NationStates Jolt Archive

Still in the drafting phase, hoping for whatever suggestions can be made for improvements to this:

The United Nations

APPLAUDING international interest in protection of the environment;

NOTING the importance of protecting environmentally significant locations to maintain our global environment;

SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES the practice of nations designating specific sites within their borders as being of environmental significance and deserving of protection from public or private organizations and entities;

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area;

DEFINES "pristine in nature" to refer to natural land or water living ecosystems or natural geographic features including, but not limited to mountains, deserts, or ice fields, that are untouched, minimally touched, or desired by inhabitants to be less touched by human development;

FURTHER DEFINES "significant to the ecosystem of that area" to mean an area of land or water that contributes to the general well-being of a larger area which may therefore contribute to the general well-being of the entire planet;

CREATES the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEPO) to examine indicated sites and the merits of the site as an environmental location significant enough to warrant international protection;

EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;

CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private industrial organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location;

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independent of the UNEPO;

ALLOWS for nations to petition the UNEPO to have international protection removed from locations within their borders;

That's what I've got so far. Keep the suggestions coming.

Got rid of the original draft since the WHL is less than 24 hours from being history.

It looks good. Better than the last time I looked at it. I don't really have anything contructive to add at the moment, but I may later after reading through it again.

No way.PROHIBITS any such indication that intentionally and unnecessarily impedes or hinders another nations economic well being;So another nation can come in and say that our refusal to let them buy and chop down our rain forests for lumber or blast our mountains to smithereens for ore can strike down all our environmental regulations because these restrictions “hinder” the ability of their multinationals to rape our land and people for profit?!?

At the very least, this clause needs to call upon nations to negotiate solutions to such problems without compulsion on either side; ideally, there should be no presumption that economic “well being” matters more than pristine landscapes, pure water, and fresh air. If we want to say “no” to development - any and all development - we should have that right. After all, the polluters have the right to say “no” to the environment, now don't they?EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;What the ...?!?

So the UNEPO can order us to stop protecting any or all of our lands?!? What kind of garbage is that? Again, there needs to be balance here. Why just “sanction or deny”? That gives those of us who give a d_mn about the land the short end of the stick, because the best we can get is the UNEPO's blessing to do what we could have done on our own anyway - protect our natural heritage; but if we draw the UNEPO's ire, we get all of our rights to keep our environment pristine shredded.

Again, if this bill was fair, it would give the UNEPO authority to demand as well as deny protection. But of course that would run against the wishes of the Antarctican bloc, so what we get is all their wishes and none of ours.

If you want sovereignty-friendly regulation, strike this clause altogether.

This is just a joy, really. We're so happy, we can't stand it. You “urge”, “support”, and “encourage” environmental protection, but all the power is in the hands of the eco-rapists. It's a wet dream for them, and a warm fuzzy reach-around for us while we get reamed.Category: EnvironmentalCategory violation: the resolution does nothing to advance environmental protection except for begging “pretty please” when it comes to environmental safeguards - but it lets industry “advance” across the world, in violation of national wishes and the regulations to the contrary, without effective check, courtesy the UNEDO (United Nations Environmental Desecration Organization).

This monster's “Advancement of Industry” or nothing.

Rewrite this abomination.

No way.So another nation can come in and say that our refusal to let them buy and chop down our rain forests for lumber or blast our mountains to smithereens for ore can strike down all our environmental regulations because these restrictions “hinder” the ability of their multinationals to rape our land and people for profit?!?

Wrong. That clause specifially states that the UNEPO can't make the quoted indication, not individual nations. Since we all remember our UN 101 courses, nations don't sit on committees.

The quoted clause ensures that the UNEPO may not intentionally harm a nation's economy through environmental protection.

At the very least, this clause needs to call upon nations to negotiate solutions to such problems without compulsion on either side; ideally, there should be no presumption that economic “well being” matters more than pristine landscapes, pure water, and fresh air.

Yeah, get off the soapbox.

If we want to say “no” to development - any and all development - we should have that right. After all, the polluters have the right to say “no” to the environment, now don't they?What the ...?!?

What in the holy hell are you talking about? You have completely misinterpreted the clause. Your individual nation still has the sovereignty to determine the development and environmental regulation within your nation. But, of course, all you see is "SWEET JEEBUS, SOMEONE IS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY AND RAPE THE ENBIRO-MENT!"

You missed this clause:

DESIRING to reach an acceptable compromise between protection of the environment and economic growth;

So the UNEPO can order us to stop protecting any or all of our lands?!? What kind of garbage is that? Again, there needs to be balance here. Why just “sanction or deny”? That gives those of us who give a d_mn about the land the short end of the stick, because the best we can get is the UNEPO's blessing to do what we could have done on our own anyway - protect our natural heritage; but if we draw the UNEPO's ire, we get all of our rights to keep our environment pristine shredded.

Wrong again, skippy. That clause clearly states that the UNEPO can deny or give environmental protection from international sources- which can only be interpreted to mean the UN. Meaning the UNEPO can deny or give UN protection to environmental areas. It says nothing about your own laws protecting the environment.

Again, if this bill was fair, it would give the UNEPO authority to demand as well as deny protection. But of course that would run against the wishes of the Antarctican bloc, so what we get is all their wishes and none of ours.

Why don't you get off your fucking high horse and stop quibbling. It's pretty fucking clear you have a bone to pick with anyone from the Antarctic Oasis, and you'll stop at nothing to attack their member's proposals, creating fictitious issues out of thin air. Very mature, very mature.


This is just a joy, really. We're so happy, we can't stand it. You “urge”, “support”, and “encourage” environmental protection, but all the power is in the hands of the eco-rapists. It's a wet dream for them, and a warm fuzzy reach-around for us while we get reamed.

Boy howdy, has Rono Pyandran really rubbed off on you that much?

Category violation: the resolution does nothing to advance environmental protection except for begging “pretty please” when it comes to environmental safeguards - but it lets industry “advance” across the world, in violation of national wishes and the regulations to the contrary, without effective check, courtesy the UNEDO (United Nations Environmental Desecration Organization).

Calm down, skippy. Not a category violation, because it specifically sets up an organization for environmental protection. You just don't like the strength attached to it, so you're going to bitch and moan about industry and capitalism and conjure up even more strawmen that don't exist. What you're looking at here might be a problem with the strength of the proposal. You're just pissed because it doesn't automatically require the dismantling of industry, the execution of anyone with money, and forcing everyone to live in the trees clad in leaves and skins.

Your debating is ridiculous.

No way.So another nation can come in and say that our refusal to let them buy and chop down our rain forests for lumber or blast our mountains to smithereens for ore can strike down all our environmental regulations because these restrictions “hinder” the ability of their multinationals to rape our land and people for profit?!?

The scenario you describe is abstract, at best. Considering that the clause refers to the intentional use of this law to hinder the economic well being of another nation, protecting your rain forests would still be allowable. It could perhaps use a bit of a rewrite to clarify that a bit better. Thanks.

At the very least, this clause needs to call upon nations to negotiate solutions to such problems without compulsion on either side; ideally, there should be no presumption that economic “well being” matters more than pristine landscapes, pure water, and fresh air. If we want to say “no” to development - any and all development - we should have that right. After all, the polluters have the right to say “no” to the environment, now don't they?What the ...?!?

Since this is intended to protect only the most pristine and environmentally significant locations, I don't see that negotiation should occur at all. Either the site is worthy of being protected, and it shall be, or it is simply an attempt to screw with another nation's economy by claiming that an unremarkable stretch of land should be protected by the international community, and the host nation is being a dick. In any case, if there is another nation performing industrial activities upon your land, only the most foolish of nations would not retain some control over what can occur there. That said, it could perhaps stand some clarification. Any suggestions?

So the UNEPO can order us to stop protecting any or all of our lands?!?

Nope. The UNEPO only has control over what is protected by the UN. You can choose to protect any or all of your lands that you choose to do so for.

What kind of garbage is that?

The kind that you have misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented.

Again, there needs to be balance here.

No, there doesn't.

Why just “sanction or deny”?

What else would you have them do?

That gives those of us who give a d_mn about the land the short end of the stick, because the best we can get is the UNEPO's blessing to do what we could have done on our own anyway - protect our natural heritage;

You can protect it on a national basis. UNEPO could protect it from the entirety of the UN.

but if we draw the UNEPO's ire,

Being a UN commitee staffed by gnomes, it would have no ire to speak of.

we get all of our rights to keep our environment pristine shredded.

How do you read that? Perhaps it is something that can be fixed. Any constructive suggestions?

Again, if this bill was fair, it would give the UNEPO authority to demand as well as deny protection.

Sanctioning UN protection of any location would mean that the UN is obligated to protect the environmental significance of that location. My way of phrasing sounds much less alarmist, though.

