NationStates Jolt Archive

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #106 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/47567/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105)
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/47567/page=display_nation/nation=omigodtheykilledkenny)

Description: UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/47567/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105) (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 THE U.N. PROTECTION OF DOLPHINS ACT IS HEREBY REPEALED.The repeal comes to vote in a matter of hours. I will try to respond to posts on this thread as time permits, only keep in mind that I am not Forgottenlord; I cannot possibly respond to every post. :D

OOC: Also keep in mind that the UN ambassador from the Federal Republic, John Riley, is an undiplomatic smartass who has precious little respect for the UN -- even once suggesting that the UN headquarters be demolished in favor of more "cost effective" digs in the basement of a crackhouse. So don't take his attacks too personally.

Have at it.

I do try :D

Mik will be disappointed - you did put in a poll, but the wrong one....!

I'm sorry but I still think Dolphins and Whales deserve extra protection.



Regardless.

I do try :D

Mik will be disappointed - you did put in a poll, but the wrong one....!

It isn't going to really allow me to compare the results of the poll with either the UN vote or previous polls, but perhaps it will increase liquor sales at the Strangers Bar. :)

Best poll ever. In fact, a poll so nice, I voted twice!

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.

Greetings representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny,
Although we are still double minded on how to vote for your resolution, many good points has been raised and we shall make a rational judgement in our decision.

We wish you all the best in your future endeavours and have also sent to you, some of our strong coffee beans that'll be needed in the coming days :)

Pazu-Lenny Nero, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel delivered a speech at the UN:

Dear UN Members,

Yes, dolphins are not sentient beings and don’t pass the Turing Test, they only approach sentience, as they have an elaborated language and pass the Mirror Test.

But maybe The Dolphin Protection Act is not only about dolphins; let’s take 2 examples:

- Until the 50’s, many people in The United States were forbidden to enter university, for the only argument the colour of their skin was black.

- In 1550, in Spain, took place a singular event: The Valladolid Controversy which stated that pre-Columbian people living in America had a soul and were Human. But it didn’t prevent their genocide. When Europeans realized what they had committed it was centuries later.

Maybe one day we will encounter others sentient being: ET Intelligences, AI, or post-Humans. If that happens, will it take us centuries of wars, crimes and discriminations before we began to appreciate their differences?

So, maybe this resolution is also a beautiful metaphor about compassion, about differences.

Thank You

We have an issue with this particular line; WHEREAS, dolphins are not an endangered species requiring special protection. Dolphins are not a species, rather a group of species, some of which - the Baiji, Hector's Dolphin, the Ganges River Dolphin, and the Boto (Amazon River Dolphin) are amongst the most endangered species on earth.

Also, we think the proposed cultural and economic benefits to be obtained from this resolution are grossly overrated.

We vote No.

i also voted no

as we all know dolphins are the main diet of penguins, so when there are less dolphins there are less penguins, we, the people of isistan, can not let this happen since our national animal is the penguin, who frolics freely in our vast forests.
:gundge:
:rolleyes:

The original resolution is ridiculous. It tries to justify banning national industries largely on the basis of dolphins being nice, rather than actually talking about the environmental need for such legislation. I full support this repeal proposal.

We have an issue with this particular line; WHEREAS, dolphins are not an endangered species requiring special protection. Dolphins are not a species, rather a group of species, some of which - the Baiji, Hector's Dolphin, the Ganges River Dolphin, and the Boto (Amazon River Dolphin) are amongst the most endangered species on earth.

Also, we think the proposed cultural and economic benefits to be obtained from this resolution are grossly overrated.

We vote No.

I acknowledge the wording correction - however why are we giving all Dolphins protection when only some of them are endangered (while many other species are thriving throughout the world)? It doesn't make sense. That's why I'd rather the UNCoESB (which is coming up to vote next)

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

as we all know dolphins are the main diet of penguins, so when there are less dolphins there are less penguins, we, the people of isistan, can not let this happen since our national animal is the penguin, who frolics freely in our vast forests.

Flase, fish (can't remember which one) is the main diet of penguins

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

It's unfortunate that while the regulars are supporting this repeal, the non-regulars....we've had 2 against, 1 - which closely matches the vote right now.

I'm sorry but I still think Dolphins and Whales deserve extra protection. Regardless.

That's irrelevant to a large degree. The issue is whether the PoDA is an effective piece of legislation. I would hold that it is not, whatever my views on 'Free Willy'.

Our office fully supports this repeal, and has already cast our nation's vote in favor of it.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

A repeal basically only for national sovereignty reason?
Naturally we vote NO you sick, sick bastard.

A repeal basically only for national sovereignty reason?
Naturally we vote NO you sick, sick bastard.

'Basically', there, is quite important:

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

There's a lot that's wrong with the resolution aside from issues of sovereignty issues, as the repeal makes perfectly clear. It is perfectly possible to support this repeal entirely regardless of one's attitudes to sovereignty.

Why you would want to is another matter - you're happy for the UN to be able to tell your fishermen what to do without even knowing what they do or how they do it? That's odd.

Support the repeal, whether you're a sovereigntist or not.

I can't see how national sovereignty applies. The orignal resolution only applies to international waters where no nation or industry has sovereignty, including its fishermen.

That said however, I like VLs animal protection resolution (the name escapes my cold riddled brain at the moment) so have voted for this repeal.

I can't see how national sovereignty applies. The orignal resolution only applies to international waters where no nation or industry has sovereignty, including its fishermen.

That said however, I like VLs animal protection resolution (the name escapes my cold riddled brain at the moment) so have voted for this repeal.

Our office agrees that there is no national sovereignty violation to be against in the case of PoD Act. We simply think that the PoD Act was a waste of perfectly good resolution paper.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

The orignal resolution only applies to international waters where no nation or industry has sovereignty, including its fishermen.

But under my favourite Resolution, #74, 'The Law of the Sea', all nations are granted '[f]reedom to fish in designated fishing areas' in international waters. As such, it infringes on a nation's right to legislate its fleet in accordance with this provision.

Freedom to fish yes, but soveringty over the waters no. It doesn't really matter however as I support the repeal anyway :).

Best poll ever. In fact, a poll so nice, I voted twice!Of course you know that's against the rules... right?



As for the resolution. The nation of Canada6 will vote against this proposal. Personally I have no problem whatsoever with repeals but stating that a resolution is "an encroachment on national sovereignty" is an argument that holds absolutely no water whatsoever regardless of the resolution in question.

Every single passed resolution overrides existing laws in everysingle UN member nation, so that argument can be made about any resolution, or any proposal for that matter, which indicates an attitude towards lawmaking that I find to be harmfull to the purpose of this body of sovereign nations, the UN.

Canada6 totally opposes this resolution and expresses it's confidence in it's failure to pass the vote. Canada6 also strongly advises future authors of resolutions to not use petty arguments to repeal or pass laws, if it wishes to gain the support of Canada6.

Canada6 is also a supportor of the Protection of Dolphins Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/74868/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105), and sees no reason that it should be repealed. Canada6 would gladly vote favourably to repeal the Protection of Dolphins Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/74868/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105) if such reason existed.

Firstly, it's eminently possible to support this repeal whether one is a sovereigntist or not. In fact, the head of the NSO has just pointed out that he personally doesn't believe this is a sovereignty issue. I personally believe there is some ground for a sovereignty debate - but regardless of that, I would still support the repeal.

As for the resolution. The nation of Canada6 will vote against this proposal. Personally I have no problem whatsoever with repeals but stating that a resolution is "an encroachment on national sovereignty" is an argument that holds absolutely no water whatsoever regardless of the resolution in question.

Why not?

Every single passed resolution overrides existing laws in everysingle[sic] UN member nation, so that argument can be made about any resolution, or any proposal for that matter, which indicates an attitude towards lawmaking that I find to be harmfull[sic] to the purpose of this body of sovereign nations, the UN.

Simply not true. There are many resolutions that lay out guidelines, that apply only to international territories, or that relate to the establishment of international bodies. I'm not qualified to defend the issue of sovereignty, but I'd advise you to reconsider before dismissing an entire political concept as rendered utterly redundant on the basic of one agreement.

Canada6 totally opposes this resolution and expresses it's[sic] confidence in it's[sic] failure to pass the vote. Canada6 also strongly advises future authors of resolutions to not use petty arguments to repeal or pass laws,[sic] if it[sic] wishes to gain the support of Canada6.

In this case, he has used several arguments. Given that these include the previous resolution being impractical, ill-considered, poorly-worded and infringing on basic rights, what arguments are there left that aren't 'petty'?

Dear members of the United Nations!

We do agree that fishing is a very important aspect of today's commerce. After all, the increasing demands of our population, ours in the sense of "all of our", not just the people of Hinterlutschistan, demand more and more food, for the simple sake of eliminating famines and enabling us to feed the billions of people that populate our world.

This must not, though, be executed at the cost of eliminating a species from the very fragile equilibrium that is our ecosystem. We do not even yet fully understand what role the dolphins serve in this, and whether some want to accept it or not, the population of dolphins in our seas is dramatically dwindling.

Unfortunately we are unable to rectify it, should we drive the species to extinction. Should we, in hindsight, realize that the dolphins were vital for the very existance of the fish we enjoy to fish and we need to nourish our starving people, it will be too late to just say "Oh no. It happened. Let's recreate the dolphins". We cannot do that. No matter how advanced some of us might be in bioengineering.

Instead I do propose that we try to find more suitable ways to actually make use of the dolphins instead of viewing them as pests and a potential rival in our quest for more fish. Looking back in our history, it has been proven more than once that we are able to actually make use of the animals that used to be our rivals. We used the wolf, in its domesticated version of the dog, as a hunting companion and made use of its superior tracking and hunting skills. I urge you to vote no on this proposal, and instead start to fund projects to actually make use of dolphins as scouts to find more and better fishing grounds than we currently even dream of!

In this case, he has used several arguments. Given that these include the previous resolution being impractical, ill-considered, poorly-worded and infringing on basic rights, what arguments are there left that aren't 'petty'?

OOC: Perhaps omigodtheykilledkenny should have resorted to name-calling in the interests of avoiding these petty arguments...

;)

Yes, if protecting the UN, its nations, and human life is petty, I'm not sure what's left.

OOC: This repeal, in my opinion, is ridiculous, and I'm in the mood for a rant, so get ready for a LONG post. Begin IC.

The President of Hersfold steps up to the podium in the center of the massive General Hall of the United Nations, shuffles his papers, and prepares to speak.

"The Delegation to The United Nations for The United Federation of Hersfold is STRONGLY AGAINST this travesty of a repeal, and encourages other nations to vote likewise. There is no reason this resolution should be repealed, this resolution which does so much to protect one of the most endangered species on our planet. We plan to argue this repeal point-by-point to prove that it is based in lies and illogic. We begin with the very first paragraph:

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

"When the Delegation first read this line, there was silence. Every member of the Delegation was trying to work out how declaring jurisdiction over international waters constituted a violation of national sovereignty... particularly when, no nation can have a legitimate "presence in said waters", due to the simple fact that no nation can claim title to them (being, as they are, international waters); when this furthermore does not restrict any standing or future trade agreements that pass through said waters; and when no less than 4 other Resolutions (34, 35, 52, and 70) have placed a similar, or even more strict claim upon international waters. The Delegation quickly decided to dismiss this portion of the arguments as illogical and un-worthwhile. They moved on...

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

"The Delegation noted that while this most likely was a large impact of the Resolution, it was the intended impact of the Resolution. Furthermore, this was not the first Resolution to place a limit on the fishing industry. The previously mentioned "Banning Whaling", UN Resolution #70, was passed one year ago yesterday. The Delegation further recalled the more than 20 resolutions that all have placed some impact on a nation's economy, simply due to their Environmental status. This argument was shortly dismissed as an act of desparation against the original resolution.

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

"At this point, the Delegation began to wonder about the extent of knowledge the esteemed author had concerning the UN. Who, they asked, would attempt to propose a resolution, when they do not understand all of the categories? How can they make an accusation such as this when the UN is expected to make some regulations on trade, and already has? How can they make such an accusation when over 30 Environmental and Free Trade Resolutions have been passed? 'Ignorant', said the Delegation, and left it at that.

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

"Again, the Delegation merely shook their heads in shame. As the Representative from Hyronia has already pointed out, dolphins are a class of species, some of which are on the verge of extinction. 'Lies', said the Delegation, and reluctantly moved onward...

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

"Here the Delegation rejoiced - they had finally found the first legitimate argument, their first excuse to locate the text of the original resolution. They reviewed this clause and the Resolution carefully, and eventually came up with an agreement. 'The Resolution in question,' stated Chief Representative T'Paldek, 'while not specifically mentioning primitive or modern cultures, does still provide for their preservation of customs. The Resolution only bans dolphin hunting in international waters, a point which has already been discussed by the Delegation. While the Delegation believes this portion of the Resolution should have been more strict, member nations are still permitted to hunt within their own waters. Furthermore, a society whose food source is based mainly or solely upon dolphin meat would be permitted to continue, under the clauses "where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives" and "provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives." While the Delegation does respect the fact that the author is capable of a legitimate argument', concluded the Chief Representative, 'we feel we must dismiss this argument as well, as it does not fully comprehend the original Resolution.'

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

"Here, again, the Delegation was confused. Recalling the UN Charter, they found that the United Nations was placed in existence 'to improve the standard of the world (OOC Note: taken from the Past Resolutions page of the UN site)' They could find no mention of human rights, and as one Representative pointed out, 'If the United Nations was based solely on the promotion of human rights, it would be illogical for there to be any other resolution category.' Dismissing yet another argument, the Delegation steeled their wills for the final blow.

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

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

"The Delegation, realizing that they had already rebuffed this point, began to pack their materials. Those clauses, while inspecific, are more than sufficent, as they grant nations the right to hunt dolphins if it is their sole source of food (unlikely), and gives individual citizens the right to kill a dolphin that is attacking them (even more unlikely).

"A final overview of the repeal was taken. The Delegation had rebuffed every single one of the arguments used in the repeal, spending less than a few minutes on all but two. In fact, the only comment in favor of the repeal was written by a Junior Representative: "Good formatting." The Delegation, so disgusted by this attempt to discard one of the most valubale resolutions in the UN Archives, voted to send me to speak to the UN at large - a rare occurence, but one that is done when the Delegation feels particularly strongly about any one Resolution.

"So, fellow nations, I ask you, this day, to vote against this repeal! Vote down this illogical, incomplete, ignorant proposal! Speak out against this injustice and protect several rapidly fading species of our oceans! Do not allow this Resolution to be eliminated!"

To thunderous applause, the President of The United Federation of Hersfold gathered his materials and strode out the main entrance of the hall.

Although we do not accept the cultural sensitivity argument, and despite our love for wildlife, the rogue nation of Van Rubenia supports the repeal on the grounds that the original legislation was frivolous and out of UN jurisdiction.

Simply not true. There are many resolutions that lay out guidelines, that apply only to international territories, or that relate to the establishment of international bodies. I'm not qualified to defend the issue of sovereignty, but I'd advise you to reconsider before dismissing an entire political concept as rendered utterly redundant on the basic of one agreement.I understand Soverignty to be the capability of one nation to pass laws on it's own within it's own territory. Sovereignty might become an issue if a resolution includes the concept of invading or subjugating one of it's members. Other than that any law passed by this body will override that of the UN members by default, as we UN members are all binded to it's law. I believe that under these circumstances sovereignty is a petty argument.

In this case, he has used several arguments. Given that these include the previous resolution being impractical, ill-considered, poorly-worded and infringing on basic rights, what arguments are there left that aren't 'petty'?OK let's take a look at those arguments shall we.

WHEREAS, many member states' economies are heavily reliant on fishing and related industries, and this act severely damages their national economies;
I fail to see how the dolphin protection act interferes with the fishing industry in such a way that would damage their production.

WHEREAS, it is decidedly outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations to place such precise restrictions on international trade and commerce;
The Dolphin protection does not place any restriction on international trade and commerce.

WHEREAS, dolphins are not an endangered species requiring special protection;
Probably not, but is being considered an endangered species a requirement for protection under law? Are humans an endangered species?

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;
Cultural, moral and religious aspects are always in risk of being marginalized by UN laws. I am all in favour of protecting minorities. However, cannibalism is also culturally common and yet it is still outlawed. Also I would like to point out that the Dolphin Protection Act does not strictly forbid the consumption of Dolphin. It outlaws the hunting of Dolphin in extra-territorial waters only. I assume that for minorities the hunting of Dolphin is allowed in lakes, rivers, reservoirs etc. This would obviously limit the consumption of Dolphin to the superfamily of Platanistoidea. Sweet water dolphins.

WHEREAS, the Protection of Dolphins Act does little to advance the central purpose of the United Nations, namely, the promotion of human rights;
That has never been oficially established. That is opinion. I Tend to agree that human rights are of greater importance but I still dissagree with repealing what I feel is a usefull resolution.

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:

And since when was the goal of the dolphin protection act to protect human lives and livelihood? It doesn't protect us but it doesn't endanger us either. We have other resolutions that protect human lives and livelihood. If we don't, then we should have them. In either case, I fail to see good enough reason to repeal the Dolphin Protection Act.


OOC: Perhaps omigodtheykilledkenny should have resorted to name-calling in the interests of avoiding these petty arguments...

;)I fail to see how that would work, but I won't ask you to explain anyhow.

Yes, if protecting the UN, its nations, and human life is petty, I'm not sure what's left.The repealing of this law does not protect human life nor did the passing of the Dolphin Protection Act harm human life. I would also like to finish by saying that I have never stated that the protection of human life is petty. Mind your tone when putting words in the mouths of other nations, please.

Although we do not accept the cultural sensitivity argument, and despite our love for wildlife, the rogue nation of Van Rubenia supports the repeal on the grounds that the original legislation was frivolous and out of UN jurisdiction.

Van Rubenia, could I ask how you think the original resolution was frivolous, especially since you claim to love wildlife? I've already addressed the jurisdiction issue in my above post, as have several others, but that claim is the one I'm most interested in now.

When the original resolution was up for vote, I was initially against it. I honestly did not think that anyone hunted dolphins in the world, and found it pointless to outlaw "accidental" killings when they are, after all, accidental. But I said I would look into it, and if I could find otherwise, I would vote in favor for it. So I looked. And as always, Google came up with answers.

Japan. Peru. Thousands of dolphins, with no chance of escape. The way that they hunt these dolphins is horrendous. I finally found a site not affiliated with any news service, that actually provided photos of some of the hunts in Japan. If anyone would like to view it, here is the address: http://www.gjallarhorn.com/dolphin/ The information about the huntings begins at the second header. That site is a prime example of why it pays to do your homework before voting.

I fail to see how the dolphin protection act interferes with the fishing industry in such a way that would damage their production.

The PoDA specifically prohibits dolphin-hunting in international waters. Given that countries are restricted to maritime claims of 20km, there can be guarantee that the dolphin population within these boundaries are sufficient to maintain their previous level of industry. Many nations, including Gruenberg, rely on their fishing rights in international waters for the capture of, for example, sardine. The PoDA does not in its present form lay out sufficient grounds for why non-protected species of dolphins should be granted special exemption. As such, the PoDA may severly hamper national economies previously based on fishing of dolphins.

The Dolphin protection does not place any restriction on international trade and commerce.

By banning hunting of dolphins in international waters, the PoDA restricts the ability of nations to trade internationally in dolphin meat and by-products. Furthermore, it affects their ability to profitably trade in all fishery products, as as it calls for changes to fishing techniques in order to minimise unintentional dolphin capture, even when such techniques may be prohibitively expensive. Given that dolphins generally inhabit shallower sea pockets, trawling becomes very difficult.

WHEREAS, dolphins are not an endangered species requiring special protection;
Probably not, but is being considered an endangered species a requirement for protection under law? Are humans an endangered species?

No, but humans are afforded rights in international law; dolphins are not. Even the PoDA does not suggest that dolphins have the right to not be hunted - merely that humans do not have the right to hunt them. Non-endangered species can be protected under law - for example, in forestry resolutions - but the issue of animal rights is quite separate. So, being endangered is not a requirement for protection under law.

Cultural, moral and religious aspects are always in risk of being marginalized by UN laws. I am all in favour of protecting minorities. However, cannibalism is also culturally common and yet it is still outlawed. Also I would like to point out that the Dolphin Protection Act does not strictly forbid the consumption of Dolphin. It outlaws the hunting of Dolphin in extra-territorial waters only. I assume that for minorities the hunting of Dolphin is allowed in lakes, rivers, reservoirs etc. This would obviously limit the consumption of Dolphin to the superfamily of Platanistoidea. Sweet water dolphins.

To a large extent I agree with you here. However, it seems short-sighted of the PoDA not to allow similar provisions to the 'Banning Whaling' resolution, which specifically allows for (registered) minority whaling for cultural reasons.

WHEREAS, the Protection of Dolphins Act does little to advance the central purpose of the United Nations, namely, the promotion of human rights;
That has never been oficially established. That is opinion. I Tend to agree that human rights are of greater importance but I still dissagree with repealing what I feel is a usefull resolution.

Little of this is relevant. Just because a Resolution is useful does not mean it has a place in international law.

And since when was the goal of the dolphin protection act to protect human lives and livelihood? It doesn't protect us but it doesn't endanger us either. We have other resolutions that protect human lives and livelihood. If we don't, then we should have them. In either case, I fail to see good enough reason to repeal the Dolphin Protection Act.

Given that the fifth operative clause of the PoDA reinforces the precedence of human rights over those of dolphins, it is fair to say that protection of human lives and livelihood is part of the PoDA - more so because the second operative clause specifically enacts this by legislating to permit dolphin hunting if it can save human lives or prevent an ecological disaster. Moreover, protection of human life and livelihood isn't something that one resolution BANG just enacts - it's a principle that must be considered by all legislation, if not specifically included in its provisions. It could then be argued that by inflicting financial damage upon member nations, this resolution does not show due regard for the protection of human livelihood.

The repealing of this law does not protect human life nor did the passing of the Dolphin Protection Act harm human life.

Yes, it does, because it has a financial impact. For nations for whom dolphin-hunting is a primary source of revenue, banning dolphin hunting in international waters is damaging to the lives of those humans whose subsistence depends on such activity.

I would also like to finish by saying that I have never stated that the protection of human life is petty. Mind your tone when putting words in the mouths of other nations, please.

When you referred to avoiding petty arguments, we assumed it was in reference to this repeal. If not, what relevance did it have to your justification of vote?

That's irrelevant to a large degree. The issue is whether the PoDA is an effective piece of legislation. I would hold that it is not, whatever my views on 'Free Willy'.


