NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that non-UN members outnumber UN members 3 to 1,

ASSERTING that the attempts of The Law of the Sea to claim UN jurisdiction over international waters are misguided, impractical, and illegal,

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by The Law of the Sea are far too small, and concerned that no allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones was made, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,

BELIEVING that the allotment of fishing quotas is inefficiently administered by The Law of the Sea, but now falls under the jurisdiction of the UNCoESB,

APPALLED at the extensive bureaucracy created by The Law of the Sea, which would be largely rendered ineffectual by the presence of non-UN navies, and the lack of legislation governing relations between these and UN navies,

CONCERNED by the conflict between the obligations of ships under The Law of the Sea, and of declared neutral ships,

DEPLORING the designation of definition of piracy to bilateral definition, which would in fact allow ships at will to disrupt trade, in effect fuelling, rather than preventing, international piracy,

NOT BELIEVING 'reasonable grounds' is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary, aggressive boarding of ships, and appalled at the breach of confidentiality created by the UN database of searches,

DISREGARDING the claim that the UN can designate no-fishing areas, given the presence of non-UN fishing boats,

FULLY CONDEMNING The Law of the Sea for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory:

REPEALS "The Law of the Sea".

If anyone says they want to see a replacement before they approve a repeal, I swear to Wena I'll keelhaul them.

Aren't we in form today? :)

I'm a firm believer in clearing deadwood so you'll have my help and support.

Boy, someone is on a repeal frenzy...but I do agree considering the fact that a game mod felt it should've been deleted, so I see no reason why an illegal resolution shouldn't be removed.

To be fair, I haven't spoken to Cogitation about this, and I suppose it's possible decisions change over time. I will do so.

all for the repeal of illegal, redundant and just stupid resoluitions!! :D

Right, I can't use the illegality in the repeal. So I've dropped the first three lines.

As author of the UNCoESB and as a constant champion of removing redundant costly resolutions you have my full support.

I'm all for end-of-year housecleaning. Hopefully this sort of housecleaning will eventually lead us to not pass such resolutions in the future.

One would hope that we would learn from our mistakes.

If anyone says they want to see a replacement before they approve a repeal, I swear to Wena I'll keelhaul them.


Haha.

I support the cleaning up of the UN, ie removing redundant legislation, so if this gets to voting stage then you have my vote (I shall also telegraph my Regional Delegate).

Might I suggest that the resolution to REPLACE The Law of the Sea is as follows:


The secretary to the UN on behalf of The Constitutional Monarchy of Teid suggests that:

A NEW resolution be passed that takes the place of repealed resolution "The Law of the Sea.

This is named "The Right of Nations to Defend Against Piracy".

And is as follows:

RECOGNISES that "The Law of the Sea" was repealed for increasing UN beauracracy and would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce, not least that it would require a UN navy and the UN is in the minority.

SUGGESTS that a new law be passed allowing ALL nations to defend themselves against Piracy of the High Seas.

This would INCLUDE seas in International Waters, but only those in areas that have been officially designated by the UN as Danger Zones (this prevents nations illegally extending their criminal jurisdiction).

Nations are allowed to do the following:

FORCED stop and search of ALL ships, carried out by each countries' marines or equivalent naval force.
BUT the sovereign armed forces may NOT use lethal force UNLESS they themselves are confronted with hostilities. Also, the search party must treat the passegers with utmost respect, and avoid causing any damage to possessions onboard.
IF the halted ship is found to have evidence of terrorist or international criminal activities, the search party shall:

DETAIN ALL suspects onboard, and transport them to a UN court for trial.

Notable EXCEPTIONS include:


All foreign military vessels
All diplomatic vessels or passengers with diplomatic immunity


Also, this resolution may not be used:

By countries primarily for intelligence gathering.


If ANY country is found to be using unnecessary force or showing prejudice, then the UN shall warn that country. Repeated offences shall result in the REVOCATION of that coutry's right to use reasonable force on the High Seas.

Any further violation shall count as a WAR CRIME or ILLEGAL WAR.



FINALLY, this right to combat Piracy extends to ALL nations, regardless of their membership of the UN or policies, AS LONG AS they have not been brought to trial by the UN or are partaking in action deemed to be illegal by the UN.




IN SUMMARY: this resolution shall safen the High Seas, whilst achieving minimal beauracracy as each country operates independently

(/EDITED RESOLUTION)

I cannot submit this as I have no endorsments :(

We support.

Errrr... sounds complicated and intellectual. Will form an opinion later.

While it may have a great name, we recognize that Resolution 74 is in desperate need of replacement, on grounds of both legality and practicality. Should this come to an up or down General Assembly vote, we will support it and lobby our delegate to do likewise.

I looked at 'Law of the Sea' a couple of weeks ago, because of a reference to it in one of the other threads, and the "official" copy of it in the files had a note attached saying that it was probably illegal and consequently might get abolished by the Mods...

It's a shame, really. I agree with your arguments about the existing Resolution's problems, but this is the sort of internatonal situation that I think should fall within the UN's scope... if & only if ALL of the NS nations (apart, perhaps, from some that lack coasts?) were members of the NSUN...

I disagree quite vehemently with some of the assertions made in the repeal and feel that author of the original resolution should not be overly condemned for inadvertently breaking UN rules. There was, if I recall correctly, a lengthy consultative stage in the drafting process.

I'd like to see a replacement, though not as a matter of urgency. The repeal thus has my qualified support; a case of means justifying ends.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

We support the repeal. Burn the resolution.

I notice Serconea's name is in green. They're still 'alive', therefore. Given the repeal is somewhat harsh, I'll talk to them about it. And get ready for a keelhaulin', Vernigaud.

Whatdya think of my resolution?

I passionately hate your proposal. I don't even think it's dependent on a repeal of The Law of the Sea, and one might have thought you would hardly consider me likely to support, given I am opposing UN jurisdiction over non-sovereign territory.

Alright, I'll take back my keelhauling threats. Perhaps some of this will need replacement.

Bear in mind, though, that this proposal was ruled illegal for category violation. It will not be possible to replace it with one resolution. To my mind, at least two would be required:

Free Trade, Mild: Governing claims, rights in sovereign territory, etc.
International Security, Mild: Combating piracy, right to detain, etc.

I'm less certain about the second. The SJ and Environmental shit I will not be replacing; someone else is welcome to try, though. So, ideas on this are ok, but we should focus on repeal first.

I disagree quite vehemently with some of the assertions made in the repeal and feel that author of the original resolution should not be overly condemned for inadvertently breaking UN rules. There was, if I recall correctly, a lengthy consultative stage in the drafting process.


OOC: I agree 100% with Ecopoeia. The author of the original resolution is actually one of the most pleasant people to talk to, and I'd HIGHLY encourage people to work *with* him.

I'd like to remind folks that UN rules are constantly evolving, and given this ... I wouldn't be too harsh on something that was even semi-legal at the time of passing, but instead focus on the *text* of the resolution, and non of the principal proponents of the original idea.

The idea of making an "anti-piracy" resolution is IMHO a good compromise. :)

The draft now focuses only on the text, and not the legality. I have also TGed Serconea about this; I await his response, and won't submit until I establish some line of contact with him.

The draft now focuses only on the text, and not the legality. I have also TGed Serconea about this; I await his response, and won't submit until I establish some line of contact with him.

OOC: Cool! :) But, if he seems to be checking in at least once a week, but doesn't respond (which I would imagine is unlikely) that shouldn't just table your effort to repeal the resolution.

I've come up with a replacement for the piracy part:

The United Nations,

CONVINCED that pirates > ninjas,

NOT WISHING to listen to a lot of scurvy landlubbers whining about how bad piracy is,

SAYING "Arrrrrr",

BELIEVING that all children have a right to learn about how cool pirates really are,

ARGUING that increasing knowledge of 'safe piracy', and decreasing the age necessary for consent to participate in pirate acts, will in fact promote a more responsible attitude to piracy, and may decrease the number of teen plank-walkings,

LAMENTING that some governments fail to recognise pirates' true awesomeness through the use of anti-pirate propaganda,

FUCKING UP that damn crocodile:

1. DECLARES that "International Talk Like A Pirate Day" be established, and celebrated annually in all UN member nations;

2. REQUIRES all member citizens to say "Arrrrrr Jim lad" at least once on ITLPAD, but ALLOWS member nations to adapt lists of alternative sayings, including "Thar she blows" and "Well rattle me bones";

3. ENDORSES the keelhauling of all scurvy landlubbers;

4. GIGGLES at the innuendos in Captain Pugwash including, but not limited to, Seaman Staines and Roger the Cabin Boy;

5. UNDERSTANDING that raping and pillaging is thirsty work, PROMOTES the serving of grog by comely wenches.

We offer the the Sillytopian delegation our full support, with the proviso that the comeley wenches in question are also buxom. For tradition's sake, naturally.

Anonymous Ecopoeian penpusher
Slightly drunk from lunchtime indulgences

I'm Serconea. Some of you may know me better as Ylling, Senator of the Meritocracy.

Ah, this one takes me back. Still my proudest achievement in NS. I made an honest mistake when I submitted this resolution by labelling it in the wrong category.