But of course that would run against the wishes of the Antarctican bloc, so what we get is all their wishes and none of ours.

Strangely enough, I fail to be surprised by your assumptions here. You may be surprised to learn that not a single member of my home region assisted with the drafting to this stage in any significant fashion. There have been one or two of them that have stated that they would oppose this bill. That's alright, though. I don't take it personally, as they have their reasons, be they political or philosophical. Just as I'm sure they will not take it personally that I feel compelled to move forward with this whether they approve of it or not.

If you want sovereignty-friendly regulation, strike this clause altogether.

That will not be occurring.

This is just a joy, really. We're so happy, we can't stand it.

I'm glad you like it.

You “urge”, “support”, and “encourage” environmental protection, but all the power is in the hands of the eco-rapists.

How does it fail to lack power to have the UN protect ay piece of the environment that is worthy of protecting. The only place that indusrty is given any power at all is where it is declared that you can't declare something environmentally significant just to affect someone else's economy. Even if such an indication were to occur, which it could not, were the site to be deemed worthy of protection from industry, then it would be.

It's a wet dream for them, and a warm fuzzy reach-around for us while we get reamed.

Wonderfully graphic. As long as everyone is getting some though...

Category violation: the resolution does nothing to advance environmental protection except for begging “pretty please” when it comes to environmental safeguards -

And sets up a system for enforced environmental protection on an international scale. But, you seem to have missed that. Ah well.

but it lets industry “advance” across the world, in violation of national wishes and the regulations to the contrary, without effective check,

Except for the UNEPO, which will prevent anyone from damaging the environmentally significant nature of any protected sites.

courtesy the UNEDO (United Nations Environmental Desecration Organization).

Good thing I didn't make one of those, then.

This monster's “Advancement of Industry” or nothing.

I understand how you feel that way, given the points you have brought up, but I do not agree.

Rewrite this abomination.

Abomination might be a bit strong, but that is why I posted this here for drafting purposes. To get help with any rewrite that might be necessary or beneficial for it. Would you happen to have any suggestions as to how it might be reworded to improve upon any of the issues you feel it contains?

Well there are some intresting points that i dont believe are covered by this resolution. One of which is...just exactly how much power will the new UN body be given? And second, lets say two nations border eachother, we will use my nation for example:

Ellelt has some very beautiful and pristine mountains on our western boarder lands which boarder an other nation...there might be gold, iron ore or some other valuable resource in those mountains. The other nation has declared their area that they claim as protected, and given approval by this un group. They are a developed or moderately developed capitalist economy, whereas Ellelt is underdeveloped socialist economy....and we, Ellelt that is want to exploit the mineral deposits in those mountains and have delclared them to be a mining zone.

What would be the effect of this resolution?

As it stands, while We are committed to preserving our enviroment as much as possible...Ellelt has many people to feed, house, educate, employ etc...we cannot at this time support this proposal, however, if the UN group allows the nations to negotiate, or exploit their own resources we really wouldnt have a problem with this. it might gain an abstintion rather than a flat out no.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, United Socialist States of Ellelt,
Second Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt.

An excellent point is raised by the honourable Mr. Khernynko.

There is an allowance for nations to remove protection from locations within their borders. In your scenario, you would be able to mine the mountains for their resources on your side of the border, allowing you to exploit whatever resources are on your land as you see fit. Is there any thing we could alter, remove or add in to swing your position into one more favourable of this proposal?

Wrong. That clause specifially states that the UNEPO can't make the quoted indication, not individual nations. Since we all remember our UN 101 courses, nations don't sit on committees.That's right - and what it means is that we can assume that tens of thousand of corporations in the “developed” world are constantly petitioning the UNEPO to deny protection to lands under the jurisdiction of the “undeveloped” world because those nasty tree-huggers won't let them come in and bulldoze the place for a fast buck. And, at the same time, thousands of bureaucrats at the UNEPO, reading the white papers submitted by these corporations and their paid government whores along the lines of, “Those evil Spotsylvanian tree-huggers are crimping our economic style by not letting us rape their natural wonders; why, thanks to them, corporate profits are only up 23% this year!” and noting that the proposed resolution specifically charges them to remove environmental barriers to growth...SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area, and that are not in current use by industries, including residential or commercial developers, or local government at the time of designation;

PROHIBITS any such indication that intentionally and unnecessarily impedes or hinders another nations economic well being;... are going to “solve” this “problem” by using the authority given to them by this resolution...EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;... to open up those lands for development in spite of the wishes of the local government.

Not one of these incidents will involve any player sitting on a “committee” RP'ing a land-grab of some other players wilderness areas, of course; it'll all be background and systemic. But thanks to the system being established here, it'll be happening all the same.The quoted clause ensures that the UNEPO may not intentionally harm a nation's economy through environmental protection.And so where's the corresponding clause ensuring that the UNEPO may not intentionally harm a nation's environment through the forcible removal of environmental protection?

Oh, well, it's not there ... and that tells us whose bread is being buttered here.What in the holy hell are you talking about? You have completely misinterpreted the clause. Your individual nation still has the sovereignty to determine the development and environmental regulation within your nation.No, it doesn't:EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;That clause grants petitioners in other countries the right to ask UNEPO to strike down my environmental regulations on the basis of perceived “harm” to their economy (which could be something as simple as a failure to achieve maximum profit potential).You missed this clause:
DESIRING to reach an acceptable compromise between protection of the environment and economic growth;Oh, gosh, my. We all know how mandates always get set aside for the sake of our desires, now don't we?

“Desires” for balance don't mean a d_mn_d thing when the language of the proposal is skewed in favor of assigned economic growth greater importance than environmental protection.

This proposal isn't about you keeping my nation from imposing environmental restrictions on you; that could have been done with half the language used here. This is about you forcing me to let you come in and bulldoze my country because you think you're not making enough money.Wrong again, skippy. That clause clearly states that the UNEPO can deny or give environmental protection from international sources- which can only be interpreted to mean the UN. Meaning the UNEPO can deny or give UN protection to environmental areas. It says nothing about your own laws protecting the environment.I've been savaged by enough rules-lawyering and word-twisting today. I don't need to get scr_w_d any further, thank you; there's enough santorum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11924186&postcount=134) on the floor for the next month.

The clause you cite doesn't restrict its action to “environmental protection from international sources”; if the author wanted to say that, he'd have said that. Instead, he says “international protection of these locations”, which could easily mean a restriction imposed by one or more nations outside of the auspices of the U.N. that has an effect on other countries' fortunes; that would be “international” enough.It's pretty fucking clear you have a bone to pick with anyone from the Antarctic Oasis, and you'll stop at nothing to attack their member's proposals, creating fictitious issues out of thin air.Look at the players, look at the scorecard, and look at the agenda. It doesn't take a lot of effort to pick up the pattern.Boy howdy, has Rono Pyandran really rubbed off on you that much?How many times does somebody have to get hosed before the start fighting back? Besides, nobody seems to think Rono's out of line for pulling the nonsense he pulls, so...Calm down, skippy. Not a category violation, because it specifically sets up an organization for environmental protection.With no authority to protect anything - but lots of authority as well as a mandate to tear protection down. The whole proposal is utterly Orwellian, like the UAA with its “disarmament through arms acquisition” nonsense. Again, this is the Antarctican touch: give the resolution a name and a category that makes it look warm and fuzzy so the “idiots” will vote for it, toss in enough unenforceable normative fluff to make it look like it fits in that category, and then toss a mandatory, hard-edged ringer in there for “balance”, so the whole resolution is a velvet kiss on the end of a cold, hard fist.You're just pissed because it doesn't automatically require the dismantling of industry, the execution of anyone with money, and forcing everyone to live in the trees clad in leaves and skins.Oh, yeah, sure. Of course that's what I want. Who's setting up straw men now?

Here's what I want: stop ramming your ideology down my throat, or I'm going to ram mine right back. I'm sick of folks who started out preaching the gospel of reciprocity and national sovereignty getting the scent of power and going off on a nut. At one time, long, long ago, one of the principal thinkers in the NatSov movement said that the best reason to try and avoid imposing international mandates on nations was because what goes around comes around, and so you'd better not do things to other people that you don't want to see them do to you.

At some point, though, that went out the window, along with honesty and integrity. The principle of “neutral” legislation became one of subtly and then not-so-subtly skewed legislation, and so now here we are.

I said a couple of months ago that if the conservative bloc wanted a fight, it would get a fight. There's still time to back off from that, but not much time. Not much at all.

If you want this resolution to go through with general applause on all sides, well, all you have to do is take out the parts that block nations that want to protect their wild spaces to have the right to do so without anybody's interference. You let us have all the environmental protection we want, and the problem will go away.

Go ahead, try it. It won't even hurt - after all, you're a long way from running this thing out for a vote. But don't try to blow smoke up our _ss_s and call that a “solution”; that simply won't fly.

