NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the international transport of both passengers and cargo is a necessary part of world trade and promotes cultural understanding between nations,

BELIEVING that world trade is beneficial to the economies of all nations,

DESIRING international transportation systems to be consistent in its safety and reliable throughout the nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the international standardisation of safety features, accident investigation and communications between aircraft, shipping and trains is the best means towards greater transport safety,

Hereby,

1) FOUNDS the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC),

2) CHARGES the ITSC to enact regulations pertaining to the safety, communications, markings and signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, mechanical inspection protocol, and standards of accident investigation and search and rescue procedures for international shipping, aviation, and railways,

3) FURTHER AUTHORISES the ITSC to set training and, where deemed necessary, experience requirements for:
a) Flight Personnel, including Captains, First Officers, Flight Engineers, Navigators, Radio Operators, Flight Attendants and private pilots on aircraft operating internationally;
b) Masters, First Officers, Deck and Navigation Officers, Chief Engineers and Engineering Officers, Stewards and Seamen on sea vessels operating internationally;
c) Drivers, Firemen, Guards and Brakemen on commercial trains operating internationally, and Signalmen and Station Staff on international commercial railway lines;
d) Engineers, Mechanics, Shed Staff, Air Traffic Controllers, Harbourmasters, Harbour Pilots, Ground Crew and other Maintenance Personnel and Officials involved in the upkeep and operation of internationally operating transport systems and infrastructure.

4) DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that the ITSC undertake cost benefit analysis, feasibility and technological practicability studies, and other considerations before issuing regulations. Regulation will vary depending on the type, class, size, design and construction date of the aircraft, sea vessels and locomotives & carriages in question, as well the infrastructure surrounding such, and whether its use is classified as private or commercial.

5) MANDATES that all aircraft, seagoing vessels, and trains and railway routes operating internationally and their relevent infrastructures conform to ITSC requirements, subject to exemptions in article 6.

6) AUTHORISES the following exemptions to article 5:
a) Transport systems that do not operate internationally need not comply with ITSC regulations;
a) Military craft and related control systems operating in peacetime need only comply with communications standardisation directives. Military craft operating in wartime or over hostile or belligerent territory are exempted fully from ITSC regulations;
b) Military airfields and naval dockyards operating in peacetime must also comply with communications, markings, and fire control/emergency evacuation equipment requirements, and avail themselves to private and commercial transport in distress.

7) URGES nations, however, to implement ITSC regulations for domestic transport,

8) PERMITS nations to introduce safety requirements above those of the ITSC, as long as such requirements are not in conflict with ITSC regulation, for it's own aviation, shipping and railway companies,

9) PROHIBITS nations from barring foreign WA member state companies in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers and loading/unloading freight, unless there are practical, safety, security, quarantine, capacity or legal reasons for doing so, or in times of war or economic sanctions.
.

Right, another idea. I know I need to write a preamble, and really define "commericial", but that can be sorted out later. Any ideas on how to define commercial? Anything I've missed? Category Wise, I'm thinking Free Trade, Mild, due to article 9...

.Right, another idea. I know I need to write a preamble, and really define "commericial", but that can be sorted out later. Any ideas on how to define commercial? Anything I've missed? Category Wise, I'm thinking Free Trade, Mild, due to article 9...
Why exempt private craft? For that matter, why exempt military craft operating internationally in peacetime? Are they intrinsically safer, or does the fact that (say) Gobbannaen aircraft signalling protocols don't match up with Cobdenian air traffic control protocols not matter for some reason?

Also, could you elucidate the "etc" in Article 9 a bit? I know what I'm taking it to mean, but I'd like to know what you intend.

I do understand what your saying about signalling protocols - I'll try and think of a way round it. However, I am slightly uneasy about laying down safety standards for pleasure craft and fighter jets. I mean, carrying a large bomb isn't exactly safe, so mandating blackboxes and floating seat cushions seems a little pointless.
By etc. I meant, mainly, train stopping at stationing. But I couldn't think of a decent word for it

EDIT: Some alterations made

b) Masters, First Officers, Deck and Navigation Officers, Cheif Engineers and Engineering Officers, Stewards and Seamen on commercial shipping operating internationally;


"Ahem! 'I' before 'E', except after 'C'..." ;)

(OOC: ...although I suppose it wouldn't really be a proper Cobdenian proposal without at least one typo... :D)

I do understand what your saying about signalling protocols - I'll try and think of a way round it. However, I am slightly uneasy about laying down safety standards for pleasure craft and fighter jets. I mean, carrying a large bomb isn't exactly safe, so mandating blackboxes and floating seat cushions seems a little pointless.
Military craft I understand, and you're right, trying to apply some of the safety standards to them is clearly silly. Black boxes, on the other hand, aren't entirely silly; if a military jet goes down in peacetime, I'd hope that the relevant air force would want to know why. And we are talking about military vessels going across international borders here, so I'd rather hope that they weren't carrying large bombs much of the time!

Pleasure craft, on the other hand, are exactly the sort of vehicles that never think they need safety equipment until after they cause someone else a problem. Scale surely is the only issue here; there is a difference between a small craft carrying half a dozen people and a larger one that wouldn't blanch at two hundred, but I'd expect the ITSC to take account of that in its safety regs anyway.

By etc. I meant, mainly, train stopping at stationing. But I couldn't think of a decent word for it
Good, I thought that was what you meant. I can live with that. The expansion you've just made is less welcome, but I think we'll survive. You haven't said that we have to let anything through Customs, after all.

Military craft I understand, and you're right, trying to apply some of the safety standards to them is clearly silly. Black boxes, on the other hand, aren't entirely silly; if a military jet goes down in peacetime, I'd hope that the relevant air force would want to know why. And we are talking about military vessels going across international borders here, so I'd rather hope that they weren't carrying large bombs much of the time!

Yes, but I still reckon that it's more of a problem for the country itself then internationally (excepting of course communications). I'd like to think their would be other issues that would prevent a air force from insisting it's pilots be narcolpetic one eyed drunks, to use an extreme example. They might want to fit black boxes, they might not - the factors at work in a military sphere are likely to be too varied and conflicting to allow for international safety legilsation to be imposed. Basically "Meh/reasonable nation theory"

I have, however, altered it so that private craft are included...

I purposefully didn't say anything about customs or administration. You have to let things and people of the aircraft, but letting them into the country is another matter, perhaps for another resolution.

Superfluous apostrophe _
before issuing regulations. Regulation will vary depending on the type, class, size, design and constructive date of aircraft, sea vessels and locomotives & carriages in question, as well the infrastructure surrounding such, and whether it's use is classified as private or commercial.

And, bearing in mind the existence of 'postmodern-tech' & 'future-tech' nations, what about spacecraft?

They go through the air as well as space, therefore they are aircraft.

[/fuzzy logic to enable me to ignore it]

9) PROHIBITS nations from barring foreign companies

It's not a bad proposal; I'm inclined to support it.

Preamble added, and further alterations made.

They go through the air as well as space, therefore they are aircraft.

[/fuzzy logic to enable me to ignore it]

OOC: And the apostrophe? ;)

What apostrophe *whistles*?

should the training of personnel, and the controlling of airflight plans be left to each individual governments?

Wachichi

should the training of personnel, and the controlling of airflight plans be left to each individual governments?

The home government of the craft, the government in charge of its starting point, the government in charge of the destination, or the governments in charge of any land, waters or airspace in between? Or all of them?

it should be that each government is responsible for the plane's well being (trained workers at that airport, the plane, it's safety ...etc) as long as the plan is on it's ground/airspace and/or waterspace. once it crosses the border, it is the responsibility of that nation.

Wachichi.

that's just my opinion.

it should be that each government is responsible for the plane's well being (trained workers at that airport, the plane, it's safety ...etc) as long as the plan is on it's ground/airspace and/or waterspace. once it crosses the border, it is the responsibility of that nation.

Rather than, say, the plane's owners? What you're describing sounds like the sort of awful mish-mash of competing and potentially contradictory regulations that I'd look to exactly this sort of legislation to relieve. I'm firmly with keeping training and ATC regs in the ITSC's remit.

The ITSC won't be in charge of training pilots, nor of housing flihgt plans, nor anything of that sort. It will merely lay down regulations conerning the training of pilots, the design of flight plan forms/the information required, to use the two examples. Otherwise a pilot may potentially need to learn how to fill in at least 15,000 different types of flight plan, learn at least 15,000 different types of ATC protocol, etc., which is clearly not a practical proposition

Just bumping this up; as planning to submit it soon.

it should be that each government is responsible for the plane's well being (trained workers at that airport, the plane, it's safety ...etc) as long as the plan is on it's ground/airspace and/or waterspace. once it crosses the border, it is the responsibility of that nation.

Wachichi.

that's just my opinion.

That isn't how it works, at least in reality, for the reasons Gob mentioned. Consider the real "World Assembly", which has an agency called ICAO standardising a variety of aviation-related things like ATC phraseology, callsigns, codes, measurements, aircrew licensing (it's relatively easy to convert a pilot licence from one ICAO-member country to another; but just try that with drivers' licences), taxiway/runway signs and markings at airports, just to name a few. There's really only one rather large country that doesn't entirely comply with the ICAO standards; they use slightly different ATC phraseology, different terminologies, and a different system of measurements, for instance, and no prizes for guessing which country that is.

All this really cuts through what would otherwise be mountains of red tape and bureaucracy associated with the primary form of global travel today, and any effort to get something similar done here - and it extends to other forms of transportation as well; all the better - is laudable.

Fiddled a bi, mainly to article 6

Fiddled a bi, mainly to article 6


O.O.C. Fiddled a bi eh? how 70's of you ;)

Submitted, as follows:

UNDERSTANDING that the international transport of both passengers & cargo is a necessary part of world trade

DESIRING international transportation systems to be consistent in its safety & reliable throughout the nations of the World Assembly

CONVINCED that the international standardisation of safety features, accident investigation & communications is the best means towards greater transport safety

Hereby,

1) FOUNDS the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC)

2) CHARGES the ITSC to enact regulations pertaining to the safety, communications, markings & signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, mechanical inspection protocol, standards of accident investigation, & search & rescue procedures for international shipping, aviation, & railways

3) FURTHER AUTHORISES the ITSC to set training &, where deemed necessary, experience requirements for:
a) Flight Personnel, including Captains, First Officers, Flight Engineers, Navigators, Radio Operators, Flight Attendants & private pilots on aircraft operating internationally
b) Masters, First Officers, Deck & Navigation Officers, Chief Engineers & Engineering Officers, Stewards & Seamen on sea vessels operating internationally
c) Drivers, Firemen, Guards & Brakemen on commercial trains operating internationally, & Signalmen & Station Staff on international railway lines
d) Engineers, Mechanics, Air Traffic Controllers, Harbourmasters Harbour Pilots, Ground Crew & other Maintenance Personnel & Officials involved in the upkeep & operation of internationally operating transport systems

4) DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that the ITSC undertake cost benefit analysis, feasibility & technological practicality studies, & other considerations before issuing regulations. Regulation will vary depending on the type, design & construction date of the aircraft, sea vessels, locomotives & carriages in question, as well the infrastructure surrounding such, & whether its use is classified as private or commercial

5) MANDATES that all aircraft, seagoing vessels, trains & railway routes operating internationally & there relevant infrastructures conform to ITSC requirements, subject to exemptions in article 6

6) AUTHORISES the following exemptions to article 5:
a) Transport systems that do not operate internationally need not comply with ITSC regulations
a) Military craft & related control systems operating in peacetime need only comply with communications directives. Military craft operating in wartime or involved in military operations are exempted fully from ITSC regulations
b) Military airfields & naval dockyards operating in peacetime must also comply with communications, markings, fire control/emergency evacuation equipment requirements, & avail themselves to civilian transport in distress

7) PERMITS nations to introduce safety requirements above those of the ITSC, as long as such requirements are not in conflict with ITSC regulation, for it's own aviation, shipping & railway companies

8) PROHIBITS nations from barring foreign WA member state companies in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight, unless there are practical, safety, security, quarantine, capacity or legal reasons for doing so, or in times of war or economic sanctions

Yes, the ampersands are horrible. It was one of the many ways of losing characters that I had to employ

It's good and I understand why you had to drop the characters.

It shouldn't be too bad for free trade: I do like a big economy so I can get more Pick 'n Mixes at Woolies for my kunas: We still have Woolies in Charlotte Ryberg as it is independent from Britain: we call them Woolworth without the "S". The sweeties will definitely travel and arrive safely with this, but it can't guarantee an end to the recession of the number of WA members yet. Hmm, how can be deal with that? That's for later.

This resolution sounds really good to me. I balked at the regulation of military aircraft and, more importantly, military bases and naval yards, but seeing as how they would only be regulated if they engaged in international trade, my objections have diminished.

Well, it's not really if there involved in international trade, but it only applies to certain, fairly obvious requirements that are only relevent in peacetime. For example, it seems reasonable to me to allow military aircraft to use civilian communications protocols, as otherwise they might crash into civil airliner. Everything is similarly based on the safety of civilian transport safety that requires similar regulation of military (i.e. allowing doomed airliners to crash land at a nearby air force base)

We still have slight issue with 6a (secundus -- it wouldn't be a Cobdenian resolution without some misprint), but on the whole feel that the exception cases to 8 allow nations to avoid giving military craft unreasonable latitude. We wish the Raj success in his quest for approvals.

8) PROHIBITS nations from barring foreign WA member state companies in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight, unless there are practical, safety, security, quarantine, capacity or legal reasons for doing so, or in times of war or economic sanctions
May we continue our practice of forcing down civilian airliners that enter our airspace without authorization? If so the Aundotutunagirian People will support this.

We still have slight issue with 6a (secundus -- it wouldn't be a Cobdenian resolution without some misprint), but on the whole feel that the exception cases to 8 allow nations to avoid giving military craft unreasonable latitude. We wish the Raj success in his quest for approvals.

It uses the term company for a reason - I didn't intend for 8 to include military craft

Overall, this seems to be a sound proposal. I will lend my nations support to it, but should it reach quorum and further debate change my opinions, I might vote against it.

It uses the term company for a reason - I didn't intend for 8 to include military craft
"Ahem! So what about 'companies' of military mercenaries?" ;)


(OOC: If it doesn't make quorum this time around, how would you feel about dropping clause #8? I'm thinking of making a serious attempt at getting a 'WA' version of my own [originally St Edmundan] old proposal on 'International Transit of Goods' passed, but your clause would probably block it...)

Clause 8 is mainly about open skies and seas... I'll have see. It'll certainly get re-worded

May we continue our practice of forcing down civilian airliners that enter our airspace without authorization? If so the Aundotutunagirian People will support this.

It sounds like this resolution will indeed force such a change in practice, unless your practice meets the exceptions outlined in article 8.

It sounds like this resolution will indeed force such a change in practice, unless your practice meets the exceptions outlined in article 8.

Civilian airliners entering our airspace without authorization would constitute practical, safety, security, and legal reasons for doing so. Additionally, Aundotutunagir is often in a state of war with someone, so we could usually claim that exemption as well. The Aundotutunagirian People will support this legislation.

It uses the term company for a reason - I didn't intend for 8 to include military craft
We were clearly asleep when we made our statement! We accordingly withdraw our general approval subject to legal advice as to whether clauses 6 and 7 allow us to introduce more stringent standards in our airspace, national waters and lands than the ITSC sets for all vehicles, not just those belonging to Gobbannaen companies.

It's going to be re-written a bit if it fails, but basically you can set higher standards on foreign companies if you want (although I cannot see how one would enforce it, but you cannot bar nations from operating in your airspace (for example) if they are in compliance with ITSC requirements.

It's going to be re-written a bit if it fails, but basically you can set higher standards on foreign companies if you want (although I cannot see how one would enforce it, but you cannot bar nations from operating in your airspace (for example) if they are in compliance with ITSC requirements.
Uncomfortable as the thought is, we could accept that. We trust that the ITSC will in general set sensible regulations, after all. The issue that causes us most concern, which have expressed unfailingly badly thus far, is whether clause 6 forces us to accept the listed exemptions or merely permits their employment.

Kind of both. Planes in peacetime have to use ITSC communications, but you are free to add full ITSC requirements. If that makes sense. In fairnes, I'm tempted to re-write that part too, to ensure that it only applies where civilian aviation may be hazarded...

5) MANDATES that all aircraft, seagoing vessels, trains & railway routes operating internationally & their relevant infrastructures conform to ITSC requirements, subject to exemptions in article 6

Nothing wrong with this article. Just a minor spelling error that I will be strict enough to point out.

6) AUTHORISES the following exemptions to article 5:
a) Transport systems that do not operate internationally need not comply with ITSC regulations
a) Military craft & related control systems operating in peacetime need only comply with communications directives. Military craft operating in wartime or involved in military operations are exempted fully from ITSC regulations
b) Military airfields & naval dockyards operating in peacetime must also comply with communications, markings, fire control/emergency evacuation equipment requirements, & avail themselves to civilian transport in distress

There are two of the letter "a" here, but that is not why I highlighted this section. The military aircraft, airfields, and naval dockyards only need to comply with ITSC if they are involved in international flights/sailing or international commerce, correct? The way it is written it sounds like those military installations and vehicles would be subject to ITSC even if they never were involved in international shipping or travel. Perhaps a rewrite to make it clear that the first 6a also applies to the second 6a and to 6b.

UNDERSTANDING that the international transport of both passengers & cargo is a necessary part of world trade

DESIRING international transportation systems to be consistent in its safety & reliable throughout the nations of the World Assembly

CONVINCED that the international standardisation of safety features, accident investigation and communications is the best means towards greater transport safety

HEREBY

1) FOUNDS the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC)

2) CHARGES the ITSC to enact regulations pertaining to the safety, communications, markings & signals, distress signals, loading limits, emergency protocols, the provision of life saving equipment, mechanical inspection protocol, standards of accident investigation, and search & rescue procedures for international shipping, aviation, and railways

3) FURTHER AUTHORISES the ITSC to set training and, where deemed necessary, experience requirements for:
a) Flight Personnel, including Captains, First Officers, Flight Engineers, Navigators, Radio Operators, Flight Attendants and private pilots on aircraft operating internationally
b) Masters, First Officers, Deck & Navigation Officers, Chief Engineers & Engineering Officers, Stewards and Seamen on merchant vessels operating internationally
c) Drivers, Firemen, Guards, and Brakemen on trains operating internationally, and Signalmen & Station Staff on international railway lines
d) Engineers, Mechanics, Air Traffic Controllers, Harbourmasters, Harbour Pilots, Ground Crew and other Maintenance Personnel & Officials involved in the upkeep & operation of internationally operating transport systems

4) DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that the ITSC undertake cost benefit analysis, feasibility & technological practicality studies, and other considerations before issuing regulations. Regulation will vary depending on the type, design & construction date of the aircraft, sea vessels, locomotives & carriages in question, as well the infrastructure surrounding such, and whether its use is classified as private or commercial

5) MANDATES that all aircraft, seagoing vessels, trains & railway routes operating internationally, and their relevant infrastructures, conform to ITSC requirements, subject to exemptions in article 6

6) AUTHORISES the following exemptions to article 5:
a) Transport that does not operate internationally need not comply with ITSC regulations
b) Military craft & related control systems operating in peacetime need only comply with communications directives in circumstances where a threat is posed to civilian craft. Military craft operating during in wartime or involved in military operations are exempted fully from ITSC regulations
c) Military airfields & naval dockyards operating in peacetimes, and domestic transport hubs, must also comply with communications, markings, emergency equipment requirements, and avail themselves to civilian transport in distress

7) PERMITS nations to introduce safety requirements above those of the ITSC, as long as such requirements are not in conflict with ITSC regulation, for it's own transport networks

8) PROHIBITS nations from barring WA member state commercial transports in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight,
a) Nations are permitted to introduce reasonable requirements of prior notification and authorisation, but such are not to be refused on the grounds of the nation of the transport’s origin
b) Nations may refuse entry &c., if there are necessary practical reasons for doing so, such as limited capacity or quarantine, or in times of war or economic sanctions.

