NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, for some reason the original thread has vanished off the face of the earth, so I'm going to get it going again, but with other features involved:

Current Idea's

International emergency signals

Standards of training required to handle ships over a certain size (in tons)

Something about hospital ships and hospital ship markings

Requirements for fitting certain equipment on ships over a certain size

Evacuation and lifeboats on passenger ships over a certain size


The whole certain size thing is to do with practicality (we don't want peddelo's with lifeboats!) and to deal with tech (if your an old fashioned nation, you won't be able to fit wirelesses, but you will equally not have ships the size of the QM2)

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Current draft:

DESIRING to reduce maritime fatalities,

BELIEVING that minimum safety standards and international harmonisation is required to prevent unnecessary deaths,

NOTING that maritime safety encompasses many different areas which require legislation,

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
g) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
h) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
i) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
j) Dye marker;
k) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

7. AUTHORISES the following flag signals, flown from the bow jack mast, as internationally recognised signals of quarantine status:
a) All clear: plain yellow flag;
b) Suspected case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: yellow flag with a black ball in the centre;
c) Confirmed case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: yellow and black quartered flag;

8. MANDATES that all ships over {haven’t the faintest idea yet} tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, along with enough buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,

9. DESIGNATES that vessels over {something} tons carry radiotelegraphic equipment or wireless communications devices,

10. MANDATES that the crew of passenger ships undergo training in overseeing the abandoning of ships in distress, and other emergency situations,

9. FOUNDS the UN Nautical Proficiency Centre, to set minimum standards for the certification for masters and officers of the watch,

10. MANDATES that all masters and officers of the watch of vessels over {something) tons operating in international waters be certified by the nation in which the vessel aboard which they serve; minimum standards for such certification to be established the UN Nautical Proficiency centre,

11. AUTHORISES that ships transporting wounded peoples during a time of war be painted white, with highly visible red crosses on both sides of the hull and on the funnels (if any),

12. FORBIDS the use of such markings on any ships not transporting the wounded,

13. FORBIDS attacks on ships carrying wounded personnel, if the belligerent parties during the conflict are UN member nations.

14. STICKS two fingers up at the bloody metric system resolution

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=461819

Also, you seriously need to update your profile.

Cheers, Gruen! I tried typing in Maritime into the search function and it didn't work; must have spelt it wrong!

To save everyone the hassel of clicking on a link, here is the original one:

NOTING the possible confusion arising from a lack of harmonisation of distress signals between nations,

BELIEVING that internationally recognised signals of maritime distress would save lives,

ACKNOWLEDGING the possible safety threat a distressed vessel may pose to other vessels,

UNDERSTANDING that the circumstances under which a vessel could come under distress may preclude the use of certain distress signals,

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Square flag with ball above or below it;
g) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
h) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
i) Smoke signal giving off orange smoke;
j) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
k) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
l) Dye marker;
m) Orange coloured canvas with black square and circle;
n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

7. AUTHORISES the following flag signals, flown from the bow jack mast, as internationally recognised signals of quarantine status:
a) All clear: plain yellow flag;
b) Suspected case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: Yellow flag with a black ball in the centre;
c) Confirmed case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: yellow and black quartered flag;

EDIT: Jesus christ, it was out of date. It hasn't been that chap in charge of Cobdenia since about a week after Cobdenia was founded!

Supported it before and I'll support it again.

In favour, again.

Re the poll _
"Brittania"? "Britannia"!

NOTING the possible confusion arising from a lack of harmonisation of distress signals between nations,

BELIEVING that internationally recognised signals of maritime distress would save lives,

ACKNOWLEDGING the possible safety threat a distressed vessel may pose to other vessels,

UNDERSTANDING that the circumstances under which a vessel could come under distress may preclude the use of certain distress signals,

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

I would like to suggest a clause 2a:

2a. MANDATES that failure to provide assistance under the conditions of the previous clause shall be considered a dereliction of duty by the captain or commander of said vessel and that upon determination of the full facts of the matter, he shall be disciplined according to the rules of his home nation, with regards to stipulated offence.

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Square flag with ball above or below it;
g) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
h) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
i) Smoke signal giving off orange smoke;
j) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
k) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
l) Dye marker;
m) Orange coloured canvas with black square and circle;
n) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

If vessels presumed to be covered under clause 6 include those of military origin, would governments be permitted (on national security or other such grounds) to have them not included on such a cartographical survey?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Updated to take into account off-Jolt forum comments:

DESIRING to reduce maritime fatalities,

BELIEVING that minimum safety standards and international harmonisation is required to prevent unnecessary deaths,

NOTING that maritime safety encompasses many different areas which require legislation,

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,

2a. MANDATES that failure to provide assistance under the conditions of the previous clause shall be considered a dereliction of duty by the captain or commander of said vessel and that upon determination of the full facts of the matter, he shall be disciplined according to the rules of his home nation, with regards to stipulated offence.

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS (…---…) in Morse code by any method;
c) Continuous sounding of any fog-signalling apparatus;
d) Gun or other explosive devise fired at intervals of one minute;
e) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;
f) Flames on a vessel, including burning tar or oil barrel;
g) Rocket parachute or hand flare shewing a red light;
h) Raising and lowering arms outstretched to the side;
i) Radiotelegraphic alarm;
j) Dye marker;
k) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,

7. AUTHORISES the following flag signals, flown from the bow jack mast, as internationally recognised signals of quarantine status:
a) All clear: plain yellow flag;
b) Suspected case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: yellow flag with a black ball in the centre;
c) Confirmed case or cases of infection requiring quarantine: yellow and black quartered flag;

8. MANDATES that all ships over {haven’t the faintest idea yet} tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, along with enough buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,

9. DESIGNATES that vessels over {something} tons carry radiotelegraphic equipment or wireless communications devices,

10. MANDATES that the crew of passenger ships undergo training in overseeing the abandoning of ships in distress, and other emergency situations,

9. FOUNDS the UN Nautical Proficiency Centre, to set minimum standards for the certification for masters and officers of the watch,

10. MANDATES that all masters and officers of the watch of vessels over {something) tons operating in international waters be certified by the nation in which the vessel aboard which they serve is registered; minimum standards for such certification to be established the UN Nautical Proficiency centre,

13. DEFINES a hospital ship as a ship designated to transport the wounded,

11. AUTHORISES that hospital ships during a time of war be painted white, with highly visible appropriate internationally-recognised symbols (such as the red cross or red crescent) be displayed on both sides of the hull, on the funnels (if any), and on the forcastle and poop decks,

12. FORBIDS the use of such markings on any ships other then hospital ships, and forbids hospital ships from carrying offensive weapons or munitions,

13. FORBIDS attacks on hospital ships,

The reason for the mapping thing is so that ships don't crash into sunken ships, so it would be unwise to remove military ships from it...