Your answer is what we were looking for. I will contact the General Secretary and vote according to the wishes of the politburo of the CP Ellelt should this mesure come to the UN floor. However, I think that as long as nations may remove the designations without extreme problems from the UN group We may vote for it.

Vladimir Khernynko
UN Ambassador for Ellelt
Minister of Foreign Affairs, United Socialist States of Ellelt,
Second Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt.

That said, it could perhaps stand some clarification. Any suggestions?Try to insert some wording that is explicitly NatSov-friendly: something to the effect that environmental restrictions enacted by individual countries by their own volition or within their own territory are outside the scope of operation of the UNEPO. There are two basic situations that you want to avoid: $Nation enacts environmental legislation or protects a wilderness and somebody else wants to use this resolution to beat them down and open up the country to unwanted development, and


$Group_of_Nations_Operating_Under_a_Mutually_Agreed-Upon_Treaty try to do the same thing collectively, solely within their mutual territory, and someone tries to break the effort up, as above.I guess what I want to see is explicit wording keeping the environmental protection option open if undertaken outside the U.N.

If your goal is to create the UNEPO as a check on the operation of the GA and not a lever to force individual nations to abandon environmentalism, then this certainly ought to be an “advancement of industry” resolution, the logic being that this is limiting the ability of the GA to go wild and just start setting up “heritage areas” or whatever. Less environmental protection is advancement of industry - even (or maybe especially) when its gratituitous environmental protection.

So perhaps what you ought to do is change the whole approach: whenever the GA passes an environmental bill, the UNEPO will review that bill and apply the standard of reasonable economic effects. A wording or process flow of that kind would make it clearer that what were dealing with here is exclusively a limit on the GA's power to impose environmental rules on the Membership.

That's right - and what it means is that we can assume that tens of thousand of corporations in the “developed” world are constantly petitioning the UNEPO to deny protection to lands under the jurisdiction of the “undeveloped” world because those nasty tree-huggers won't let them come in and bulldoze the place for a fast buck.

There is no protocol set into place for corporations or nations to petition UNEPO to deny protection for anything. UNEPO would be petitioned to have international protection considered. The UNEPO would examine the environmental quality of the site and decide if it is worthy of international protection.

And, at the same time, thousands of bureaucrats at the UNEPO, reading the white papers submitted by these corporations and their paid government whores along the lines of, “Those evil Spotsylvanian tree-huggers are crimping our economic style by not letting us rape their natural wonders; why, thanks to them, corporate profits are only up 23% this year!” and noting that the proposed resolution specifically charges them to remove environmental barriers to growth...... are going to “solve” this “problem” by using the authority given to them by this resolution...... to open up those lands for development in spite of the wishes of the local government.

It does not charge anyone to remove barriers to anything. It prohibits the act of declaring things protected for the sole purpose of interfering with another nation's economy.

Not one of these incidents will involve any player sitting on a “committee” RP'ing a land-grab of some other players wilderness areas, of course; it'll all be background and systemic.

OOC: It has nothing to do with players in this case. Nations, characters, players. None of them will sit on any UN commitee. They are steffed by UN gnomes.

But thanks to the system being established here, it'll be happening all the same.And so where's the corresponding clause ensuring that the UNEPO may not intentionally harm a nation's environment through the forcible removal of environmental protection?

The UNEPO does not have the power to remove environmental protection. They can sanction or deny international protection on behalf of the UN. If the protection is already in place, they are powerless.

Oh, well, it's not there ...

Why would it be? The UNEPO has no such power.

and that tells us whose bread is being buttered here.

Whose would that be?

No, it doesn't:That clause grants petitioners in other countries the right to ask UNEPO to strike down my environmental regulations on the basis of perceived “harm” to their economy (which could be something as simple as a failure to achieve maximum profit potential).

Ah. I see the problem. You seem to have missed the words 'international' and 'on behalf of the UN'. The UNEPO would have no power to alter your national protections or regulations that are on behalf of your government. You are also ascribing powers to the UNEPO which it does not have.

Oh, gosh, my. We all know how mandates always get set aside for the sake of our desires, now don't we?

“Desires” for balance don't mean a d_mn_d thing when the language of the proposal is skewed in favor of assigned economic growth greater importance than environmental protection.

How does it do that? How would you suggest it be improved?

This proposal isn't about you keeping my nation from imposing environmental restrictions on you; that could have been done with half the language used here.

You're right. This proposal is about the UN attempting to help protect our environment as a whole for those of us who wish to do so.

This is about you forcing me to let you come in and bulldoze my country because you think you're not making enough money.

How could we do such a thing with this? The UNEPO would have no power to force you to allow anyone to do anything to your lands that you did not wish.

I've been savaged by enough rules-lawyering and word-twisting today. I don't need to get scr_w_d any further, thank you; there's enough santorum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11924186&postcount=134) on the floor for the next month.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could keep your issues with the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny separate from your issues with either myself, the ambassador from Allech-Atreus, or anyone else who might be willing to help make this world a better place by protecting our limited sections of pristine land that we have left. It is nfortunate that you feel you have been wrongly molested by some of the General Assembly, but those issues have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you continue to unnecessarily abuse us and blame us for things we have not done, we will have to ask you to leave this conversation.

The clause you cite doesn't restrict its action to “environmental protection from international sources”; if the author wanted to say that, he'd have said that. Instead, he says “international protection of these locations”, which could easily mean a restriction imposed by one or more nations outside of the auspices of the U.N.

Actually, what it says is
the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations,

It says nothing about environmental restrictions, and I do specifically mention the UN.

that has an effect on other countries' fortunes; that would be “international” enough.Look at the players,

OOC: The players are irrelevant. This is an IC discussion, for an IC proposal for an IC UN. Characters are what we are talking about here.

look at the scorecard,

Who's keeping score?

and look at the agenda. It doesn't take a lot of effort to pick up the pattern.

Which pattern would that be?

OOC: Allech seems to have been right. The only pattern that seems to be appearing here is that you're attacking anyone who has taken issue with your proposal./OOC

How many times does somebody have to get hosed before the start fighting back?

You feel you have been "hosed" somehow. That is unfortunate. This is not the time or place to deal with it, however. There are those of us here that are making an honest attempt at crafting a decent piece of legislation. If you are not interested in doing so, then do not feel obliged to remain in a conversation that you are obviously not enjoying.

Besides, nobody seems to think Rono's out of line for pulling the nonsense he pulls, so...

Rono manages to keep himself on-topic.

With no authority to protect anything - but lots of authority as well as a mandate to tear protection down.

It has full authority to provide international protection, on behalf of the UN, to locations that are of environmental significance. It has no authority to pull down protection once it is in place.

The whole proposal is utterly Orwellian,

Who is this Orwell of which you speak?

like the UAA with its “disarmament through arms acquisition” nonsense.

Any issues you may or may not have with the proposal that the fine people of Omigodtheykilledkenny should be taken up with them in a location that is more suited to discussion of that topic. They are not here, and neither is their proposal.

Again, this is the Antarctican touch: give the resolution a name and a category that makes it look warm and fuzzy so the “idiots” will vote for it,

How very unkind of you to say such a thing. Why on earth would I believe that those who are interested in protecting the planet would be idiots?

toss in enough unenforceable normative fluff to make it look like it fits in that category,

A UN mandated protection of environmentally significant locations sounds rather environmental to me. And quite enforcable

and then toss a mandatory, hard-edged ringer in there for “balance”,

The line that says you can't use this just to screw with other nations economies? The UNEPO doesn't even come into play at the time that that line is relevant. The UNEPO doesn't become relevant until after a location is suggested, and nations would not be allowed to suggest sites that have no particular significance to the environment but would hamper someone else's economic growth.

so the whole resolution is a velvet kiss on the end of a cold, hard fist.

These are very strong words. Do you have any suggestions as to how it could be made better?


Here's what I want: stop ramming your ideology down my throat, or I'm going to ram mine right back.

If you feel that threats are the way to proceed in this drafting process, I would guess that you can find your way out the way you came in.

I'm sick of folks who started out preaching the gospel of reciprocity and national sovereignty getting the scent of power and going off on a nut.

What power? What are you talking about? What does National Sovereignty have to with any of this?

At one time, long, long ago, one of the principal thinkers in the NatSov movement said that the best reason to try and avoid imposing international mandates on nations was because what goes around comes around, and so you'd better not do things to other people that you don't want to see them do to you.

Which is a marvelous sentiment. And one of the reasons why I set this up in such a way that nations who wished to participate in this endeavor can, but it will not force such protection upon those who do not want it.

At some point, though, that went out the window, along with honesty and integrity.

And now we're moving on to insults. If the representative has nothing constructive to add to this discussion, perhaps he could remain silent and allow the rest of us to get some work done.

