NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this the first draft ever written whilst under the influence of large amounts of alcohol?

The day after I thought it was awful, that it conflicted too much with the Maritime Safety Standards Act. Now I've been persuaded otherwise, and apart from the SOS and distress bits, it might work nicely.

So here you go. I'm planning this to be submitted before "right to water." Go ahead and rip it to shreds guys and gals.

NOTING the great importance to the rendering of assistance to persons in distress at sea and to the establishment by every coastal State of adequate and effective arrangements for coast monitoring and for search-and-rescue services,

DESIRING to develop and promote these activities by establishing an international maritime search and rescue plan responsible to the needs of maritime traffic for the rescue of persons in distress at sea,

WISHING to promote international co-operation among search and rescue organizations around the world and among those participating in search and rescue operations at sea.

MANDATES the following:
-Member States shall make provision for the co-ordination of the facilities required to provide search and rescue services round their coasts.
-Member States shall establish a national machinery for the overall co-ordination of search and rescue services
-Member States shall establish rescue co-ordination centres for their search and rescue services and such rescue sub-centres as they consider appropriate.Each shall have adequate means for the receipt of distress communications via a coast radio station or otherwise. Every such centre shall also have adequate means for communication with its rescue units and with other centres, as appropriate.
-Each member states rescue units should have rapid and reliable means of communication with other units or elements engaged in the same operation.

ENCOURAGES member states to co-ordinate their search and rescue organisations and should, whenever necessary, co-ordinate search and rescue operations with those of neighbouring States

URGES member states authorise (subject to applicable international and national legislation), immediate entry into or over its territorial sea or territory of rescue units of other parties solely for the purpose of searching for the position of maritime casualties and rescuing the survivors of such casualties, subject to agreements between member states.

URGES member states enter into agreements with neighbouring states setting forth the conditions for entry of each other's rescue units into or over their respective territorial sea or territory. These agreements should also provide for expediting entry of such units with the least possible formalities.

URGES member states enter into search and rescue agreements with neighbouring States regarding the pooling of facilities, establishment of common procedures, conduct of joint training and exercises, regular checks of inter-State communication channels, liaison visits by rescue co-ordination centre personnel and the exchange of search and rescue information.

CALLS UPON member states to implement closest practicable co-ordination between maritime and aeronautical services so as to provide for the most effective and efficient search and rescue services in and over their search and rescue regions

MANDATES the creation of an internationally recognised distress frequency to be reserved for SOS and international distress calls.

This seems to be a very good draft. What do you have wrong with the S.O.S. part?

Is this the first draft ever written whilst under the influence of large amounts of alcohol?

Well alot of proposals have looked like they where:D

We wholeheartedly support the intent of this proposal. Coordination of rescue efforts at sea is important and, by its very nature, is of international concern. We find nothing objectionable in the content of the draft. However, we believe it could stand some careful and energetic pruning. We see much in it that we find repetitive.

We particularly commend the idea of establishing "rescue coordination centres". One thing which often hinders rescue efforts is the inability of rescue organizations to effectively and efficiently communicate, especially across international borders. We would suggest that the establishment in each nation of a continuously and readily available single point-of-contact should be stressed.

Miulani Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

We approve in principle, although some clauses might need a bit of work.
(OOC: I have to go offline for a while in about a minute's time, but will take another look at it later on.)

This seems to be a very good draft. What do you have wrong with the S.O.S. part?Mostly because it may conflict with this one: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737959&postcount=153

and the section in particular which overlaps:
"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;"

Oh ok I thought you didn't like the wording or something.

I seems technically legal to me.

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;

the words "Produce information" seems to make the S.O.S line legal because it does not say they are doing anything with that information . If they where standardizing the way signals would be sent or something that would be a differnt thing.

This looks good to us!

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay worries over the omission of financing measures in this draft. As a coastal state, this empire is not prepared to be required to allocate any of its Holy Emperor-Saint's treasury to such a trivial pursuit. We support the idea but adequate financing must be clearly spelled out and none requiring us to give more than our current UN expenditures.