Redone ready for second submission, hopefully this is clearer.

Kind of both. Planes in peacetime have to use ITSC communications, but you are free to add full ITSC requirements. If that makes sense. In fairnes, I'm tempted to re-write that part too, to ensure that it only applies where civilian aviation may be hazarded...

It makes good sense. Given this clarification, and since civilian aviation may be hazarded whenever any craft is in civilian airspace, we find ourselves entirely in agreement with the redrafted version again.

Quorum bump.

Incidentally, this is the first time I've ever done a proposal that has reached quorum without a TG campaign.

Incidentally, this is the first time I've ever done a proposal that has reached quorum without a TG campaign.

Now that's a scary thought, proposals hitting quorum without TG campaigns. Who knows what dreck might make it into the queue.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I will support Operation Petticoat: oh okay. Well done by the way.

The Federal Republic supports this worthy proposal.

Oh, and bump.

Although the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg has seen changes to its ambassador, it will continue to support this resolution. The choice of category is plausible, as million can transport goods in confidence with this resolution.

I rise today to support the International Transportion Safety Act. While we would have found it slightly more preferable had the military exemptions only pertained to craft within the current theater of operations, we feel as though this is such a minute issue and still support the measure fully.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

The Commonwealth will support this resolution without reservations.

*cough* at vote *cough*

Boats and grammatical errors: a true Cobdenian resolution! :)

Our region is strongly supporting this. I have only one question. We were considering a resolution similar to (though hopefully better than) the "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"/"SPCC Regulation Act" resolutions the old UN repealed: a resolution requiring certain features for vessels transporting petrochemicals. Do you think this resolution would make such a measure redundant? If not, is there anything we would need to bear in mind to avoid contradiction?

Your answer to the above will not affect our vote on this proposal; I simply wish to advise my legislative staff of how best to proceed.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

This doesn't cover the transport of hazardous materials, really. Another resolution would not contradict it

Subistratica supports.

Where's the mention in this barring commerical transport from carrying military or paramilitary goods or people without the acceptance of the nation therein? It also allows for narcotics which may be illegal in a nation it is landing in or sailing through the territorial waters of to be carried by these transports.

Warre;14455872']Where's the mention in this barring commerical transport from carrying military or paramilitary goods or people without the acceptance of the nation therein? It also allows for narcotics which may be illegal in a nation it is landing in or sailing through the territorial waters of to be carried by these transports.



And why should this statute, which is about safety, deal with the transport of narcotics, honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

Narcotics can very easily lead to safety problems.

But in several spots it forces militaries to allow themselves to be spied on, b) Military airfields and naval dockyards operating in peacetime must also comply with communications, markings, and fire control/emergency evacuation equipment requirements, and avail themselves to private and commercial transport in distress.

Likewise, 9) PROHIBITS nations from barring foreign WA member state companies in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers and loading/unloading freight, unless there are practical, safety, security, quarantine, capacity or legal reasons for doing so, or in times of war or economic sanctions.

There's no mention of the ITSC prohibiting either item, which is just as well, as it shouldn't, but likewise it would allow for smugglers to ship such things, so long as their ship conformed to ITSC standards.

Warre;14456049']Narcotics can very easily lead to safety problems.



You say that as though it were an abundantly apparent fact honoured Ambassador, but how exactly does the transportation of narcotics pose an actual public health problem or an accident risk significant enough for this resolution to deal with it ?


Yours,

We would point out to the honored ambassador that suspicion of drug smuggling would very likely qualify as a legal reason to bar a vessel.

Also if a nation needs us to turn the lights on to see a navy base or airfield I suggest they clean the lenses on their glasses.

I'm not sure this technically covers space travel, shipping being placed aside aircraft and rail arguably implying seagoing vessels, which rather severely limits its applicability to FT nations, but what is in there is pretty much all stuff I agree with, so I'm voting for it. Besides, I predict this message will get several responses telling me it's obvious that it applies to spacecraft and I'm a tool for suggesting anyone might interpret it otherwise. Word.

Riley Fluffer
Representative, Delegate, yadda yadda yadda

I have supported this proposal - this is exactly the kind of thing the WA should focus on, and I see no issues whatsoever wih the resolution as it stands.

The reason my nation has decided to oppose this bill is because of point #7. If my nation chooses to participate in a blockade of a nation, there is no reason we should be forced to allow them entry to our ports. Unless under humanitarian circumstances but that's a whole other question.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF WALDSEE

The Democratic Republic of Waldsee recognizes the importance of ensuring transportation safety but regrets that it must oppose this resolution on several grounds:

Waldsee is concerned that the resolution, especially Section 7, may infringe upon, and certainly does not adequately protect, the sovereignty of member nations in matters of foreign trade.
Waldsee is likewise concerned that the right of member nations to maintain state secrecy as to the existence, location, and/or active use of sensitive military areas is compromised by Section 6(c).
Waldsee furthermore has reservations regarding the potential cost and effectiveness of such a world regulatory body and expresses its opinion that cost is minimized and effectiveness is maximized when such standards bodies are privately organized and comprised of active industry members, rather than being government-led.
Finally, Waldsee feels strongly that the wording of Section 5 provides completely unacceptable protection of its rights as a sovereign nation. Waldsee reserves the right to maintain higher transportation safety standards than those set forth by any external regulatory body; to enforce those standards upon all commercial or private vessels and vehicles operating or conducting trade within the borders of the Waldsee, regardless of the nation in which they are based; and to refuse entry to any vessel or vehicle known or suspected of failing to meet Waldsee's national safety requirements (except in cases of emergency).


Signed,
Matthias Kunstmann
President, Democratic Republic of Waldsee

The Republic of Exchequer ordains its full support to the conception of the ITSC.

My region feels this resolution is Ill written we advise the author to have others check his or her work before hand. We oppose the resolution all together, as both a waste of finances, needless expanse of bureaucracy , and it won't even truly accomplish the goals it should. AGAINST (and yes we know the stand is simply a protest as no one can vote down any resolution seemingly anymore. )

we advise the author to have others check his or her work before hand.

Seeing as how the author originally posted this thread to present this resolution for review before submittal, we advise you to pay a little more attention to what's actually going on before commenting.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

My region feels this resolution is Ill written we advise the author to have others check his or her work before hand. We oppose the resolution all together, as both a waste of finances, needless expanse of bureaucracy , and it won't even truly accomplish the goals it should. AGAINST (and yes we know the stand is simply a protest as no one can vote down any resolution seemingly anymore. )


We must agree with our respected friends in the delegation of the Trilateral Federation of The Altan Steppes. This resolution was extensively drafted here with the input of many nations and as a result it is excellently written, it will be of excellent utility, and will be of lasting use and benefit to this organisation.

Since the honoured Ambassador for Wencee does not seem to have been paying all that much attention to the workings of this organisation recently it would perhaps be foolish to take their review of its voting record all that seriously, we recommend that none do.