Here's the resolution in full. Please include as much of it as possible in any replacement.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #74

The Law of the Sea
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Serconea

Description: The United Nations,

RESOLVES:
1. That all areas of sea more than 20 kilometres from an internationally recognised settled landmass or scientific research station are described as international waters. The UN may permit archipelagos to have the 20 kilometre limit start from the outside islands and allow waters inside the archipelago to be claimed by the nation who owns it.
2. That all 'international waters' shall be outside the sovereignty of any member nation and that no nation can claim to have sovereignty over them.
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
4. That a UN Commission be established to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty or high ecological sensitivity and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones.
5. An International Maritime Standards Bureau will be created to set international rules on navigation, working hours and other matters it deems appropriate to ensure safety at sea.
6. All states can have ships under their flag. Any state may establish a registry for ships permitted to fly their nations flag. These vessels must be duly owned and operated by citizens of the respective country to be allowed to register with said country. No state shall permit the establishment of a "flag of convenience". Any vessel receiving an "SOS" or distress call should render immediate assistance, no matter their country of origin or current war status.
7. All states shall ensure that vessels under their flag are built and kept to proper seaworthy standards, as defined by the International Maritime Standards Bureau.
8. Piracy is prohibited in international and territorial waters.
9. Piracy shall be defined as any illegal acts of violence, detention, theft or damage committed by a private vessel or aircraft, or its crew or passengers, against another vessel or aircraft, or the passengers, crew or property of the latter. "Illegal" will be defined by bilateral diplomacy, with the UN intervening if the two nations cannot agree.
10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.
11. That no nation shall shelter pirates. Nations may only employ privateers (which are defined as pirates who work officially for a government) in a time of declared war.
12. That any flagged warship may board a ship if it has reasonable grounds to believe it is engaged in an international crime, such as but not limited to terrorism, piracy or smuggling. If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated by the warship's nation to a mutually agreeable value. A database of searches shall be kept by the UN to aid law enforcement. On boarding or attacking a vessel, the warship must immediately run up its national colours or the action will be considered an act of piracy.
13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.
14. All UN resolutions affecting member nations also apply to actions carried out by them or their citizens in international waters.
15. All nations with navigable waterways linking their coast and a landlocked country are encouraged to reach agreements on their use by vessels of the latter country.

I will aim to get the replacements ready before submitting the repeal. Just at the danger of dragging my thread to its topic for a moment, are there are any suggestions re the text of the actual repeal?

Please include as much of it as possible in any replacement.
Or better, break it up into logical sections that each fall in one (and only one) of our established categories. The problem with the original was that it tried to be all things to all situations. It really should have been three or four separate resolutions.

Or better, break it up into logical sections that each fall in one (and only one) of our established categories. The problem with the original was that it tried to be all things to all situations. It really should have been three or four separate resolutions.

Yes, this was my point about replacements: there are to my mind at least four sections in here.
- Economic aspects (possibly Free Trade, possibly a political category)
- Piracy (International Security)
- Working conditions, ship safety etc. (Social Justice)
- Fishies (Environmental)

I personally plan on only taking on the first two. The latter do not interest me, and I do not consider them international issues in this case. As I say, though, others are welcome to replace parts of them.

Still, though, this all a wee bit premature. We need to make sure the repeal passes first.

If anyone says they want to see a replacement before they approve a repeal, I swear to Wena I'll keelhaul them.


Well shiver me timbers, and spank me and call me Belinda! Did somebody mention keelhauling!!!!! Personally though I prefer "Flogging 'round the Fleet" myself, but to each his own matey. To which the Palentine Naval Dolphins respond with a mighty"<CENSORED!> YEAH!"
Excelsior,
The Dread Bloodthirsty Sen. Horatio Sulla

PS I'm for this possible repeal as well!:D

I see no reason why we should omit the clause(s?) addressing the resolution's illegality just because we don't want to hurt the author's feelings. The resolution is illegal. The Mods have ruled as such. It is a prime reason for its repeal. The text should say so.

Actually, the argument is rather weak without mentioning LoTS's illegality. Sure, a lot of regulars, past and present, hate the proposal, but to tell you the truth I'm not all that passionate about it, and there is a mob of fluffies and "International Federalists" out there who believe that the UN has every right to legislate over international waters. Many of them were present and accounted for during (my) Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act."

I agree. Frisbeeteria doesn't. Mentioning the illegality would be MetaGaming, apparently, as the resolution becomes 'legal' by virtue of its passing. I think, though, I may add something about the mish-mash of categories.

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that non-UN members outnumber UN members 3 to 1,

ASSERTING that the attempts of "The Law of the Sea" to claim UN jurisdiction over international waters are misguided, impractical, and illegal,

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by "The Law of the Sea" are far too small without allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,

BELIEVING that the allotment of fishing quotas is inefficiently administered by "The Law of the Sea", but now falls under the jurisdiction of the UNCoESB,

APPALLED at the extensive bureaucracy created by "The Law of the Sea", which would be largely rendered ineffectual by the presence of non-UN navies, and the lack of legislation governing relations between these and UN navies, and as such,

FURTHER ARGUING that "The Law of the Sea" does not in fact provide a practical or workable law of the sea,

CONCERNED by the conflict between the obligations of ships under "The Law of the Sea", and of declared neutral ships,

DEPLORING the designation of definition of piracy to bilateral definition, which would in fact allow ships at will to disrupt trade, in effect fuelling, rather than preventing, international piracy,

NOT BELIEVING 'reasonable grounds' is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary, aggressive boarding of ships, and appalled at the breach of confidentiality created by the UN database of searches,

DISREGARDING the claim that the UN can designate no-fishing areas, given the presence of non-UN fishing boats,

DISBELIEVING the sweeping nature of "The Law of the Sea", in attempting to connect a number of entirely separate concerns, such as international security and ecology, to be a productive approach to internationally binding legislation,

FULLY CONDEMNING "The Law of the Sea" for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory:

1. REPEALS "The Law of the Sea";

2. DIRECTS the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.

Here's where we are now.

The Empire of Dromeda would/will support this repeal

Marak Vetar
His Imperial Highness
Duke of Volstagrad
Imperial Dromedan Ambassador to the UN

I think I may need to flesh out the piracy part, but I now have an eye on the word count. Anyway, this will be continued tomorrow. Have a heathen New Year.

Here's where we are now.
Looks good. I'm not sure about this though:
2. DIRECTS the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.
You might want to change it to something other than "DIRECTS". "Encourages" or "implores" perhaps? "Directs" sounds as if you're trying to legislate within a repeal. Other than that I like it.

I've asked about that in Moderation. If it's too strong, I'll probably URGE.

I've asked about that in Moderation. If it's too strong, I'll probably URGE.
Ah, o.k. I just went and read that. If the Mods rule that "directs" is acceptable that will be good. Using "directs" would underline the urgency of replacing the parts you mentioned.

Ah, o.k. I just went and read that. If the Mods rule that "directs" is acceptable that will be good. Using "directs" would underline the urgency of replacing the parts you mentioned.

They didn't. I'll have to URGE:

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that non-UN members outnumber UN members 3 to 1,

ASSERTING that the attempts of "The Law of the Sea" to claim UN jurisdiction over international waters are misguided, impractical, and illegal,

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by "The Law of the Sea" are far too small without allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,

BELIEVING that the allotment of fishing quotas is inefficiently administered by "The Law of the Sea", but now falls under the jurisdiction of the UNCoESB,

APPALLED at the extensive bureaucracy created by "The Law of the Sea", which would be largely rendered ineffectual by the presence of non-UN navies, and the lack of legislation governing relations between these and UN navies,

CONCERNED by the conflict between the obligations of ships under "The Law of the Sea", and of declared neutral ships,

DEPLORING the designation of definition of piracy to bilateral definition, which would in fact allow ships at will to disrupt trade, in effect fuelling, rather than preventing, international piracy,

NOT BELIEVING 'reasonable grounds' is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary, aggressive boarding of ships, and appalled at the breach of confidentiality created by the UN database of searches,

DISREGARDING the claim that the UN can designate no-fishing areas, given the presence of non-UN fishing boats,

DISBELIEVING the sweeping nature of "The Law of the Sea", in attempting to connect a number of entirely separate concerns, such as international security and ecology, to be a productive approach to internationally binding legislation,

FULLY CONDEMNING "The Law of the Sea" for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory:

1. REPEALS "The Law of the Sea";

2. URGES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.

Just as a note, it doesn't have to be URGES. You can make it a very strong suggestion, if you want. STRONGLY URGES would be fine, or even IMPLORES could work. I'd say you could use "REALLY REALLY THINKS YOU SHOULD SO COULD YOU PLEASE?", but that'd be a little silly.

PATHETICALLY PLEADS WITH UTMOST AND BARELY-FAKED SINCERITY that you follow the INERRANT MODLY GOODNESS of Hack's suggestion.

UNDERSTANDS and FURTHER BELIEVES that this is starting to get a little silly.

----

Well, I intend to submit after tomorrow morning's update. If I'm going to ON MY HANDS AND KNEES BESEECH FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, I'd better have something to beseech for. I'm having trouble getting a fair definition of piracy together, in a way which allow us to supply our Wenaist brethren with their sacraments whilst simultaneously burning Communists, so I'll concentrate on the allotment of sovereign territories for now. Given Metric System only applies to national governments, I'm going to assume it's ok for me to use nautical miles in an international proposal. Any objections to:
- sovereign territory to 12 nautical miles
- EEZ to a further 200 nautical miles
?

I would have to concur with the use of nautical miles. Kilometers and Miles are fundamentally straight while Nautical Miles inherently incorporates the spherical nature of the planet. Nautical Miles is a trusted system used by nations in air and sea travel. Good call Gruenberg.

I would have to concur with the use of nautical miles. Kilometers and Miles are fundamentally straight while Nautical Miles inherently incorporates the spherical nature of the planet. Nautical Miles is a trusted system used by nations in air and sea travel. Good call Gruenberg.

Uh?
1 nautical mile = 1852 metres
That's as straight as you are ever going to get. The relationship with angular measures is just to come up with the number.

Uh?
1 nautical mile = 1852 metres
That's as straight as you are ever going to get. The relationship with angular measures is just to come up with the number.
That makes me wonder: if we're discussing a planet of a different size than Earth, is a nautical mile there still 1852 meters, or is it instead equal to whatever length one minute of the circumference of that planet is? That might come up as a consideration in the replacement.

That makes me wonder: if we're discussing a planet of a different size than Earth, is a nautical mile there still 1852 meters, or is it instead equal to whatever length one minute of the circumference of that planet is? That might come up as a consideration in the replacement.
That's a good point. Yes, if the planet were a different size it would make "nautical miles" on that planet a different length. However, I think that for the purposes of a replacement, nautical mile could be understood as (or even defined as) an earth nautical mile.

Category: (ECONOMIC)
Strength: ARMAGEDON
Proposed by: Intracircumcordei

Description: The United Nations,

RESOLVES:

sea territories jurisdictions shall be designated by the capacity to hold the seaspan.

disputes in regards to boundries of seaspans may be reordered by treaty or removal of oppostion by firey hellstorm of the full might of armagedon, or whatever force be deemed required.

All activities in disputed areas may be carried out at risk.


PROTECTION:

In order to maintained the long term economic viabiity of the usages of the the sea an UN Commission shall to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty or high ecological sensitivity and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones. These areas shall be protected jointly by UN security forces, and the UN shall authorize the use of thermonuclear/ Neutron Bombs or whatever else is deemed required to force compliance by any violaters of Maritime Preservation Zones.

An International Maritime Standards Advisory Board will be created to advise on required international rules on navigation, working hours and other matters it deems appropriate to ensure safety at sea. Any such additions to the laws of the sea shall be ammened after approval by vote.


"International Talk Like A Pirate Day" Encourages citizens to say "Arrrrrr Jim lad" at least once on ITLPAD, but ALLOWS member nations to adapt lists of alternative sayings, including "Thar she blows" and "Well rattle me bones"; this day shall occur on October 27th. Also reinforcing devils night and halloween encouraging dressing up like a pirate as well.

Thermoneuclear weapons or neutron bombs or anything deemed required to bring a nation acting inappropriately on the high seas
into compliance, this shall include but not be limited to scraping all their sea going vesels and launching them back to the stone age. Any further violation shall count as a WAR CRIME or ILLEGAL WAR in which case genocide of everyone continuing to be allied to the state shall occur.

FINALLY, this right to combat abuse of power on the high seas extends to ALL nations, regardless of their membership of the UN or policies, AS LONG AS they have not been battered to submission.

IN SUMMARY: this resolution shall safen the High Seas, whilst achieving minimal beauracracy as each country operates independently

That makes me wonder: if we're discussing a planet of a different size than Earth, is a nautical mile there still 1852 meters, or is it instead equal to whatever length one minute of the circumference of that planet is? That might come up as a consideration in the replacement.

The nautical mile is no longer related to the angular measure, as I said before, other than to generate the number. It is a measure of length, nothing more. The minute length is not a precise measure anyway, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_miles).

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sea

^Submitted^

Please approve, or tell your delegates to do so.

Gatesville and her franchises support this repeal.

and there is a mob of fluffies and "International Federalists" out there who believe that the UN has every right to legislate over international waters. Many of them were present and accounted for during (my) Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act."

They opposed it because "we all know that Dolphins are friendly, and beloved by children everywhere.":D

Excelsior,
The Dread Blodthirsty Sen. Horatio Sulla

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sea

^Submitted^

Please approve, or tell your delegates to do so.


Arr matey, we be proud to annnounce our approval of this here repeal. Now shiver me timbers, and bring out the Grog and saucy wenches.
Excelsior,
The Dread Bloodthirsty Sen. Horatio Sulla

OOC

OH. MY. GOD.

I now appreciate why Serconea encountered problems. TLotS appears to be based on the RL UNCLOS. That Convention contains:

A preamble and 17 parts, each divided into further sections and subsections
320 Articles in the main section alone
A 9 part annex
A further agreement on one part, with a further 9 part annex
78,191 words, 415,961 characters (no spaces)

So, I may need more than two replacements...

OOC:

Oh, yes. Now I remember. If I can help, I will. But I make no promises.

While I don't agree on some bits of wording (most of which has been addressed here), I agree with the spirit of the proposal and you have my support.

While I don't agree on some bits of wording (most of which has been addressed here), I agree with the spirit of the proposal and you have my support.

I understand that, and thanks. My justification:
a) TLotS is quite popular, so some stiff words are necessary;
b) it'll give us something to talk about.

First part will deal with territorial claims. Here, I may as well take it straight from RL:

12 nm - sovereign territory
24 nm - contiguous zone. Rights here will taking any actions deemed necessary to prevent and punish violation of national laws.
200 nm - Economic Exclusion Zone.
EEZ shall work like this:
Coastal state has sovereign rights of exploration and exploitation, jurisdiction over establishment of artificial structures, jurisdiction over marine research and environmental management, full jurisdiction over any artificial structures it allows to be constructed (including the laws of any artificial islands), and rights to set and enforce fishing quotas, including disallowing all fishing.
Other states have right of navigation and overflight, and to lay pipelines and cables.
All of above subject to UN law.

Problems? Concerns?

OOC

OH. MY. GOD.

I now appreciate why Serconea encountered problems. TLotS appears to be based on the RL UNCLOS. That Convention contains:

A preamble and 17 parts, each divided into further sections and subsections
320 Articles in the main section alone
A 9 part annex
A further agreement on one part, with a further 9 part annex
78,191 words, 415,961 characters (no spaces)

So, I may need more than two replacements...

Indeed it was based on the RL one, but an older version of it.

First part will deal with territorial claims. Here, I may as well take it straight from RL:

12 nm - sovereign territory
24 nm - contiguous zone. Rights here will taking any actions deemed necessary to prevent and punish violation of national laws.
200 nm - Economic Exclusion Zone.
EEZ shall work like this:
Coastal state has sovereign rights of exploration and exploitation, jurisdiction over establishment of artificial structures, jurisdiction over marine research and environmental management, full jurisdiction over any artificial structures it allows to be constructed (including the laws of any artificial islands), and rights to set and enforce fishing quotas, including disallowing all fishing.
Other states have right of navigation and overflight, and to lay pipelines and cables.
All of above subject to UN law.

Problems? Concerns?
OOC: My only concern is one that arose first time around. This works fine for most nations, but what of diffuse archipelagos (like Ecopoeia)? Looking at a RL example, how does this affect the waters between the islands of Indonesia? I imagine more than 12 nm separates many of the constituent islands for that nation. Do they still have jurisdiction? Is this their territory?

This is particularly relevant for Ecopoeia as they take a 'stewardship' approach to several deliberately unoccupied islands in the vicinity of the main islands. I'll have to check with Rehochipe about distances (he's the regional Map God), but I suspect this would cause Eco a probem or three...

OOC: This is also why that part of the RL world is rife with territorial disputes between, among others, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Some have been addressed through treaties, but many remain unresolved.

OOC: I'll note that I don't think this is a reason to shy away from the issue, but a stimulus to do better than the RL UN...

First part will deal with territorial claims. Here, I may as well take it straight from RL:

12 nm - sovereign territory
24 nm - contiguous zone. Rights here will taking any actions deemed necessary to prevent and punish violation of national laws.
200 nm - Economic Exclusion Zone.
EEZ shall work like this:
Coastal state has sovereign rights of exploration and exploitation, jurisdiction over establishment of artificial structures, jurisdiction over marine research and environmental management, full jurisdiction over any artificial structures it allows to be constructed (including the laws of any artificial islands), and rights to set and enforce fishing quotas, including disallowing all fishing.
Other states have right of navigation and overflight, and to lay pipelines and cables.
All of above subject to UN law.

Problems? Concerns?

Apart from the difficult-to-handle one that any FT nations that are located on planets of their own may see no reason why they can't claim ALL of the water on those planets as being within their territories...

OK, to back up my earlier point about jurisdiction:

Map of Ecopoeia (http://diden.net/~maga/images/eco3.png)

The distance from the northmost island of Argyre to the southern tip of Elysium is about 950 miles. The closest Argyre island is a little over 200 miles from the mainland (Viriditas), and about 130 miles from Hellas (the next nearest island). Chryse's nearest point is about 60 miles from the mainland; there's a similar gap between Elysium and southern Viriditas.

In other words, plenty of gaps you could drive UN resolution through. Eek.

Apart from the difficult-to-handle one that any FT nations that are located on planets of their own may see no reason why they can't claim ALL of the water on those planets as being within their territories...

Then there will be no other people coming to use that planet's seas' resources, and so it won't matter anyway.

In other words, plenty of gaps you could drive UN resolution through.

Honestly? I'm failing to see why I should care. I'll try to think of something, though.

Avast thar Matey! Ye be in queue to vote. Congrats you buxom goat you!:D

Excelsior,
The Dread Bloodthirsty Sen. Horatio Sulla

Well, I'm pretty sure that Ecopoeia is not the only archipelago in the NSverse, so this resolution may cause quite a few problems. I'll give it some more thought myself, though time is against me.

Apart from the difficult-to-handle one that any FT nations that are located on planets of their own may see no reason why they can't claim ALL of the water on those planets as being within their territories...
I think that the concept of "territorial waters" only comes into play when more than one nation has physical access to the body of water, thus nations that occupy an entire planet would be unaffected. The same could be said for landlocked bodies like inland seas.

Then there will be no other people coming to use that planet's seas' resources, and so it won't matter anyway.

Hypothetically, wouldn't the airspace & space above international waters logically be "international" too? And wouldn't this therefore let anybody else who wanted to plant a base on one of those planets (and who had the technology to do so) send its spacecraft down to the international waters to establish one there regardless of the local nation's wishes?

And for that matter, so what about cases where a single nation [of any Tech Level] controls the entire shoreline of a particular sea (as the [RL] Roman Empire did those of the Mediterranean for several centuries) and the only routes by which foreign ships could enter that sea (in that specific example via either the Straits of Gibraltar or the Dardanelles) are relatively narrow straits that clearly fall within that power's territorial waters... Should the areas of that sea that are more than the specified distance from any coasts be counted as "international", or should they all count as being within that power's territorial waters?

Hypothetically, wouldn't the airspace & space above international waters logically be "international" too? And wouldn't this therefore let anybody else who wanted to plant a base on one of those planets (and who had the technology to do so) send its spacecraft down to the international waters to establish one there regardless of the local nation's wishes?
Well I guess it would come down to whether or not a nation claiming the entire surface of a planet could actually defend that planet. Possession being 9/10 of the law and all.

And for that matter, so what about cases where a single nation [of any Tech Level] controls the entire shoreline of a particular sea (as the [RL] Roman Empire did those of the Mediterranean for several centuries) and the only routes by which foreign ships could enter that sea (in that specific example via either the Straits of Gibraltar or the Dardanelles) are relatively narrow straits that clearly fall within that power's territorial waters... Should the areas of that sea that are more than the specified distance from any coasts be counted as "international", or should they all count as being within that power's territorial waters?
The concept of international waters did not exist in Roman times. The Romans did, in effect, own the Mediterranean. What I had in mind were bodies which are landlocked and the entire coastline is in the possesion of one political entity.

The concept of international waters did not exist in Roman times. The Romans did, in effect, own the Mediterranean. What I had in mind were bodies which are landlocked and the entire coastline is in the possesion of one political entity.

In the case I believe you are describing (where a single country owns all the coastline around a sea (360 degrees around, if you like)), the body of water would be described as an inland sea/lake and would be treated as "internal" waters. The difference between internal and territorial waters is that all ships would enjoy the right of innocent or transit passage through territorial waters, but no sich right exists for internal waters. Any transiting on internal waters is purely with the expressed consent of the soverign country, who would have the right to charge such fees as they wish.


In regards to the Romans and the Mediterranean, they did indeed own it - it was referred to as the Mare Nostrum - Latin translating simply as "Our Sea"

OOC: the best description of this in the RW is the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which can be found on the (real) UN website.

OOC: the best description of this in the RW is the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which can be found on the (real) UN website.

Which is what I'm cribbing from. However, the repeal hasn't even gone to vote yet, let alone pass, and won't do so for another 15 days or so, so one thing at a time. I do plan a second proposal on Innocent Passage. Right now, I'd like to fix the territorial claims.

OOC: My only concern is one that arose first time around. This works fine for most nations, but what of diffuse archipelagos (like Ecopoeia)? Looking at a RL example, how does this affect the waters between the islands of Indonesia? I imagine more than 12 nm separates many of the constituent islands for that nation. Do they still have jurisdiction? Is this their territory?

This is particularly relevant for Ecopoeia as they take a 'stewardship' approach to several deliberately unoccupied islands in the vicinity of the main islands. I'll have to check with Rehochipe about distances (he's the regional Map God), but I suspect this would cause Eco a probem or three...


The RLUN UNCLOS has specific sections pertaining to Achipelagic waters that are not too difficult to understand (The worst part is figuring out if your ratio of water to land does not exceed the required 9:1 ratio). It should not be too hard to adapt.

I would like to apoligize if I am re-covering ground - I am responding to some of these posts as I come to them due to some time constraints

OOC: Gruen - I have more than a passing familiarity with UNCLOS and how it is applied (being one of those naval types). If I can be of assistance in helping revise the NSUN LOS, please let me know.

The distance from the northmost island of Argyre to the southern tip of Elysium is about 950 miles. The closest Argyre island is a little over 200 miles from the mainland (Viriditas), and about 130 miles from Hellas (the next nearest island). Chryse's nearest point is about 60 miles from the mainland; there's a similar gap between Elysium and southern Viriditas.

In other words, plenty of gaps you could drive UN resolution through. Eek.

OOC: To expound a bit on Archipelagic Waters - An archipelagic nation can draw a line connecting 12 NM around it's outermost islands to enclose all of it's land mass. The waters contained therein are referred to as Archipelagic Waters. Archipelagic Waters are treated as territorial waters (such that the right of innocent and transit passage exist), noting that the soverign country has the right to designate travel lanes for ships to travel in. As previously mentioned, the ratio of water to land should not exceed 9:1 (in real life). Archipelagic nations do not have the right to close "customary" travel lanes (defined as those lanes which are known to exist through long custom).

That's the basics of it, there is a bit more.

Thanks, Nucleardom. If provision could be made for Archipelagic waters, that would be grand. I haven't checked, but let's assume the 9:1 ratio isn't a prob for Eco.

OOC: Nucleardom, thanks. I may TG you at some point, as there are some bits it'd be helpful to get a second opinion on.

Article 46

For the purposes of this Convention:

(a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands;

(b) "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.

Article47

1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.

2. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.

3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.

4. Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island.

5. The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State.

6. If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and be respected.

7. For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph l, land areas may include waters lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a steep-sided oceanic plateau which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the perimeter of the plateau.

8. The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position. Alternatively, lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted.

9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article48

The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.

Article49

1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.

3. This sovereignty is exercised subject to this Part.

4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.

Article50

Within its archipelagic waters, the archipelagic State may draw closing lines for the delimitation of internal waters, in accordance with articles 9, 10 and 11.

Article51

1. Without prejudice to article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighbouring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters. The terms and conditions for the exercise of such rights and activities, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them. Such rights shall not be transferred to or shared with third States or their nationals.

2. An archipelagic State shall respect existing submarine cables laid by other States and passing through its waters without making a landfall. An archipelagic State shall permit the maintenance and replacement of such cables upon receiving due notice of their location and the intention to repair or replace them.

Article52

1. Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article 50, ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, section 3.

2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

Article53

1. An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.

2. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes.

3. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.

4. Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and, within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit points shall not be necessary.

5. Such sea lanes and air routes shall be defined by a series of continuous axis lines from the entry points of passage routes to the exit points. Ships and aircraft in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate more than 25 nautical miles to either side of such axis lines during passage, provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate closer to the coasts than 10 per cent of the distance between the nearest points on islands bordering the sea lane.

6. An archipelagic State which designates sea lanes under this article may also prescribe traffic separation schemes for the safe passage of ships through narrow channels in such sea lanes.

7. An archipelagic State may, when circumstances require, after giving due publicity thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by it.

8. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations.

9. In designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes, an archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the archipelagic State, after which the archipelagic State may designate, prescribe or substitute them.

10. The archipelagic State shall clearly indicate the axis of the sea lanes and the traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by it on charts to which due publicity shall be given.

11. Ships in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article.

12. If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised through the routes normally used for international navigation.

Article54

Articles 39, 40, 42 and 44 apply mutatis mutandis to archipelagic sea lanes passage.

Could you scan over this, and see what bits might be helpful to include?

Could you scan over this, and see what bits might be helpful to include?

Looking at all that lot, maybe we should pass a 'Definition of Archipelaic Waters' Resolution before the more general replacement for 'Law of the Sea' so that when the latter uses the term we know what it means? I think that this should be manageable without risking a HoC violation of the rules...

Yikes. I think I might end up voting for any resolution you get to vote on this topic purely out of sympathy.

Originally Posted by UNCLOS, Part IV
Article 46

For the purposes of this Convention:

(a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands;

(b) "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.

This may be useful to include if we feel that there will be a large arguement over who can designate "archipelagic waters"

Article47

1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1.

I would include this (Although I don't think we need to hold fast to the 9:1 ratio

2. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles.

3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.

4. Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island.

I think that these three points are too in depth or minute to include

5. The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State.

6. If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and be respected.

These clauses might be useful is someone raises a concern about these scenarios, but otherwise could be chucked for space considerations

7. For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph l, land areas may include waters lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a steep-sided oceanic plateau which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the perimeter of the plateau.
Technical gak - recommend ommitting

8. The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position. Alternatively, lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted.

9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I don't think that the NSUN traditionally gets this in depth, but if we want to, sure.

Article48

The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.

I would include this

Article49

1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.
I would include this, although I don't know that we intend this resolution to discuss air/space issues (just the sea). The UNCLOS covers some issues about national/international airspace as well, but if we want to do that, I would cover it in a separate resolution.

3. This sovereignty is exercised subject to this Part.
Honsetly, not exactly sure what this means. Drop it.

4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.

This could probably be dropped if it is mention that sovereignty over terriorital and archipelagic waters is unlimited outside what is described outside this resolution.

Article50

Within its archipelagic waters, the archipelagic State may draw closing lines for the delimitation of internal waters, in accordance with articles 9, 10 and 11.

