- don’t restrict the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters (this is our main argument)

Thank you

claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said


Love slow down you are to fast for my old mind... I was just about to ask on the issue of International Waters.. I know all resolutions are binding within the land and water boundries of UN membership but are they not binding on members outside those borders also......

Example... Nation A fishes in my Waters takes those protected items outside my waters and they are sold to Nation B also a member of the UN. Does Nation B not under the resolution have to follow it anywhere or just in UN borders. As having an agreement to get say Dolphin Whale and Elaphants from a third party isn't covered in the two current resolution 70 and 106.
As they restrict members from abusing or killing them directly not buying products made from them by others who might do it legal (which I do believe Whale sets one group with limits can still hunt them) or outside UN borders..

Also I do believe the UN can't directly restrict my national trade with nations outside the UN.. just in some way move me not to but outright can't say I can't trade with that nation or region.

=== Like said open the beer will be there on the beach to join you for some time out.

The full Legal Topic


Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act":
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=protection%20of%20dolphins%20act

Protection of Dolphins Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105


-A- Your Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" states:

____________________________________________________
“WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters,”
____________________________________________________

-B- The point 4 and 5 of “Protection of Dolphins Act” obviously don’t qualify for your argument, as they don’t do not concern international waters
___________________________________________
4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.
__________________________________________

-C- So, all the question is two determine whether the points 1, 2 and 3 can qualify for your argument or not

If not, the repeal is subject to the “Honest Mistakes” violation and therefore will be deleted if this violation is proved (even if the quorum is reached), as many proposition are deleted everyday.
_____________________________________________________
2 points from "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]" :
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

i
""UN members also need to be aware that being in queue is not proof against action. Just because enough Delegates support a proposal to lift it to the queue does not mean it won't be deleted for being illegal. The UN Gnomes are not swayed by appeals to popularity"""

ii
"""Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't""""
_________________________________________________________

-D- We are thinking that “condemnations in the strongest terms” (point 1) and “declarations …as a crime” alone (points 2 and 3)

- don’t restrict the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters (this is our main argument).

As there are no demands to any nation, people, church, corporation ... to do anything, to ban anything, to impose anything, to sanction anything, to modify anything … in international waters
=> so, on the present resolution, people, nations, companies …can continue what they want to do in international waters, they will be, for sure, condemned in the strongest terms, their actions will be declared as crimes; many will don't even care about, their rights in said waters are not restricted
_________________________________________________________
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.
___________________________________________________________

Thank you

It's been stated that you may put through an Act covering all animals, including Dolphins & Whales, without repealing these two first.

If that is the case, then wouldn't it make sense to put the Wildlife Act in action first? That way, if the Wildlife Act fails in making it to the quorom, then there is still some sort of protection to fall back on.

Hypothetically speaking, you get both the Dolphin and Whaling act repealed, but the Wildlife Act does not make it. Now not only are Dolphins & Whales not protected, but no other animal is either.

The draft proposal for the Conservation of wildlife act is now posted for comment and opinion. I must now retire, I will answer any questions as i get the time tomorrow in that thread.
Thank you,
Esheram Byron.

Love and Esterel: a crime can only be declared in an area you have jurisdiction over. If a nation makes it a crime to kill a man, they can't prosecute you if you committed the crime in some other nation (unless it's a colony - because then they'd get jurisdiction as the homeland). In the same regard, the UN does not have jurisdiction over International Waters. Therefore, it cannot make something illegal in International Waters because it does not have jurisdiction over that area - meaning the repeal is not incorrect in that regard. The original resolution only needs one clause that goes outside the UN's jurisdiction for the clause in the repeal to be legal.

Kenny - calm down, let Love and Esterel do what he/she needs to do. I've done the same thing (and it's now in final moderator ruling). Personally, I'd rather a legal resolution to a flawed one - even if the flawed one is......something I support. Unfortunately (20/20 hindsight), UN Biological Weapons Act was one of those flawed ones that did pass.....

It's been stated that you may put through an Act covering all animals, including Dolphins & Whales, without repealing these two first.

If that is the case, then wouldn't it make sense to put the Wildlife Act in action first? That way, if the Wildlife Act fails in making it to the quorom, then there is still some sort of protection to fall back on.

Hypothetically speaking, you get both the Dolphin and Whaling act repealed, but the Wildlife Act does not make it. Now not only are Dolphins & Whales not protected, but no other animal is either.

This belief is, I feel, false.

Regardless, I don't support this resolution to begin with so......

for short for some who don't want to read everything:

As there are no demands to any nation, people, church, corporation ... to do anything, to ban anything, to impose anything, to sanction anything, to modify anything … in international waters

=> so, on the present resolution, people, nations, companies …can continue what they want to do in international waters, they will be, for sure, condemned in the strongest terms, their actions will be declared as crimes; many will don't even care about, their rights in said waters are not restricted

=> we think the first statement of the repeal is false
_____________________________________________________
“WHEREAS, the U.N. Protection of Dolphins Act constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters -– restricting the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters,”
____________________________________________________

Love and Esterel: a crime can only be declared in an area you have jurisdiction over. If a nation makes it a crime to kill a man, they can't prosecute you if you committed the crime in some other nation (unless it's a colony - because then they'd get jurisdiction as the homeland). In the same regard, the UN does not have jurisdiction over International Waters. Therefore, it cannot make something illegal in International Waters because it does not have jurisdiction over that area - meaning the repeal is not incorrect in that regard. The original resolution only needs one clause that goes outside the UN's jurisdiction for the clause in the repeal to be legal.



ok you got the point, but
what about

- don’t restrict the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters (this is our main argument)

ok you got the point, but
what about

- don’t restrict the rights of nations who have a presence in said waters (this is our main argument)

Just because in actuality it doesn't really do anything doesn't mean it isn't illegal. The fact of the matter is that it makes an attempt to extend jurisdiction to International waters - meaning that, technically speaking, his argument in the repeal is accurate. If his repeal is technically sound, then the mods won't delete it for an "honest mistake" breach - as it wasn't a mistake to begin with.

thanks for your answers, i will stop

The way I understand this issue of keeping 70 and 106 is that to get them into a new one you would need to make special consideration for them in a new one taking into account that they already have certain rights or protections under the earlier resolution and that this new one does not effect those but... extends certain ommited rights to them... This is called ammending the prior by giving additional rights protections not given in 70 and 106 to them.. as one might argue they were not intended to get them only those given in detail in 70 and 106.. Thus if you want all animals to be able to say VOTE because they might be able to perform that.. Then one could say they were not given that right to start with because it was found something they did not deserve or cound not handle or might cause them more harm than good, thus that was left out of the original.. So now we argue why it was not considered or left out and why it should be added now. ON only Dolphins and Whales while we have no protection on any animal... Thus removing the old and consolidating them into one covers all is better.. As if structured well a single committee would determine with proper study that any animal needs protection and then what levels of protection need to be apply to it based on individual animal needs.. Example... Stopping dumping of Toxic Waste in Oceans may help Whales and Dolphins but do nothing for Elaphants, Dinasours, or other land based animals that might need protect. Centerlizing the Committee will allow better use of resouces and give members on place to get assistance in protecting animals that have been declared needing it. Thus helping to avoid say cutting down trees making monkeys endangered so elaphants have more room to do there thing. You end up with Monkey Committee trying to save trees and Elaphant Committee cutting them down.. Also a Committee can determine what areas be set asside as animal protection zones... Thus Dolphins Committee won't tell nuke folks to dump their waste produces in Whale zones.. while the Whale Committee is sending raw sewage to be dumped in Dolphin zones. Since they will be one Committee not many..


OOC: I have wondered when the current rules went into effect for proposals how many of the current active resolutions were passed and okayed under old rules. and if so might be why they now are seen to violate current rules. If it was okay to say this is banned in all the world and effective on all nations under the old rules then.. how many of the current resolutions fail to meet new rules but did under old ones... This may be out of place here so forgive me but the arguements over RL rules and RP issues is starting for me to mix and needs to be separated on this one..... as my old mind not as fast as some may be here.

