Proposal | Drafting Thread | Author: Maerkyja
A new resolution in the General Assembly is up for consideration! Please cast your vote in the poll below to help determine how OWL will order the delegate to vote:
Feel free to debate below!
I’m very unsure about this one (including whether it will actually reach quorum or not; I’ve started the thread because it will be the next to go to-vote if it does). The concept is absolutely laudable, and most of the resolution’s functions are unobjectionable, but I can’t help but be concerned by two things:
First, Clause 2c’s statement that the INCC may only carry-out inspections on nuclear facilities with consent from the member state is alarming to me, and I do believe makes this resolution largely useless. This effectively allows member states that are noncompliant with the stipulations created by the INCC under the power of Clause 2a (and actually, the fact that these stipulations are not already expressly put-forth in this resolution is another oddity) to simply refuse to allow INCC inspection, thereby defeating the entire point of holding inspections, which is to enforce regulatory compliance. I know that outright mandating member states to accept a WA agency’s presence may be somewhat unpopular amongst the more hardcore NatSovs, but at some point, you really just need to accept that not everyone can be pleased by everything, and good, effective legislation should be offered first, with the potential for it to be watered-down during drafting, rather than capitulating in advance.
Secondly, this was not on the forums for very long, and clearly did not go through a very robust drafting process. That’s not inherently problematic, but for a proposal that has notable flaws in it, it really should have been given more time and attention as part of that.
My biggest concern is the double standard for the INCC’s operation. according to the proposal, while any nation trying to achieve criticality to make nuclear energy infrastructure must have their attempts overseen by the INCC, nations that already have this infrastructure don’t, and only have to deal with optional INCC audits and visits. Getting nuclear power will be harder than keeping it.
Aside from that, a minor nitpick: for some reason it defines Nuclear Energy as infrastructure with more than one structure, which is kind of odd: what about nations that are too small to need more than one reactor? And this is an edge case, but what if a nation makes a single enormous nuclear reactor? In these cases the entire resolution effectively becomes useless because it isn’t considered Nuclear Energy due to being only one structure.