NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENDING the intentions of the resolution to improve our world.

REGRETTING that the resolution is insufficient to the task.

OBSERVING that there are previous UN measures in place that address issues of pollution more than adequately.

BELIEVING that regulating a private enterprise rather than a member government is acting outside of the proper realm of UN authority.

NOTING that CFC's are not the only reasons for Ozone reduction, but the resolution treats it as if it is the only reason.

FURTHER NOTING that there is no conclusive evidence that ozone depletion will be slowed down or stopped by this resolution.

CONCERNED about the possibility of impeding perfectly good businesses without sufficient evidentiary basis for doing so."

Ithalia
Gatesville

Dragonist Din Tei (Numa Numa) has done more damage to the enviroment then anything. I say we ban Ozone

I say we ban Ozone

You can't make ozone without oxygen. I say we go to the source.

Ban Oxygen!

You can't make ozone without oxygen. I say we go to the source.

Ban Oxygen!

And since oxygen can be found in an extremely common substance, I say we ban it as well.

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

Since humans are mostly made of water, I say we ban human beings as well.

Much as I hate to tread on the hilarity, the repeal itself isn't bad, especially for what is presumably a first effort. That said, it's a bit scattershot - I'm not really sure which way you're arguing from. Either the resolution is too demanding, or not comprehensive enough: it can't reasonably be both. I suggest concentrating on the major flaw - whatever you perceive that to be - and arguing against that alone.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

I concur with my Gruenberger friend. I would actually stop with this bit:

BELIEVING that regulating a private enterprise rather than a member government is acting outside of the proper realm of UN authority.

You might consider elaborating on that point, though, as well as the clauses preceeding it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OBSERVING that there are previous UN measures in place that address issues of pollution more than adequately.
You should probably cite specific ones, as I can't recall one that addresses CFCs, but there probably is.

BELIEVING that regulating a private enterprise rather than a member government is acting outside of the proper realm of UN authority.
This seems a bit too natsov-principle-oriented to me. A replacement would just say "MANDATES that member governments place the following regulations on all businesses operating within their nations...". There's not much difference, so this argument isn't that strong.

FURTHER NOTING that there is no conclusive evidence that ozone depletion will be slowed down or stopped by this resolution.
There's no basis for this. The resolution's been in effect for a while, surely some scientists somewhere have studied its effects. And research could have been done in some nations proving this.

CONCERNED about the possibility of impeding perfectly good businesses without sufficient evidentiary basis for doing so."

I really don't have enough expertise in this subject to respond to this, but it seems like it might kill this with the fluffies, if they still exist.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

OOC Edit: Removed extraneous quotes and responses

OOC: Ceo, maybe you should remember Hack's note about excessive ping-ponging: if "ok" is the sum substance of your response, why bother? Omitting comment is generally indicative of agreement, or at least lack of disagreement - and it doesn't waste five lines. (I would link you, but the thread is playing up.)

This seems a bit too natsov-principle-oriented to me. A replacement would just say "MANDATES that member governments place the following regulations on all businesses operating within their nations...". There's not much difference, so this argument isn't that strong.

It's strong enough for a repeal. The UN has no business interfering with private enterprise within nations. It can, as you noted, affect nations, but it has no direct authority over CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21), for example. If someone wants to try replacing the existing resolution, so be it, but this argument is perfectly acceptable for a repeal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Thank you, I accept some of the suggestions that everyone has made. Thanks for the feedback, I will start work on it later today then I will post the edited version sometime this evening. Thanks again for all your help.

Before I repost this I would like you to clafify a few things. What are the fluffies, and when you say research has been made for this topic do you mean that I should take this out completly?

COMMENDING the intentions of the resolution to improve our world.

REGRETTING that the resolution is insufficient to the task.

OBSERVING that there are previous UN measures in place that address issues of pollution more than adequately. Resolution #11, (Banning single hulled tankers), Resolution #18 (Hydro powered cars), Resolution #34 (Banning Oceanic dumping), Resolution #39 (Alternative fuel), Resolution #71 (Sustainable Energy), Resolution #72 (Reduction of Greenhouse gasses) Just to name a few.

BELIEVING that regulating a private enterprise rather than a member government is acting outside of the proper realm of UN authority.

NOTING that CFC's are not the only reasons for Ozone reduction, but the resolution treats it as if it is the only reason.

FURTHER NOTING that there is no conclusive evidence that ozone depletion will be slowed down or stopped by this resolution.

CONCERNED about the possibility of impeding perfectly good businesses without sufficient evidentiary basis for doing so." The U.N. does not have jurisdiction on how a corporation should be run and therefore should not have to power to interfere with business dealings and also the economy of a nation.

There is my edited version. It has taken into consideration some of your proposals. I dont know if it is in the proper format though.

OOC: Ceo, maybe you should remember Hack's note about excessive ping-ponging: if "ok" is the sum substance of your response, why bother? Omitting comment is generally indicative of agreement, or at least lack of disagreement - and it doesn't waste five lines. (I would link you, but the thread is playing up.)

Oh, sorry. That note slipped my mind at the time; I've edited.

