NationStates Jolt Archive

My own instinct with regards to the lack of any legislation concerning recreational drugs use on the statute books is that it is almost wholly good: it allows nations where 'OMGZORZ WE SMOKE POT' to, well, 'OMGZORZ SMOKE POT' - and nations where 'drugs are bad m'kay' to ban drugs, because they're 'bad m'kay'. Also, I intensely dislike UN resolutions that intrude on our education systems, when clearly no international legislation can account for the vast cultural differences attendent in establishing an effective education system. Nonetheless, it wouldn't be a Gruenberg post in the UN forum without mention of...wait for it...Resolution 74! Hooray! The Law of the Sea!

My concern is that at present, anti-drugs nations who choose to classify the transit of drugs as 'smuggling' have the right to board ships carrying drug cargoes. That, to my mind, is a dangerous precedent. I know TLotS indicates that this should only be allowed for international crimes - but the vessel must be at sea for a reason.

My idea, then, is that it might be advantageous to spell out a resolution in which it is accepted that all recreational drugs can be transorted, consumed and possessed in international waters. Whether this would actually fall under the ambit of an RDU Resolution, or rather a Free Trade or some other category, I'm not sure. And I don't know what it would look like yet. I do not consider this an amendment to TLotS - rather it is something simply not covered by it.

How would nations feel about such a resolution?

Note: 'OMGZORZ WE SMOKE POT' and 'drugs are bad m'kay' are NOT responses that will be given any consideration. Nor will hilarious uses of them for satirical reasons be met with laughs, but rather axes.

So basically a resolution that says "all substances that are not banned by the UN shall be permitted to travel freely through any international territory (be it water, free cities, unclaimed territories, or international airspace)"

I like it.

OMGZORZ WE CAN MOVE OUR WEED lol

*ducks axes*

Note: This post was not entirely serious. The consequences of taking it seriously will be serious. Seriously.

Ok.

Perhaps, actually, it could simply be something on 'any substance not explicitly outlawed by existing UN legislation', as mentioned by Forgottenlands. That would avoid the drugs debate, and also allow for free international passage of items such as furs, pornography or dolphins.

Ok.

Perhaps, actually, it could simply be something on 'any substance not explicitly outlawed by existing UN legislation', as mentioned by Forgottenlands. That would avoid the drugs debate, and also allow for free international passage of items such as furs, pornography or dolphins.

In all seriousness, that is a great proposal idea. Would be in the Free Trade category and you might have to make allowances for things like National Security Concerns TM.

In all seriousness, that is a great proposal idea. Would be in the Free Trade category and you might have to make allowances for things like National Security Concerns TM.

It's only calling for free passage in international territory. Just make a note saying that the resolution does not infringe on nation's rights to protect or restrict movement of goods or people through their own territory (or something of that effect).

I suppose a problem might be: country A moves a ship full of weapons 21km from country B. BANG.

Ok. I'm going to draw up an UBERDRAFT. It will not be about drugs, but rather free carriage of goods in international territory. I'll post a new thread, and drop a link here. Thanks for your comments.

Being a nation firmly believing in free trade yet adamently opposed to the distribution of "recreational drugs", We will be scrutinizing this proposal carefully. While the contents of ships going from foreign port to foreign port in international waters are obviously of no concern to Us, if that ship docks in a Kawaiian port along the way, We reserve the right to inspect the vessel, confiscate any illegal material and prosecute the offending shippers.

We hope that this draft proposal states explicitly that the right to carriage on the high seas shall not be construded to limit the rights of NationStates to enforce their laws in their own ports and national waters.

It will.

OMGZORZ WE SMO.... Careful with that axe, Gruenberg.

Seriously though, we would most likely support this.

I'm unsure. I always saw merit in the argument against Law of the Sea, that the UN has no right to set laws on international waters, because the UN's jurisdiction extends only to member nations.

It would be better, from my point of view, if you declared it illegal in international waters for any UN member nation's ships to attack or hinder the passage of any other ships (except ships of nations with which they are at war), unless the former have good reason to believe that the latter are in contravention of UN resolutions, or any other laws which legitimately assert jurisdiction over the ship and do not contradict UN resolutions.

This would mean that non-members are not limited, as is proper, and are in fact protected from the actions of over zealous UN members who wish to interfere in the drugs trade or similar outside the UN. The same protections are extended to other UN nations, whilst allowing for military actions. I have attempted to allow for national laws which could justly apply, e.g. if a ship contained an escaping criminal or stolen goods, or if it was disobeying some maritime regulation of its home nation.