[GA—IN QUEUE] Repeal: "Reducing Bycatch"

Jinkies

Jinkies

Minister
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Vapid
Discord
solringen
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Reducing Bycatch"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA#725
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly (WA),

Noting the noble intentions of the target resolution in sustainable fishing;

Dismayed that the target resolution, "Reducing Bycatch", has a critical flaw, namely that clause 2 mandates "that each member nation shall perform impartial research on the various species of marine life… within and surrounding their jurisdictions";

Alarmed that areas "surrounding" (rather than "within") WA states could well be run by hostile non-WA states under no obligation to comply with the target, which could put the proper conduct of such "impartial research" in jeopardy, even if a WA state attempts to rectify deficiency this through (say) remote research techniques;

Noting that clause 5 of the resolution prohibits WA states from buying fish that are not "consistent with the mandates surrounding clauses two, three, and four", implying that WA states that find it hard to perform the "impartial research" required in clause 2 will find it even harder to actually sell their fish to other WA states;

Expressing the view that a suitable replacement for this highly flawed resolution should be considered by the WA in due course if deemed appropriate;

Hereby repeals GAR 725, "Reducing Bycatch".
Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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!
ForAgainstAbstainPresent
4400
 
Last edited:
For as author. The complaint surrounds "what happens if you have to monitor bycatch in waters surrounding you" and then "what happens if the other side doesn't cooperate with you". It also complains about South Pacific countries (Nauru off the top of my head) where there's inadequate technology.
 
Against

I don't think those clauses were very good to begin with, because they're very vague and have little capacity for enforcement (and particularly so of impartiality). However, that's hardly worthy of repeal because the argument made here presumes that such "research" would inherently require invasive access to all of the areas in question, plus significant advanced technology, which isn't particularly believable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top