NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is my first draft. Any subsequent drafts will have links posted below this.

Second Draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14489035&postcount=10)
___________________________________________________________________
Description: WA Resolution #34: International Transport Safety (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: ACKNOWLEDGING that International Transport Safety is a concern,

REALISING that the resolution fails to acknowledge adequately varying differences in technology, therefore failing to cover a vast amount of transports,

ALSO REALISING that the opening of facilities of all WA nations to compliant craft is not necessary to ensure safety,

ACKNOWLEDGING that such openness can cause a security risk for nations,

The World Assembly hereby repeals the 'International Transport Safety' Resolution.
_________________________________________________________________

I guess an explanation is in order for each section:

The first objection is based on the narrow coverage of the resolution. Unfortunately we arrived too late to really partake in the debate, and would have raised it then, but if the wording was broader, using terms like 'Operators of Transports', 'Maintainers of Transports', 'Owners of Transports' and the like, it would make it broader.

The second objection, we feel the openness that it makes our facilities is not needed for safety, and takes away from nation the decision of who enters their country. Which also leads us to the third objection, where this poses a security risk for nations. We viewed the passing of this section as a proverbial Tojan Horse, and it could turn into a quite literal one. Under the provisions of section 7 it could turn frosty relations between nations into hostile ones as one sends troops secretly into the others concealed in these transports, or do the same thing with terrorists.

Whilst we commend the author, Cobdinia, and would like to see a re-write, we do feel the current one needs to be repealed as it doesnt go far enough in some parts, and too far in others.

We would like to see the input of others in this drafting process

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Cobdinia
Who is this "Cobdinia" you speak of?

Also, the Aundotutunagirian People oppose this ludicrous repeal attempt.

We apologise to the representative from Cobdenia for our misspelling of their illustrious country's name.

We would be interested to hear why you oppose this repeal

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

REALISING that the resolution fails to acknowledge adequately varying differences in technology, therefore failing to cover a vast amount of transports,

Reasonable nation theory; plus section 4:
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

Plus, I wonder what these "vast amounts" of transport could be? Do they run on rails, in the sky, or in the air? If they do, they're covered. The only thing it doesn't cover is road safety, because it's impossible to do.

ALSO REALISING that the opening of facilities of all WA nations to compliant craft is not necessary to ensure safety,

No, but it does allow people in a nation to choose Transantarctic Zeppelin, which has an exemplary safety record and safety policies far higher than those required by the ITSC, over Aundotutunagirian Airlines, whose aircraft only scraped passed and still have to alarming tendency to fall out of the sky. Airlines and other transport firms compete on safety amongst many other things, this promotes safety over and above that required by the ITSC

ACKNOWLEDGING that such openness can cause a security risk for nations,

Urm...why? If the aircraft is a security risk (although I can't physically see how it can be) it could be considered a "necessary practical reasons" for prohibiting entry under section 7.b).

We would be interested to hear why you oppose this repeal
Certainly, although your erroneous arguments have already been pointed out by the Cobdenian delegation.

WAAA! It doesn't cover every conceivable mode of transport including spacedy things!
It covers shipping, aviation, and railways. No, it doesn't cover road transport but international trucking and busing could be covered under a future resolution if someone thinks they really need to be. As for spacecraft, they would be covered under this if they enter the atmosphere and operate as an aircraft.

WAAA! It forces us to open our borders to foreign planes and ships and trains!
It is a free trade resolution, of course it does. You can still require that they carry transponders. You can still restrict them to certain air corridors and shipping lanes. You can still subject them to inspections. If the foreign craft are a legitimate security risk then bar their entry. That is what Aundotutunagir intends to do.


Aundotutunagirian Airlines, whose aircraft only scraped passed and still have to alarming tendency to fall out of the sky.
Aundotutunagirian Airlines (Hávafılōşunū Aundotutunagir) has an exemplary safety record considering the adverse weather conditions its equipment is often forced to operate in. We feel that the safety record is offset by the fact that our aircraft have never experienced a successful hijacking attempt and that they are faster than zeppelins.

Nistraph seconds the motion as resolution 34 does not regulate trade by Conestoga wagon or rickshaw.

We actually stated our arguments below the draft.

Reasonable nation theory; plus section 4:

Plus, I wonder what these "vast amounts" of transport could be? Do they run on rails, in the sky, or in the air? If they do, they're covered. The only thing it doesn't cover is road safety, because it's impossible to do.
We have stated before, one small section does not compensate for the rest of the resolution. The tone of the rest of the resolution covers what could be deemed modern tech, not to mention by your own statement here it doesnt cover inter-planetary travel. We are just arguing for a broader definition, that is all.

No, but it does allow people in a nation to choose Transantarctic Zeppelin, which has an exemplary safety record and safety policies far higher than those required by the ITSC, over Aundotutunagirian Airlines, whose aircraft only scraped passed and still have to alarming tendency to fall out of the sky. Airlines and other transport firms compete on safety amongst many other things, this promotes safety over and above that required by the ITSCBut still forces a nation to allow both in, even if their safety standards go beyond this charter which the Aundotutunagirian Airlines transport fails. We are fine letting compliant vesseles through in the case of an emergency, but not with giving up a portion of our control over who enters our territory. Also this could adversely affect some alliances between WA and non-WA nations whereby the non-WA nation(s) have grievances with another WA nation which hasnt escalated to warfare. the WA nation in the alliance may lose trade by having to let any WA ITS-passed vessel into their territory, including those their ally has problems with.

Urm...why? If the aircraft is a security risk (although I can't physically see how it can be) it could be considered a "necessary practical reasons" for prohibiting entry under section 7.b).

Not the transports themselves, but what they contain. From our initial post:
Which also leads us to the third objection, where this poses a security risk for nations. We viewed the passing of this section as a proverbial Tojan Horse, and it could turn into a quite literal one. Under the provisions of section 7 it could turn frosty relations between nations into hostile ones as one sends troops secretly into the others concealed in these transports, or do the same thing with terrorists.
To simplify, foreign military or terrorist could either pose as crew or cargo in the intent to sneak into the country. 7.b) gets thrown out the window here because as you have stated, just because we dont like them is not reason to bar them through 7.b), and as such they will have free entry and it wont be known until too late. That isnt counting the possibility of them exiting the transport before it docks or lands, but after they have entered the territory


We are not against international transport safety, just concerned some areas dont go far enough, and others are unnecessary to safety and impact on national security.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

We are opposed to this repeal Honorable Ambassador. We feel that the legislation in place effectively does its job and makes trade more accesible and on a level playing field. Also I didnt realize that the Millenium Falcon was supposed to be recognized by this.

We are opposed to this repeal Honorable Ambassador. We feel that the legislation in place effectively does its job and makes trade more accesible and on a level playing field. Also I didnt realize that the Millenium Falcon was supposed to be recognized by this.
Is a 'Millennium Falcon' any less likely than a 'Studly Penguin'? ;)

Description: WA Resolution #34: International Transport Safety (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: ACKNOWLEDGING that International Transport Safety is a concern,

REALISING that the resolution fails to acknowledge adequately varying differences in technology, therefore only covering a narrow range of transports,

ALSO REALISING that the opening of facilities of all WA nations to compliant transports is not necessary to ensure safety,

CONCERNED that this openness forces nations with higher standards in regards to international transports to lower them

ACKNOWLEDGING that such openness can cause a security risk for nations through the use of concealed forces on the transport,

The World Assembly hereby repeals the 'International Transport Safety' Resolution.
_________________________________________________________________

Rephrased parts one, expanded on (now) four and added part three denoting that some nations may have to lower standards.

If the Millennium Falcon is a transport from a WA nation, then yes. There are WA nations that use interplanetary transports, and what I am asking is not for everything to be included in detail, just a broadening of references and terms so as to cover them.

-Ariovist Lynkind, Ambassador

Is a 'Millennium Falcon' any less likely than a 'Studly Penguin'? ;)

I would say so since in the RL's Star Wars they didnt buzz around in a Studly Penguin or an Armed Bear ;)

When I made this nation it was the best I could come up with at the time :)

We are opposed to this repeal Honorable Ambassador. We feel that the legislation in place effectively does its job and makes trade more accesible and on a level playing field. Also I didnt realize that the Millenium Falcon was supposed to be recognized by this.

Is a 'Millennium Falcon' any less likely than a 'Studly Penguin'? ;)


Gentlemen, if you want to talk about Star wars, please use General. Lets try to keep the debate on target.:p

The Palentine opposes this repeal. It seems that the arguements for the repeal is equivlent to 100 pounds of wet manure in a 50 pound sack. The current resolution does a fine job and has no need to be replaced.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I am not ready to support this repeal yet because it appears to be flexible enough to be interpreted appropriately. However I will keep the tabs on this one in case a better argument is made.

Yours,

I am not ready to support this repeal yet because it appears to be flexible enough to be interpreted appropriately. However I will keep the tabs on this one in case a better argument is made.

Yours,

That is why I am only in the drafting stages, to get ideas for the repeal, and possibly stimulate a redraft. We do support safety in regards to transports that travel internationally, just feel the subject matter could be broadened (they give a narrow range when it comes to specifics, rather than broad terms), and feel that section 7 oversteps the line and can be a real security risk.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador