NationStates Jolt Archive

Here it is. Please get regional delegates to vote for it - it needs to get out of committee.

Ban Unsafe Shipping Vessels
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: New Chalcedon

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING the intent of Resolution #11 ("Ban Single-Hilled Tankers");

RECOGNIZING the dangers posed to the environment by lack of regulation of shipping lanes;

NOTING with concern the effect of spills of oil and other petrochemicals caused by lack of sufficient conatiner security;

NOTING with regret the lack of practical effectiveness of Resolution #11, in that it carried no specific measures;

FURTHER NOTING that petrochemicals are not the only form of cargo which can cuase significant environmental damage if spilled or lost in transit;

1. STATES that all cargoes owned by Member States must be shipped in vessels which have, at a minimum, double bottoms and securable access hatches;

2. STATES that all vessels registered to Member States must have such measures installed or be deregistered within 48 months of this resolution's enactment;

3. STATES that all petrochemicals or petrochemical derivatives owned by Member States or their commercial concerns, or travelling to or from Member States, or travelling in the hulls of vessels registered to Member States, must be carried in vessels equipped with full double hulls, rather than double bottoms, in addition to securable access hatches and extensive fire-retardant facilities;

4. RECOMMENDS the creation of an International Maritime Standards Board, to adapt shipping regulations to further technological changes; and

5. THANKS Member States for their contributions in this and other efforts towards the preservation of the environment.

It's a good idea to hold off on submitting your proposals until they've been properly vetted by members of this forum. It'll save you future headaches. This is actually much better than other replacement documents we've seen lining the queue. A few observations: My nation would actually prefer that old vessels with single hulls be grandfathered in, with additional regulations tacked on to reduce the risk, instead of just banning them altogether. The UN can't recommend the establishment of an international commission; it has to assume responsibility itself for that task. Either it establishes an international commission, or it doesn't.

That last clause is not necessary at all. Nix it.

The UN can't recommend the establishment of an international commission; it has to assume responsibility itself for that task. Either it establishes an international commission, or it doesn't.

And furthermore, doesn't one of Cobdenia's "boaty" resolutions create a committee that could be tasked with doing that?

OOC: Ok. For future reference, please construct your responses and such in something that has spell check, be it a word processor or what have you. I believe the proposal submission even has one built in, but I've never submitted anything, so I'm not sure. Alternately, you could use the latest version of Firefox, which has inline spell-checking abilities. The nub of this is there are some grievous misspellings in your proposal that would be strong enough for me, at least, to vote against it, were it to come to vote. I shall begin.



NOTING with concern the effect of spills of oil and other petrochemicals caused by lack of sufficient conatiner security;
"Container."

FURTHER NOTING that petrochemicals are not the only form of cargo which can cuase significant environmental damage if spilled or lost in transit; "Cause."

1. STATES that all cargoes owned by Member States must be shipped in vessels which have, at a minimum, double bottoms and securable access hatches; Oddly, "securable" is not in my spell-check devices, though dictionary.com includes it, and bloody Merriam Webster does not deny its existence, though it wants me to bloody pay for an unabridged online dictionary, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Anyway, securable - ok, but "secure" would work just as well.

2. STATES that all vessels registered to Member States must have such measures installed or be deregistered within 48 months of this resolution's enactment; "Deregistered" is not a word. I might let "de-registered" slide. "Unregistered" is not a verb, though, so I'd have to settle with "have their registration revoked," methinks. *shrugs* Fairly minor point, really.

3. STATES that all petrochemicals or petrochemical derivatives owned by Member States or their commercial concerns, or travelling to or from Member States, or travelling in the hulls of vessels registered to Member States, must be carried in vessels equipped with full double hulls, rather than double bottoms, in addition to securable access hatches and extensive fire-retardant facilities; "Traveling," not "travelling." Also, see above on "securable."

4. RECOMMENDS the creation of an International Maritime Standards Board, to adapt shipping regulations to further technological changes; and On a grammar-unrelated note, I think it would be better to create the Board first, and then refer to it in the end of the other steps, like, "to be adapted as necessary by the IMSB." Because we of the NSUN cannot predict every situation, it is up to our gnome-run Committees to find a way to fit the gist of the law into those unforeseen situations. I also agree that "Recommends the creation of an IMSB" is not a good way to go. I'd go ahead and say "Creates the IMSB and charges it with the adaptation of blah blah." Or, as Fris says, charge the existing board with it.

5. THANKS Member States for their contributions in this and other efforts towards the preservation of the environment. I'm not sure what I think of this. Not that there's anything wrong with it. It's interesting, in the very least. I don't think it should be a numbered step, though... that seems to imply that we're going to have a ceremony to thank them, but I'm just being pedantic and nitpicking now. I think I must agree with Kenny to delete it.

I must also agree with Kenny that this is pretty good, really, and on his other points, as well.

King Fotar will support this resolution as it is a very well drafted replacement for the recently repealed Resolution 11. The King also agrees with the previously stated comments regarding the last clause. While it is a nice little feel-good sentence, it really has no place in the legislation. However, besides that, this is a very good proposal.

_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Narnian Kingdom of Fotar
~Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/10639/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)