Just decided to read this post to see what the bruhaha was all about. It is good to see this piece of legislaton. To the delegate of Slovakastania, they are damnable tasty when used as a filler in tuna. Once before my country, was a member, we had a booming tuna fishing and canning market. Palentine's Best was a brand of Tuna you could trust. Mothers loved it, and it brought smiles to the faces of the beloved children. It was their favorite lunch and snack. Then my country joined the UN, and saddness befell the Cold lands of the Palentine. :( My country had to start protecting the flippered buggers. It was awful to hear the lamentations of my country's children, "Mommy! This tuna just doesn't taste the same anymore!" They cried when they played with their pet pengiuns, the little tears freezing on their cheeks. Unemployed fishermen and cannery workers started frequenting dockside dives, and saloons doing things I dare not mention. Now a Ray of Hope emerges. For the Sake of the Children vote to repeal this ban on dolphin harvesting. Besides the only real use the Palentine has for dolphins(besides filler) is the fact that they can be trained to find underwater mines, and with a little positive and negative reinforcement place explosive devices on the hulls of ships(muyhahaha!)

I guess as this is Next we should bring it to the fore on the Floor of the forum!

My two cents...........
It can be argued that dolphins are the greatest or the most evil creatures to ever cast their shadows in this NS world! My arguement however will not tug on your heart strings or mention smiling chirpyness. I will not mention that dolphins have nowingly assisted in placing weopens for various nefarious governments. My Arguement for repealing is a simple matter of common sense.

Currently there are two resolutions on the UN books with separate Funding and Comittees. Why have two separate resolutions and add others when we can have a single Resolution which will give National government a greater say in how to conserve their own indiginous species, And at the same time garuntee protections for species that are in peril of extinction in all UN Nations of the NS Earth?
My proposal, "UNCoESB", which is up for ratification after this repeal, aims to do just that.
I say to you the Members of the General Assembly of the NSUN, see the logic. It will cost your nations less, garuntee your nation the right to protect the species of animal important to your people, within your sovereign territories and garuntee the continuation of any species in peril.

Repeal NSUN resolution 106 now, For the good of your Nations, Regions and the People you serve.

Prince Esheram Byron,
Chief Negotiator for the UN Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia.

JIMLANRA will endorses this resolution fully

I stand by the dolphins; they have never caused any harm to us nudes and we don't plan on allowing harm to come to some of the friendliest animals in the ocean. This vote is completely unnecessary.

I am in full support of a repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act". Protecting dolphins is hardly a very important issue for the UN to discuss and consider, there are many more important issues to debate. Protecting dolphins has little or no advantage to anyone really except the dolphins of course. Another reason I believe this resolution should be repealed is because I think it is wrong and unjust to protect one species of animal over another. Cows for example are killed frequently, yet we judge the killing (either accidental or intentional) of dolphins wrong simply because of our opinions on them; opinions such as that they are friendly species. This opinion cannot be backed up with either fact or evidence, yes they don't attempt to kill or injure humans but neither do many other animals, such as the example I used earlier, the cow. Furthermore the act severely damages the fishing industry, thus causing a negative impact on our countries economies. Whilst I don't believe we should kill dolphins for no reason, I also do not believe the restrictions imposed on us by the Protection of Dolphins Act are necessary especially seen as dolphins are not an endangered species. I simply cannot see any major advantages to protecting dolphins; it only damages our economies and fishing industries.

:p every one loves a giant fish mamal thing that goes eeep eeep. Being they are different than other mamals I believe in protection, such as a fine or jail time. nothing big.

I am in full support of a repeal of the "Protection of Dolphins Act". Protecting dolphins is hardly a very important issue for the UN to discuss and consider, there are many more important issues to debate. Protecting dolphins has little or no advantage to anyone really except the dolphins of course. Another reason I believe this resolution should be repealed is because I think it is wrong and unjust to protect one species of animal over another. Cows for example are killed frequently, yet we judge the killing (either accidental or intentional) of dolphins wrong simply because of our opinions on them; opinions such as that they are friendly species. This opinion cannot be backed up with either fact or evidence, yes they don't attempt to kill or injure humans but neither do many other animals, such as the example I used earlier, the cow. Furthermore the act severely damages the fishing industry, thus causing a negative impact on our countries economies. Whilst I don't believe we should kill dolphins for no reason, I also do not believe the restrictions imposed on us by the Protection of Dolphins Act are necessary especially seen as dolphins are not an endangered species. I simply cannot see any major advantages to protecting dolphins; it only damages our economies and fishing industries.