No it is relevant. I feel that those two species (aquatic mammal of all things in the world) are both unique and special enough to have an add layer of protection.


I feel the current legislation does just that.


I get it, some Nations feel that perfume and strapping a Nuke to the head of Flipper, outweighs the need to protect the last of the Aquatic Mammals.



I however do not.




I will never vote for any proposal that will relax regulation of Aquatic Mammals (I just want to remind you how special these two species are).


And I believe that's quite relevant.

And I believe that's quite relevant.

When you actually say something, I'll comment. (Quote-pyramiding is disabled.)

When you actually say something, I'll comment. (Quote-pyramiding is disabled.)


Ahh to insult.



You got me good.


The simple fact is, anything that can disarm a nuclear bomb 1,000 under water without going up for a breath of air...


Deserves added protection.




You can try and insult me until the day is long (that's June 22, 2006) ...it still wont make Dolphins and Whales less special.



Due to their size, birth rate and environmental needs--Aquatic Mammal's population is finite...limited, naturally restricted.


Therefore, add protection is needed.


Plain and simple.

The Free Land of CTerryland fails to see what is so special about dolphins. The Free Land of CTerryland will be voting for the UNCoESB when it comes to vote, as that is a much broader resolution which will include many more worthy species under its belt.

We like many of the points raised in the repeal of the proposal. However before voting FOR it, we'll have to go through the original resolution.

Albeit, we wish the rule all the best for it and future endeavours

The original resolution is ridiculous. It tries to justify banning national industries largely on the basis of dolphins being nice, rather than actually talking about the environmental need for such legislation.
The author of this repeal stated that only the transgender bill was worse than the dolphins act, yet how idiotic is this. You want to waste time trying to achieve the right to kill another animal?! Oh well, I see the sentiment here... "I got mine", right Ohmygodtheykilledkenny. You got yours and you must be right so why worry about what others people feel, they're wrong. (Right?)

dolphins are not an endangered species requiring special protection
Really? Where does it say that. Nowhere can I find Nation States saying that dolphins are or are not endangered. My friend, you are bringing realworld instances into the support of your stupid repeal, an act that is forbidden in the UN rules. Also, your repeal makes many statements without justifiable proof. Tell me, which and how many NS actually rely heavily on dolphin meat as you claim. I'm willing to listen. Just give me reliable facts.

Your repeal is obviously a move toward economic power at the expense of the environment which ultimately will be your undoing. Or maybe you are just mad that the proposal succeeded in the first place and this is a way of thumbing your nose back. Either way, this repeal is more a complete waste of time than any other bill that you have ever opposed.

I vote vehemently against.
Spoon Savers :mad:

The Free Land of CTerryland fails to see what is so special about dolphins. The Free Land of CTerryland will be voting for the UNCoESB when it comes to vote, as that is a much broader resolution which will include many more worthy species under its belt.


It depends on what your definition of "special" is.


For example, the simple fact that they are aquatic mammals makes them extremely rare.


Added there low birth rate (like most mammals) makes them even more rare.

OOC: Why they are special?

"The species is commonly known for its friendly character and curiosity. It is not uncommon for a diver to be investigated by a group of them. Occasionally, dolphins have rescued an injured diver by raising them to the surface, a behaviour they also show towards injured members of their own species. In November 2004, a more dramatic report of dolphin intervention came from New Zealand. Three lifeguards, swimming 100m off the coast near Whangarei, were reportedly approached by a 3m Great White Shark. A group of Bottlenose Dolphins, apparently sensing danger to the swimmers, herded them together and tightly surrounded them for forty minutes, preventing an attack from the shark, as they returned to shore. (Thomson, 2004)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_Dolphin


And you know what? Humans can use all the friends we can get.

Why are they special?


Because they protect us when we need it.


The least we can do is return the favor.

Of course you know that's against the rules... right?
Best poll ever. In fact, a poll so nice, I voted twice!

Against the "rules". Please produce a copy of these "rules" and point out how we have violated them.


As for the resolution. The nation of Canada6 will vote against this proposal. Personally I have no problem whatsoever with repeals but stating that a resolution is "an encroachment on national sovereignty" is an argument that holds absolutely no water whatsoever regardless of the resolution in question.

The national sovereignty argument isn't even needed here. It is a bad resolution, and with the passage of UNCoESB it will become a redundant one.

Every single passed resolution overrides existing laws in everysingle UN member nation, so that argument can be made about any resolution, or any proposal for that matter,

You state the obvious.


which indicates an attitude towards lawmaking that I find to be harmfull to the purpose of this body of sovereign nations, the UN.

As I said, the sovereignty issue does not come into play here. It was not a factor in my decision to vote For the repeal.

Canada6 totally opposes this resolution and expresses it's confidence in it's failure to pass the vote. Canada6 also strongly advises future authors of resolutions to not use petty arguments to repeal or pass laws, if it wishes to gain the support of Canada6.

Canada6 is also a supportor of the Protection of Dolphins Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/74868/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105), and sees no reason that it should be repealed. Canada6 would gladly vote favourably to repeal the Protection of Dolphins Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/74868/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105) if such reason existed.

Have you looked at the UNCoESB, and do you plan to vote for it? Also, after UNCoESB passes, would your attitude regarding a repeal of PoD change?

Aeneyla is a tree-hugging, environment-friendly country that is appalled by the suggestion of repealing the resolution. Dolphins, regardless of whether they are or are not endangered, should be protected and left the heck alone (we did give a shrill giggle at the poll, though).

Ausserland has voted no on this proposal.

We are very much in favor of protection of endangered species. We look forward to casting a yes vote on the UNCoESB (a.k.a. "Protection of Wildlife") proposal when it comes to a vote shortly. We believe it will provide good protection for wildlife in peril. Once that proposal has become a resolution, we believe the "Protection of Dolphins" resolution might be superfluous and probably should be repealed. But until that happens, we cannot support a repeal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

However, there is a danger than delaying taking action in this matter will prove irreperably damaging to national fishing interests.

However, there is a danger than delaying taking action in this matter will prove irreperably damaging to national fishing interests.


That's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).


We are talking about only 40 subspecies out of 21,000 different species that currently call the Ocean home.



There are only 80 subspecies of aquatic mammals left in this world. Period. That's including the manatee and all Marine Mammals (mammals that hang in the ocean but not live in the ocean exclusively)


We are talking about 1/600th of 1 percent of the total oceanic population diversity.



So please don't use the "burden on Industry" as a reasoning.



That dog just wont hunt.

OOC: Why


do


you



do



your

posts



like


this?

IC: Why shouldn't I defend my nation's industry? UN legislation should take many factors into consideration, and that is one of them.

OOC: Why


do


you



do



your

posts



like


this?

IC: Why shouldn't I defend my nation's industry? UN legislation should take many factors into consideration, and that is one of them.


OOC: Double space is easier to read.

IC: Absolutely.

But to say a change in fishing technics and the replacement of Fishing nets will sand bag your fishing Industry would lead one to question the viability of your fishing Industry as a whole.


To repeal resolution just because some Nations can't afford to replace twine, well then maybe the market is trying to tell you something.


Maybe the Market is trying to tell your Nation that it's resources would be better off spent on other Industries.

1. All Gruenberger fishing is undertaken by members of the High Sultanic Merchant Navy. Continued slanderous offences on the honourable name of our brave fishers will not be tolerated.

2. You're missing the point. You tried to divorce this resolution from its industrial impact, and then largely admit that it will have one. I don't think either of us are going to convince the other, and I'm aware that I'm offering crap arguments, so I'll just sum up my points and be done with the bugger of it.

- IF YOU LIKE DOLPHINS...this resolution will be rendered useless by Protection of Wildlife.
- IF YOU LIKE PEOPLE...you will accept that at present this resolution unfairly constrains national fishing interests, and discrimates against other species whilst providing no justification for special protection for the dolphin.
- IF YOU LIKE EVERYTHING...then why not produce a resolution that bans cruel practices or over-fishing of dolphins, or better yet let it be covered by PoW, and let this unnecessary infringement slide?

Original resolution:
Ban the hunting of MLP's

SEEING AS:My little ponies (tm) are our special friends and can fly and you can brush their hair. They also have stars on their bottoms.

NOTING: Some people (like my little brother>:() want to use my "my little ponies" (tm) in their stupid science experiment.

FURTHER NOTING: That my lemon drop pony went extinct when the LB (little b*stard) set fire to her, thus raising the level of my little ponys to vulnerable in my Red Book!

STILL NOTING: that mom won't do anything about the brat

THE UN SEES FIT TO: ban all hunting/experimenting on/burning/etc of my little ponies and make me a ballerina when I grow up!

Repeal
This resolution is rubbish

New resolution:
Protected endangered animals through prudent use of hunting quotas and in special cases a moratorium ban.




In case you're guessing I voted to get the Dolphin (cough*MLP*cough) resolution kicked out!!!

The PoDA specifically prohibits dolphin-hunting in international waters. Given that countries are restricted to maritime claims of 20km, there can be guarantee that the dolphin population within these boundaries are sufficient to maintain their previous level of industry.
Many nations, including Gruenberg, rely on their fishing rights in international waters for the capture of, for example, sardine. The PoDA does not in its present form lay out sufficient grounds for why non-protected species of dolphins should be granted special exemption. As such, the PoDA may severly hamper national economies previously based on fishing of dolphins.There is no such thing as a Dolphin fishing industry. There may be cultural minorities that fish or hunt dolphins using traditional means but certainly nothing that can be considered an industry that has been harmed by the PoDA.

By banning hunting of dolphins in international waters, the PoDA restricts the ability of nations to trade internationally in dolphin meat and by-products.There is no such thing as dolphin meat trade, just like there is no such thing as human meat trade.

Furthermore, it affects their ability to profitably trade in all fishery products, as as it calls for changes to fishing techniques in order to minimise unintentional dolphin capture, even when such techniques may be prohibitively expensive. Given that dolphins generally inhabit shallower sea pockets, trawling becomes very difficult.In Canada6 fishing boats will gladly comply out of their own free will to preserve the eco-system as well as achieve profits. Fishing boats in other nations must certainly comply to allready existing regulations for preservation of certain species. It's really not all that too much trouble to ask fishing boats to "watch out for dolphins".

No, but humans are afforded rights in international law; dolphins are not. Even the PoDA does not suggest that dolphins have the right to not be hunted - merely that humans do not have the right to hunt them. Did you expect the PoDA to add a clause that forbids Sharks and other sea predators from hunting and eating dolphins? I frankly don't understand your point. Laws can only be aplicable to human behaviour.

To a large extent I agree with you here. However, it seems short-sighted of the PoDA not to allow similar provisions to the 'Banning Whaling' resolution, which specifically allows for (registered) minority whaling for cultural reasons.I agree. All laws could be improved. But in this case Canada6 is against Dolphin Hunting, or eating regardless of any cultural minority that practices such things. If this was a resolution for repealing a Cannibalism Ban I would take the same stance.

Little of this is relevant. Just because a Resolution is useful does not mean it has a place in international law.That is for the UN decide in a popular vote. Canada6 says it does have a place.

It could then be argued that by inflicting financial damage upon member nations, this resolution does not show due regard for the protection of human livelihood.It has inflicted some cultural limitations on a few minorties but it has not and never will inflict financial damage upon member nations. Dolphin Fishing is done on a primitive basis for again cultural reasons.

Yes, it does, because it has a financial impact. For nations for whom dolphin-hunting is a primary source of revenue, banning dolphin hunting in international waters is damaging to the lives of those humans whose subsistence depends on such activity.Such nations do not exist.

When you referred to avoiding petty arguments, we assumed it was in reference to this repeal. If not, what relevance did it have to your justification of vote?It was of course in reference to this repeal, particularly the concept of the DoPA being an encroachment on national sovereignty. You claim and believe that the current repeal/proposal will protect human life. I find that position to be utterly ridiculous.

That's the best resolution I've ever seen.

- IF YOU LIKE DOLPHINS...this resolution will be rendered useless by Protection of Wildlife.

If it passes. From the general shouts of support I'm hearing, it probably will, but that's not certain.

- IF YOU LIKE PEOPLE...you will accept that at present this resolution unfairly constrains national fishing interests, and discrimates against other species whilst providing no justification for special protection for the dolphin.

Dolphins are one of the most intelligent species on the planet. From Grosseschnauzer, one of the more prominent members of the UN:

According to the news report from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600752.html), there is strong evidence of transmitted social learning and behavior among at least some dolphin species; in other words, they have a culture, no less than the arborginal humans on a isolated island would.

As to the "discrimination against other species", did you pose the same argument against "Banning Whaling"? This is not the first resolution to impact fishing industries. As for proof that dolphins need protection...

Banji or Yangtze River Dolphin - less than 200 remaining.
Bottlenose Dolphin - 4 to 5 hundered lost annually to fishing nets - Direct hunting still practiced in Japan.
Ganges River Dolphin - In 1982, less than 5,000 remained. Numbers continue to decrease due to habitat destruction.
Harbour Porpoise - On average, 3.1% of remaining population killed annually from fishing nets.

With only about 32 species, that's 1/8 of all dolphin species endangered or severely threatened. The other 28 species aren't exactly abundant, either. If something is not done, ALL dolphins could be extinct within a decade or two.

- IF YOU LIKE EVERYTHING...then why not produce a resolution that bans cruel practices or over-fishing of dolphins, or better yet let it be covered by PoW, and let this unnecessary infringement slide?

I still don't see what the infringement is. Nations can still hunt dolphin, as long as they remain in their waters. No nation can lay claim to international waters, so there can't be any infringements there.

I have yet to see a decent argument in favor of this repeal.

Against the "rules". Please produce a copy of these "rules" and point out how we have violated them. If you have in fact voted twice with two different nations as UN members, it is a clear violation of the rules. Unless I'm not aware of some exemption.

As I said, the sovereignty issue does not come into play here. It was not a factor in my decision to vote For the repeal.Nor was it a factor for me. In fact it was because of the non factor of sovereignty that I called it a petty argument.

Have you looked at the UNCoESB, and do you plan to vote for it? Also, after UNCoESB passes, would your attitude regarding a repeal of PoD change?I haven't seen that yet but I'll be glad to take a gander at it. You express great confidence in it's passing it must be special.

I'd appreciate it if you could post a link to it, because I can't seem to find it.

With rules, he was talking about voting twice in the POLL.

Ok, firstly, the UNCoESB is first in the proposals queue. It shouldn't be hard to find. Nonetheless:

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


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: All Businesses


Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: In these times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked, a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction. It is with these concerns we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, UNCoESB
Article 1:The Executive
On ratification by the General Assembly, the UN shall set up an executive body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species receive the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords. The Executive shall control funding and see it is used where it is most required.
Article 2:Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.
Article 3:Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.
Article 4:Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.
Article 5:Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.
Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
We hereby enact the UNCoESB.
The Author wishes to thank the Nation of “Yeldan UN Mission” whose assistance has been invaluable.

Secondly, can we at least agree that the first indicative clause of this repeal is correct: that the PoDA DOES infringe on national sovereignty. A convincing argument is developing for that infringement being justified, and it's an argument I'm coming round to. But let's stop saying that no sovereignty issue is at stake, because it detracts from the rest of the issue.

That's the best resolution I've ever seen.

Thanks - we had a hard time convincing our nation that we'd make them all ballerinas even if the UN wouldn't!


But seriously just to back up what others said - this resolution could have been written about "my little ponies", tigers, panda, pikachu's, whatever, the thing is, it's just focussing on one species.

It's too specific and having every new nation come along with a resolution saying why they think the (insert you my little pony animal here) is special and needs protection is stupid. Also it means that unpopular animals that perform essential ecosystem services would never get protection (think of the decomposition cycle and all the animals involved in that, if we didn't have them where would our new nutrients come from?)

Thus how about a wide ranging policy to deal with them all?

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.


First of all, I do not see repealing something in the hopes that something else that promises some measure of protection (an unknown amount at that) as a viable option. A bird in the hand, and all that jazz...


The original resolution is ridiculous. It tries to justify banning national industries largely on the basis of dolphins being nice, rather than actually talking about the environmental need for such legislation. I full support this repeal proposal.

I see nothing in the original resolution that mandates the banning of any international industry. I do see, however, where governments are strongly urged to cut down on the accidental killing of dolphins within their industry. It does allow for accidents, however.

The largest argument I see in the support to repeal this resolution is the appeal to national sovereignty. While I agree that this is an issue, and nations should closely guard their sovereignty to prevent the United Nations from becoming simply a central global governing force (armed enforcement notwithstanding), I do not see how this is at issue in the Protection of Dolphins resolution. Perhaps we should take a moment to review the actual resolution.


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.


Lets look at the action items of this resolution. Firstly we have "Condemns". Ok, so we think, as a global community, that killing dolphins is bad. Hrm... no national sovereignty issues here.

Number two? Well that addresses international waters to which no nation holds claim. It makes allowances for human life above animal life, and for the good of the ecology. What is the problem with this section?

Number three URGES all states to make legislation in their own governments. I see no mandate here that so requires all states to pass said legislation.

Number four CALLS UPON people to find ways to minimilize the accidental killings of dolphins in their national industry. Someone point out to me how attempting to prevent accidental deaths is a killer to your economy and jeopardizes your national soverignty.

And last but not least (and what seems the most offensive cause to most people) we are all called upon to prevent the ABUSE of dolphins in the way that whatever nation sees fit. I do not see a definition of abuse there. I do not see specific outlines as to what is allowed in one's own country or not. I actually see something that says in any way they see fit. To me this allows for each nation to set their own standards for what they believe abuse to be, and how to prevent said abuse.

Please, someone point out to me where national soverignty is an issue here?

Now, on to my opinion. I do not believe the original resolution PoDA was at all strong enough to warrant any real and effective change. In some ways, this violates the current UN rules for not having a thesis up for debate, and actually having something that takes action. What the original legislation truly is equates to an opinion that the international community has voted on in its majority at the time, and a please try to follow this opinion in your own lands kind of stand.

I see no valid reason to repeal this. I see no valid argument against the protection of dolphins. I see no threat to national soverignty or national economy.

As far as the desire by some to eat dolphins and differ from the majority of international opinion, no one is keeping you in the United Nations but yourself. If eating dolphins is that important to you that you wish to loose your international voice, more power to you.

There are sovereignty issues in international waters, as specific national ships are involved. In fact, they are mandated by UN law to identify their nationality. As such, I consider impositions in fishing practices in international waters to still pertain to national sovereignty, as it relates to the vessels of sailors who are legally entitled to fish, and legally bound to do so under national colours.

Well if you notice that when you outlaw something allows do the outlawed thing, so most likely they'll still be people hunting dolphin which would put many people in jail and you'd run out of space in the jails. So you'd have to raise your taxes too do so and your people would be outraged and your economy would suffer...

Repeal Act > Opens up economy > lowers taxes > happy people

Don't repeal act > Creates jails > Lowers economies > raises taxes > Not happy people

i also voted no

as we all know dolphins are the main diet of penguins, so when there are less dolphins there are less penguins, we, the people of isistan, can not let this happen since our national animal is the penguin, who frolics freely in our vast forests.
:gundge:
:rolleyes:
penguins don't eat dolphin

Thanks - we had a hard time convincing our nation that we'd make them all ballerinas even if the UN wouldn't!


But seriously just to back up what others said - this resolution could have been written about "my little ponies", tigers, panda, pikachu's, whatever, the thing is, it's just focussing on one species.

It's too specific and having every new nation come along with a resolution saying why they think the (insert you my little pony animal here) is special and needs protection is stupid. Also it means that unpopular animals that perform essential ecosystem services would never get protection (think of the decomposition cycle and all the animals involved in that, if we didn't have them where would our new nutrients come from?)

Thus how about a wide ranging policy to deal with them all?

I believe that's the point.


The very fact that there's only 81 different species of aquatic mammals.

That's all different types of whales, dolphins, manatees ect ect ect...all of of them combine.

Only 81 different types of species in the order of Cetacea (aquatic Mammals) .

There are approximately 4,000 different types of species in the Order of Rodentia (Rodents) ...


There are 51 different species of rats alone.

To say that protecting Dolphins and whales (which is over 80% of all aquatic mammals), is a slippery slop to micro-magaging all species is at the very least ignoring the simple fact on how very unique Aquatic mammals really are.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/rodent_TypesofRodents.asp

http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatSpecies.htm#Species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea

penguins don't eat dolphin
In Isistan they do.

I remember going there on holiday and stood in great awe and horror as these penguins were covered head to foot in dolphin blood and guts. It looked like something straight out of an old horrow show picture.

But I was deeply distraught by this and I asked one of the fishermen nearby as to how in the world penguins could turn into such vicious creatures. The fishing man turned around and began to explain to me about their nations history, how penguins are trained like hunters. To catch and retrive "dolphin meat" no matter at what cost. They have literally become the "Retriver" of the fishing community.

or not...

I am disturbed that there is not even a "proper" poll.

Arakaria casts vote: NAY

Reason: we are meat-free nation and we belive that eating dolphins is immoral.

Well as the proposal said, the dolphins are not endangered, thus they require no special treatment. It is also said that it effects many economies negatively. Also, as said, many cultures eat dolphins and this act hinders them from doing so. It does not make sense to protect an animal from being eaten if that animal is not endangered, if that animal has countless economies depending on it. It makes just as much sense as banning the consumption of cows. If it was endangered that would be a different story, but since it is not it should have no such preposterous treatment.


M

There are sovereignty issues in international waters, as specific national ships are involved. In fact, they are mandated by UN law to identify their nationality. As such, I consider impositions in fishing practices in international waters to still pertain to national sovereignty, as it relates to the vessels of sailors who are legally entitled to fish, and legally bound to do so under national colours.

Your circular reasoning astounds me. International waters are just that... belonging to all nations. The declaration of nationality is no way implies more or less legality to those waters than the rest of the global community. I see no legal grounds for anyone to be more or less entitled to things that are in international territory than any other. Due to the shared nature of these spaces, they are governed by the majority opinion of those nations that choose to have a voice in the international forum. What happens on your ships is your issue, but what happens in shared space is not an issue of your national soverignty, but an issue for ALL of us to address as majority sees fit. Your waters are your issue, and as the verbiage of the previous resolution presents, and as I have outlined, there are no horrifying mandates that step on any nations toes. If you feel threatened, my suggestion is re-read, study, and grow a set of neurons and neural pathways.

Well if you notice that when you outlaw something allows do the outlawed thing, so most likely they'll still be people hunting dolphin which would put many people in jail and you'd run out of space in the jails. So you'd have to raise your taxes too do so and your people would be outraged and your economy would suffer...

Repeal Act > Opens up economy > lowers taxes > happy people

Don't repeal act > Creates jails > Lowers economies > raises taxes > Not happy people

Wow! That just makes everything OH so CLEAR. Or NOT. First of all, the United Nations does not have an enforcement agency. That means no army, no international police, and NO JAILS. Hrm... So aren't we back to the whole thing of you were free to set your own legislation based upon the PoDA that you saw fit thing? You want to open up your own jails and boost your economy, go for it, but that brings up a whole different set of issues... Jails and their impact on the economy. Secondly, whatever punitive measures your nation takes are up to you. Again, I fail to see how national sovereignty is at ALL an issue in the call for this repeal. Someone want to come up with a logical argument that holds water? I'm all for a real INTELLICTUAL discussion on the issue... anyone????

In Isistan they do.

I remember going there on holiday and stood in great awe and horror as these penguins were covered head to foot in dolphin blood and guts. It looked like something straight out of an old horrow show picture.

But I was deeply distraught by this and I asked one of the fishermen nearby as to how in the world penguins could turn into such vicious creatures. The fishing man turned around and began to explain to me about their nations history, how penguins are trained like hunters. To catch and retrive "dolphin meat" no matter at what cost. They have literally become the "Retriver" of the fishing community.

or not...


And that's when they're not exercising their role as the number one predator of My little ponies - nature films have shown for years how they sneak into magic pony land under the guise of children with walking difficulties.. I still remember when they got Moondancer!!!

I am disturbed that there is not even a "proper" poll.
I Agree, however, a moments foolishness should not deter from repealing this resolution.
To answer some concerns.....
1, UNCoESB will give Nations the individual right to put protections on animals under the "Species of National Importance" Banner, Be they dolphins whales or lesser spotted flibberworth ponies.
2, The two in the hand parable is inexcusable, especilly as the One in the bush would cost much less and cut out the need for further expense being incurred by other singular proposals being adopted.
3, The UNCoESB is up for voting NEXT.
4, The repeal of "Banning Whaling" is in the proposals section awaiting approval.


So far in this thread i have read more and more appeals to the members heart strings regarding Dolphins and the many species of such. This repeal and the repeal of UN resolution 70 is a simple matter of common sense and logic as the UNCoESB will give nations who love aquatic mammals or fish or birds or game on terra firma solid protections and as it is run by UN gnomes it can not be affected by the whims and wishes of Men.

I beseech all intelligent and responsible Nations of the UN to Repeal Resolutions 70 and 106 and enact the UNCoESB when it comes to the Floor of the General Assembly for ratification as a UN resolution.

Thank You.

Just because the wording of a law is silly doesn't make it a bad law.

In the interrim, would you want to be the person responsible for senseless dolphin deaths as whole industries gear up to turn our gentle friends into puppy chow.

We are protecting lives here.

A repeal is not justified under such circumstances. Better to revise, or edit, not revoke when lives are on the line.

What happens on your ships is your issue

Thank you. So you accept that modifying fishing nets and techniques to fit in with avoiding dolphins is a sovereign issue.

P.S. If you want intellectual discussion, remember Step 1 of How To Engage In Intellectual Discussion: spell 'intellectual' correctly.

Just because the wording of a law is silly doesn't make it a bad law.

In the interrim, would you want to be the person responsible for senseless dolphin deaths as whole industries gear up to turn our gentle friends into puppy chow.

We are protecting lives here.

A repeal is not justified under such circumstances. Better to revise, or edit, not revoke when lives are on the line.

can't do M'fraid - ammendments are not allowed due to technicalities or somesuch, ergo repeal and post a better un!

And the better resolution IS the next one - which might be invalidated by this not being repealed (actually a question to peoples - would this not getting past invalidate the next resolution??)

So vote yes for more lives being saved by a wildlife conservation bill

I'm beginning to feel we should have passed UNCoESB, then try a repeal on this. Redundancy would be a much better argument against this resolution but as it stands now, the argument that dolphins would be totally unprotected should this pass is a valid one.

I can't stress VL's point enough - although I'm probably putting words in his mouth. Nonetheless, be assured, the UNCoESB is up NEXT, and is currently looking like being widely supported. So if you're a wonderful dolphin-lover, you can protect them to the full extent of the PoDA and MORE SO under the terms of the UNCoESB.

First of all, I just wanted to say that i am glad that the dolphins are not an endanged species. The only problem is that if we don't repeal the act, dolphins will end up being on the endangered list. If there were an overabundace of dolphins, then I would say go ahead and kill them. But that is not the case. Dolphins should be left alone or be in aquariams amusing audiences. :D

That means I'm trusting the nations of the world not to do anything embarisingly stupid with these dolphins, like wipe them out or anything.

I can't stress VL's point enough - although I'm probably putting words in his mouth. Nonetheless, be assured, the UNCoESB is up NEXT, and is currently looking like being widely supported. So if you're a wonderful dolphin-lover, you can protect them to the full extent of the PoDA and MORE SO under the terms of the UNCoESB.


Now that's just not true...just spin to help this resolution.


UNCoESB in no way protects endangered Orders of Animals.


Meaning as long as one species is thriving (like the bottlenose Dolphin) then the Ganges and Indus River Dolphins are not.


The UNCoESB is a good general but will not protect the most endangered.


Remember there are only 81 species of Cetaceans (Aquatic Mammals).



As to compare it to there are about 4,000 species of Rodentia (Rodents). 51 different Species of rats alone.


The fact is, Cetaceans are one of the rarest Orders of Animals on the planet and in no way does UNCoESB protects Orders of Animals.


Simply put, repealing the Whale and Dolphin resolutions effectively puts 78 of the 81 Cetaceans at risk.


And that's IF UNCoESB is passed.

(Seriously, double-spacing does NOT make your posts easier to read. Nor does quadruple-spacing.)

Anyway, if you choose to classify all species that are members of the order Cetaceans as endangered, then they're all protected. I don't understand how you can argue that the UNCoESB won't protect dolphins.

Thank you. So you accept that modifying fishing nets and techniques to fit in with avoiding dolphins is a sovereign issue.

P.S. If you want intellectual discussion, remember Step 1 of How To Engage In Intellectual Discussion: spell 'intellectual' correctly.

Your logic still never ceases to amaze me. Entire colonies of rhodents could live in the holes of your swiss cheese reasoning.

However you want to fish in your nation's waters is entirely up to you. The former resolution did not dictate that at all.

IF you desire to fish in international waters, then EVERYONE who chooses to excercise his or her voice in international politics has a say in how you fish there. If you want to fish in waters that are not in your national territory then you must follow international law. If you desire to fish in international waters or not is your soverign decision. If you choose to follow international law and thereby avoid trade embargos is also your decision. How you go about making sure you are in line with international policy and law is also your national soverign decision. What is and is not international law is NOT your soverign right or decision, although you have a right to have a voice in international politics as long as you are a UN nation in good standing. Oh, and furthermore... your choice to be a part of the UN or not is ALSO your decision. So, again... care to point out to me where the previous resolution steps on your precariously sensative nationally soverign toes?

As far as mispellings, I would rather mispell the occasional words and have sound arguments than to try to bluster my way unthinking through international politics with no rhime, reason, or salt to my arguments. When you come up with a valid argument stating that PoDA steps on national soverignty, I'll pay attention. Until that point, for someone who chooses to abandon all logic in the face of politics, I have no more time for.

I'm beginning to feel we should have passed UNCoESB, then try a repeal on this. Redundancy would be a much better argument against this resolution but as it stands now, the argument that dolphins would be totally unprotected should this pass is a valid one.

Yeah, I'm getting that opinion too.....shame.

Well, we didn't. So, let's just approve the both of them, and no one will know any different.

(Seriously, double-spacing does NOT make your posts easier to read. Nor does quadruple-spacing.)

Anyway, if you choose to classify all species that are members of the order Cetaceans as endangered, then they're all protected. I don't understand how you can argue that the UNCoESB won't protect dolphins.

Thanks for your opinion about double spacing but I respectfully disagree.

From a taxonomical point of view, there are 5 different definitions of what makes a Species.


morphological species (duck and a chicken), biological species (a horse and a donkey), mate-recognition species (a wolf and a domestic dog), phylogenetic species (Asians Humans and Africans Humans) and microspecies (Black footed ferret).

78 of the 81 Cetaceans fall under one of those definition.

Again, the UNCoESB is good regarding general policy but when it comes to an abnormal small Order of animals, it is lacking.

But let's stop saying that no sovereignty issue is at stake, because it detracts from the rest of the issue.I don't know about you but I don't usually say things I don't believe in.

The UNCoESB looks good to me btw. I haven't examined it thoroughly yet as I usually do with proposals but I like the idea.

"Ah Mom, the tuna doesn't taste as good as it used to..." :-)

seen on the internet:

We were at a restaurant and I ordered the veal Parmesan. One of the Induhviduals in my group indignantly asked how I could possibly order that. I remarked that I only eat it at places that serve "dolphin-safe" veal. She got a deliciously confused look on her face for a few seconds and then said, "oh..."

I voted in favour of this repeal.
Rationale:

The United Nations is a governing body of sovereign nations, and it deals with mainly HUMAN rights issues and issues for increasing safety and living standards for the HUMANS in collective nation states. I don't care how cute, loveable, intellectual and close to humans dolphins are they are NON-HUMAN and don't give the "African Americans, Amerindians and Indus Valley Indians were once considered non\sub-human" argument. There is an extreme difference between humans and dolphins.

For example, dolphins cannot (suprisingly enough) speak human language - the races wrongly considerd "not human" could speak human language. Dolphins cannot vote, dolphins are not going to build nuclear armaments.

My argument is not that I am some sort of an anti-evironmental bastard, it's that the United Nations should focus it's legislation on real problems.

Social equality and protection\enforcement of HUMAN rights should be the main persued issues of the United Nations. Why should we sacrifice time that could be better focused on human rights on dolphins when there is far worse suffering elsewhere in the world.

Thanks for your opinion about double spacing but I respectfully disagree.

From a taxonomical point of view, there are 5 different definitions of what makes a Species.


morphological species (duck and a chicken), biological species (a horse and a donkey), mate-recognition species (a wolf and a domestic dog), phylogenetic species (Asians Humans and Africans Humans) and microspecies (Black footed ferret).

78 of the 81 Cetaceans fall under one of those definition.

Again, the UNCoESB is good regarding general policy but when it comes to an abnormal small Order of animals, it is lacking.


In layman's terms large Orders (for example, the rotten, which consist of 4,000 different species) will be sufficiently protected under the UNCoESB because of the broad genetic differences.

Where as the smaller Orders (Cetaceans, which consists of only 81 different species) will not.

First off I am glad to see my esteemed colleague Ambassador Riley has gotten this piece of legislation up for vote. ;) At first I thought he was crazy to try to try to get the repeal. But he and others perservered, and today we begin debate and voting. Well done noble sirs and ladies,well done indeed. Now that the nicities are over le me begin. Once before my country was a member of the UN, we had a booming tuna fishing and canning business. Palentine's Best brand Tuna was a name you could trust. Mothers loved it, and it brought smiles to the faces of our beloved children. It was their favorite lunch and afternoon snack. Then my country joined the UN, and great saddness befell the cold antarctic lands of the Palentine. :( Now we had to start protecting the flippered buggers. It was simply awful to hear the lamentations of my country's children,"Mommy this tuna doesn't taste the same anymore! Its yucky!" They cried when they played with their pet penguins, the little tears freezing on their rosy cheeks. Furthermore this ban caused an upsurge in licentiousness and degeneracy. Unemployed fishermen and cannery workers started frequenting dockside dives and saloons. There they perfomed acts of great depravity just to earn a few greenbacks, in order to buy more whiskey to drown thier sorrows, and forget their shame. But Now a Ray of Hope emerges. For the sake of the children(and the drunken degenerates in the dives) repeal this ban on dolphin harvesting. Besides apart from being filler in my canned tuna products, the Palentine has only a few real uses for Dolphins. Wefound that they can check the hulls of ships for underwater mines. Furthemore my military discovered that with some positve and negative reinforcement, dolphins can be trained to place explosives on the hulls of ships. The Military has also hinted they discovered a third use, but claim that they cannot move foreward on testing until the ban is repealed. Hopefully this repeal will pass and we can get on with the business on downsizing the UN by getting other resolutions repealed. After all, the government which governs best, governs least! :D
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Palentine

I voted in favour of this repeal.
Rationale:

The United Nations is a governing body of sovereign nations, and it deals with mainly HUMAN rights issues and issues for increasing safety and living standards for the HUMANS in collective nation states. I don't care how cute, loveable, intellectual and close to humans dolphins are they are NON-HUMAN and don't give the "African Americans, Amerindians and Indus Valley Indians were once considered non\sub-human" argument. There is an extreme difference between humans and dolphins.

For example, dolphins cannot (suprisingly enough) speak human language - the races wrongly considerd "not human" could speak human language. Dolphins cannot vote, dolphins are not going to build nuclear armaments.

My argument is not that I am some sort of an anti-evironmental bastard, it's that the United Nations should focus it's legislation on real problems.

Social equality and protection\enforcement of HUMAN rights should be the main persued issues of the United Nations. Why should we sacrifice time that could be better focused on human rights on dolphins when there is far worse suffering elsewhere in the world.

I just love uninformed opinions with no factual basis. (please note the scarcasm)

Please read http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2

These are the Binding Rules for Proposals to the UN in regards to the types of proposals that are appropriate fodder for the NSUN to legislate.

Just to quote a very small section here... Proposal Categories
There seems to be some confusion as to what the existing UN proposal categories do, so I'll try to describe them in more detail here. Note that any reference to "government" refers to the governments of UN member nations, not the UN itself. References to "Personal" and "Civil" Freedoms are identical and completely interchangeable.

...

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

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind.

Please fact check before stating what the UN is and isn't for under the official guidelines. The UN was not brought into existance for simply Human Rights issues in the slightest. In point of fact, Human Rights issues are but one of the many sub sections that can and have been addressed by this renound body of international politicians.

...Besides apart from being filler in my canned tuna products, the Palentine has only a few real uses for Dolphins. Wefound that they can check the hulls of ships for underwater mines. Furthemore my military discovered that with some positve and negative reinforcement, dolphins can be trained to place explosives on the hulls of ships. The Military has also hinted they discovered a third use, but claim that they cannot move foreward on testing until the ban is repealed. Hopefully this repeal will pass and we can get on with the business on downsizing the UN by getting other resolutions repealed. After all, the government which governs best, governs least!

Please refer to page 4 of this topic and read my discourse there on how this particular act does not affect your national choices. The only strong stand in this entire act was in regards to international waters.

Question to all: Is INFORMED opinions a thing of the past? It sure seems that way.

We are very confidant that it will.

Better to have that seen as proof positive passed, rather than just confidant. "Confidant" does not make it so.

I see nothing in this new proposal that will be negated by leaving any current resolutions in place. Perhaps there is someone more studied in this resolution than I who would be willing to point out how leaving the PoDA in place will keep UNCoESB from being able to be implimented.

Better to have that seen as proof positive passed, rather than just confidant. "Confidant" does not make it so.

I see nothing in this new proposal that will be negated by leaving any current resolutions in place. Perhaps there is someone more studied in this resolution than I who would be willing to point out how leaving the PoDA in place will keep UNCoESB from being able to be implimented.
Sir, With respect, One of the goals of the new bill is in fact to rid the UN of needless singular conservation bills being implemented for every animal that has the misfortune of approaching extinction or the fortune of being too cute n cuddly to accept the hunting of.
We endorse the Idea of a single conservation bill that gives the Individual members more control of conservation efforts, and gets rid of multiple costly and inefficient comittees and their affiliates for a single commitee with a wider scope.
Our feed back on the UNCoESB leads us to believe it will be accepted as a resolution and regardless of wither or not this repeal is voted in the new bill will make it redundant.
My time here is Precious. I would rather this is repealed now instead of a week from now.

I am encouraged by the initial lead for those against this repeal. It saddens me that the cretin leaders of so many ill fated countries chose to take two years of strong economy now, rather than the generations of strong, wonderful memories held by those who witness natures creatures. I am not some 84 y/o grandma, but still, you should be ashamed of yourselves. The Dolphin act may have been a useless waste of time for the UN, but surely the repeal of such an act is even more ridiculous. Ohmygodtheykilledkenny has lost all regard for the dignity of the UN, and is rather out to settle a personal vendetta. :headbang: How do you sleep at night?

I am disturbed that there is not even a "proper" poll.Yo. If you got a problem with the Thessadorian ambassador's ample cleavage, take it up with her. Don't fault me for enjoying the view. :cool:

Ohmygodtheykilledkenny has lost all regard for the dignity of the UN, and is rather out to settle a personal vendetta. How do you sleep at night?On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.

(OOC: Fret ye not, folks; I'll get to posting more substantively later on.)

This dolphin act is a load of B.S. You should fish how u want, when u want, and where u want :headbang: :mp5: :sniper:

:)

King Hassan the Chop, ambassador for the Capitalist Wing approaches the podium...

Fellow members of the mostly liberal UN:

I would like to second my colleage who was asking why do we the UN have any proposals in the books that does not better the living conditions of our fellow sentient beings of this world? :confused:

I would further like to back my proof that dolphins aren't sentient beings by stating the fact if a dolphin knew any better on how to preserve it's life, it would swim into the waters of a nation that wants to be a safe haven for dolphins... ;)

But that's not the case. Dolphins are too stupid to know any better. Making them non-sentient beings, making them animals--beasts for our usage (whether for nourishment, beasts of burden or pets).

Soooo with this said, I once again ask, why even bother protecting this creature, let us vote to repeal this law and move back into the business of helping our fellow sentient beings on this world.

Now to go all the way back to my beginning point pertaining to the fact that this was originally a liberal proposal--That goes to control, liberals like to control everything including what we all do with our animals in our own boarders--And with that I tell all liberals to GET OFF OUR BACKS!!! :upyours:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Now that's just not true...just spin to help this resolution.The Representatives of VL and the Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia resent your implication that we are in the Business of Spin.
We present our views with the best interests of the UN Members as we see them and we will stand our ground no matter how unpopular our views may be.


UNCoESB in no way protects endangered Orders of Animals.
Yes it does. Under the Provision of "Species of National Importance".

Meaning as long as one species is thriving (like the bottlenose Dolphin) then the Ganges and Indus River Dolphins are not. If your Nation decrees the Ganges or indus or liffey river dolphin as a SoNI as stated above then that animal is protected under the new Bill


The UNCoESB is a good general but will not protect the most endangered.Bullshit! The Full escalation part of the New bill does exactly that and has the full funding of the bill provided.


Remember there are only 81 species of Cetaceans (Aquatic Mammals).Not of any importance. Wither there are 1billion or just one species the new bill provides protections.



As to compare it to there are about 4,000 species of Rodentia (Rodents). 51 different Species of rats alone.as Above, Irrellivant.


The fact is, Cetaceans are one of the rarest Orders of Animals on the planet and in no way does UNCoESB protects Orders of Animals.You are repeating yourself! are you drunk? As said above! BS yes it does.


Simply put, repealing the Whale and Dolphin resolutions effectively puts 78 of the 81 Cetaceans at risk. true, for a period of 6 days!


And that's IF UNCoESB is passed.We are very confidant that it will.

The vote is very close in the early going. The repeal is currently losing by 891 votes. This one is going down to the wire.

The vote is very close in the early going. The repeal is currently losing by 891 votes. This one is going down to the wire.

That's two in a row like that.....only the last one was in a reversed situation

That was stupid.....I forgot about Sex Ed Act....

"Please fact check before stating what the UN is and isn't for under the official guidelines. The UN was not brought into existance for simply Human Rights issues in the slightest. In point of fact, Human Rights issues are but one of the many sub sections that can and have been addressed by this renound body of international politicians."

I sincerly apologise, I am quite new, especially to the forums.

However, I still think the United Nations should be focusing on more broader issues than that of just dolphins. If you want to go protecting things why be exclusive? This repeal could mean a better protection act be put in it's place rather than ever lover of a specific animal putting in their proposal for protecting whatever they have a love for.

:)

King Hassan the Chop, ambassador for the Capitalist Wing approaches the podium...

Fellow members of the mostly liberal UN:

I would like to second my colleage who was asking why do we the UN have any proposals in the books that does not better the living conditions of our fellow sentient beings of this world? :confused:

I would further like to back my proof that dolphins aren't sentient beings by stating the fact if a dolphin knew any better on how to preserve it's life, it would swim into the waters of a nation that wants to be a safe haven for dolphins... ;)

But that's not the case. Dolphins are too stupid to know any better. Making them non-sentient beings, making them animals--beasts for our usage (whether for nourishment, beasts of burden or pets).

Soooo with this said, I once again ask, why even bother protecting this creature, let us vote to repeal this law and move back into the business of helping our fellow sentient beings on this world.

Now to go all the way back to my beginning point pertaining to the fact that this was originally a liberal proposal--That goes to control, liberals like to control everything including what we all do with our animals in our own boarders--And with that I tell all liberals to GET OFF OUR BACKS!!! :upyours:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand


I am getting quite sick and tired of your generalisations blaming "leftists" (not liberals, as they are the conservative party in Australia so I just can't think of them in the American fashion) for any and every resolution you don't like.

I am a leftist. I voted against the original resolution on this and I voted for the repeal. I am sure there are conservatives/rightists who voted for the orginal resolution and against this repeal.

From what I've observed, few people vote on these things strictly on party or political lines. Some may, some vote because they like the name, some of us actually read the bloody thing and vote according to concience.

The Representatives of VL and the Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia resent your implication that we are in the Business of Spin.
We present our views with the best interests of the UN Members as we see them and we will stand our ground no matter how unpopular our views may be.



Yes it does. Under the Provision of "Species of National Importance".

If your Nation decrees the Ganges or indus or liffey river dolphin as a SoNI as stated above then that animal is protected under the new Bill


Bullshit! The Full escalation part of the New bill does exactly that and has the full funding of the bill provided.


Not of any importance. Wither there are 1billion or just one species the new bill provides protections.



as Above, Irrellivant.


You are repeating yourself! are you drunk? As said above! BS yes it does.


true, for a period of 6 days!


We are very confidant that it will.

You need to work on your Taxonomy.


As your proposal is stated, if Humans applied, if New Hamiltonians were doing fine, then the Venerable libertarians would not be protected.


Unknowing to you (obviously) that there are 5 classes of "species".


As UNCoESB is written now, only 3 out 81 Cetaceans families would be recognized, Whale, Dolphin and Porpoise.


Unless of course I missed the definition of species in the proposal, UNCoESB has a HUGE loophole that would put 93% of Aquatic Mammals at risk.