The U.N. does not have jurisdiction on how a corporation should be run and therefore should not have to power to interfere with business dealings and also the economy of a nation.
Erm...I support a repeal of this, but with this in there, I'd have to vote against. The U.N retains the power to regulate corporations, and I won't support anything saying it doesn't.

The U.N. does not have jurisdiction on how a corporation should be run and therefore should not have to power to interfere with business dealings and also the economy of a nation..
Given that the government of the Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States is entirely made up of corporations, with the combined Board of Directors wielding ultimate authority, I'd be hard pressed to agree with that statement. It was precisely because the UN interfered with our corporate interests that we chose to resign from this body.

Anyone who wants the protections and privileges associated with being a UN member is equally obligated to observe the consequent responsibilities. Don't assume that your economic model gives you an easy out, because it doesn't. If Corporate States don't like it, they too can resign.

Were we still a member, we'd stand opposed.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
Former Frisbeeterian UN Representative
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

Before I repost this I would like you to clafify a few things. What are the fluffies, and when you say research has been made for this topic do you mean that I should take this out completly?

The fluffies are those tree-hugging hippie bastards who jerk off to their image of "Mother Earth" as a hot dryad that must be protected in the hope that she's actually a real entity that might -- someday -- have sex with their pathetic asses in exchange for their tireless (read: tiresome) efforts to protect her.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: "Fluffy" is a term generally applied to those who lean to (or, in many cases, are camped out on) the left politically, especially when it comes to issues regarding the environment, so-called "human rights," etc.

This seems a bit too natsov-principle-oriented to me. A replacement would just say "MANDATES that member governments place the following regulations on all businesses operating within their nations...". There's not much difference, so this argument isn't that strong.

Why exactly are you assuming that a replacement is desirable?

There's no basis for this. The resolution's been in effect for a while, surely some scientists somewhere have studied its effects. And research could have been done in some nations proving this.

Ironic. You claim that there's no basis for it, and then suppose that "some scientists somewhere have studied its effects" and "research could have been done". There's no basis for your claim that it has no basis. At least not in your counter-claim.

I really don't have enough expertise in this subject to respond to this, but it seems like it might kill this with the fluffies, if they still exist.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

I highly doubt it. And even if it did kill it with some fluffies who have some semblance of reading comprehension beyond that of the norm, so what? It appeals to another large voter demographic, so the net votes would probably come out just fine.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

OOC: "Fluffy" is a term generally applied to those who lean to (or, in many cases, are camped out on) the left politically, especially when it comes to issues regarding the environment, so-called "human rights," etc.

OOC: There's a bit more to it than that. The "fluffy" crew isn't just a bunch of soft-hearted liberals (you can be quite liberal without being a fluffy), they also don't read resolutions at vote very well and end up voting complete shit like "Promotion of Solar Panels" into the resolution books as a result.

There is my edited version. It has taken into consideration some of your proposals. I dont know if it is in the proper format though.

Here's my suggested revision:

COMMENDING the intentions of the resolution to improve our world.

REGRETTING that the resolution is insufficient to the task.

OBSERVING that there are previous UN measures in place that address issues of pollution more than adequately. Resolution #11, (Banning single hulled tankers), Resolution #18 (Hydro powered cars), Resolution #34 (Banning Oceanic dumping), Resolution #39 (Alternative fuel), Resolution #71 (Sustainable Energy), and Resolution #72 (Reduction of Greenhouse gasses).

NOTING that CFC's are not the only reasons for Ozone reduction, but the resolution treats it as if it is the only reason, which ignores other important factors that need to be addressed in dealing with ozone depletion.

FURTHER NOTING that there is no conclusive evidence that ozone depletion will be slowed down or stopped by this resolution.

CONCERNED about the possibility of impeding perfectly good businesses without sufficient evidentiary basis for doing so,

ALSO CONCERNED about the negative practical results of interfering with the economic structures of member nations without taking into account the affects on the workers, such as unemployment, poverty, etc,

BELIEVING as a result that regulating private enterprise rather than a member government is acting outside of the proper realm of UN authority, and

DESIRING more factually-based and practical legislation over the original resolution's lack of a solid scientific basis, uncomprehensive consideration of the facts, and impractical recommendations,

REPEALS resolution #172 "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion".

Why exactly are you assuming that a replacement is desirable?
I'm not. I'm saying that, from a practical perspective, the argument really doesn't mean anything. The argument says it would be better if it mandated national governments to set the regulations (or at least that having the UN set it is bad, and how else would you set those regulations). But that would have the exact same effect. So what's the argument's point?

Ironic. You claim that there's no basis for it, and then suppose that "some scientists somewhere have studied its effects" and "research could have been done". There's no basis for your claim that it has no basis. At least not in your counter-claim.
The Ceorana Department of the Environment's Sustainable Environmental Quality Commission (SEQC) has informed me that ozone depletion has slowed down significantly since the passing of this resolution, accounting for other factors affecting the ozone layer.

In terms of the fluffy vote, you could be right, I really don't know.

Kinsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

OOC: There's a bit more to it than that. The "fluffy" crew isn't just a bunch of soft-hearted liberals (you can be quite liberal without being a fluffy), they also don't read resolutions at vote very well and end up voting complete shit like "Promotion of Solar Panels" into the resolution books as a result.