DESIRING to reduce maritime fatalities,
This sounds like "dolphin deaths" or something. Maybe it could be worded better?

1. DEFINES distress as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,
I think it needs to be 'for the purposes of this document', and you should also put 'distress' in 'inverted commas'.

2. MANDATES that any captain or master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the captain or master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own ship,
You also need to bear in mind that under Rights of Neutral States, neutral state ships can't help combatant state ships.

2a. MANDATES that failure to provide assistance under the conditions of the previous clause shall be considered a dereliction of duty by the captain or commander of said vessel and that upon determination of the full facts of the matter, he shall be disciplined according to the rules of his home nation, with regards to stipulated offence.
Why is this not 3?

4. AUTHORISES the following as internationally recognised maritime distress signals:
You know, I still think it's better not to list them in the proposal. Otherwise, you'll have people arguing with specific ones, or wanting their own used. More than that, it seems to me to be silly to confine the UN in this way. If a great new method is invented, or if there's another very commonly known one, then why not use it? I think it would be better to simply have a handbook of officially recognised signals created.

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,
'include' not 'includes'

3. MANDATES that a ship carrying, or suspected of carrying, passengers or crew infected with an infectious disease which may require quarantine at their next port of call declare this to the next port of call prior to docking,
Now this is 3? Why is it down here? Also, you might want to check EPP (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=76) for relevance.

7. AUTHORISES the following flag signals, flown from the bow jack mast, as internationally recognised signals of quarantine status:
As above.

And, I've said this before, but I forgot the response...do all ships have bow jack masts? If not?

8. MANDATES that all ships over {haven’t the faintest idea yet} tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, along with enough buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,
I wouldn't include a tonnage. Just put 'large' or something. I'm also concerned about this, in terms of poor nations' shipping fleets.

9. FOUNDS the UN Nautical Proficiency Centre, to set minimum standards for the certification for masters and officers of the watch,
Right: you could get them to draw up the list of symbols?

Why is this not 3?

I wanted to avoid confusion with the existing clause 3 and also I felt it was subsumed under the general gist of clause 2.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

We believe this is a good proposal and look forward to supporting it. We do have some comments and questions.

5. AFFIRMS that distress signals sent over radiotelegraphic equipment includes the location of the ship, if known,

We think this clause can and should be deleted. We can see no need to legislate the obvious. It seems like passing a law requiring people not to put their hand on a hot stove.

6. MANDATES that the location of sunken vessels be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

We share the hesitation of the honorable representative of Compadria about this clause. There may be times when a nation would need to conceal the location of a sunken vessel to prevent exploitation of embedded technology or cryptographic material by hostile intelligence services. Perhaps an exception for naval vessels in such circumstances would be in order.

9. FOUNDS the UN Nautical Proficiency Centre, to set minimum standards for the certification for masters and officers of the watch,

10. MANDATES that all masters and officers of the watch of vessels over {something) tons operating in international waters be certified by the nation in which the vessel aboard which they serve is registered; minimum standards for such certification to be established the UN Nautical Proficiency centre,

We think this may be a reflection of differences in terminology between nations, but we felt this provision should include all officers rated as deck qualified.

11. AUTHORISES that hospital ships during a time of war be painted white, with highly visible appropriate internationally-recognised symbols (such as the red cross or red crescent) be displayed on both sides of the hull, on the funnels (if any), and on the forcastle and poop decks,

12. FORBIDS the use of such markings on any ships other then hospital ships, and forbids hospital ships from carrying offensive weapons or munitions,

13. FORBIDS attacks on hospital ships,

We would change clause 11 to read "STRONGLY URGES that...." We do not need NSUN authority to paint ships any color we want. In clause 12, we would change "markings" to symbols. As is, it could be read as forbidding painting ships white. Many ships other than hospital ships -- including those of our own Wailele Cruise Lines -- are white. Finally, we would change clause 13 to read: "FORBIDS attacks on ships appropriately identified as hospital ships". If a hospital ship is not identified as such, we don't believe that anyone should be held liable for attacking it.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Minister for External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island

I suggest a clause declaring that no crew membber or passenger, based on class/rank/gender etc... be denied acess to life-saving utilities. So you don't have all the third class passengers locked in the hold so that the first class rich folk can get to the lifeboats first.

8. MANDATES that all ships over {haven’t the faintest idea yet} tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, along with enough buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,


I think it should be based on the size of the ship, over its weight, or a combination of both. Because theoretically you could have a cruise ship that, although the same size as a mcuh heavier cargo hauler, is much lighter. I also think their should be standards for quality of the lifeboats, PFDs, etc...

I think there should also be a planned emergency system. E.G. A pre-designed plan on how crew/passengers are to be alerted to an emergency, and where they are to be evacuated to from a given area to prevent chaos.

This sounds like "dolphin deaths" or something. Maybe it could be worded better?

True, will work on that


I think it needs to be 'for the purposes of this document', and you should also put 'distress' in 'inverted commas'.
Wilco

You also need to bear in mind that under Rights of Neutral States, neutral state ships can't help combatant state ships.
Bugger, may have to re-read Neutral States.