As I am very much into freedom of choice, I feel that certain things are above all more important then the freedom to choose. Protecting a spieces such has the dolphin is important, althouh I don't fully agree with the terms of the PD Act, I feel it's overall importancy be ackowledge. Unless a new proposition that allows for the protection of all animals is proposed I'll keep my vote aganist this repeal.

As I am very much into freedom of choice, I feel that certain things are above all more important then the freedom to choose. Protecting a spieces such has the dolphin is important, althouh I don't fully agree with the terms of the PD Act, I feel it's overall importancy be ackowledge. Unless a new proposition that allows for the protection of all animals is proposed I'll keep my vote aganist this repeal.
Not only is it proposed, It has reached quorum and awaits ratification after this repeal has been voted on. Look up UNCoESB in the proposal queue.

You need to work on your Taxonomy.tax·on·o·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tk-sn-m)
n. pl. tax·on·o·mies
The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships.
The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics.
Division into ordered groups or categories: “Scholars have been laboring to develop a taxonomy of young killers”
Irrelevant!


As your proposal is stated, if Humans applied, if New Hamiltonians were doing fine, then the Venerable libertarians would not be protected.Yes, As it stands VL's number in Billions. However if VL's reached the marker set by the UNCoESB executive efforts would be taken to swell the VL numbers by Breeding and capture.


Unknowing to you (obviously) that there are 5 classes of "species".Unknown? perhaps, But none the less Irrevelant as the word Species encapsulates all five classes. You will note i used the word Species in my proposal.


As UNCoESB is written now, only 3 out 81 Cetaceans families would be recognized, Whale, Dolphin and Porpoise.Where are you reading that from? let me give you an NS Education on cetaceans. In the waters surrounding VL there are 185 classified Ceteceans. If one comes under threat of extinction if the new bill is passed, The executive has been put in place to see that animals recovery. Another has exploded meanwhile and due to the fact that it is an animal deemed by our people as sacred we can under the new bill force a protection order banning harm on it. This is NS. Real life figures do not apply to the Nations here.


Unless of course I missed the definition of species in the proposal, UNCoESB has a HUGE loophole that would put 93% of Aquatic Mammals at risk.Where do you get this figure? And you are wrong! totaly wrong!

:)



But that's not the case. Dolphins are too stupid to know any better. Making them non-sentient beings, making them animals--beasts for our usage (whether for nourishment, beasts of burden or pets).

Soooo with this said, I once again ask, why even bother protecting this creature, let us vote to repeal this law and move back into the business of helping our fellow sentient beings on this world.

Now to go all the way back to my beginning point pertaining to the fact that this was originally a liberal proposal--That goes to control, liberals like to control everything including what we all do with our animals in our own boarders--And with that I tell all liberals to GET OFF OUR BACKS!!! :upyours: [/COLOR]

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand


King Hassan shows here his low knowledge about dolphins...i just send him back to school to get little more info about them.
Watch discovery channel sometimes, or animal channel...i dunno if somebody is stupid here its you! Dolphins have possible more intelligence than you.

And back to poor human beings who suffer sooooo much under the dolphin?
What about freezing the prices on world market so countrys who cant be competitive becouse of falling down fishing industries(sorry just own fault, if countrys who has most powerfull fishing industry were more confident with dolphins and used technoligies to avoid hurting them, protection was never even elected to avoid dolphine casualitys) still will be able to sell their wares, and make profit.

Search for economical solvation of this trouble. Becouse when you say you are trying to help poor countrys who need fishing....i see huge fleets of other powerfull countrys who will come and fish whole sea empty so poor countrys will stay poor and still there will be starvation!
You just trying to fill your pockets little more by telling us dolphine protection hurt poor countrys lol, dont let me laught!
Dont forget its pressure of other, more powerfull countrys that cause falldown in welth. If we dont protect dolphine, we will wipe it out in few years, dolphine gone=ecosystem will be falling apart even farther...whats next? every specie has its own place in sea ecology...actually HUMANS are the ones who dont belong there.

[At night I sleep] on top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.
Figures. I pray you never lead my country.

tax·on·o·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tk-sn-m)
n. pl. tax·on·o·mies
The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships.
The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics.
Division into ordered groups or categories: “Scholars have been laboring to develop a taxonomy of young killers”
Irrelevant!


Yes, As it stands VL's number in Billions. However if VL's reached the marker set by the UNCoESB executive efforts would be taken to swell the VL numbers by Breeding and capture.


Unknown? perhaps, But none the less Irrevelant as the word Species encapsulates all five classes. You will note i used the word Species in my proposal.


Where are you reading that from? let me give you an NS Education on cetaceans. In the waters surrounding VL there are 185 classified Ceteceans. If one comes under threat of extinction if the new bill is passed, The executive has been put in place to see that animals recovery. Another has exploded meanwhile and due to the fact that it is an animal deemed by our people as sacred we can under the new bill force a protection order banning harm on it. This is NS. Real life figures do not apply to the Nations here.


Where do you get this figure? And you are wrong! totaly wrong!

OOC: LOL, I understand how the boards work, alas nothing can be debated due the simple fact that we are more in parallel universes than, let's say, a model simulation.

I'll play accordingly.

IC:

UNCoESB does not define what classifies as a species.

Therefore it's not sufficient enough to argue that this will indeed be a comparable replacement.


To argue that Dolphins are no longer endangered, only proves the effectiveness of the ban.


And I just don't see how a Dolphin ban would affect the Trout Fishing Industry.


Even Saltwater Trout.

OCC:LOL , remember the Dolphin fishing Industry doesn't exist in NationStates.

IC:

So I really don't see a reason to repeal it.

The Holy Empire of Giant Squid Eaters has voted NO. We also wish to know if you're retarded in the brain or not.

Fish aren't friends...but dolphins are. AND once we have taught them to use lfreaking laser beams attach to their freaking heads, we will all wish we hadn't saved them as they crush us under their iron fin as a new dolphin world order rises from the ashes of our doomed civilization. But for the time being, we voted against this resolution because no intelligent life form deserves to die...but chickens must die for my consumption!

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

I like the summary statement, we need more of those.
However, I am in favour of protecting dolphins. Atleest until it is sorted out wich ones should be allowed to be "fished" and how many.

Question to all: Is INFORMED opinions a thing of the past?Yes, along with properly constructed sentences.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever with repeals but stating that a resolution is "an encroachment on national sovereignty" is an argument that holds absolutely no water whatsoever regardless of the resolution in question.

Every single passed resolution overrides existing laws in everysingle [sic] UN member nation, so that argument can be made about any resolution, or any proposal for that matter, which indicates an attitude towards lawmaking that I find to be harmfull [sic] to the purpose of this body of sovereign nations, the UN.Ah, the old, “You can’t complain about national sovereignty because you naturally surrender part of it when you join the UN” bit. Usually followed by the tasteful suggestion: “If you don’t like the UN imposing its resolutions on your nation, why don’t you just resign?”

That crow won’t caw. Just because the UN can infringe upon national sovereignty, it doesn’t mean it should. Likewise, it may be perfectly permissible for me to drink excessively and have unprotected sex – it doesn’t mean I should.

We are honored that the president of Hersfold could take time out of his busy schedule to grace us with his presence. We would think that the ruler of a nation would have more important things to do than to travel such a long distance just to give a five-minute speech in a routine UN debate -- as that task is usually delegated to a foreign minister or UN ambassador, but welcome regardless. However, as your contributions to the debate seem based purely in drama and hyperbole, we will not deign to engage them.

Mark my words. Dolphins are evil! See what they do the next time a Vogon Constructor Fleet comes nearby, they'll desert us for sure!

Our nation is compulsorily vegitarian and pacifist. We would be rather hippocritical if we voted for this proposition. If a proposition which was more flexible, allowing for wildlife management of dolphins if they become overpopulated would be voted for. Also, we feel that the word "harm" in the original is far too vague, since living in an aquarium could be construed as harmful. Dophins in captivity generally live shorter lives, but we feel that the educational value is important.

Regardless, we have decided to vote against this proposition, due to the fact that we feel that fishing is a barbaric practice, and wish to have no hand in promoting it.

The holy emperor of South Valhalla expresses his opinion that the good, respectable fishermen of his nation deserve to hunt as they see fit, for the good of the national, regional, and international economies.

OOC: This is the first post by New Kahlifonia in the UN. Colonel "Makel" is about 6'2" with sun-tanned skin, brunette dreadlocks, and a wild beard. He wears a simple, organic cotton, sleeveless T-shirt and jeans. He is barefoot. Incidentally, this is the uniform of the New Kahlifonian military. His eyes are bloodshot, and he loses focus every few words. The rest of the delegation is made of men and women of similar attire. Only Makel speaks, but the others will pipe in with the occaisional "dude", "right on", or "pass me that".

Dude... Like in the past we used to allow slavery in this world. It was acceptable... We don't do that anymore...

We the people... For centuries.. uhm... where was I? *whispers* oh.. right..

Not so long ago.. I think last week... we the people of New Kahlifonia used to enslave animals. The worked for us. They like died so we could eat them... That's like so wrong... Meat is sooo murder... We gave that up. Animals are our friends... We like outlawed the use of animals for anything, and we are slowly ridding the country of animal products... Except wool.. 'cause that's like not bad and stuff...

So like... yeah... dolphins are cool.. and they are our friends, too... So uhm... we are like voting no on this... 'cause uhm... yeah... we want Dolphins to live in our waters, too!

uhm.. yeah..

*the delegation stands and chants*

MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER! MEAT IS MURDER!

*sits down*

UNCoESB does not define what classifies as a species.

Irrelevant. Computer Crimes Act doesn't define a computer either. Many resolutions don't include definitions of things that anyone with common sense will understand without them being defined.

Therefore it's not sufficient enough to argue that this will indeed be a comparable replacement.

You're wrong. Threatened species will be fully protected.


To argue that Dolphins are no longer endangered, only proves the effectiveness of the ban.

They were not endangered before the ban.


And I just don't see how a Dolphin ban would affect the Trout Fishing Industry.

The same way that Mitigation of Large Reservoirs does. It affects all businesses.


Even Saltwater Trout.

OCC:LOL , remember the Dolphin fishing Industry doesn't exist in NationStates.

IC:

So I really don't see a reason to repeal it.

Saltwater Trout? What are you talking about here?

Our holy gods recognise their right to eat intelligent food. As we ourselves recognise how delightful an experience it is to -not- be crushed to death in a squid god's beak, we fully support this fine proposal, that ensures that dolphins replace our fellow citizens, on our gods' dinner plates.

*Translation of the ASG UN ambassadour's words, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHH! FTNHG! BLBLBLB!", uttered whilst pulling madly at his hair and drooling profusely.*

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda would like to tell the UN that we're glad that a reasonable resolution has come up after weeks of suffering poorly written, sub-standard proposals.

Although we disagree with the reasons for repealing, we urge all nations to vote for so the much better UNCoESB proposal can be implemented. We do not need a resolution for each cute animal to be protected. We need good, all-round protection of endangered species.

In other words: protect endangered species, vote for this repeal!

Our nation is compulsorily vegitarian and pacifist. We would be rather hippocritical if we voted for this proposition.

If this resolution is preventing a better resolution being written, would it still be hippocritial? Because that's how this UN works. The dolphin resolution is stopping good resolutions being implemented.

Also, dolphins aren't endangered by being food, but by being caught up in nets for other fishes.

If a proposition which was more flexible, allowing for wildlife management of dolphins if they become overpopulated would be voted for.

There's a resolution coming up protecting endangered species in general, with more punitive clauses for nations disobeying those rules. We don't need this resolution. And there is no way a better resolution can be implemented without repealing this one first.

Regardless, we have decided to vote against this proposition, due to the fact that we feel that fishing is a barbaric practice, and wish to have no hand in promoting it.

There's no promoting involved in this repeal. All that happens is that the issue is left to individual nations if this is repealed. For a short time, because by then the UNCoESB can be implemented. And you're free to make better legislation for your country.

I am getting quite sick and tired of your generalisations blaming "leftists" (not liberals, as they are the conservative party in Australia so I just can't think of them in the American fashion) for any and every resolution you don't like.

I am a leftist. I voted against the original resolution on this and I voted for the repeal. I am sure there are conservatives/rightists who voted for the orginal resolution and against this repeal.

From what I've observed, few people vote on these things strictly on party or political lines. Some may, some vote because they like the name, some of us actually read the bloody thing and vote according to concience.

First of all let me apologize for using the term "liberal":

From now on I will call you wanabee world controlers "leftys".

Now as for your nation, Waterana, yours is the exception to the definition of lefty and not the rule. You acturally have a concience--and I am proud that you can leave your "party lines" and vote with it. Unfortunately most leftys want to control...Well the world. And it is here where the line in the sand is drawn.

I once again stand by my statement where the UN should be discussing and implimenting changes that will help our fellow sentient beings (I go past human-kind for we know that there are nations that are made up of other beings such as Elves, Goblins, and Dwarves to name a few...and oh yes that this world even goes beyond this planet). OK but the finality for this is the issue at hand, repealing the Dolphin protection laws.

Dolphin usage will help our fellow sentient beings with food and other usages soooooo I must say that we have to repeal this law in order to help out our less-fortunate sentient beings.

If you leftys don't like it--SUFFER

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I was intending to vote FOR, but in light of several comments by Hersfold I have decided to keep my regions vote as an abstention for the moment. I will follow the debate closely.

First of all let me apologize for using the term "liberal":

From now on I will call you wanabee world controlers "leftys".

Now as for your nation, Waterana, yours is the exception to the definition of lefty and not the rule. You acturally have a concience--and I am proud that you can leave your "party lines" and vote with it. Unfortunately most leftys want to control...Well the world. And it is here where the line in the sand is drawn.

I once again stand by my statement where the UN should be discussing and implimenting changes that will help our fellow sentient beings (I go past human-kind for we know that there are nations that are made up of other beings such as Elves, Goblins, and Dwarves to name a few...and oh yes that this world even goes beyond this planet). OK but the finality for this is the issue at hand, repealing the Dolphin protection laws.

Dolphin usage will help our fellow sentient beings with food and other usages soooooo I must say that we have to repeal this law in order to help out our less-fortunate sentient beings.

If you leftys don't like it--SUFFER

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Apology accepted :).

The only thing that really peeved me off, and resulted in that rant I posted, was the word "all". If you would consider please toning that down to "most" or "almost all" to exclude those of us who don't want to rule the world but just try to improve rights and freedoms for all people everywhere, then you won't ever hear from me again on this subject ;):).

As for the repeal, I am for it as I said before but my reasons are different. The next resolution we will vote on will be a much better and fairer way to protect all endangered animals than this one.

Unfortunately most leftys want to control...Well the world. And it is here where the line in the sand is drawn.
If you leftys don't like it--SUFFER

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
You know something, you're right. The leftys want to take over the world by giving the power to others. Ergo the term "liberal". (Yes I used the word "ergo", and no offense to Waterana) Now you "righties", all you want to do is dominate the world through economic strength and suppression of the poor. So what if some dolphins get killed by this repeal? I'M MAKING MONEY!!! (Right??)
That's it, keep up the good work, and remember, hypocrisy is good for the soul (your soul anyway).

Greetings.

We of Roathin note with some amusement that Orcinus orca, the fabled killer whale, is the largest and most successful predator in the dolphin family. Should delegates shift their psychological focus, the results would be interesting. We doubt that the orca would be as 'cute' or as 'snuggly' an icon for the 'save the dolphins' campaign.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note with some amusement that Orcinus orca, the fabled killer whale, is the largest and most successful predator in the dolphin family. Should delegates shift their psychological focus, the results would be interesting. We doubt that the orca would be as 'cute' or as 'snuggly' an icon for the 'save the dolphins' campaign.Cats are also natural predators. They are still cute and snuggly.

Somebody has been reading to much Douglas Adams.

You know something, you're right. The leftys want to take over the world by giving the power to others. Sorry. Wrong. Many of you want power because you assume you are more enlightened than the common folk, and therefore your values must be superior, and therefore all people must comport to your particular value system. Ergo the term "liberal".Now you "righties", all you want to do is dominate the world through economic strength and suppression of the poor.Umm, put down your "Communist Manifesto" for a sec. Then we can talk.So what if some dolphins get killed by this repeal? I'M MAKING MONEY!!! (Right??)Have you been paying any attention at all to this debate? This repeal is not about killing dolphins; it actually augments a bill that would protect all endangered species, and though I haven't yet decided on how to vote on that bill, it is far superior to the Protection of Dolphins Act, which gives no justification for dolphins' protection, aside from the fact that they are cute and cuddly and we love them because they are so "intelligent." THE UNCoESB is a thoughtful resolution seeking to solve the serious problem of animal endangerment. The dolphins act, by comparison, is an embarrassing, poorly written, poorly reasoned bit of fluff that has no place in the annals of UN legislation.How do you sleep at night?
"On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies."
Figures. I pray you never lead my country.Never heard of "The Simpsons," I take it? What a horrible, humorless life you must lead.

Regards,
John Riley

It is rare that my government actually actively encourages our political allies to vote for or against a UN resolution, as Mikitivity usually perfers neutrality and compromise to actually putting forth a strong and unified position.

This repeal however is based on a very flawed and illogical idea, allow me to read the first preambulatory clause:

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;

The problem here should have legal scholars from any nation biting their tongue ... national sovereignty is the concept of DOMESTIC rule, and yet the author of this repeal claims that national sovereignty now extends to international waters???

I'm sorry, but sovereignty, in the context of international politics and law, is the point at which only a single nation can claim to have self-rule. International resources are precisely the type of thing that the United Nations (and I shouldn't have to emphasis that nations is plural) should be discussing and passing resolutions about.

Fundamentally, the justification for this repeal is fatally flawed. If it passes, we'd be setting a legal precedent which says that the United Nations has no international authority, because anything that takes place outside of a nation's borders would still be "sovereign". I'm sorry, but even if the rest of the repeal were based on solid grounds, given that we can not repeal a repeal, we are STRONGLY opposed to this motion.

That said, if a future repeal were to not include a flawed statement like "the UN can't legislate over international affairs because they are domestic", my government will remain receptive to the repeal. In fact, we'd like to encourage nations to continue to build strong cases for improving UN resolutions ... but sadly this repeal's fatal flaw really forces my government's hand.

Ambassador Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity
Office of International Affairs

Fundamentally, the justification for this repeal is fatally flawed. If it passes, we'd be setting a legal precedent which says that the United Nations has no international authority, because anything that takes place outside of a nation's borders would still be "sovereign". I'm sorry, but even if the rest of the repeal were based on solid grounds, given that we can not repeal a repeal, we are STRONGLY opposed to this motion.

This was my thought when I first saw this proposal, and I then chose not to support it (and telegrammed by objections to the author). However, now it's up for vote, I'll still vote FOR. I don't think that repeal arguments are valid legislation. All that happens is that a resolution is repealed. The reason should have no effect on future legislation. So if this passes, there is no effect on laws about international waters. Because if it would have that effect, this repeal would probably be illegal in the first place.

Sadly, because the author wrote the wrong argument, it might not pass. If he'd just have said that the dolphin resolution was crap and a much better resolution providing adequate protection to not just dolphins, but all other endangered species as well, it would have a much bigger chance in passing.

Pity. Still, I advise everyone to vote for the repeal of the dolphin resolution. In the UN office of my nation, "dolphins" are already used for plans that are not thought out, and we fear the moment when the proposal protecting transgender dolphins will come up...

Sorry. Wrong. Many of you want power because you assume you are more enlightened than the common folk, and therefore your values must be superior, and therefore all people must comport to your particular value system. Ergo the term "liberal"....
...Never heard of "The Simpsons," I take it? What a horrible, humorless life you must lead.

Hmmmmm... that makes sense, wait, which wing is it that wants to give more power TO the people, regardless of opinion, ergo the term "government for the people by the people"? Oh, yeah, and which wing is it that wants to repeal protection of nature for the benefit of business? You're right, I don't watch the simpsons, and I'm glad, because I see how it corrupts morals.

(Protection of Wildlife)
If it passes. From the general shouts of support I'm hearing, it probably will, but that's not certain.
(...)
I have yet to see a decent argument in favor of this repeal.

I have yet to see a decent argument why dolphins need to be protected specifically. Why waste the UN's time on protecting one species per resolution? I could give you the list of endangered animals in Groot Gouda. We'd be busy for a while.

So why not accept that we need better protection, and in the meantime, get rid of this bit of legislation which is disgracing the UN? I mean, we can write resolutions about anything, which 35.000 nations have to obey, and what do we come up with? "poor ickle dolphins". That's just sad. We can protect all the endangered and even non-endangered species with one well-written resolution, and yet people refuse to just do one little bit in supporting that goal, which is the repeal of this resolution.

That is why, despite the flaws of this repeal, it should be supported. Because not supporting it makes the UN just a collection of short-sighted greengrocers, all going for their own little shop without realizing that it's the street that matters, not the shop.

This was my thought when I first saw this proposal, and I then chose not to support it (and telegrammed by objections to the author). However, now it's up for vote, I'll still vote FOR. I don't think that repeal arguments are valid legislation. All that happens is that a resolution is repealed. The reason should have no effect on future legislation. So if this passes, there is no effect on laws about international waters. Because if it would have that effect, this repeal would probably be illegal in the first place.

Sadly, because the author wrote the wrong argument, it might not pass. If he'd just have said that the dolphin resolution was crap and a much better resolution providing adequate protection to not just dolphins, but all other endangered species as well, it would have a much bigger chance in passing.

Pity. Still, I advise everyone to vote for the repeal of the dolphin resolution. In the UN office of my nation, "dolphins" are already used for plans that are not thought out, and we fear the moment when the proposal protecting transgender dolphins will come up...

Ambassador Lane,

I agree with you that it is a pity that because the author tried to make use of a buzz-word "national sovereignty" in an extremely inappropriate situtation (i.e. by trying to suggest national sovereignty applies to international resources and affairs), that this otherwise well written repeal is extremely likely to fail. However, my government actually believes that repeals are in fact "resolutions", and the language of the repeals are somewhat legally important.

For example, if this motion *only* repealed a resolution, why keep around the text of the motion? I believe the answer we'd both agree is that the repeal's text is the justification for the repeal and is useful in giving direction to this body should we attempt to consider this or similar issues in the future.

That in mind, if we adopt a justification that says, "international and shared resources are solely the sovereign affairs of individual nations", what is the point of the United Nations? I think where our government's disagree is if some of the text in even a repeal's justification has some standing in international law.

