[PASSED] World Assembly Trade Rights

[Knootoss]

-Dropped ITA. World Assembly resolutions are enforced automatically. You do not need a back-up enforcement committee and are only going to lose votes on the manner of implementation that you gained through principle.

That's absurd. First of all, it's not "enforcement." It's dispute settlement. All current and past international trade resolutions in the World Assembly create a committee to settle disputes. If you leave out an international dispute settlement mechanism, then member states will use their own domestic bodies and, surprise, rule in their own favor in each and every dispute.

Sionis Prioratus dislikes the provision because he doesn't like me. I don't know why you don't like it, though. In the past, you've understood perfectly that dispute settlement is a necessary part of international law. You also voted for this resolution the last time. So I'm pretty confused at this nonsensical suggestion.

Regarding the rest of the resolution, I'm not sure what's been changed from the other versions. The format, definitely. But has any substance been changed? A primer would be useful.

I voted for the resolution the last time despite ITA and after protesting that it was part of the resolution. Frankly, the degree to which the process is voluntary remains questionable. It strikes me that a malicious country could drown a rival in suits as a result of the procedure that is being proposed here, and moreover, the space allotted to ITA in this resolution simply does not suffice to set out a clear purpose, mission, mandate and set of procedures for such a deliberative body.

I reiterate my request that a trade mediation body be dealt with in a resolution separate from one that sets free trade rules. It'll make the rules themselves safer from a repeal over issues with the mediation body too.

[Urgench]

We have similar concerns to our esteemed Knootian colleagues. The provisions of this article -

3. Expands the mandate of the International Trade Administration to include a dispute settlement mechanism for international trade, with the following stipulations:

a. member nations must enter bilateral negotiations for a reasonable length of time to attempt to resolve any trade dispute, with the option of non-binding mediation or binding arbitration by the International Trade Administration, but only with the consent of both nations,
b. the International Trade Administration may impose any penalties or sanctions it deems appropriate on member nations as part of the arbitration process, and
c. member nations are permitted to appeal a ruling by the International Trade Administration to an alternate panel of adjudicators provided by the International Trade Administration after the completion of the arbitration process.

- Are utterly insufficient to the creation of a body which will deal with enormously complicated issues of supreme importance to all member states of this organisation.

Simply stating a right to appeal for instance does not insure that any appeals will ever be heard, nor does it stipulate what grounds for appeal constitute, nor is there any stipulation as to what factors the ITA should regard as vitiation of its own prior rulings. Indeed there are absolutely no stipulations as to due process or the requisite modus operandi of the ITA whatsoever.


That such a body should be created and given the power to impose whatever punitive measures it sees fit with no regard to fairness whatsoever and with no system to control the worst excesses of bureaucratic overreach or incompetence is utter lunacy.



Yours,

[Moronist Decisions]

Also, as written, would the ITA be allowed to "enforce fines" to force nations to go into arbitration? Getting nations into the arbitration process IS part of the arbitration process, perhaps.

Not sure, but I am certainly querying this. I also agree with Urgench with his concerns.

Otherwise, no position.

[Auralia]

Frankly, the degree to which the process is voluntary remains questionable. It strikes me that a malicious country could drown a rival in suits as a result of the procedure that is being proposed here, and moreover, the space allotted to ITA in this resolution simply does not suffice to set out a clear purpose, mission, mandate and set of procedures for such a deliberative body.

I reiterate my request that a trade mediation body be dealt with in a resolution separate from one that sets free trade rules. It'll make the rules themselves safer from a repeal over issues with the mediation body too.

[similar points to those of Knootoss]

[similar points to those of Knootoss]

There are two issues here:

• Is ITA arbitration voluntary?
• Are ITA's mandate, procedures, etc. sufficiently clear?

The first can be easily resolved. In order to make it absolutely clear that ITA arbitration is completely voluntary and that the ITA has no power over nations who do not consent to arbitration, I've re-written the clause. Ultimately, the second issue is semi-resolved if the entire process is voluntary. No nation can be forced to agree to ITA arbitration, and if they do not, then the ITA has no power over them.

1. Expands the mandate of the International Trade Administration to include a dispute settlement mechanism for international trade, with the following stipulations:
   1. member nations must enter bilateral negotiations for a reasonable length of time to attempt to resolve any trade dispute,
   2. during a trade dispute, member nations have the option of non-binding mediation or binding arbitration by the International Trade Administration, but only with the explicit, uncoerced consent of both nations,
   3. the International Trade Administration may impose any penalties or sanctions it deems appropriate on member nations who have consented to the arbitration process but refuse to comply with a final ruling,
   4. member nations are permitted to appeal a ruling by the International Trade Administration to an alternate panel of adjudicators provided by the International Trade Administration after the completion of the arbitration process.

A more thorough resolution of the second issue would require a second resolution for trade arbitration. I had originally thought that it was necessary to accompany a resolution like this with some kind of dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that its provisions were properly executed. However, given that arbitration is optional, there is no guarantee that any nation will choose to use arbitration anyway. As such, it might make more sense to move the ITA provisions to a second resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I voted for the resolution the last time despite ITA and after protesting that it was part of the resolution. Frankly, the degree to which the process is voluntary remains questionable. It strikes me that a malicious country could drown a rival in suits as a result of the procedure that is being proposed here...

That's an incredibly implausible scenario. We won't get anywhere assuming that states act like four year old children. A "malicious country" has better options than to bring a frivolous suit against a rival in a trade dispute settlement body. Like I said before, these kinds of dispute bodies are tradition in the World Assembly. I don't think we've seen them being waged as a weapon of nuisance.

[Auralia]

I voted for the resolution the last time despite ITA and after protesting that it was part of the resolution. Frankly, the degree to which the process is voluntary remains questionable. It strikes me that a malicious country could drown a rival in suits as a result of the procedure that is being proposed here...

That's an incredibly implausible scenario. We won't get anywhere assuming that states act like four year old children. A "malicious country" has better options than to bring a frivolous suit against a rival in a trade dispute settlement body. Like I said before, these kinds of dispute bodies are tradition in the World Assembly. I don't think we've seen them being waged as a weapon of nuisance.

It's not even possible given the structure - you cannot "file suit" with the ITA, since both nations need to consent to ITA involvement.

[Auralia]

All right - anyone who thinks the ITA provisions are too vague can make comments and suggestions here.

[Knootoss]

A more thorough resolution of the second issue would require a second resolution for trade arbitration. I had originally thought that it was necessary to accompany a resolution like this with some kind of dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that its provisions were properly executed. However, given that arbitration is optional, there is no guarantee that any nation will choose to use arbitration anyway. As such, it might make more sense to move the ITA provisions to a second resolution.

I'm happy about this decision.

I voted for the resolution the last time despite ITA and after protesting that it was part of the resolution. Frankly, the degree to which the process is voluntary remains questionable. It strikes me that a malicious country could drown a rival in suits as a result of the procedure that is being proposed here...

That's an incredibly implausible scenario. We won't get anywhere assuming that states act like four year old children. A "malicious country" has better options than to bring a frivolous suit against a rival in a trade dispute settlement body. Like I said before, these kinds of dispute bodies are tradition in the World Assembly. I don't think we've seen them being waged as a weapon of nuisance.

In Knootian history we've been confronted with this exact scenario on numerous occasions. The fact that Glen-Rhodes does not partake in most International Incidents does not mean that such incidents do not exist.

It's not even possible given the structure - you cannot "file suit" with the ITA, since both nations need to consent to ITA involvement.

We do, however, have to spend a lengthy time negotiating. This is not an insurmountable issue but surely it is one that needs to be addressed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In Knootian history we've been confronted with this exact scenario on numerous occasions. The fact that Glen-Rhodes does not partake in most International Incidents does not mean that such incidents do not exist.

Then you were dealing with idiotic leaders who can't fathom a worse way to annoy Knootoss than bringing frivolous trade disputes to a voluntary arbitrator. (Or, more likely, you just made this up on the spot to try and "prove" my statement wrong.)

[Auralia]

We do, however, have to spend a lengthy time negotiating. This is not an insurmountable issue but surely it is one that needs to be addressed.

Actually, I believe the word "reasonable" was used, not "lengthy".

[Knootoss]

In Knootian history we've been confronted with this exact scenario on numerous occasions. The fact that Glen-Rhodes does not partake in most International Incidents does not mean that such incidents do not exist.

Then you were dealing with idiotic leaders who can't fathom a worse way to annoy Knootoss than bringing frivolous trade disputes to a voluntary arbitrator. (Or, more likely, you just made this up on the spot to try and "prove" my statement wrong.)

OOC: Nope. The "Atlantic Court" in our regional RP has a long history of nonsense claims.

[Urgench]

In Knootian history we've been confronted with this exact scenario on numerous occasions. The fact that Glen-Rhodes does not partake in most International Incidents does not mean that such incidents do not exist.

Then you were dealing with idiotic leaders who can't fathom a worse way to annoy Knootoss than bringing frivolous trade disputes to a voluntary arbitrator. (Or, more likely, you just made this up on the spot to try and "prove" my statement wrong.)

Frivolous, or indeed malign suits are a classic tactic of aggressive trading nations interested in forcing their economic expansion at the expense of their trading partners. Inevitably nations must do business with such nations since market forces dictate it. It is therefore vital to make any trade dispute resolution system robust and unsuitable for abuse as possible.