Mostly because it may conflict with this one: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737959&postcount=153

and the section in particular which overlaps:
"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;"

We agree with the honorable representative of Newfoundcanada that there is no conflict or duplication between the provisions in question. NSUN Resolution #152 mandates the inclusion of distress signal information in the deck qualification process. Your resolution reserves a frequency for emergency use. Two very different things, both worthwhile.

Miulani Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island

The Holy Empire of Saint Anns Bay worries over the omission of financing measures in this draft. As a coastal state, this empire is not prepared to be required to allocate any of its Holy Emperor-Saint's treasury to such a trivial pursuit. We support the idea but adequate financing must be clearly spelled out and none requiring us to give more than our current UN expenditures.I'm afraid our definitions of trival are wildly different. Hirota also has a coast which we have to monitor. We see the benefits of having a force capable of providing an adequate rescue service.

What does this resolution force you to do?
1. It forces you to have a rescue service appropiate your your coastal boundaries.
2. It forces you to have co-ordination center(s) in place.
3. Finally it forces you to have adequate communication systems in place.

If you don't have 1, you are not only failing the international community, you are failing your own nation. If your nation cannot provide adequate rescue measures for shipping, then your nations trade via shipping dries up. Who will go to your nation if boats sink with all hands on board?

If you don't have 2, your rescue service will be unable to provide an adequate service. Same goes with 3.

It is our opinion that if we can work with fellow coastal states and collaborate best practices and co-ordinate relief efforts, we would be making large inroads towards saving. Secondly, international co-operation (as outlined in this draft) should go some way towards reducing redundancy and reducing costs further.

As for making provision for adequate spending, Hirota feels it is not in our interests to specify how to supply these funds, and leaves it within the margin of discresion of individual states.

We agree with the honorable representative of Newfoundcanada that there is no conflict or duplication between the provisions in question.We thank the representatives of Ausserland and Newfoundcanada for their wisdom in this matter.

1. It forces you to have a rescue service appropiate your your coastal boundaries.
2. It forces you to have co-ordination center(s) in place.
3. Finally it forces you to have adequate communication systems in place.While the Hack is not a UN member, it is an island nation, and thus quite aware of maritime issues, especially safety. We would hope that any nation with even a tiny port would have already created such safety programs. As such, we question the need for such a resolution, but certainly wouldn't oppose it in any way, should it come to vote (assuming it isn't substanially changed).

Still, we congratulate the nation of Hirota for creating a good -- if possibly superfluous -- proposal. We would, of course, be more than willing to... "help"... nations comply with the third portion there if such a resolution passed.


- Dr. Josef Specter
Nominal Head of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

What does this resolution force you to do?
1. It forces you to have a rescue service appropiate your your coastal boundaries.
2. It forces you to have co-ordination center(s) in place.
3. Finally it forces you to have adequate communication systems in place.


Any coastal nation with an active shipping industry must, if they want to remain competitive in the international shipping market, have these measures in place and probably exceed them. We are such a nation. Pressure from our shipping industries has pushed us towards this decades ago. Like this empire has said before, we agree with the idea, we, however, do not want to be forced to "cooperatively" fund other nations shipping industry reforms. This empire did not have other nations help foot the bill, so we do not want to find our selves in that situation. You say you make no provisions for financing, that it will inevitably be up to each individual member. Well, that is not a guaranteee that down the line we find ourselves in a situation where one nation must comply but does not have the capital, I smell UN bail-out. For what its worth, this empire will not support this draft unless it has a clause addressing financing, perhaps entice the shipping industry itself by way of intrest yielding loans they may make to countries needing help. This empire could be convinced to make such a loan if need be. But it would have to be within the resolution.

Looks good (even if you did beat me to another boat proposal. Looks like "Neutral Shipping Whatsit" will have to wait...)

