NationStates Jolt Archive

This has been submitted on a trial run without TG support and received 28 approvals. It expires today.
Recognising the Passing of UN Resolution # 119 “UNCoESB”, which empowers Nations Who are UN Members to protect a Species that may or may not be endangered with extinction, under Article 4 of that resolution,

Understanding Human affinity with Marine Mammals,

Recognising that the “UNCoESB” Bill Guarantees protections to species that are threatened with extinction,

Noting that the passing of the “UNCoESB” renders Resolution # 70 “Banning Whaling”, Redundant,

Recognising that as a redundant Resolution, it is no longer cost effective or efficient to continue funding for this Resolution which is now an unacceptable burden on the UN treasury and the funds it draws from our Nations,

We hereby repeal UN Resolution # 70 “Banning Whaling”.

Submitted on behalf of the Author, Venerable Libertarians.
Whales are fully protected under UNCoESB and thus UNR #70 is redundant and should be repealed. Comments?

Well, 'Banning Whaling' also hurts businesses that would otherwise hunt non-endangered whales, but if you add that people will think you hate whales more than you already do. :rolleyes: Not that I'm implying you do hate them, but you should still commend the resolution for its good intentions, and show your support for the future well-being of whales.

Well, 'Banning Whaling' also hurts businesses that would otherwise hunt non-endangered whales, but if you add that people will think you hate whales more than you already do. :rolleyes: Not that I'm implying you do hate them, but you should still commend the resolution for its good intentions, and show your support for the future well-being of whales.
Exactly. I don't hate whales, I doubt anyone actually hates them. I'm glad UNCoESB is there to protect them, but I don't like them enough to think that they need 2 resolutions protecting them.

Well, we certainly hate whales, though that's not why we want to repeal this; that's because we hate redundant legislation.

Moltan Bausch felt he cut his teeth debating the dolphins repeal, and we pledge to offer the same level of incendiary, ohmygodwhyishepostingatthistimeofday, New Hamilton irking, fanatical support to this repeal.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Well, we certainly hate whales
Really? They make a fine meal if prepared properly.

Whales are fully protected under UNCoESB and thus UNR #70 is redundant and should be repealed. Comments?

Technically no, they are not. Whales which are not part of endangered species are not automatically protected by resolution #119, and are covered solely by resolution #70.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Whales which are not part of endangered species are not automatically protected by resolution #119
And if they are not endangered, why then should they be protected?

OOC: I know everybody doesn't do this, but I work on the assumption that the NS biosphere is similar to the RL one. Most (almost all, probably) whales therefore would be considered endangered or threatened and would be protected under UNR #119.

Technically no, they are not. Whales which are not part of endangered species are not automatically protected by resolution #119, and are covered solely by resolution #70.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA
'Banning Whaling' holds that
Whaling has already driven the world's whale population to the brink of extinction before the present moratorium was put in place
If this is true (and we may never know...), then all whales are protected by resolution #119.

'Banning Whaling' holds that


Whaling has already driven the world's whale population to the brink of extinction before the present moratorium was put in place


If this is true (and we may never know...), then all whales are protected by resolution #119.

OOC:
True. Which raises the question: If a resolution says all whales are endangered, does that automatically make it so?

Make sure to note the fact that just because a resolution says whales are endangered doesn't make it so. Saint Anns Bay's fishing industry would be positively effected. So would other nations as well. Only truly endangered whales should be protected by a ban. Others can be protected though quotas and other local policies by an individual nation.

OOC:
True. Which raises the question: If a resolution says all whales are endangered, does that automatically make it so?Erm, you still haven't explained why we need a resolution for a species you don't even consider endangered? Moreover, if the resolution's intent was to protect a species because it was endangered, why need we it still, when a resolution to protect all endangered wildlife is already in effect? Seriously, we're entering LAE territory here.

Oh, and the Federal Republic (obviously) supports this repeal.

Exactly. I don't hate whales, I doubt anyone actually hates them. I'm glad UNCoESB is there to protect them, but I don't like them enough to think that they need 2 resolutions protecting them.

Seeing as how nations are always trying to skirt the issue and dodge the rules, aren't two resolutions sometimes a good thing? I don't see how this resolution hurts and if it's because you dislike bureaucracy... isn't repealing it just more of that? I think whales are a very important part of the biosphere.