Is Dr Castro involved in this discussion purely to insult our Knootian colleagues or does he have anything useful to add?

Yours,

[Auralia]

Frivolous, or indeed malign suits are a classic tactic of aggressive trading nations interested in forcing their economic expansion at the expense of their trading partners. Inevitably nations must do business with such nations since market forces dictate it. It is therefore vital to make any trade dispute resolution system robust and unsuitable for abuse as possible.

Again, this is not possible given the current framework for the dispute resolution mechanism. The ITA has no power over any nation unless that nation chooses to consent to arbitration.

I would prefer if discussion about mediation and arbitration of trade disputes moved to this thread.

[Isointania]

This deceptive, perfidious, authoritarian bill, which deliberately excludes socialist members of the World Assembly, is therefore anti-democratic and COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

It also suggests that the Auralian delegation holds self-determination and economic diversity in contempt, and that they wish to assume the right to dictate economic policy against the wishes of our people. We consider this resolution a hypocritical and pernicious act of hostility on the part of underbritched delegations whose dismissal of economic sovereignty is despicable, and we condemn the Auralian delegation and all supporters of this positively imperial resolution in the strongest possible terms.

Finally, we ask: When has our delegation ever sought to impose socialism on the economies and policies of capitalist nations? What true supporter of freedom and liberty would deny the freedom of others to set their own economic policy? This resolution exposes the inherent contradictions of capitalist activism, and we affirm the right of all peoples to freely choose a capitalist economic order if they must be so violent and exploitative. We ask no more than the basic respect we afford to even those nations whose economic policy we find objectionable on the foundational principles of human rights. These nations deserve much less, but we afford them this respect because that is how responsible members of the international community treat one another.
no one cares what you think
We trust that this august body will once again come to its senses in standing AGAINST this miscarriage of justice and hypocritical overreach of jurisdiction.

[Free South Califas]

Our comrades are reminded that the position of Free South Califas on this issue changed, and that the current government, the Eighth Federal Assembly, has made no motion to change our position back.

Free South Califas no longer sees any reason to oppose this legislation. FOR

The General Assembly Legislation Review Commission of the World Assembly Delegation of the 6th General Assembly of the Federated Communities and Economies of Free South Califas COMMEND the honorable delegations which have worked so hard to find a solution acceptable to member nations with diverse economic policies, and look forward to the apparent expansion of self-determination rights in this area.

[Auralia]

Bump for comments.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes stands behind openness and fairness of international trade rules. Now that the World Assembly has established a strong dispute settlement mechanism, we can and do support passing the Trade Rights resolution. This resolution will encourage trade and globalization, benefiting the world economy and fostering interconnectedness and peace.

[Knootoss]

Knootoss still supports this, even if I do feel that it is folly to include the false notion that protectionist trade regulations contribute to development.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Free South Califas]

Alas, it is vastly preferable to the false notion that you should, or by democratic means could, dictate the structure of my trade policy.

[Warrior Thorin]

This is well-written and well-thought out, in my opinion. You can count on my support for this legislation.

[Knootoss]

Alas, it is vastly preferable to the false notion that you should, or by democratic means could, dictate the structure of my trade policy.

That is no false notion but pretty much a fact of the World Assembly.

[Free South Califas]

Sorry for my vagueness. By "could", I refer to apparent political reality, not the wider theoretical bounds of international diplomacy.

[Auralia]

Submitted!

[Unibot II]

Let's say Unibot offers Glen-Rhodes a preferential trade agreement for say, I dunno, a favorable deal on a piece of Glen-Rhodes land -- I do not see how this is legal under your draft? And furthermore, I do not see why it is any business of the World Assembly to limit Unibot's ability to organize its trade policy to cater to our closest international partners and make it advantageous for them to do things for us.

EDIT: Seeing as how you actually haven't said what the goal of the resolution is, besides "reducing barriers", I could very well squeeze lots of discrimination practices under the "goals of this resolution" exception. Or otherwise I could say the preference is for "sustainable development" or "poverty reduction" in Glen-Rhodes, since you haven't specified that the sustainable development or poverty reduction has to favor the nation that hosts these trade barriers. Hhhm, this pleases me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Let's say Unibot offers Glen-Rhodes a preferential trade agreement for say, I dunno, a favorable deal on a piece of Glen-Rhodes land -- I do not see how this is legal under your draft? And furthermore, I do not see why it is any business of the World Assembly to limit Unibot's ability to organize its trade policy to cater to our closest international partners and make it advantageous for them to do things for us.

Oh lookie here, the champion of Ethics in International Trade has suddenly turned economic sovereigntist on us!

Sing it, Alanis!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc