[GA - DEFEATED] Safety Regulations For Trade Route Canals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jedinsto

Registered
ga.jpg

Safety Regulations For Trade Route Canals
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Transport
Proposed by: Walfo | Co-authored by: Araraukar | Onsite Topic


The World Assembly,

Aware of the importance of canals acting as shortcuts on important trade routes,

Seeking to prevent congestion of traffic through such canals while also making transit through these canals safe,

Wishing to encourage nations in charge of such canals to continue allowing their use for international trade and to consider improvements on their infrastructure if necessary,

Hereby,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, defines:
  • a "canal" as an artificial waterway built along important shipping routes to allow for the transit of commercial vessels, and creating a shortcut between two large bodies of water, or a large body of water and an international port,
  • "canal authorities" as personnel authorized to allow or deny the transit of ships through the canal, whether on-site or remotely,
  • a "ship" as a commercial civilian vessel transporting trade goods or passengers;

2. Requires that all canals:
  • be monitored by the canal authorities assigned to them at all times,
  • have on-call pilots and tugboats to assist ships to pass through the canal safely,
  • have their infrastructure inspected regularly and upgraded when necessary,
  • have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident, and
  • be equipped with weather monitoring with communication capability to warn ships of adverse weather conditions;

3. Also requires that canal authorities:
  • do not deny the transit of a ship through the canal based on any reason not to do with canal operation requirements, safety, national security, or unless otherwise required by another General Assembly resolution,
  • remain aware of how many vessels and of which size are within the boundaries of the canal at any one time,
  • do not allow more ships to begin the transit through the canal than is safe,
  • keep in contact with all ships within their area of control, and
  • react to changing conditions and emerging hazards by quickly alerting the ships in transit and those waiting to enter the canal;

4. Mandates that the crews of all ships wishing to pass through the canal:
  • are able to abide by maritime laws and local regulations,
  • are able to understand and follow the instructions of canal authorities,
  • have made sure that their ship is capable of traveling through the canal in its current condition and the current weather conditions,
  • facilitate any possible border control and customs inspections to take place on their ship prior to entering a canal,
  • have competent personnel in control of the ship, at all times when within the canal,
  • request help from canal authorities to enable safe transit, when necessary,
  • take necessary measures to minimize the spread of invasive species,
  • stay aware of traffic around them and inform canal authorities of any accidents they witness or of any hazards they encounter that they were not already made aware of, and
  • have personal safety equipment for all members of the crew and in the case of passenger ships for all passengers as well;

5. Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships:
  • due to error or deliberate action of their crews,
    • damage the canal's infrastructure,
    • endanger or damage other ships within the canal,
    • hold up traffic unnecessarily,
  • or their crews fail any of the duties in clause 4;

6. Additionally clarifies that though this resolution does not further legislate on them,
  • any possible fees for the use of canals count as canal operation requirements, and
  • unless restricted from doing so by another General Assembly resolution, nations are free to conduct border control checks of cargo, crew and passengers prior to letting a ship enter a canal.

Co-authored by Araraukar
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]3[/TD][TD]10[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]


"Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals" was defeated 8,219 (67.4%) to 3,970 (32.6%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV - Against

Overview
This proposal attempts to facilitate the safe and efficient passage of ships through canals. Notably, the proposal requires crews to follow safety prescribed safety measures such as traffic controls and proper communications procedures, mandates member nations conduct necessary maintenance on canals, and makes provision for restitution in the event that a ship is damaged as a result of an authority's negligence.

Recommendation
While this is a reasonably palatable concept on paper, the text of the proposal is unpersuasive. The proposal's provisions are both arduously micromanaging and frighteningly vague, with mandates that nations conduct actions that are already necessary, that holding up traffic "unnecessarily" is met with "appropriate" compensation, and that "any possible" canal fees count as canal operation requirements, among other instances of poor wording such as a requirement that vessels abide by "maritime laws."

For these reasons, the Ministry for World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals".

Recommendation written by Boston Castle and Cretox State, with input from Greater Cesnica.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Requires that all canals have the necessary emergency services available in case of an accident,
Requires shipping companies to provide appropriate compensation to canal authorities if their ships due to error or deliberate action of their crews hold up traffic unnecessarily,
Additionally clarifies that though this resolution does not further legislate on them, any possible fees for the use of canals count as canal operation requirements

Against from me. This is very heavy micromanagement, not to mention unworkable in places. The proposal mandates that nations take necessary actions (you see a problem, right?), requires some undefined "appropriate" compensation for holding up traffic "unnecessarily" (virtually nothing is strictly necessary, especially if you don't say what it's necessary for), and counts "any possible" canal fees as operation requirements.
 
Last edited:
For your micromanaging comments, quote Ara: "lt may appear micromanagery because we intend to remove a previous resolution (GAR #34) on transport regulations that should not just open up new venues of proposals now that there's an AoE for Transport regulations but also will remove requirements like not being allowed to not let ships use your coastal waters if they meet some minimum requirements - and so the proposal needs to be able to stand entirely on its own, and not able to for long rely on the previous resolution.
"Also, to those talking about the "necessary" and "unnecessary" wordings, that was to reduce further micromanagement and also to make space for roleplaying at different tech levels and such. You guys are absolutely right in that there aren't any properly necessary delays for transit - which was the point, given the resistance on the drafting thread was people complaining about the possibility of intentional sabotage masked as an emergency. So an engine breaking down would be a necessary delay, but saying no thanks to tugboat help in such a case would be an unnecessary one."
Hopefully this will grant some light for why we did it this way, and you guys could think about changing your opinions.
 
Last edited:
Against from me. This is very heavy micromanagement, not to mention unworkable in places. The proposal mandates that nations take necessary actions (you see a problem, right?), requires some undefined "appropriate" compensation for holding up traffic "unnecessarily" (virtually nothing is strictly necessary, especially if you don't say what it's necessary for), and counts "any possible" canal fees as operation requirements.
For the appropriate compensation, that is up to the nation in question. With the "unnecessarily", look above.
 
Last edited:
"lt may appear micromanagery because we intend to remove a previous resolution (GAR #34) on transport regulations that should not just open up new venues of proposals now that there's an AoE for Transport regulations but also will remove requirements like not being allowed to not let ships use your coastal waters if they meet some minimum requirements - and so the proposal needs to be able to stand entirely on its own, and not able to for long rely on the previous resolution.
Standalone proposals pass all the time without involving such micromanagement. The category is irrelevant.

"Also, to those talking about the "necessary" and "unnecessary" wordings, that was to reduce further micromanagement and also to make space for roleplaying at different tech levels and such. You guys are absolutely right in that there aren't any properly necessary delays for transit - which was the point, given the resistance on the drafting thread was people complaining about the possibility of intentional sabotage masked as an emergency. So an engine breaking down would be a necessary delay, but saying no thanks to tugboat help in such a case would be an unnecessary one."
If there aren't any properly necessary delays, the proposal shouldn't build mandates around those delays.

For the appropriate compensation, that is up to the nation in question.
The proposal doesn't say that.

Edit: IFV edited in.
 
Last edited:
"Safety Regulations for Trade Route Canals" was defeated 8,219 (67.4%) to 3,970 (32.6%).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top