This file outlines a mechanism for preventing the advent of irreversible damage to the environment and non-compensable harms to individuals and property, by supplying a cause of action ("Attempted Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity", hereafter, "attempted `NAHA`") through the courts which can produce an unjunction against the defendent to halt the Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity (hereafter, "`NAHA`") until such time that they can prove that they have the means to pursue those activities without incurring harms against 3rd parties that they cannot ameliorate.
As with all `WS` warrants, the warrant shall specify its scope (places, things and effects to be searched/siezed); there shall be no general warrants in a `WS` polity.
This warrant is a transferrable, vendable legal instrument. It is intentional that a successfully procured warrant may be sold off by its original obtainer (or any subsequent owner) to another entity to execute and prosecute it, under whatever terms are deemed mutually profitable to both parties to the transaction.
Any employee working for an employer shall have standing to seek a warrant against that employer. The burden of proof and other requirements needed to obtain this warrant (including affidavits, etc) shall be legislatively defined.
This warrant grants the executor the power to enter into the relevant premises of employment and search/sieze such evidence as is necessary to prove the conduct of Non-Ameliorable Activity which may be harmful to a 3rd party. The executor of the warrant may take with itself such witnesses and equipment as are determined necessary by the court to procure relevant evidence, subject to such limitations as are defined by the legislature to allow the employer to protect trade secrets, unless such trade secrets are themselves relevant evidence.
- A 3rd party here refers to any indepagent which has not consented to be exposed to the possible harm complained of, or the private property such an indepagent.
- The conagent is undertaking these activities in such a manner as to cause those entities, substances and/or processes to exhibit their capability to cause harm to a 3rd party.
The defendant shall have a good defense if it can prove, concerning the harms which could allegedly be caused to 3rd parties by those entities, processes and/or substances, being utilized in the manner that they are being used, any of the following:
- That the defendant has a method of containing the 3rd party harms such that no harm can come to 3rd parties without their knowing volition, and that the defendant is carrying out said activities under the auspices of that method.
- That the defendant has informed said 3rd parties of the harm and they have consented to be exposed to the harm (volenti non fit injuria).
- That the defendant is undertaking said activities while maintaining at the ready, a provable method of *fully* reversing 3rd party harms should they occur.
Furthermore, `WS` allows `NAHA` to be conducted on newly discovered entities/processes/substances whose properties are not well known, and on already discovered entities/processes/substances in new environments where their behaviour is also not well known. In such situations the defendant would be carrying out experiments while seeking to understand the potentially new behaviours, and may not have a means of reversing projected harms. In such a situation, the defendant is allowed to supply as a defense, a demonstration under a legislatively defined burden of proof (this constitution suggests that the burden be "_beyond reasonable doubt_") that the location and facilities where these activities are being carried out are:
- Sufficiently remote and well-isolated from populated areas so that should any leakage or escape of the entities/processes/substances occur, there will be no risk of them influencing populated areas and private property.
- Well-secured to ensure that any leakage or escape of the entities/processes/substances are confined to the private property on which the experiments are conducted and will not leak out to the surrounding plots of natural resources which are not owned by the entity conducting the experiments.
- Designed and built with modularity as a central focus in order to ensure that modular containment of any leakage or disaster event is practical. The plan/design of the facility where these activities are to be undertaken must be carefully set up so as to ensure that in the event of a disaster/leak/escape, the facility can be closed, contained, sealed and possibly systematically destroyed with the oversight and possibly the assistance of the `SovCBIO` branch.
>[Apologia]: It is intentional that companies may buy up large plots of land and other natural resources and maintain large buffer zones around such properties in order to build experimental facilities and rent these facilities out to researchers, and that a whole economic ecosystem might develop around real estate whose express purpose is to facilitate cutting edge experimentation.
Upon judgment proceeding in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall have redress in the form of legislatively defined injunctions and penalties against the defendant, including the levying of fines by the government (which the plaintiff shall receive a percentage of) and injunctions to suspend the carrying out of the activities complained of until such time that the defendant can show cause to resume them (i.e, the defendant must demonstrate that 3rd party harms are no longer unameliorable). At such time the defendant may sue the government to lift the injunctions and resume operation.
If an actor who was previously bound by an injunction to suspend a `NAHA` finds a way to ameliorate the 3rd party harms (as outlined in the "Defense" section of this file) capable of arising from its activity, then the actor may show cause/sue to lift the relevant injunctions and resume operation.
No government agency or government employee, while acting in their capacity **as an agent of the government**, shall have standing to bring a `NAHA` complaint before the courts. Only private sector entities or conagents acting in their private capacity shall have standing to invoke this cause of action.
> [Apologia, Note]: There needs to also be some kind of framework for protecting 3rd party neighbours from dereliction of duty in maintaining property. Things like lack of maintenance leading to the proliferation of vermin, etc.
Note that this cause of action can only be invoked against the actor(s) who is/are using the entity/substance/process in such a manner as to portend 3rd party harm. It may not be invoked against the manufacturer/producer of the input components required to produce the entity/substance/process.
Where the defense supplied by a defendant is that the activity is in such a remote, well-isolated and well-secured location or facility that even in the absence of a method of fully reversing the harms, the harms can be contained (i.e, the "Experimental Activity" defense; all such activities shall be subject to the oversight of the `SovCBIO` branch and:
- The court shall order that the remote location be well fenced off and that clear signs be put up to warn stray conagents to take necessary caution.
- The undertaker of the `NAHA` in such a remote facility must:
- Provide to the `SovCBIO` branch, a full plan and blueprint of the facility which discloses at minimum, the locations and known properties/nature of all dangerous entities/processes/substances.
- Fully disclose, to the `SovCBIO` branch, any leakage or escape of the entities/processes/substances **immediately** in the event of a leak or escape.
- File up to date reports with the `SovCBIO` ambassadorship on the nature of the activities being undertaken and routinely update these reports every time those activities change; and file routine reports at a legislatively defined rate of regularity (this constitution suggests once every 3 months).
These requirements are to be met until such time that a method of fully reversing the effects of the entities/processes/substances is discovered. When such a method is discovered, the undertaker of the `NAHA` activities shall, after demonstrating before the courts that the method is in fact efficacious, no longer be subject to the requirements of these `SovCBIO` obligations.