Any coastal nation with an active shipping industry must, if they want to remain competitive in the international shipping market, have these measures in place and probably exceed them. We are such a nation. Pressure from our shipping industries has pushed us towards this decades ago. Like this empire has said before, we agree with the idea, we, however, do not want to be forced to "cooperatively" fund other nations shipping industry reforms. This empire did not have other nations help foot the bill, so we do not want to find our selves in that situation. You say you make no provisions for financing, that it will inevitably be up to each individual member. Well, that is not a guaranteee that down the line we find ourselves in a situation where one nation must comply but does not have the capital, I smell UN bail-out. For what its worth, this empire will not support this draft unless it has a clause addressing financing, perhaps entice the shipping industry itself by way of intrest yielding loans they may make to countries needing help. This empire could be convinced to make such a loan if need be. But it would have to be within the resolution.

We ask the representative of Saint Ann's Bay to show us where -- anywhere in this proposal -- there is a single provision that could reasonably be interpreted as forcing anyone to "'cooperatively' fund other nations shipping industry reforms". That simply is nowhere in the proposal, and to oppose the proposal on that ground is completely spurious.

You may "smell UN bail-out", but the odor isn't coming from this proposal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This looks pretty good to us. The punctuation is a little crazy, but we have some other comments:

NOTING the great importance to
Shouldn't this be "the great importance of"?

for coast monitoring and for search-and-rescue services,
The second "for" is probably redundant.

DESIRING to develop and promote these activities by establishing an international maritime search and rescue plan responsible to the needs of maritime traffic for the rescue of persons in distress at sea,
This seems needlessly wordy. You've said "search and rescue plan"...so there's no need to then mention "the rescue of persons". I would suggest you omit everything after "maritime traffic".

WISHING to promote international co-operation among search and rescue organizations around the world and among those participating in search and rescue operations at sea.
I'd suggest this clause be put above your previous one: "these activities" seems like it could refer to this, too.

-Member States shall make provision for the co-ordination of the facilities required to provide search and rescue services round their coasts.
The "co-ordination" with what?

-Member States shall establish rescue co-ordination centres for their search and rescue services and such rescue sub-centres as they consider appropriate.Each shall have adequate means for the receipt of distress communications via a coast radio station or otherwise. Every such centre shall also have adequate means for communication with its rescue units and with other centres, as appropriate.
Blergh. A lot of this does rather strike me as telling a cat that mice are tasty...I mean, if you didn't have these practices in place already, you'd be so monumentally stupid that no UN resolution is going to save you.

Nonetheless, if you do keep it, I'd suggest it be "coastal radio station", not "coast", and "adequate means of communication", not "for".

-Each member states
Here you suddenly change from "States" to "states". I have no preference for which you use, but be consistent: they should all be capitalised, or none.

And the above also needs to have an apostrophe.

rescue units should have rapid and reliable means of communication with other units or elements engaged in the same operation.
Also, this is still part of the "MANDATES" set, but you're saying "should have", which seems much softer. Either make it "shall have", or change it to a different clause.

ENCOURAGES member states to co-ordinate their search and rescue organisations and should, whenever necessary, co-ordinate search and rescue operations with those of neighbouring States
The grammar here makes no sense. Remove the word "should", and it'll flow.

URGES member states authorise (subject to applicable international and national legislation),
"to authorise"? And remove the comma.

immediate entry into or over its territorial sea or territory
"its" is singular, but you're referring to "member [S]tates", so it should be "their".

"into or over their"

of rescue units of other parties solely for the purpose of searching for the position of maritime casualties and rescuing the survivors of such casualties, subject to agreements between member states.
I'm not sure about "solely" (although this clause is obviously open to discretion anyway). It seems to me there are other useful operations this does not cover: recovering hardware, preventing spills, putting out fires, etc.

And I'm not convinced "casualties" is the right word. I would change the two references to them to something like "accidents" (although I'm still not happy with that word).

URGES member states enter into agreements
Again, surely "to enter into"?

with neighbouring states
"States"

URGES member states enter into
"to enter into"...

CALLS UPON member states to implement closest practicable co-ordination
"implement the closest"

between maritime and aeronautical services
"aeronautical"? "air" would probably be better. In fact, couldn't it just be "other" - I suppose there might be a possibility of drilling underground or something.

