NationStates Jolt Archive

Simply put, we ask that all oceanic dumping of toxic wastes in both territorial and international waters be banned.

Sovereignty arguments over territorial water rights are irrelevant because there is no way to prevent toxic waste dumped in one region from contaminating waters in neighbouring nations.
I would like someone to help me write a repeal of this resolution, for these reasons.

This resolution is a duplicate of the resolution that follows it. It is a very general resolution banning oceanic dumping of waste. It does not explain it clearly, and the following resolution #35, expands on the resolution. Where #34 only restricts oceanic dumping, #35 restricts all dumping of wastes in public water, as well as preforming other useful, related tasks.

I think I'd be willing to help, although I don't have time right now to read all the material.

I would like someone to help me write a repeal of this resolution, for these reasons.

This resolution is a duplicate of the resolution that follows it. It is a very general resolution banning oceanic dumping of waste. It does not explain it clearly, and the following resolution #35, expands on the resolution. Where #34 only restricts oceanic dumping, #35 restricts all dumping of wastes in public water, as well as preforming other useful, related tasks.

both need to be repealed, they take away my country's inherant rights

Firstly, there is a repeal for #35 in queue, so I wouldn't use the redundancy argument.

I would argue the following:
i. dumping in territorial waters should be the decision of that nation;
ii. the UN should not be acting in international waters;
iii. no definition of 'toxic waste' is given, meaning that the resolution is essentially useless (or too constrictive: if I spill a can of beer, does that count?);
iv. a better replacement would be possible.

However, it's a shame #35 may be repealed, in a way, as the redundancy argument would have been stronger.

I'll try to think up a draft today.

I would argue the following:
i. dumping in territorial waters should be the decision of that nation;
ii. the UN should not be acting in international waters;
iii. no definition of 'toxic waste' is given, meaning that the resolution is essentially useless (or too constrictive: if I spill a can of beer, does that count?);
iv. a better replacement would be possible.
I'm going to go on #3 and #4, along with some of my own ideas, in this idea for a draft, simply because #1 and #2 are addressed in the argument for the resolution, and so not as effective.

Here's an idea:
Repeal "Oceanic Waste Dumping"

Decription: (whatever the game puts in)

Argument: The United Nations,

RECALLING Resolution #34, "Oceanic Waste Dumping";

FULLY SUPPORTING the intention of keeping water clean, but

CONCERNED that Resolution #34 does not define "toxic waste", and that shortcoming leaves an enormous loophole that renders the resolution useless;

FURTHER CONCERNED that Resolution #34 only forbids dumping in oceanic waters, and not in rivers, which ultimately lead to the ocean, thereby creating another loophole;

CONVINCED that these two loopholes render the resolution useless, and

CONVINCED that the United Nations can compose much more effective replacement:

1. REPEALS Resolution #34;

2. URGES the United Nations to replace this resolution with a more effective resolution.

Greetings.


I also agree that Resolution #34 is not clear enough. And i think Ceorana has presented a well written Repeal for this resolution.

As for Resolution #35, it's on a good way to promote a healthy environment but it also fails on some points. For example, if taken to extreme, we could find nations where some parts (or all) of the water system isn't public and this could mean that some part(s) of the nation would be very polluted; not to mention the currency this Resolution uses for fines, as its already addressed on the Repeal.

This means, in our opinion, that a future Resolution on this subject should continue to promote the effective protection of the all water systems in accordance with each nation rights.




Sincerly,
The Democratic Republic Of Atosc.

The repeal written by Ceorana is great. We should submit it as soon as possible.