You cannot compare Dolphins and Cows.


Due to Dolphin's low birth rate, mating habits and habitat needs, their populations are restricted.


Hence why it's so difficult to bread them in captivity.


Unlike the cow. Which hasn't bread outside of captivity in over a century.




So unlike there land baring mammals, aquatic mammals populations are inherently fragile.


So added protection is needed.


So yes, aquatic mammals deserve to be singled out.

You cannot compare Dolphins and Cows.


Due to Dolphin's low birth rate, mating habits and habitat needs, their populations are restricted.


Hence why it's so difficult to bread them in captivity.


Unlike the cow. Which hasn't bread outside of captivity in over a century.




So unlike there land baring mammals, aquatic mammals populations are inherently fragile.


So added protection is needed.


So yes, aquatic mammals deserve to be singled out.

Ok, I take your point about comparing dolphins and cows, bad example. But there are plenty of other examples which are good. However you say that aquatic mammals have fragile populations, if this were the case then they would be classed as an endangered species and they are not, therefore they have a healthy population and a repeal of the act would hardly decrease the population much because few people hunt dolphins as there is no real need. I am not saying that protecting dolphins is a bad thing, but the Protection of dolphins act is overprotective and too restrictive causing damage to fishing and other similar industries, a compromise should be reached but the current act is completely uncompromising. The act should be repealed and replaced with a less restrictive approach to protection of dolphins for the sake of fishing and other similar industries

Ok, I take your point about comparing dolphins and cows, bad example. But there are plenty of other examples which are good. However you say that aquatic mammals have fragile populations, if this were the case then they would be classed as an endangered species and they are not, therefore they have a healthy population and a repeal of the act would hardly decrease the population much because few people hunt dolphins as there is no real need. I am not saying that protecting dolphins is a bad thing, but the Protection of dolphins act is overprotective and too restrictive causing damage to fishing and other similar industries, a compromise should be reached but the current act is completely uncompromising. The act should be repealed and replaced with a less restrictive approach to protection of dolphins for the sake of fishing and other similar industries

Some Aquatic Mammals are not endangered.

But you take whales as a whole and more than 2/3 of the dolphin subspecies and the Manatee, that's just not the case.


You have to understand, with Dolphins, it can take up to 12 years for a male to reach reproductive maturity (6 to 8 for a female).


As for compared to non-human land based mammals were most can reach sexual maturity after one to two years.

Manatees (since they can live up to 60 years old) can take longer and reproduce less (much like humans).

So you can see how a death of a mature male dolphin can affect the Dolphin population more than a death of a Bull.

Not to mention, A group of Dolphins (or a Pod) are either Female mothers raising their pups (this can go on for up to 10 years) or Fertile males in search of some...booty.

Rarely Mature males and mature female swim together.

So unlike the tuna fish, a tuna net full of dolphins can systematically wipe out an entire generation of broods.




Think of it this way, out of 21,000 different species that live in the ocean, only 80 of them are aquatic mammals.


That's 1/600th of 1 percent.


That doesn't make them special?


If not, I think you might be setting the bar a little too high.

:)

Now if you are talking about repealing the Dolphin-Whale Resolutions for a broader Aquatic Mammal Resolution (one that covers baby harp seals and Manatees).


I'd be all for that...

But the UNCoESB doesn't cover Order just Phylum (just in case you're wondering it goes Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family).

And since Cetacea (Aquatic Mammals) are one of the rarest Orders in all of the animal Kingdom....


Cetacean as a whole can be completely wiped out as long as the bottlenecks survive.

Meaning that the UNCoESB is fine as a general (if it passes), but WILL NOT PROTECT DOLPHINS AND WHALES AND MANATEES AND HARP SEALS at the same time.

Meaning, as long as the bottlenecks are doing fine...you can hunt the Humpback to extinction.

Unacceptable.

As there is an official thread for this subject i am posting a link to it and i ask all members to not post here!
Could a Member of the Moderation team please lock this thread.

Link to Official topic and Poll. Click this! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=439855)

Thank you.