But I do like everything in this...even though it does remind me of the need to get on with replacing TLotS.

Why do people keep acting like the UN gets to carve out the sea? Some of my favorite "Nations" are formed out of a series of man made islands designed to carve out some sea territory, and start a nation. If they have a strong enough Navy I say let them call the sea their territory. Anyway, they make great Data Houses :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation
(OT but I especially love the cyber diocese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation)

If you are going to make all these special rules for the sea make them apply to land too.

Does UN have jurisdiction over the sea?
Since "The Law of the Sea" has been repealed, the UN no longer has jurisdiction of place over international waters. However, some might argue that the UN still has jurisdiction over the actions of UN member states (and their citizens) while they are in international waters.

Since "The Law of the Sea" has been repealed, the UN no longer has jurisdiction of place over international waters. However, some might argue that the UN still has jurisdiction over the actions of UN member states (and their citizens) while they are in international waters.

And some would say the UN has jurisdiction over the actions of UN member states (and their citizens) while they are on international ground.

Why specify water specifically?

And some would say the UN has jurisdiction over the actions of UN member states (and their citizens) while they are on international ground.

Why specify water specifically?

Because the proposal being discussed has to do with maritime distress. "Maritime" means having to do with the sea, not the land. Is that too hard for you to grasp, or are you deliberately trying to skew yet another discussion into irrelevance?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Because the proposal being discussed has to do with maritime distress. "Maritime" means having to do with the sea, not the land. Is that too hard for you to grasp, or are you deliberately trying to skew yet another discussion into irrelevance?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Right so, all these "Rights of the Sea, argggh we hate Pirates" resolutions would be better if they were generally applicable, and not creating all these weird special rules for the ocean.

Right so, all these "Rights of the Sea, argggh we hate Pirates" resolutions would be better if they were generally applicable, and not creating all these weird special rules for the ocean.

This is not a thread about whether the Law of the Land and the Law of the Sea ought to be identical. It's not about piracy or any rights. It's not about whether Saint Bernards should be used for mountain rescue. It's a thread for discussion, constructive criticism, and suggestions about a specific draft proposal, which concerns maritime rescue. If you have something worthwhile to say about that draft, say it. If not, stop wasting people's time with irrelevance. It only further demonstrates your complete lack of common courtesy and respect for this organization and the people who belong to it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is not a thread about whether the Law of the Land and the Law of the Sea ought to be identical. It's not about piracy or any rights. It's not about whether Saint Bernards should be used for mountain rescue. It's a thread for discussion, constructive criticism, and suggestions about a specific draft proposal, which concerns maritime rescue. If you have something worthwhile to say about that draft, say it. If not, stop wasting people's time with irrelevance. It only further demonstrates your complete lack of common courtesy and respect for this organization and the people who belong to it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Look I understand you don't like me, but you shouldn't turn your brain off when I speak. You really aren't making any effort to understand what I'm saying? Here are my recomended changes:


NOTING the great importance to the rendering of assistance to persons in distress in remote locations and to the establishment by every State of adequate and effective arrangements for search-and-rescue services,

DESIRING to develop and promote these activities by establishing an international search and rescue plan responsible to the needs of the rescue of persons in distress in remote locations.

WISHING to promote international co-operation among search and rescue organizations around the world and among those participating in search and rescue operations.

MANDATES the following:
-Member States shall make provision for the co-ordination of the facilities required to provide search and rescue services.
-Member States shall establish a national machinery for the overall co-ordination of search and rescue services
-Member States shall establish rescue co-ordination centres for their search and rescue services and such rescue sub-centres as they consider appropriate.Each shall have adequate means for the receipt of distress communications via radio stations or otherwise. Every such centre shall also have adequate means for communication with its rescue units and with other centres, as appropriate.
-Each member states rescue units should have rapid and reliable means of communication with other units or elements engaged in the same operation.

