NationStates Jolt Archive

The Three Repeals:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal “Keep The World Disease-Free!”

NOTING the well intended purpose of this proposal,

ACKNOWLEDGING it is not of the N.S.U.N.’s jurisdiction to enforce that all citizens of its members are required to possess a certain item,

CONSIDERING

a) That this proposal is ineffective in that it only suggests the use of vaccinations stated in this proposal,

b) That there are numerous nations that are technologically superior so that the need of a toilet, washbasin, and bathtub/shower are no longer required, and this proposal neglects a resolution to this problem

c) That there are numerous nations that are not of the standard technological intelligence, and do not possess the means to create these items for its citizens, and this proposal neglects a resolution to this problem

REPEALS Resolution #9 – “Keep The World Disease-Free!”

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


Repeal “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers”

NOTING the well intentions of this proposal by attempting to retain the sanctity of certain environments,

ACKNOWLEDGING that it should not be of the N.S.U.N.’s concern if its members use a specific type of oceanic vessel,

ACKNOWLEDGING that double-hulled tankers can be just as dangerous to the environment as single-hulled tankers,

CONSIDERING that this proposal is illegal in that it uses real-life criteria to create its argument,

REPEALS Resolution #11 “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers”


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


Repeal “MANDATORY RECYCLING”

NOTING the well intentions of this proposal by contributing to the safety of the environment,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations are technologically superior, and no longer require the use of the practice of recycling paper, glass, aluminum and batteries,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations are not of the technological standard, and therefore do not possess the means to recycle every single piece of paper, glass, aluminum and batteries,

CONSIDERING that many nations will have other uses for paper, glass, aluminum and batteries, besides simply recycling them,

REPEALS Resolution #13 “MANDATORY RECYCLING”

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

Please leave any comments you have on any three of them.

Well, with fishing and tourism, it nominally reduces the chance of ripping the ships hull open and spilling the petroleum every where.

As for shipbuilding, it artficially creates a market for a lot of new tankers.

Well, with fishing and tourism, it nominally reduces the chance of ripping the ships hull open and spilling the petroleum every where.

As for shipbuilding, it artficially creates a market for a lot of new tankers.

Fishing: ok, I'll give you that point;
Tourism: unless your taking a cruise on a hulled tanker, there really isnt any effect
Shipbuilding: you ban one type of ship and even it out with the increased production of another, so really nothing is gained.

It would end up being replacement of existing ships as well as new production. And the whole tourism thing would be that fewer oil spills would damage scenic areas. (like the gulf is that scenic. . .)

Ok, I removed the clause; id like to hear suggestions for other parts of the proposals.

First of all, thank you. *Standing ovation* Those are three cuties that need extermination. I will read through and comment on your arguments later, with more time. You might want to read a recent debate on repealing mandatory recycling.

Now, a political note. In my opinion, you should:
1. Concentrate on one resolution at a time;
2. Split the threads (this will be a mess otherwise);
3. Consult with the Green Think Tank (see my sig).

on that single hull tankers repeal, remove the illegality part. it was submitted before the current set of rules, and also i think before the endonian laws, thus it is actually legal

I feel I should take issue with one of your repeals

ACKNOWLEDGING that it should not be of the N.S.U.N.’s concern if its members use a specific type of oceanic vessel,I strongly disagree, especially since the impact of an incident has the scope to be international in nature. If the NSUN can implement measures which prevents international incidents such as oil spills, then that is definately within our mandate.

Using the example on the resolution itself, the oil spill affected Spain and several neighbouring nations - it had an international impact.

ACKNOWLEDGING that double-hulled tankers can be just as dangerous to the environment as single-hulled tankers,I debate that. I agree that the main cause of incidents is human error rather than hull errors (Grounding and collisions account for the almost 50% of incidents, while around 11% relate to hull failure), a well designed double hull tanker can and will be safer than a single hull tanker.

A quick look on internet reveals there are concerns about double hull tankers suffering a poor lifespan compared to their single hull cousins, and concerns about fractures within the hull in the short term.

CONSIDERING that this proposal is illegal in that it uses real-life criteria to create its argument,I imagine there is a region called spain, who might have roleplayed a similar scenario. Or a nation. It's a stretch I know, but you presume it was not done. Besides, back then it was legit to use real life examples - otherwise it would not have been passed.

In summary, I feel that there is scope for a repeal and replace with a resolution which promotes the rights of soverign nations to refuse single hull tankers within their waters, to promote regular assessments of hulls and a promotion of crew training, but I disagree with the reasoning behind this particular repeal.

b) That there are numerous nations that are technologically superior so that the need of a toilet, washbasin, and bathtub/shower are no longer required, and this proposal neglects a resolution to this problemThus is doesn't apply to them. This is a very weak reason for a Repeal.

c) That there are numerous nations that are not of the standard technological intelligence, and do not possess the means to create these items for its citizens, and this proposal neglects a resolution to this problemRidiculous. Aside from the idea that a bathtub is too technically advanced (a stone age nation could build them; it says nothing of plumbing), arguing technological extremes in either direction is weak.

ACKNOWLEDGING that it should not be of the N.S.U.N.’s concern if its members use a specific type of oceanic vessel,Debatable. Ocean going vessels necessarily travel in international waters and are therefore an international concern.

ACKNOWLEDGING that double-hulled tankers can be just as dangerous to the environment as single-hulled tankers,Illogical. Possibly true, but I'd like to see some proof of this (needn't be in the Repeal, of course)

CONSIDERING that this proposal is illegal in that it uses real-life criteria to create its argument,Ex post facto. While this Resolution does not predate Moderators, it does predate the Enodian laws which were codified nearly 6 months after this Resolution passed.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations are technologically superior, and no longer require the use of the practice of recycling paper, glass, aluminum and batteries,See above. If they, somehow, don't use these items, this Resolution doesn't affect them.

CONSIDERING that many nations will have other uses for paper, glass, aluminum and batteries, besides simply recycling them,This is... strange. Either they never finish use (in which case the Resolution simply doesn't apply), or eventually said use will be done.

...which means they can be recycled.

Please leave any comments you have on any three of them.I don't have a problem with Repealing any of these Resolutions, and, technically, none of these are illegal; they're just really poorly argued.

The technological one is a real pet peeve of mine, as it could be used to invalidate every Resolution possible, thus meaning that every single Resolution should be removed and no further should be passed.

The government of St Edmund would support the first & third of these proposed repeals, but (despite some flaws in the original resolution involved) is basically content with the idea of banning single-hulled tankers.

#9: A worthwhile cause which we would support a rewrite including in place of toilet, basins and showers basic hygenic and cleansing facilities.

#11: Good idea but Optischer dosn't need oil but since pollution is a concern would support the repeal for 2metre thick quadruple hulls.

#13: Useful for less technologically advanced nations, but would support repeal if resubmitted in a more easy form. And to ease our worries, we would collect all recyclable materials in neighbouring countries for free.

A good worthwhile cause, if not a tad extreme. Three repeals would be a little too quick so submit them separately.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR