Conch Kingdom

Beyond merely striking resolutions from the floor, repeals serve as snapshots of the World Assembly’s outlook. This is because they are themselves expressions of the Assembly's collective will and provide insight into the evolving standards by which the Assembly evaluates resolutions and offer a window into its very culture.

We, the reborn General Assembly, have collectively embraced our role in forging a new culture, one that centers an inclusive vision of sovereignty and progress. We have passed resolutions establishing foundational infrastructure and unifying principles, to act as a catalyst for the Assembly’s future.

We must also embrace the potential of repeals in this new era, not as instruments of destruction, but of progress. We have the responsibility of establishing a new forward-looking repeal custom: one that advances the theoretical foundations underpinning the Assembly and ensures that the practical implementation of those foundations remains strong.

As such, the General Assembly finds the following regarding GA#11’s animating principles:

1. It's vital that this body's resolutions tackle issues of international import, and international agricultural preservation is certainly one such topic. The goal of enjoining members to collaborate in safeguarding the world's food supply is laudable.

2. It is essential that this body’s resolutions respect the sovereignty and interests of members, particularly vulnerable ones. The target makes a good-faith effort to align with that and to protect such states. Its preamble takes care to express concern regarding "vulnerability to disease, pests, and continued changes to the environment."

However, while this animus indicates strong potential, resolutions must take care to execute their provisions well. In that regard, the General Assembly finds the following:

1. Section 2 requires the ISPI (the WA agency established by the target for seed preservation and access) to "[develop] redundant storage systems across multiple geographic regions." It does not set further parameters for their establishment, leaving the uncomfortable possibility of undue encroachment into the jurisdiction of members. It also provides no obvious pathway for collaboration by members interested in hosting or accommodating such sites.

2. Clause 4 "[affirms] that all contributed genetic material remains the sovereign property of the originating nation." It's unclear what "sovereign property" means, what the limits of "genetic material" are, or what protections that entails in practice. This could compromise the agency's operations and members reliant on its assistance in times of great vulnerability.

3. Clause 7 "[authorizes] the ISPI to distribute preserved seeds at no cost to nations experiencing agricultural collapse due to disaster, conflict, or environmental crisis." The ISPI does not actually need a request or even consent from members to distribute seeds to them that they might not need or possess the infrastructure to utilize. The stipulation that distribution "respects regional agricultural practices and ecological compatibility" does not ameliorate this.

Overall, the target's issues are ones of unevenness stemming from a lack of refinement. It attempts to undertake a worthwhile, globally relevant policy objective in ways that benefit members and respect their interests. However, this policymaking must be handled with greater robustness than the target demonstrates. As it stands, the target's important clauses are harmfully underdeveloped.

These findings should provide a roadmap for future efforts, both in revisiting this subject matter and in beginning to build a new culture of repeals. There is no better target to use in fashioning such a tradition than one that, while poorly executed, demonstrates clear potential for addressing a matter undoubtedly suitable for Assembly lawmaking. After all, the shape of the seed informs the shape of the tree.

Co-authors: Cretox State, Merethin, Bjornifjordaland