The principle of “neutral” legislation became one of subtly and then not-so-subtly skewed legislation, and so now here we are.

This is not an attempt at subtlety, nor should it be. This is an honest and open attempt at improving our world. That you believe our intentions to be ulterior is out of our control.

I said a couple of months ago that if the conservative bloc wanted a fight, it would get a fight.

Why must this be a fight? Why can we simply not work together to improve our situation? Why so antagonistic?

There's still time to back off from that, but not much time. Not much at all.

More threats? Really, this is not the time or place for such macho posturing.

If you want this resolution to go through with general applause on all sides, well, all you have to do is take out the parts that block nations that want to protect their wild spaces to have the right to do so without anybody's interference.

That will be rather simple, given that there is nothing contained in the EPA that would block nations from doing so.

You let us have all the environmental protection we want, and the problem will go away.

You can have all of the environmental protection that you want. We can also add in the protection of the UN to yours.

Go ahead, try it. It won't even hurt - after all, you're a long way from running this thing out for a vote. But don't try to blow smoke up our _ss_s and call that a “solution”; that simply won't fly.

What are you talking about?

OOC: Right then. You've had your fun. It's time to cut it out. You don't like that we don't support your resolution? Go deal with your trauma. . . elsewhere. You want to go cry to the mods because you feel you're being unnecessarily put upon? Fine, that's your right, and you're welcome to it. Hell, some if us can be pretty abrasive from time to time. What you are currently doing is flaming, thread-jacking, and trolling. It is not tolerated on these forums and I will not stand for it. I am attempting to put together some kind of proper legislation for the UN to vote upon. You have some problems with it or suggestions to make? GREAT! That's why I posted it here. Join the discussion like a rational human being, and we can probably work something out. If all you're going to do is jump up and down and scream about how the UN is treating you badly, then get out of my thread! You feel the need to go rant and rave and go off like a half cocked pistol, take it somewhere else.

This is neither the time, nor the place for your issues with UAA, or how we oppose your proposal, or your personal trauma with myself, Kenny, or anyone else from the Antarctic Oasis.

The thread-jacking and trolling ends now. Become a constructive part of this discussion, or get out.

Perhaps You might consider this suggestion that clauses be inserted to allow individual governments to request the international enviromental protections from the UNEPO. That way the UNEPO could mediate disputes concerning resources which i think may be the crux of your argument with Community Property.

However, if this has already been covered, please inform me where, and by what mechanism the UNEPO would operate. Ellelt is new to the UN and we sometimes misunderstand many things.

Also an other question and this is about the "impeeding of economic devlopment of other nations", again using Ellelt as an example:

The mountains of which i spoke in a pevious post, which are on our boarder with an other nation. And that neighboring nation has enviromentally protected and is having various tourist industries being attracted to that area due to its natural beauty...etc. Has had, Gold say, discovered in that area. Ellelt having designated our side to be a mining area, there will naturally effect some parts of our neighbors side of the boarder which will harm their tourist industry...even while our mining industry takes off. How would this legislation effect us then?

This Question was presented to me by the General Secretary and President of the Council of Ministers himself---so how you answer will greatly affect our vote when/if this resolution proposal reaches the General assembly floor.

We're confused about the overall intent of this proposal, and also wanted to offer our suggestions on it.

REALIZING the necessity of economic advancement for national growth, especially among developing nations;

This part seems fine to us.

AWARE that certain activities necessary for economic growth may have negative effects on the surrounding environment;

We'd suggest deleting or revising this portion, simply because of the fact that some nations will find this point debatable (although Altanar doesn't), and will wish to debate it to death. The whole "is an activity really necessary if it hurts the environment" argument.

DESIRING to reach an acceptable compromise between protection of the environment and economic growth;

This part sounds good as well.

SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES the practice of nations designating specific sites as being of environmental significance and deserving of protection from public and private organizations and entities;

We have no problem with this part, although it may receive some criticism from the usual suspects who like to complain about provisions that "don't do anything".

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area, and that are not in current use by industries, including residential or commercial developers, or local government at the time of designation;

We'd have a problem with this provision, because we feel it would infringe on the rights of national governments (or local governments within nations, for that matter) to designate areas they feel need to be protected that are "already in current use". It's also a little vague on what constitutes "pristine in nature or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of the area". As this provision is only a suggestion, though, our objection to it is not strenuous. Could this provision possibly be deleted, though, or at least edited to remove the section about "current use"? We'd be much more inclined to support the proposal then.

PROHIBITS any such indication that intentionally and unnecessarily impedes or hinders another nations economic well being;

We feel this provision is too vague for one that prohibits nations outright to do something. We assume the intent behind this provision is to prevent nations from making such designations with the specific and malicious intent to hurt another nation's economy, for example, declaring a river to be a "protected" area and damming it, thus depriving a downstream nation of water. If this is the case, would it be possible to elaborate on this provision more to make that clear?

CREATES the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEPO) to examine indicated sites and the merits of the site as an appropriately significant environmental location;

We have no problem with this provision.

EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations; CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location; ALLOWS for nations remove international protection from locations within their borders;

We may just be reading this wrongly, but we're confused. When you refer to "international protection", does that mean that individual nations would still be free to restrict the use of areas they wish to preserve, but that it would not be considered an "internationally" preserved area?

URGES member nations to strive for environmentally friendly industrial legislation.

This provision could probably be deleted, as it doesn't do anything and may be seen as "nanny-ish" by some delegations.

The fine and honourable nation of Complex-Reality is also bewildered as to the intent of this proposal.

Our humle guess is that the intention is to create a UN organization wich will be in charge of judging petitions to get an area of nature declared to be worth "international protection".
We find no fault with this (if this is indeed what was intended), but are concerned with the current suggestion for several reasons.

Firstly, what this "international protection" means is even in principle ill defined. No mention of what this would mean appears in the text. All that is said is that this designation is done one behaf of the UN.
The site is after all a geographical, position. So saying it is to be subject to international protection is a confounding statement.
Unless what is being meant by the honourable delegation of Kivisto is that in case of a site swiching ownership from one country to another, the site is still to be considered a protected site.

This does however bring us to the second objection, the fact that the proposal grants every nation the right to revoke the decision of the UN body provided the site is inside it's borders.

ALLOWS for nations remove international protection from locations within their borders;

This is against our preception of the spirit of this proposal, as it means that a site is in effect only protected as long as the domestic politics of the country in wich the site lies in are favourable. This we belive is very much against the spirit of "international protection", wichever meaning one ascribes to that concept in this context.

We also have concerns with the statment:

PROHIBITS any such indication that intentionally and unnecessarily impedes or hinders another nations economic well being;

We are from the examples given fairly certain of the origin for this caveat, but we feel it belongs in a separate proposal concerning the sharing of common natural resources, for that is really what it is concerned with.
That topic is also a complicated and delicated one, as was exemplified by the esteemed delegate of Ellelt and the sharing of a beautifull and ore rich mountain.

We feel that any concerns of this type is better adressed by simply stating that a site must lie wholly inside a single country. Sites that cross a border can simply be divided into one site on one side of the border and another site on the other side.

Niar-Eci
Ambassador from
Complex-Reality

Try to insert some wording that is explicitly NatSov-friendly: something to the effect that environmental restrictions enacted by individual countries by their own volition or within their own territory are outside the scope of operation of the UNEPO.

There is nothing within this proposal that even implies that the UNEPO would have any power over national legislature. Its scope is purely international.

There are two basic situations that you want to avoid: $Nation enacts environmental legislation or protects a wilderness and somebody else wants to use this resolution to beat them down and open up the country to unwanted development, and

There is nothing in this proposal that would grant any nation the power to do so.

$Group_of_Nations_Operating_Under_a_Mutually_Agreed-Upon_Treaty try to do the same thing collectively, solely within their mutual territory, and someone tries to break the effort up, as above.

They would be entirely within their rights to protect their own lands should they choose. Though maybe I should include a clause to ensure that nothing in it is taken to mean that nations cannot protect their own lands. Something along the lines of

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independant of the UNEPO;

I guess what I want to see is explicit wording keeping the environmental protection option open if undertaken outside the U.N.

The UN cannot mandate anything outside of itself. We cannot make any law that requires anything of or does anything to non-member nations.

If your goal is to create the UNEPO as a check on the operation of the GA and not a lever to force individual nations to abandon environmentalism, then this certainly ought to be an “advancement of industry” resolution, the logic being that this is limiting the ability of the GA to go wild and just start setting up “heritage areas” or whatever. Less environmental protection is advancement of industry - even (or maybe especially) when its gratituitous environmental protection.

The goal is to create a system whereby nations can seek international protection for environmentally significant areas. That is all it is intended to do.

So perhaps what you ought to do is change the whole approach: whenever the GA passes an environmental bill, the UNEPO will review that bill and apply the standard of reasonable economic effects.

