Cove
TNPer
Please vote 'Aye', 'Nay', 'Abstain' or 'Present'.
Below is the Official Review of the above legislation, provided by the Office of WA Affairs.
The Office of WA Affairs has examined the legislation currently put before us, and offers the following line by line examination of the legislation, along with a summary of our position on this matter at the end:
Conclusion: This Office hereby recommends that citizens of The North Pacific vote AGAINST this resolution, as it has multiple glaring flaws that ultimately render its operative clauses pointless.
Obviously this is a perambulatory clause, however it does raise an important point of contention. While the World Assembly has the capability to pass legislation on what has been outlined as a domestic matter, this does not mean that it has the right to do so, or that it is necessary. There is a strong argument to be made that domestic problems are best solved via the devolution of powers to increase the efficiency of the responses.
These are standard perambulatory statements that can be ignored.
The immediate problem with this definition is that not all consumer goods are tangible personal property! Take for example water flowing through pipes that is delivered to your home. That is very much a public good (in most cases), and creates an easy loophole to jump through.
The concerns regarding the definition of harmful become immediately obvious once one realizes that as a general rule, things are not harmful only if they cause “significant physical injury”. Minor injuries should be just as concerning as more significant ones, particularly if the product is being used “in the intended manner”.
Standard operative clause based upon the logic above.
This is an attempt to ensure that nations do not prohibit such sales without actually enforcing the mechanism, however such nations will simply dole out minor punishments since there is no clear guideline even hinted at within the resolution.
This does not mean anything as far as the Office of WA Affairs can determine, and was merely meant to sound nice.
Committees are often very utilized as watchdogs for WA resolutions, but can often be over or under powered.
This is essentially an optionality clause, making the HGIC worthless in this regard.
While this is helpful in the sense that it addresses an actual international issue, it is contradicted by the above statement. This means that while the HGIC may function to help mediate, it cannot act as an arbiter.
This is a rather bizarre infringement upon national sovereignty considering the fact that the HIC in no way helps with the flawed enforcement mechanisms listed earlier.
The above clause is well intentioned, and in a better written resolution would be helpful.
Conclusion: This Office hereby recommends that citizens of The North Pacific vote AGAINST this resolution, as it has multiple glaring flaws that ultimately render its operative clauses pointless.
