[Passed] [ga]: Repeal: “Marine Protection Act”

[Lenlyvit]

General Assembly Resolution

Repeal: “Marine Protection Act”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#510

Proposed by: Tingampton

General Assembly Resolution #510 “Marine Protection Act” (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that GA#510 authorises the Committee for the Preservation of Marine Environments (CPME) to declare certain "areas within international waters" to be sanctuaries, and tasks it with making and enforcing "regulations in said areas to further the purpose for which said sanctuaries were designated,"

Moderately annoyed that GA#510 grants the CPME excessive power in regards to sanctuaries, because:

a. it defines regulations as "reasonable restrictions" on certain marine activities, allowing the CPME to see reasonability through whatever lens it desires to get the outcome it desires, and

b. its Article 4 authorises member states to request that sanctuaries be delisted or regulations applicable to them be amended, yet only requires CPME to "thoroughly review" those requests without setting any rules for under what conditions it must accept and reject them,

Utterly infuriated that Article 2a(i) allows CPME to designate a sanctuary merely because it is "critical to the survival and growth of a species," even if that species is invasive or destroying marine habitats local to the area, eviscerating the kinds of biodiversity that it may wish to protect elsewhere via Article 2a(ii) designations, and

Believing that any resolution which creates or focuses on as much redundant red tape as GA#510 should not stand...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#510 "Marine Protection Act."

Co-author: Magecastle Embassy Building A5

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Pantso]

The Republic of Pantso finds these arguments unconvincing.

1. Must a resolution specify every potential restriction and regulation that could be written? Specifying that the restriction must be "reasonable" is sufficient; whether or not a specific regulation is reasonable or not could be debated.
2. The CPME is empowered to "oversee the protection of critical marine environments in international waters" and is required to review proposals. Presumably this comes with the ability to write the rules and conditions as well; it is not necessary to define all the procedures under which the CPME operates.
3. Since the CPME's mandate is to protect critical marine environments it is difficult to imagine a scenario where it would permit an invasive species to cause great harm, however there as there is an appeals process it is *also* difficult to understand why this passage is "infuriating".

Pantso will recommend voting Against the repeal and wishes that those proposing Repeal legislation were required to include the actual text of the resolution they wish to repeal; it is too easy to misrepresent the text of the original resolution.

[Jabberwocky]

Being "moderately annoyed" is not sufficient reason for a repeal. "Utterly infuriated" is an emotional reaction. Let's see an objection based upon reason instead. Against.

[Vivolkha]

Against. There's a difference between writing a repeal and an angry rant / roast. I kindly suggest the author keeps the latter on Twitter instead of the WA. The proposal is excessively abrasive and completely devoid of substance.