NationStates Jolt Archive

The Dominion has proposed to reinforce this previous international law that has been repealed and deemed null and void as with other NS-UN Resolutions by WA Resolution #1The World Assembly,

RECALLING its resolution NS-UN Res # 11 implemented on 28 April 2003, repealed by NS-UN Res # 224 implemented on 30 March 2008,

HAVING CONSIDERED WA Res # 1 declaring the pages on international law to be blank,

CONSCIOUS that the problems of the marine environment are of the utmost importance and need to be considered through an integrated, interdisciplinary and intersectoral approach, and reaffirming the need to improve cooperation and coordination at the national, regional and global levels, to support the integrated management and sustainable development of the ocean and seas,

REITERATING ITS CONCERN at the adverse impacts on the marine environment and biodiversity, in particular of vulnerable marine ecosystems, due to marine pollution from all sources, including land-based sources and ocean going vessels, in particular through the discharge of oil and other harmful substances,

HEREBY DECLARES a Worldwide Ban on Single-hulled Tankers.

Implementation of the Resolution

1. Requires upon all Member States to equip all tankers registered to be the very least, double-hulled;
2. Requires all Member States to deny entry within their respective territories single-hulled tankers coming from WA Member States and non-WA nations alike;
3. Enforces upon an Agency on behalf of the World Assembly to regularly inspect and accredit active tankers; that the said regulating body should be formed through resolution by the Assembly itself;
4. Noting specifically that any untoward accidents caused by active single-hulled tankers shall be investigated upon by the Regulating Body; that the Company/State who manages the said tanker shall shoulder the clean-up and costs;
5. Requires WA member-states to assist the State concerned in clean-up operations and damage control;
6. Recognizes the fact that amendments and revisions to further strengthen this Act shall be done so by enacting another WA resolution (with reference to this resolution) and not in the form of repeals;

NOTES WITH APPRECIATION that this shall be fully enforced within 24 hours of passage.

I'm not an expert on ships, but I'm pretty sure a double hull isn't the sole arbiter of safety. A boat with a double hull and poor navigational equipment is probably as likely to induce disaster as a single hull with state-of-the-art equipment. By all means require double hulls, but we should at least explore whether there should be other requirements, such as navigational equipment, the use of up-to-date maps (or electronic squidgies), having a trained and competent crew, having emergency protocols in place, etc.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Article 6 is completely illegal, 3 likewise. And, while you're here, so is your 'Summit' resolution. The rules, for reference (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

The following lines are unnecessary:
RECALLING its resolution NS-UN Res # 11 implemented on 28 April 2003, repealed by NS-UN Res # 224 implemented on 30 March 2008,

HAVING CONSIDERED WA Res # 1 declaring the pages on international law to be blank,

NOTES WITH APPRECIATION that this shall be fully enforced within 24 hours of passage.

The following lines are flat-out illegal and will result in the deletion of this proposal if it was already posted:
that the said regulating body should be formed through resolution by the Assembly itself;

6. Recognizes the fact that amendments and revisions to further strengthen this Act shall be done so by enacting another WA resolution (with reference to this resolution) and not in the form of repeals;

The following line, while legal, is ludicrous. 19,000+ nations participating in EVERY cleanup?
5. Requires WA member-states to assist the State concerned in clean-up operations and damage control;
Furthermore, tankers cannot be retrofitted with double hulls, at least not in any cost-effective way. They must be built from the keel up. I assure you that it would take more than 24 hours.

And, while you're here, so is your 'Summit' resolution.

Good catch. Missed that amongst the proposals to provide pharmaceuticals for sick birds of prey (Ileagle Drug Use) and the one to to turn all the indigent and homeless into soldiers (Draft Act - should have been Daft Act).

Article 2 would require WA member-nations to turn single-hulled tankers away from their territories even if those ships were actually seeking harbour in emergencies such as hurricanes, or because they were in imminent danger of sinking. This would deny the common custom of the sea, that imperilled ships and crews should be helped, and if any of a ship's crew died as a provable result of this turning-away then under our laws the official responsible would probably be charged with manslaughter. Furthermore, turning tankers away from harbour under such conditions might actually increase the risk that their cargo would get spilled into the seas. My government would therefore oppose this proposal as it currently stands, and I strongly suggest that -- in addition to making the changes that other people here have already suggested -- you alter this clause to allow the entry of those ships into WA member-nations' territories (at those nations' discretion) during emergencies.

Oh, and presumably by 'double-hulled' what you mean is 'having two separate layers of material between the cargo and the sea'... rather than 'catamaran'? Clarification of this point, in the text of the proposal, might help to ensure that this measure actually does what you want it to.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

2. Requires all Member States to deny entry within their respective territories single-hulled tankers coming from WA Member States and non-WA nations alike;

As much as I appreciate the environmental concerns at play here, I'm not willing to give up trade with non-compliant nations.

We also reiterate the concerns of the honorable gentleman from St. Edmund.

"As I understand it, single hulled tahnkers are no more inherently dangerous than double hulled tankers are inherently safe." Captain Abagail Hardcastle dropped the papers containing the resolution into file 13. "TMZ also shares St. Edmund's concerns about Article 2.

I'm not an expert on ships, but I'm pretty sure a double hull isn't the sole arbiter of safety. A boat with a double hull and poor navigational equipment is probably as likely to induce disaster as a single hull with state-of-the-art equipment. By all means require double hulls, but we should at least explore whether there should be other requirements, such as navigational equipment, the use of up-to-date maps (or electronic squidgies), having a trained and competent crew, having emergency protocols in place, etc.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of WysteriaYes, we believe it is not the only sole arbiter of safety. It is, however, one of the important measures to ensure safety with regards to tankers. If the World Assembly would pass a resolution to encompass all that is related to safety on marine waters, we would need more than 3,500 words to do so. If you wish to require other important factors such as the one you suggested above, we will take note of it and will probably draft something in the near future.

For the record, we have sacked our advisers who proposed Article #6 as with the Summit proposal.

Article 2 would require WA member-nations to turn single-hulled tankers away from their territories even if those ships were actually seeking harbour in emergencies such as hurricanes, or because they were in imminent danger of sinking. This would deny the common custom of the sea, that imperilled ships and crews should be helped, and if any of a ship's crew died as a provable result of this turning-away then under our laws the official responsible would probably be charged with manslaughter. Furthermore, turning tankers away from harbour under such conditions might actually increase the risk that their cargo would get spilled into the seas. My government would therefore oppose this proposal as it currently stands, and I strongly suggest that -- in addition to making the changes that other people here have already suggested -- you alter this clause to allow the entry of those ships into WA member-nations' territories (at those nations' discretion) during emergencies.

Oh, and presumably by 'double-hulled' what you mean is 'having two separate layers of material between the cargo and the sea'... rather than 'catamaran'? Clarification of this point, in the text of the proposal, might help to ensure that this measure actually does what you want it to.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.Your concerns have been noted. A double hull is a ship hull design and construction method where the bottom and sides of the ship have two complete layers of watertight hull surface: one outer layer forming the normal hull of the ship, and a second inner hull which is somewhat further into the ship, perhaps a few feet, which forms a redundant barrier to seawater in case the outer hull is damaged and leaks. I do not fully understand why you related it to a 'catamaran' which is multi-hulled.
As much as I appreciate the environmental concerns at play here, I'm not willing to give up trade with non-compliant nations.

We also reiterate the concerns of the honorable gentleman from St. Edmund.We will re-state the proposal to lessen the demand on nations not part of the WA to prevent economic problems on global trade. But on the otherhand, WA states should instead put in place national requirements on non-WA nations to ensure safety within their territories.

Edward M.D. Camacho
Ambassador General to the WA
Radiant City, Multani-maro Protectorate
Dominion of Serra Avatar

The following line, while legal, is ludicrous. 19,000+ nations participating in EVERY cleanup?

5. Requires WA member-states to assist the State concerned in clean-up operations and damage control;

Furthermore, tankers cannot be retrofitted with double hulls, at least not in any cost-effective way. They must be built from the keel up. I assure you that it would take more than 24 hours.We will add clarifications to the 5th condition (i.e. ...in any aid that can be possibly given). Any other condition to selectively pick a WA nation to give aid is difficult to propose.

Again, we will fix the error on the play of words. Thank you for pointing out the matter.

NOTES WITH APPRECIATION that this shall be fully enforced within 24 hours of passage.

It doesn't state that all tankers must be immediately retrofitted but an international law like this (if passed) should be given teeth at the national level in every Member-State. We will seek clarification with our new advisers on how to best define this section of the proposal.

Edward M.D. Camacho
Ambassador General to the WA
Radiant City, Multani-maro Protectorate
Dominion of Serra Avatar

While we in Bergelland are extremely concerned with the environment, we feel that a resolution solely banning the use of single-hulled tankers is useless on its own. I believe that a larger scope resolution creating international standards for the transportation of oil and other harmful chemicals would be much more useful, and would have our full support.

Aya Shimizu
Head Ambassador for the World Assembly
Royal Council of Foreign Affairs
The Grand Principality of Bergelland

We have abandoned this draft proposal and shifting to a broader environment law for international trade cargo ships.

Edward M.D. Camacho
Ambassador Gen. to the WA

Might I suggest the version that I put to the NSUN, jsut before it folded, instead?

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

Description: The Wolrd Assembly of Nation States:

ACKNOWLEDGING the intent of NationStates United Nations 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 container security;

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

FURTHER NOTING that petrochemicals are not the only form of cargo which can cause 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 de-registered 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 traveling 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. CREATES an International Maritime Standards Board, to adapt shipping regulations to further technological changes and enforce such standards as the World Assembly mandates; and

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

I have been trying to contact your office since yesterday regarding your NSUN Res #1 if you would like to recall and revise it for WA approval. The Dominion supports your proposal. Please furnish our office a copy of your proposal once it is final. Thank you.

On a side note, you might want to add a clause for further research on maritime cargo safety which will be a part of the mandate of the International Maritime Standards Board or on one of its sub-agencies.

Edward M.D. Camacho
Ambassador Gen. to the WA

So here it is. With agreement, I will add it to the proposals list tomorrow.

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

Description: The Wolrd Assembly of Nation States:

ACKNOWLEDGING the intent of NationStates United Nations 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 container security;

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

FURTHER NOTING that petrochemicals are not the only form of cargo which can cause 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 de-registered 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 traveling 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. CREATES an International Maritime Standards Board, which will have three funtion. Firstly, the IMSB shall adapt regulations to shifts in technological capability. Secondly, the IMSB shall enforce both this Resolution and such Resolutions as are or shall be relevant to the area of shipping, in addition to any reulations that it should devise. Thirdly, the IMSB shall engage in ongoing research in the field of maritime shipping, including but not limited to the areas of cost efficiency, cargo safety and crew training procedures.

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

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

Description: The World Assembly of Nation States:

ACKNOWLEDGING the intent of NationStates United Nations Resolution #11 ("Ban Single-Hulled 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 container security;

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

FURTHER NOTING that petrochemicals are not the only form of cargo which can cause 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 de-registered 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 traveling to or from Member States, or traveling 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. CREATES an International Maritime Standards Board, which will have three functions. Firstly, the IMSB shall adapt regulations to shifts in technological capability. Secondly, the IMSB shall enforce both this Resolution and such Resolutions as are or shall be relevant to the area of shipping, in addition to any regulations that it should devise. Thirdly, the IMSB shall engage in ongoing research in the field of maritime shipping, including but not limited to the areas of cost efficiency, cargo safety and crew training procedures.

5. THANKS Member States for their contributions in this and other efforts towards the preservation of the environment.I took the liberty of doing the spell-check. =)

S'ok - I'm prone to typos. If it passes muster, propose it. Your idea, you know. As a Delegate, i'll be able to give it an approval, but not if I propose it.

As a Delegate, i'll be able to give it an approval, but not if I propose it.

Since when, I just approved a proposal I submitted.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Proposal, Maritime Standards Act, has been submitted for review. This has been co-authored by Serra Avatar and New Chalcedon. Please support once it is up for voting.Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses

Description: The World Assembly of Nation States:

ACKNOWLEDGING the intent of NationStates United Nations Resolution #11 ("Ban Single-Hulled 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 container security;

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

FURTHER NOTING that petrochemicals are not the only form of cargo which can cause 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 de-registered 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 traveling to or from Member States, or traveling 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. CREATES an International Maritime Standards Board, which will have three functions. Firstly, the IMSB shall adapt regulations to shifts in technological capability. Secondly, the IMSB shall enforce both this Resolution and such Resolutions as are or shall be relevant to the area of shipping, in addition to any regulations that it should devise. Thirdly, the IMSB shall engage in ongoing research in the field of maritime shipping, including but not limited to the areas of cost efficiency, cargo safety and crew training procedures.

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

I thought I made it clear that these lines not only don't help, but actively hurt the proposal:
ACKNOWLEDGING the intent of NationStates United Nations Resolution #11 ("Ban Single-Hulled Tankers");

NOTING with regret the lack of practical effectiveness of NSUN Resolution #11, in that it carried no specific measures;
NSUN material is no longer law, and should not be referenced in WA proposals. It doesn't add anything except length.

5. THANKS Member States for their contributions in this and other efforts towards the preservation of the environment.
Seems kinda hypocritical to thank nations for doing something they've been MANDATED to do.

NSUN material is no longer law, and should not be referenced in WA proposals. It doesn't add anything except length.We are merely recalling the idea and intent of NSUN Res#11.

WA Res#1 also states that.ARCHIVES all previously passed UN Resolutions for historical purposes, so that citizens of today may forever look back upon the masterwork of their ancestors;
Quote:
5. THANKS Member States for their contributions in this and other efforts towards the preservation of the environment.

Seems kinda hypocritical to thank nations for doing something they've been MANDATED to do.My mistake. It should have been NOTES WITH APPRECIATION. And it states "OTHER EFFORTS" which they are not MANDATED so the clause is not a problem.

A few other possible requirements:

Tank gauging. You don't have to require a particular technology, but you should require that the tanker employ some form of system to detect for leaks. Same goes for engine monitoring systems. I'll repeat my suggestion about navigational equipment and trew craining, and also the best ballast systems should be used. In short, anything carrying oil or toxic substances should be suitably equipped to do so, and hull strength alone is not the sole prerogative there.

Final question: had you considered expanding this to submarine pipes as well?

-- Samantha Benson