We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: International Waters for Life Initiative
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2075
Description[?]:
| The oceans of our planet are a common treasury for all, not just a resource to be exploited. We are stewards of these global commons, not owners. The Law of the Sea allows national governments to prevent over-fishing within their coastal waters, but international waters remain a free-for-all. Marine life knows nothing of borders, and must be protected in international waters as well. Whaling in international waters is strictly prohibited. Fishing nets able to trap dolphins shall not be permitted in international waters. A non-partisan international commission of marine biologists shall be established to monitor fish stocks. Where fish stocks are being depleted at an unsustainable rate, quotas shall be established to prevent over-fishing. National governments are encouraged to impose similar regulations within their own territorial waters. Donations towards the cost of the international commission will be accepted by a charitable trust to be established for this purpose. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:20:41, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | Would you support the use of military force against fish stock poaching? |
| Date | 07:38:50, June 29, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | Except for the international commission part, we actually see an environmental bill we can agree with. Who will pay for it? And how will national governments be "encouraged"? Also, how will this treaty be enforced? Who will patrol the "international waters" to ensure that this is enforced? Overall, what does this obligate our government to do? |
| Date | 16:47:15, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | On the use of military force against poaching: yes, as a last resort if other means fail. The CCF-Greens are not a pacifist organization, as we stated in the nuclear weapons debate. Who will pay? The costs are minimal, since the bill calls for an international science commission and various international meetings only. Each participating country would bear a share of the costs itself, but there is no reason why this could not be funded out of the ongoing activities of the foreign and science ministries. We already pay for attendance at international summits and scientific research through these two ministries, and the additional cost is small. National governments will be "encouraged" through diplomatic persuasion only. For instance, we have similar restrictions in place in our own territorial waters on over-fishing, and have extended these to Kalistan and Gaduridos through a multi-lateral agreement. Enforcement will have to be ad-hoc. The treaty attempts to persuade all governments to make an international law for international waters, but does not concern itself at this time with enforcement and sanctions regimes. Anyone violating the treaty wouhld face diplomatic pressure attempting to convince them to change their policy, and individual governments might decide to take action on their own, but this is not an attempt to achieve the entire process at one blow. The enforcement of international laws is a thorny issue, and one that we believe should be dealt with as a whole at a later date. We also believe Lodamun should abide by those international laws it has ratified, of course. Our government would have no actual obligations, since this is an attmept to create an international law. We would have to ban our own vessels from whaling and accept some restrictions on our fishing industry. Our science ministry would ahve to share its research on marine biology with other states taking part in the international science commission: a collaborative research project. The restrictions on our fishing industry are justifiable becuase they ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry. Without a fishery managed for sustainability and long-term survival, we might quickly deplete fish stocks and all jobs in the fisheries could be lost. Therefore, this bill makes both ecological and economic sense. Although we authored this bill on behlaf of the International Greens, it has already been passed in at least one country and is up for debate in several others. |
| Date | 17:32:27, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | ((Added clause in response to ASP question about fishing nets for poor countries in the forum, offering some aid through our development budget for this.)) |
| Date | 18:08:29, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | We do not consider that our tax payers should be made to pay for fishermen in other countries. The solution proposed for how to fund fishing net replacement is unacceptable. |
| Date | 21:27:17, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | "Lodamun will make available, through its existing development aid budget, funds to aid fishers in poor countries to make the transition to compliant fishing nets. This aid shall be at the discretion of the responsible Lodamunian authorities." This new clause, if left in the bill, will be enough to make up our mind--against. |
| Date | 22:12:52, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | Happy to remove it, then. |
| Date | 06:19:41, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | back to undecided then... The only debateable thing left for us is this: "Who will pay? The costs are minimal, since the bill calls for an international science commission and various international meetings only. Each participating country would bear a share of the costs itself, but there is no reason why this could not be funded out of the ongoing activities of the foreign and science ministries. We already pay for attendance at international summits and scientific research through these two ministries, and the additional cost is small. " We would like to remove this cost, however small, from being the burden of the public. Perhaps it could be funded by international charitable donations collected by various non-profit environmentalist groups? Or the data collection could possibly be expanded in a way to be profitable and self sustaining. If this can be resolved, we will join the concurring opinion.(though we oppose the law of the sea) If not...we will have to see how the debate goes from here. |
| Date | 06:40:13, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | How about this additonal clause then: Donations towards the cost of the international commission will be accepted by a charitable trust to be established for this purpose. |
| Date | 07:51:46, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | As long as no tax money is used to pay for any part it, and the rest of the bill stays "as is", you have our full support. |
| Date | 18:30:33, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | We thank Tuesday is Coming for its support. Are there any further comments before this moves to a vote? |
| Date | 19:22:28, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | We likewise will support this given that it is not and will not become a burden on our taxpayers. |
| Date | 23:21:26, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | We do however, ask that this bill be voted upon rather quickly, to avoid a risk of missing it. |
| Date | 23:44:14, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | ((OK, moving to a vote, so you can get your vote in)) |
| Date | 23:57:48, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the International Waters for Life Initiative |
| Message | Thanks! :-) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 450 | ||||||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope." - Niccolo Machiavelli |