Yours,

Actually, Wencee does have a point. While this resolution may have been considered well written and intended, it fails to take into account the the various technological differences, and in some cases disadvantages that some nations have within the World Assembly. Tai Lao duly notes that there are those nations that still rely on such things as horse and cart, while others have transports that go way beyond other nations, and that there is really no standard in actual transport forms among WA nations, so how could standards in how transports act be put in place.

Also, noting section 7, part B makes that whole section redundant in that any nation could come up with any accepted reason to for fill B to their own ends.

We will be voting against

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

it fails to take into account the the various technological differences, and in some cases disadvantages that some nations have within the World Assembly. Tai Lao duly notes that there are those nations that still rely on such things as horse and cart, while others have transports that go way beyond other nations, and that there is really no standard in actual transport forms among WA nations, so how could standards in how transports act be put in place.

Urm, nope. It doesn't standardise transport, it standardises transport safety. Regulations pertaining to MacDonald Douglas Aircraft don't apply to horses and carts, and technological differences have been accounted for.

4) DECLARES that the ITSC undertake cost benefit analysis, feasibility & technological practicality studies, and other considerations before issuing regulations. Regulation will vary depending on the type, design & construction date of the aircraft, sea vessels, locomotives & rolling stock in question, as well the infrastructure surrounding such, and whether its use is classified as private or commercial


Also, noting section 7, part B makes that whole section redundant in that any nation could come up with any accepted reason to for fill B to their own ends.

Urm...nope. Try, you know, reading it.

Nations may refuse entry &c., if there are necessary practical reasons for doing so, such as limited capacity or quarantine, or in times of war or economic sanctions.

Just because you don't like them isn't a neccessary practical reason, nor is pretty much any arbritrary reason.

Last things first, usually the reason for refusal goes hand in hand with those things that are suggested, but fails to take into account those nations which do not wish for foreign craft to enter their airspace or territorial waters. Whilst it is a given that joining the WA allows for a certain loss of national sovereignty, to me this part of the matter should be up to the nation's discretion, not the WA's. Whilst I will admit that we of Tai Lao would allow those kinds of crafts into our airspace/waters, we also respect the desires of those who do not wish for this.

Onto the first part, though, while the section you pointed out may support the technical differences, the overall tone of the proposal seems firmly directed at today's RL technology, especially section 3. At least, that is how we in Tai Lao feel.

Not knocking the intentions of the proposal, as we are all for safety, it is just that these two things, especially section 7 are sticking points. If the tone was modified overall to be broader in terms of technology, and section 7 removed, it would probably have our support. As it stands, though, it doesnt.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Since the honoured Ambassador for Wencee does not seem to have been paying all that much attention to the workings of this organisation recently it would perhaps be foolish to take their review of its voting record all that seriously, we recommend that none do.


Yours,


Marginalizing opponents has ever been a valid strategy, but insults and marginalization are unneeded, this resolution will pass despite my and my regions and several others disagreements. However, I and many in my region feel this resolution is of no real use, other then expansion of bureaucracy. And many did have section 7 disagreements. I vote as my region wish's me to, and gladly so.

farewell

Marginalizing opponents has ever been a valid strategy, but insults and marginalization are unneeded, this resolution will pass despite my and my regions and several others disagreements. However, I and many in my region feel this resolution is of no real use, other then expansion of bureaucracy. And many did have section 7 disagreements. I vote as my region wish's me to, and gladly so.

farewell


Oh for goodness sake, where have we insulted you honoured Ambassador ? Exactly where ? Preposterous accusations and childish sulking do not constitute an argument, nor do vague assertions about bureaucracy and other tomfoolery.

Be serious honoured Ambassador and give proper debate on this statute and perhaps you will feel less sensitive about your standing and more able to deal with criticsim of your position.


Yours,

If this bill is mild I would hate to see strong...

Oh for goodness sake, where have we insulted you honoured Ambassador ? Exactly where ? Preposterous accusations and childish sulking do not constitute an argument, nor do vague assertions about bureaucracy and other tomfoolery.

Be serious honoured Ambassador and give proper debate on this statute and perhaps you will feel less sensitive about your standing and more able to deal with criticsim of your position.


Yours,

Proper Debate on Section 7 ? Or my thinking this as a worthless resolution? It is no cop-out to simply state my opinions bluntly and as is- a debate on the issues that have been debated and re debated will not solve anything. I simply implied you need not put forth effort such as this "Since the honoured Ambassador for Wencee does not seem to have been paying all that much attention to the workings of this organisation recently it would perhaps be foolish to take their review of its voting record all that seriously, we recommend that none do." . (And one can certainly find that insulting)

The Resolution like every other since the current decline, (and yes when it takes 55 and dropping approvals to gain a general vote, I consider it a decline.) Will pass

So I oppose this resolution, and you can attack me for it if you wish, but you really need not even waste your time, it has already passed. Hence my saying there is no need for the attacks or attempts to tell people I have no idea whats going on when I have voted in every resolution since being elected to the post.

We should simply agree to disagree nothing more, at least that is how I see it.

It is unfortunate that certain of those supporting the current bill have reduced themselves to ad hominem attacks upon their fellow ambassadors and are simultaneously ignoring the very real and pressing concerns that have been raised by several nations opposing the bill. It would be far better to engage in intelligent discussion of the issues presented and simply ignore those who seek to sidetrack it.

So I encourage the delegates supporting this resolution to respond to the criticisms of it that have been heretofore presented with reasonable and well-formed arguments, and I call upon both sides to abstain from further rhetoric, unfounded assertions, and arguments that do not pertain directly to the resolution at hand.

Sincerely,
Klaus Peter Ernst-Macher, Delegate to the World Assembly from the Democratic Republic of Waldsee

It is unfortunate that certain of those supporting the current bill have reduced themselves to ad hominem attacks upon their fellow ambassadors and are simultaneously ignoring the very real and pressing concerns that have been raised by several nations opposing the bill. It would be far better to engage in intelligent discussion of the issues presented and simply ignore those who seek to sidetrack it.

So I encourage the delegates supporting this resolution to respond to the criticisms of it that have been heretofore presented with reasonable and well-formed arguments, and I call upon both sides to abstain from further rhetoric, unfounded assertions, and arguments that do not pertain directly to the resolution at hand.

Sincerely,
Klaus Peter Ernst-Macher, Delegate to the World Assembly from the Democratic Republic of Waldsee




Ad hominem is a grossly over used term around here, honoured Ambassador, and to describe the possible credibility of another Ambassador is not
ad hominem.

The honoured Ambassador for Wencee made the wildly inaccurate claim that the resolution at vote had somehow not undergone scrutiny and redrafting here and benefited by the contribution of many experienced delegations and that it is somehow gravely flawed and badly written as a result.

