Repeal "Nautical Pilotage Act"

[Gulliver]

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#104
Proposed by: [nation]Moronist Decisions[/nation]

WA General Assembly Resolution #104: Nautical Pilotage Act (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES the importance of ensuring the safety of travelers at sea.

BELIEVES that the term “pilotage”, which is left undefined in this resolution, is best defined as “the act of navigating a ship”.

ACKNOWLEDGES that effective pilotage is important for travelers due to the presence of underwater hazards which may cause ships to run aground or capsize.

NOTES that while oversight zones, defined as the sum total of “international waters that are known to be traveled annually by at least a small, but steady subsection of the traveling population”, are required to be “equipped with proper buoyage, lighthouse or mark systems as defined by the World Assembly”, no agency or member nation is held responsible for creating these navigational markers.

QUESTIONS the ability of member nation authorities to sufficiently protect pilotage “from harm, vandalism or theft” in international waters, as WA member nations lack jurisdiction over vessels originating from non-member nations.

POINTS OUT that, since authorities and citizens of member nations “do not have the right or duty to pilotage an area that is within an Oversight-Zone”, voyagers from member nations will, in international waters designated as "Oversight Zones", either have to engage unregulated pilots from non-member nations or alternatively sail without any form of pilotage whatsoever, thus paradoxically increasing the perils of sailing in oversight zones.

REPEALS GA Resolution #104.

Co-authored by [nation]Mousebumples[/nation]

[Delfos]

I always rather new legislation proposed repealing the the previous faulty one tbh. Seems to me the main instrument is a bill defining mercantile navigation and it's international rights.

[Gulliver]

The way the WA works, the only way to introduce a new proposal would be to repeal this proposal first.

[Delfos]

It doesn't work properly then, I shall propose a bill repealing the MO of the WA, so I can then propose an MO that is proper. 

OK I'll play your game and repeal it if necessary, also would like to know if there's any proposal to replace the last faulty one, I couldn't find any but I might not know how to find it either. 

[Eluvatar]

I don't like this repeal. It's dishonest, for one thing.

[Delfos]

I don't like this repeal. It's dishonest, for one thing.

Can you elaborate? I'd like to know your full opinion.

[McMasterdonia]

I don't like this repeal. It's dishonest, for one thing.

Can you elaborate? I'd like to know your full opinion.

I quite agree.

[Eluvatar]

The whole suggestion that the resolution it wants to repeal bans pilotage is ridiculous.

The clause in question is clearly a prohibition against monopolies on pilotage.

[Gulliver]

That may have been the intent, but "[d]emands that general and/or lighthouse authorities or citizens of a member nation do not have the right or duty to pilotage an area that is within an Oversight-Zone;" sounds like a blanket ban to me. If they just wanted to prevent monopolies, they should have included a word like "exclusive" or "sole".

[Delfos]

I came to the conclusion that I disagree with this bill, not only from being undefined on the posts above, also, being a simple repeal, instead of creating the tools to operate with the current bill properly, do not please me. Saying nations do not responsibility take care of nautical issues, and tries to pin responsibility on member nations for protecting international waters, is like trying to say nations are incompetent and should be of their competence to also protect people in oversight-zones.

Short, I'd rather see a bill that works with the current one ensuring proper technical safety of "pilotage" and also giving the power to the security council to decide on oversight-zones in terms of security case by case. I don't want a militaristic law of escorting vessels abroad and seems to me that's what they're preparing to do if they want to fill the gap of this repeal.

[Gulliver]

This is now at a vote. I have cast a provisional vote of FOR.

[Gulliver]

This passed, 8,927 votes to 1,898. My final vote as FOR.