NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Mods!
I wish to put this to the members for voting on but i see it as a replacement for resolutions 70 "banning Whaling" and 106 "protection of Dolphins".
Woulld i strictly have to repeal 106 and 70 first or can i get the new proposal ratified as a resolution first and then repeal?

the draft.....
Originally Posted by Proposed Conservation of Wildlife Bill
Category: environmental.
Business effected: all Business
Proposed By: The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable Libertarians.

Members of the General Assembly of these United Nations. In these modern times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached by these populations. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals inching closer to the brink of extinction on land, in our sky and in our oceans. It is with these concerns in mind we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, (UNCoESB)
On Ratification By the General Assembly, The UN shall set up an executive Body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species recieve the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords.

Article 1: Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.

Article 2: Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.

Article 3: Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.

Article 4: Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.

Article 5: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.

Article 6: Full escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.

I think that while it may be preferable to repeal "Banning Whaling" first, it isn't vital to do so. The new resolution and #70 "Banning Whaling" do not conflict with each other. #70 bans a specific practice, ie:the hunting and taking of whales for commercial and "scientific" purposes. I don't see a conflict.

Well, let's take a quick look.

Description: Recognising that:

* Overfishing is a serious problem which is depleting the marine environment by upsetting its natural ecosystem.

* Whales are a highly-developed mammal with advanced social and communications systems.

* Whales already face many threats including entanglement in fishing nets, noise disturbance and pollution.

* Whaling has already driven the world's whale population to the brink of extinction before the present moratorium was put in place.

* The current motorised harpoon method of killing whales is barbarous, causing a slow and agonising death to the creature involved.

* There is little that can now be learned from 'scientific whaling'. Scientific enquiry can take place without the need for slaughtering its subjects.

* A voluntary moratorium on whaling is not working. Pro-whaling nations will simply subvert it for their own ends by vote-buying or by abusing so-called 'scientific whaling'. Proposing that:

* Unlicenced scientific and all commercial whaling are outlawed in international law. Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.

* A commission is set up by the United Nations to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions. If it sees a genuine need for scientific whaling, then it is empowered to licence limited scientific whaling.

* Indigenous peoples who engage in 'aboriginal whaling' using traditional non-industrial methods and taking only a small number of whales each year, to be exempt from the ban. A register of such peoples to be set up by the UN.Description : The United Nations,

RECONGNIZING that dolphins are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly mammals, that symbolize to millions around the world the spirit of freedom, happiness and togetherness,

ALARMED by the killing of dolphins around the world, whether intentional of accidental,

OBSERVING that the prevention of dolphin killings will not in any way hurt any of the states' economies,

RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted dolphins,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of dolphins around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of dolphins in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of dolphins in the fishing business.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent dolphin abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no dolphin shall ever be preferred over human lives.

Okay, I'm assuming that you're primarily worried about running afoul of the Duplication and/or the House of Cards provisions. House of Cards is right out, as you aren't tying this to any previous Resolution.

I can understand your concern about duplication. However, Banning Whaling and Dolphin Protection are both rather toothless bits of law, and are also exceptionally specific, protecting only two groups of animals. Your bill on the other hand extends a much wider net (no pun intended) and deals with all endangered species.

This allows your Proposal to also avoid the problems that Banning Whaling ran into, specifically the question of RL to NS transferrance of any animals status as endangered. What animals are endangered is largely up to the individual nation.

While your Proposal is indeed redundant, when it comes to whales and dolphins, it is broad enough that it would be impossible to claim that it should be disqualified because of redundancy. Thus, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to have this Proposal submitted without first Repealing the other two Resolutions.

It should be noted, however, that should this Proposal become law, further Proposals geared towards specific animals would be redundant.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Thank you Hack for your prompt reply, I will now submit the Proposal for approval by the Delegates and on ratifacation (presuming its approved and the general assembly members go for it) I will on a matter of Principal try to have resolution 70 and 106 repealed on the grounds that they are no longer required. Super!