ENCOURAGES member states to co-ordinate their search and rescue organisations and should, whenever necessary, co-ordinate search and rescue operations with those of neighbouring States

URGES member states authorise (subject to applicable international and national legislation), immediate entry into or over its remote territories of rescue units of other parties solely for the purpose of searching for the position of casualties and rescuing the survivors of such casualties, subject to agreements between member states.

URGES member states enter into agreements with neighbouring states setting forth the conditions for entry of each other's rescue units into or over their respective territory. These agreements should also provide for expediting entry of such units with the least possible formalities.

URGES member states enter into search and rescue agreements with neighbouring States regarding the pooling of facilities, establishment of common procedures, conduct of joint training and exercises, regular checks of inter-State communication channels, liaison visits by rescue co-ordination centre personnel and the exchange of search and rescue information.

CALLS UPON member states to implement closest practicable co-ordination between maritime and aeronautical services so as to provide for the most effective and efficient search and rescue services in and over their search and rescue regions

MANDATES the creation of an internationally recognised distress frequency to be reserved for SOS and international distress calls.

(DISCLAIMER, by far most of this text comes from Hirota's International Maritime distress proposal, my changes, minute as they are, may be considered part of the public domain, this was done to demonstrate that a very similar search and rescue proposal can be made that is not limited to maritime affairs, and that accomplishes more, Hirota, you are free to ignore my recomendations, use some all or none)

Patrick, do you now understand what I was suggesting?

Disco U
Fresh out of the cloning vat

Look I understand you don't like me, but you shouldn't turn your brain off when I speak. You really aren't making any effort to understand what I'm saying? Here are my recomended changes:

/snip/

(DISCLAIMER, by far most of this text comes from Hirota's International Maritime distress proposal, my changes, minute as they are, may be considered part of the public domain, this was done to demonstrate that a very similar search and rescue proposal can be made that is not limited to maritime affairs, and that accomplishes more, Hirota, you are free to ignore my recomendations, use some all or none)

Patrick, do you now understand what I was suggesting?

Disco U
Fresh out of the cloning vat

Yes, and if the representative had bothered to say it originally in an intelligible way, we would have understood it then. Instead, the representative chose to blather about pirates and maritime law. Now that the representative has managed to dredge up enough respect for the members of this Assembly to finally propose something constructive, we can pay that proper attention and debate whether the maritime and land environments are similar enough for a proposal to cover rescue in both.

As for not liking you.... When you first spoke in this Assembly, you did so with a blank and clean slate. Whatever feelings towards you and opinions of you members may have, you have earned them through your actions and statements.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Thanks everyone for the feedback and observations - I don't have time to action them now, and I shall be responding when I can give them the time they deserve.

Actually. I'll start tonight.
While the Hack is not a UN member, it is an island nation, and thus quite aware of maritime issues, especially safety. We would hope that any nation with even a tiny port would have already created such safety programs. As such, we question the need for such a resolution, but certainly wouldn't oppose it in any way, should it come to vote (assuming it isn't substanially changed).In truth, that section is not especially important to the draft - more important is the co-operation between other member states. I also agree that all sensibele nations would have similar programs in place.

Notice I said sensible? ;)

Re: Does UN have jurisdiction over the sea?

One could argue that the nature of international waters makes the UN directly within the mandate of the UN, as perceived by it's members. One could also argue that if a resolution was passed which legislated upon international waters by the UN, then the UN does indeed have the jurisdiction as elected by it's members.

Re: Why restrict just to water?

I did consider perhaps an international distress transcending of waters and lands. However, I rejected it outright. Problem is that such legislation would have to encompass all forms of terrain, and the variety of technologies needed by each form of terrain. Moreover, land is certainly within the national mandate, and was eager to avoid cries of excessive micromanagement and perceived infringements on national soverignty.

More later. It's 10pm here and I need to get up early.

Like this empire has said before, we agree with the idea, we, however, do not want to be forced to "cooperatively" fund other nations shipping industry reforms.There is nothing in this resolution to encourage direct funding as you fear. There is encouragement for member states to pass on their experience and best practices, and perhaps co-operate in training exercises. The cost of these would be relatively small, and the benefits of being able to share resources do counterbalance such costs.

But I can't see where you get such concerns from, I've deliberately tried to avoid funding.Well, that is not a guaranteee that down the line we find ourselves in a situation where one nation must comply but does not have the capital, I smell UN bail-out.I tend to take the view that provision of such services is not an overnight proposition (well, alright in game mechanics terms it is....) but something that nations should aspire to accomplish in a progressive and long term manner. Part of this is accomplished by funds, some of this is accomplished by training.For what its worth, this empire will not support this draft unless it has a clause addressing financing, perhaps entice the shipping industry itself by way of intrest yielding loans they may make to countries needing help. This empire could be convinced to make such a loan if need be. But it would have to be within the resolution.I am reluctant to micromanage member states funding provisions, and would rather keep a margin of discression reserved for member states.

Right so, all these "Rights of the Sea, argggh we hate Pirates" resolutions would be better if they were generally applicable, and not creating all these weird special rules for the ocean.Perhaps there is scope for legislation on outlaws and distress calls on land. But this draft is not intended to legislate on those areas. If you want to draft legislation for these areas, feel free. I'd suspect that you'd have a much harder time persuading nations of this.

This looks pretty good to us. The punctuation is a little crazy, but we have some other comments:You've got a lot of stuff there for me to look at! I'll work on it and get another draft out for general review.

That's what happens when you draft proposals whilst drunk.

I need to get a life :(

Redrafted with grammar corrections from Gruenberg (are you an English teacher or something?)

NOTING the great importance of the rendering of assistance to persons in distress at sea and to the establishment by every coastal State of adequate and effective arrangements for coast monitoring and search-and-rescue services,

WISHING to promote international co-operation among search and rescue organizations around the world and among those participating in search and rescue operations at sea.

DESIRING to develop and promote these activities by establishing an international maritime search and rescue plan responsible for the rescue of persons in distress at sea,

MANDATES the following:
-Member States shall make provision for the co-ordination of the facilities required to provide search and rescue services round their coasts.
-Member States shall establish a national machinery for the overall co-ordination of search and rescue services
-Member States shall establish rescue co-ordination centres for their search and rescue services and such rescue sub-centres as they consider appropriate. Each shall have adequate means for the receipt of distress communications via a coastal radio station or otherwise. Every such centre shall also have adequate means of communication with its rescue units and with other centres, as appropriate.
-Member State’s shall ensure rescue units have rapid and reliable means of communication with elements engaged in the same operation.

ENCOURAGES member States to co-ordinate their search and rescue organisations and, whenever necessary, co-ordinate search and rescue operations with those of neighbouring States

URGES member States to authorise (subject to applicable international and national legislation) immediate entry into or over their territorial sea or territory of rescue units of other parties solely for the purpose of searching for the position of maritime casualties, rescuing the survivors of such casualties, and rendering further assistance as appropriate, subject to agreements between member States.

URGES member States to enter into agreements with neighbouring States setting forth the conditions for entry of each other's rescue units into or over their respective territorial sea or territory. These agreements should also provide for expediting entry of such units with the least possible formalities.

URGES member States to enter into search and rescue agreements with neighbouring States regarding the pooling of facilities, establishment of common procedures, conduct of joint training and exercises, regular checks of inter-State communication channels, liaison visits by rescue co-ordination centre personnel and the exchange of search and rescue information.

CALLS UPON member States to implement the closest practicable co-ordination between maritime and other appropriate services so as to provide for the most effective and efficient search and rescue services in and over their search and rescue regions

MANDATES the creation of an internationally recognised distress frequency to be reserved for SOS and international distress calls.

And some would say the UN has jurisdiction over the actions of UN member states (and their citizens) while they are on international ground.

Why specify water specifically?

We have international ground?

Probably thinking of RL things like Antarctica. Which, of course, doesn't apply here.

Probably thinking of RL things like Antarctica. Which, of course, doesn't apply here.

Especially since Antarctica (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?) has been claimed here. ;)

A few other minor points of grammar. Other than that, this proposal is highly commendable and has Ariddia's full support.