Not only is that entirely outside of the scope of what I am attempting to accomplish, but I'm pretty sure it would go against GA rules of legislation.

A wording or process flow of that kind would make it clearer that what were dealing with here is exclusively a limit on the GA's power to impose environmental rules on the Membership.

What we are attempting to accomplish is to impose environmental legislation on the membership. Why would I want to limit it?

Perhaps You might consider this suggestion that clauses be inserted to allow individual governments to request the international enviromental protections from the UNEPO. That way the UNEPO could mediate disputes concerning resources which i think may be the crux of your argument with Community Property.

I've altered one of the clauses to make it more clear that individual governments can the request the protections offered by the UNEPO.

As for the mediation of disputes....I'll have to give it some thought, though a proviso for such things could probably be included in the area where the UNEPO would evaluate indicated sites. Remind me of this, I will figure something out. I don't know that it has been covered adequately as yet, and it should be. I would like to thank the representative of Ellelt for his continued good points.


We'd suggest deleting or revising this portion, simply because of the fact that some nations will find this point debatable (although Altanar doesn't), and will wish to debate it to death. The whole "is an activity really necessary if it hurts the environment" argument.

That's why I phrased it such that these were activities necessary for economic growth. It could be argued that, overall, they might not be necessary, but for the economy, it might be.

We'd have a problem with this provision, because we feel it would infringe on the rights of national governments (or local governments within nations, for that matter) to designate areas they feel need to be protected that are "already in current use". It's also a little vague on what constitutes "pristine in nature or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of the area". As this provision is only a suggestion, though, our objection to it is not strenuous. Could this provision possibly be deleted, though, or at least edited to remove the section about "current use"? We'd be much more inclined to support the proposal then.

It could possibly be reworded somehow. Any suggestions?

We feel this provision is too vague for one that prohibits nations outright to do something. We assume the intent behind this provision is to prevent nations from making such designations with the specific and malicious intent to hurt another nation's economy, for example, declaring a river to be a "protected" area and damming it, thus depriving a downstream nation of water. If this is the case, would it be possible to elaborate on this provision more to make that clear?

I've altered that line somewhat, in the hopes of making it more clear. It now reads

PROHIBITS member nations from indicating insignificant locations for the express purpose of hindering or interfering with another nation's economic stability;

We may just be reading this wrongly, but we're confused. When you refer to "international protection", does that mean that individual nations would still be free to restrict the use of areas they wish to preserve, but that it would not be considered an "internationally" preserved area?

That is exactly what it means.

This provision could probably be deleted, as it doesn't do anything and may be seen as "nanny-ish" by some delegations.

I kinda feel the same way. For some reason, I don't want to get rid of it, though.

The fine and honourable nation of Complex-Reality is also bewildered as to the intent of this proposal.

Our humle guess is that the intention is to create a UN organization wich will be in charge of judging petitions to get an area of nature declared to be worth "international protection".
We find no fault with this (if this is indeed what was intended), but are concerned with the current suggestion for several reasons.

That is indeed what it was intended for.

Firstly, what this "international protection" means is even in principle ill defined. No mention of what this would mean appears in the text. All that is said is that this designation is done one behaf of the UN.

I think that would be covered by this line.

CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location;


The site is after all a geographical, position. So saying it is to be subject to international protection is a confounding statement.
Unless what is being meant by the honourable delegation of Kivisto is that in case of a site swiching ownership from one country to another, the site is still to be considered a protected site.

It would still be protected. But, more than that, what I intend by ionternational protection is that the site will be recognized by the international community as being a valuable piece of the environment and worthy of protection from thosee who would see it desecrated for whatever reason.

This does however bring us to the second objection, the fact that the proposal grants every nation the right to revoke the decision of the UN body provided the site is inside it's borders.

That is actually included for a reason that is also tied into some of your later issues as well. I'll get back to it in a second.

We feel that any concerns of this type is better adressed by simply stating that a site must lie wholly inside a single country. Sites that cross a border can simply be divided into one site on one side of the border and another site on the other side.

That is one of the reasons for allowing nations to remove international protection from areas within their borders. I allows them to address situations where there is overlap between the site and international borders.

The other reason is that saying that nations can only indicate sites entirely within their borders would run dangerously close to contradicting the World Heritage List, which I would rather not do, for obvious reasons.

I thank the honourable Niar-Eci for his comments.

If the good suggestions and constructive criticism continue at this velocity, we'll have hammered together a first rate proposal in no time.

With no authority to protect anything - but lots of authority as well as a mandate to tear protection down. The whole proposal is utterly Orwellian, like the UAA with its “disarmament through arms acquisition” nonsense. Again, this is the Antarctican touch: give the resolution a name and a category that makes it look warm and fuzzy so the “idiots” will vote for it, toss in enough unenforceable normative fluff to make it look like it fits in that category, and then toss a mandatory, hard-edged ringer in there for “balance”, so the whole resolution is a velvet kiss on the end of a cold, hard fist.
Not to be rude, but I fail to see your point. This proposal does not seem at all Orwellian. The very definition of Orwellian is described as such:Manipulation of language for political rearends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings.
Invasion of personal privacy by the state, whether physically or by means of surveillance.
The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society.
The disintegration of the family unit by the state.
The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner.
Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent.
The denial or rewriting of past events.
A dystopian or antiutopian future.
The use of verbose and ambiguous language.I can see how you may interpret it that way, but I fail to see any "Orwellian" element in this proposal. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Or perhaps you have none.
I give my support to the proposal however, and I believe maybe the only improvement should be the use of more basic language for those who seem to have trouble understanding the language used.

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

Strangely enough, I fail to be surprised by your assumptions here. You may be surprised to learn that not a single member of my home region assisted with the drafting to this stage in any significant fashion. There have been one or two of them that have stated that they would oppose this bill.


Indeed, anyone who knows anything at all about the voting history of the Cluichstani delegation should be able to guess that we will vote against this proposal, should it reach the floor. We view nearly all environmental proposals as doubleplusbad.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Indeed, anyone who knows anything at all about the voting history of the Cluichstani delegation should be able to guess that we will vote against this proposal, should it reach the floor. We view nearly all environmental proposals as doubleplusbad.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Which is unfortunate, but I understand your reasoning and respect them. If I can think of anyway to possibly alter your point of view about this one, I'll get in contact.

In fact, I have an idea or two, but those can wait till later.

Which is unfortunate, but I understand your reasoning and respect them. If I can think of anyway to possibly alter your point of view about this one, I'll get in contact.

In fact, I have an idea or two, but those can wait till later.

We probably still won't vote for it, but at least we won't be threatening to nuke your nation or blow it into oblivion with our Death Star's mega-turbolaser over it. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We probably still won't vote for it, but at least we won't be threatening to nuke your nation or blow it into oblivion with our Death Star's mega-turbolaser over it. ;)


Well, that would be contrary to our treaty :P, and I am headquartered on the Death Star with you, so that might be silly.;)

Well, that would be contrary to our treaty :P, and I am headquartered on the Death Star with you, so that might be silly.;)

Right, the treaty (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=158). Well, we probably wouldn't be threatening you even if we weren't a party to the treaty -- probably...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The threats I'm not worried about. The nukes and mega-lasers would cause some significant problems for our economy and environment.

Now then, are there any further suggestions from the GA?

I don't know what comments have been made already but, much as I'd like to see WHL punched in the ovaries, I can't support this. Even if it means agreeing with the representative of C_mm_n_t_ Pr_p_rt_.

APPLAUDING international interest in protection of the environment;
Nature is a national concern. I don't applaud people who poke their noses into my business.

DESIRING to reach an acceptable compromise between protection of the environment and economic growth;
And that compromise is something to be decided on by the nation. If some hippy heaven wants to ban all industry so they can roll in the flowers, let them; it'll give Gruenberger companies a bigger market share anyway. I just want them to stay out of our environment.

SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES the practice of nations designating specific sites as being of environmental significance and deserving of protection from public and private organizations and entities;
As a libertarian, I don't like this. I'm all for the conservation of resources, but this seems to me like a - yes, I know it's mild/optional/etc. - tone of support for depriving property rights in the public interest, which doesn't sit well.

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area, and that are not in current use by industries, including residential or commercial developers, or local government at the time of designation;
I really don't like this. The significance of the site is something of more than local concern, obviously, but the suggestion seems to mush around, and not accomplish a lot. If you're basically saying, "Use some common sense," then...I wouldn't bother.

PROHIBITS member nations from indicating insignificant locations for the express purpose of hindering or interfering with another nation's economic stability;
I would suggest rewriting this to:

"PROHIBITS member nations from indicating any location whatsoever within any other nation"

or similar.

CREATES the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEPO) to examine sites indicated by member nations and the merits of the site as an appropriately significant environmental location;
No unaccountable, vast committee is going to be able to do the job as well as national agencies. If you're desperate to stuff in some bureaucracy, make nations set up agencies themselves.

EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;
No. Way too much authority being vested in the gnomes.

CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location;
The UN should be working with governments, not dominating private interests. It has no jurisdiction here, or shouldn't do, anyway.

ALLOWS for nations remove international protection from locations within their borders;
Which makes me wonder about the point of much of the foregoing...

URGES member nations to strive for environmentally friendly industrial legislation.
I agree. But it's got shit all to do with this proposal.

I call NatSov, and oppose.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independent of the UNEPO;This would eliminate most of the concern on my part.I guess what I want to see is explicit wording keeping the environmental protection option open if undertaken outside the U.N.The UN cannot mandate anything outside of itself. We cannot make any law that requires anything of or does anything to non-member nations.Let me clarify that:I guess what I want to see is explicit wording keeping the environmental protection option open if undertaken outside of U.N. mandates, i.e., on our own.... Which your suggestion does.

Now, onto a new clause:ALLOWS for nations remove international protection from locations within their borders;I think I understand your intent, but it comes close to saying that “nations may ignore the wishes of the U.N. at their discretion”. Might a better wording be one in which appeal to UNEPO is permitted by any nation that wishes to remove locations within their borders from protection?PROHIBITS member nations from indicating insignificant locations for the express purpose of hindering or interfering with another nation's economic stability;I would suggest rewriting this to:

"PROHIBITS member nations from indicating any location whatsoever within any other nation"

or similar.O.K., I see what both of you are trying to do; let's split the difference (if we can).

I think Gruenberg's idea makes sense, but - as I think Kivisto has pointed out - it violates the World Heritage Site rules. So maybe what we need to do is give nations a way to challenge these nominations without ignoring them, and maybe establish that there really needs to be some basis for the designation.

So how do we let nations shake off gratuitous environmental restrictions imposed by other countries without breaking the Heritage rules?

(My apologies if we're mistating the problem; I haven't had time to look up the resolution in question.)

I don't like it, mainly because of the "ALLOWS" clause. That to me says "Ain't nothing the world can do if you wanna turn your land into a crap heap."

Despite the Gruenberger claim of NatSov as the reason for voting against it, the Norderian delegation will be making a claim of IntFed as the reason for voting against it. The aforementioned clause is too disagreeable.


Respectfully;
Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Mr. Pyandran,

The Nat Sov argument won't fly for me on this one.

While I understand your view that the environment is a national issue, I don't totally agree with it, and nations would retain the right to remove protection from their own lands if they did not wish to have the UN meddling in their environmental affairs. So you would still be able to keep the hippies out of your environment.

I'll see what I can do to alter the tone of that one phrase. I'm not a fan of depriving property rights, either. I simply did not realize that it carried that tone.

Local concern issues for the significance of the site, I thought, should be covered by the inclusion of 'ecosystem of the area' in that clause.

As for the bit about prohibiting naming sites in other nations, that comes into dangerous proximity of contradicting the WHL.

To me, getting the UN to get national governments to do something on a local level seems like ridiculously unnecessary bureaucracy. Allow the UN to arrange international protection.

The allowance phrase exists to counter the lack of national boundaries in previous clauses, which cannot be there so as to avoid going against WHL. It also allows for situations where a parcel of land that is protected by the UNEPO changes hands from one nation to another. The new owners may not be interested in keeping it protected, and I don't see that the UN should force them to protect their own lands in such a way of they do not wish it.

The urging is on its way out.

Tommo,

I've just never been much of an Int/Fed. Orbus Unum efforts unnerve me to a degree. The allowance phrase is one that I might be willing to rework or rework, but I'm not sure I could be convinced to remove it. On that note, though...

CP,

I like your suggestion. I may rewrite it a bit, but I think it sounds better than what is currently there.

That's why I phrased it such that these were activities necessary for economic growth. It could be argued that, overall, they might not be necessary, but for the economy, it might be.

This is true, but my concern would be that the non-pragmatic people would immediately cry that "nothing that harms the environment is necessary!" and use that as a reason to argue this proposal down (or argue interminably about it, anyway). That's a minor concern, though.

It could possibly be reworded somehow. Any suggestions?

Honestly, simply deleting the "in current use" part would probably make us completely happy on that score. We just feel that the wording used grandfathers in a lot of things that are environmentally harmful.

And that compromise is something to be decided on by the nation. If some hippy heaven wants to ban all industry so they can roll in the flowers, let them; it'll give Gruenberger companies a bigger market share anyway. I just want them to stay out of our environment.

The problem with that concept is that the environment is a worldwide one. If pollution could be neatly contained within one nation's borders, then yes, this proposal would be unneeded. But pollution crosses borders as easily as air and water do. Therefore, NatSov desires notwithstanding, this is an issue that concerns all nations, and requires international solutions.

I would suggest rewriting this to:

"PROHIBITS member nations from indicating any location whatsoever within any other nation"

or similar.

We'd suggest adding that to the existing clause, but feel the issue more closely relates to making decisions to "protect" areas with the deliberate and malicious intent to harm another nation. As we theorized earlier, a nation could say a river that starts in their nation is "protected", and use that justification to cut off or limit downstream access to water for other nations.

No unaccountable, vast committee is going to be able to do the job as well as national agencies. If you're desperate to stuff in some bureaucracy, make nations set up agencies themselves.

We actually find ourselves in agreement on this one....although it does raise the question, who ensures that those "national agencies" are actually doing it?

Rewrites and edits made in first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11921386&postcount=1).

I'm hoping that some of these changes will address some of the issues that have been brought up, including the International Federalism view brought up by Mr. The Stout.

I would also like to greatly thank the representative of Community Property for making further suggestions for improvements.

I'm hoping that some of these changes will address some of the issues that have been brought up, including the International Federalism view brought up by Mr. The Stout.


OOC: I'm sorry, but I just can't help laughing everytime someone calls him that. :D

OOC: I'm sorry, but I just can't help laughing everytime someone calls him that. :D

OOC: I know, and I couldn't resist doing it. :p

While I understand your view that the environment is a national issue, I don't totally agree with it, and nations would retain the right to remove protection from their own lands if they did not wish to have the UN meddling in their environmental affairs. So you would still be able to keep the hippies out of your environment.
Alright. I suppose I should practice what I preach, regarding excessive ping-ponging; I wasn't really regarding the proposal as a whole.

As for the bit about prohibiting naming sites in other nations, that comes into dangerous proximity of contradicting the WHL.
So this is being passed before the repeal too? Is that ever going to be submitted - how many preemptive replacements do we need?

And if this goes before the repeal, you're going to run up against a fairly hefty duplication issue anyway.

To me, getting the UN to get national governments to do something on a local level seems like ridiculously unnecessary bureaucracy. Allow the UN to arrange international protection.
Fine, then task it to local agencies. Unless you're saying that creating a whole new environmental agency of previously unimagined size is somehow more efficient than letting people who know what they're talking about keep on keeping on?

The problem with that concept is that the environment is a worldwide one. If pollution could be neatly contained within one nation's borders, then yes, this proposal would be unneeded. But pollution crosses borders as easily as air and water do. Therefore, NatSov desires notwithstanding, this is an issue that concerns all nations, and requires international solutions.
Which would have greater standing if this were about pollution of the air or the sea. But so far as we see it, this is mainly about land use: not using pretty places for ugly factories, and so on. That's intrinsically localised in effect.

We actually find ourselves in agreement on this one....although it does raise the question, who ensures that those "national agencies" are actually doing it?
Well, who'd ensure that the UNEPO wouldn't be corrupt and favouritist?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

EDIT: OOC: No, I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. At some stage, we just have to get on and repeal the damn thing. If this is to follow as a more sovereignty friendly replacement, then fine, but there is no need whatsoever for it as it stands.

So this is being passed before the repeal too? Is that ever going to be submitted - how many preemptive replacements do we need?

I've been biding my time on the resubmission of the WHL repeal. We've had quite a few repeal attempts lately, with still more coming, and I don't want to have it suffer at the hands of the "oh no, not another repeal!" crowd.

In my mind, this "preemptive replacement," as you quite appropriately put it, is not needed. The WHL is shite, pure and simple. It needs to go, and it doesn't need to be replaced, mostly for the reasons you've stated earlier here, my friend. Any replacement of the WHL is going to run up against the objections you've already made here, with which I completely agree.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I thank you for your opinions, gentlemen. I am, however, already aware of the views taken of both WHL and this proposal. I understand your reasons for opposition to what I have put forward, and I respect you all the more for holding to your beliefs over mindlessly backing a region mate. That's my way of saying no hard feelings, kay? For now, I ask you to trust that I have my reasons for going forward with this, and leave me to it.

I appreciate the contributions you have made thusfar, and encourage further suggestions, if you have any.:)

As for WHL, yes, it is one of the worst written bits of drivel I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

To the Representive of Kivisto:

We are pleased to state that as the Proposed Resolution is currently worded the General Secretary has found it acceptable to him and has thrown the decision over to the politburo which will be meeting tomorow afternoon in New Stalingrad.

Having been in contact with the most important members of the CPE Politburo members i can safely say you will have a yes vote from us provided that the Natsov issues brought up remain in the resolution. However, I have been instructed by the General Secretary to make reports on this proposal to the Politburo and also the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ellelt.

Naturally the General Secretary, myself and the members of the Politburo are most desirous to keep the National Sovereignty of of Ellelt intact as much as possible...our revolution to over throw the Tsar was long hard and bitter, and it is in the best intrests of the Elleltian peoples that we be allowed to construct socialism without undue interferance from the international body of which we are a member.

The latest draft is certainly more acceptable than previous versions. I will consider this draft, but I remain apprehensive about the clause permitting nations to remove (or request to remove) protected areas from said protection. A thought struck me, however.

Does the Optionality rule also follow if one Resolution makes a future Resolution optional? It certainly isn't a blocker that would prevent environmental protection Resolutions. Suppose one mandates the protection of pristine areas. That wouldn't contradict this Resolution, but would this Resolution's clause about removing environmental protections from certain regions of a nation render future mandates as optional?


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Oh, and... It's just The Stout, if you wish to shorten my name. The title Mr. carries no significance to me.

The latest draft is certainly more acceptable than previous versions. I will consider this draft, but I remain apprehensive about the clause permitting nations to remove (or request to remove) protected areas from said protection. A thought struck me, however.

Does the Optionality rule also follow if one Resolution makes a future Resolution optional? It certainly isn't a blocker that would prevent environmental protection Resolutions. Suppose one mandates the protection of pristine areas. That wouldn't contradict this Resolution, but would this Resolution's clause about removing environmental protections from certain regions of a nation render future mandates as optional?

:eek: I honestly could not say for sure. I think I'd better leave this question to minds more informed than my own. A valid point, however. One I wish I could answer more expediently.


Oh, and... It's just The Stout, if you wish to shorten my name. The title Mr. carries no significance to me.

So noted. teehee

To the representative of Ellelt, we would like to express our gratitude and pleasure that your politburo will be reviewing what we have so far, and will be kept updated on its progress.

:eek: I honestly could not say for sure. I think I'd better leave this question to minds more informed than my own. A valid point, however. One I wish I could answer more expediently.

OOC: I'm glad you could actually understand that. It was late, I was tired, and struggling to make my point coherently.

PROHIBITS member nations from indicating non-significant locations for the express purpose of hindering or interfering with another nation's economic stability;

Why not? It's my nation I should be able to set aside whatever land I want for whatever I want. I don't like this proposal, it does very little and what little it does do is vageuly defined and nebulous. Unless radically re-drafted to actuall PROTECT the environemtn somehow, opposed.

Why not?

Because it's trying to put an end to abuse of the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List).


It's my nation I should be able to set aside whatever land I want for whatever I want.

Within the borders of your own country, you can. This prevents you from declaring another nation's industrial capital an environmentally protected site for the sheer fun of mucking up their economy.

Anyway, the PDSRA remains undecided regarding this proposal. We'll be giving it further thought.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We are pleased that the honourable Mrs (Miss?) Zyryanov will continue to consider this potential legislation. If she has any suggestions for improvements, we would be more than happy to hear them and try to accomodate for them.

A repeal of WHL has just been submitted.

Perhaps a redrafting of another version of this should be done, to make it more appropriate for the chance that the repeal passes.

For example, I would not necessarily need some of the clauses within this as is, since I would not need to work around WHL.

As a quick, and I emphasize quick draft, I've thrown this together based on the original I had

The United Nations

APPLAUDING international interest in protection of the environment;

NOTING the importance of protecting environmentally significant locations to maintain our global environment;

SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES the practice of nations designating specific sites within their borders as being of environmental significance and deserving of protection from public or private organizations and entities;

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area;

CREATES the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEPO) to examine indicated sites and the merits of the site as an environmental location significant enough to warrant international protection;

EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;

CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private industrial organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location;

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independent of the UNEPO;

ALLOWS for nations to petition the UNEPO to have international protection removed from locations within their borders;

Ideas? Suggestions?

edit: I'll edit the revised version into the first post as well.

Well if the WHL gets repealed then yes there would be need of a serious rewrite. I think it would especially be good to get rid of it considering there are whole nations under the WHL. However, it should be replaced with a better peice of legislation.

Well if the WHL gets repealed then yes there would be need of a serious rewrite. I think it would especially be good to get rid of it considering there are whole nations under the WHL. However, it should be replaced with a better peice of legislation.

OOC: And I'm about to bump the thread on the WHL repeal, if I can find the bleedin' thing...

Well if the WHL gets repealed then yes there would be need of a serious rewrite. I think it would especially be good to get rid of it considering there are whole nations under the WHL. However, it should be replaced with a better peice of legislation.

Which is why I figure we could redraft the EPA to cover those needs.

Im not a delegate...but i would be more than happy to campaign for the writer of the repeal...*goes to send a telegram*

Im not a delegate...but i would be more than happy to campaign for the writer of the repeal...*goes to send a telegram*

No need really. I'm right here.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

yes...so you are. damn....it too me longer to find and read the submission than it took you to reply.

Anyway my offer stands. The WHL is a poorly written law and is blocking the chance for a well written one from replacing it provided that there are ways for sovereign nations to remove the designation from their own territory and that an other nation can not designate it on another nations territory.

All in all, Like the EPA, but a little more broad and with as few loopholes as possible.

I'm actually aiming at broader in some respects and narrower in others.

WHL is targetted at the woodchipping industry, whereas something of this nature should be aimed at all industries.

WHL also doesn't limit what can be indicated, whereas I'd prefer it limitted to areas of significance somehow. I am willing to expand outside of strictly environmental locations, perhaps historical or cultural, but I don't want to expand much outside of the purview of environmental legislation.

I've submitted another attempt at repealing the WHL to make room for a more appropriate piece. Are there any further suggestions for either draft of this listed in the first post?

The one that works alongside of WHL will only be necessary if the repeal fails, obviously, but it would probably be best to have it on hand in case that does occur. I'd like to, optimistically, focus on the draft that is based upon a successful repeal, though.

The repeal has to get to quorum before it can fail... :p

The repeal has to get to quorum before it can fail... :p

LOL. That is true, and I just noticed on another forum that you were going to be resubmitting your repeal this afternoon. Unfortunately, it was after I had already submitted mine. Sorry about stepping on your toes, there. I hope there's no hard feelings.

edit: btw, for any interested

Approval linky for the submitted repeal (http://www.nationstates.net/56936/page=UN_proposal1/match=list).

No toes stepped on, although it will make linking to my repeal in TGs a bit difficult... :p

Yeah. I have no idea how that would work. The way those links seem to work, no matter how we set up our links, they'll see both repeals.

Meh, with a bit of luck, they'll approve them both.

I received a TG linking me here in order to discuss repealing the World Heritage List... why am I now in the Environmental Protection Act?

Ah. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I must not have been very clear in my meaning. This is the discussion thread for the potential replacement of World Heritage List.

Yeah. I have no idea how that would work. The way those links seem to work, no matter how we set up our links, they'll see both repeals.

Meh, with a bit of luck, they'll approve them both.

I'm going to hold off on mine to avoid any confusion. I'll submit mine if yours fails.

For those just joining this conversation, this is the current draft of the EPA as it will look if the WHL is successfully repealed:


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses

The United Nations

APPLAUDING international interest in protection of the environment;

NOTING the importance of protecting environmentally significant locations to maintain our global environment;

SUPPORTS AND ENCOURAGES the practice of nations designating specific sites within their borders as being of environmental significance and deserving of protection from public or private organizations and entities;

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area;

CREATES the United Nations Environmental Protection Organization (UNEPO) to examine indicated sites and the merits of the site as an environmental location significant enough to warrant international protection;

EMPOWERS the UNEPO to sanction or deny the international protection of these locations, on behalf of the United Nations, based upon the findings of their examinations;

CLARIFIES that the protection granted by the UNEPO will include the protection of these locations against public and private industrial organizations and entities whose activities would impair the significance or pristine nature of the location;

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independent of the UNEPO;

ALLOWS for nations to petition the UNEPO to have international protection removed from locations within their borders;

All suggestions, comments, criticism, and the like are welcomed.

Katherine was new to the UN, indeed it had been many years since The Greater Kingdom of Midlonia had been a member of the United Nations, but times had of course changed, smoothing out her dress slightly as she had quietly watched the debate unfold she had noted that some of the arguments could get quite heated and made a mental note to not antagonise too many people. She cleared her throat, stood and spoke.

"The UN Environmental Protection Act, in its current draft would gain the supporting vote of the Greater Kingdom in its capacity, the WPL as it currently stands does include the holes that the UNEPA now covers. (The Environment as a whole, rather than that of just forests against the woodchipping industry) While such legislation would be a moot point in the Greater Kingdom, being that we already have the Midlonian Natural Heritage Association who create our national parks, we feel that a small quiet beauty spot in all nations should be reserved, not just for the continued environment but for sheer natural beauty."

All suggestions, comments, criticism, and the like are welcomed.Previous drafts made the reserved right of nations to protect their own territory without UNEPO approval explicit. I take it that the consensus is that the third clause combined with the use of the word “international” serves this same purpose?

Call us paranoid, but we're still concerned that the sixth clause still gives UNEPO the right to overrule a nation's right to protect its own territory should it wish to do so.

Previous drafts made the reserved right of nations to protect their own territory without UNEPO approval explicit. I take it that the consensus is that the third clause combined with the use of the word “international” serves this same purpose?

Call us paranoid, but we're still concerned that the sixth clause still gives UNEPO the right to overrule a nation's right to protect its own territory should it wish to do so.

I must have forgotten to include that clause in this draft. Thanks for catching the oversight.

I must have forgotten to include that clause in this draft. Thanks for catching the oversight.Thank you. We will support, and on a basis of this proposal back the repeal of the WHL, which has been badly abused to the point where its original purpose has been subverted.

We applaud Kivisto for this effort, and express our gratitude for their hard work on its behalf.

I'm actually aiming at broader in some respects and narrower in others.

WHL is targetted at the woodchipping industry, whereas something of this nature should be aimed at all industries.

WHL also doesn't limit what can be indicated, whereas I'd prefer it limitted to areas of significance somehow. I am willing to expand outside of strictly environmental locations, perhaps historical or cultural, but I don't want to expand much outside of the purview of environmental legislation.

I think it is important that the historical and cultural sites of our fine nations are protected as well, perhaps with alternate legislation modeled after the EPA that is now in the works. I think that while these causes are all important, and that the WHL was probably intended to provide protection for all of them at once, these interests are distinctly different enough to require separate legislation.

While it may be just as effective to incorporate these ideas into the propsed new EPA resolution, it would probably be a better idea to simply separate them now so that if one of these is found to have loopholes or flaws similar to those in the current WHL at a later date, that problem can be individually worked out of the one section of the resolution that had a problem with a repeal - and not the part that actually "worked" (whether it be the environmental or historical/cultural aspect of the hybrid law).

I'm not sure how many of the rest of you were wondering whether historical sites would be incorporated into the "WHL 2.0," but that was the first thing I wondered when I read through this thread. It would be a good idea to continue to provide protection for our history and culture as well, but as I mentioned already, I do think separate legislation is the best route for such an idea.

Lady Lib
Benevolent Figurehead
Dominion of Quasi-Libertines

We highly prefer Gruenberg's Cultural Heritage in War draft to this piece of garbage. If the repeal passes, we would urge supporters of preserving world heritage sites to embrace legislation with genuine international merit, not some half-assed attempt at appeasing fluffies with meaningless bureaucracy.

We highly prefer Gruenberg's Cultural Heritage in War draft to this piece of garbage. If the repeal passes, we would urge supporters of preserving world heritage sites to embrace legislation with genuine international merit, not some half-assed attempt at appeasing fluffies with meaningless bureaucracy.

I seem to remember looking over that. It was quite good. Really good, in fact. Not really surprising, though. I make no claims to be anywhere near the quality of legislator that Gruenberg is.

UN Member Nations,

The governing Council of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA graciously commends The Dominion of Kivisto for its apparent open attitude and willingness to create a successful replacement proposal for UN Resolution #37. Even though we are skeptical of such a proposal ever gaining the necessary quorum and then subsequent vote to become an adopted UN resolution and realize that with the repeal of #37 the world will have very little environmental protection legislation (with repeals of other environmentally friendly legislation likely to be proposed in the future), we still see the importance of working on legislation that fixes #37.

The Council has reviewed this issue and is currently circulating a fact sheet to the people of our nation for further review. This fact sheet outlines the history of environmental legislation in the UN, our region 'A More Peaceful World', and within USA NA. This historical background is followed by an analysis of UN Resolution #37 in comparison to the replacement proposal posted here. A national discussion followed by a consensus session is expected on Sunday morning.

Our fact sheet states that the Council is pleased with the necessary redundancy in this statement:

STIPULATES that nothing within this resolution shall remove the right of nations to protect their own lands independent of the UNEPO;

The Council is similarly pleased with the idea of setting up an organization to prevent misuse of the protected area status.

One important contentious issue noted in the fact sheet is in regards to the following statement:

SUGGESTS that designated sites be pristine in nature, or otherwise significant to the ecosystem of that area;

The Council is not clear on the meaning of these two phrases: "pristine in nature" and "significant to the ecosystem of that area." We make the following proposed amendment to the replacement proposal in hopes of coming to a better understanding of these phrases:

DEFINES "pristine in nature" to mean natural land or water that is untouched, minimally touched, or desired by inhabitants to be less touched by human development.

FURTHER DEFINES "significant to the ecosystem of that area" to mean an area of land or water that contributes to the general well-being of a larger area which may therefore contribute to the general well-being of the entire planet.

The Council would also like to make clear that these definitions are intended as a starting point for future dialogue on defining these important phrases so that this proposal begins to truly protect our world from unnecessary harms.

Because the chances of this proposal becoming an approved UN resolution seem slim, we must maintain our view that resolution #37 must not be repealed. Our fact sheet is intended to gain public opinion on the replacement proposal. The vote against repeal of #37 still remains the public will of The Oppressed Peoples of USA NA.

Your patience and graciousness are welcomed,

Tumil Orno III
USA NA United Nations Lead Advisor

There is no real definition of a pristine national environmental site in this legislation. What are you talking about. You must define this more clearly. I have a one mile square perfectly clean block of cement, it is in pristine condition, it is made of natural material, therefore it can be protected. I also have a small swimming pool, it is filled with absolutely pure water, the containment vessel is wood. It in no way mentions, parks, trees or anything living. Please give a better definition.

Are you talking specifically about living natural ecosystems, unspoiled natural geographic features like mountains, lakes, deserts. This is not particularly clear.

The environmental paradise of Minyos has concerns with the draft resolution in regards to the formation of UNEPO. What powers will UNEPO have? Who will appoint the members administering UNEPO? Are any interested parties able to sit on the UNEPO committee? How can UNEPO's impartiality be ensured, so that nations/delegates/members involved do not use UNEPO to further their own gains - for example a stacked UNEPO in favour of industry over environmental protection? What guarantee is there that UNEPO will make unbiased decisions once a UN member-state has submitted an area for worldwide protection?

If I have missed anything in posts previous I apologise, but I think the transparency, role, and powers of UNEPO are issues that need clarification, and refinement at this stage.

Yours in struggle,

Lars Ruski.

Made some of the suggested changes in the OP. Still working on the bit about the powers and impartiality of the UNEPO, but we can get there.

*BUMP* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12040305&postcount=235)

Hmm, thread seems to be working fine for me.

Bloody odd is all I can say. Definite glitch though - eliminated anything else. Oh well. Glad it was just something screwy between Jolt's server and mine probably, who knows, software glitches are hard to track down unless they occur repeatedly and to quite a number of people. Was definitely a prob. 2 nights ago when my posts weren't going through then that same post I laboriously re-wrote FOUR times only appeared 12 hours later. Over and done with now anyway.

Bloody odd is all I can say. Definite glitch though - eliminated anything else. Oh well. Glad it was just something screwy between Jolt's server and mine probably, who knows, software glitches are hard to track down unless they occur repeatedly and to quite a number of people. Was definitely a prob. 2 nights ago when my posts weren't going through then that same post I laboriously re-wrote FOUR times only appeared 12 hours later. Over and done with now anyway.

Probably the idiot filter tripping you up. Still not working properly, though, apparently.

Or at least pretend to play nice ;) I wasn't to know that the Glitch Fairy had come to visit me. Was quite a funny comment though, I'll pay it.

Probably the idiot filter tripping you up. Still not working properly, though, apparently.
Perhaps we should install a troll filter while we're at it.

it was quite funny, though

Bloody odd is all I can say. Definite glitch though - eliminated anything else. Oh well. Glad it was just something screwy between Jolt's server and mine probably, who knows, software glitches are hard to track down unless they occur repeatedly and to quite a number of people. Was definitely a prob. 2 nights ago when my posts weren't going through then that same post I laboriously re-wrote FOUR times only appeared 12 hours later. Over and done with now anyway.

OOC: When in doubt, blame Jolt. That's usually the source of the problem anyway.:p