You know, I still think it's better not to list them in the proposal. Otherwise, you'll have people arguing with specific ones, or wanting their own used. More than that, it seems to me to be silly to confine the UN in this way. If a great new method is invented, or if there's another very commonly known one, then why not use it? I think it would be better to simply have a handbook of officially recognised signals created.

But I had to learn all these, damnit, and I damn well don't want to see this useless knowledge go to waste! :p


Now this is 3? Why is it down here? Also, you might want to check EPP (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=76) for relevance.
Don't ask about the numbering for now....

And, I've said this before, but I forgot the response...do all ships have bow jack masts? If not?
I don't know of any ships that don't; it's not exactly hard or expensive to stick one on...

I wouldn't include a tonnage. Just put 'large' or something. I'm also concerned about this, in terms of poor nations' shipping fleets.
The tonnage is going to be quite high, so basically poor nations will not be able to afford ships that size

Right: you could get them to draw up the list of symbols?
Maybe. I'll think of something...


We would change clause 11 to read "STRONGLY URGES that...." We do not need NSUN authority to paint ships any color we want. In clause 12, we would change "markings" to symbols. As is, it could be read as forbidding painting ships white. Many ships other than hospital ships -- including those of our own Wailele Cruise Lines -- are white. Finally, we would change clause 13 to read: "FORBIDS attacks on ships appropriately identified as hospital ships". If a hospital ship is not identified as such, we don't believe that anyone should be held liable for attacking it.
Well, it is authorises, I would say that that is not really a mandating clause. Markings is the term used, symbols sounds too small, if you get my drift. I may mandate the size of the markings.

We share the hesitation of the honorable representative of Compadria about this clause. There may be times when a nation would need to conceal the location of a sunken vessel to prevent exploitation of embedded technology or cryptographic material by hostile intelligence services. Perhaps an exception for naval vessels in such circumstances would be in order.

This is not changing; a sunken ship is a serious danger to shipping. I can think of far more examples of ships sinking due to collisions with wrecks then I can intelligence theft from a sunken ship (I can't think of any examples, actually). Anyway, it doesn't say you have to tell them what sort of ship it was, just the location...

If we are to share the locations of sunken vessels for safety reasons, I think we should also share information regarding reef formations, ice bergs, and near surface rocks etc... as those pose more of a threat to a ship than a wreck.

We'll try again...

Well, it is authorises, I would say that that is not really a mandating clause. Markings is the term used, symbols sounds too small, if you get my drift. I may mandate the size of the markings...

And if it was to be changed to "STRONGLY URGES...", it still wouldn't be a mandating clause. But it would express the sense of the NSUN that nations should ensure that hospital ships are properly marked so that the prohibition against attacking them can be equitably and effectively enforced. As for "symbols" vs. "markings", symbols is the term you use in clause 11. Why do you object, then, to its use in clause 12? It clearly distinguishes the symbols/markings from the color of the ship.

This is not changing; a sunken ship is a serious danger to shipping. I can think of far more examples of ships sinking due to collisions with wrecks then I can intelligence theft from a sunken ship (I can't think of any examples, actually). Anyway, it doesn't say you have to tell them what sort of ship it was, just the location...

Sunken ships are not always hazards to shipping. A wreck in deep water poses no hazard to anyone. Perhaps the exception I suggested could be granted only if the wreck poses no reasonable hazard to shipping. (OOC: There are plenty of examples of intelligence collection from sunken vessels, also of failed attempts to do so.)

Miulana Kapalaoa
Minister for External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island

Points taken on board; will deal with them when I'm sober...

The United Nations,

DESIRING to reduce unnecessary loss of life on the seas,

BELIEVING that minimum safety standards and international harmonisation is required to prevent unnecessary deaths,

1. DEFINES 'distress', for the purposes of this document, as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the lives of the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress attend to the incident, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own vessel or violate the neutrality of the ship in which the vessel is registered,

3. MANDATES that failure to provide assistance under the conditions of the previous clause shall be considered a dereliction of duty by the master of said vessel and that upon determination of the full facts of the matter, he shall be disciplined according to the rules of his home nation, with regards to stipulated offence,

4. FOUNDS the UN Standards Essential for All Watch Officers Responsible for Transportation, Harbourmasters, and Yachtsmen (UNSEAWORTHY),

5. MANDATES that all masters and officers of the watch of vessels over 5,000 long tons operating in international waters be certified by the nation in which the vessel aboard which they serve is registered; minimum standards for such certification to be established by the UNSEAWORTHY,

6. AUTHORISES the UNSEAWORTHY to produce information pertaining internationally recognised maritime distress signals that will encompass all possible scenario’s in which a ship may be in distress, and to ensure that the information be required in the minimum standards of certification as outlined in article 5, including but not limited to:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS in Morse code by any method;
c) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;

7. MANDATES that the location of newly sunken vessels that may pose a threat to shipping be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

8. MANDATES that all ships over 10,000 long tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, along with enough buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,

9. DESIGNATES that vessels over 4,000 long tons carry radiotelegraphic equipment or wireless communications devices,

10. MANDATES that the crew of passenger ships undergo training in overseeing the abandoning of ships in distress, and other emergency situations,

11. DEFINES a 'hospital ship' as a vessel designated to transport the wounded,

12. STRONGLY URGES that hospital ships during a time of war be painted a white livery, with highly visible appropriate internationally-recognised markings, large enough and of a colour to be clearly visible against the white livery, be displayed on both sides of the hull, on the funnels (if any), and on the forecastle and poop decks; details of such markings are to be produced by the UNSEAWORTHY and included in all masters and officer of the watch certification as outlined in article 5.

13. FORBIDS the use of such markings on any ships other then hospital ships, and forbids hospital ships from carrying offensive weapons or munitions,

14. FORBIDS attacks on designated hospital ships, whose status as such has been made clear.

Had to remove a lot due to the character limit

Now, what bloody catagory? The nearest I can think of is human rights...

Also, beat UNSEAWORTHY, St Edmund!

I'd probably consult the mods on category before submission. I do think human rights is the closest though. This draft looks good to me. I would've liked more distress signals included since some of the simpler methods need to be recognized (IE fire), but I understand the character limit restriction.

