Such an interpretation is not in the hands of member nations to determine. It is rather in the hands of the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly, so tasked in section 5. The committee should have been given clearer standards on which to judge projects; or oversight should have been given to member nation determinations, rather than subjecting every project to micromanagement.

The definition in section 1(a) also, by use of the word 'oceanic', fails to adequately govern land reclamation in lake areas, even if such lakes mark an international boundary. Given that lakes, by virtue of their smaller size, are more likely to harbour unique species or strains of life, this omission really should have been caught sooner. The other interpretation possibly given to 'oceanic', relates to areas 'beyond the edge of a continental shelf'. See 'oceanic', Oxford Dictionary of English (2020). This is even more restrictive, further hampering the efficacy of the resolution and further tying the committee in pointless international litigation over the extent of its powers, delaying implementation on the ground, when the resolution easily could have been written to avoid these issues.

The World Assembly Office recommends a vote AGAINST 'Land Reclamation Regulation'.

Primary author(s): Imperium Anglorum.