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”

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 # 106 “Protection of Dolphins Act”, 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 # 106 “Protection of Dolphins Act”

We hereby would like to stress that while both of these resolutions try to achieve something laudible they are both outdated by their single purpose. A purpose which is now achieved by one Resolution the "UNCoESB" which covers all species and grants the Nations of the UN the right to control the protection of any species within their sovereign boundaries.
The Benefit of a single resolution for all species is quite simply massive when applied to the UN Nations. The savings to our governments are Huge simply due to the redundancy the UNCoESB has instilled to any previous single species resolution while also preventing further single species resolutions from being implemented.

We in the Nation of Venerable Libertarians are wealthy and are able to easily withstand the monitary demands of the UN. However we are unwilling to accept fiscal ineptitude in funding what is not required.

We ask you the Delegates to approve Both repeals when they are launched tomorrow, Monday 3rd of October at 14:00 hrs Grenwich Mean time.
We ask you the Members of the Genneral Assembly to fote For the repeals as they are submitted to the floor for Voting.

Thank you.
The Delegation to the UN for the Realm of Hibernia.

You know you can count on my support and assistance in this worthy cause.

We too will support this repeal and recognise the need to slim down on unncessary legislation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Excedingly keen on a repeal.

Not that keen on a substitute!

Excedingly keen on a repeal.

Not that keen on a substitute!

A substitute would be unlikely, with the UNCoESB in place they would face duplication issues.

Reformentia is recommending approval of both repeals to our region.

Oh, sorry, I thought that UNCoESB was a replacement...


Must have missed that one!

Your proposals will recieve our approval.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

the longhorn goverment offers a 1000 bevo reward to anyone to bring a dead whale to a goverment buillding.

Dastardly Stench wholeheartedly supports any resolution whose passage will help to (pfffft!) snuff out inefficiency!

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus

the longhorn goverment offers a 1000 bevo reward to anyone to bring a dead whale to a goverment buillding.

Be careful what you wish for.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Representative of The Dominion of Dastardly Stench

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,Sounds suspiciously like a House of Cards (even if it is just a repeal), though (obviously) we wholeheartedly support any effort to repeal #106.

Sounds suspiciously like a House of Cards (even if it is just a repeal), though (obviously) we wholeheartedly support any effort to repeal #106.
The "House of cards" does not apply here as it is the New resolution, "UNCoESB" that renders the previous ones redundant. It because of that very point that it is mentioned in the repeal. Also this is a Repeal which is not a resolution in its own right.

The Repeals have now been submitted for approval (a little later than planned). We thank all those who posted their support in these repeals and we humbly request all delegates to Approve them so the general assembly may be given the oppertunity to vote on them.

This is a copy of the Socialist Republic's response to a telegram solicitation by Yeldan UN Mission:

We still regard the resolutions in question as independent supplements to environmental protection code rather than redundancies. The Socialist Republic asserts that no sufficiently substantive case has been made to repeal either resolution #70 or #106. The United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill is a general and subjective piece of legislation that does not define any particular species as under its protection, instead leaving that decision to a vaguely-specified conglomeration of national and international leaders. With no clear way to issue a mandate the resolution is junk, protecting no species' at all.

Having no holdings on Earth this is hardly our problem, but nonetheless we reject the argument that the UNCoESB affords any protections at all to dolphins or whales, let alone those explicitly mentioned in resolutions #70 and #106. The Alphini have accordingly voted against approval of repealing the Banning Whaling resolution 3-0 and against approval of repealing the Protection of Dolphins Act resolution 2-1. Until a much more effective measure can be passed to protect natural species', this will continue to be our position.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

<snip> With no clear way to issue a mandate the resolution is junk, protecting no species' at all. <snip>
Really? This sounds like a mandate to me:
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.
Please note that the UNCoESB covers all species. Thus it is unnecessary to mention individual species by name. Junk indeed.
Have you even read UNCoESB?

Have you even read UNCoESB?
Of course we have. In fact, we voted for it. However, that is beside the point. First of all, our issue is not with the mandates that the resolution allows to be issued, it is with the matter of issuing them. Decision-making is placed in the hands of an "executive body" that has no clear makeup, appointment or election process associated with it. Also, the resolution fails to define how the body makes decisions, and what type of majority, if any, is needed to put the bill's protections into effect.

Furthermore, the executive relies on inaccurate population tallying based on gathering data from a wide range of different nations and organizations to assist in its deliberations. If the resolution is violated, there is no mention of what organization will bring criminal charges against the offenders. The United Nations has no criminal court, leaving prosecution to national courts that may well condone, openly or otherwise, the hunting of an endangered species.

Finally, besides being poorly informed and inadequately guided, the decision-making executive commission empowered by the UNCoESB is left with no guidelines as to the definition of "dangerously close to world extinction levels," or what populations or rates of decline ought warrant specific protections. The Banning Whaling and Protection of Dolphins Act resolutions are far from perfect as well, but they are not, in our eyes, redundant; they are the only protection these species' are likely to have when their fallback is the UNCoESB.

The United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill was built to be lenient to gain passage in the United Nations and for this and its more technical issues it is shaky at best. If the members of the U.N. decide that dolphins and/or whales do not require the protection of a resolution we will not object to the appropriate repeals, but we do not believe the UNCoESB to be a substitute or a redundancy. It aspires to high ideals, but lacks the substance to effectively ensure protections where they are needed by lacking any guidelines for the composition or process of the executive body and leaving this ill-conceived commission to subjectively decide on incomplete data what protections ought to be afforded where.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

I have at this point decided to answer the critics of the repeals.

We Thank Xanthal for the questions raised and hopefully this reply will answer your concerns. All quotes are by Xanthal.

Of course we have. In fact, we voted for it. However, that is beside the point. Thank you for voting for the UNCoESB you obviously saw the merits of the resolution

First of all, our issue is not with the mandates that the resolution allows to be issued, it is with the matter of issuing them. Decision-making is placed in the hands of an "executive body" that has no clear makeup, appointment or election process associated with it. Also, the resolution fails to define how the body makes decisions, and what type of majority, if any, is needed to put the bill's protections into effect.
I wonder if the member for Xanthal has ever written a proposal for a resolution, never mind the hard work of seeing it through the approval stage and into the vote by the general Assembly. It is a matter charachters as the maximum allowed by the game is restricted. My original draft fleshed out the role of the executive how ever this and other aspects of the draft had to be cut in order to be submitted. The Executive is run by UN Gnomes who ensure ALL wild life are monitored. It is the UN Gnomes that ensure steps are taken following the directives of the Bill. Also having the UN Gnomes run the executive means the varying numbers and stats can be regulated without having to submit them to print. So the executive is all powerfull, Independant of nations intervention and uncorruptable simply because the gnomes are in charge.

Furthermore, the executive relies on inaccurate population tallying based on gathering data from a wide range of different nations and organizations to assist in its deliberations.
I hate mentioning RL items here in NS but in truth it is for the most part NGO's and specialised groups such as universities etc who monitor world wildlife numbers in real life. These NGO's are aided by the WWF and other large UN and world organisations where they share their data and recieve funding to continue their work. It is in fact these NGO's that are primarily responsible for raising the issue of an extinction events and having them reported to national peoples for presure to be put on their elected representatives to turn around the event. Also these bodies educate local populations who require to hunt the particular species who may be under threat. The UNCoESB actually affirms this role and gives these NGO's the recognition they deserve as the true defenders of species under threat all over the globe.
If the resolution is violated, there is no mention of what organization will bring criminal charges against the offenders. The United Nations has no criminal court, leaving prosecution to national courts that may well condone, openly or otherwise, the hunting of an endangered species.
The Executive are responsible for taking groups or individuals to task who contravene protection orders. This is done by legal means utilising the Legal system of the nation where the offence has taken place. If as you say that nation is also in contravention of the orders made by the executive then a regional route may be taken. The offender may also be pressured by other nations. When writing the resolution I thought long and hard as to how to enforce the bill but with the constraints of the submission procedure whic would not allow for a detailed enforcement. I considered submitting the bill under 3 submissions but that would require the passing of all three and unless all were passed the bill would be rendered useless and also falling under the "House of cards rule" as each submission was a continuation of the previous part. I decided to have simply "An Executive Body" ran by UN Gnomes as that would cut out the requirement of having to put down the "how" of the executives decisions and instead charges the UN Gnomes running it with a clear mandate.
Article 7 is that clear mandate to the UN gnomes who run the executive ..........
Originally Posted by UNCoESB
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.