Bump for any thoughts/complaints/ideas/pornographic links. If none I'll put it through the first round no TG stage...

Bump for any thoughts/complaints/ideas/pornographic links. If none I'll put it through the first round no TG stage...

Thought: When the pope gets off an airplane and kisses the ground, does he slip it the tongue if it's a country he really likes?

Complaint: I hate these smileys. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Idea: The world would be a much better place if it were populated solely with clones of me.

And finally...

PORN! (http://www.enduringvision.com/archives/kermit.gif)

k) National flag of the nation in which the ship is registered, flown inverted;
This could be an issue for nations with flags that when inverted become the flag of another nation, given that other nearby ships are required to respond to this signal.

Offsite forum update:

The United Nations,

DESIRING to reduce unnecessary loss of life on the seas,

BELIEVING that minimum safety standards and international harmonisation is required to prevent unnecessary deaths,

1. DEFINES 'distress', for the purposes of this document, as a situation that poses an imminent threat to the lives of the crew and passengers travelling on a vessel,

2. MANDATES that any master of a vessel within fifty nautical miles of a vessel known to be in distress assist the vessel in distress, except when another vessel that is able to assist is known to be closer to the incident, or when the master of a vessel believes that attending to the incident may endanger the safety of his own vessel or violate the neutrality of the ship in which the vessel is registered,

3. MANDATES that failure to provide assistance under the conditions of the previous clause shall be considered a dereliction of duty by the master of said vessel and that upon determination of the full facts of the matter, he shall be disciplined according to the rules of his home nation, with regards to stipulated offence,

4. FOUNDS the UN Standards Essential for All Watch Officers Responsible for Transportation, Harbourmasters, and Yachtsmen (UNSEAWORTHY),

5. MANDATES that all masters and officers of the watch of vessels over 4,000 long tons operating in international waters be certified by the nation in which the vessel aboard which they serve is registered; minimum standards for such certification to be established by the UNSEAWORTHY,

6. AUTHORISES the UNSEAWORTHY to produce information pertaining internationally recognised maritime distress signals that will encompass all possible scenario’s in which a ship may be in distress, and to ensure that the information be required in the minimum standards of certification as outlined in article 5, including but not limited to:
a) The spoken word MAYDAY, repeated where possible, transmitted via radiotelegraphic equipment;
b) Signalling SOS in Morse code by any method;
c) Rockets or shells with red stars fired singly at short intervals;

7. MANDATES that the location of newly sunken vessels that may pose a threat to shipping be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

8. MANDATES that all ships over 4,000 long tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, and that all passenger vessels carry buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,

9. DESIGNATES that vessels over 4,000 long tons carry radiotelegraphic equipment or wireless communications devices,

10. MANDATES that the crew of passenger ships undergo training in overseeing the abandoning of ships in distress, and other emergency situations,

11. DEFINES a 'hospital ship' as a vessel designated to transport the wounded,

12. STRONGLY URGES that hospital ships during a time of war be painted a white livery, with highly visible appropriate internationally-recognised markings, large enough and of a colour to be clearly visible against the white livery, be displayed on both sides of the hull, on the funnels (if any), and on the forecastle and poop decks; details of such markings are to be produced by the UNSEAWORTHY and included in all masters and officer of the watch certification as outlined in article 5.

13. FORBIDS the use of such markings on any ships other then hospital ships, and forbids hospital ships from carrying offensive weapons or munitions,

14. FORBIDS attacks on designated hospital ships, whose status as such has been made clear

Having critiqued this elsewhere, I like the current draft a lot more than previous ones.
Just one thing (having harped on this elsewhere): why would only passenger vessels have to carry aids? And why would only the crew of passenger ships be trained as to how to oversee what to do in an emergency? They are the most in need of this, but other ships that aren't passenger ships as such may carry non-crew members aboard i.e. scientists or observers who are not normal seafarers.

These are minor comments, though.

Crew is usually meant to mean those who aren't paying to be on the ship. I don't have any room for a definition, though...

I'd probably consult the mods on category before submission. I do think human rights is the closest though.

Making shipping seem safer encourages more people to use it, thus reducing a barrier to trade, so 'Free Trade'?

Making shipping seem safer encourages more people to use it, thus reducing a barrier to trade, so 'Free Trade'?
Yeah that's a good point. Maybe Free Trade.

1) We have two situations that are criminal in nature that have happened recently in Commonalitarianism history. The first is piracy which this legislation clearly does not cover properly. Included in this is slavery or ransom situations where one is boarded by either criminals or criminal nations with the intention of capturing the crew for bounty or slaves. We have until recently with the institution of the anti-piracy brigades have had this problem.

2) All ships, even hospital ships should have the right to take precautions against these criminal activities, light armament, high intensity deck lighting, water cannons, watch patrols, satellite location beacons, etc. This does not mean ship guns or heavy armament. Otherwise they will be sitting ducks for raiders. Not all ships are members of the United Nations and many will not hesitate to board and steal hospital ships.

3) Anti- piracy and emergency literature should be freely disseminated as part of this legislation.

4) We thank you for providing a new source of recyclable materials for the International Undersea Salvage Cooperative.

Submitificated

Link for approvals (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=maritime)

Approve or the Cobdenian fleet sinks all your hostipal ships...

Approvicatededed

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thought: When the pope gets off an airplane and kisses the ground, does he slip it the tongue if it's a country he really likes?

Complaint: I hate these smileys. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Idea: The world would be a much better place if it were populated solely with clones of me.

And finally...

PORN! (http://www.enduringvision.com/archives/kermit.gif)

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Approved once again

Nice poll. Good luck in queueficating it.

Bump, for I need seven more approvals. It's on page one now.

Just 3 needed; I'll keelhaul all those who don't endorse this! Yarrr.

~Captain Biggles McXiminez
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations
Ogler-General of Buxom Wenches

Two more, just two more.