In fact none of this was true, and had the honoured Ambassador for Wencee bothered to turn up, except at times when they are required to vote, to this organisation they would have known this. Perhaps if they had been around a little bit more they might even have been able to help rectify whatever they find to grievous about this resolution. However the honoured Ambassador for Wencee does not care to do anything other than turn up to vote, and criticise the hard work of other delegations, and make wildly inaccurate generalisations and accusations which are demonstrably untrue, and therefore it would seem only reasonable to point out that deficit of credibility with which they speak.


Yours,

It is unfortunate that certain of those supporting the current bill have reduced themselves to ad hominem attacks upon their fellow ambassadors and are simultaneously ignoring the very real and pressing concerns that have been raised by several nations opposing the bill. It would be far better to engage in intelligent discussion of the issues presented and simply ignore those who seek to sidetrack it.

So I encourage the delegates supporting this resolution to respond to the criticisms of it that have been heretofore presented with reasonable and well-formed arguments, and I call upon both sides to abstain from further rhetoric, unfounded assertions, and arguments that do not pertain directly to the resolution at hand.

Sincerely,
Klaus Peter Ernst-Macher, Delegate to the World Assembly from the Democratic Republic of Waldsee

No, you see attacking is the easier of the two. And then after accusing me of making 'wild generalizations', proceeds to make generalizations about me. Which is to commit a fair bit of hypocrisy. That is the way things are more oft then naught.

As for my participation.. Would the author have voided all of section 7 .. for my PERSONAL support you would have had to, and you know as well as I it wouldn't have occurred. So I did not go about aimlessly bantering. I read it before it even was put forth for approval.. and I did not approve it. I pay a bit more attention then you would like to give credit to. But I suppose attention to some is simply massive amounts of posts.

In either case I am rather done with this issue.

No, you see attacking is the easier of the two. And then after accusing me of making generalizations, to proceed to make generalizations about me. Which is to say commit hypocrisy. That is the way things are more oft then naught.

As for my participation.. Would have voided all of section 7 .. for my PERSONAL support you would have had to, and you wouldn't I read it before it even was put forth for approval.. and I did not approve it. I pay a bit more attention then you would like to give credit to. But I suppose attention to some is simply massive amounts of posts.

In either case I am rather done with this issue.


When was the last time the honoured Ambassador for Wencee, constructively, involved themself in a drafting debate ?


Perhaps they might be able to arrest the "decline" they imagine is occuring if they did actually contribute to the development of legislation. We are sorry if we do not see merely reading the odd resolution submitted for approval and deciding whether or not to approve it as a substantial contribution to legislative rectitude.

It is easy to criticise and degrade, it is much harder to offer solutions and work cooperatively to create better outcomes. Perhaps some of us are more interested in the latter and some, like the honoured Ambassador for Wencee, are more interested in the former.


Yours,

Ad hominem is a grossly over used term around here, honoured Ambassador, and to describe the possible credibility of another Ambassador is not ad hominem.

The honoured Ambassador for Wencee made the wildly inaccurate claim that the resolution at vote had somehow not undergone scrutiny and redrafting here and benefited by the contribution of many experienced delegations and that it is somehow gravely flawed and badly written as a result.

In fact none of this was true, and had the honoured Ambassador for Wencee bothered to turn up, except at times when they are required to vote, to this organisation they would have known this. Perhaps if they had been around a little bit more they might even have been able to help rectify whatever they find to grievous about this resolution. However the honoured Ambassador for Wencee does not care to do anything other than turn up to vote, and criticise the hard work of other delegations, and make wildly inaccurate generalisations and accusations which are demonstrably untrue, and therefore it would seem only reasonable to point out that deficit of credibility with which they speak.

Perhaps the honored ambassador from Urgench would like to review the definition of ad hominem argument: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim" ("Ad hominem", Wikipedia). Clearly, to attack the character or credibility of an opponent while providing no evidence to the contrary of his arguments fits exactly within this definition. Simply stating that a claim is "wildly inaccurate" or "demonstrably untrue" does not constitute evidence against it: If it is indeed demonstrable, provide the demonstration; if evident, provide the evidence!

While the long-standing discussion of this resolution prior to its submission demonstrates that it did indeed undergo scrutiny and redrafting, rendering that claim of the delegate from Wencee unfounded, I must agree with that same honored ambassador in his assessment of the resolution at hand as "ill-written" in certain places, and I even more strongly feel that the resolution is "gravely flawed", in the ways I have explained earlier (although, to be accurate, this latter term was fabricated by the delegate from Urgench, never having been used by the Wencee delegate previously).

Having joined the WA only very recently, I regret that I was unable to provide input on this resolution during its drafting. You may be assured that I am already providing and will continue to provide input on future resolutions.

Perhaps the honored ambassador from Urgench would like to review the definition of ad hominem argument: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim" ("Ad hominem", Wikipedia). Clearly, to attack the character or credibility of an opponent while providing no evidence to the contrary of his arguments fits exactly within this definition. Simply stating that a claim is "wildly inaccurate" or "demonstrably untrue" does not constitute evidence against it: If it is indeed demonstrable, provide the demonstration; if evident, provide the evidence!

While the long-standing discussion of this resolution prior to its submission demonstrates that it did indeed undergo scrutiny and redrafting, rendering that claim of the delegate from Wencee unfounded, I must agree with that same honored ambassador in his assessment of the resolution at hand as "ill-written" in certain places, and I even more strongly feel that the resolution is "gravely flawed", in the ways I have explained earlier (although, to be accurate, this latter term was fabricated by the delegate from Urgench, never having been used by the Wencee delegate previously).

Having joined the WA only very recently, I regret that I was unable to provide input on this resolution during its drafting. You may be assured that I am already providing and will continue to provide input on future resolutions.



We have neither need for a "review" of the term of ad hominem or a lecture on how to conduct ourselves from the honoured Ambassador for Waldsee and would appreciate it if they did not furnish us with either.



Yours,

It is unfortunate that certain of those supporting the current bill have reduced themselves to ad hominem attacks upon their fellow ambassadors and are simultaneously ignoring the very real and pressing concerns that have been raised by several nations opposing the bill. It would be far better to engage in intelligent discussion of the issues presented and simply ignore those who seek to sidetrack it.
We would direct the honoured ambassador's attention to the drafting stages of this discussion (OOC: i.e. the earlier pages of this thread), wherein it may be noted that the vague and ill-defined concerns raised by the Ambassador of Wencee, specifically that the Cobdenian delegation failed to get others to "check their work", are quite simply incorrect. Given that Sir Cyril has addressed the only other substantive concerns raised that we have observed, will our response suffice?

We do quite concur that a discussion of why none of the regular members of this assembly are the slightest bit surprised at the Wenceean pronouncements is better done over a pint of fine ale, and we would be happy were the honoured ambassador choose to join us for a drink afterward the debate has concluded.

