[GA—IN QUEUE] Repeal: "Oil Spill Recovery"

Jinkies

Jinkies

Minister
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Vapid
Discord
solringen
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Oil Spill Recovery"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA#731
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly (WA),

Applauding the intent of the target resolution, GA731, "Oil Spill Recovery" in assisting the recovery from oil spills, on top of two existing resolutions, GA95 and GA658;

Perplexed that the target introduces a complex mechanism in its process of recovering damages from oil spills, but contains a glaring loophole, namely that:

  • Firstly, Clause (3)(a) governs the behavior of offshore drill operators in an oil spill, but it imposes full liability on the operator of the effects of the oil spill after the spill has taken place, not before;
  • Secondly, Clause (3)(a) also states that "if the [o]perator is unable to cover the full finances required without substantial financial burden", the relevant WA state "may provide financial support", and "in extreme cases", WA committees "may finance the recovery following the cleanup, with... the offshore drill operator pay(ing) the financed funds back to the (WA)";

Dismayed that some offshore drill operators may be limited liability setups (with barely any capital), and this mechanism for recovering damages perversely encourages operators to simply declare bankruptcy and walk away if a spill happens, or have unscrupulous corporate lawyers hide valuable assets immediately after an oil spill, leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs with no prospects for recovery from a bankrupt operator;

Flummoxed that, in addition, that the management of such operators are not penalised even if they were found to be in gross negligence;

Frustrated that the other punitive measures imposed on WA states by this resolution (but not non-WA states) result in a bifurcation of the market, to the detriment of WA states;

Reiterating that the WA considers oil spills an important international issue given the potential catastrophic impact on shared maritime ecosystems, but that the target resolution fails to further the said purpose beyond existing resolutions, particularly GA95, and perversely introduces a loophole for polluters to escape from financial repercussions;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, "Oil Spill Recovery".
Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
ForAgainstAbstainPresent
1601
 
Last edited:
[Non-WA]

Against. These aren't really loopholes, just unfortunate financial facts of life? Like, yes, for some disasters, you can't get blood from a stone. It's the WA's responsibility to fund that in that rare case. The alternative would likely be member nation governments funding it or the oil not being cleaned up.
 
Last edited:
Present

Agreed as above that characterising this as a loophole is missing the point, not certain of the intended alternative
 
Jinkies:
[Non-WA]

Against. These aren't really loopholes, just unfortunate financial facts of life? Like, yes, for some disasters, you can't get blood from a stone. It's the WA's responsibility to fund that in that rare case. The alternative would likely be member nation governments funding it or the oil not being cleaned up.
Click to expand...

"Using that loophole as a financial fact" is actually very close IRL (since I have colleagues who do this for a living, both suing insurers and suing owners).

Edit: suing owners of boats that leak oil. It's quite common for ships to be registered in jurisdictions where suing for damages is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Against, although I could see the "loophole" being closed by requiring the entities doing the drilling to obtain a penal bond before they start to cover the costs (or a portion thereof) of the spill in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top