[GA - Missing queue] Terra Nullius Protection Act

[TlomzKrano]

Terra Nullius Protection Act
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Lower Nubia | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly,

IDENTIFYING the existence of non-administrated zones, termed terra nullius, as being outside of any sovereign entity.

DEFINES terra nullius, where applicable, as either:

• 
  1) Territory free of any sovereign national control, laws, jurisdictions or free of sovereign claim(s), as the result of territorial dispute.
  2) Territory that is uninhabited by people, or by people expressing sovereign claim, over which no pre-existing sovereign nation currently holds jurisdiction.
  

NOTING prior resolutions' failure to define territory with respect to supranational law; beyond the territorial extent of ‘WA’ & ‘non-WA’ states.

CONCERNED with potential loopholes from prior WA legislation, which are occupied with the exploitation of sovereign territory, but not territory as defined in 1) & 2).

SEEKING to define territory that is not sovereign & limit, & make reprehensible, those actions which exploit these territories, in contravention of the principles of existing legislation, & in the absence of this resolution.

HOPING that the measures taken by this resolution allow both a peaceful response to international tensions surrounding terra nullius & provide assistance for judicial & police proceedings by having common regulations concerning illicit activities within terra nullius.

HEREBY the World Assembly declares:

• 
  1) That any WA states' actions within terra nullius be consistent with prior & later supranational law, where applicable, as outlined by the WA, & this resolution.
  2) That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA.
  
  3) Concerning the responsibility of WA states' citizens, or corporations, acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national state;
  
  
  
  • 
    a) A WA state is not culpable for the actions of their citizens, or corporations, unless evidence of coercion, command, or irresponsibility, of that state, is identified.
    b) May have charged, by, or through that respective state, those individuals, or parties, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be charged under international law; as per clauses 1 & 2.
    
  
  
  4) That WA states do not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, through independent treatise. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treatise, are to remain under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory.
  
  5) That terra nullius, being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null & void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings;
  
  
  
  • 
    a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national & international.
    b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.
    
  
  
  6) That this resolution does not legislate for extranational airspace or seas.
  
  7) The formation of the Terra Nullius Protection Commission (TNPC), to work with disputing parties to uphold the rights within terra nullius & seek resolution to dispute.
  

ADDITIONALLY understands expansionist members of the WA & their ‘effective occupation’, as the control of terra nullius by their power & jurisdictions in the absence of a proper sovereign. While recognising the freedom of non-WA states in their independent disputes.

GUARANTEES, according to territory under definition 2, the rights of the aforementioned nations, as well as the rights of peoples either unaffiliated or wishing to disassociate with existing governments, to claim & establish jurisdiction over terra nullius under the following conditions:

• 
  1) The claim is made by a sovereign WA state.
  2) The claimant has not violated, within the claimed area, any WA resolutions in the process of its claim.
  
  3) The claim is not contested legally by any power, people, or species, who maintain an effective, but not necessarily sovereign, occupation in the same terra nullius; providing them all rights as presented by the WA.
  

FURTHERMORE that dispute(s) resulting in terra nullius are both unsustainable & undesirable, encouraging WA states to act accordingly by need:

• 
  1) To respect the territorial integrity of rival claimants;
  2) To seek peaceful resolution to rival claims over terra(e) nullius on their own;
  
  3) To work with TNPC, & WANC, to assure the proper treatment & maintenance of supranational law for those, & that, located in terra nullius.
  

Co-authored by Lislandia.

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!

 

[TlomzKrano]

IFV

 

[TlomzKrano]

Okay so heres a list of my issues in no particular order.

1) That any WA states' actions within terra nullius be consistent with prior & later supranational law, where applicable, as outlined by the WA, & this resolution.
2) That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA.

This is a pretty large brushstroke requiring WA states automatically enforce WA law and give rights to these random peoples. Would seem like expansionism as defined later in this proposal would be impossible because of this.

4) That WA states do not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, through independent treatise. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treatise, are to remain under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory.

It seems like this clause is intended to prevent abuse by states arbitrarily creating terrae nullius at will. While this is important, it also allows for states to simply not recognize legitimate terrae nullius if they don't want to.

5) That terra nullius, being de facto outside any national legal system or jurisdiction, shall be cause for the following to be struck as null & void for use in subverting, contravening or abusing judicial proceedings;

a) Terra nullius is used as a reason for exemption from the extent of law; both national & international.

b) Terra nullius is used as an exemption for the need of multinational treaty, between sovereign states, as demanded, or expected, by international law.

This would require a government to formally acknowledge said terra nullius to begin with, thus causing them to apply WA there as needed. However, I would presume that if they do not acknowledge them as terra nullius, but the terra nullius recognizes themselves as terna nullius it could create a situation in which law is very hard to enforce similar to that of Thailand and China.

Clause 7 forms a committee to help deal with this but there is no real legal way to side here. Especially since the resolution deals with how to claim TN but not how to create it under dispute.

Not really sure what this resolution is setting out to accomplish as Im not too convinced that the rights of peoples in Terra Nullius are really threatened or exist at all. Sure a nativist idea could be in play but Id argue that natives have sovereign control of their regions so in the case of a claim, it would be more of an invasion than a terra nullius issue.

Therefore against.

 

[Gorundu]

I think the majority of issues stem from the fact that WA can only legislate for WA nations, and terra nullius, not being part of any nation, is kind of a grey area and the proposal's author wants to avoid anything that would impact on the freedoms of actual nations.

 

[ravenclawnat\]

For

 

[Bobberino]

Against

 

[Dreadton]

Against

 

[Abraham]

Against

 

[Robespierre]

Present (Due to my lack of knowledge when it comes to the General Assembly)

 

[Imperium Anglorum]

There are portions of this proposal which I think might actually be characteristic of poor drafting support and inexperience. The quality of the writing in this proposal is dismal. The first one that I saw was this:

3) Concerning the responsibility of WA states' citizens, or corporations, acting, or acted upon, within terra nullius, in contravention to the law of their national state; ... b) May have charged, by, or through that respective state, those individuals, or parties, to the full extent of that state's law, assuming such actions cannot be charged under international law; as per clauses 1 & 2.​

The pluralisation of "treaty" isn't "treatise". The latter word is an essay. The former is a legal document between two states. The part before my ellipsis is a dependent clause which never gets to the actual subject of the sentence: who may be charged? It isn't WA state citizens, because everything before that is a prefatory introduction about the scope of the clause. It might be the "those individuals ... or parties", but there's ambiguity here because the commas could be continuing a list of who may charge someone.

The lack of clearly defined subjects and objects in sentences, along with over-use of parentheticals defined only by commas, makes it difficult to follow what these saps are writing. It doesn't entirely help that there are more of these kinds of subtle drafting errors that pop out once you look for them.

4) That WA states do not have compulsion to this resolution for terra nullius artificially created by WA, or non-WA, states, through independent treatise. While WA states recognising terra nullius, by said treatise, are to remain under compulsion to this resolution, concerning that territory.​

If you have an independent treaty, you don't need to follow this resolution. But if you recognise terra Nullius via an independent treaty, you have to follow this resolution. This just don't think that portion of the proposal makes any sense.

That WA states protect those biomes & species, sapient & non-sapient, who utilise, & are located within terra nullius, as being accorded their respective dignities & rights as defined by the WA.​

Is "being" a limiting clause or a prefatory one? It's like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Put simply, are the rights which must be protected limited to those which are defined by the WA? The resolution doesn't say, and both interpretations are definitely permissible.

The preference for passive voice also creates issues in burdens. E.g.

a) A WA state is not culpable for the actions of their citizens, or corporations, unless evidence of coercion, command, or irresponsibility, of that state, is identified.​

Identified by whom? Moreover, the text says that the coercion simply must be identified. Since the GA operates on a "the law does what the law says" basis, that doesn't mean coercion has to be related to the malfeasance, it simply needs to exist.

 

[The Federalist]

For