We do quite concur that a discussion of why none of the regular members of this assembly are the slightest bit surprised at the Wenceean pronouncements is better done over a pint of fine ale, and we would be happy were the honoured ambassador choose to join us for a drink afterward the debate has concluded.

I am sure you would, And by regular members who do you refer to....well never mind I actually don't really desire enough to know. On the barely 6 page 'debate' if you even wish to speak of it as such. But feel free to insult me all you wish truly, You have enough along with who ever you would call your own 'regulars' power of the ego to continue to even deny that the WA is in a massive decline, but then again I suppose your massive ego is enough replace the approval amounts due to vanishing delegates and the extreme lack of overall votes.

Also nor is the concern of section 7 as you put ill-defined, simply because you disagree.

Have a great evening

I am sure you would, And by regular members who do you refer to....well never mind I actually don't really desire enough to know. On the barely 6 page 'debate' if you even wish to speak of it as such. But feel free to insult me all you wish truly, You have enough along with who ever you would call your own 'regulars' power of the ego to continue to even deny that the WA is in a massive decline, but then again I suppose your massive ego is enough replace the approval amounts due to vanishing delegates and the extreme lack of overall votes.

Also nor is the concern of section 7 as you put ill-defined, simply because you disagree.

Have a great evening6 pages isnt much of a debate now, is it. If there was really a debate, I doubt section 7 would have even made it. (OOC: If I had have been able to get on during that period, I would have voiced my opposition then)

As far as the concern over section 7 being ill-defined, lets clarify it: A nation should be able to decide what craft enters their territory, not the WA. This proposal, unfortunately soon to be resolution, violates that. We are just hoping that someone will come up with a successful repeal, and a more adequate replacement can be drafted. We here in Tai Lao are all for things that improve safety, but section 7 coupled with the narrowness of the scope of the resolution, not having a broad coverage of transportation, are seen as major faults within this proposal

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I am sure you would, And by regular members who do you refer to....well never mind I actually don't really desire enough to know. On the barely 6 page 'debate' if you even wish to speak of it as such. But feel free to insult me all you wish truly, You have enough along with who ever you would call your own 'regulars' power of the ego to continue to even deny that the WA is in a massive decline, but then again I suppose your massive ego is enough replace the approval amounts due to vanishing delegates and the extreme lack of overall votes.

Also nor is the concern of section 7 as you put ill-defined, simply because you disagree.

Have a great evening

6 pages isnt much of a debate now, is it. If there was really a debate, I doubt section 7 would have even made it. (OOC: If I had have been able to get on during that period, I would have voiced my opposition then)

As far as the concern over section 7 being ill-defined, lets clarify it: A nation should be able to decide what craft enters their territory, not the WA. This proposal, unfortunately soon to be resolution, violates that. We are just hoping that someone will come up with a successful repeal, and a more adequate replacement can be drafted. We here in Tai Lao are all for things that improve safety, but section 7 coupled with the narrowness of the scope of the resolution, not having a broad coverage of transportation, are seen as major faults within this proposal

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I'm going to address both of you since you're both making the same point, that point being that there wasn't enough debating done on this during the drafting phase. I'd first like to point out that the first draft of this proposal was submitted on November 28, 2008 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14232493&postcount=1), and it didn't obtain quorum until January 23, 2009 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14433594&postcount=41). That means, that this proposal was in the drafting stage for almost two months. You had almost two months to come here and suggest changes, but you didn't. I'm reminded of an old Flibbleite saying, "You can lead a chocobo to water, but you can't make him drink." You had the opportunity to get Section 7 tightened up before it hit quorum, but you didn't so you both blew it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Holy Empire of Honeyable regrets not being here during the drafting of this proposal and recognises this as a self-inflicted problem due to a (recently overcome) partiality toward isolationism and self-absorption.

We have voted against for reasons already stated by other WA member nations (and which do not bear repeating lest they stir up previously aired grievances). However, should the resolution pass vote (as seems to be the case at this current time) we may take comfort in the fact that those who wish to exploit to their advantage any perceived weaknesses in article 7 may quite simply, in turn, be equally exploited.

I'm going to address both of you since you're both making the same point, that point being that there wasn't enough debating done on this during the drafting phase. I'd first like to point out that the first draft of this proposal was submitted on November 28, 2008 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14232493&postcount=1), and it didn't obtain quorum until January 23, 2009 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14433594&postcount=41). That means, that this proposal was in the drafting stage for almost two months. You had almost two months to come here and suggest changes, but you didn't. I'm reminded of an old Flibbleite saying, "You can lead a chocobo to water, but you can't make him drink." You had the opportunity to get Section 7 tightened up before it hit quorum, but you didn't so you both blew it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

(OOC: I have only recently returned to NS (my old nation being The Lynx Alliance) and have not really had the chance to get on that often since returning and hadn't noticed this one until it was actually brought to vote.)

Why should we permit other WA nations to fly in our airspace?

Can I point out two, rather pertinant things:

1) There's a character limit. This naturally limits the scope of what one can achieve in a resolution - I would have liked to have waffled on about Zeppelins, space rockets and pogo sticks, but I couldn't. Trains, aircraft and boats is all I could hope to do

2) Section seven would have stayed no matter how vociferously it was opposed. It's my resolution, dammit, and I like free trade. Besides, I've not heard any reasons why a mandated open skies (and related cheaper air fares, greater choice, and all the other benefits of free trade) is a bad thing, just random waffling about national sovereignty. Furthermore, it's needed if it is not to be illegal: section seven makes it a free trade resolution. Without it, it has no clear category.

In conclusion, why not relax and get away this summer? Cobdenian Trans-Antarctic Zeppelin has a special two for one offer on voyages to Paradise City.

Trans-Antarctic Zepplin - getting you wear you want to go since 1927 (TM)

I suspect it has something to do with the definition of the word "commercial" in that its meaning does not always relate to commerce itself. It is open to what is apparently perceived as nefarious interpretation, if the reaction to article 7 is any gauge. If they wished to, people should have asked for clarification during the drafting stage.

As it is, it stands, and Paradise City sounds like a wonderful getaway for the warmer months.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench would like to congratulate the honoured and esteemed delegation of Cobdenia on the success of what is a well written and extremely timely resolution.


Yours sincerely,

Can I point out two, rather pertinant things:

1) There's a character limit. This naturally limits the scope of what one can achieve in a resolution - I would have liked to have waffled on about Zeppelins, space rockets and pogo sticks, but I couldn't. Trains, aircraft and boats is all I could hope to do

This is where you take a broad based approach and put it like 'Operators of craft' 'Crew of craft' and 'Maintenance workers' rather than specifics. This not only covers the bases but is within the character limit.

2) Section seven would have stayed no matter how vociferously it was opposed. It's my resolution, dammit, and I like free trade. Besides, I've not heard any reasons why a mandated open skies (and related cheaper air fares, greater choice, and all the other benefits of free trade) is a bad thing, just random waffling about national sovereignty. Furthermore, it's needed if it is not to be illegal: section seven makes it a free trade resolution. Without it, it has no clear category.

First I will clear the the category. Social Justice would have been a better category as most of the resolutions pertaining to Health and Saftey (of which this one is really about, not really trade) rather than Free Trade. This could allow for the removal of section 7. As for the random waffling about national sovereignty, the WA jurisdiction is the realm of international affairs. To me, this resolution's removal of a nation's right to refuse entry of craft into their airspace or territorial waters oversteps that. We here in Tai Lao also support free trade, but this is a health and safety issue, so we see this as being a Trojan horse.

If a successful repeal happens, which we hope does, we would support a replacement with the proper corrections (broadening of scope, removal of section 7), but at the moment we see it as another in a long line of passed resolutions that need to be repealed.

We apologise to the representative from Cobdenia, and regret that we were unable to be here during the drafting stages to help out, but this is how we view this resolution and begrudgedly have to comply with it. We are all for improvements in safety of internationally travelling crafts, but in some areas this resolution isnt broad enough, and in others it goes too far.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

The resolution International Transport Safety was passed 2,839 votes to 1,070, and implemented in all WA member nations.

First I will clear the the category. Social Justice would have been a better category as most of the resolutions pertaining to Health and Saftey (of which this one is really about, not really trade) rather than Free Trade.
How in the world could this have been Social Justice even with the removal of Article 7?

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). <snip>
I don't see how this could have reduced income inequality or increased spending on welfare and healthcare. Are you seeing something in Articles 1 through 6 that I'm not?

As for the random waffling about national sovereignty, the WA jurisdiction is the realm of international affairs.
The WA's jurisdiction is whatever the WA says it is. Please familiarize yourself with the rules and the history of this organization as well as its predecessor the NSUN.

We congratulate the Cobdenian delegation on the passage of this legislation.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We would direct the honoured ambassador's attention to the drafting stages of this discussion (OOC: i.e. the earlier pages of this thread), wherein it may be noted that the vague and ill-defined concerns raised by the Ambassador of Wencee, specifically that the Cobdenian delegation failed to get others to "check their work", are quite simply incorrect. Given that Sir Cyril has addressed the only other substantive concerns raised that we have observed, will our response suffice?

We would call to the honored delegates attention that we specifically made note of the drafting discussion in a later statement and refuted that portion of the statement from Wencee.

We must assume that the delegate from Gobbannium refers to the delegate from Cobdenia when he speaks of "Sir Cyril" (OOC: I deduced from the results of a forum search that Sir Cyril is the ambassador from Cobdenia, since he didn't happen to sign any of his posts in this thread.). The Cobdenian delegation did indeed give cursory rebuttals to a few of the issues raised by those opposing the resolution; unfortunately, they were entirely unsubstantive, consisting mainly of sarcastically saying to read the resolution again. The responses given by the Cobdenian delegation were entirely unsatisfactory and did not even address many of the concerns raised by us and others.

In other words, no, your response is entirely insufficient. Rest assured, Waldsee will be drafting a repeal of this heinous resolution, if we are not preceded by one of the other opposed nations.

Klaus Peter Ernst-Macher, Delegate to the World Assembly from the Democratic Republic of Waldsee

2) Section seven would have stayed no matter how vociferously it was opposed. It's my resolution, dammit, and I like free trade. Besides, I've not heard any reasons why a mandated open skies (and related cheaper air fares, greater choice, and all the other benefits of free trade) is a bad thing, just random waffling about national sovereignty. Furthermore, it's needed if it is not to be illegal: section seven makes it a free trade resolution. Without it, it has no clear category.

OOC: Cobdenia does make a good point here. Perhaps a new category of resolution is needed, "Public Safety". However, that is a matter of game mechanics, so there's not much we can do about it.

Oh we are rather disappointed that the honoured Ambassador for Waldsee had no further words of chastisement for us, and so parsimoniously reserved his ire for the honoured and esteemed Ambassador's of Gobbanium and Cobdenia.

Yours sincerely,

We would call to the honored delegates attention that we specifically made note of the drafting discussion in a later statement and refuted that portion of the statement from Wencee.
Then we are at something of a loss, we fear.

We must assume that the delegate from Gobbannium refers to the delegate from Cobdenia when he speaks of "Sir Cyril" (OOC: I deduced from the results of a forum search that Sir Cyril is the ambassador from Cobdenia, since he didn't happen to sign any of his posts in this thread.).
(OOC: actually he did; I checked, because I have a lousy memory for names and I had a vague fear that "Pointy" had a hand in this. The view of the thread you get from the "Reply" page doesn't include signatures, sadly.)

The Cobdenian delegation did indeed give cursory rebuttals to a few of the issues raised by those opposing the resolution; unfortunately, they were entirely unsubstantive, consisting mainly of sarcastically saying to read the resolution again.
Correctly, we must aver. The sole substantive set of questions we noted did appear to be based on attempts to read into the resolution things that simply weren't there.

In other words, no, your response is entirely insufficient. Rest assured, Waldsee will be drafting a repeal of this heinous resolution, if we are not preceded by one of the other opposed nations.
We wish the honoured ambassador luck; we fear that he will need it given the near 3:1 ratio of victory. While we confess to only lukewarm support for this resolution, we should offer warning that we have long history of refusing to support repeals that we believe make incorrect statements whether or not we concur with their objective.

How in the world could this have been Social Justice even with the removal of Article 7?


I don't see how this could have reduced income inequality or increased spending on welfare and healthcare. Are you seeing something in Articles 1 through 6 that I'm not?


I was basing it on Resolution #31 World Health Authority, since I see this as an health and safety issue, not a trade one, but perhaps the category should have been Human Rights so as to fall into line with Resolution #7 Workplace Safety Standards Act. It is a problem that there is no definable category that we can put it in, but we rule out the trade category simply because the term 'transport' should not be limited to goods, but include passenger transport too. Perhaps this is what we are reading that you are not

The WA's jurisdiction is whatever the WA says it is. Please familiarize yourself with the rules and the history of this organization as well as its predecessor the NSUN.I am familiar with the NSUN (OOC: my other nation The Lynx Alliance was a member of it) and back when it was operational we were in the National Sovereignty camp. While there are issues that do need to be looked at on an international scale, there are some that we believe should be decided on by individual countries, and what manner of transport that enters their space is one of these. If section 7 were altered to perhaps say 'In an emergency' then we would probably allow it, but as it stands we are against it.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

As an informed delegation I am pleased to see a new free trade resolution that can improve standards of any kinds of travel. We respect your troubles with character counts that's not a problem. By the way my vote was for Operation Petticoat the poll was just as good as the Kenny-Poll thing.