At Vote:Repeal "The Law of the Sea" [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
New UN Resolution! Voting ends Friday, so get your votes in by Thursday. :)

Repeal "The Law of the Sea"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #74


Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: UN Resolution #74: The Law of the Sea (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

OBSERVING that non-UN members outnumber UN members 3 to 1,

ASSERTING that the attempts of "The Law of the Sea" to claim UN jurisdiction over international waters are misguided, impractical, and illegal,

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by "The Law of the Sea" are far too small without allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,

BELIEVING that the allotment of fishing quotas is inefficiently administered by "The Law of the Sea", but now falls under the jurisdiction of the UNCoESB,

APPALLED at the extensive bureaucracy created by "The Law of the Sea", which would be largely rendered ineffectual by the presence of non-UN navies, and the lack of legislation governing relations between these and UN navies,

CONCERNED by the conflict between the obligations of ships under "The Law of the Sea", and of declared neutral ships,

DEPLORING the designation of definition of piracy to bilateral definition, which would in fact allow ships at will to disrupt trade, in effect fuelling, rather than preventing, international piracy,

NOT BELIEVING 'reasonable grounds' is sufficiently defined to prevent arbitrary, aggressive boarding of ships, and appalled at the breach of confidentiality created by the UN database of searches,

DISREGARDING the claim that the UN can designate no-fishing areas, given the presence of non-UN fishing boats,

DISBELIEVING the sweeping nature of "The Law of the Sea", in attempting to connect a number of entirely separate concerns, such as international security and ecology, to be a productive approach to internationally binding legislation,

FULLY CONDEMNING "The Law of the Sea" for attempting to assert UN jurisdiction over international territory:

1. REPEALS "The Law of the Sea";

2. IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Original Resolution

I remember voting for this resolution, and I think it's a pretty good one. The UN is not claiming jurisdiction over the international waters, it's just saying that no nation can claim jurisdiction. If a non-UN member attempts to do so, then the claim can simply be ignored by a member nation.

FULLY CONVINCED that the 20 kilometre allotments granted by "The Law of the Sea" are far too small without allowance for the extension of Exclusive Economic Zones, and further that the undefined and vague status of 'scientific research stations' could lead to abuse by unscrupulous nations,
Click to expand...

What exactly are Exclusive Economic Zones? No definition is given for the term, or any reason for why 20 klicks is too small. IMO, "scientific research station" is pretty straight-forward, and if there's no obvious scientific use for the station, then it would probably fall under the "internationally recognised settled landmass" clause anyway.

The argument about non-UN nations is a good point. They are not required to even acknoledge the UN's existence, much less their resolutions. One would assume, however, that if a nation tried doing something that would violate this resolution (e.g., overfishing, piracy, ignoring the Maritime Preservation Areas, etc.), then Un members would impose trade sanctions or some such until the non-member got the point.

I don't think the author of the repeal completely understood the resolution. I do have to admit that he's got it better than most repeal authors, enough to get it to quorum. But there are a few misstatements in the repeal (such as the UN jurisdiction complaint), and this resolution is too necessary to risk not having a replacement. I will vote AGAINST.
 
So Hersfold, the UN can regulate ocean that is controlled by non-UN entities?...
What is the UN supposed to be for? Is it supposed to not only tell people how to run their gov't, but what their fishermen can do too? :fish:

I feel that this repeal makes sense because the original isn't in the UN's jurisdiction. If a region wanted to get together and rule over its waters or even two nations, then so be it (as many have with maps etc.)...but for an organization representing 1/4th of NS nations to make broad stroke, one size fits all nations legislation on all seas...is ridiculous.
 
Sarcodina:
So Hersfold, the UN can regulate ocean that is controlled by non-UN entities?...
Click to expand...
What? Where did I say that?

What is the UN supposed to be for? Is it supposed to not only tell people how to run their gov't, but what their fishermen can do too?  :fish:
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, kinda. If there is some ecological or economic reason for it, the UN has full right to require that nations pass laws mandating certain things - including how fisherman work their trade.
 
Hersfold:
One would assume, however, that if a nation tried doing something that would violate this resolution (e.g., overfishing, piracy, ignoring the Maritime Preservation Areas, etc.), then Un members would impose trade sanctions or some such until the non-member got the point.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your attitude on this matter. There is anti-dumping legislation on the books (2 in fact, but one might soon be repealed) and against ballast water... I think this though does not make the seas nicer nor more fair and open, but tries to control a world that is not all UN when it can't. The UN should deal with itself, and it shouldn't force members to act more strictly (economically) than non-UN members in non-vital sectors.

I strongly urge TNP votes in favor of the repeal :yes: but I will try to do more research to get better points. I just find it (on a gut level) to be a repeal of a resolution that is one of the posterchilds of the UN's overacting and overreaching its original intent of human rights and world peace.
 
Neo Tyros has cast its vote in favor of the repeal. We believe that the original resolution is a blatant violation of the sovereignty not only of the members of the United Nations, but potentially of those nations not wishing membership in the UN.

~ Serph
 
The argument regarding Non-UN nations is actually invalid.

UN Resolutions only relate to UN Nations - do Non-UN Nations get a telegram from the Compliance Ministry?