Seeing as how nations are always trying to skirt the issue and dodge the rules, aren't two resolutions sometimes a good thing?
Only if you believe whales are worthy of extra protection beyond that provided by UNCoESB. As I've said before, if whales are endangered then they are protected by UNCoESB. You can't hunt them. Period. Besides, if nations are able to "skirt the issue and dodge the rules" wouldn't they be just as able to do that with 2 resolutions in place? Maybe we should pass more anti-whaling resolutions!

I don't see how this resolution hurts and if it's because you dislike bureaucracy... isn't repealing it just more of that?
A repeal is just a document, it doesn't add to the bureaucracy. And who says I don't like bureaucracy?

I think whales are a very important part of the biosphere.
Are they the most important part? They are currently the only species with their very own resolution.

Oh, and the Federal Republic (obviously) supports this repeal.
Would the Federal Republic be willing to assist with a telegram campaign?

OOC:
True. Which raises the question: If a resolution says all whales are endangered, does that automatically make it so?
OOC: I believe the precedent was set during the debate of the AIDS resolution. Some people asked the mods whether the proposal should be deleted as it assumed AIDS was a problem in NS.

IIRC, a mod replied (I don't have the link unfortunately) that: if the UN declares that AIDS is a problem worth addressing, then it is a problem worth addressing.

Perhaps the same still holds true.

OOC: I believe the precedent was set during the debate of the AIDS resolution. Some people asked the mods whether the proposal should be deleted as it assumed AIDS was a problem in NS.

IIRC, a mod replied (I don't have the link unfortunately) that: if the UN declares that AIDS is a problem worth addressing, then it is a problem worth addressing.

Perhaps the same still holds true.

So, for example, If I make proposal in regards to a problem of a mice plague. and has a solution to the proposal, then it most of a nature that is in the extreme?

So then, I could create a serious joke proposal on a mouse plague basis and it would be totally legal?

OOC: I believe the precedent was set during the debate of the AIDS resolution. Some people asked the mods whether the proposal should be deleted as it assumed AIDS was a problem in NS.

IIRC, a mod replied (I don't have the link unfortunately) that: if the UN declares that AIDS is a problem worth addressing, then it is a problem worth addressing.


OOC:
If a mod can confirm this, then it would seem to answer the question. All whales are considered endangered, and hence protected, and resolution #70 can be seen as redundant.

If a mod can confirm this, then it would seem to answer the question. All whales are considered endangered, and hence protected, and resolution #70 can be seen as redundant.Resolution #70 is redundant regardless. Even if all whale populations the NS world over were healthy, thriving and numerous, and not a single species of whale was endangered, then they still wouldn't require special protections under a UN resolution, now would they?

OOC: Unfortunately we have no way, officially or unofficially, of declaring what the whale numbers are in NS. It's too bad someone hasn't started an offsite calculator for environmental stats. I've always worked under the assumption that all whales are endangered in NS and thus protected by UNCoESB. But you're right, if they aren't endangered at all then they don't need to be protected. If they become endangered in the future, they would be protected under UNCoESB.

IIRC, a mod replied (I don't have the link unfortunately) that: if the UN declares that AIDS is a problem worth addressing, then it is a problem worth addressing.Was probably Enodia; I'm pretty sure that Resolution is old enough that it was while he was still prowling the list. It might have even been before he codified his rules.

Now, however, I tend to delete Proposals that make up statistics, and I would include a species being endangered as either made up statistics or a real world violation (setting aside the duplication issue for purposes of debate).

I will be submitting this "for real" around midnight tonight.

It has been submitted.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Whaling)

I just wonder if the n00bs and silent majority of nationstates will vote against this repeal before they read the text.

I just wonder if the n00bs and silent majority of nationstates will vote against this repeal before they read the text.
If it gets into quorum at all.

Are you doing a telegram campaign, Iron Felix?

Are you doing a telegram campaign, Iron Felix?
Of course.

I would go so far as to say that because there is no way to gauge the number of whales in NS, that whales can never be considered endangered!

This is an issue of mentioning the real world in the NS world. #70 operates on the assumption that whales are endangered based on real-world models, and tries to mandate protection for them in a world where a national animal can be on the brink of extinction one day, and thriving the next.

This resolution should be repealed for numerous reasons, mostly RL, but this is the most pressing one I have thought of to date.

85 approvals. This will be close. It needs to pick up 37 more in a little more than 24 hours.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Whaling)

Personally, I think that the rule outlawing real world references has been taken to extremes beyond its orginal intentions. It was meant to prevent reference to real life events, politicians or histories. But an issue that can occur in the real world can easily occur in the NS world, and quite often provides the best inspirations for UN proposals. If you start to say that AIDS and whales aren't relevant issues for NS, then how can you you argue that pollution or global warming or terrorism are allowable?

If you start to say that AIDS and whales aren't relevant issues for NS, then how can you you argue that pollution or global warming or terrorism are allowable?Digression: I believe that AIDS was considered permissable.

At any rate, what can happen is whilst the specifics of a RL event cannot be used (or are frowned upon in some sections depending on the legislation), some inspiration can be drawn from those events. A far better piece of legislation than something targetting AIDS or HIV would be something addressing STI's and STD's in general - something that could be applied broadly. No deliberate mention of AIDS or HIV is needed.

Personally, I think that the rule outlawing real world references has been taken to extremes beyond its orginal intentions. It was meant to prevent reference to real life events, politicians or histories. But an issue that can occur in the real world can easily occur in the NS world, and quite often provides the best inspirations for UN proposals. If you start to say that AIDS and whales aren't relevant issues for NS, then how can you you argue that pollution or global warming or terrorism are allowable?Pollution is addressed in the daily issues, so it's clearly a problem that exists.

Terrorism and nuclear proliferation occur within International Incidents every week; while some might argue that anything that happens in RP is non-canonical, I think a safe case can be made that events RP'd in the “official” NS forums should be considered as potential matters of concern for the NSUN.

We're facing the same issue with the resolution presently a vote: does space junk exist? Well, since three issues talk about putting things into orbit, and our understanding or physics tells us that orbits undergo decay, then yes, it's reasonable to argue that space junk does exist.

That said, it could be argued that species are only ever endangered when they are national animals, and then only within those nations that use them as mascots (this can be deduced from a number of the daily issues). So if we ask ourselves, “are whales endangered”, the answer must clearly be “no”, if only because someone could create a nation purportedly populated by whales, and in a year we'd have billions of them.

So to me, the issue is this: Do whales deserve protection, not because they are endangered, but simply because they are whales?

This is less preposterous than it sounds. If someone were to put forward a resolution prohibiting the hunting of humans, it would probably pass (note to self: ask Community Property to do this...). But why should it? Are humans endangered? No. Yet we deem them worthy of protection anyway, presumably because we value human life.

Therefore, why should we not value cetacean life?

Whales are spectacular beasts; they are part of our natural heritage; they may be intelligent. Rather than argue over whether whales are endangered (because in NS, they clearly are not), shouldn't we simply ask ourselves if we should protect them simply because they are whales?

That is the issue here - the real issue here - and it's the only real issue here.

If someone were to put forward a resolution prohibiting the hunting of humans, it would probably pass (note to self: ask Community Property to do this...). But why should it? Are humans endangered? No. Yet we deem them worthy of protection anyway, presumably because we value human life.

Therefore, why should we not value cetacean life?

Whales are spectacular beasts; they are part of our natural heritage; they may be intelligent. Rather than argue over whether whales are endangered (because in NS, they clearly are not), shouldn't we simply ask ourselves if we should protect them simply because they are whales?

Or maybe just pass one resolution, of a more general scope, to protect all intelligent beings regardless of species?

Or maybe just pass one resolution, of a more general scope, to protect all intelligent beings regardless of species?It's on my agenda, right after Privacy and just before Full Faith and Credit.

That said, the point raised by Allemande* remains: are their species worth prrotecting, not because they're endangered or even because they're sentient/sapient, but because they have some other intrinsic worth that perhaps we can't define, but one we believe important (butterflies, for example)?

I'm a bit concerned at the way this is going: we have established an implicit rule that if it's not endangered, we can hunt it down and kill it. It is certainly necessary from a moral point of view to extend our notion of unwarranted killing to include intelligent beings, but to not recognize any other reason for protecting species seems a little heartless.

*IC ALERT: For the sake of honesty, I am Allemande also - I just chose to log in as Community Property today...

That said, the point raised by Allemande remains: are their [sic] species worth prrotecting [sic], not because they're endangered or even because they're sentient/sapient, but because they have some other intrinsic worth that perhaps we can't define, but one we believe important (butterflies, for example)?

I'm a bit concerned at the way this is going: we have established an implicit rule that if it's not endangered, we can hunt it down and kill it. It is certainly necessary from a moral point of view to extend our notion of unwarranted killing to include intelligent beings, but to not [sic] recognize any other reason for protecting species seems a little heartless.The United Nations has already ruled (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=128) that dolphins don't deserve any special protections by virtue of their being dolphins, so why should whales be entitled to any similar special protections? The UN under UNCoESB has declared it its goal to protect endangered wildlife; would you care to enlighten us as to why you think whales deserve special protections (solely on the basis of their being whales) that neither dolphins nor any other species on Earth have been given? Also, what specific directives has the United Nations issued regarding the protection of butterflies?

The United Nations has already ruled (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=128) that dolphins don't deserve any special protections by virtue of their being dolphins, so why should whales be entitled to any similar special protections? The UN under UNCoESB has declared it its goal to protect endangered wildlife; would you care to enlighten us as to why you think whales deserve special protections (solely on the basis of their being whales) that neither dolphins nor any other species on Earth have been given? Also, what specific directives has the United Nations issued regarding the protection of butterflies?


And what about hippos? They are quite large, after all.

Also, what specific directives has the United Nations issued regarding the protection of butterflies?

I think I've got an idea for a new resolution...

I think I've got an idea for a new resolution...

"Butterflies Are Quite Pretty"?

"Butterflies Are Quite Pretty"?

Perfect! Now I just need to boost my nation's population by, oh, 492 million.

Perfect! Now I just need to boost my nation's population by, oh, 492 million.

Uh...why? :confused:

"Butterflies Are Quite Pretty"?
No: "Butterflies Are Free To Fly!" It's a free trade resolution that prohibits tariffs on migrating butterflies.

Uh...why? :confused:

A population of 500 million is required to propose a resolution. My population is remaining stagnant at 8 million.

A population of 500 million is required to propose a resolution. My population is remaining stagnant at 8 million.

OOC: No, it's not, and no, it's not. There is no population requirement for the submission of a proposal. And your population is growing everyday. That's how the game works.

OOC: No, it's not, and no, it's not. There is no population requirement for the submission of a proposal. And your population is growing everyday. That's how the game works.

OOC, I suppose: Ah, yes, it's the proposing issues that requires 500 million and remain stagnant wasn't the best word. Growing rather slowly? If I may continue with this thread jakc, how is it that people have populations of 8 million? I suppose your population begins to increase by more than a million a day, after awhile?

Just to end the threadjack...

For the first two weeks (or so), population grows at a constant 1 million per day. After that, the rate increases and eventually maxes out at 5-8 million per day. The 5-8 is random, which is why two nations created within hours of each other can have different populations; indeed, it is almost assured. Over enough time, seemingly massive gaps will evaporate.

Nothing save time causes population change. The type of government, the issues you answer, the number of issues you get, the issues you dismiss, etc. all have absolutely no effect on population growth.

I think that covers it. If you have further questions, take a look in the Gameplay or Technical forum; they both tend to get population questions.

Razat is fairly neutral on the issue of whales. We're a landlocked nation with no significant sea presence. The only whale products we have are purchased from nations that do have whaling ships.

However, the idea of protecting specific creatures seems dumb. Will we next have a UN proposal protecting the three-toed tree toad?

As for what creatures are endagered, it's hard to tell. A creature could be extinct in most of NS, but common in a specific nation (one nation has the brontosaurus as national animal), or vice-versa.

Love and esterel supports the text of this repeal.
But sadly, we cannot vote for a resolution which such an author name, sorry.
Europe (and not only Europe) had suffer so much from such polictial system, I really don't see the need of such advertisement, even if it's irony.

Technically no, they are not. Whales which are not part of endangered species are not automatically protected by resolution #119, and are covered solely by resolution #70.


I would think that there is a UN committee formed for resolution #119 which determines which species are endangered and which are not(since one nation may feel more than 2 of any species of mixed sex means the species is not endangered, wheras other nations may have a more rigourous method of determining which species is endangered).

Since Whales are protected under a previous ruling(#70), it is doubtfull that the committee has even taken the time to determine if whales are endangered or not.

Therefore, repealing resolution #70 would immediately allow all sea-faring nations to hunt all whales to extinction if they so wished. Untill the endangered species committee had time to study and report EACH species of whale and determine if it is endangered.

As such, a repeal of resolution #70 should arbitrarily declare that all whales are to be considered endangered automatically, and that Nations may apply to the Endangered Species Committee to have specific species of whales removed from the list as per ruling #119.

On the other hand, if it is your wish to give your fishing industry a huge short term boom, than naturally you would want whales to go into the unclassified species and sneak the repeal through without providing them with additional protections.

After added research, it appears that "Iron felix" was also one of the main founders of the former USSR gulags.

http://gulaghistory.org/exhibits/nps/onlineexhibit/after/emerging.php

We cannot accept this:( , and we hope the author will resubmit this usefull repeal under a new name.

And what if someone was submitting a proposal under the name "Hermann Göring".:(

I would think that there is a UN committee formed for resolution #119 which determines which species are endangered and which are not(since one nation may feel more than 2 of any species of mixed sex means the species is not endangered, wheras other nations may have a more rigourous method of determining which species is endangered).

Since Whales are protected under a previous ruling(#70), it is doubtfull that the committee has even taken the time to determine if whales are endangered or not.

It would appear that way, yes. But the committee would then have the time to decide which whales are endangered and which are not - and if you remember game mechanics, that's immediatly. Those UN gnomes are notoriously fast creatures.

Therefore, repealing resolution #70 would immediately allow all sea-faring nations to hunt all whales to extinction if they so wished. Untill the endangered species committee had time to study and report EACH species of whale and determine if it is endangered.

No. In Allech-Atreus, species that can be considered whales exist on several planets. Currently, we don't hunt them. that doesn't mean, though, that there are legions of swarthy cutthroats just waiting for the UN to legalize whaling. The possibility that whales could be hunted to extinction within hours of the repeal is ridiculous.

As such, a repeal of resolution #70 should arbitrarily declare that all whales are to be considered endangered automatically, and that Nations may apply to the Endangered Species Committee to have specific species of whales removed from the list as per ruling #119.

Ridiculous! Why even bother with a repeal at all? Completely unnecessary as well, because Article 5 of #119 already states that the UNcoESB is working with government to compile the list - that wouldn't preclude whale species that are endangered! Even though all whales are illegal to hunt, there are still some species that are diminished or endangered, and the UNcoESB would be taking note of that.

On the other hand, if it is your wish to give your fishing industry a huge short term boom, than naturally you would want whales to go into the unclassified species and sneak the repeal through without providing them with additional protections.

His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty holds dominion over some 200 worlds, with a fishing industry on most. What makes you think we need whales (which don't even exist on most Imperial planets) to support our industries?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

After added research, it appears that "Iron felix" was also one of the main founders of the former USSR gulags.

http://gulaghistory.org/exhibits/nps/onlineexhibit/after/emerging.php

We cannot accept this:( , and we hope the author will resubmit this usefull repeal under a new name.

And what if someone was submitting a proposal under the name "Hermann Göring".:(
OOC: If "Hermann Göring" (http://www.nationstates.net/Hermann%20Goring) (or "Heinrich Himmler" for that matter) came in here with a proposal that was well-written and was something that I would otherwise support, I would support it. I might make fun of their nation name though. It's just RP. Did you read the post where I explained how the Yeldans came to have comrade Dzerzhinsky in their possession?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11599123&postcount=7

IC: *Glares sullenly at the LAE ambassador. Begins to fashion a garrotte from a piano wire he happened to have in his attache case.*

On the other hand, if it is your wish to give your fishing industry a huge short term boom, than naturally you would want whales to go into the unclassified species and sneak the repeal through without providing them with additional protections.

That is not my government's wish, no. Ariddia hasn't even got a fishing industry. Fishing is a crime in Ariddia, punishable by up to twenty years in jail (with compulsory community service, and rehabilitation assistance). Foreign vessels found fishing within the Ariddian EEZ are dealt with very harshly.

I was merely raising a point of legal interpretation.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA