NationStates Jolt Archive

United Nations International Maritime Auxiliary Shipping (UNIMAS) Act

The United Nations

RECOGNIZING, that the transport of good's via ocean is still the primary method of national exchange.

UNDERSTANDING, that given the nature of present day conflict, failed or rogue regimes and the general state of uncertainty that besets the modern world, not all governments are capable of arranging ocean going transport in times of crisis or economic uncertainty.

BELIEVING, that the hardships these deficiencies inflict should not be borne by any free peoples.

NOTING, the benefits that an increase in trade would bring to the more affluent member states of the United Nations.

RESOLVE to establish an international, unarmed, civilian merchant marine force for the transport of goods, to be composed of such vessels member-states gift for this purpose and privately owned vessels hired directly by the United Nations.

And henceforth

ESTABLISH the United Nations International Maritime Auxiliary Shipping (UNIMAS)

the resolution will be an Advancement of Industry, effecting the area of Tort Reform.


since i'm new to this game, don't want to see it buried and don't want to break the laws regarding UN resolutions I thought i'd try and drum up support here first.

Good place to start.

Right off the top, you've got the wrong category. This has nothing to do with Tort Reform.

which catagory would you suggest?

Currently, you're probably looking at Free Trade.

Remember, Tort Reform deals with civil lawsuits.

If I understand this right, you're proposing a UN merchant fleet?

my forum account is iffy so if I don't reply telegram me, but essentially yes i am.

Would this be run on a purely charitable basis (and, if so, where would the necessary funds to support it come from) or would the fleet's management aim at [at least] breaking even on costs?

My current view is that it is charitable and provided out of the UN's budget and the budget of whatever nation will contribute vessels, the return on the investment would be that the increase in shipping would allow industries in member states to increase exports/imports and hence profits.

if this seems unreasonable, contributing nations could always be offered a rebate on their cobtribution to the UN's Funding, however I felt personally that this was getting down to the level of micro management and a UN resolution was not the place to discuss it.

UN-subsidised competition for the national merchant fleets? Opposed.

i would point out that member-states contributions are expected to make up a minority of the vessels in UNIMAS at any given time, the rest are expected to be hired from private shipping companies. providing extra commisions for national merchant fleets. national merchant fleets taking part could also benifit from the extra security of working under the UN ageis. after all its not meant to be encouraging the building of new vessels so really your already competing against the proposed UN merchant fleet, its just currently there haulling tonnage under a different flag. given the UN's determination to take a moral stance there are also likely to be plenty of markets that UNIMAS refuses to touch with a barge pole.

otherwise is the idea flawed in principal or would you prefer to see the UN charging for the services?

The UK in Exile']i would point out that member-states contributions are expected to make up a minority of the vessels in UNIMAS at any given time, the rest are expected to be hired from private shipping companies providing extra commisions for national merchant fleets.Having that detail more clearly explained in the proposal would be a slight improvement.

The UK in Exile']national merchant fleets taking part could also benifit from the extra security of working under the UN ageis.What "extra security"? The UN doesn't have, and can't be given, its own navy to protect them... As it currently stands your proposal doesn't even state that if any of these cargo vessels are being used to supply nations that are involved in wars then they must be left alone by the other nations involved in those conflicts, and even if the UN's rules would let it decree any sanctions against any specific nations whose forces attacked these ships (in the absence of such a protective clause) -- which they don't -- any such limitations would only apply to UN members anyway... Consequently, it seems to me, nations & companies would presumably be as reluctant to supply the UN with vessels for use in any war-zones where their own [& their allies'] navies couldn't provide protection as they would be to send their merchant ships into those areas under non-UN contracts, so I don't think that this proposal would help nations much in those circumstances... There would be the (hoped-for) gift-aid ships, admittedly, but where would you find the crews willing to take them unprotected into war-zones?

The UK in Exile']given the UN's determination to take a moral stance there are also likely to be plenty of markets that UNIMAS refuses to touch with a barge pole.So who would UNIMAS be run by? I was assuming one of the ideologically-neutral committtees that resolutions are normally limited to these days, rather than a group of nations' representatives, and such a committee wouldn't have any legal scope for discriminating in that way unless the resolution actually said so...

The UK in Exile']otherwise is the idea flawed in principal or would you prefer to see the UN charging for the services?Such a fleet might have some degree of usefulness for shipping supplies in the immediate aftermath of disasters, and my government could possibly support the establishment of a relatively small organisation -- operating free of charge to the nations involved -- for that purpose. However we would object to any proposal that used UN funds for undercutting national & private shipping lines in other circumstances, or for supplying the routine shipping needs of any nations if the reason why those nations couldn't obtain ships from elsewhere instead was simply because their own [current] governments' policies had wrecked their economies... (Let those nations have another reason to adopt more sensible governments, instead of having the UN bail out disastrous regimes...)

my assumption about extra security was based on the idea that civilian UN organizations in NS already enjoy the protection that they are afforded in RL (which is also not perfect).

"legal scope for discriminating in that way unless the resolution actually said so..."

i'll admit that having thought about it, the ability of the UNIMAS to operate on this issue is limited.

"however we would object to any proposal that used UN funds for undercutting national & private shipping lines in other circumstances, or for supplying the routine shipping needs of any nations if the reason why those nations couldn't obtain ships from elsewhere instead was simply because their own [current] governments' policies"

i could add

"COMMITTED to the provision of free ocean-going transport where an external influence prevents states from doing so themselves." END CLAUSE

intending to use this clause to limit the use of UNIMAS to, war,disaster, emergency situations ETC, rather than a U CALL WE HAUL service.

can we agree that this limited brief would keep UNIMAS small enough to prevent it from threatening other shipping organizations?

(OOC: I'm thinking further about this, and will try to get back to you about it at some point during the next few days.)