AT VOTE: Repeal "Delineation of Borders Act" [Complete] [Complete]

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#117
Proposed by: Ossitania

Repeal "Delineation of Borders Act":
Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #117: Delineation of Borders Act (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

AGREEING that border dispute arbitration is an issue of the utmost relevance and importance,

APPROVING of the ideas and intent behind the Delineation of Borders Act,

NOTING that the Delineation of Borders Act does little other than create a committee, GABDO, with no legal authority,

DEEPLY AWARE that this lack of authority means hostile nations will likely continue to cause death and destruction due to disputed borders, regardless of GABDO's recommendations,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the existence of the Delineation of Borders Act in its current state essentially blocks the creation of a body with some form of power which could help prevent unnecessary hardship and bloodshed as a result of disputes over borders,

Hereby

REPEALS GA #117, Delineation of Borders Act.
Click to expand...
 
Ossitania:
For the attention of the Government of the Respublika of Zemnaya Svoboda, WA Delegate of the North Pacific,

My nation has just submitted a proposal to the General Assembly in order to repeal GA #117 "Delineation of Borders Act" and would be most appreciative if you could aid us in bringing it to quorum;

page=UN_view_proposal/id=ossitania_1339850730

GA #117 is a totally ineffectual piece of legislation that does little other than create a table at which to have negotiations and a cartographical library. Considering the considerable cost of border conflict - socially, economically and in terms of human life - it is completely inadequate for the WA to have such weak legislation on such an important international issue. If this repeal is passed, I intend to replace GA #117 with a resolution that takes a stronger stance against border conflict and replaced #117's GABDO with a more effective body with the power to hold legal proceedings between states, rule on border conflicts and enforce its rulings with monetary fines.

However, I can't do that as long as GA #117 is in place and even if you disagree with what I intend to do, at least support this repeal so that someone can replace with something better, even if it's not me.

With your help, we hope to continue cleaning the books of international law and ensure a fairer and more effective World Assembly for everyone.

Yours sincerely,
Derek McGregor,
Ambassador General of the Diplomatic Corps of Ossitania
Click to expand...
 
Hi Eluvatar, I was expecting you to be away and thus unable to vote, I had Stargate to deal with last night and work today. My recommendation is Aye. I'm writing the informational statement now.
 
Informational Review by the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs::
mowa-seal.png

This is an informational review of the GA Resolution-At-Vote, “Repeal "Delineation of Borders Act"” published by The North Pacific's Ministry of World Assembly Affairs for your convenience and consideration.

For those that may not be aware, border disputes often come with a high social and human cost -- see, for modern examples, the border (sovereignty) disputes of the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979, with upwards of 56,000 causalities; or the Eritrean–Ethiopian War between 1998-2000 with upwards of 53,000 causalities; 38 reported dead in a recent Cambodian–Thai border dispute in 2008; in addition to an ongoing border dispute between South Sudan and Sudan, reported causalities range from 287 to 1,487 people. The point of this exercise is to stress that border disputes can be costly, messy and incredibly heated and political. Imagine applying this sort of model of conflict to NationStates with its -- at the time of this writing -- 99,010 nations; most of whom would like to expand their borders.

It thus can be argued that it is important for the World Assembly to help reduce violence in these border disputes and furthermore assist in anyway it can to settle border conflicts whilst also remaining neutral in the conflicts (an obligation specified in GA#2 Sct. III Art. 10 §).

In real-life, there is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which arbitrates border disputes between nations that both mutually request this arbitration process. Arbitration is relatively popular and successful, due to the fact that because it is mutually consensual between both parties of the dispute this often means both parties are ready to end the violence and just "want it over with". Similarly, in "Delineation of Borders Act", The General Assembly Border Demarcation Organization (GABDO) is established to do something very similar to the International Court of Justice; member-states are requested to seek peaceful means to resolve border disputes and the GABDO is authorized to arbitrate any border disputes where the involved parties have mutually agreed to arbitration. One thus could conclude that the author of the repeal of "Delineation of Borders Act" is thus simply expecting too much obligations to be made when border disputes are, as I have said, extremely controversial and political and often require mutually consented arbitration to even come *close* to realistically resolving a dispute.

However, the author indicates that there is an oversight in "Delineation of Borders Act" that is incredibly important; nowhere in "Delineation of Borders Act" does it require member-states to heed the conclusions of the GABDO following the arbitration process. Alternatively though, the final clause requires all parties to agree to the GABDO's recommendations, but only if non-WA nations are involved with the dispute. When the requirement to follow the recommendations of the GABDO is stated in one type of case, but this requirement is absent from cases where two or more WA member-states may be involved in a border dispute, one could argue -- as Repeal "Delineation of Borders Act" is -- that the arbitration process is broken, since member-nations would not have to recognize the GABDO's rulings. Such a loophole would fundamentally gut the effectiveness of arbitration (why go to arbitration if neither party needs to observe the final judgement?).

I suppose this leaves two questions for readers, (i) do you believe that this alleged loophole exists? (ii) are you concerned about the alleged loophole if it does exist?

We here at the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs have answered positively to both reference questions and thus, (1) recommend that the delegate vote "FOR" Repeal "Delineation of Borders Act", and (2) call upon all member-states in The North Pacific (that's you!) to carefully consider the viewpoints expressed in this informational statement. Thank you.

Yours,
Unibot
Minister of World Assembly Affairs in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
 
I am relunctant to support any repeal, but the real question is whether there is a replacement being circulated with the loophole fixed?
There is a similar process at work even within the United States and even within states (for boundaries between counties). Where the disputes is between states, the United States Supreme Court hears the dispute by using special masters to gather evidence including historical and surveyor information, and the arguments of states concerning the dispute. I recently read of a dispute between North and South Carolina because a resurveying of the boundaries of two counties in South Carolina and two counties in North Carolina was required when the original survey stone markers for the common boundary could not be found, and the original surveys which used then existing landmarks could not be used since in many instances the original landmarks no longer existed (two hundred years later, mind you.) That was settled between the states and counties involved) once a new survey using current techniques and more diligent historical searches of the original land records in the area was completed. The net result was that the apparent boundary was about 10 yards out of whack in some places and was readjusted, meaning that for some residents their homesteads were in two different states, and even four different counties in two different states.)
Anyhow, my point is that yes, this really is a significant issue, and yes, there needs to be a replacement proposal ready to be submitted (not promised, an actual draft, thank you very much!) for me to support repeal. Until I see that one piece of information, I stand as UNDECIDED.
 
I had sent Ossitania a TG overnight and he responded with a link to that, thank you.

With that information, I am FOR this resolution, and have voted as such in the G.A.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
....I recently read of a dispute between North and South Carolina because a resurveying of the boundaries of two counties in South Carolina and two counties in North Carolina was required when the original survey stone markers for the common boundary could not be found, and the original surveys which used then existing landmarks could not be used since in many instances the original landmarks no longer existed (two hundred years later, mind you.) That was settled between the states and counties involved) once a new survey using current techniques and more diligent historical searches of the original land records in the area was completed. The net result was that the apparent boundary was about 10 yards out of whack in some places and was readjusted, meaning that for some residents their homesteads were in two different states, and even four different counties in two different states.)...
Click to expand...
Funny you should bring this up as I am directly involved with settlement of the NC/SC border dispute.

The dispute is the location of a line of the border that runs from Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) to a terminal end of that straight line in Polk County, NC, markers in between being inconsequential as they fall along the line withing a couple or yards.

I located the terminal end marker which sits exactly where it is legally determined under colonial charter and all subsequent legal definitions of the location of that marker (and the marker is clearly incised with the proper information and dates from the 1750's) and is within three feet of the 1750 survey, all subsequent surveys and the legal definition of that terminus of the line. The only reason I knew of this marker was that I leased the horse farm many years ago where the marker resides. Hence, colonial era surveys coincide with modern surveys to within 2 yards, which is pretty good considering the level of technology in the 1750's (and within normal geological subsidence, movement, etc.,,,). The marker in question sits exactly on the NC/SC border at a point where Greenville and Spartanburg Counties meet on the NC state line. The particular location is called "The Block House" (a long story behind that name).

The whole root of the border dispute was the fact that a few wealthy land owners in North Carolina would benefit from being in South Carolina as per their tax bill. NC and SC agreement is that anyone whose land straddles the border can determine which state/county to pay taxes to. A few rich landowners whose land was not straddling the border decided to push the issue which then turned into a dispute that could move the border 12 miles in either direction. But the legal definitions of the state line precluded any movement because the historical markers that could be found (and I'm sure a few of them were surreptitiously removed by people with mal-intent) were exactly where they were legally supposed to be.
 
You have to admit Roman that my memory of reading the article (I believe it was in The State online, the newspaper in Columbia, the South Carolina state capitol) was pretty good, given that I would have had no idea that I would ever need to remember it. The thing that caught my attention about it was the courthouse by courthouse search that was required in a number of counties mostly on the South Carolina side and that many of the necessary records have disappeared as well over the years; and the search had gotten to the point where secondary and tertiary sources were been tracked down, some of which did help them find many of the stone markers. The whole story really is quite fascinating.
 
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 WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
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 WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top