OOC: I was trying to encapsulate the term quickly, without resorting to the "they don't read shite" bit. :p

Even though it's true...

COMMENDING the intentions of the resolution to improve our world.

REGRETTING that the resolution is insufficient to the task.

OBSERVING that there are previous UN measures in place that address issues of pollution more than adequately. Resolution #11, (Banning single hulled tankers), Resolution #18 (Hydro powered cars), Resolution #34 (Banning Oceanic dumping), Resolution #39 (Alternative fuel), Resolution #71 (Sustainable Energy), and Resolution #72 (Reduction of Greenhouse gasses).

NOTING that CFC's are not the only reasons for Ozone reduction, but the resolution treats it as if it is the only reason, which ignores other important factors that need to be addressed in dealing with ozone depletion.

FURTHER NOTING that there is no conclusive evidence that ozone depletion will be slowed down or stopped by this resolution.

CONCERNED about the possibility of impeding perfectly good businesses without sufficient evidentiary basis for doing so,

ALSO CONCERNED about the negative practical results of interfering with the economic structures of member nations without taking into account the affects on the workers, such as unemployment, poverty, etc,

BELIEVING as a result that regulating private enterprise rather than a member government is acting outside of the proper realm of UN authority, and

DESIRING more factually-based and practical legislation over the original resolution's lack of a solid scientific basis, uncomprehensive consideration of the facts, and impractical recommendations,

REPEALS resolution #172 "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion".


I like your suggestion. It seems reasonable to me. I am still open to suggestion though.

And since this is my first attempt how would I be able to get people to vote on this?

And since this is my first attempt how would I be able to get people to vote on this?

OOC: You can do it by submitting it on the UN page. Go to the UN Resolution History, find #172, and click on the link that says repeal it. (Make sure you're logged into your nation first.)

After you've submitted it, you will need to mount a telegram campaign. You can send me a message either via NS or the Gatesville forum and I will give you details on when and how to do this. We will officially start the repeal process on Monday of next week.

Excellent work, Ithalia!

Thank you Accelerus. You have been a great help to me. I will post it immediatly and we can get to work on it probably tomorow.

OOC: Just a bit of cleaning up, in case the version you've submitted doesn't make quorum.

COMMENDING the intentions of the resolution to improve our world;

REGRETTING that the resolution is insufficient to the task;

OBSERVING that there are previous UN measures in place that address issues of pollution more than adequately;

NOTING that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are not the only reasons for ozone reduction, but the resolution treats it as if it is the only reason, completely ignoring other important factors that need to be addressed in dealing with ozone depletion;

FURTHER NOTING that there is no conclusive evidence that ozone depletion will be slowed down or stopped by this resolution;

CONCERNED about the possibility of impeding perfectly good businesses without sufficient and conclusive evidentiary basis for doing so;

ALSO CONCERNED about the negative practical results of interfering with the economic structures of member nations without taking into account the affects on the workers, such as unemployment, poverty, etc.;

BELIEVING that by regulating private enterprises, rather than member governments, the UN is acting outside of the proper realm of its authority; and

DESIRING more factually based and practical legislation, over the original resolution's lack of a solid scientific and consideration of the facts, as well as its impractical recommendations;

REPEALS Resolution #172, "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion".

I deleted the laundry list of previous resolutions out of fear of an HoC violation. I also cleaned up the language and punctuation a bit, added a word here and there, etc. If you like the revisions, please feel free to use them.

What is a HoC violation?

What is a HoC violation?

House of Cards. From the UN proposal rules stickied in this forum.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

That said, it doesn't look you have like a HoC violation to me.

Understanding that my opinion means nothing around here, I believe that the “house of cards” violation applies more to the operative clauses that the argumentative ones. I see nothing wrong with saying, “In light of our prior passage of <$resolution_list>...”, because even if the whole of <$resolution_list> gets repealed, at the time the resolution was enacted <$resolution_list> was in force and served as an argument in favor and justification for the passage of the bill.

In contrast, referring to another resolution in the operative clauses produces the problematic result that the legal meaning of your resolution changes in the event of a repeal, and that violates the rules, as repeals can't carry amendments encased within them.

This is why I hate the “except-as-provided-for-by-prior-resolutions” song-and-dance; it means that repealing any of the cited resolutions expands the scope and power of the resolution listing them as exceptions.

But again, this is a minority view; most folks around here will tell you to toss in wording like that if you're ever in doubt of a resolution's potential for contradiction. What were once vices...

HoC's a lot harder in a Repeal anyway, as Repeals only have one actual operative clause, after all: the striking of previous law.

As for the complaint about "except where previously mentioned", that's a pretty common phrase, not only to avoid contradiction, but also to deal with issues of ex post facto law. Legally, I see nothing wrong with it, and if people don't like it on a stylistic level... well... not my problem, really. I don't much care for L&E's style, for instance, but it's perfectly acceptable.

The resolution's been in effect for a while, surely some scientists somewhere have studied its effects. And research could have been done in some nations proving this.

The IMO might know something about this...