EDIT: AGAINST
 
No, but even when UN resolutions are 'optional'; it'd automatically alters one's stats. I believe (barring RP claims) that the UN is on the same planet as everyone else. It thus has stated about nonmembers in multiple resolutions prior, and it appears to be aware of this...Thus taking in account non-UN nations is valid even if it doesn't technically change their stats...

I support UN resolutions that are grounded on hypotetical need (it is NS so can't be too strict), and this as with others is at best an issue for indiviuals (UN and non-UN) to decide not the UN itself. The idea of putting those who are not even in the UN within its crosshairs is a sign of an expanding UN that should be stopped.
 
Sarcodina:
No, but even when UN resolutions are 'optional'; it'd automatically alters one's stats. I believe (barring RP claims) that the UN is on the same planet as everyone else. It thus has stated about nonmembers in multiple resolutions prior, and it appears to be aware of this...Thus taking in account non-UN nations is valid even if it doesn't technically change their stats...

I support UN resolutions that are grounded on hypotetical need (it is NS so can't be too strict), and this as with others is at best an issue for indiviuals (UN and non-UN) to decide not the UN itself. The idea of putting those who are not even in the UN within its crosshairs is a sign of an expanding UN that should be stopped.
Click to expand...
An optional resolution is an illegal one. Some resolutions may "Reccommend" something, but there's something else in there that is required. If there's not, it's violating the rules.

And oh lord, please don't throw that national soverignty line at me. If it's the middle of the bloody ocean, I really don't see what the problem is in the UN saying "Gee, we think these are international waters." As for the resolution affecting non-UNs, I still don't see how you think it does. A non-UN nation can still do whatever the hell it wants to do within its' own boundaries - so can members, according to the resolution. Yes, the UN is specifying exactly how far out these boundaries extend. But if they're not in the UN, they can ignore these laws and set their own limits. Then it's up to UN members whether they recognize them or not.

No resolution affects Non-UN Members. Period.

Edit: I think that last bit I had actually contradicted my own argument. Needless to say, it ain't here no more.
 
We do... did... but it hasn't been updated in a LONG time, or even transferred from s2 yet. But that's off-topic. Thanks, Schnauzer.
 
Sarcodina:
I strongly urge TNP votes in favor of the repeal  :yes: but I will try to do more research to get better points. I just find it (on a gut level) to be a repeal of a resolution that is one of the posterchilds of the UN's overacting and overreaching its original intent of human rights and world peace.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I see nothing in the original proposal that is so blatant that it deserves these arguments on sovereignty.

It seems that every time the UN passes a truly "global" resolution, there are a bunch of people arguing about national sovereignty. It does not matter, in my mind, what the proportion of non-UN members to UN members is. By using the name United Nations, it is drawing parallels with the RL world body, and in so doing, takes on the mantle of an organization working for the benefit of every nation in NS (to extend the analogy).

I don't find it a valid argument to say that the UN cannot pass judgment on these matters -- indeed they MUST if they want something REAL and substantial to talk about. Stopping the UN from looking into these matters means we will get more proposals that mean nothing.

I agree with HErs regarding non-UN nations. These nations may have an opinion, but as far as the UN is concerned, those opinions are NOT recognized simply by definition. That does not mean the UN can trample on them, but neither does it mean they need to be overly sensitive of these non-UN nations' opinions. Indeed, such nations are not part of the UN precisely because they do not like what the UN is working toward, so for them to turn around and plead/ask for special consideration is especially appalling.

AGAINST this repeal
 
FOR. The Law of the Sea tried too hard to resemble actual UN legislation on the subject, which ended up just not translating practically into a 3,500 character and one subject medium. The whole thing should have been broken into a series of more compact resolutions that better outlined and dealt with the specifics of the topics of piracy, natural resources, navigation laws, etc. As it is written, The Law of the Sea simply does more than it should, and does all of it fairly poorly.

…But it’s mostly the fishing rights. The real UN grants the same twenty nautical mile borders as the NS resolution, but also exclusive rights to resources for one hundred nautical miles. That’s a pretty big omission right there.
 
Greater Boblandia:
…But it’s mostly the fishing rights. The real UN grants the same twenty nautical mile borders as the NS resolution, but also exclusive rights to resources for one hundred nautical miles. That’s a pretty big omission right there.
Click to expand...
In that case, another resolution can simply be passed to try to account for this. Since there is no mention of the resources in "The Law of the Sea", such a proposal would be perfectly legal, as long as it didn't mention "The Law of the Sea". There's no need to repeal this for something that can be easily fixed without a potentially irrepairable repeal.
 
Against.

One, I quite like this resolution.

Two, we've got about 4 repeals in a row coming up, and at this rate their won't be any resolutions left.
 
Unterwasserstaat is AGAINST this repeal of "The Law of the Sea"

If fishermen are flying the most awesome flag of Unterwasserseestaat then we have some authority over their actions should they wish to continue flying our mega-sweet flag. If a nation isn't in the UN, then neither it not nations flying its flag would be bound by any resolution.

Also, no UN body would have the authority to set fishing quotas or Preservation Zones in a non-UN's waters or make ships flying non-UN flags abide by quotas. I think to some extent this "UN is overreaching and will become a global tyrrany" is slippery-slope argument or an factual misconception of what the UN is. But then again i'm not an anarcho-capitalist.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top