This should be mentioned in some form, as this is one of the major distinctions between territorial waters and archipelagic waters.

Article51

1. Without prejudice to article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighbouring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters. The terms and conditions for the exercise of such rights and activities, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them. Such rights shall not be transferred to or shared with third States or their nationals.

2. An archipelagic State shall respect existing submarine cables laid by other States and passing through its waters without making a landfall. An archipelagic State shall permit the maintenance and replacement of such cables upon receiving due notice of their location and the intention to repair or replace them.

This section is probably droppable, unless there is some NS history of discussions between NSUN nations regarding fishing rights in waters.

Article52

1. Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article 50, ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, section 3.

2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

This is one of the essential aspects of archipelagic waters. SHould be included in some form.

Article53

1. An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.

2. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes.

3. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.

4. Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and, within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit points shall not be necessary.
This should beincluded as well

5. Such sea lanes and air routes shall be defined by a series of continuous axis lines from the entry points of passage routes to the exit points. Ships and aircraft in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate more than 25 nautical miles to either side of such axis lines during passage, provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate closer to the coasts than 10 per cent of the distance between the nearest points on islands bordering the sea lane.

I would assess this as getting too technical

6. An archipelagic State which designates sea lanes under this article may also prescribe traffic separation schemes for the safe passage of ships through narrow channels in such sea lanes.
If we address traffic separation schemes elsewhere, it would probably be good to mention it here, otherwise we may decide not to bother with details this technical

7. An archipelagic State may, when circumstances require, after giving due publicity thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by it.

8. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations.

9. In designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes, an archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the archipelagic State, after which the archipelagic State may designate, prescribe or substitute them.

10. The archipelagic State shall clearly indicate the axis of the sea lanes and the traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by it on charts to which due publicity shall be given.

11. Ships in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article.

Again, I think this goes beyond what is necessary.

12. If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised through the routes normally used for international navigation.

This should be mentioned when we discuss establishing Archipelagic sea lanes.

Article54

Articles 39, 40, 42 and 44 apply mutatis mutandis to archipelagic sea lanes passage.

Not necessary.

I am not wholly familiar with character space limitations in proposals, but it may be that we need to split some things up further if required. Incidentally, do you plan on including any discussion about the differences between warships and merchant shipping - there are some issues that are considered essential to governments on this issue. UNCLOS is what formalizes the sovreignty of a nationally flagged warship (ie, if a US Navy vessel breaks some law in a foreign port, the only recourse for the host government is to ask the vessel to leave. They cannot board the vessel or exact any other punishment.) this right does not extend to merchant shipping.

We support the repeal of this law, as some of your major issues u discuss, is what my country has to deal with.

I am not wholly familiar with character space limitations in proposals, but it may be that we need to split some things up further if required. Incidentally, do you plan on including any discussion about the differences between warships and merchant shipping - there are some issues that are considered essential to governments on this issue. UNCLOS is what formalizes the sovreignty of a nationally flagged warship (ie, if a US Navy vessel breaks some law in a foreign port, the only recourse for the host government is to ask the vessel to leave. They cannot board the vessel or exact any other punishment.) this right does not extend to merchant shipping.

Basically...one thing at a time. I see the priority as fixing territorial claims, with a 'subject to UN law' disclaimer. That would then, I think, allow the granting and taking away of rights not explicitly mentioned or defined, without amendment or HoC violation.

I am reluctant to draft a separate proposal exclusively for archipelagic states. I had originally thought of creating the International Marine Cartography Agency, and tasking it with resolving all 'unusual' claims, but I think this gives too much width for abuse. I will...consider the matter further.

I agree that it would be optimal to include Archipelagic claims in this resolution, I just wasn't sure if it would be able to fit in one resolution (again, being fairly new, I'm not sure about the space limitations).

We believe it's a little under 3,000 characters, or 3,500 with spaces. So, no, not a lot of room.

Ecopoeia: This may also be of import. Under Part VIII of UNCLOS, islands not capable of supporting 'human habitation or economic life' cannot have an EEZ (or continental shelf, the provisions of which I'm incorporating into the EEZ allowances). From my reading of this, they can have sovereign territorial waters and contiguous zones. Does this settle your concern?

If we include this, though, we need to think of a way for people to not suddenly claim, you know, pebbles.

Ecopoeia: This may also be of import. Under Part VIII of UNCLOS, islands not capable of supporting 'human habitation or economic life' cannot have an EEZ (or continental shelf, the provisions of which I'm incorporating into the EEZ allowances). From my reading of this, they can have sovereign territorial waters and contiguous zones. Does this settle your concern?

If we include this, though, we need to think of a way for people to not suddenly claim, you know, pebbles.

If we establish a set square km that a piece of land has to be to be considered an island or archiapelago we therby solve this problem.

YES! FINALLY!

By now the ocean floor around most UN nations is probably almost completely paved over thanks to Law of the Sea :/

YES! FINALLY!

By now the ocean floor around most UN nations is probably almost completely paved over thanks to Law of the Sea :/
We figured you'd probably given up on the Undersea Nuke Project of Jacquesass Cousteaudian, due to the incredibly taxing cost of maintaining all those facilities. In fact, my SeaFarm Corporation (LLC) tells me that the fortifications you abandoned off our coast when we withdrew from the UN have grown into quite the spectacular artificial reef. Quite nice for diving and snorkelling, I'm told, and lovely for the food chain.

Thanks would be in order, sir. We'll be sending around a packet of sea bass fillets.

We figured you'd probably given up on the Undersea Nuke Project of Jacquesass Cousteaudian, due to the incredibly taxing cost of maintaining all those facilities. In fact, my SeaFarm Corporation (LLC) tells me that the fortifications you abandoned off our coast when we withdrew from the UN have grown into quite the spectacular artificial reef. Quite nice for diving and snorkelling, I'm told, and lovely for the food chain.

Thanks would be in order, sir. We'll be sending around a packet of sea bass fillets.

Who said I maintained any of them? (other than the ones off of Mikitivity's coast ;) )

Reposted from elsewhere: Oh, and another thing that's wrong with the UN: the endless stickying of queued proposals, which only distracts from the official topic (you know, the one that's actually being voted on), unnecessarily buries the rules and user-guide stickies, and further confuses and disorients those who may be new to this forum.
I hadn't considered that, but you're right. I stuck some queued resolutions around the holidays because I wasn't sure who would be here to change them, and it suddenly became habit.

I'm reversing that now. We'll still do the QUEUED [Official Topic] thing, but we'll wait to stick until it actually hits the floor.

Ecopoeia: This may also be of import. Under Part VIII of UNCLOS, islands not capable of supporting 'human habitation or economic life' cannot have an EEZ (or continental shelf, the provisions of which I'm incorporating into the EEZ allowances). From my reading of this, they can have sovereign territorial waters and contiguous zones. Does this settle your concern?

If we include this, though, we need to think of a way for people to not suddenly claim, you know, pebbles.
Well, they're capable of supporting human habitation, but Ecopoeia has made a point of preventing this, with the exception of a few small research stations (joint ventures with other nations, in some cases).

Ach, it'll be fine. I've said in the past that I imagine unseen appendices attached to resolutions where there's not the room to properly deal with a subject. I'll do the same here.

Ok, putting aside archipelagos, bays, etc., for the moment.

For 'normal' coastal states, I see no reason to change the RL allowances: 12 nm sovereign territory, 24 nm contiguous buffer, 200 nm EEZ/continental shelf. Is that ok with everyone?

No objection here.

Ok, putting aside archipelagos, bays, etc., for the moment.

For 'normal' coastal states, I see no reason to change the RL allowances: 12 nm sovereign territory, 24 nm contiguous buffer, 200 nm EEZ/continental shelf. Is that ok with everyone?
Sounds good, no reason to change it really.

Ok, putting aside archipelagos, bays, etc., for the moment.

For 'normal' coastal states, I see no reason to change the RL allowances: 12 nm sovereign territory, 24 nm contiguous buffer, 200 nm EEZ/continental shelf. Is that ok with everyone?


As long as there's also a clause explaining how the boundaries should be drawn when two different nations' coasts are too close together for both of them to have those full alllowances, yes.

As long as there's also a clause explaining how the boundaries should be drawn when two different nations' coasts are too close together for both of them to have those full alllowances, yes.

My reading of the RL UNCLOS is that there every median point must be taken, which seems a sensible rule of thumb, although I may try to also allow for bilateral negotiation in that case.

My reading of the RL UNCLOS is that there every median point must be taken, which seems a sensible rule of thumb, although I may try to also allow for bilateral negotiation in that case.

Okay, that seems reasonable to me.

About to go to vote, and I think using this topic should be fine.

BUMP

The Law of the Sea is a meritable but flawed proposal. We would have some concerns if it were repealed purely on a "not UN's business" argument. Considering the valiant efforts Gruenberg and others are putting into more focused replacements, we wholeheartedly support this repeal.

I support two of the four repeals currently in the queue. This is one of them.

Will vote for when it's up.

Supported fully

Buon Giorno,

I very much support this. I don't think the Big Business in my country should be told they get 20 km of sea for their fishing and business by the United Nations if my Nations waters expand pass those 20 km. I don't mind being told which waters are mine, and which are not, however I don't like being given a small area of water as my own.

The basic assumption of this resolution is to state that the UN has no authority to pass resolutions and act upon them, since not all nations are members of the UN.

That's an interesting point. We, as members of this august body, voluntarily bind ourselves to the decisions rendered here. But we do not exist in a vacuum; we are surrounded by neighbors which do not adhere to UN policy, and in fact, completely disregard it.

Rather than repealing the Law of the Sea, which is certainly the proper jurisdiction of the UN, we should rather amend it to take into account non-signatory nations.

Otherwise, I see a time in the future when every resolution passed by these United Nations is summarily repealed with the argument that there exist nations outside the UN and not bound by it.

Tarena Schlosschild
Prime Minister
Nomadic Peoples of Dryroot

Rather than repealing the Law of the Sea, which is certainly the proper jurisdiction of the UN, we should rather amend it to take into account non-signatory nations.
You can not amend resolutions.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The basic assumption of this resolution is to state that the UN has no authority to pass resolutions and act upon them, since not all nations are members of the UN.

The UN has no authority outside sovereign territory of member nations. International waters are not sovereign territory of member nations. The UN has no authority on international waters.

That's an interesting point. We, as members of this august body, voluntarily bind ourselves to the decisions rendered here. But we do not exist in a vacuum; we are surrounded by neighbors which do not adhere to UN policy, and in fact, completely disregard it.

Naturally. Your point being?

Rather than repealing the Law of the Sea, which is certainly the proper jurisdiction of the UN, we should rather amend it to take into account non-signatory nations.

Interesting idea. Now read the rest of the thread, there are plenty of replacements lying around. Amendments are illegal.

Otherwise, I see a time in the future when every resolution passed by these United Nations is summarily repealed with the argument that there exist nations outside the UN and not bound by it.

That argument was not presented here.

Consider that one country has the most powerful navy...can use all the seas without restriction?
If you don't have the law you do not have any restriction.

Vote against

Greater Duckland does not understand why the UN should be concerned with the feelings of non-members. The UN is the only responsible organization that is able to police the seas and prevent trade from being disrupted by pirates and non-member nations. Our council is firmly against this resolution.

Greater Duckland does not understand why the UN should be concerned with the feelings of non-members. The UN is the only responsible organization that is able to police the seas and prevent trade from being disrupted by pirates and non-member nations. Our council is firmly against this resolution.

The UN is not able to "police the seas", because it is specifically forbiden the control of any armed forces...

The UN is not able to "police the seas", because it is specifically forbiden the control of any armed forces...

* Imagines schools of swimming gnomes approaching transgressing vessels, and collectively shouting "No, no, please don't do that!" Quickly dismisses the idea, and leaves the debate to cure the hangover. *

Perhaps I simply don't grasp the concept, but isn't the UN supposed to have jurisdiction in international matters?

FULLY CONDEMNING "The Law of the Sea" for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory...

Perhaps I simply don't grasp the concept, but isn't the UN supposed to have jurisdiction in international matters?
Where such matters only involve UN nations, yes.

After careful study and much debate, Ausserland has regretfully cast its vote against this repeal. The resolution, "Law of the Sea," is not perfect, but we do not believe its flaws merit its repeal. We further believe that certain of the assertions in the repeal proposal are incorrect or lacking evidence. Our specific comments follow.

ASSERTING that the attempts of The Law of the Sea to claim UN jurisdiction over international waters are misguided, impractical, and illegal,

We cannot agree that the resolution makes any attempt to claim jurisdiction of place over international waters. Its requirements and prohibitions apply to the actions of UN member nations, which is understood and perfectly legal under UN rules.

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by The Law of the Sea are far too small, and concerned that no allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones was made, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,

With respect to our own national interests, we have no objection to the 20-kilometre limit on territorial waters. Further, we believe that the provision that scientific research stations be "internationally recognized" gives sufficient means for the UN to prevent abuse.

BELIEVING that the allotment of fishing quotas is inefficiently administered by The Law of the Sea, but now falls under the jurisdiction of the UNCoESB,

We see nothing in the resolution that either establishes or provides for administration of fishing quotas.

APPALLED at the extensive bureaucracy created by The Law of the Sea, which would be largely rendered ineffectual by the presence of non-UN navies, and the lack of legislation governing relations between these and UN navies,

We see no evidence nor have any reason to believe that the presence of non-UN nations' navies would render ineffective the work of either the UN Commission or the International Maritime Standards Bureau.

CONCERNED by the conflict between the obligations of ships under The Law of the Sea, and of declared neutral ships,

There is a contradiction between Clause 6 of the resolution in question and Clause 1 of UN Resolution #134, "Rights of Neutral States". However, we do not see this as of sufficient gravity to require repeal.

DEPLORING the designation of definition of piracy to bilateral definition, which would in fact allow ships at will to disrupt trade, in effect fuelling, rather than preventing, international piracy,

NOT BELIEVING 'reasonable grounds' is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary, aggressive boarding of ships, and appalled at the breach of confidentiality created by the UN database of searches,

We have no problem whatever with the definition of "illegal" being determined by bilateral negotiations, especially since the resolution provides the UN with the ability to intervene in cases of conflict. We further believe that "reasonable grounds" is a sufficient justification for stop-and-search, especially given the volatile nature of events at sea and the provision for compensation for lost sailing time.

DISREGARDING the claim that the UN can designate no-fishing areas, given the presence of non-UN fishing boats,

This provision is of doubtful effectiveness. Once again, though, we do not find it a compelling reason to support the repeal.

FULLY CONDEMNING The Law of the Sea for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory:

Once again, we state our belief that the resolution does not "assert UN jurisdiction over international territory". It applies restrictions and requirements to UN member nations, irrespective of place.

We recognize and appreciate the intentions of the respected author of this repeal proposal to replace it with more effective legislation. However, we cannot in good conscience support a repeal based in large part on arguments we find invalid or of doubtful validity.

Miulana Kapalaoa, Minister for External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

Bausch pulled himself wearily up from his seat. He had hoped to have a light evening: a light nap, a brief stroll, a quick purging of the infidels. But nooooo. There was always one. Or, in this case, over a thousand. Already. The applause from the speech by the young minister from Wotsit Island was still dying down as he made his way to the front to begin the rebuttal.

Honourable delegates, gnomish scum.

He pulled out a sheet of paper, and began reading from it.

Following passage of the repeal, the ban on flags of convenience will be lifted. We have successfully located, and are currently tracking, two pods in the Bay of...

There was frantic coughing from the back. He paused, and glanced to the desk, where his legal aides were desperately waving. Wrong speech, great start...

Ahem. My apologies. Esteemed representatives, I feel it is my place to answer some of the criticisms raised by the minister from Woolybully Island. First, though, on a brief matter of protocol, I would like to confirm that Deputy Ambassador Nuck Chorris, whose support, aid, and roundhouse kicks to the face have been invaluable over the course of my term in office, has decided to step down. The unfortunate circumstances that precipitated Mr Chorris's resignation need not be dragged on, but I would like to reiterate my trust in him. We hope that for all parties concerned - both sisters, and the chihuahua - the court case proceeds swiftly.

It is then my pleasure to introduce our new Deputy Ambassador, Captain Biggles McXiminez. He will not be participating in debate this evening, but can be found swaying drunkenly round the Strangers' Bar, reeking of grog, leering at the Thessadorian Ambassador, and singing obscene sea shanties. He asked me to pass on his hope that he will be able to work productively with many of you, especially with regard to his "Keelhaul the Gnomes, Arrrrrr" proposal.

Light applause.

We cannot agree that the resolution makes any attempt to claim jurisdiction of place over international waters. Its requirements and prohibitions apply to the actions of UN member nations, which is understood and perfectly legal under UN rules.

Perhaps here the misunderstanding is simply over the word 'jurisdiction'. We do not argue that TLotS claims complete control over international waters to the UN; however, to the extent that it does, we find these excesses unquestionably worthy of removal. Clearly, jurisdiction of place is asserted by TLotS, given that it sees fit to designate areas of international waters in which it does not 'permit' fishing. Is this the action of a body administering international relations? Or are these the actions of a body turning over to unaccountable control the waters on which - given its restrictions of territorial claim - we depend?

With respect to our own national interests, we have no objection to the 20-kilometre limit on territorial waters. Further, we believe that the provision that scientific research stations be "internationally recognized" gives sufficient means for the UN to prevent abuse.

We respectfully disagree. We have no objection to a limit of 20km for territorial waters, but only where such forms part of a more extensive claims system. Given the nature of many fish species' habits, and the area encompassed by 20km, economies heavily dependent on fishing clearly require a greater area in which they can at least exercise a degree of economic priority. 20km, for a nation like Gruenberg, simply is not sufficient. We would propose an allowance of a 200km economic exclusion zone, in which fishing, mining, and other resource rights fell to the claimant nation.

We see nothing in the resolution that either establishes or provides for administration of fishing quotas.

We refer the representative to 3 a), 'freedom to fish in designated fishing areas, subject to UN quotas'. If this was already apparent, then we confess to not seeing the wider objection.

We see no evidence nor have any reason to believe that the presence of non-UN nations' navies would render ineffective the work of either the UN Commission or the International Maritime Standards Bureau.

A UN Commission on outstanding maritime beauty is fine and dandy, but where non-UN navies are present, it is useless, as there is no means to prevent them from exploiting these resource areas. In fact, if they are placed off-limits to UN nations, then this becomes more likely, as non-UN nations will recognise they have a competitive advantage in such areas - which, by their nature, are likely to be resource rich. Similarly, for the IMSB, the rules it creates are largely unlikely to be 'international' in scope if, in fact, three-quarters of the world's crews do not need to abide by them. Such conditions would be better suited to bilateral negotiation, as they have the potential to render certain UN-non-UN operations unworkable.