If it does, then if this repeal should pass:
We can't legislate domestic affairs because that would violate sovereignty. We can't legislate over international and shared resources because that would violate sovereignty.

And my government fears that nations would take the next step:
We couldn't legislate over basic human rights because that too would violate sovereignty.

There should be enough yes votes that the author could attempt to repeal the resolution again, but this next time deleting any illogical statements such as "constitutes an encroachment on national sovereignty, in that it claims jurisdiction over international waters".

The author could focus on the more general resolution that our esteemed colleaques from the Venereble libertarians have proposes and treating this repeal as a chance to build better legislation. That seems like a positive justification, and would be more than saying, "This other resolution is bad." Instead it would be saying, "We feel this proposed resolution is better than this one that is in the way."

Ambassador Katzman

A few of you seem to be upset by some of the reasons I am for the repeal I posted earlier. Well now I shall tell you Another argument to vote for the repeal, Conservatism. Personally I would like to see more repeals, and a general downsizing of the UN governing body. Too many of these resolutions set up new committees, new regulations, and no real way to enforce them. Some of these resolutions are redundant. For example we have 2 oceanic resolutions protecting whales and protecting dolphins. Thats 2 agencies patroling the oceans, enforcing the law and basically ding the same type of work. To me this is inefficient. It would be much better having one agency doing both jobs. Venerable Libertarians and others are proposing legislation that will protect all endangered species, thus eliminating the need to have seperate resolutions protecting seperate species. This also would eliminate the need for seperate agencies doing the same type of jobs, thus downsizing the big bureaucracies. This in turn makes smaller government which makes coservatives like me very happy. The repeal of this resolution is a step in the right direction. I hope that more estemed members would also look at the existing resolutions(especially civil and social rights) and look a those that can be combined into one piece of legislation. Then draft a proposal that would cover those aspects that are wanted and needed. Once you have enough support for the new proposal, eliminate the old ones and then getbthe new one passed. Ohmigodtheykilledkenny,Venerable Libertarians, and the others should be commended for their time, effort, and perseverance, not insulted and demeaned for wanting to make an improvement over flawed, and redundant legislation. The Palentine stands firmly behind this resolution and the people behind it.
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla
The Palentine

Extremism in Defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-Sen. Barry Goldwater(R)Arizona

I have yet to see a decent argument why dolphins need to be protected specifically.

This isn't really the issue up for debate from my government's point of view. In this case, the repeal's author introduced a buzz-word "national sovereignty" in order get conservative nations (which my government feels don't understand what sovereignty means) to blindly vote in favour of the repeal.

I would think that if this repeal did not misuse the term sovereignty, that actually going back and re-examining the actual resolution itself is a good idea. Does the original resolution really present a strong case for protecting dolphins? My government doesn't know ... but it doesn't matter when the legislation proposing the repeal of that earlier resolution is even more flawed.

This repeal is not about killing dolphins; it actually augments a bill that would protect all endangered species, and though I haven't yet decided on how to vote on that bill...

This is why I call it Spin.


You just stated to vote for the Repeal because there's better legislation coming and you haven't decided on it but they should.


Do you see how disingenuous that is?


Shouldn't you be telling them that it's low mileage and that the interior matches his eyes?




I think all Proposal Authors could do themselves a big favor and keep their response short, informative and courteous.

The problem here should have legal scholars from any nation biting their tongue ... national sovereignty is the concept of DOMESTIC rule, and yet the author of this repeal claims that national sovereignty now extends to international waters???

I'm sorry, but sovereignty, in the context of international politics and law, is the point at which only a single nation can claim to have self-rule. International resources are precisely the type of thing that the United Nations (and I shouldn't have to emphasis that nations is plural) should be discussing and passing resolutions about.Actually, no.

National sovereignty also respects the rights of sovereign nationals when they are outside their own nations' borders. Which is sort of the whole point of establishing embassies and consular offices: to protect their citizens' rights in foreign countries. And, I would submit that they should be subject to the same protections even when they are in international waters. Why should the United Nations, a body comprising only one quarter of all the world's nations, assume it should control international waters? Rights to international waters should be granted and regulated not according to the dictates of a few presumptuous internationalist bureaucrats, but via agreements, treaties and pacts made between sovereign nations. You might have seen that point made in the repeal, had you bothered to take the full text into account, and not get hung up on the "buzzwords."

I disagree with Omigodtheykilledkenny's last statement partially. No one controls international waters - they are specifically extra-territorial. However, the UN does regulate conduct there, and I don't see that as wholly wrong. But I do believe nations retain sovereign control of their fleet. They don't cease to be under national control the moment they enter international waters - but they do have to respect certain international guidelines and adhere to certain international laws.

You just stated to vote for the Repeal because there's better legislation coming and you haven't decided on it but they should.

Do you see how disingenuous that is?Nope, not really. All repeals are based on the presumption that better legislation is in order. We simply based our repeal argument on the fact that this resolution is simply bad, and needs to be struck from the books. We did not intend to take upon ourselves the task of writing a better resolution, because in the short-term, that was not our goal. But when Venerable Libertarians stepped forward to support the repeal and offer a (much better) proposal, we were only too happy to welcome them.I think all Proposal Authors could do themselves a big favor and keep their response short, informative and courteous.OOC: Unfortunately, my nation's UN ambassador does not fit the mold. He is by nature a smart-alec with no respect for the UN, as I explained in the first post, so remarks from him should not be taken too personally. It is (mostly) "IC."

Actually, no.

National sovereignty also respects the rights of sovereign nationals when they are outside their own nations' borders. Which is sort of the whole point of establishing embassies and consular offices: to protect their citizens' rights in foreign countries. And, I would submit that they should be subject to the same protections even when they are in international waters. Why should the United Nations, a body comprising only one quarter of all the world's nations, assume it should control international waters? Rights to international waters should be granted and regulated not according to the dictates of a few presumptuous internationalist bureaucrats, but via agreements, treaties and pacts made between sovereign nations. You might have seen that point made in the repeal, had you bothered to take the full text into account, and not get hung up on the "buzzwords."


Actually Mikitivity is absolutely right.


Also, the PoDA Doesn't ban Dolphin hunting, it only bans the intentional harming of Dolphins in International waters.


And since Dolphins are coastal shelf dwellers (that's where their food is), this is only a ban on migrating Dolphins.



Which the Endangered Species proposal in Queue does not cover....


OMG, this is great.... way to go Mikitivity.


You know I need to reread the Whale Resolution, that may be covered under the Queued Proposal.

Dolphin protection.......what a waste of UN time

Please don't hurt the poor ickle dolphins!!!!!! Think of all the orphans!!!!! Tragic!!! :(

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Protecting nature ought to be the job of individual governments, not of the U.N.

Since all involved are in the repealing mood, I ask everyone to join me in repealing the recently-passed "Sex Education Act", which as I've noted in other forums, does no justice to the reputation of the UN and should be removed.

An endorsement for the Republic of Teruchev would help me gage the level of support going into this, and would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

I couldn't have said it better myself. Protecting nature ought to be the job of individual governments, not of the U.N.That's your opinion.

Dolphin protection.......what a waste of UN time
Repeal of Dolphin protection.......what an even bigger waste of time.

Since all involved are in the repealing mood, I ask everyone to join me in repealing the recently-passed "Sex Education Act", which as I've noted in other forums, does no justice to the reputation of the UN and should be removed.
With all due respect, think twice, the resolution passed by a three to one majority. Any repeal act would be futile, and only embarrassing.

Spoon Savers

Actually, no.

National sovereignty also respects the rights of sovereign nationals when they are outside their own nations' borders.

You might have seen that point made in the repeal, had you bothered to take the full text into account, and not get hung up on the "buzzwords."

OOC:
Actually you don't know what you are talking about. Not even in the slightest!

When I travel to another country, say Switzerland, I'm subject to the laws of that nation. Even though I'm an American, the "sovereign" rights of Switzerland is that while in their country, their rules apply. For example, the Swiss government makes it clear to American tourists, that if I do LSD (which was invented in Switzerland), that I am subject to Swiss laws for possession and use of a controlled substance. I *will* be arrested, even if I own an American passport.

Another example would be if I an American traveled to Germany. In Germany certain symbols, such as those associated with the SS and Nazis are strictly forbidden by the German Constitution. If I were to wear a SS armband in the United States I'd just be doing so in bad taste. If I were to wear the armband in Germany, there *are* some German cities where I *would* be arrested by the German police. Their SOVEREIGN right would prevail.

In the world of international diplomacy, the Germans will *not* arrest me if I'm in Basel, Switzerland wearing an SS armband nor will they arrest me if I'm in the Baltic on a boat ... i.e. international waters, because their sovereign rights to make any Nazi symbol illegal does not extend outside of their borders.




We've all seen plenty of people talk about sovereignty, but what you fail to understand that sovereignty is and remains the right for nations to have sole authority in their own affairs, and in real life, sovereignty is defined by national borders. That is why I'm voting against your resolution. You've adopted a buzz-word and clearly don't understand what it is you are talking about. And I think that really is just as careless as the resolution you are attempting to repeal. If you try again and remove the clause, my objection is gone, and I'm encouraging you to do that.

OOC: LOL, I understand how the boards work, alas nothing can be debated due the simple fact that we are more in parallel universes than, let's say, a model simulation.

I'll play accordingly. Now your sucking diesel! :D
IC:

UNCoESB does not define what classifies as a species. Yes it does, But not in the way you would expect! The Executive has been put there for a reason, that being if i were to classify all the species of animal covered in the proposal and the funding issues and coasts associated etc etc etc etc....ad nauseum, the proposal would be more concise than the encyclopedia Britanica and is just too long as a proposal. As it was i had to trim 160 charachters off my submission in order to post my proposal. The Executive makes the decisions I cant put in this resolution proposal!

Therefore it's not sufficient enough to argue that this will indeed be a comparable replacement.You are correct! it is not comparable! Its a million times better and wider in scope.

To argue that Dolphins are no longer endangered, only proves the effectiveness of the ban.As my colleague Yelda already pointed out Dolphins were not endangered to begin with! it was their percieved inteligence and friendliness to human populations that made Resolution 106 possible, And it is the very same points that have a great many members blinkered to the obvious benefits of repealing 106 and replacing with the New UNCoESB.

And I just don't see how a Dolphin ban would affect the Trout Fishing Industry. which varity? river, sea or ice trout?


Even Saltwater Trout??.

OCC:LOL , remember the Dolphin fishing Industry doesn't exist in NationStates.OOC. This is nationstates and not real life! it does im many nations i know of such as Ecopoeia, Enn, and Knootoos.

IC:

So I really don't see a reason to repeal it. Several reasons!
1, new resolution will be here.
2, Wider scope,
3, National governments have more control,
4, protections to ALL animals is garunteed against extinction
5, Single Resolution thus less expensive for our nations than having multiple resolutions with separate commitees and funding. Much mor Efficient!

Come on you know i am making sense! Bite that bullet and vote "FOR" the repeals of 106 and 70. Vote for the implementation of a single bill for the conservation of wildlife, The UNCoESB.
Thank you.

For example, if this motion *only* repealed a resolution, why keep around the text of the motion? I believe the answer we'd both agree is that the repeal's text is the justification for the repeal and is useful in giving direction to this body should we attempt to consider this or similar issues in the future.

That in mind, if we adopt a justification that says, "international and shared resources are solely the sovereign affairs of individual nations", what is the point of the United Nations? I think where our government's disagree is if some of the text in even a repeal's justification has some standing in international law.

If it does, then if this repeal should pass:
We can't legislate domestic affairs because that would violate sovereignty. We can't legislate over international and shared resources because that would violate sovereignty.

I don't fear that situation. Because if the repeal text matters, why can't we repeal a repeal? I think for most people it doesn't matter what it says in the repeal. You look whether you like the resolution or not. In this case, dolphins are obviously cute, so the majority of nations wouldn't dare to repeal a resolution protecting them. Blinded by this they fail to see the pointlessness of a resolution protecting dolphins. But the whole repeal text barely matters. Only to explain why the author wants a resolution repealed. As I have said, I don't think the national sovereignity buzzword is sensible, and now we see how many people fail to see the good reasons to repeal this resolution because the author used it.

On the other hand, I am positively surprised by the small number of people voting for. It means that national sovereignity is not a good argument. Soon we'll be able to say that national sovereignity is sooo 2004.

Let me use the Legalize Prostitution resolution and repeal. It was repealed, but reinstated better than before. The resolution basically did the same as the old one, except it added a few clauses - but without obliging those. The repeal text didn't matter much. It had changed some nation's minds, but not an awfull lot. So the repeal text doesn't matter greatly.

Nope, not really. All repeals are based on the presumption that better legislation is in order. We simply based our repeal argument on the fact that this resolution is simply bad, and needs to be struck from the books. We did not intend to take upon ourselves the task of writing a better resolution, because in the short-term, that was not our goal. But when Venerable Libertarians stepped forward to support the repeal and offer a (much better) proposal, we were only too happy to welcome them.OOC: Unfortunately, my nation's UN ambassador does not fit the mold. He is by nature a smart-alec with no respect for the UN, as I explained in the first post, so remarks from him should not be taken too personally. It is (mostly) "IC."

I think it would be reckless to repeal a resolution for any other reason than the merits of the Resolution itself.

As it just was point out by our fellow UN member, What is in Queue and what the PoDA does are two very different things.


And in no way conflict or overlap.

In fact what you are arguing is the opposite of what will happen.



PoDA only applies to International Waters, No Nation has claim to it, ERGO No Nation can claim Sovereignty in International Waters.


As for UNCoESB, that will apply to ALL Species in ALL UN Nations. ERGO National Sovereignty issue.


Do you see why one can think this argument is a bit disingenuous?


OOC: Oh yeah this is all for sh*ts and giggles, nothing personal. LOL, I think it would bode ill for me as a person if I got mad at an Username.

Now if you came over to my place and drank all my beer...Yeah, I'd hate your guts.

I don't fear that situation. Because if the repeal text matters, why can't we repeal a repeal? I think for most people it doesn't matter what it says in the repeal.

OOC:
Oh, I suspect you are largely correct here. But when I've participated in IRC or other forum debates, there are a large number (100s) of players that actually do read through the first few lines and last few lines and form their opinion on some of the text. They also do read arguments in threads like these. :)

I've already referenced some vote changes in prior debates on NSWiki's "UN Debates" threads for Mitigation of Large Reservoirs and "the Microcredit Bazaar" resolutions. In other words, while there certainly is some knee-jerking going on in both directions, there are also plenty of open minded players around.

I try to address my comments to them, as they are the swing votes (and honestly more interesting to interact with).


You look whether you like the resolution or not. In this case, dolphins are obviously cute, so the majority of nations wouldn't dare to repeal a resolution protecting them. Blinded by this they fail to see the pointlessness of a resolution protecting dolphins. But the whole repeal text barely matters.

Oh, here again I largely agree. But I'm tired of people using "sovereignty" as an excuse to vote for or against things without knowing what it is.

I know you know, as we've debated together on tons of issues for over a year now! :) And I think many players do understand the concept.

But this is the first time that I've seen "sovereignty" completely misrepresented in a resolution that has reached the UN floor. And I think some players don't know much about it (they understand it is important, but not why it is important).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

The key words in the NSWiki entry on the subject is that sovereignty is associated with TERRITORY.

It really is time for the people playing the sovereignty card to realize what it is they are playing with.


On the other hand, I am positively surprised by the small number of people voting for. It means that national sovereignity is not a good argument. Soon we'll be able to say that national sovereignity is sooo 2004.

Let me use the Legalize Prostitution resolution and repeal. It was repealed, but reinstated better than before. The resolution basically did the same as the old one, except it added a few clauses - but without obliging those. The repeal text didn't matter much. It had changed some nation's minds, but not an awfull lot. So the repeal text doesn't matter greatly.

In reality it does *not* greatly matter. But when Howie Katzman talks, it matters a great deal to him, as my character isn't going to assume that others do not value legal continuity. :) Ultimately this is a "political / diplomatic" game, so I like to think that real-life legal concepts, such as sovereignty, should be correctly incorporated into the game too!

And yes, I too hope that people will stop playing the national sovereignty card and that we can make fun of future attempts as saying, "Yeah, that mattered ... like back in 2004."

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people or oneself.

Group of people. Including one's national fleets?

OOC: Oh yeah this is all for sh*ts and giggles, nothing personal. LOL, I think it would bode ill for me as a person if I got mad at an Username.

Now if you came over to my place and drank all my beer...Yeah, I'd hate your guts.

OOC:
Amen on both counts! :)

I have nothing against a person until they try to steal my beer. Though I share, the beer is in my fridge and thus it is my "sovereign" resource to decide when to share. ;)

If NS players weren't spread all over the world (and some of 'em underage) I'd suggest that when Sunday night hits that we run to a pub and play darts and drink some of that beer!

Group of people. Including one's national fleets?

Read before that ... "exclusive right".

How can one group have an exclusive right in international waters?

Look at my beer example: the beer in my fridge is mine. You break in and drink it, most global courts will consider you to have taken away something that belonged to *me*. You'll end up in small claims court and loose, nearly every time.

Now let's pretend there is a "beer tree" in my front yard. You walk up and help yourself to a beer from the tree in my front yard. You'll end up in small claims court again and loose, for the same reason.

Now let's pretend that our city planted a "beer tree" in a city park, and you take a beer. I complain, because you picked the cool Pilsner, leaving me with some warm Stout. I bring you to court for picking the last "good" beer. I'll be laughed at, because the "beer tree" isn't mine, but the court *will* still hear my case.

Now this gets into the next "legal" concept: standing.

Standing means that in order for me to take you to court or to attempt to pass a law / regulation, that you and I both have something to gain or loose by the action. In the city "beer tree" example, I want the Pilsner you drank. My standing is that I claim to have "lost" a Pilsner. Your standing is that you gained the Pilsner. The fight really doesn't involve the Stout (though we could end up trying to say it is the same thing).

Clearly a public "beer tree" isn't mine, but since we both can stand too loose or gain from picking Pilsners off the tree, there is a conflict outside of our yards and in public territory. This is where a city law or city court comes into play.

In the UN, we can pass laws on anything. A law that deals with conflicts between a *group* of nations (i.e. individuals) is said to have "international standing", meaning that one nation can loose a resource, while another gains a resource. This is different from a resolution issuing a domestic set of rules, because the focus here is a _common_ resource -- the "beer tree" or dolphins swimming in international waters.

I'm not saying that we need to protect dolphins. But I am saying that an argument claiming that it is illegal to protect dolphins because they are owned and part of the sovereign (i.e. exclusive) right to another "territory" (by the very definition of the term) is very mistaken.

Legally speaking national sovereignty shouldn't be mentioned in a formal argument ... exactly for reasons like this one, where Kenny is claiming that the UN has no authority over international territory. If the UN has no authority over international territory, what does it have authority over? Certainly not domestic territory.

Now let's pretend that our city planted a "beer tree" in a city park, and you take a beer. I complain, because you picked the cool Pilsner, leaving me with some warm Stout. I bring you to court for picking the last "good" beer. I'll be laughed at, because the "beer tree" isn't mine, but the court *will* still hear my case.

Your analogy is flawed. Stout is better than pilsner, therefore the stout would be the "good" beer. :)

On the other hand, I am positively surprised by the small number of people voting for. It means that national sovereignity is not a good argument. Soon we'll be able to say that national sovereignity is sooo 2004.
I think this is pretty innacurate. Does the fact that the Soviet union collapsed mean that government run industry doesn't occur? Of course not. The only thing this repeal's failure will for certain mean is that its argument of national sovereignty on this issue didn't work, not that national sovereignty on a whole is an invalid argument.

Besides that, the majority of the Nat'l Sovereignty work I've seen has occured in 2005 (NSoT, Nuclear Armaments, UNSA, etc.). So, even if nations abandon the idea of deciding national issues themselves and whored their governments entirely up for the UN to micromanage, national sovereignty would not be "sooo 2004".

I don't know about beer, I don't know what loosing resources means, and I don't really care for such abstractions. We were talking about dolphins. (And little things like that are just going to make you all adore me.) And once more, I distance myself from the NSO in this matter, and don't believe that this repeal's passage or otherwise should be taken as a general barometer of the validity of sovereignty-based arguments.

The UN has authority over international waters - I don't think there is any question of that. That does not translate to absolute authority over vessels using international waters. Resolution #74 requires that vessels display national colours when in international waters. Furthermore, it mandates that their national operators be responsible for their conduct. If, as you claim, nations have no sovereign rights over their vessels once they enter international waters, then how can any of this hold true?

Furthermore, I don't support this repeal because I believe that anyone owns dolphins. My major gripes are the original resolution's refusal to acknowledge that small-scale dolphin hunting is a part of some cultures - a concession made by the very document it references - and its imposition on fishing techniques. As has been mentioned by both sides, dolphins generally inhabit the higher maritime planes - as such, certain fishing practices will inevitably snare occasional dolphins. To condemn nations for engaging in legal fishing practices seems ridiculous.

Your analogy is flawed. Stout is better than pilsner, therefore the stout would be the "good" beer. :)

ROTFL!

See, I'd have standing to bring my case to court, but the jury would likely side against me for just that same reason. ;)

Though I still maintain that a proper Pils can stand up against even the best Stout or "Schwartzbier" (sp?)!

I would have suggested a Marzen instead of a Pils, but I was most people wouldn't know what I was talking about then!

I don't know about beer ...

The UN has authority over international waters - I don't think there is any question of that. That does not translate to absolute authority over vessels using international waters. Resolution #74 requires that vessels display national colours when in international waters. Furthermore, it mandates that their national operators be responsible for their conduct. If, as you claim, nations have no sovereign rights over their vessels once they enter international waters, then how can any of this hold true?


Don't know much about beer???

Hmmm, I'll make sure to have my office send a case of Sudwerk's Spice Tremens to your office, compliaments of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity.

As for Gruenberg's point about the flagging on vessels in international waters, I think that is actually very related to the topic at hand and a good point. The legal justification for flagging a ship in international waters isn't to state that the ship and all of its contents are under the jurisdiction of the flagged nation, but to also establish some accountibility for the vessel itself.

For example, if a ship were to fly no flag at all, and then practice piracy on other ships, I think we all know that the reaction would be a bloody mess. Many of our nations would send unmarked vessels to sea to eliminate the problem, but our ability to screen out hostile ships from other pirate hunters would be a true international mess.

While a flagged ship is the property of a nation, it also is as the ambassador from Gruenberg pointed out ... a responsibility too. However, the resources of the oceans themselves are not flagged and my government maintains an international resource.

I have never suggested that even those dolphins caught within Gruenberger territorial waters are property of Gruenberg. I am suggesting that fishing nets used in international waters by Gruenberger fishing vessels are property of Gruenberg.

I have never suggested that even those dolphins caught within Gruenberger territorial waters are property of Gruenberg. I am suggesting that fishing nets used in international waters by Gruenberger fishing vessels are property of Gruenberg.

*Ambassador Katzman listens to the ambassador from Gruenberg's last clarification with interest

Hmmm, I think I am begining to see your point. If I may ask, in your government's opinion does this imply that since those fishing nets would be trawling through international waters that they might be subject to international regulations?

Yes it does - in fact, even if they were trawling Gruenberger national maritime claims, they should be subject to international law, and are - the fishing quotas mentioned in #74. (I have read the odd other resolution, by the way, but they're no fun.) But the PoDA makes no provision for the fact that different nations will clearly employ technologies in fishing. As such, it seems to ignore the very real difficulties presented by its somewhat naive ideal of avoiding unintentional capture.

In the opinion of this Nation, Dolphins are not a concern for the United Nations.

If there is a need to have an act to protect each individual animal on the planet, then when will the United Nations have time to protect all the individual humans?

We also feel that the UN is not responsible for the protection of dolphins. We also don't believe that is right to serve favortism, if we protect dolphins, why not Tuna, Crab, Shrimp, Flounder, Salmon, Oysters, Cows, Sea Weed, Grass, or the Ebola Virus, which although all of those are not animals, are living things. Just because a bunch of people think dolphins are too cute to be eaten does not mean the rest of us should suffer.

However, if you wish to ban ships that are used for catching dolphins, and claim they pollute too much, then the nation of The Goblin will consider voting in favor of that.

It is rare that my government actually actively encourages our political allies to vote for or against a UN resolution, as Mikitivity usually perfers neutrality and compromise to actually putting forth a strong and unified position.

This repeal however is based on a very flawed and illogical idea, allow me to read the first preambulatory clause:



The problem here should have legal scholars from any nation biting their tongue ... national sovereignty is the concept of DOMESTIC rule, and yet the author of this repeal claims that national sovereignty now extends to international waters???

I'm sorry, but sovereignty, in the context of international politics and law, is the point at which only a single nation can claim to have self-rule. International resources are precisely the type of thing that the United Nations (and I shouldn't have to emphasis that nations is plural) should be discussing and passing resolutions about.

Fundamentally, the justification for this repeal is fatally flawed. If it passes, we'd be setting a legal precedent which says that the United Nations has no international authority, because anything that takes place outside of a nation's borders would still be "sovereign". I'm sorry, but even if the rest of the repeal were based on solid grounds, given that we can not repeal a repeal, we are STRONGLY opposed to this motion.

That said, if a future repeal were to not include a flawed statement like "the UN can't legislate over international affairs because they are domestic", my government will remain receptive to the repeal. In fact, we'd like to encourage nations to continue to build strong cases for improving UN resolutions ... but sadly this repeal's fatal flaw really forces my government's hand.

Ambassador Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity
Office of International Affairs

THANK YOU! Its about time someone else used logic and reason in this soverignty debate. My point exactly from page 4 of this debate. Huzzah!

I don't know about beer, I don't know what loosing resources means, and I don't really care for such abstractions. We were talking about dolphins.

The point you make here is precisely what I have against the current goings-on (going-ons?) in the UN. Because the dolphins aren't about dolphins. It's about: where does UN legislation start and where does it stop? How do nations decide on their vote? What kind of great things can we do with the UN and what kind of stupid things? The dolphin resolution sums up what I dislike about many UN resolutions, and that is: failing to see the wider scope. Taking an issue up one level, beyond some whim of the moment. Actually sit down, think, write, think, edit, think, rewrite from scratch and then thinking again. What do we want to achieve?

It's not dolphins. It's about the direction we, the active few % that is discussing on this forum, want to take the UN. We could do more. The sea doesn't care which way the little fishes swim. But it does provide a context for them. Let's be a sea that provides a context, and let the fishes have room to swim. Let's not try to decide for all the little fishes how they should swim. Or dolphins.

Furthermore, I don't support this repeal because I believe that anyone owns dolphins. My major gripes are the original resolution's refusal to acknowledge that small-scale dolphin hunting is a part of some cultures - a concession made by the very document it references - and its imposition on fishing techniques. As has been mentioned by both sides, dolphins generally inhabit the higher maritime planes - as such, certain fishing practices will inevitably snare occasional dolphins. To condemn nations for engaging in legal fishing practices seems ridiculous.

Why is that a reason for not supporting this repeal? Surely you want to get rid of the resolution?

You misunderstand me. I meant: my reasons for supporting this repeal are not that I believe Gruenberg owns dolphins...and so on. I did word it awkwardly though, and sorry for the confusion.

Let's just say that I represent a conservative capitalistic-libertarian view on issues:

Now then, as king of my nation, I decide to enter my nation into the UN and for some reason am elected UN delegate for the region as well. Now upon seeing a resolution to let dolphins not be an endangered species, I vote yeah. Here comes the tricky part...The Leftys (those that want to do the thinking for all nations because they think that they know best) assume that I voted yeah to make a profit. THIS IS THE FLAW

#1 If I was interested in straight profit I would not be a member of such a left thinking money sucking conglomorate.

#2 If I was interested in straight profit, I would keep the dolphin alive and let them herd flocks of fish into my nets.

#3 I would not care about the needy fellow sentient beings in the world that need aid

OK, how will this help the needy?

#1 We could teach them how to capture dolphins for both food source and for clothing sources.

#2 We could teach them how to make beasts of burdens out of their dolphins.

OK to all you leftys that know better, how does banning dolphin hunting help out needy unfortunate nations. Now if your stupid argument is that dolphins are too intelligent for consumption, then my argument of "if they are so damn intelligent, why don't they swim to a nation's waters that want to keep them protected" appy. Now if your argument is that they are too cute and cuddly and we are vegitarians apply... :upyours:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

OOC:
Actually you don't know what you are talking about. Not even in the slightest! ... We've all seen plenty of people talk about sovereignty, but what you fail to understand that sovereignty is and remains the right for nations to have sole authority in their own affairs, and in real life, sovereignty is defined by national borders. That is why I'm voting against your resolution. You've adopted a buzz-word and clearly don't understand what it is you are talking about. And I think that really is just as careless as the resolution you are attempting to repeal. If you try again and remove the clause, my objection is gone, and I'm encouraging you to do that.OOC: Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about, do I? Of course you can be arrested for violating the law in foreign countries, but what are embassies and consulates for if you cannot seek their assistance when such a situation does occur? The Mexican embassy has been pressing the United States for years not to execute 54 inmates, partly on the grounds that the convicts were denied access to consular services. May not exactly pertain to "national sovereignty," and I don't even remember why I brought that up as an argument. I might have been half-asleep. (It was early morning when I last posted here.)

But as it pertains to activity in international waters, nations should be bound by pacts and treaties they are party to. The UN has indeed claimed authority over such waters with the Law of the Seas resolution, but it is a resolution I strongly disagree with (the UN comprises only a fourth of the NS world and I have no clue why it should have any kind of authority over international waters), and one which I think should not have been used to justify bogus legislation like the Protection of Dolphins Act.

Finally, a repeal is a repeal. If you don't like the national sovereignty argument, you don't have to agree with it. The argument text is not binding. And national sovereignty is not the only grounds for this repeal either; there are five or six clauses that follow that have nothing to do with national sovereignty. (I know I shouldn't have put that clause first because it's the only thing people have paid any attention to.) To say you will only support a repeal if the national sovereignty argument is lifted is about as silly as my refusing to support the acquittal of a family member because I didn't like the defense lawyer's closing argument.

PoDA only applies to International Waters, No Nation has claim to it, ERGO No Nation can claim Sovereignty in International Waters.I never argued nations should have the right to claim soveregnty over international waters -- just that they should have the right to enter into treaties with other sovereign nations with respect to activity (commercial or otherwise) in those waters, without the interference of UN bureaucrats.

"No Nation can claim Sovereignty in International Waters" -- but the UN can?

OK to all you leftys that know better, how does banning dolphin hunting help out needy unfortunate nations. That is not the goal of the PoDA.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Protecting nature ought to be the job of individual governments, not of the U.N.

Yes! Common sense is still alive in these Halls. :D

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

To say you will only support a repeal if the national sovereignty argument is lifted* is about as silly as my refusing to support the acquittal of a family member because I didn't like the defense lawyer's closing argument.* Or, for that matter, the argument that the central purpose of the United Nations is the promotion of human rights.

OOC: Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about, do I?

OOC: Based on what you've posted, I really am convinced IRL that you don't understand sovereignty. Serious!

Look up what sovereignty means in the context of international law, the NSWiki article is actually a fairly good starting point. Focus on the concepts of "territory" and "exclusive" rights.


Of course you can be arrested for violating the law in foreign countries, but what are embassies and consulates for if you cannot seek their assistance when such a situation does occur? The Mexican embassy has been pressing the United States for years not to execute 54 inmates, partly on the grounds that the convicts were denied access to consular services. May not exactly pertain to "national sovereignty," and I don't even remember why I brought that up as an argument. I might have been half-asleep. (It was early morning when I last posted here.)


You are describing diplomatic pressure being put on one nation (Mexico) by another nation (the United States), because the second nation (the USA) recognizes the sovereign right to domestic rule by the first state (Mexico) in its borders.

diplomacy != sovereignty

Sovereignty isn't some silly buzzword that means, "You are doing something I don't like." But that is what you are using it as. Sovereignty specifically means, "Hey this is EXCLUSIVELY mine, so back the heck off, like now!"

Returning to the "beer" example.

My beer = mine, not yours. The right to drink it is my sovereign right, and not yours.

The public beer tree = ours. The right to drink it is our collective right and subject to arbitration.

*sigh*
The key of your example is that a diplomatic conflict exists because of something that happened inside another country.

But in your resolution text you make a very WRONG and ILLOGICAL statement. You state that a resolution violates sovereignty because it imposes an international law outside of sovereign territory.

What can the UN legislate if it can not legislate over international resources and issues? Domestic ones maybe? No way, those are sovereign.


But as it pertains to activity in international waters, nations should be bound by pacts and treaties they are party to. The UN has indeed claimed authority over such waters with the Law of the Seas resolution, but it is a resolution I strongly disagree with (the UN comprises only a fourth of the NS world and I have no clue why it should have any kind of authority over international waters), and one which I think should not have been used to justify bogus legislation like the Protection of Dolphins Act.


Nations can pass their own domestic laws and enter into international agreements at will. One example would be the sovereign decision to join or leave the NationStates United Nations. Nobody forces membership. You can join and leave, leave and join, almost as frequently as you like.

If a nation seriously has an objection to a UN resolution, they can leave the UN or choose to roleplay non-compliance, but make no mistake ... they CHOSE to be members and have at their own free will agreed to an organization where they know sometimes there will be poorly written international laws agreed upon. This is by no means a violation of self rule ... in fact, sovereignty doesn't apply to international resources.

Simply choosing to make an agreement, that can be altered, doesn't suddendly make something exclusively your nation's territory, therefore it doesn't become "sovereign".

I challenge anybody to find one single example of "sovereignty" being applied to something that doesn't belong exclusively to a single nation or entity.


Finally, a repeal is a repeal. If you don't like the national sovereignty argument, you don't have to agree with it. The argument text is not binding. And national sovereignty is not the only grounds for this repeal either; there are five or six clauses that follow that have nothing to do with national sovereignty. (I know I shouldn't have put that clause first because it's the only thing people have paid any attention to.) To say you will only support a repeal if the national sovereignty argument is lifted is about as silly as my refusing to support the acquittal of a family member because I didn't like the defense lawyer's closing argument.

While the text is not binding, no resolution text is binding. The moderators have deleted repeals in the past when the text of those repeals was "not worthy of the UN's attention", which directly implies that the text is still important.

You made another statement in your arguments in favour of repealing the resolution stating that human rights are the primary principal behind the United Nations. That too is completely untrue. There are as many reasons nations join the UN as there are member states.

Frankly your repeal is really poorly written, and has errors that really warrant it being voted down. If you want to remove a resolution because you don't like it, that is fine, but you should at least realize that your own repeal will be held to the same standards you are attempting to use to judge somebody else's work. Thus far you've completely mischaracterized "sovereignty" in an attempt to add a popular buzz-word to your resolution and you've made a critical mistake in claiming that the UN is only around for human rights.

I honestly think you might want to *cut* down your repeal to focus solely on the question of the dolphins resolution itself -- and I'm now actively contacting feeder delegates asking they also look closely at what you've written.

* Or, for that matter, the argument that the central purpose of the United Nations is the promotion of human rights.

Ouch! Way to go for the jugular, Ambassador Riley! ;) Start the 3-count.One..Two...Three!<bell rings!> its a pinfall!<great cheers!> I believe I may owe you a drink sir.

Sen. Horatio Sulla

* Or, for that matter, the argument that the central purpose of the United Nations is the promotion of human rights.Would you care to show the nations of this assembly exactly where has this been established? Until then my response is an official... "No it is not."

You are describing diplomatic pressure being put on one nation (Mexico) by another nation (the United States), because the second nation (the USA) recognizes the sovereign right to domestic rule by the first state (Mexico) in its borders.

diplomacy != sovereigntyRight. You obviously did not read the entirety of my statement, because at the end I was basically conceding the point to you.The moderators have deleted repeals in the past when the text of those repeals was "not worthy of the UN's attention", which directly implies that the text is still important.Mostly because a repeal will try to enact a law in its place or because the author claims a resolution does something it does not -- for instance, if I were to argue that the dolphins act should be repealed because "It forces us to all to make monthly human sacrifices to the Mighty Dolphin God." PoDA clearly doesn't do that. But it still remains a point of argument as to whether the UN's claim to jurisdiction over treaties made between sovereign nations respecting activities in international waters is a question of "national sovereignty." I'm not claiming the act does something it does not.

And I still maintain that opposing a repeal because all the arguments don't necessarily square with you is a little silly. The only thing this really does is repeal the act.You made another statement in your arguments in favour of repealing the resolution stating that human rights are the primary principal behind the United Nations. That too is completely untrue. There are as many reasons nations join the UN as there are member states.Nope. Not "primary principle." "Central purpose." Which means essentially that, even though other goals of the UN are important, the UN should have priorities. Human rights should be the priority. Not animal rights. That was the whole point of including that statement; if I could have emphasized the word human in the text, I would have.

OOC: Based on what I've read, I really am convinced that you don't care whether or not I know what I'm talking about, as you seem to have exploited only a few bad points I have made to continue to flaunt your own superior knowledge, which you really, really like to do in this forum. Serious.
Now, I'm not sure Mikitivity is justified saying you don't know what you're talking about (I really don't know, as I haven't been reading this thread until just recently), but I don't think this accusation is necessary.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to bring all or a lot of the information and knowledge one has to a discussion. Actually, I like to think it makes government good when discussions are based on as much knowledge as possible. Mikitivity does that. As a model UN enthusiast, a RL engineer, and a generally well-informed person, he tends to have a lot of information and insight to bring to bear. I really doubt that Mikitivity does it to feel better than anyone else. I don't think he gets some sick pleasure out of correcting people, or providing links or his opinion and experience because it makes him "feel smarter than everyone else". I think if Mikitivity were really interested in being a know-it-all there'd be a lot of nose-in-air remarks that he hasn't made, made, and there'd be a lot of the I'm-willing-to-discuss-this-on-equal-terms statements that he has made, not made.

I just haven't seen the sort of self-absorbedness out of Mikitivity that you seem to be implying.

Wow... this one's going right down to the wire!
Just out of interest, is there any way of seeing who hasn't yet voted? Just for the purposes of canvassing, and all - I'm aware that it's a secret ballot.
Anyways, I have voted FOR the repeal of the Dolphin doohickey, because I think that it is a largely useless resolution anyways. If, as has been claimed in this forum somewhere, the 20mi territorial waters has enough dolphins to support a dolphin fishing industry, then there's little point placing a restriction on activity in international waters for dolphin protection, as presumably these dolphin fishing industries (DFI, I'm lazy) can carry out doing such things in national waters, so you're not really protecting a whole lotta dolphins anyway, are you?
And anyways, I'm not sure that the UN can technically claim jurisdiction over international waters anyway. For a successful conviction of a crime commited in IW, the case must be dealt with in a country which is somehow linked to the crime, usually by where any ships involved were registered - and I'll tell you this, if my (state-owned) DFI ships were caught, and brought before the High Court in my country, let's see... State vs. State. It'd either get thrown out as a "conflict of interests" (judge trying his boss), or I'd find myself innocent. Even if you brought in a UN judge, it's still my court, and so I'd just grant myself a pardon. Innocent!

Now, I'm not sure Mikitivity is justified saying you don't know what you're talking about (I really don't know, as I haven't been reading this thread until just recently), but I don't think this accusation is necessary.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to bring all or a lot of the information and knowledge one has to a discussion. Actually, I like to think it makes government good when discussions are based on as much knowledge as possible. Mikitivity does that. As a model UN enthusiast, a RL engineer, and a generally well-informed person, he tends to have a lot of information and insight to bring to bear. I really doubt that Mikitivity does it to feel better than anyone else. I don't think he gets some sick pleasure out of correcting people, or providing links or his opinion and experience because it makes him "feel smarter than everyone else". I think if Mikitivity were really interested in being a know-it-all there'd be a lot of nose-in-air remarks that he hasn't made, made, and there'd be a lot of the I'm-willing-to-discuss-this-on-equal-terms statements that he has made, not made.

I just haven't seen the sort of self-absorbedness out of Mikitivity that you seem to be implying.I'll take that. :)

It was written mostly out of frustration, and the fact that Mik insists upon pointing out my ignorance "OOC." I'll gladly recant.

We also feel that the UN is not responsible for the protection of dolphins. We also don't believe that is right to serve favortism, if we protect dolphins, why not Tuna, Crab, Shrimp, Flounder, Salmon, Oysters, Cows, Sea Weed, Grass, or the Ebola Virus, which although all of those are not animals, are living things. Just because a bunch of people think dolphins are too cute to be eaten does not mean the rest of us should suffer.

However, if you wish to ban ships that are used for catching dolphins, and claim they pollute too much, then the nation of The Goblin will consider voting in favor of that.


The UN is NOT protecting Dolphins.

The UN is Protecting migrating Dolphins (Dolphins live on the coastal shelf and NOT the deep Sea).



You can chop kill and eat all the Dolphins in your own waters.



Nation States, you must read MORE than just the title of the Resolution.

I never argued nations should have the right to claim soveregnty over international waters -- just that they should have the right to enter into treaties with other sovereign nations with respect to activity (commercial or otherwise) in those waters, without the interference of UN bureaucrats.

"No Nation can claim Sovereignty in International Waters" -- but the UN can?

LOL who will you enter into Treaties with?

And Yes, the UN is base on making "International Laws". That's the point.


Has anyone actually read what the PoDA actually does?





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


Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Real paradise

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.


Ok let's go through the list:



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


Umm, the UN says "shame on you".


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 there is no hunting of Dolphins in International waters with a few exceptions.

You can hunt ALL you want in your own waters, just not in International waters.

This of course doesn't protect that many Dolphins since Dolphins live and eat close to shore, 80% of all aquatic life lives close to the shore because that's where the food is.

So basically this part wont protect very many Dolphins, only migrating Dolphins.


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


The UN ask (not demands) you to please do the same in your own waters...but again, it's up to you.


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


The UN asks (again not demands) to...you know...try to do better with Dolphin management.


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 UN ask (again ONLY ASKS NOT DEMANDS) that you do your best to prevent Dolphin Abuse.







That's it. That's the freakin Resolution.




The people of New Hamilton believe that the Repeal proposal was written on partisan grounds (anything that smells of Environmentalism is BAD BAD BAD) and actually haven't read the Resolution in question.

The Union of Tinis stands against the repeal of the PoDA. As we have stated to several nations during the push for endorsements of the repeal, we can not endorse or vote fore this resolution for the primary reason that a number of our citizens belong to the dolphin family, as do citizens in other nations in our home region. In addition to that, the PoDA resolution only acts on international waters. Thus any and all claims that it violates soverighty are false. The United Nations is a treaty organization that nations voluntairly enter into and doing so agree to follow its rules and regulations, thus the arguements that it prevents entering into treaties is moot, because a nation can voluntarily enter into any treaty that prevents other treaties. The United Nations is simply a different type of treaty system that we have entered into.

Second, nations that have coast lines still possess national waters. These national waters are not affected by this treaty because they are within the acknowledged boarder of each nation. Some nations have opted to regulate dolphin related fishing in their own nations at the urging of the origional resolution, but were never forced to. The repeal of this resolution will not affect those who have changed their laws at the origional resolutions urgings. And if the new regulations set up by those nations who have of their own accord, opted to enact them, has in fact hurt their economies, that's their problem, not the UNs.

Third, again, the UN is a treaty organization. If a nation doesn't like regulation of international trade and commerce, then they can opt out of the UN and leave. The member nations of the UN have the right to regulation international trade and commerce if they so wish. Its not required, but they have the option to. An option that is excersiesed by the PoDA.

Fourth, some dolphin species are endangered, thus again, another moot point. In addition, I must remind the chamber that a because there is no UN resolution extending the rights of human beings to all national citizens of the various UN nations, such as the dolphins of Tinis, then this resolution is akin to an equal protection resolution for some of my nation's citizens.

Fifthly, other nations can do as they wish within their own boards. The PoDA again does not require them to change their practices or diets, nor does it force a change in the laws within their territory. Sensitivity to these cultures is not a factor.

Sixth, your point about human rights deeply offends a majority of the populace of my nation, since a large majority of them are non-human. The Union of Tinis again hopes that the UN will extend protections currently only applied to humans to all citizens, persons, and intelligent beings independant of their species classification. In addition to that, the UN also has a vested interested in not only promoting rights, but also ensuring international security. The UN was origioanlly founded to prevent another total war, or do we not remember our history?

Seven, calling for and enforcing something are two different things. And my government is deeply concerned that the statement: "is insufficient for the protection of human lives and livelihood" is a non sequitor. How is the call to prevent dolphin abuse insufficent in these regards? The call even says that human lives will not come second to that of dolphins. And again, the call isn't even enforceable

It is rare for my office to refute every point in a resolution or repeal.

In conclusion, this repeal is dishonest, poorly written, and really does not merit a vote before the full UN. However, the authors coalition of the ill informed and extermist pushed it forward any way. The origional resolution fits the soverighty test and seeks to better the world around us.

The Union of Tinis stands with its No vote with regards to the repeal.

The people of New Hamilton believe that the Repeal proposal was written on partisan grounds (anything that smells of Environmentalism is BAD BAD BAD) and actually haven't read the Resolution in question.

The Union of Tinis shares this sentiment. It seems a partisan push is being made of late that seeks to strike down certain resolutions that are offensive to certain ideologies and biases.

OOC: Based on what I've read, I really am convinced that you don't care whether or not I know what I'm talking about, as you seem to have exploited only a few bad points I have made to continue to flaunt your own superior knowledge, which you really, really like to do in this forum.

OOC:
That is a personal attack and I think it is uncalled for. :( Having authored a resolution and been in the hot seat, I'm going to hope that in a week or two you'll reconsider that opinion of me.



I want to talk about the argument that some have stated: should repeals be judged on their *text*. I firmly believe the answer is YES.

Bear in mind players vote yes and no on resolutions based on both their category and text. This happens. Players have told us so.

Debates on the resolutions also tend to be based on the text and the category of the resolutions. We've seen this because players have told us so.

Repeals on resolutions typically are based on the actual text of the resolutions they wish to repeal. Though a few repeals have been submitted that solely attack a resolution based on its category, many of them are deleted by the moderators. The moderators don't talk about this much, but if you watch the UN proposal queue, you'll see this happen on some repeals.

Given that repeals that actually reach the UN floor focus on resolution text and that resolution debates tend to focus on resolution text, debates on repeals should also be subject to review of the *text* in addition to the motion being made.

NationStates is a political game. We debate issues, not people. If players want to talk about the Evil (tm) that is Mikitivity, International Incidents is a much more appropriate forum. I'm sure we'll find some players who will take a minor interest in just such a thread (me included). :)

But for now, when a political concept such as sovereignty is incorrectly described in the text of a resolution, I'm gonna point it out. NationStates does have an educational role in addition to its recreational role, and this has always been an interest of mine. I do *not* want to see more people thinking sovereignty is a word that means "personal preferences". It doesn't. Not remotely.

Sovereignty relates entirely to exclusive rights typically defined by a territory. For a nation that means a border and its physical property *as recognized* by others. Sovereignty is called into question when there are overlapping *exclusive* claims of something. Taiwan, Antarctica, and small countries like Belize are real-life examples of this. Outer-space, whales, rain clouds, and radio signals are *not* examples of things that in real-life we do not consider to belong exclusively to one nation or person.

I honestly think the idea that was incorrectly trying to be stated wasn't about sovereignty, but about commerical interests. Protections on fisheries *may* restrict commerical fisheries. This has nothing to do with sovereignty, since deep see commerical fisheries exploit shared resources, but I'd personally rather use the right word to describe the right idea. Sovereignty is wrong in this case, international commerce would have been far better ... and believe it or not, but a few players have tried to express this idea when they've started multiple polls asking if people eat dolphins (though the mods are locking those threads, as this thread is the appropriate place for those points to be made). But be warned ... though commerical impacts could be brought up, IIRC most commerical fisheries tend to happen pretty close to shorelines, and I bet that aside from a few RL bans on whaling and the like, that if we want to research the finanical impacts of fisheries bans, that the numbers are going to be small (a few of us started this research last year for the Whaling resolution).

All it really boils down to is that this act was poorly written and should not have been endorsed by an intelligent nation. It's not about if you like dolfins or not,Mein Overlord loves Dolphins.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- :sniper: MEIN OVERLORD HAS SPOKEN :sniper:

OOC:
That is a personal attack and I think it is uncalled for. :( Having authored a resolution and been in the hot seat, I'm going to hope that in a week or two you'll reconsider that opinion of me.Click me. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9518412&postcount=181)

All it really boils down to is that this act was poorly written and should not have been endorsed by an intelligent nation. It's not about if you like dolfins or not,Mein Overlord loves Dolphins.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- :sniper: MEIN OVERLORD HAS SPOKEN :sniper:Somehow, I doubt you are one to make that judgment, Overlord.

Click me. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9518412&postcount=181)

=) Thanks! Now it is up to me to live up to that! :)

Well, I am glad that this repeal doesnt seem to be working. :)

Well, I am glad that this repeal doesnt seem to be working. :)
The repeal is failing now, I'm sure you remember the last minute turnaround in the vote on your attempted resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representive

That's why I said "doesnt seem to be." :)
Anyways, I have always known that my resolution could fail , I was deeply aware of the tiny narrow gap between the yes and the no votes.
But the yes side is trailing by about 2000 votes now , unlike my last resolution.

Furthermore, I dont need you to remind me about the result of my last resolution. I know very well what happened. Okay? thanks.

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

The sale of children into prostitution is prevelant in MANY cultures, as is cutting off people's limbs, does that mean it is OK?

you forgot child labor, thats a great cultural tradition. :) And , some countries rely on child labor for economic reasons, banning child labour is insensitive to people's cultures and their economic needs!

"No Nation can claim Sovereignty in International Waters" -- but the UN can?

Yes, because the UN is the major international organisation. No organisation in the NS world has this many member nations. It's the best (and neutral) place to create agreements, and that means some form of claiming sovereignity.

MMMMMMM dolphin Burgers

I was deeply aware of the tiny narrow gap between the yes and the no votes.
But the yes side is trailing by about 2000 votes now , unlike my last resolution.

we hope you don't mind us asking the following question
but for statistical information, we wanted to know, if you remember, what was the largest gap between the yes and the no votes for your trangender proposition?
and how many yes and no votes at that moment?

thank you

it's seems to us the dolphin issue is very polarized
no "abstain" vote in the UN poll yet ;)

I think that this act should be changed so that fishermen have to make sure that thier nets are safe for Dolfins, and if a Dolfin is cuaght, in a fisherman's net, the fisherman should be punishiable by law.
so down with this repel! :gundge:

Furthermore, I dont need you to remind me about the result of my last resolution. I know very well what happened. Okay? thanks.
Getting a tad snippy, are we?

it's seems to us the dolphin issue is very polarized
no "abstain" vote in the UN poll yet ;)
That actually could be a result of Euroslavia's altering of the poll's options. I know that there are several of us who voted for the humorous options who appear to have lost their vote (I'm one of them).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Union of Tinis shares this sentiment. It seems a partisan push is being made of late that seeks to strike down certain resolutions that are offensive to certain ideologies and biases.


Which is sad. We're spending a lot of time RE-discussing issues which are at best, benign issues on both sides, instead of taking this time and working on new issues.



There's like 6 or 7 proposals right now that I support in theory (most of them are International Security and Trade) but are written so horribly (most are only one sentence, always massive spelling errors) that there's no way I can approve it as a delegate (cause I will support something that needs a re-write--mostly to help the author's telegram campaign when they re-submit it).

But my point being is, all the good conservative writers are all writing REPEALS!!!!!!!


So alas, they have no agenda. So until they wake up and start coming up with great proposals (and not repeals) then our discussions will only be about the Sexual Education of Transgendered Dolphins...




I would love to see a missile defense proposal.

Getting a tad snippy, are we?
Lets Keep this civil gentlemen!

With nationstates down as it is, will the vote count? I believe that it should not count as many large delegate nations are waiting for internal polls to cast their votes.

The vote should be repeated or extended but not counted officially.

Getting a tad snippy, are we?Lets Keep this civil gentlemen!
Indeed. I'll second that.

With nationstates down as it is, will the vote count? I believe that it should not count as many large delegate nations are waiting for internal polls to cast their votes.

The vote should be repeated or extended but not counted officially.
I don't think the vote will be repeated or extended. Think of this as the NS equivalent of a major blizzard on election day. This happened (well, not this exact problem, but the site was down) once before with a resolution at vote and I believe I remember the Mods saying that the vote would not be extended. I don't remember right offhand which resolution it was, or maybe it was a proposal nearing quorum.

Indeed. I'll second that.
Actually, I think you'd be "thirding" it, since two posters previous you have expressed a desire for this not to devolve into a flame war about AD's failed resolution.

Actually, I think you'd be "thirding" it, since two posters previous you have expressed a desire for this not to devolve into a flame war about AD's failed resolution.
<scrolls back through posts>
No, it would seem that I was seconding VL's comment.

<scrolls back through posts>
No, it would seem that I was seconding VL's comment.
I second Yelda's version of events! :D

OOC. PC my man Chill out! All will be restored! Go have a coffee or somthing :D

I second Yelda's version of events! :D

OOC. PC my man Chill out! All will be restored! Go have a coffee or somthing :D
Chill out? What are you talking about? Look, I simply pointed out to Agnostic Deeishpeople that he was starting to lose the composure he has, very admirably, retained throughout his resolution's debate. Since I was not trying to be uncivil (in fact I was trying to discourage AD from being short with Flibbleites), your comments about "keeping things civil gentlemen" would be reinforcing what I was saying, though you were much clearer about it than I was.

I guess I could become offended that other posters seem to gang up on me (not you Venerable Libertarians, I think you've just honestly mistaken the intent of my post) when I start trying to discourage people from making personal attacks. Some posters also ganged up on me in expressing my feeling of harrassment from DLE. It seems that there's an unspoken resentment for me on this forum. I suppose I'm justified in feeling hurt by that, and in feeling contempt for those who don't have the guts to discuss their differences with me civilly and openly.

But, seeing as I have much better things to do than get involved, again, in the petty vendetti of others against me, I'll just let it go. All the PC-haters go on hating PC for whatever you hate PC for. I don't care.

Thank you for your concern but I cant help to wonder who is the one losing "composure"


A few quotes from Flibbleites if I may,

"But what you obviously (purposly) fail to see is that it's REDUNDANT, even a mod has told you that and you still completly ignore that unchangeable (or at least not easily changeable) fact."

"Good, maybe if enough people do complain then this proposal will never see the floor."

"Applies to everyone reguardless of gender, sex, gender identity, whatever you want to fucking call it. "

"You know I was going to reply but then I decided, fuck this shit, I'm getting a drink."



And just when I thought he was done..

he made this comment

"The repeal is failing now, I'm sure you remember the last minute turnaround in the vote on your attempted resolution."

when i merely said that "this repeal doesnt seem to be working. "

It seems to me that the one that needs to have some "composure" is Flibbleites. So i suggest Powerhungry Chipmunks to focus his concern elsewhere. Thanks.

we hope you don't mind us asking the following question
but for statistical information, we wanted to know, if you remember, what was the largest gap between the yes and the no votes for your trangender proposition?
and how many yes and no votes at that moment?

thank you


I would say about 1000. But during all that time, I've always knew that the West Pacific , which has about 600 some votes, hasnt voted and it did not vote until the last few hours.

ok thanks for your answer, it's important to know

I am fairly confident that if a similar proposal is put forward again, it will be passed. I am aware that this proposal has received alot of negative and hostile feedbacks on this forum, but I believe that they dont represent the mainstream opinons. Anyways , enough about that. This is about the dolphins.

Chill out? What are you talking about? Look, I simply pointed out to Agnostic Deeishpeople that he was starting to lose the composure he has, very admirably, retained throughout his resolution's debate. Since I was not trying to be uncivil (in fact I was trying to discourage AD from being short with Flibbleites), your comments about "keeping things civil gentlemen" would be reinforcing what I was saying, though you were much clearer about it than I was.

I guess I could become offended that other posters seem to gang up on me (not you Venerable Libertarians, I think you've just honestly mistaken the intent of my post) when I start trying to discourage people from making personal attacks. Some posters also ganged up on me in expressing my feeling of harrassment from DLE. It seems that there's an unspoken resentment for me on this forum. I suppose I'm justified in feeling hurt by that, and in feeling contempt for those who don't have the guts to discuss their differences with me civilly and openly.

But, seeing as I have much better things to do than get involved, again, in the petty vendetti of others against me, I'll just let it go. All the PC-haters go on hating PC for whatever you hate PC for. I don't care.
OK Coffee was a bad Idea! :D There are way too many Personal Attacks when people express their personal Views here in the forums. People would be better served, Keeping to the guts of the discussion rather than flaiming each others opinions. May I point out that i simply meant chill as a general statement to all the debaters here and as your post was last it was simply addressed to you, PC.

Remember, This is just a game(withdrawl suggesting the contrary as i suffer from a severe lack of megalomania) so lets be civil. Agree to dissagree where somones mind is not for changing and generally chill!
So then back to the debate......
My opinion is simple. I am of the opinion that the next proposal for voting, UNCoESB will pass to become a resolution. As my Proposal IMO will make both resolutions 106 (this one) and 70 "Banning whaling", Unnessessary and thus a waste of the UNs time and funding. So lets repeal this one Now! as it save me having to do it once UNCoESB is ratified. What does it matter how it is repealed?
These are my opinions and any civil rebuttal will be met with a civil reply. :D

And now im off to find more valium! :D

The 0 of 0 heartily endorses this repeal.

The 0 of 0 heartily endorses this repeal.
:D ;)

I didn't know it when I supported the resolution in the first place, but the save the dolphin things didn't just mandate a small yearly $50,000 or so contribution to a fund, (With thousands upon thousands of nations, you'd think the total would be enough with just that to run 2 save the dolphin organizations) it mandated an enormous tax increase. It got so bad, that I daresay my government didn't realize with 100 percent taxes, the "Save the dolphins" act already had all my money! Some of my citizens hadn't seen a piece of currency in years! Needless to say, things will only get worse for my nation if this repeal doesn't pass, I do hope nations voting against this repeal enjoy the sight of wonderous dolphins leaping high into the smoke filled air when my nation collapses into explosive anarchy :/.

I didn't know it when I supported the resolution in the first place, but the save the dolphin things didn't just mandate a small yearly $50,000 or so contribution to a fund, (With thousands upon thousands of nations, you'd think the total would be enough with just that to run 2 save the dolphin organizations) it mandated an enormous tax increase. It got so bad, that I daresay my government didn't realize with 100 percent taxes, the "Save the dolphins" act already had all my money! Some of my citizens hadn't seen a piece of currency in years! Needless to say, things will only get worse for my nation if this repeal doesn't pass, I do hope nations voting against this repeal enjoy the sight of wonderous dolphins leaping high into the smoke filled air when my nation collapses into explosive anarchy :/.

The Union of Tinis is deeply disturbed by your statements ambassador. For it appears not only did your government act oddly when coming into compliance with it, but your government is appears to be rejecting it socialist slant in words but not in practice. If your government is worried that it will collapse into anarcky, then it might be a good idea to look into internal missmanagement problems before attacking things larger than your nation.

The Union of Tinis did not increase nor decrease taxes when it came into compliance with this resolution. It only double checked to insure the rules already in place in our nation fit with the resolution. Indeed at the end of the day it is not a matter of funding in the origional resolution, but a matter of regulation. Some have claimed the resolution harmed their economy. But little do they realize that though they might not have followed the callings or urges of the resolution, some of their neighbors and trade partners have. When trade partners enact legislation that changes their economic activity, in follows into your nation by hurting trade, which in turn hurts your economy. A domino affect. It should have nothing to do with your taxes.

Thank you for your concern but I cant help to wonder who is the one losing "composure"


A few quotes from Flibbleites if I may,

"But what you obviously (purposly) fail to see is that it's REDUNDANT, even a mod has told you that and you still completly ignore that unchangeable (or at least not easily changeable) fact."

"Good, maybe if enough people do complain then this proposal will never see the floor."

"Applies to everyone reguardless of gender, sex, gender identity, whatever you want to fucking call it. "

"You know I was going to reply but then I decided, fuck this shit, I'm getting a drink."



And just when I thought he was done..

he made this comment

"The repeal is failing now, I'm sure you remember the last minute turnaround in the vote on your attempted resolution."

when i merely said that "this repeal doesnt seem to be working. "

It seems to me that the one that needs to have some "composure" is Flibbleites. So i suggest Powerhungry Chipmunks to focus his concern elsewhere. Thanks.
OOC: Yes I was getting annoyed in that thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440075), that's part of the reason that my Bob Flibble character left the thread, by removing him from the situtation it allowed me to put how annoyed I was aside (oddly enough, you should know that you are the first person to actually piss Bob Flibble off like that), and furthermore if you notice any comments I made in that thread were made by a different character and were once again as composed as I usually am. As for my comments in this thread I was simply pointing out that you seemed to be assuming that simply because the repeal was failing that it was doomed to fail which was not true, my mentioning your attempted resolution was simply used as an example to prove my point that the vote totals can shift quickly. I chose to use yours simply because it was the most recent time that that had happened. Enough with the hijack, time to get back on topic.

IC: The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites wholeheartedly supports this repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Why in the world are we debating something so stupid?!?!?!?!? that thing shouldn't of passed in the first place!!!!!!!!!!! So DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets repeal it and get the U.N. back worrying about important things!! saving dif. species is something every government should do individually. So let's get back to the stuff that actually matter please!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote FOR this one and let's move on

But, seeing as I have much better things to do than get involved, again, in the petty vendetti of others against me, I'll just let it go. All the PC-haters go on hating PC for whatever you hate PC for. I don't care.

OOC:
I'd like to say that your nation (and you as a player) are one of the primary reasons I'm still active in the UN forum. :) I've found your contributions to be among the best in NationStates. In addition to pursuing your own IC agenda, I've lost count of the times that you've taken a newbie's idea that you obviously were not thrilled about and tried to politely help him/her get their shot at some UN floor time by cleaning up their idea or helping them get those very important endorsements. If that isn't what the spirit of a "united nations" (i.e. working *with* others), I don't know what is.

Rhetorical question: If there were a RL "NationStates UN" where we roleplayed the part of our ambassadors, just whom would each of us want to hang out with in the Strangers Bar between debates? I'm not fishing for answers or lists, but I do want to point out that the people we'd like to meet in RL are probably the opinions we should place the most value in.

Vohteria votes no on this industry-fed repeal based on Hersfold's arguments, and our own.

Vohteria

The vote is back up again. Great. The vote can carry on as before.

This resolution is first of all built on a lie:

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

This act has hurt our economies and business, and obviously it has destroyed the dolphin fishing businesses. Now we as a nation agree that dolphins are intelligent, valuable, and fun-loving creatures. This is why we keep them in zoos and preserves in our own land. However, surely there is also a place for hunting them and furthermore businesses, such as but not limited to the oil industry ought not be held accountable for totally unintention accident. How many people who studied for two or more years hunt or fish for dolphins, or were taught a family trade for generations are now out of work and grieved that they can no longer practice this longstanding tradition?

Secondly and furthermore where does the U.N gets its authority over foreign waters. It's dolphins today, and trout tommorrow. As a nation with trout-farming as one of it's lead industries, and a nation that suffers from high unemployment rates, this certainly frightens us, and an act like the Dolphin Protection act could very well affect your nation, and hurt your struggling economy. I shudder to think what would happen to our struggling nation if someone enacted a Trout Protection act, unemployment would skyrocket.

Let me further ask how dolphins did before this act. They were not an indangered species or anywhere near it, facts and figures will show they were not even near such a thing as being indangered as a species, they did just fine, so why was it necessary to people out of work to protect them?

Let me furthermore say that we understand completely people's respect, and their fears for those lovely creatures called the dolphins, but I cannot stress how unnecessary those fears are. Even if this act is repealed dolphins will be just fine, and there will always be dolphins to see in our vast and beautiful world. This act is unnecessary, and let me again assure you everything will be fine even if it is enacted, and on a nice side note our businesses were affected by this resolution "all industries" according to the resolution. Therefore repealing this act will boost everyone's economy, but dolphins will still be fine. Now if this act isn't repealed dolphins will still be fine, and unnecessarily protected and cared for at the cost of our economies. So I urge and ask all nations that voted against this resolution to change their vote and don't be afraid, those who did not vote, vote now, and those who voted for it to rest assured that you are making a sound decision.

Oh yes and we would also like to point out that generally banning hunting or killing of a species that is not endangered, generally leads to that species becoming endangered as a result of overpopulation. By killing a few dolphins we are helping the majority by keeping their numbers under control, it is a cruel and unfortunate cycle, but it is the cycle of nature and the foodchain, without it nature could not function.

Bah. We vote no. Find some other fish to persecute.

Oh yes and we would also like to point out that generally banning hunting or killing of a species that is not endangered, generally leads to that species becoming endangered as a result of overpopulation. By killing a few dolphins we are helping the majority by keeping their numbers under control, it is a cruel and unfortunate cycle, but it is the cycle of nature and the foodchain, without it nature could not function.


A couple of things...

First, there are no official Dolphin hunting Industry and since Trout is a Land based Fish...

No Official UN Economy is hurt.

Second, this is just a ban on hunting in International Waters ONLY.


Dolphins are costal dwellers...meaning the only dolphins in International Waters are Migrating Dolphins.


So meaning, with or without this Ban, Dolphins can still be over hunted in a Nations own waters.






New Hamilton doesn't see why there's such a need to be able to hunt Dolphins in International waters?

It makes no sense to to us.

Research shows that dolphins travel in packs of dozens to hundreds near the shores, usually travel in groups of dozens or hundreds, but a vast number more travel in deeper water in packs of hundreds or thousands. You can see that this industry is far more profitable going out to deeper waters than they are on under the restrictions of only going barely off the shores of your home country. Therefore businesses may not be eliminated by this resolution, but there is relatively no profit in it as resources are made vastly scarce.

Furthermore if we are not allowed in deeper international waters we are forced only to fish in our own, and therefore make the dolphin populations extinct in our areas, then what happens? Dolphins continue to overpopulate international waters and starve, while dolphin fishermen are put in the poorhouse to search for other jobs.

We would also like to point out that this does not simply hurt big corporation who can easily sustain the loss, but it hurts more independant dolphin fishers, as well as small businesses that practice in that trade...the little guy always get the raw end of the deal in such resolutions...

Oh yes and we would also like to point out that generally banning hunting or killing of a species that is not endangered, generally leads to that species becoming endangered as a result of overpopulation. By killing a few dolphins we are helping the majority by keeping their numbers under control, it is a cruel and unfortunate cycle, but it is the cycle of nature and the foodchain, without it nature could not function.

You think we hunt dolphins as a natural part of the foodchain? Nonsense. Generally, when nature fails to function, it is a result of interference on our own part, I.E. specifically going in and protecting a species while inadvertantly eliminating the environment it thrives on. Overpopulation happens when wildlife suddenly experiences both a shortage of natural predators and a shortage of food as a result of human intervention. The ocean has a shortage of neither, and adopting a lower-impact stance on the environment allows us to help keep it that way. The cycle of nature, when left alone, is known for its ability to balance itself out.

We're long past the stage in which we were a natural part of the foodchain - don't harbor delusions of grandeur in thinking that nature would collapse without us in it.

A couple of things...

First, there are no official Dolphin hunting Industry and since Trout is a Land based Fish...

No Official UN Economy is hurt.

Second, this is just a ban on hunting in International Waters ONLY.


Dolphins are costal dwellers...meaning the only dolphins in International Waters are Migrating Dolphins.


So meaning, with or without this Ban, Dolphins can still be over hunted in a Nations own waters.






New Hamilton doesn't see why there's such a need to be able to hunt Dolphins in International waters?

It makes no sense to to us.I think you're missing the point. Dolphins aren't hunted; they are killed accidentally -- at least in most cases. At any rate, I see no need to ban dolphin "hunting" if there is no industry to support such a practice. :rolleyes:

I'll go over this piece by piece and bore you to tears, but if you're not a huge fan of simple back and forth refutation and have already heard all my positions from when this was a proposal, I've highlighted my newest argument in bold below.
This resolution is first of all built on a lie:

This act has hurt our economies and business, and obviously it has destroyed the dolphin fishing businesses.

I highly doubt that you had a dolphing fishing business before this resolution was introduced. I highly doubt that it made up any significant amount of your economy. I highly doubt that you are now impoverished as a result of the sudden lack of "Dolphin Fishing" (wouldn't it be dolphin mammaling? ). And quite frankly if you encouraged such barbaric practices to such an extent that it constitutes a sincere threat to your economy, I feel little to no pity for you.
Now we as a nation agree that dolphins are intelligent, valuable, and fun-loving creatures. This is why we keep them in zoos and preserves in our own land.
K.. Were you aware that "Dolphinariums", aimed at the tourist industry, are quite often unsafe in themselves, killing dolphins in a short period of time and then promptly replacing them with more? Well, at least outside of the U.N. they often are. We ourselves have taken care of that by holding industries liable.
However, surely there is also a place for hunting them and furthermore businesses, such as but not limited to the oil industry ought not be held accountable for totally unintention accident.
Are you saying that companies shouldn't be liable for the damage they cause to other living things? That's like saying that if I carried a jar of nitroglycerin around as a part of some business transaction, I wouldn't be liable when I accidentally dropped it on someones toe. Still, you're meandering a bit off topic.
How many people who studied for two or more years hunt or fish for dolphins, or were taught a family trade for generations are now out of work and grieved that they can no longer practice this longstanding tradition?

Three.
Sorry. But seriously, who teaches the beloved family tradition of hunting dolphins in international waters? And what are the odds they can't get a job hunting other fish? Or, if they're truly inept, renting out their boats to tourists to see the fun-loving and intelligent creatures that they apparently trained for two or more years in finding?
Secondly and furthermore where does the U.N gets its authority over foreign waters. It's dolphins today, and trout tommorrow.
Trout? We make a resolution protecting a single, intelligent, fun-loving and valuable creature and you automatically assume TROUT are next? What mad illogical leap led you to that idea? This is a slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy of the weirdest sort.
As a nation with trout-farming as one of it's lead industries, and a nation that suffers from high unemployment rates, this certainly frightens us, and an act like the Dolphin Protection act could very well affect your nation, and hurt your struggling economy. I shudder to think what would happen to our struggling nation if someone enacted a Trout Protection act, unemployment would skyrocket.

Not someone, a majority of someones. And what possible purpose would a trout protection act serve?

But aside from that (and at this point I'm just poking fun, no logic intended), did you ever consider that your high unemployment rate is a result of the fact that your major industry is Trout Farming? I mean, just consider it for a second. Some recently graduated student, fresh out of his education, decides he want to search for a job in the most up and coming of positions. He goes to one of those little job finding areas and says, "What kind of jobs are available right now?"
"Trout Farming."
"Trout Farming?"
"Trout Farming."
"Ah." And then he returns to his couch.

Let me further ask how dolphins did before this act. They were not an indangered species or anywhere near it, facts and figures will show they were not even near such a thing as being indangered as a species, they did just fine, so why was it necessary to people out of work to protect them?
Because, as you said yourself, and I apologize for requoting you eight times, they're intelligent, fun-loving and valuable to us. I believe the resolution gave the reason as "extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly". And this is all true. We protect them because we can - because they aren't a major part of the economy, because it doesn't take a lot of work, because it does provide some benefit to us, and because its better than protecting, say, trout.

[/QUOTE]Let me furthermore say that we understand completely people's respect, and their fears for those lovely creatures called the dolphins, but I cannot stress how unnecessary those fears are. Even if this act is repealed dolphins will be just fine, and there will always be dolphins to see in our vast and beautiful world. This act is unnecessary, and let me again assure you everything will be fine even if it is enacted, and on a nice side note our businesses were affected by this resolution "all industries" according to the resolution.[/QUOTE]
"All industries" still only matters to those industries that hunt dolphins. And while dolphins may always be around, it doesn't change the fact that we'll be making them harder to find.
Therefore repealing this act will boost everyone's economy,
Stat-wanking, the economy boost comes from the repeal but should only affect nations who have a focus on unsafe acts.

nations that have a stock in dolphins but dolphins will still be fine. Now if this act isn't repealed dolphins will still be fine, and unnecessarily protected and cared for at the cost of our economies.
Just because there will still be a numerous amount of dolphins for years to come doesn't mean that they will all immediately be "fine". Practices and measures that are not safe for dolphins are deadly to a variety of other large marine life as well, and the more impact we make on the oceans the more likely we are to disrupt the food chain. Also, keep in mind that whether or not the dolphin is an endangered species is a roleplaying issue - while you may have a large supply of dolphins, other nations may have already killed off most or all of theirs.
[B]
Even in real life - and applying it to RPing circumstances - there are dolphins that are endangered species. Pojonia claims the waters inside and just outside of the Confused Vortex as their own, and has spotted a variety of endangered dolphin species (We have one of the most lush environments in the world in a pocket dimension with infinite space, so I can easily lay claim to all of these) - the thoroughly pink Chinese White Dolphin, or souza chinesis, the Gangetic dolphin, or Platanista Gangetica, the Pantropical Spotted dolphin, who's latin name I forgot, the Baiji, the Chinese and Indus River dolphins (somehow unbothered by the fact that I have neither a Chinese or Indus River), the Irrawady dolphin, the Franciscana, the I'm tired of looking up examples of endangered species. Cripes, just because the dolphin that everybody knows and loves, the bottlenose, isn't endangered in most RPers eyes, doesn't mean there aren't fifty or so other species that ARE - and a variety of other endangered species protected by dolphin-safe enforcements.. So there you go - this resolution does protect endangered species, unless those dolphins are already extinct in your country.

I don't debate UN resolutions but I'm going to make a short exception this once.

International waters means no national sovreignity. Period.
You've got a certain amount of coastal area to keep obsolete gunboats from being able to shoot your territory from outside your strip of ocean and that is your jurisdictive area. These aren't touched at all by regulations on international waters. That's why they are called "international".
There is no violation of national sovereignity.

I don't debate UN resolutions but I'm going to make a short exception this once.

International waters means no national sovreignity. Period.
You've got a certain amount of coastal area to keep obsolete gunboats from being able to shoot your territory from outside your strip of ocean and that is your jurisdictive area. These aren't touched at all by regulations on international waters. That's why they are called "international".
There is no violation of national sovereignity.
Exactly.

The Union of Tinis is deeply disturbed by your statements ambassador. For it appears not only did your government act oddly when coming into compliance with it, but your government is appears to be rejecting it socialist slant in words but not in practice. If your government is worried that it will collapse into anarcky, then it might be a good idea to look into internal missmanagement problems before attacking things larger than your nation.

The Union of Tinis did not increase nor decrease taxes when it came into compliance with this resolution. It only double checked to insure the rules already in place in our nation fit with the resolution. Indeed at the end of the day it is not a matter of funding in the origional resolution, but a matter of regulation. Some have claimed the resolution harmed their economy. But little do they realize that though they might not have followed the callings or urges of the resolution, some of their neighbors and trade partners have. When trade partners enact legislation that changes their economic activity, in follows into your nation by hurting trade, which in turn hurts your economy. A domino affect. It should have nothing to do with your taxes.

On the contrary, my government did not act oddly at all. When the resolution passed, what the U.N. mandated would happen happened, which apparently translated into a direct addendum to my taxes. Looking up my nation on nseconomy.com, I find that my wildlife spending is rather high, which isn't entirely a bad thing, but it proves that clearly I had to be regulating something, and I can't recall a single time i've submitted an issue choice which said "DUMP OIL ON DOLPHINS!", so there simply wouldn't be any reason for my nation to not of been in compliance in the first place. And on the socialist side of things, I personally have no idea how the U.N. is figuring out what my country should be rated as, I've had it swing from "Innofensive centrist Democracy" "Totalitarianship" "Psycotic dictatorship" and "Democratic Socialists" in the space of maybe 6 or 7 issues, which translates for me around 4 rating changes in 3 days. So I don't tend to much change how I think about my nation based on what the U.N. calls it.

Now you've got to understand me, when the resolution passed the first time, I thought it was a funny, nice thing to do. a few days later I got a PM from someone about repealing the act, stating that the funding for this organization was coming right out of our nations pockets in no certain amount, a claim which was recently validated when I got the issue about 100 percent taxes. If what you've said about most other nations not noticing an impact is true, then my position is perhaps further vindicated on the issue. If you look up my nation on nseconomy, you'll find it has a GDP of about 82 billion. In comparison, my 2 region-mates have well over several TRILLION GDP, and I have the feeling that my nation represents the lowest of the low economical situations. The "Save the dolphins" act specifically mentioned helping out dolphins through legistlative measures to be passed in each country and/or economical support for efforts to save dolphins, without really specifying how much or how exactly an economical change would be implemented. Since my nations economy is down the dumpster for sure, (It wasn't a month or 2 ago) and other nations apparently aren't, the chance is very high the act is taking a static amount of money from nations to fund this measure, which would obviously translate into nations with a great economy feeling nothing at all, and nations with a horrible GDP like mine get to enjoy the prospect of mass starvation on the streets because people "Haven't seen any currency in years"

Or, it could be all my fault for choosing issue choices unwisely, but I don't see any reason why that would be :/.

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but to me the only thing more frivulous than "Protection of Dolphins Act" is a repeal of "Protection of Dolphins Act".

On the contrary, my government did not act oddly at all. When the resolution passed, what the U.N. mandated would happen happened, which apparently translated into a direct addendum to my taxes. Looking up my nation on nseconomy.com, I find that my wildlife spending is rather high, which isn't entirely a bad thing, but it proves that clearly I had to be regulating something, and I can't recall a single time i've submitted an issue choice which said "DUMP OIL ON DOLPHINS!", so there simply wouldn't be any reason for my nation to not of been in compliance in the first place. And on the socialist side of things, I personally have no idea how the U.N. is figuring out what my country should be rated as, I've had it swing from "Innofensive centrist Democracy" "Totalitarianship" "Psycotic dictatorship" and "Democratic Socialists" in the space of maybe 6 or 7 issues, which translates for me around 4 rating changes in 3 days. So I don't tend to much change how I think about my nation based on what the U.N. calls it.

Now you've got to understand me, when the resolution passed the first time, I thought it was a funny, nice thing to do. a few days later I got a PM from someone about repealing the act, stating that the funding for this organization was coming right out of our nations pockets in no certain amount, a claim which was recently validated when I got the issue about 100 percent taxes. If what you've said about most other nations not noticing an impact is true, then my position is perhaps further vindicated on the issue. If you look up my nation on nseconomy, you'll find it has a GDP of about 82 billion. In comparison, my 2 region-mates have well over several TRILLION GDP, and I have the feeling that my nation represents the lowest of the low economical situations. The "Save the dolphins" act specifically mentioned helping out dolphins through legistlative measures to be passed in each country and/or economical support for efforts to save dolphins, without really specifying how much or how exactly an economical change would be implemented. Since my nations economy is down the dumpster for sure, (It wasn't a month or 2 ago) and other nations apparently aren't, the chance is very high the act is taking a static amount of money from nations to fund this measure, which would obviously translate into nations with a great economy feeling nothing at all, and nations with a horrible GDP like mine get to enjoy the prospect of mass starvation on the streets because people "Haven't seen any currency in years"

Or, it could be all my fault for choosing issue choices unwisely, but I don't see any reason why that would be :/.

I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain I'm not: The U.N. stat change is instantaneous and often miniscule. There's no way a resolution would cause your stats to change gradually over the course of days - that's your issues. And dolphin safety isn't going to cost you a heckuva lot of money anyways. Trillions of dollars worth of damage it aint.

Also, I'm under the firm belief that no one should ratify a resolution or repeal based on the stat change it creates. Stop the wanking, especially if you're not good at it.

How could someone not want to repeal a resolution when it causes unintended consequences which could very well be contributing in no small amount to the destruction of the economy? And a small amount of money to a nation with 36 trillion GDP could very well be quite a large amount to a nation with 80 billion you understand. And how does your firm belief against people believing in something else automatically constitute those people's arguments as "Wanking"?

:confused: One Question on the Ban on protecting dolphins(and whaling as well). Where's the fleet? To protect a species that lives in the ocean you need something to patrol with and make sure no violations are occuring. Correct me if I am wrong, but the UN has no fleet or military. My nation's Secretary of War, or Secretary of the Navy was never contacted to supply ships for this endeavor. Furthemore my Prime Minister or Emperor was not asked either. Furthermore How does the UN enforce the ban? Confiscate the fishing vessel, sink it? Unless you have some type of military vessel neither is likely. What about a non member vessel. They aren't subject to the Ban. Does the UN ignore these violaters of dolphin rights? :confused:

My country has the ships, but they cannot be spared for this duty. :( Insted my tin cans and cutters are involved in citizenship testing. If a boatload of refugees can run the gauntlet and make it to a beach without getting sunk, then all aboard can become citizens of the Palentine. :D This last paragraph is irrelevent to the discussion at hand,but is a notification that the Palentine does not send its ships to enforce such frivolous legislation as protecting dolphins. For thousands of years the dolphins have done well on their own. If they were so damnable smart, then they would keep out of the nets. Vox Populai,Vox Humbug!

Sen. Horatio Sulla
"Cry Havok! and let slip the Dogs of War!"

I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain I'm not: The U.N. stat change is instantaneous and often miniscule. There's no way a resolution would cause your stats to change gradually over the course of days - that's your issues. And dolphin safety isn't going to cost you a heckuva lot of money anyways. Trillions of dollars worth of damage it aint.

Also, I'm under the firm belief that no one should ratify a resolution or repeal based on the stat change it creates. Stop the wanking, especially if you're not good at it.

Wouldn't it also depend if his major industry was commerical fishing? If that was the case then a big hit could happen

First of all my biggest industry is Uranium mining, which has given me ample oppurtunity in the international trade arena...trout fishing is only my third biggest...

The point however is that it is not just one industry that is affect by this resolution, the resolution clearly read

"Industry affected: all businesses" now surely one industry wouldn't do much, but all business are cut back just a little bit each, as a whole your nation would take a significant hit, and every little bit counts even when you're economy is "very good" there are some deficits that need to be reconciled.

The point here is that yes environment is important, yes dolphins are important, but economy is also important, and so are people with jobs.

Wouldn't it also depend if his major industry was commerical fishing? If that was the case then a big hit could happen

OOC: I could be wrong, but I am pretty certain that UN resolutions do *not* impact the minor game stats. Basically they slide us up and down the taxation, civil freedoms, economic freedoms, and political freedoms categories. A few categories like Gun Control, Recreational Drug Use, Gambling, and Environment, probably do start to impact just the minor game stats listed. For example, an Environment: All Businesses resolution (like the Protection of Dolphins Act) probably impacts all businesses.

I'm of the opinion that the NationStates game stats are fairly broken and tend to totally ignore them.

One Question on the Ban on protecting dolphins(and whaling as well). Where's the fleet? To protect a species that lives in the ocean you need something to patrol with and make sure no violations are occuring. Correct me if I am wrong, but the UN has no fleet or military. My nation's Secretary of War, or Secretary of the Navy was never contacted to supply ships for this endeavor.... Furthermore How does the UN enforce the ban? Confiscate the fishing vessel, sink it? Unless you have some type of military vessel neither is likely.
To my dear collegue Palentine, TAKE IT EASY. This is nation states, not the real world governments. There are definite limitations imposed by the original web code as to what is in the game. You can't take it too literally and attack a proposal with such real life dilema's which are clearly not a part of the game. Furthermore, ARE YOU even in contact with your so called prime minister or Secretary of war or so on? I doubt that you get regular e-mails from your political advisors. :D So back off, and take it easy. :fluffle:

I don't debate UN resolutions but I'm going to make a short exception this once.

International waters means no national sovreignity [sic]. Period.
You've got a certain amount of coastal area to keep obsolete gunboats from being able to shoot your territory from outside your strip of ocean and that is your jurisdictive area. These aren't touched at all by regulations on international waters. That's why they are called "international".
There is no violation of national sovereignity [sic].OK, I'm tired of explaining this: This act has nothing to do with national borders, but with the rights of sovereign nations to enter into commercial treaties where presence and activity in international waters is at issue. In retrospect, it may not have been one of the stronger arguments of this resolution, but the point of the matter is: It is not the only argument offered. There are five or six points made to justify the act's repeal, and I know now I shouldn't have put the national sovereignty point first, because it seems to be the only thing people have to focus on (and when they do, it is on the buzzwords "national sovereignty," with little consideration to the argument made for it). But there are in fact several other arguments here that I thought would be convincing to those who would support a repeal.

The most cynical opposition I've seen comes from nations who say they would support a ban, but only if certain words are stricken out. I mean, come on! If you support a repeal, then vote to repeal. You don't have to agree with all the arguments, and you especially don't have to obfuscate and distort the text by fuzzing up the meaning behind the words "central purpose" (and in fact misrepresenting the phrase as "primary principal" or "primary purpose," and completely ignoring the context). The reason for the last phrase is simple: I am arguing that the United Nations ought to make human rights a priority over animal rights, even though other issues are also important.

And I do realize I have gone far beyond the post I was responding to. Sorry 'bout that. OK, rant over. Carry on.

John Riley

I am arguing that the United Nations ought to make human rights a priority over animal rights, even though other issues are also important.




LOL, please...is there anything that you say that isn't spin?


How many Animal Rights Resolutions in the UN Charter right now?

Out of 118 resolutions...2.

2 Resolutions.

The Whale ban and Dolphin ban.

And they are not really bans...they're only affect International waters....




LOL, you know what I think the problem is...you haven't read the UN charter...


And after reading the Repeal, I'm getting a funny feeling that you didn't even read the PoDA...


You know you can't judge a resolution by it's Title...seriously...you can't...

OK, I'm tired of explaining this: This act has nothing to do with national borders, but with the rights of sovereign nations to enter into commercial treaties where presence and activity in international waters is at issue.

Ambassador Riley,

You still misused the term sovereignty. Sovereignty means *exclusive* jurisdiction or control. Nations will have the right to negotiate commerical treaties, with or without your repeal. Most UN resolutions limit the activities of UN members, but in this case your argument is mute -- you can't negotiate a treaty to provide a service for something you don't legally have.


For example, if I were to enter into a negotiation with Groot Gouda over fishing rights in international waters, but if I were to EXCLUDE your nation, Groot Gouda and my government can't just CLAIM that we own all the resources of the ocean to split up and exploit between us without your nation having a say. The reason we can't do this with or without the Protection of Dolphins Act or any other bloody UN resolution is because international waters by definition are not exclusive territory of nations.


Bear in mind, if your repeal fails, you can try again. In fact, I am honestly hoping you do, but after some modest changes to your repeal's text. If you feel that most of the complaints and no votes are based on the semantics of your repeal, change it to address those complaints. The ambassador from the Angostic Deeishpeople are doing this with their failed resolution. My own government did this years ago with the failed Space Defensive Initiative when we drafted Tracking Near Earth Objects. The cosmetic change of the failed SDI resolution resulted in the adoption of one of the more popular UN resolutions of 2004. It can be done, and it typically results in a stronger document. :)

Those of us whom are pressing the issue on this point honestly feel that the misrepresentation of the meaning of sovereignty will do more long-term legal harm to the UN than good. This is a legitimate opinion, considering that the text of any resolution should matter -- afterall, that is what we are supposed to debate, is it not?

Ambassador Howie T. Katzman

OOC: I could be wrong, but I am pretty certain that UN resolutions do *not* impact the minor game stats. Basically they slide us up and down the taxation, civil freedoms, economic freedoms, and political freedoms categories. A few categories like Gun Control, Recreational Drug Use, Gambling, and Environment, probably do start to impact just the minor game stats listed. For example, an Environment: All Businesses resolution (like the Protection of Dolphins Act) probably impacts all businesses.

I'm of the opinion that the NationStates game stats are fairly broken and tend to totally ignore them.

These are the only Industries that the UN (ergo the game) recognizes and can be affected by both Resolutions AND issues.

If anyone is using "economy" as the reason to repeal...please point on the doll where he touched you...

I mean please explain to me which Industry and why.


Automobile Manufacturing
Cheese Exports
Basket Weaving
Information Technology (IT)
Pizza Delivery
Trout Fishing
Gambling
Book Publishing
Retail
Furniture Restoration
Door-to-door Insurance Sales
Uranium Mining
Woodchipping
Soda
Beef-based Agriculture
Arms Manufacturing

These are the only Industries that the UN (ergo the game) recognizes and can be affected by both Resolutions AND issues.

If anyone is using "economy" as the reason to repeal...please point on the doll where he touched you...

I mean please explain to me which Industry and why.


Automobile Manufacturing
Cheese Exports
Basket Weaving
Information Technology (IT)
Pizza Delivery
Trout Fishing
Gambling
Book Publishing
Retail
Furniture Restoration
Door-to-door Insurance Sales
Uranium Mining
Woodchipping
Soda
Beef-based Agriculture
Arms Manufacturing


OOC: Daily issues can change those stats, but UN resolutions are "automated" and more general. The summary at the top of the resolution pretty much tells us what game stats will be changed if the resolution passes. Repeals undo resolutions, but to a lesser degree. I could be wrong, but I do not think moderators have the time let alone ability to change every UN member's stats if they feel that a resolution increases say Furniture Restoration.

I *think* that if a player wants to increase the game's ability to tweak that industry, they have no choice but to submit a daily issue and try it that way. The moderators try to keep some things hidden from us to make things interesting. :)

Ambassador Katzman: Thank you for an honest, thoughtful assessment. As previously stated, "national sovereignty" was a weak argument, and had no place at the top of the document. Bottom line, this repeal will not pass, and I have accepted that fact. If I do offer another repeal, it will simply argue that the UNCoESB (the passage of which is virtually assured) makes the PoDA moot.

Regards,
John Riley