At Vote: Repeal "Oil Tanker Standards Act" [Complete] [Complete]

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Repeal "Oil Tanker Standards Act"

Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy | Resolution link | World Assembly forum thread​
Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #98: Oil Tanker Standards Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Accepting that accidents involving oil tankers are an issue of importance to this body,

Regretting, however, that World Assembly Resolution #98, the "Oil Tanker Standards Act," is an incredibly flawed and problematic solution to those problems,

Noting that the World Assembly Oil Transportation Committee (WAOTC) is assigned the task of ensuring oil tankers are "kept up to meet requirements" without outlining exactly what those requirements are or how they even pertain to the resolution,

Further noting that the WAOTC is tasked with acquiring "new technology from member states already possessing it at the member state's consent" without defining what kind of technology it would acquire,

Understanding that requiring "non-proprietary double-hulled technology be made available to shipbuilders", without actually requiring the WAOTC to provide it, makes many of the WAOTC's assignments superfluous,

Further understanding that the requirement to "phase out" the use of single-hulled tankers is both costly and needless, as such tankers could find use hauling materials that are not as damaging to the environment,

Acknowledging that WA#98 places an unreasonable burden on nations with pre-existing fleets of single-hulled tankers while failing to provide any relief to this burden by funding this requirement,

Observing that the resolution imposes a requirement for a “proper” ventilation system without explaining what the purpose of such a system would be, and given that there are many ventilation systems which may have completely opposing purposes, this requirement is both ambiguous and unenforceable,

Astonished that the resolution urges nations to implement "other or better safety features aboard oil tankers other than what is specified here" despite the fact that "other safety features" may be inferior and used by nations to circumvent the requirements imposed on them previously in the resolution,

Believing that WA#98 is insufficient for the purpose of reducing spills, as there are many types of oil tanker designs that would not necessarily benefit from the technologies outlined here, nor would they see any benefit to the added costs these technology's integration would incur,

Recognizing that the sum of the flaws present in WA#98 both in format and in practical application have created a resolution that is nearly ineffective in achieving its stated goals,

Hereby repeals World Assembly Resolution #98, the "Oil Tanker Standards Act."

Co-Authored by Renaissancistic People.
Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.
 
Ministry Review:​

I think it goes really without much saying that this proposal is set to pass. Or at least it should. The target resolution, aside from numerous flaws grammatically (of which this author cannot claim to be totally innocent of) has some serious flaws contained within. While well meaning and well intended, it reads very much like a "one size fits all" style proposal which historically tend to be bad.

As the delegate from Mall has demonstrated both GA side and below, the loopholes contained within also effectively render certain aspects of the target resolution toothless at best and moot at worst. All in all, the theory might have been solid, but the practical fell down where it was needed most.

Ministerial suggested vote:​

It therefore stands to reason that the Minister is suggestion a FOR vote on this proposal.

AS USUAL THIS IS A SUGGESTED VOTE ONLY, PLEASE VOTE FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN OR PRESENT AS DESIRED BELOW.
 
Apologies for the delay on this one. It reached quorum after 4am my time, and I was not around before the minor update to start the poll on this.

As a co-author of the proposal, I support it and vote For.
 
I'll just put my GA response in here:

Zakath sprang up from his desk and cried out "Against!" His aides, stunned to hear a vote against a repeal, began murmuring before he continued "The final clause of that proposal has enabled all Mallorean ships to abide by whatever safety standards companies wish!
URGES nations to implement other or better safety features aboard oil tankers other than what is specified here
Click to expand...
The only safety features that oil tankers must maintain is a minimum of one emergency flare per tanker. The cost savings have been incredible! Sure we've lost a few vessels here and there, but for the most part they've been in foreign waters, and those dolphins have had it too good for too long."
 
Against.

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal.... :facepalm:

(no offense intended Unicorn)
 
Chester Pearson:
Against.

This is nothing more than a repeal for the sake of a repeal.... :facepalm:

(no offense intended Unicorn)
Click to expand...
What is wrong with repeals that are merely aimed at resolutions that have no valid use or purpose? Clearing out the dead weight of GA resolutions is a good thing. :P
 
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