There is a contradiction between Clause 6 of the resolution in question and Clause 1 of UN Resolution #134, "Rights of Neutral States". However, we do not see this as of sufficient gravity to require repeal.

A small objection, we admit, but indicative of a much larger problem: the failure of this resolution to take into account the idea that at sea many relations will be subject to specific individual circumstances, and that a one-size-fits-all approach to a serious concern such as piracy is not an appropriate or effective approach.

We have no problem whatever with the definition of "illegal" being determined by bilateral negotiations, especially since the resolution provides the UN with the ability to intervene in cases of conflict. We further believe that "reasonable grounds" is a sufficient justification for stop-and-search, especially given the volatile nature of events at sea and the provision for compensation for lost sailing time.

The resolution does not provide the UN with the ability to intervene. It provides them with the right to intervene. How? There is no mechanism mentioned, no court of arbitration established, no means to apply for an appeal, no indication of the course one must take to establish a claim. To my mind, this will simply descend into bickering and hostility.

This provision is of doubtful effectiveness. Once again, though, we do not find it a compelling reason to support the repeal.

We apologise. It remains, however, our view that the removal of ineffective legislation is in the interests of the United Nations.

Once again, we state our belief that the resolution does not "assert UN jurisdiction over international territory". It applies restrictions and requirements to UN member nations, irrespective of place.

We again reiterate that given TLotS attempts to create geographical areas in which activities including fishing are not permitted, it quite clearly exercises a jurisdiction of place.

We understand the concerns of the Minister from Whereswally Island, but they have not yet convinced us that we are fighting in vain, for we do believe the legislative arrogance of the UN, as embodied in TLotS, is a demon whose wings need clipping.

Strides off, making swishing noises to himself.

After conference with His Most Serene Kaiser Frederic III of Singmaaringen Prussia, it has been decided that I as UN delegate for Singmaaringen Prussia cast an *AYE* vote for repeal.
His Most Serene Highness found much to his disliking the various aspects of the *Law of the Sea*, and believes that all other such frivolous and self-serving legislation should be struck down.
Let is also be known, that a proposal draft is being writ to more fully enhance a sovereign nation's rights to waterways and high seas, that is all inclusive to all nations, and shall serve to not only be a protection, but also a causeway to peace to and stability, and increased free trade.
Duke Vladimir Puttakalski
UN Envoy
Singmaaringen Prussia

Let is also be known, that a proposal draft is being writ to more fully enhance a sovereign nation's rights to waterways and high seas, that is all inclusive to all nations, and shall serve to not only be a protection, but also a causeway to peace to and stability, and increased free trade.
Let it be known one's being drafted in this thread too. If you'd like to help with any suggestions, they're more than welcome.

We do not intend to campaign against this repeal or to engage in lengthy debate. If the repeal passes and a better replacement is passed, well and good. But we stand on our original statement that certain arguments in the repeal proposal are invalid. We do wish to respond to a few of the distinguised representative of Gruenberg's comments, though, before moving on to other matters.


Perhaps here the misunderstanding is simply over the word 'jurisdiction'. We do not argue that TLotS claims complete control over international waters to the UN; however, to the extent that it does, we find these excesses unquestionably worthy of removal. Clearly, jurisdiction of place is asserted by TLotS, given that it sees fit to designate areas of international waters in which it does not 'permit' fishing. Is this the action of a body administering international relations? Or are these the actions of a body turning over to unaccountable control the waters on which - given its restrictions of territorial claim - we depend?

Once again, we submit that there is no assertion of jurisdication of place in the resolution. The resolution sets requirements and restrictions on the actions of UN member states in international waters. This is all it can do under the rules. If we follow the argument of the honorable representative to its logical conclusion, then the UN could never pass any resolution which might have an effect on member nations' actions outside their territorial boundaries. And we would also ask the honorable representative where in the resolution it "designate[s] areas of international waters in which it does not 'permit' fishing".


We refer the representative to 3 a), 'freedom to fish in designated fishing areas, subject to UN quotas'. If this was already apparent, then we confess to not seeing the wider objection.

The resolution does not establish quotas. It does not set up a mechanism for administering quotas. It merely recognizes that quotas may be established by other UN legislation. We cannot accept that the resolution should be faulted for "inefficiently" doing something it does not attempt to do.


The resolution does not provide the UN with the ability to intervene. It provides them with the right to intervene. How? There is no mechanism mentioned, no court of arbitration established, no means to apply for an appeal, no indication of the course one must take to establish a claim. To my mind, this will simply descend into bickering and hostility.

It clearly provides the UN with the authority to intervene.


We again reiterate that given TLotS attempts to create geographical areas in which activities including fishing are not permitted, it quite clearly exercises a jurisdiction of place.

To us, the assertion of jurisdiction is quite clearly the international equivalent of jurisdiction of person -- the claim of jurisdiction over the member nations of the UN, which have voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction. That is something very different from jurisdiction of place and is perfectly allowable under UN rules.

As a personal aside, I would like to extend an invitation to the Hon. Ambassador Bausch from the government of Wailele Island to visit one of our beautiful seaside resorts for a two-week, all-expenses-paid vacation. During his visit, we will be glad to devote all the time he needs to helping him figure out what the name of our island is. We will borrow a set of alphabet blocks from one of our kindergartens to help with that. ;)

Miulana Kapalaoa, Minister for External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

U.N. is a broken machine.

U.N. is a broken machine.
You know, now that you mention it, it doesn't seem to have as much zip as it once did.

Despite the arguments brought forth by our esteemed colleagues from Ausserland and Wailele Island, we remain convinced of the illegality of UN Resolution #74 "The Law of the Sea". We continue our steadfast commitment to this repeal effort.

A law is better than no law. Laws can be enhanced though.
As for the legality of the law, UN laws are compulsory to UN members only. BUT, if rogue, non-alligned states are breaking oure laws we can sanction them - economic embargo etc.

If it's broken, let's make it work dudes.

Consider that one country has the most powerful navy...can use all the seas without restriction?
If you don't have the law you do not have any restriction.

Vote against
I agree

Honourable delegates, gnomish scum.A voice rang out from somewhere in the assembly hall, "Oy! Up yours!"

A law is better than no law. Laws can be enhanced though.

NSUN laws can't be "enhanced", only repealed & replaced.

As for the legality of the law, UN laws are compulsory to UN members only. BUT, if rogue, non-alligned states are breaking oure laws we can sanction them - economic embargo etc.

They outnumber us by more than 2:1...

The position of Venerable Libertarians on the matter of The Repeal of Law of the Sea is as follows...... FOR.

Why?.....

1, The UN has NO right to legislate, nor does it have a territorial claim over "International" waters. The UN May legislate for the conduct of its members promoting safety for its members safe return from what is a hostile and unforgiving environment.
2, TLOTS oversteps this allowing UN Nations to board vessels not in the national colours of that nation. This to my mind is nothing short of piracy.

VL.

Any predictions on what this is going to get?

It's a close vote ATM.

@St. Edmund

I was speaking "in theory" about the laws. Anyway, in UN proposal list are 14 "Repeal" proposals, and only 10 new ones. In the first page ALL the proposals are Repeal-one. (yeah, the distructive human nature taking over)

It should be a option, ore something, to avoid this cumbersome procedure, allowing the enhancement of old proposals - we can agree that there is no perfect law, right? ;)

As for they outnumbering us, I don't care. As long as they are disorganised, we are much more influent over them than they over us. Imagine a country isolated by 33% of the most important nations. I don't care if a tiny-mini nation refuse to trade with me, right? :)

Anyway, I did not noticed a proposal for replacing this resolution.

That's because we're still writing it. It would be helpful if people who wanted a replacement contributed to that, instead of bitching about how terrible all these repeals are.

I've always had quarrels with this bill. "The Law of the Sea" really didn't make sense and was quite impractical.

First, this bill limits the political freedoms of UN members in such a way that non-UN-ers will benefit more from this bill because it means less nations are fighting economically and militarily over the natural resources and strategic routes.

Secondly enforcement of this bill is limited to UN members so non-UN-ers could declare these so called "international waters" as their own territory.

That's because we're still writing it. It would be helpful if people who wanted a replacement contributed to that, instead of bitching about how terrible all these repeals are.

It would make much more sense to submit in the SAME time the repeal resolution and the new one. This way u will create a legislation void. Bravo.

It would make much more sense to submit in the SAME time the repeal resolution and the new one. This way u will create a legislation void. Bravo.
That would not only make less sense, but it would be illegal. A replacement can only be submitted once the repeal has passed. Go read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

It would make much more sense to submit in the SAME time the repeal resolution and the new one. This way u will create a legislation void. Bravo.It's always nice to hear from some ignorant fluffy who thinks the world will end if member states must go one day without the UN telling them what to do! We wonder how you morons managed to govern yourselves before you joined the UN (because, you know, it does take 24 hours to process new nations' applications and everything :p).

It's always nice to hear from some ignorant fluffy who thinks the world will end if member states must go one day without the UN telling them what to do! We wonder how you morons managed to govern yourselves before you joined the UN (because, you know, it does take 24 hours to process new nations' applications and everything :p).
And that's if your lucky, the first time I applied the e-mail never showed up so I had to reapply.

The original reso was fine! Don't repeal it! Vote against this reso!:sniper:

The original reso was fine! Don't repeal it! Vote against this reso!:sniper:
The original "reso" is ILLEGAL (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7079975&postcount=75).
Scroll down to the bottom. There is also a very nice discussion somewhere in moderation about it, which I'm too lazy to look up.

It gives non-UN-ers a military and economic advantage.

Quite frankly, my nation agrees with this repeal. The NSUN's main purpose is to ensure justice and stability in the world through the written establishment of human rights and a forum to settle international disputes. UN Resolution #74 undermines those values (not to mention many, MANY, resolutions now in place) in that although the intent was good, the resolution leaves open the possibility of "legal" piracy, oversteps the bounds of UN jurisdiction, as well as a host of logistical problems in terms of UN enforcement and subjection of non-UN nation sea vessels to UN laws.

Although these points are anything but new, the Vitalinian State Department wishes to make its stance known in any case.

We exhort the voting UN nations to support the repeal of Resolution #74!

Hakim Zilativ
Ambassador General & Secretary of State
The Democratic Republic of Vitalinia
________________________________________

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Vitalinia

That would not only make less sense, but it would be illegal. A replacement can only be submitted once the repeal has passed. Go read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

1. I read those rules. I don't think it's illegal (you might quote the precise phrase, maybe I overlooked it). Anyway, how can I be certain that ure future-still-in-work resolution will be better?

2. @Omygod
Is nice to think that only because u joined earlier and have ~500 posts ure better than others, right. Cheers. And grow up.
PS. Others have real lifes, u know? I will study the Gruenberg-phenomenon, the man with 3.5K posts in 6 months.

3. It is not a valid argument, thet we have to repeal the proposal just because it givews non-UN-ers advantages... if we think what we are doing is right, we have to make sacrifices. The solution for over-fishing is to try to persuade the non-UN-ers to do the same, not to over-fish, like they do.

1. I read those rules. I don't think it's illegal (you might quote the precise phrase, maybe I overlooked it). Anyway, how can I be certain that ure future-still-in-work resolution will be better?
The rules on contradiction and duplication.

And as to 'how can you be certain', well maybe you could read the comments about a suggested replacement?

2. @Omygod
Is nice to think that only because u joined earlier and have ~500 posts ure better than others, right. Cheers. And grow up.
PS. Others have real lifes, u know? I will study the Gruenberg-phenomenon, the man with 3.5K posts in 6 months.
Yeah, and? The fact I spend too much time online isn't something that automatically cedes you any ground in this debate. The fact that you're resorting to irrelevancies instead of responding to his actual point isn't something that cedes you any ground in this debate. There are people with postcounts of 5 in this debate making perfectly valid points; I don't number you among them as yet.

3. It is not a valid argument, thet we have to repeal the proposal just because it givews non-UN-ers advantages... if we think what we are doing is right, we have to make sacrifices. The solution for over-fishing is to try to persuade the non-UN-ers to do the same, not to over-fish, like they do.
Which TLotS doesn't do. All it does is designate non-fishing areas. Think about it. If you were a non-UN nation, and you knew there was an area of sea in which your UN competitors couldn't fish, what would you do? You'd go and fish the living fuck out of it. However, in many ways I agree with your concern...which is why we need to repeal TLotS, so that we can write a replacement which will actually tackle global fishing problems.

1. I read those rules. I don't think it's illegal (you might quote the precise phrase, maybe I overlooked it). Anyway, how can I be certain that ure future-still-in-work resolution will be better?

It is called duplication. Read again.

2. @Omygod
Is nice to think that only because u joined earlier and have ~500 posts ure better than others, right. Cheers. And grow up.
PS. Others have real lifes, u know? I will study the Gruenberg-phenomenon, the man with 3.5K posts in 6 months.

They think they are better than you because:
a) They are right and you are wrong.
b) They have been playing the game for long enough not to need advice from someone who obviously doesn't know the rules.

3. It is not a valid argument, thet we have to repeal the proposal just because it givews non-UN-ers advantages... if we think what we are doing is right, we have to make sacrifices. The solution for over-fishing is to try to persuade the non-UN-ers to do the same, not to over-fish, like they do.

You contradict yourself. You seem to agree that this resolution is not a solution to over-fishing.

OOC: San Severin, Kenny's comment was (I think) in-character. The UN representative of that nation is pretty, er, blunt.

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.

Anyway, go ahead and repeal all the resolutions. Psycho.

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.

Anyway, go ahead and repeal all the resolutions. Psycho.
All Hail Gruenberg!

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.All the girlies say, he's pretty fly ... for a white guy!

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.

Anyway, go ahead and repeal all the resolutions. Psycho.

OOC: I voted for the original resolution and against the repeal, and yet Gruenberg (who's opinion I value highly and who as a person I also have the highest respect) who might have cause to throw such venom at me for disagreeing with him, never has.

He does discuss and debate things ... the problem is that by the time a resolution actually comes to a vote, many of the people whom are active in the UN forum, have debated and discussed many of these details before.

I think you are doing your opinion on this single issue (the repeal), which I share, a huge disservice by turning to personal attacks on one of the nicer and harder working persons around.


IC:
After lengthy deliberations in the International Democratic Union, my government actually feels that though difficult that it may be possible to build upon this resolution without first repealing, similar to some of the previous environmental resolutions. With that in mind, my government's absention was changed to a vote against this repeal at the last minute. However, I'd like to personally reaffirm the high respect my government has for the efforts of those involved with this repeal on both sides, and feels that no matter what the outcome will be, that it is the spirit of international cooperation that both the original resolution and this repeal promoted that we all should use to continue to address shared international resources such as our oceans.

Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

The resolution Repeal "The Law of the Sea" was passed 7,689 votes to 4,101.Woohoo! On with the repeals we don't give a shit about! :cool:

Congratulations Gruenberg.

Yay, looks like the game mods finally fixed the bug that made the first resolution of a new "Past Resolutions" page not be there until a second one was passed.

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.

Anyway, go ahead and repeal all the resolutions. Psycho.
Okay.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Silly%20Things/gruen.jpg

Ew...

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.

Anyway, go ahead and repeal all the resolutions. Psycho.


First off, the ol' goat is very good in the debates, mate.

Secondly, if we're telling him he is good,maybe its because some of us appriciate his efforts in these repeals.

Thirdly as a UN delegate of a rogue region(and Evil Conservative) I find repealing as many of these UN resolutions as possible to be a noble and fun activity.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office


PS Congrats you ol' Goat!:D

Okay.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Silly%20Things/gruen.jpg

You see what you did? Now Cluichstan is jealous and hurt.

There, there. *hands Cluich a hankie*

Thanks to all those who helped. Please burn that card.

Gruenberg, you don't want a debate, u just want people telling you how good u are.
I'd love a debate. Unfortunately, that would require you raising an objection other than 'it's a repeal!!!!!'. Yes, I know it's a repeal. That's why it has 'Repeal' in the title. I suggest you read Ausserland's post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10260432&postcount=110). A full, complete rebuttal of the repeal. I would love for people to make those sort of posts more often. When they do, I'll debate, gladly - and quite possibly lose, as I'm not a fantastic debater, but like trying. (And until then, people are welcome to keep telling me how good I am.)

Anyway, go ahead and repeal all the resolutions. Psycho.
Why not?

You see what you did? Now Cluichstan is jealous and hurt.

There, there. *hands Cluich a hankie*


I cried. :(

The repeals should be passed with 66% majority. Or allow us to vote 2 resolutions in the same time - one repeal and one ... more constructive.

The repeals should be passed with 66% majority. Or allow us to vote 2 resolutions in the same time - one repeal and one ... more constructive.
I've got an even better idea!

Every resolution I don't like should be required to pass by a 75% - no, 85% - majority. I should also be allowed to repeal repeals I don't like. I should also be allowed to veto any repeal I don't like. I should also...

...no. Stop whining, and write a fucking proposal already. All you've done since coming to the UN forum is complain about others' work. Yet where are your ideas?

(Ironically, I was going to post the replacement draft today. Just to be petty, I think I'll wait a couple of days more to piss him off.)

*snip*

(Ironically, I was going to post the replacement draft today. Just to be petty, I think I'll wait a couple of days more to piss him off.)

Zing! 50 points to Gruen!

Grue... this is a nervous disease, a psychotic syndrome.
Chill. Nobady is "after" u. I was talking in principle here and u are taking it personally.
U are just a net-dweller for me.. and this, in my opinion, labells ruther isignificant people - schizoid personalities, real life 0's etc.

You maybe need to lighten up a little. This is just a game, and in the UN forum, we like to take things in a fairly fun manner, usually. Your griping isn't exactly contributing.

Have you got your proposals ready yet?

EDIT: And yes, this is this the scary place known as the internet. I cling to it avidly: in real life there are scary guns and icky girls and oddly shaped potato products. Here, I get to be taunted by trolls who are just on the verging of asking mummy about what that special cuddle means. Wouldn't change a thing.

Yup, it's true. Girls have cooties.

Yup, it's true. Girls have cooties.
Ewwwwwwwwww...:gundge:

Seriously, I do actually have a replacement for this. Each post SS makes, another day it lingers. :)

Do I have proposals yet? Nope... I'm waiting for ur's to pass so I can propose some reppeals:D

Do I have proposals yet? Nope... I'm waiting for ur's to pass so I can propose some reppeals:D

And so another day is added... :p

And so another day is added... :p
Yep.

Seriously, San Severin. This passed like a week ago. You lost, I won. It's over. Stop digging this up, and move on.