[GA—AT VOTE—AGAINST] Regulating International Transport

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jinkies

Jinkies

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

Regulating International Transport
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​
Recalling that GA#34 "International Transport Safety" was repealed because it impeded ITSC regulation of purely domestic transportation standards, but

Believing that it would be sensible to also have at least a baseline international transport standard in place, as to enable people and goods to travel across borders with confidence...

The General Assembly hereby enacts as follows.
  • For the purposes of this resolution:
    • an "international vessel" means any land, sea, air, or road vehicle that is piloted for commercial reasons to or from a member state,
    • an "international route" means any road or railway in a member state through which an international vessel can be reasonably expected to travel,
    • an "international port" means any port in a member state from which any international vessel arrives or departs, including service stations on international routes and border crossings, and
    • "the ITSC regulations" mean those regulations outlined in Article b.
  • The International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) shall make and publish regulations, coherent with the mandates of prior and standing WA law, in order to ensure that:
    • the people on board international vessels, and within international ports, face the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate,
    • pilots of international vessels face the minimal foreseeable risk of danger to their lives or vessels as a result of faults or other issues with the international routes they pilot through (such as flat tyres incurred as a result of potholes),
    • any reasonably foreseeable emergencies that arise in international vessels and ports can be swiftly, safely, and effectively resolved,
    • authorised communications to and from international vessels and ports, including signage and signals, are made clear to their intended recipients,
    • border crossings are designed such that they facilitate the passage of international vessels through them without excess burden to time or finances,
    • international vessels only carry those loads which they are realistically able to carry,
    • international vessels do not travel on international routes that are not safe for them (including via signage directing travel through suitable alternative international routes), and
    • the pilots and crew of international vessels, and the mission-critical staffers of international ports, obtain minimum levels of training and experience before they can start or continue work as appropriate.
  • Members must provide such support to the keepers of international vessels, routes, and ports (which may include financial and technical support) as they require to become compliant with the ITSC regulations.
  • No member may enforce regulations on international vessels, routes and ports that are stricter than the ITSC regulations except as prior and standing WA law provides.
  • Each member is strongly urged to transpose the ITSC regulations into its own law such that they apply to purely domestic vessels, routes, and ports; and to support the keepers of such vessels, routes, and ports in complying with them.
  • The ITSC shall assist any member which seeks its assistance in enforcing Articles c and e as appropriate.
  • Nothing in this resolution:
    • regulates vehicles that would be international vessels but are piloted for personal reasons, such as private jets and family vehicles, nor
    • affects the right of members or the World Assembly to investigate crashes and accidents involving international vessels or international ports.
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
0800
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution would legislate on international transport, mostly through the International Transport Safety Committee. The committee's purview includes vessels, ports, and the staff and crew of vessels traveling internationally. It would also restrict the ability of member states to issue additional regulations on international transport.

Recommendation
This resolution uses an overbloated and overpowered committee to little effect. This would be less of an issue if this lack of effect were not effectively used to strip nations of their individual regulations. Indeed, where it does have effects, it overreaches. This resolution would effectively ban international travel in cars, regulate gas stations, require members to overhaul federal budgets to pay for canals, and more!

For this reason, we recommend a vote AGAINST Regulating International Transport.

This IFV was written by Vapid in collaboration with the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs.
 
Last edited:
Against. Also opposed in the forum thread. This is one of the worst @Tinhampton word salads to date. The regulations are worded even looser than the original (GA34). It's ridiculously buggy:

1. Why would anyone define "a vessel" to include air vehicles?

2. Are vessels "piloted" if it is run by AI?

3. The definition of "international port" includes gas stations - not sure how much people would buy having their convenience stores regulated by the WA.

4. The point about regulating roadways is to make sure that older vehicles not meeting highway standards on domestic/village roads don't really interfere with international traffic, creating safety issues. EU and US/CA obviously harmonized anyway.

5. No car is 100% safe (at the moment) at high speed. The ITSC rules in (b) about "the minimal foreseeable risk of injury or death as a result of faults or other issues with the vessel or port as appropriate" mean that highways should basically drive at 15 miles an hour (roughly the speed of AI vehicles now)

6. "No member may enforce regulations on international vessels, routes and ports that are stricter than the ITSC regulations except as prior and standing WA law provides." <- This blocker is a non-starter in the sense that I think if you have countries that have switched to fully autonomous driving (Mainland China is starting to, I haven't travelled on a non-autonomous vehicle for months now in the Mainland side, except on highways), there are reasons to enforce stricter regulations.

7. "Members must provide such support to the keepers of international vessels, routes, and ports (which may include financial and technical support) as they require to become compliant with the ITSC regulations." <- Oh great we are now subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles.

8. "regulates vehicles that would be international vessels but are piloted for personal reasons, such as private jets and family vehicles" <- again this misses the point, which is for highways frequently used by international vehicles in countries without harmonized traffic rules (ie ex UK/EU) to have some consensus. "Family vehicles" can be commercial as well, and muddy the waters further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top