NOTING the great importance of the rendering of assistance to persons in distress at sea and to the establishment by every coastal State...

Should be "the great importance... of the establishment".


WISHING to promote international co-operation among search and rescue organizations around the world and among those participating in search and rescue operations at sea.

You need a comma, not a full stop.


-Member State’s shall ensure...

Member States.


with the least possible formalities.

with the fewest possible formalities. You can't use "least" with a plural.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We have international ground?Do we have international waters? I suppose waters are easier to address than territory, but both are debatable.

Besides, this legislation urges member states to engage in dialogue with the aim of co-operation in rescue efforts within member states waters.

with the fewest possible formalities. You can't use "least" with a plural.

OOC: You use "least" for extent and "fewest" for numbers. For example, "Manchester United has the fewest goals in the Premiership" vs. "Manchester United has the least amount of scoring in the Premiership."

Oh, and on a side note, since I brought up the Premiership...Man City over Arsenal this past weekend! WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!

Um... isn't "least" like "best" and "unique", as in you only have one?

Um... isn't "least" like "best" and "unique", as in you only have one?

OOC: Well, sure, but the rule I stated above applies to the comparative (lesser vs. fewer) as well as the superlative (least vs. fewest).

We have international ground?

I'd consider the land that the UN building's on to be international ground.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'd consider the land that the UN building's on to be international ground.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I thought about that, but considering it's got no real location per se and kinda floats in the ether...

OOC: You use "least" for extent and "fewest" for numbers. For example, "Manchester United has the fewest goals in the Premiership" vs. "Manchester United has the least amount of scoring in the Premiership."


OOC: You're quite correct. I was just trying to be simple, but perhaps I wasn't being very clear.

In linguistic terms, "least" applies to uncountables (i.e., things that can't be individually counted), and "fewest" to countables. Hence, "He drank the least milk" but "He ate the fewest apples".

OOC: You're quite correct. I was just trying to be simple, but perhaps I wasn't being very clear.

In linguistic terms, "least" applies to uncountables (i.e., things that can't be individually counted), and "fewest" to countables. Hence, "He drank the least milk" but "He ate the fewest apples".


OOC: FINALLY! Someone who gets it! :D

OOC: FINALLY! Someone who gets it! :D

OOC: I got it. Just had a hard time giving a damn. :p

OOC: *thwap*

And there's one of those for each of your 200,000 puppets, too. :p

We have international ground?

OOC: Some regions have maps that include currently-unclaimed areas... Wouldn't that count?

As for not liking you.... When you first spoke in this Assembly, you did so with a blank and clean slate. Whatever feelings towards you and opinions of you members may have, you have earned them through your actions and statements.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What choice did we have, you sought to wipe out our way of life!

(Back on topic)


Re: Does UN have jurisdiction over the sea?

One could argue that the nature of international waters makes the UN directly within the mandate of the UN, as perceived by it's members. One could also argue that if a resolution was passed which legislated upon international waters by the UN, then the UN does indeed have the jurisdiction as elected by it's members.

Re: Why restrict just to water?

I did consider perhaps an international distress transcending of waters and lands. However, I rejected it outright. Problem is that such legislation would have to encompass all forms of terrain, and the variety of technologies needed by each form of terrain. Moreover, land is certainly within the national mandate, and was eager to avoid cries of excessive micromanagement and perceived infringements on national soverignty.

More later. It's 10pm here and I need to get up early.

I think it's a mistake to name specific technologies in UN resolutions. Technology changes to rapidly for this to be a good idea. If a nation can acheive the same affect, better, faster, cheaper why not let them do it using better tech?


Perhaps there is scope for legislation on outlaws and distress calls on land. But this draft is not intended to legislate on those areas. If you want to draft legislation for these areas, feel free. I'd suspect that you'd have a much harder time persuading nations of this.


So instead we have the great many landlocked nations voting on an issue that doesn't affect them? If this would be hard to pass with regards to all international territory is it fair to legislate the international territory used by only some UN members?