Finally, besides being poorly informed and inadequately guided, the decision-making executive commission empowered by the UNCoESB is left with no guidelines as to the definition of "dangerously close to world extinction levels," or what populations or rates of decline ought warrant specific protections.
Again due to the maximum submission lenght, to include figures for each individual species as to what would constitute an extinction threat would be unfeasable, this has also been left to the executive to decide. An example is the spotted whale versus the aquineas rat. The whale has one mating every two years where the rat can have in excess of 7 in one year. The rat therefore could recover from an extinction event far quicker than the whale could. Each extinction event is as individual as the species under threat and therefore it is the Executive who decide the figures.
The Banning Whaling and Protection of Dolphins Act resolutions are far from perfect as well, but they are not, in our eyes, redundant; they are the only protection these species' are likely to have when their fallback is the UNCoESB.
Articles 7 and 4 of the new UNCoESB renders Both 70 and 106 as redundant as both were concieved to protect a species even if NOT under threat. Article 4 clearly states that a nation may, In its own borders protect Any species as an animal of National Importance. This article in particular is responsible for the redundancy issue.


The United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill was built to be lenient to gain passage in the United Nations and for this and its more technical issues it is shaky at best.
UNCoESB is far from lenient and your comment stating so is an affront and a personal slur on my nation as the author. You are insinuating we do not take the resolutions of this body seriously. If we simply wanted to pass resolutions so as to have our nation held aloft in the annuls of the legislators here in the UN we would not put so much of our time into trying to have the now defunct resolutions repealed.

If the members of the U.N. decide that dolphins and/or whales do not require the protection of a resolution we will not object to the appropriate repeals, but we do not believe the UNCoESB to be a substitute or a redundancy. It aspires to high ideals, but lacks the substance to effectively ensure protections where they are needed by lacking any guidelines for the composition or process of the executive body and leaving this ill-conceived commission to subjectively decide on incomplete data what protections ought to be afforded where.
May we at this point highlight, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6 End slavery.

you may point out the high ideals etc of that resolution yet it only recommends we take steps to end slavery and doent go to any lenghts to point out HOW and what would happen to those who contravene its mighty and laudable ideal. Nor do we see the nation of Xanthal standing so firmly against that resolution because of its lack of depth and strenght.

To sumarise, the deficiencies of the UNCoESB are due to the constraints of the submission procedure. The Bill was introduced when i spied other single species bills being worked on and i introduced it to end an innefficient run of single species bills. It was introduced only after submitting it here for ideas and improvements. It was only submitted for approval after it recieved nothing but support for its final draft, even the bit regarding the executive.
Our piont is simple. UNCoESB covers 70 and 106. They are no longer required. Repeal 70 and 106 now.

Prince Esheram Byron.

No article in the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill provides for anything but voluntary protection in national waters for unendangered species'. The UNCoESB does not provide for protection of dolphins or whales in international waters, which is the focus of both resolutions #70 and #106. We still fail to see the redundancy or the standing protection of the UNCoESB should the noted resolutions be repealed. No offense was intended in our statement that the UNCoESB is lenient. It is a fact that moderation is needed in resolutions to gain the necessary support for passage. While we certainly sympathize with the restrictions on length, it does not change the fact that how the resolution works is largely a mystery and thus its fairness and effectiveness is in question.

In our own defense, we do not stand against either the resolution ending slavery or the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill. We support both. We recognize, however, the inherent weaknesses in such resolutions. You misunderstand our position if you think we are opposing the proposed repeals because we do not agree with the UNCoESB. We are opposing them because you claim the resolutions to be covered by the UNCoESB and we do not believe that to be the case. As I noted in my previous message, the Xanthalian government does not consider the explicit protection of dolphins and whales to be our concern, and normally a repeal of resolution #70 or #106 would not be of issue. However, considering that we were solicited for our approval of the repeals in question and we do not agree with the arguments given to support them, we were compelled to explain our denial of support.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

International waters??

The United Nations Has NO right to legislate for international waters! does the UN and the Nation of Xanthal in particular want to Police International waters? However on that point i digress.

On the topic of the repeals, I have looked at your nation and with the exception of the population our nations are practically identical. This would lead me to believe we look at the world in a similar way. However in this matter we are poles apart. The resolutions which i seek to be rid of as I believe them to be now covered by the one wideranging resolution which covers all species in the NS world within national boundaries of the UN Members, are innefficent well meaning disasters bleeding funds from the UN coffers which our nations are compelled to fund by the same UN Gnomes who enforce the Executive body of the UNCoESB. Also they continue to ban hunting of whales and dolphins in parts of the globe where their numbers have exploded to the point that those numbers are now effecting the very habitats in which they live. These resolutions are also in contravention to resolution # 89 "the rights of indiginous peoples" and in particular article 8 which states..... Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies In my own Nation the Indiginous natives who lived around the hunting of the Whale in may i add an ecologically sound way, are precluded from doing so. UNCoESB now allows them to hunt the whale as it is not endangered in the waters around my nation. However they are still banned from doing so because of Resolution 70 "Banning Whaling". "70" Allows for, a small number to be hunted in a year. However this small number is not sufficient for a practical upkeep of their traditions as they now number in their millions.
Both Whales and Dolphins are densely bundant on our shores and could withstand any hunting that is within the quotas set by the executive.
May I also add that these same natives and the majority of people in our lands hold the dolphin in high esteem and these creatures will be afforded protection under article 4 of the UNCoESB. May I also point out that resolutions 70 and 106 are also covered by article 3a of Resolution 74 " The Law of the Sea" which states.....
3. That all nations shall have in or above international waters, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone:
a) Freedom to fish in designated fishing areas, subject to UN quotas.
b) Freedom to fly
c) Freedom of navigation
d) Freedom to lay cables, pipelines and underwater installations, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone
Also i will point out that Resolution 106 is Illegal under the "house of cards" Rule due to the following reference in the resolution.....
RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted dolphins,

You are compelled to comply to the UNCoESB as it is a Resolution Approved by the delegates, voted in by the General Assembly of member nations. So too are resolutions 70 and 106. But they are now unnessessary and are themselves in contravention of a popular UN resolution. I am soliciting your nation NOW and all those nations who read this to Approve and repeal Both resolutions 70 and 106.

Esheram Byron,
Regent to the King.

I hate to get in the way of this heated discussion, but I would like to state my support for Venerable Libertarians' proposal.

Indeed, the UNCoESB is another example of where omnibus resolutions can render existing resolutions redundant. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it is merely a housekeeping measure to ensure that the UN runs efficiently, with as little overlap as possible.

Although VL's proposals are currently stealing the thunder from my own repeal initiative, I won't harbour any hard feelings.

Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

I am soliciting your nation NOW and all those nations who read this to Approve and repeal Both resolutions 70 and 106.
We respectfully withold our support for the reasons that we have already made clear. Thank you for contacting the Socialist Republic on this matter.

Eko Oeşe
Second Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Just so that you hairless apes understand the issues involved, Resolution #106 (the so-called PODA) protects us regardless of whether you ridiculous primates classify our species as "endangered" or not. Repeal of Resolution #106 essentially allows your species to kill us with wanton abandon, at least until our numbers have diminished to the point where we are faced by extinction.

As sentient beings, our right to exist is absolute, not conditioned upon your assessment - accurate or not - that you have so depleted our numbers as to threaten our very existence. We are not yours to hunt and kill - for sport, for food, or for any other purpose.

Suppose the tables were turned. Would you accept that we have a right to sink your vessels on the high seas and slaughter your people, without any reason or justification, just so long as we don't kill so many of you that your species ceases to be biologically viable? No, you would consider that an outrage and an Act of War.

Therefore, let us state - for the record, for the sake of understanding, and so that there can be no doubt about it - that if Resolution #106 is repealed, we will consider this an Act of War, and begin slaughtering as many humans on the high seas as we possibly can, by whatever means we can find (and from our perspective, accelerating global warming to melt the polar caps and flood your coastal settlements seems like a good place to start). Of course, first preference in target selection will be given to the nations that voted for this travesty of a Resolution.

If you misbegotten chimpanzees want war, then damn it, we will give you war, and it will not be pretty.

- The Supreme Leader of the Rogue Pod of Bloodthirsty Dolphins