NationStates Jolt Archive

Updated Repeal Text! ........

Repeal “Banning Whaling”

Noting that resolution 70, “Banning Whaling”, has long been a guide to our nations in an attempt to protect these noble creatures from extinction due to over fishing and Hunting,

Recognising that Resolution 119, “UNCoESB”, is now in place and guarantees the survival of Whales and all other species of marine and terrain wildlife within the Jurisdiction of all Nations of these United Nations,

Affirming that resolution 119, “UNCoESB”, applies a quota system thus stopping over hunting of whales,

Reminding member states that the United Nations has a responsibility to its members to repeal resolutions that are redundant, ensuring the competent and efficient application of its resolutions.

Further reminding member states that "Protection of Dolphins Act" was repealed for these exact reasons,

Repeals "Banning Whaling".
Updated 9/3/2006 01:16 GMT

Far be it from me to sound fluffy, or to actually support this train-wreck of a Resolution, but...
1, The UN has no jurisdiction over international Waters in any way shape or form.I don't agree with this. The UN is an international body, and thus things that are international concerns (ie: international waters) should come under its aegis.

International.

Far be it from me to sound fluffy, or to actually support this train-wreck of a Resolution, but...
I don't agree with this. The UN is an international body, and thus things that are international concerns (ie: international waters) should come under its aegis.

International.

But the large majority of non-UN nations that also exist in NS (OOC: unlike the Rl situation) might object to the UN appearing to claim sole jurisidiction over those waters...

I'd certainly agree that the UN can regulate the actions of its member-nations in international waters, but isn't this ban on whaling simply giving an economic advantage to the [unaffected] non-member nations?

With the repeal of The Law of the Sea, I wasn't exactly saying the UN had no place in the law international waters. I was saying that I thought TLotS represented an attempt by the UN to claim territorial jurisdiction over international waters.

I do support this repeal; since you've posted it in several places, I'll confine my comments to NSO for now.

But the large majority of non-UN nations that also exist in NS (OOC: unlike the Rl situation) might object to the UN appearing to claim sole jurisidiction over those waters...

I'd certainly agree that the UN can regulate the actions of its member-nations in international waters, but isn't this ban on whaling simply giving an economic advantage to the [unaffected] non-member nations?

That might be a good argument for a repeal, but that doesn't mean the UN doesn't have jurisdiction.

2, The UN Has no right to place an outright ban on any cultural activity of any of its Member Nations. You might as well just repeal FGM for the same reason, and most other resolutions. If that's the case, why the heck is the UN even here?

And the UN has every right to place bans, especially where they are international in nature.but isn't this ban on whaling simply giving an economic advantage to the [unaffected] non-member nations?If you want that economic advantage, you could always become a non-member.

RL Comparrisson - just because the US government was too greedy and short-sighted to sign Kyoto, did not stop other nations.

I'd have to agree, just because the a 'law' of the sea has been repealed, that does not mean the UN does not have jurisdiction. There are no 'laws' of the land, but that does not mean physical territories do not have to abide by UN resolutions.

I'm getting pretty tired of the "if you don't like it, leave" line. Yes, if you're opposed to the UN as a whole, or its system, or hundreds of resolutions, you're better off out. But if you're supporting resolutions that are forcing resignations, perhaps you need to consider that is a problem with the resolution itself.

I'm getting pretty tired of the "if you don't like it, leave" line.And I'm getting pretty tired of the whole "this infringes on my national soverignty blah blah blah I'm telling my mommy on you, spit my dummy out and cry till I get my way" line. But that doesn't mean it's going to stop (which to an extent is a good thing), just like the whole "if you don't like it, leave" line is never going to stop being repeated (which again is a good thing).

Every ruddy resolution infringes on someone or somethings soverignty on some level - at it's most ideal resolutions are there to make the world a better place and stop bad people doing bad things to other people. At their most cynical resolutions are there to stop the UN making the world a better place and deny the UN the opportunity the chance to stop bad people doing bad things to other people.But if you're supporting resolutions that are forcing resignations, perhaps you need to consider that is a problem with the resolution itself.Nothing forces resignations, we all have the freedom to choose to resign, or not. It depends on if we have the stomach to face them.

And I'm getting pretty tired of the whole "this infringes on my national soverignty blah blah blah I'm telling my mommy on you, spit my dummy out and cry till I get my way" line. But that doesn't mean it's going to stop (which to an extent is a good thing), just like the whole "if you don't like it, leave" line is never going to stop being repeated (which again is a good thing).
When did I say any of that? Um...not once.

Nothing forces resignations, we all have the freedom to choose to resign, or not. It depends on if we have the stomach to face them.
My point is that if you're pushing divisive resolutions and saying you don't care if people resign - that in fact you welcome it - then you're not actually accomplishing anything. Every nation pushed to resign by an over-bearing environmental resolution is liable to become an unregulated; every nation moved to resign over a unnecessarily stringest disarmament resolution is able to begin researching bio weapons again; every nation who objects to and resigns over some human rights resolution can legally rescind all human rights. What does that achieve?

When did I say any of that? Um...not once.I didn't say you did. I don't actually know if you have. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. It's all good. I don't think I say "if you don't like it then resign" all that often for that matter.My point is that if you're pushing divisive resolutions and saying you don't care if people resign - that in fact you welcome it - then you're not actually accomplishing anything.Please don't think I welcome people resigning - I'm not that malicious.

I'm saying that if you think the grass is really so much greener on the other side, then pop over there and have a nibble.

I don't think I've ever made a metaphor between a bovine and a nation before.

Every nation pushed to resign by an over-bearing environmental resolution is liable to become an unregulated; every nation moved to resign over a unnecessarily stringent disarmament resolution is able to begin researching bio weapons again; every nation who objects to and resigns over some human rights resolution can legally rescind all human rights. What does that achieve?We are inevitably going to annoy some nations to the point of resignation - the only way we can avoid that is to write toothless resolutions, negative/cynical resolutions or not write resolutions at all. And what's the point of the UN then? What does that achieve?

We can only legislate for those nations that want to subject to legislation. Otherwise, we might as well just go home and let the UN die. You've gotta break a few eggs to make cakes.

And I ought to stop abusing sayings so much.

And the UN has every right to place bans, especially where they are international in nature.If you want that economic advantage, you could always become a non-member.

Did I say that St Edmund wanted to start whaling? No.
But there might be some other UN members who would like to do so*, whether for the sake of their economies or to uphold a cultural tradition (or for both of those reasons), and what does the UN keeping them from doing so actually achieve? It might hinder their economies, at least slightly, but because any non-member nations that wish to do so can expand their own whaling fleets to take advantage of this reduced competition it won't necessarily save even one single whale...


*(Might be? Heck, I'm sure that there are...)

*(Might be? Heck, I'm sure that there are...)
Yes, there are. :D

Did I say that St Edmund wanted to start whaling? No.
But there might be some other UN members who would like to do so*, whether for the sake of their economies or to uphold a cultural tradition (or for both of those reasons), and what does the UN keeping them from doing so actually achieve? It might hinder their economies, at least slightly, but because any non-member nations that wish to do so can expand their own whaling fleets to take advantage of this reduced competition it won't necessarily save even one single whale...


*(Might be? Heck, I'm sure that there are...)

Perhaps the U.N. could agree a compromise involve sets of quotas?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Perhaps the U.N. could agree a compromise involve sets of quotas?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Thus my second point, it already has. The UNCoESB is a quota based resolution for all. Doesnt that make "70" Redundant?

As for the first four points, I posted them to show what My Nation believes to be the role of the UN IC'ly. They are not part of the repeal text.

There are some very valid points here and i will be looking to post a more concise repeal asap. Your points as ever are respected and very much appreciated.

VL.

My nation takes environmental concerns very seriously, but we support this fine resolution. It's a simple matter of redundancy. Forget the Law of the Sea repeal and jurisdiction over international waters. The simple fact is that there is already a resolution protecting the whales out there and this is a resolution that shouldn't be cluttering the books.

Ok Hows this then?

Repeal “Banning Whaling”

Noting that resolution 70, “Banning Whaling”, has long been a guide to our nations in an attempt to protect these noble creatures from extinction due to over fishing and Hunting,

Recognising that Resolution 119, “UNCoESB”, is now in place and guarantees the survival of Whales and all other species of marine and terrain wildlife within the Jurisdiction of all Nations of these United Nations,

Affirming that resolution 119, “UNCoESB”, applies a quota system thus stopping over hunting of whales,

Reminding member states that the United Nations has a responsibility to its members to repeal resolutions that are redundant, ensuring the competent and efficient application of its resolutions.

Further reminding members that we repealed the “Protection of Dolphins Act”, for these exact reasons,

We hereby repeal Banning Whaling.

A good rewrite. You have Wyldtree's support and I think most would agree it's redundant regardless of their stance on whaling.

Sounds good. You might want to add even more fluffyness. It never hurts.

depersonalised the ending to read.... Further reminding member states that "Protection of Dolphins Act" was repealed for these exact reasons,

Repeals "Banning Whaling".

Thank you Enn.

Repeal is on the approval floor (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=whaling)

I'd Appreciate if you chaps who are delegates would add your support.

The support of Wyldtree has been noted.

The support of Wyldtree has been noted.
Thank you.

May it be noted at this Point and with the backing of such a noted environmental Nation such as Wyldtree behind this venture that VL is noted also as being an environmental leader and is ranked constantly in the top 5000 NS nations for best environment.

This repeal is an honest attempt to apply sensable legislation to the UN removing such resolutions that have been called into question over their apparrent innefficiencies.

Banning Whaling is covered and thus made redundant by the existance of UNCoESB.

Thank You.
VL.

Damn, I found a great quote for this debate! But it is best left elsewhere. Right.

Fonzoland supports this proposal.

I'd like to further add that my nation is the delegate of the Sea of Madness. We are no stranger to the whaling issue as an island nation and whales will always be protected here. I just believe in the repeal of redundant resolutions, as VL mentioned.

Damn, I found a great quote for this debate! But it is best left elsewhere. Right.

Fonzoland supports this proposal.
Perhaps you could send me a copy :D


As of now and with no telegram campaign the repeal needs 100 more approvals. I beseech all delegates in the interests of your nations to add your approval.

Thank you,
VL.

But there might be some other UN members who would like to do so, whether for the sake of their economies or to uphold a cultural tradition (or for both of those reasons), and what does the UN keeping them from doing so actually achieve? It might hinder their economies, at least slightly, but because any non-member nations that wish to do so can expand their own whaling fleets to take advantage of this reduced competition it won't necessarily save even one single whale...
You're forgetting those powerful nations that pressure their weaker neighbours and dependencies into adopting similar laws. And then there are the vigilantees who take UN resolutions as decrees justifying applying the law elsewhere (I doubt it is just the notoriously rough seas off The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra that have led to the disappearance of several foreign whaling craft).