And, to add to Gruen's threat, I shall also endeavor to, urm, push you off the blunt end of the big floaty boaty thingy so you get chopped up in the big fanny things what makes it move

Okay, that didn't work. Still one endorsement to go...

If it doesn't make quorum, I'll post some gratuitous pictures of cocks.

If it does, I'll paste gratuitous pictures of boobies.

Okay?

Mmm... boobies...

http://www.gate1travel.com/south-america-travel/images/photos/blue-footed-boobie.jpg

Dammit Hack; you stole my joke!

Well done, Cob, best of luck when it comes to vote.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congrats, Cob.

Yey.

Congrats.

Congratulations and may the blessings of Tarkan the Great Otter be upon you Cobdenia.

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

Congratulations. The government of St Edmund will definitely vote FOR this proposal.

Great resolution, the republic votes FOR.

The Monty Python quote is backwards. The mother was a hamster and the father smelt of elderberries.

Aside from a few minor problems with diction in the Resolution, it's very good.

Excellent yarn. Norderia votes for.

Hack, wake up! This proposal's up for vote. It's time to sticky this bad boy! :p

Voting against the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' :sniper:

BELIEVING that the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' to be ridiculously simplified, all encompassing and totally unrealistic for the following reasons:-

Article (1) does not provide a distinction of the many conditions of distress that may go against state policies (example, sinking boat-loads of refugee ships).

Article (3) allows the Home Nation to decide on a 'slap-on-the-wrist' action should any 'failure to provide assistance' occur, or to even take no action whatsoever.

Articles (4) to (9) compromises military and/or espionage ship operations, with respect to:-
(i) exposing the location of 'military' or 'technological/nuclear' proprietory shipwrecks to rogue nations,
(ii) unrealistic, naive and dangerous expectations as the location of shipwrecks may change due to oceanic currents, tides and time,
(iii) compromising existing and future ship details, designs and operations
while overlooking the importance of reefs, icebergs and other natural hazards.

Article (6) places total responsibility on UNSEAWORTHY (another unnecessary, UN-funded authority) to 'produce information pertaining internationally recognised maritime distress signals' for 'all possible scenario’s in which a ship may be in distress'.
IF the signals are internationally recognised, why bother already?
There are infinite ways in which a ship may be in distress, 'all possible scenarios' renders the UNSEAWORTHY document/information impossible to produce. And no mention of the funding for this white elephant?

Articles (11) to (14) diverges from the multi-functional role of support ships, and is ambiguous with respect to action against ships found contravening the said 'Hospital Ships' markings, role and designation.

What happens if ships are found flouting the articles (4) to (14) of 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' ?
There is neither mention of the methods of enforcement nor the charges that may be brought against these ships.

In short the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' causes more unnecessary, unenforcable and unrealistic rules and regulations while seeking to construct another Agency to further drain the UN's coffers.

Vote AGAINST the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act'

I think that the Maritime Safety Standards would actually help, due to the fact that if you were to streamline the naval standards, there wouldn't be as many problems as there are now with people mistaking hospital ships with ammo carriers and such. Looking at the end of the thread, the whole "Vote against" reply is misguided. Bureaucracies are actually better on the whole; when everything isn't organized like this is, the UN wouldn't be as effective as it is now.

Article (1) does not provide a distinction of the many conditions of distress that may go against state policies (example, sinking boat-loads of refugee ships).

Correct. So why isn't this a good thing? Sinking refugee ships to have refugees paddle water until they fall to hyperthermia and drown isn't something a member UN nation should condone. If you don't want refugee ships just drops nuclear bombs on them ... nothing left to be in distress right? (DID I JUST WRITE THAT?) :p

Article (3) allows the Home Nation to decide on a 'slap-on-the-wrist' action should any 'failure to provide assistance' occur, or to even take no action whatsoever.

Correct. I don't think keel-hauling would be approved by the UN body at this time. Sometimes you have to throw a bone to the Nat Sov guys. :p

Articles (4) to (9) compromises military and/or espionage ship operations, with respect to:-
(i) exposing the location of 'military' or 'technological/nuclear' proprietory shipwrecks to rogue nations,
(ii) unrealistic, naive and dangerous expectations as the location of shipwrecks may change due to oceanic currents, tides and time,
(iii) compromising existing and future ship details, designs and operations
while overlooking the importance of reefs, icebergs and other natural hazards.

7. MANDATES that the location of newly sunken vessels that may pose a threat to shipping be made available to all relevant oceanic mapping institutes,

Milirary or nuclear shipwrecks that would "pose a threat to shipping" should be removed ON THE SPOT. Failure to do so is gross neligance on the part of the nation of the military vessel. If they don't do that then I can guarentee you some rogue nation will mount a wrecking expedition. Last time I checked wrecks move a whole lot slower than icebergs. At least icebergs have something showing on the top of the water.

Article (6) places total responsibility on UNSEAWORTHY (another unnecessary, UN-funded authority) to 'produce information pertaining internationally recognised maritime distress signals' for 'all possible scenario’s in which a ship may be in distress'.
IF the signals are internationally recognised, why bother already?
There are infinite ways in which a ship may be in distress, 'all possible scenarios' renders the UNSEAWORTHY document/information impossible to produce. And no mention of the funding for this white elephant?

UN-funded authorities are the only way we can effectively get anything done due to a number of technical problems. (i.e. READ THE FAQ!) There is nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

Articles (11) to (14) diverges from the multi-functional role of support ships, and is ambiguous with respect to action against ships found contravening the said 'Hospital Ships' markings, role and designation.

"Support ships" is a term that has always been used to represent military ships that assist the main ship of a battle fleet, and thus are perfect targets in war - a hospital ship is not. A hospital ship should not be a multi-functional ship.

What happens if ships are found flouting the articles (4) to (14) of 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' ?

UN Gnomes will ruthlessly invade the minds of all your foreign diplomats who in turn will return to your nation to kill your national animal in your sleep.

UN Gnomes will ruthlessly invade the minds of all your foreign diplomats who in turn will return to your nation to kill your national animal in your sleep.

Don't forget the double parking, the hooker killing, the drunk and disordly, the flashing, and the incredibly rude words they'll shout over loud speakers.

And, thanks to my other resolution that's on the books, you can do naff all about it!

Don't forget the double parking, the hooker killing, the drunk and disordly, the flashing, and the incredibly rude words they'll shout over loud speakers.

And, thanks to my other resolution that's on the books, you can do naff all about it!

There had better not be any hooker killing! We would be forced to take extreme measures against anyone commiting such an act.

There had better not be any hooker killing! We would be forced to take extreme measures against anyone commiting such an act.Hirota votes FOR, and is applying pressure on our delegate to do likewise.

There had better not be any hooker killing! We would be forced to take extreme measures against anyone commiting such an act.


Worry not! Just send them over to Kivisto and we'll be more than happy to offer them the absolute bestest of hospitality and protect them as only our adolescent shirt ninjas can. Of course, I'm also fairly certain that CPESL is fully capable of covering that on their own, but who could pass up the opportunity to entertain a lady in distress.

I vote against, because I feel this bill is unnecessary. Especially in terms of espionage and Public Safety :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: If this bill passes, the terrorists win!

I vote against, because I feel this bill is unnecessary. Especially in terms of espionage and Public Safety :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: If this bill passes, the terrorists win!

Did someone say "espionage"? :p

There had better not be any hooker killing! We would be forced to take extreme measures against anyone commiting such an act.

Relax, the CPESL will not be harmed, nor will any prostitutes - don't want to violate the Sex Industry workers act, now, do we?

Your Rugby teams, however, will be rather depleted of forwards...

Worry not! Just send them over to Kivisto and we'll be more than happy to offer them the absolute bestest of hospitality and protect them as only our adolescent shirt ninjas can. Of course, I'm also fairly certain that CPESL is fully capable of covering that on their own, but who could pass up the opportunity to entertain a lady in distress.

Indeed, CPESL servicewomen can most assuredly take care of themselves. However, I'm sure they'd be more than willing to pay you a visit -- providing the price is right, of course. ;)

Relax, the CPESL will not be harmed, nor will any prostitutes - don't want to violate the Sex Industry workers act, now, do we?

Your Rugby teams, however, will be rather depleted of forwards...

Heh...if you get rid of the hookers, there are still 14 other chaps on the pitch, remember. ;)

(OOC: I played hooker while I was at university. ;) )

If we are to share the locations of sunken vessels for safety reasons, I think we should also share information regarding reef formations, ice bergs, and near surface rocks etc... as those pose more of a threat to a ship than a wreck.
Kinda like a maritime navigation version of the Meteorological resolution recently passed?

Delegate FOR.

Voting against the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' :sniper:

Sniper smiley's rarely indicate a good quality post, especially so early.

BELIEVING that the 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' to be ridiculously simplified, all encompassing and totally unrealistic for the following reasons:-

Article (1) does not provide a distinction of the many conditions of distress that may go against state policies (example, sinking boat-loads of refugee ships).

As Tsorzland has splendidly pointed out, your view is ridiculous. Why would you want to sink refugee ships when you can just repatriate the passengers and/or direct them to another, more welcoming nation, thus saving you from international opprobium and wastage of good munitions.

Article (3) allows the Home Nation to decide on a 'slap-on-the-wrist' action should any 'failure to provide assistance' occur, or to even take no action whatsoever.

That's their perogative (I can't believe I'm actually supporting a NatSov idea here, but anyway) and besides, they are still required to "discipline" the individual in question, which normally entails some kind of reprimand (at the very least).

Articles (4) to (9) compromises military and/or espionage ship operations, with respect to:-
(i) exposing the location of 'military' or 'technological/nuclear' proprietory shipwrecks to rogue nations,
(ii) unrealistic, naive and dangerous expectations as the location of shipwrecks may change due to oceanic currents, tides and time,
(iii) compromising existing and future ship details, designs and operations
while overlooking the importance of reefs, icebergs and other natural hazards.

Really, what about the following ones included under your definition?

4. FOUNDS the UN Standards Essential for All Watch Officers Responsible for Transportation, Harbourmasters, and Yachtsmen (UNSEAWORTHY),

8. MANDATES that all ships over 4,000 long tons carry sufficient lifeboats for passengers and crew, and that all passenger vessels carry buoyancy aids for all passengers and crew to be issued in cases of emergency,

9. DESIGNATES that vessels over 4,000 long tons carry radiotelegraphic equipment or wireless communications devices,

How exactly do they do that?

Article (6) places total responsibility on UNSEAWORTHY (another unnecessary, UN-funded authority) to 'produce information pertaining internationally recognised maritime distress signals' for 'all possible scenario’s in which a ship may be in distress'.
IF the signals are internationally recognised, why bother already?
There are infinite ways in which a ship may be in distress, 'all possible scenarios' renders the UNSEAWORTHY document/information impossible to produce. And no mention of the funding for this white elephant?

Funding is automatic and as for the alleged impossibility aspect, this would only be down to a failure to invest in your maritime services, not problems inherent in the resolution.

What happens if ships are found flouting the articles (4) to (14) of 'Maritime Safety Standards Act' ?
There is neither mention of the methods of enforcement nor the charges that may be brought against these ships.

If you're going to take action against such ships (i.e. military) it would be best probably to assume that they are 'innocent till proven guilty' rather than risk a humanitarian calamity.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

:mp5: wtf? this is teh shittest porpoise evah. :sniper: :sniper: :gundge:

I want nooks!

(That should liven this discussion up. It's making Meterological Cooperation look devisive!)

:mp5: wtf? this is teh shittest porpoise evah. :sniper: :sniper: :gundge:

I want nooks!

(That should liven this discussion up. It's making Meterological Cooperation look devisive!)
Shhh, don't mention porpoises, those foul-mouthed dolphins might show up.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Riiiing, riiiiing...

Riiiing, riiiiing...

Riiiing, riiiiing...

Riiiing, riiiiing...

(in a slight Southern drawl) "I'm sorry, I'm not available right now. And by not available, I do not mean what you're thinking, Hillary.[...] Anyways, you've reached the office of The Beltway's Ambassador to the UN. Leave a message after the beep..."

(in a slightly sultry voice - even the most professional diplomats of Cluichstan retain this accent from birth) "Ambassador Clinton, [giggles], what's your vote on the resolution on the floor? [giggles a bit more] Oh, and you owe us -"

(in the slight Southern drawl of before) "I'll be getting that...we voted yes...yes...I'll pay you back soon...don't worry about it...look, that was nothing...thanks. See you tomorrow!"

I think its a good proposal I'm definatley for it!

I will respond by strongly urging fellow respected UN members to reject this 'Maritime Safety Standards Act', and not give in to the pressure from cabals whose self-interest is to pass useless resolution after resolution in the UN.

Thank you.

Updated to take into account off-Jolt forum comments:



The reason for the mapping thing is so that ships don't crash into sunken ships, so it would be unwise to remove military ships from it...


We disagree with the mandating of good Samaritan behavior. We see it as actually a barrier to free trade and commerce. Our objection is that if a ship sinks and a vessel is nearby, the burden of proof shifts to the passing vessel to prove that it did not commit a crime (i.e. it really was unaware of the other ship's being in distress), though it may have had nothing to do with the proximate cause of the first ship's sinking.

This liability, imposed on vessels conducting trade, would place an undue burden on commercial vessels to keep constant watch for other ships in distress, when that burden is better placed with the navy and coast guard.

I will respond by strongly urging fellow respected UN members to reject this 'Maritime Safety Standards Act', and not give in to the pressure from cabals whose self-interest is to pass useless resolution after resolution in the UN.

Thank you.

It is the opinion of the delegation from the Republic of Krioval, and just about every other delegation with a grasp of elementary logic, that this resolution is quite solid. "Maritime Safety Standards Act" merely sets out to provide, unsurprisingly, standards for maritime safety. The goal is not to become so obsessed in minor details as to miss the larger issue - there are currently no UN standards as to how ship quarantine or distress signals are conducted among various member states, and this resolution creates more uniformity.

And really, conspiracy not-quite-theories come off as silly and unprofessional, as does waving around toy guns in the Assembly chambers. Please keep this in mind if one wishes to be taken more seriously here.

Ambassador Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

Respected UN members,

While it is the understanding that this Act intends to promote the greater good by providing standards for Maritime Safety, upon closer examination the contents of the act provide little in terms of Standards, having unrealistic expectations of providing information for all possible scenarios of distress. A natural question is if this information is also provided in all national languages, adding further to its depth and complexity.

Expecting 'hospital' ships, defenceless, with highly-visible markings, to operate in dangerous and pirate-prone International Waters is practically inviting trouble and kidnappings, increasing international incidences.

Many nations simply do not have the necessary budget flexibility that would be required to build escort-protection ships for these 'hospital' ships or even these 'hospital' ships itself.

Conventional response to International Water incidences has been through the use of multi-role support/response ships, in conjuction with civil support systems (as opposed to purely civilian lifeguard or coastguard operations as these ships are not designed for deep-water operations), the Act imposes on these multi-role ships to be stripped and refitted, costing precious time, budget and legislature for many governments as the other support roles 'dropped' will now have to be taken up separately.

Furthermore, the required mandatory certification of ship officers will increase government bureaucracy and corruption (there will have to be a new department to ensure ship registration and UNSEAWORTHY certification) and expands the hand of national/UN government into corporate business.

This is even more unacceptable for nations aiming for a smaller government, less corruption and a free-market economy.

The Act is not seen to be clearly promoting free trade or commerce, rather the opposite case.

The delegation from Krioval finds no language that forces ships to be painted in any particular fashion - multi-functional ships carrying both armaments and wounded soldiers are still allowed, they are simply not specially protected by this resolution. In fact, the resolution is incredibly simple on this point. Ships operating specifically as medical centers can be made to be identifiable as such. Those ships are not to function as military vessels, and are not to be attacked.

Also, certification applies only to large vessels. Smaller nations with small navies will likely not require UN certification. Even if they do, it is likely to be a mere formality if one's nation has a program for documenting naval training in place. If one's nation lacks this, the delegation from Krioval would suggest that this resolution is doing one's nation a large favor by mandating it.

Ambassador Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

This seems to me to be a miscategorization. It has little to do with trade, and nothing to do with freedom. It belongs in a category such as human rights or perhaps even global disarmament, but definitely not free trade.

For that matter, a lot of proposals I have seen with the title "free trade" have in fact not advocated any form of free trade. This is a trend toward manipulating the system by using the language of the left while using a category for the right, thus grabbing two demographics and essentially cheating the UN.

Firstly, having 'hospital' ships is a nice idea but does not stand up to reality.

If defenceless and alone, it will be targeted by pirates.
The only use is if they are escorted by other ships.
Nations that do have 'hospital' ships with their armed, deepwater escorts gain if anyone accidently hits any 'hospital' ship, because they contravene the Act. How about sending the 'hospital' ships to the war-front as a 'shield' then? Hmmm...

We know full well the UN does not go on humanitarian missions around the world without some means to protect themselves. Why subject a certain class of 'hospital' ships for the maritime cause?

Just because it is a nice concept does not justify ratification.

Many Trade Ministers all over the world will agree that the average container/tanker ships would come under UNSEAWORTRHY certification of being over 4000 long tons.

Requiring this registration and certification will increase the cost of doing business for companies. It does not help that there is no mention of enforcement and certification fees.

And whether or not nations choose to have a program for naval training is entirely up to them and should not be mandated by the UN.

It is not a favour if one is forced to spend more tax-payer's money at the public's expense.

Interesting observation, Whateveryouwanteth.

I fully agree with you that this Maritime Safety Standards Act is at odds with its intended category. It should not be ratified.

Can you help convince people to vote AGAINST this Maritime Safety Standards Act?

Homgenised standards are classed as free trade; as it levels the playing field in trade. And what could aid trade more then making sure the bally ships that are transporting the goods that are to be imported and exported don't sink?

With regards hospital ships, look at the word prior to weapons...

I have read this resolution several times by now. It forces the marking of hospital ships as much as "Rights of Minorities and Women" forces people to form same-sex couples. Please read resolutions more carefully in the future.

~ Yoshi Takahara

Having reviewed the current resolution, the people of Mikitivity fully support this resolution.

Hirota wishes to express it's support for this proposal.

However, one of my regional associates has pointed out the ambiguity of the proposal - how can a nation know if this is intended to affected international waters, national waters, or both?

The certification is for international waters only (I think it says that); the rest is both

This legislation is unnecessary, because there is already an international organization (International Maritime Organization), which creates standards for shipping vessels. These standards are binding in international waters, and within domestic waters, Federal governments create regulations. The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), are the main standards and these are more than enough for the international shipping industry.

This legislation is unnecessary, because there is already an international organization (International Maritime Organization), which creates standards for shipping vessels. These standards are binding in international waters, and within domestic waters, Federal governments create regulations. The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), are the main standards and these are more than enough for the international shipping industry.

The Fonzolandian delegation is concerned, dwells into the UN archives, and comes out empty handed.

None of the thingies you mention exist. Too much LSD, perhaps?

(OOC: NS is not the real world.)

Live feed via satelite from the private office of Emperor Ajac of Nerd Rome:
Hee hee, UNSEAWORTHY.....:rolleyes:
Now, In all seriousness, I(and most of my Glorius nation's Senate) agree that we need Something to this effect in place, most of the planet is water, after all!

Homgenised standards are classed as free trade; as it levels the playing field in trade. And what could aid trade more then making sure the bally ships that are transporting the goods that are to be imported and exported don't sink?

With regards hospital ships, look at the word prior to weapons...

No, free trade is not a matter of homogenizing standards alone, it is a matter of reducing various laws, this increases laws. No playing field is being levelled, in fact it is tilting it in favor of those nations who happen to be able to gain approval of x ship as hospital class, whereas other nations could have similar ships and yet be subject to discrimination based on how much clout they have with the regulating officials at the time.

Furthermore, this is not so far as I can see even about the exchange of goods between all nations, rather merely between allied nations in war. And, it restricts the exchange of munitions between one nation's cannons and another's ships. :D

You cannot class something as free trade because it "increases" trade or "makes it safer," that is protectionism, not free trade. Freedom and convenience are not the same thing.

No, free trade is not a matter of homogenizing standards alone, it is a matter of reducing various laws, this increases laws.

Making a law that says, effectively, "reduce barriers to trade" would (unsurprisingly) reduce barriers to trade. New laws do not automatically translate into restrictions on trade.

No playing field is being levelled, in fact it is tilting it in favor of those nations who happen to be able to gain approval of x ship as hospital class, whereas other nations could have similar ships and yet be subject to discrimination based on how much clout they have with the regulating officials at the time.

From out of which particular orifice did you pull this? The resolution clearly states what a "hospital ship" must look like. However, perhaps the Republic of Krioval needs to send delegates to secude the regulatory committee, just in case.

You cannot class something as free trade because it "increases" trade

From the Proposal Category list:

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Perhaps I am missing something, but "increasing trade" appears to fall into the expanded definition of the category.

or "makes it safer,"

Well, if it "reduce[s] barriers to free trade and commerce", I do not see why not.

Freedom and convenience are not the same thing.

Irrelevant. This resolution appears, to most, to "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". That is because it is what this resolution does. Good day to you.

~ Yoshi Takahara

This is our first vote in the UN and we would like to vote in favour as, on the surface, this proposal seems to make good sense. However it seems to be very vague in how it should be implemented and also needs to clarify certain issues.

If there is any chance for this motion to be rejected, tidied up and resubmitted we will vote against. If not, we will vote for, as a generic motion is better than no motion at all and may provoke further discussion on the issue.

We feel this is the right way, the spiritual way.

Son of Zav.

One question...

What is to stop pirates from pretending to be in distress, and then attacking when the other ship is in close? (If this has been answered already, I apologize.)

Well I suppose a better question is "what can stop pirates in general" because while this might be a tactic of pirates it is not their only tactic. The problem is that if someone tries this tactic then there is going to be a whole lot of military vessels that will be in those waters ready to provide "assistance" the next time the pull the stunt.

My advisor has just advised me, "Only ninjas can stop pirates."

I will reccomend our nation adopts the Ninja security system to place one undercover ninja on every Tzorsland vessel just in case.

If you think that a ship in distress may be pirates, then that would count as putting you're own ship in danger, and thus not have to attend.

Also, part of the first paper published by UNSEAWORTHY will includes provision that all Officers of the Watch be trained in the art of Ninja, and that any ship with a Jolly Roger flying, more than one parret, and captain by someone missing a leg who enjoys wenching be excluded from the provisions...

Dum de dum de dum...

The chamber is rather empty today...

I have an idea...

Whose for a game of noughts and crosses?

*gets out a piece of paper and makes a little grid with six chambers, draws a small X in the middle square..."

Bill Clinton, UN Ambassador from The Beltway, heard the Cobdenian's remark. Clinton had just finished sending a large number of diplomatic communiques TGs to UN delegates throughout the world to help garner support for the first resolution created by The Beltway (The Nuclear Energy Research Act). He smiled and shouted to the Cobdenian, "Sure!"

Clinton walked over and saw that the Cobdenian had taken the center spot. He took out a pen and drew a circle in the upper-right-hand corner.

Whose for a game of noughts and crosses?

*gets out a piece of paper and makes a little grid with six chambers, draws a small X in the middle square..."


OOC: "six chambers"? nine?

captain by someone missing a leg who enjoys wenching be excluded from the provisions...What about one-armed dwarves?

Damn the UN was quick today.

Last UN Decision
The resolution Maritime Safety Standards Act was passed 8,948 votes to 2,540, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Congratulations Cobdenia!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative