NationStates Jolt Archive

The resolution #66 Illegal Logging deals with the serious environmental issue of illegal logging that effects all U.N member states. The need to deal with the issue of illegal logging is a serious issue that U.N member states will have to tackle to counterbalance their national economies and their prestine national forests.

Resolution # 66 Illegal Logging is extremely vague on what should be assigned as protected woodland. The resolution doesn't present what categorizes as 'protected' woodland. Is it endangered species of woodland that should be protected or other forms of woodland. From one viewpoint this resolution indicates that possibly all woodland needs to be protected. As well, Resolution # 66 with a lack of a list of protected species of woodland fails in its protection of these 'special' woodland because of loopholes that companies and nations can use.

This repeal urges that U.N member states should be able to assign classification of protection of their own woodland species, especially the ones that are endangered of being extinct. Resolution #66 details how it will effect logging companies with illegal logging however this repeal believes it doesn't effect the automobile or uranium mining industries.

Article 5 of resolution # 66 deals with fines for companies that do not use wood that is certified wood, which apparently makes the WWP a 'commerical body' by taking out commercial competion that may 'cut legally but doesn't have the seal from the WWP on it. There is no definition of what is legal logging of woodland and illegal logging of woodland. Nations can companies can use this system to stifle competition in an aggressive logging 'war' as forest resources become smaller and smaller in U.N member states to knock of 'legal' competition.

Article 5 doesn't deal with fines about chopping protected woodland, but only with regards to fines if a company doesn't use the WWP seal. Finally, there is no cooperation or steps that the WWP and U.N member states governments can do together to work on national approaches to protect these 'woodlands'.

Therefore, this resolution should be repealled to provide definition of what is illegal logging and to result in better action to protect U.N member states woodlands from illegal loggers and from being a tool of companies and some nations as Resolution 66 is now.

1. Is that post the proposal text?

2. If it isn't, please post the repeal text

3. If it is, it's illegal because it introduces new legislation.

4. This sucks.

That's about it.

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

I have followed the format of what other repeals are so what are you talking about.

And why does it suck?

Ambassador Landaman Pendankr dan Samda is correct that this would be illegal. You are attempting to repeal something. A repeal cannot introduce new legislation. So, take that out.

Next, it needs to be more proposally. Try using things like NOTING that....and CONCERNED by vagueness of....

Those are just some suggestions. Give me a bit of time and I could have something more for you. Start with those.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I don't really understand exactly what your problems with the resolution are. Surely the WWP are the ones who define what protected woodland is, and I don't see how this could be abused by companies, as the definition of protected would, then, be decided centrally by an independant organisation (the WWP), rather than by the companies themselves.

Okay, I'll explain it.

You haven't posted any repeal text for us. your arguements are made in the first person, explaining why you think #66 should be repealed. You need to take a look at other repeal texts and actually write one, rather than just posting what you think is wrong with the resolution.

Conversely, if you were to submit what you wrote above it would be removed for illegality. Because you urge member states to have their own determination and definitions, you are introducing new legislation, something you can't do with a repeal. The moderators would delete the proposal.

Finally, it is poorly written. Grammar needs to be improved, and the format needs to be changed. If this were not illegal, and you submitted it, it' wouldn't reach quorum because people don't support resolutions with grammatical errors and confusing blocks of text.

That's why it sucks. Excuse my vitriol, I have the tendency to be nasty.

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador
Baron of Samda

That's why it sucks. Excuse my vitriol, I have the tendency to be nasty.

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador
Baron of Samda

You're not being nasty. You're being honest.

Now, as the good ambassador says, this needs a lot of work. Take a look at some of the repeals on the books and go from there, Use arguments that are more valid than just "I don't like this resolution and therefore, it should be repealled."

Take the time to hammer out somthing that's short, sweet and to the point. Well, you can leave the sweet part out.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria