NationStates Jolt Archive

Recognising the Passing of UN Resolution # 119 “UNCoESB”, which empowers Nations Who are UN Members to protect a Species that may or may not be endangered with extinction, under Article 4 of that resolution,

Understanding Human affinity with Marine Mammals,

Recognising that the “UNCoESB” Bill Guarantees protections to species that are threatened with extinction,

Noting that the passing of the “UNCoESB” renders Resolution # 70 “Banning Whaling”, Redundant,

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,

We hereby repeal UN Resolution # 70 “Banning Whaling”

I plan to submit this to the Delegates Saturday 10th september (My Birthday! :D )for approval. Your thoughts please.

We agree this resolution is redundant, since your good “UNCoESB” resolution has been voted.

we will approve the repeal.

thanks and happy birthday

I love it. Congratulations to the author.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,Same notation on this clause as stated in the dolphin-act repeal thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9612202&postcount=14).

Other than that, this is a fine proposal, and we support it wholeheartedly. And Happy Birthday.

No, it's two different proposals.



And New Hamilton believes there should be stricter laws when regarding International waters.

We feel the 6 days of debate would be better spent else where. We feel we need to pass a resolution protecting UN members from repetitive repeal debates.


We get it. you want to kill Aquatic mammals. Go to town in your own waters.

But leave the International waters alone.

As whales will have the same protection as every other animal under UNCoESB now, I support a repeal of this resolution.

I love it. Congratulations to the author. thank you.
Other than that, this is a fine proposal, and we support it wholeheartedly. And Happy Birthday.I may rejig the wording on the bit you seem troubled by. Thank you.
And New Hamilton believes there should be stricter laws when regarding International waters.The UN has no right to police fisheries in international Waters. It may however offer guidelines for its members actions within same. Neither of which are covered by the UNCoESB or pertanent to the repeals.
As whales will have the same protection as every other animal under UNCoESB now, I support a repeal of this resolution. Again, thank you for your support.

The wording for this clause is very awkward; can we make it easier to read? Might I suggest: Recognizing that the continued funding for a redundant resolution would be neither efficient nor cost effective, and indeed would constitute an unacceptable burden on the treasuries of the UN and member states ... ?

Also, would it be advisable to slip into the text a clause stating that the UN "continues to condemn the intentional harm of dolphins" -- heck, would Love and esterel be mollified if the text also included calls for "compassion and respect toward possibly sentient beings," or whatever? I'm not one to get hung up on the text of the repeal, just as long as we're getting rid of a bad resolution.
I have looked again at the wording of the resolution repeal for both and i am happy with them. I see no need to change it.
As for adding to it clauses etc regarding what the UN condemns or otherwise i do not see the point. The Repeals are based on the redundancy now in effect due to the passing of the UNCoESB and the text therefore should be kept relative to that Resolutions Articles

The Great Gear moves us all towards a more efficient existance. We, the people of the Machine Spirit, will support this repeal.

- End Statement -

Ausserland supports the repeal and thanks the author.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I have decided to submit this repeal on wednesday to give an oppertunity for people who log in at work to respond.

I've heard the argument before and I've never liked it. Show me where it says that resolutions automatically allocate funding - if the resolution is redundant, why would we spend money on it at all, on the books or off?

But I still reside by my opinion that the U.N. should keep resolutions as a safeguard in case one or the other is repealed, especially when the resolutions are particularly sound of mind. It's good to have the whaling resolution if the UnCo is ever repealed.

More importantly, though, this resolution isn't redundant. It protects whales from a lot of different barbaric practices specifically, and sets up a good number of reasons why this should happen, not simply that whales are endangered (and many species aren't). The UnCo resolution only sets up an executive branch that can decide whether or not to protect certain species of whales. While the U.N. has definitively decided to protect whales, repealing the resolution puts that decision into the hands of a smaller group and forces them to remake the decision.
Also, there's this line:
A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to licence limited scientific whaling.
Here's where some of that extra money is going, and quite frankly I don't see a problem with that as a smaller, more extensive way of looking at the marine ecosystem in particular. This resolution creates extra funding for looking at the marine ecosystem, which is terribly important as things go. Why repeal it?

Keep in mind that that extra expense has to go somewhere - it's not as though it just sucks a tiny piece of your economy into a black hole. If you have two environmental resolutions that automatically allocate money, that extra money is going to be spent on the environment. And this resolution is different enough from the UnCo that I just don't see your redundancy argument.

For some reason i am unable to post my reply to this? :headbang:

Well Venerable libertarians, it is good too see that you made good on your promise. You told me that if UNCoESB passed, you'd attempt to repeal this one, and since it did (even though I voted no) this resolution would get my whole-hearted AYE as written (now... if only I was a delegate again...)

I have added a poll. feel free to vote.

I've heard the argument before and I've never liked it. Show me where it says that resolutions automatically allocate funding - if the resolution is redundant, why would we spend money on it at all, on the books or off? well considering your anti telegram campaign against resolution 119 UNCoESB it appears you dislike the fact that something better can replace what is now a defunct and to be honest ridiculous resolution. In this regard I will agree to disagree.

But I still reside by my opinion that the U.N. should keep resolutions as a safeguard in case one or the other is repealed, especially when the resolutions are particularly sound of mind. It's good to have the whaling resolution if the UnCo is ever repealed. oh goody lets have 50 resolutions doing basically the same thing. Oh yeah, famine and hunger are on their way because we are well covered with our 50 resolutions but unfortunately our nations are bankrupt :(

More importantly, though, this resolution isn't redundant. It protects whales from a lot of different barbaric practices specifically, and sets up a good number of reasons why this should happen, not simply that whales are endangered (and many species aren't).If a Nation decides to hunt whales in its own territorial waters who are we to stop them if that animal is in plentiful supply? Your opposition to this repeal is based on the interfering nature of a Bagumian Mother in law.
The UnCo resolution only sets up an executive branch that can decide whether or not to protect certain species of whales. While the U.N. has definitively decided to protect whales, repealing the resolution puts that decision into the hands of a smaller group and forces them to remake the decision. As it should be!! The UN resolutions should be used as a guide to Best practise and not a means to spoon feed a nation or to hold its hand. The simple fact is that in many nations the whale population has begun to affect the ecosystem as there are too many of them and in that situation I say let them be hunted. May I remind the member of Pojonia that the UNCoESB allows nations to ban hunting on any species deemed a species of national importance. I suggest you do so in your own territorial waters and stop telling the rest of our nations what to do regarding same. And just in case any of you people out there think I am anti dolphin or whale, may I state that both those mammals will be protected in the waters surrounding my nation but under the provisions of the UNCoESB and not resolutions 70 and 106.
Also, there's this line:

Quote:
A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of over fishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to licence limited scientific whaling. The UNCoESB does not cover Ecosystems. I suggest you come up with a proposal to protect same rather than sticking your feet in the muddy waters around 70 and 106.


Here's where some of that extra money is going, and quite frankly I don't see a problem with that as a smaller, more extensive way of looking at the marine ecosystem in particular. This resolution creates extra funding for looking at the marine ecosystem, which is terribly important as things go. Why repeal it? because it’s inefficient, costly and hurts local economies where stocks of the species are in plentiful supply. The Ecosystem part of the resolution is so miniscule and so vague as to be inept to keep this resolution just for that one point. Also all it does is " Propose Solutions ", so no nation is forced to act on any solutions proposed! Your backing for this piece of the larger (covered by UNCoESB) resolution, borders on the ludicrous.

Keep in mind that that extra expense has to go somewhere - it's not as though it just sucks a tiny piece of your economy into a black hole. If you have two environmental resolutions that automatically allocate money, that extra money is going to be spent on the environment. And this resolution is different enough from the UnCo that I just don't see your redundancy argument. Throwing money constantly at something that is inefficient leads to corruption, Waste and generally a contempt for the organisation which is so damned generous with our peoples hard earned contributions to the UN. I say this must stop NOW!
Repeal this redundant resolution and let UNCoESB do what it was designed to do.

GIVE 'EM HELL, VL! The Evil Conservative Empire Of the Palentine fully supports this repeal! We can't help with getting delegates to vote(mine is already for the repeal), Hovever rest asured, when this comes for vote, in front of the entire UN we'll back you all we can!
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

P.S. Happy Old Boy! :D

Due to RL concerns (WORK :D ) we have decided to delay submission one more day. We thank you all for your continuing support and now it seems patience.

Repeal "Banning whaling"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


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

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

Argument: Recognising the Passing of UN Resolution # 119 “UNCoESB”, which empowers Nations Who are UN Members to protect a Species that may or may not be endangered with extinction, under Article 4 of that resolution,

Understanding Human affinity with Marine Mammals,

Recognising that the “UNCoESB” Bill Guarantees protections to species that are threatened with extinction,

Noting that the passing of the “UNCoESB” renders Resolution # 70 “Banning Whaling”, Redundant,

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,

We hereby repeal UN Resolution # 70 “Banning Whaling

Approvals: 1 (Venerable libertarians)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 128 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Sep 18 2005

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

Repeal "Banning whaling"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

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

Hello, I have been asked to attend the United Nations on behalf of Konigreich der Nacht and put the following points for your consideration.

With our 'Banning Whaling' resolution we have achieved more than a year's protection for the world's whale species and we will remain very proud of that achievement even if it is repealed. We were also pleased to support the UN motion achieving protection for a wider range of aquatic species.

But we humbly submit that the UN is heavily overburdened with potentially useful legislation and that delegates would be wasting the time of legislators by supporting the repeal of this motion - which can still achieve much good. A year-long whaling ban, while positive, is hardly enough to allow the world's whales to recover from the years of abuse they have suffered. We would like to suggest that their time could be better spent on positive support for new motions rather than repealing past ones such as this.

That's just our point of view here in the Constitutional Monarchy but we hope it will also find wider favour among the nations of the UN. With this in mind we humbly beg that you do not support the repeal of our motion 'Banning Whaling.' There is newer, better work to be done. We hope you agree.

Sincerely,

Ambassador to the United Nations
Constitutional Monarchy of Konigreich der Nacht

On behalf of both the Empire of Forgottenlands and the Colony of Forgottenlands UN, we laugh at the theory that the NSUN is overburdened in any way and that the repeal of this resolution will, in any way, effect the level of protection granted to whales considering their endangered status. The UN is actually running out of resolutions to support, and should a category violation be found for the proposed "Labeling Standards" resolution currently in queue, the NSUN will be going for at least one day without any resolutions hitting the floor (under the belief that none of the resolutions currently in the list of proposals has a hope with, perhaps, the exception of these two proposals). Further, as a member that stays up to date on all debates within the UN with exception to the resolution at vote and the Strangers bar, we are insulted by the theory that we are overworked.

Hello, I have been asked to attend the United Nations on behalf of Konigreich der Nacht and put the following points for your consideration. Welcome to the Debate.

With our 'Banning Whaling' resolution we have achieved more than a year's protection for the world's whale species and we will remain very proud of that achievement even if it is repealed. We were also pleased to support the UN motion achieving protection for a wider range of aquatic speciesYour Resolution has served well and it is something to be proud of. It is however redundant as whales are now covered by the New UNCoESB resolution which gives greater freedoms to individual nations whilst protecting not just whales but a far greater spectrum of Species.

But we humbly submit that the UN is heavily overburdened with potentially useful legislation and that delegates would be wasting the time of legislators by supporting the repeal of this motion - which can still achieve much good.the resolution has achieved much. But it is time to accept that the resolution is now a waste of funds and set the precident for singular resolutions per species. The Protection of dolphins act was modeled on Banning Whaling and this opens up the possibility for singular resolutions per species to continue no matter what the cost. UNCoESB ends that now while garunteeing the continued protections afforded to marine Mammals.

A year-long whaling ban, while positive, is hardly enough to allow the world's whales to recover from the years of abuse they have suffered. We would like to suggest that their time could be better spent on positive support for new motions rather than repealing past ones such as this. The whaling Ban is not ended. Uncoesb continues the ban where an individual nation decides it and where the Executive of the UNCoESB decrees the whale population is at risk.

That's just our point of view here in the Constitutional Monarchy but we hope it will also find wider favour among the nations of the UN. With this in mind we humbly beg that you do not support the repeal of our motion 'Banning Whaling.' There is newer, better work to be done. We hope you agree. Thank you for your opinions as the Author of the Resolution being repealed. We Respect your opinion as a fellow Resolution Author and as a concerned UN Member with regard to environmental issues.
We cannot however be remiss in our duties to our nations and the peoples we represent who have to fund these resolutions and the committees and organisations they form through their tax burden. As Members of the United Nations we must strive to give our peoples Value and Multiple resolutions that basically do the same thing must be removed and covered by a single resolution.

Prince Esheram Byron,
Chief Negotiator For the Delegacy of the Region of the Realm of Hibernia.

Calling all delegates!

With less than 24 hours remaining in the proposal listings we require YOU to step up to the mark and be counted. Get off the fence if you havent already done so. Solar panels is a done deal! Forget about it for tomorrow and give our nations economies a break by repealing this resolution and the repeal of resolution 106.

The UN Needs YOU!