[PASSED] World Assembly Trade Rights

[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.

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

Me? "Ethics in International Trade" seeks for the better treatment of laborers by reducing the advantages of ridiculously loose labor restrictions, "World Assembly Trade Rights" brings to the forefront the pressing civil rights campaign for equality that is.. not gays, various races, disadvantaged peoples or others, no no no, something *way* more important: national trade opportunities.

Frankly if people's human rights are being secured, I'm not really caring about nations tying trade advantages and deals to various offers and negotiations -- that seems like functional and realistic policy that respects our nation's imports are our nation's imports and will be exchanged on agreed upon terms unless there is some pressing need for intervention *like* human rights violations; I'm not seeing where equality of trade is such a pressing moral obligation or a universal "threat" as its described in this resolution to be. It's only a "threat" to export nations when they fail to wheel-and-deal trade advantages with Unibot, which is the fault of exporting nations. I agree however that let's say there is a relatively Jewish nation selling something, that nation shouldn't be slapped with a "Jewish" import tax based on prejudice -- if such a thing occurs. But I don't see how that's the main focus of the resolution by any means.

[Clegstopia]

Clegstopia will be opposing this legislation, noting with dismay its destruction of our national self-determination in regards to economic policy.

OOC: If I want to have MFN trading with some nations, I should be allowed to. I'm not liking the stream of 'level the playing field' legislations I've been seeing recently.

[ALMF]

really, no band goods and serverses found unreasonable

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

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?

We believe that the effect of it is legal, if very carefully worded.

1. Grants the following rights to each member nation:
a. the right, for a good or service originating from said nation, to receive the most favourable trade preference from any other member nation that said other nation grants to any other member nation for the same type of good or service,

For here Glen Rhodes could be providing its corporations with the profits of providing the service (here the sale of a piece of Glen-Rhodes land) and therefore they would be providing a unique good or service. If another corporation could offer a share of the sale of the same type or piece of land for the same charge, then they would however also have to recieve the same most favourable trade preference.

2. Clarifies that member nations may suspend their individual responsibilities under the above provision in the following cases:
a. in the event of a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards, or to ensure reasonable quality control on goods and services, but only if such a suspension does not constitute discrimination between goods and services from different member nations with similar issues,

We are concerned that the use of the word labour could mean to refer to the price of labour; which implies that it is possible to discriminate between goods and services on the basis of how hard-working people are.

We are also worried by the power that this proposal would give to tax havens, and so we hope that the idea that a lack of tax can be sensibly considered an implicit subsidy is generally acknowledged?

Other than this, we can tentatively support the proposal; but will at any rate be refraining from lodging a formal vote at the present moment.

[Tibberiria]

We are satisfied that this proposal will help, rather than hinder, the rights of nations. We vote for.

[Empire of the Gemstone Houses]

We, the co-Emperors of the Gemstone Empire, oppose this Resolution on the following grounds:

Firstly, this Resolution drastically changes the nature of the World Assembly from that of an organization to foster peace to that of a World Trade Union. This Resolution ties WA member nations more closely together leasing Us to believe that some members of the WA desire to make smaller states such as Ours into mere economic puppets.

Secondly, because Resolutions which pass in the World Assembly are binding upon World Assembly members, this Resolution will drastically affect Our trade relations with other nations. We will be forced to grant Our Empire’s most favorable trade agreements to WA member nations who We may be at odds with. We will no longer be able to grant most favorable trade agreements with nations in Our region or to nations who appear to merit more favorable trade (based on philosophy, royal family ties, cultural compatibility, or mutual need of resources available within partner nations).

Thirdly, despite the widely accepted idea that governments are responsible for protecting the interests of their subjects or citizens, this Resolution will forward the interests of ALL World Assembly members within the borders of all WA member nations.

Fourthly, this Resolution, in Our reading, appears to bar WA members from excluding other WA members from trade unless all WA members are excluded from trade. This will either force us to accept trade from WA member nations currently barred from trade with Our subjects or to bar trade from all WA member nations in order to maintain the current sanctions.

Finally, most governments reserve the right to negotiate trade agreements freely. This Resolution forces a trade agreement upon Us along with Our WA membership which We sought for greater security for Us and Our subjects.

Passage of this Resolution will likely require Our withdrawal from the World Assembly. Although Our nation’s membership is new, We feel that the negative effects of the passage of this Resolution will override any positives that World Assembly membership may provide. We will likely seek membership in alternative peacekeeping organizations. We regret that the passage of this Resolution will force this action upon Us.

We respectfully and strongly oppose this Resolution,

Vilhelmo I, Emperor of the Emerald Throne

on behalf of

Jeremiah I, Emperor of the Sapphire Throne, and Christopher I, Emperor of the Ruby Throne

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

As I have seen no overtly well-stated opposition to this proposal, and, as we sit in favor of reducing trade barriers whenever possibly, even if it only applies to World Assembly nations, I, Elias Greyjoy, WA Delegate of Skyrim, do hereby lodge my vote FOR this resolution. I would also like to wish the delegation from Auralia all the best with their proposal.

Signed,

Elias Greyjoy
Lord Reaper of House Greyjoy
World Assembly Delegate, Skyrim

[Discoveria]

Discoveria tentatively supports this resolution and will vote FOR, but will also consider any further discussion brought to the floor.

We share the Empire of the Gemstone Houses' concern as stated above.

Secondly, because Resolutions which pass in the World Assembly are binding upon World Assembly members, this Resolution will drastically affect Our trade relations with other nations. We will be forced to grant Our Empire’s most favorable trade agreements to WA member nations who We may be at odds with. We will no longer be able to grant most favorable trade agreements with nations in Our region or to nations who appear to merit more favorable trade (based on philosophy, royal family ties, cultural compatibility, or mutual need of resources available within partner nations).

We are concerned that the resolution will affect Discoveria's ability to use trade rights as a tool of international diplomacy, to foster better relations with specific nations, etc. We think it may still be possible in some cases to do so by using Article 2a to justify this practice. We hope the trade benefits this resolution seeks to provide will offset any problems in this area.

In addition the WA gnomes who will be enforcing this resolution will have a particularly difficult task ahead and we wish them every success.

Matthew Turing
Discoverian Ambassador to the World Assembly

OOC: I don't think this resolution would work in RL. There's too much room for interpretation of what constitutes sufficient justification for a discriminatory trade agreement.

[Christian Democrats]

Very good proposal. I have voted in favor of it.

[Rotovia-]

The economic policy of the Commonwealth and the Republic are sovereign rights which have never been asserted as a matter of international law. While the World Assembly has a body of law to demonstrate a capacity to restrain international trade on the basis of human rights, the enviroment and prevailing international interests of a significant nature, "fairness" does not rise to this standard, in the view of my government.

We respectfully submit that without this resolution being limited to instances of clear and deliberate negative discrimination, which rises to exploitation, natural market forces and soverieng right to establish fiscal and economic policies are placed at risk, as well as a nation's capacity to exercise soft-power, and ensure market stablisation.

I rise to declare the formal opposition of my government.

Rt Hon. Dr. Julia Rothe
Director of Economic Policy
Office of the Rotovian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

[Dagguerro]

We are concerned that the resolution will affect Discoveria's ability to use trade rights as a tool of international diplomacy, to foster better relations with specific nations, etc.

You won't be able to. Thats the outcome of this resolution as written. Any preferential treatment MUST also be offered to everyone else.

[Ossitania]

Support.

[Discoveria]

We are concerned that the resolution will affect Discoveria's ability to use trade rights as a tool of international diplomacy, to foster better relations with specific nations, etc.

You won't be able to. Thats the outcome of this resolution as written. Any preferential treatment MUST also be offered to everyone else.

Thank you for the clarification. We conclude that the passage of the resolution is still in Discoveria's best interests, overall, though we remain disappointed at the cost of securing these interests.

Matthew Turing
Discoverian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Haelunor]

This bill feels like an abuse as my rights as a nation to conduct trade with whomever I want. Against.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

We are concerned that the resolution will affect Discoveria's ability to use trade rights as a tool of international diplomacy, to foster better relations with specific nations, etc.

You won't be able to. Thats the outcome of this resolution as written. Any preferential treatment MUST also be offered to everyone else.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The use of preferential trade rights is an integral part of Kawaiian diplomacy, as it is one of the tools we use when negotiating settlement rights for Kawaiian diaspora tribes. We note that exception to this resolution can be made per clause 2c:

to protect vital national security interests during serious international disputes or times of war,

Would the Assembly agree that the settlement of Kawaiians living in nomadic conditions certainly qualifies as a vital national security interest for our people, and such settlement negotiations constitute a serious international dispute?

[Auralia]

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?

For here Glen Rhodes could be providing its corporations with the profits of providing the service (here the sale of a piece of Glen-Rhodes land) and therefore they would be providing a unique good or service. If another corporation could offer a share of the sale of the same type or piece of land for the same charge, then they would however also have to recieve the same most favourable trade preference.

The scenario Unibot described would be legal, but not for the reasons Libraria and Ausitoria has outlined; shame on you for using overly narrow classifications! The Glen-Rhodesian government and Glen-Rhodesian private citizens are free to sell their property to whomever they wish at whatever price they deem appropriate. However, neither the Glen-Rhodes nor the Unibot government may impose a tariff, quota or any other protectionist measure on land trades in general which discriminates against one or more WA members and which does not fall under one of the exceptions listed in the second clause.

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.

Ha! No. The intent of the proposal is quite clear: to eliminate trade barriers between all WA member nations. Both this intent and the interests of sustainable development and poverty reduction must be respected in order to make use of the exemption in clause 2d.

We are concerned that the use of the word labour could mean to refer to the price of labour; which implies that it is possible to discriminate between goods and services on the basis of how hard-working people are.

I think it's clear that "labour standards" refers to minimum wage regulations, workplace safety standards and the like. Any other interpretation would simply be an excuse to discriminate and would not be in good faith.

We are also worried by the power that this proposal would give to tax havens, and so we hope that the idea that a lack of tax can be sensibly considered an implicit subsidy is generally acknowledged?

Could you elaborate on why granting MFN status to a tax haven would be a problem?

We are concerned that the resolution will affect Discoveria's ability to use trade rights as a tool of international diplomacy, to foster better relations with specific nations, etc. We think it may still be possible in some cases to do so by using Article 2a to justify this practice. We hope the trade benefits this resolution seeks to provide will offset any problems in this area.

You can, to some extent, under the exceptions in clause 2.

OOC: I don't think this resolution would work in RL. There's too much room for interpretation of what constitutes sufficient justification for a discriminatory trade agreement.

OOC: Yes. The real-life WTO agreements are much more complex than this resolution. But that's the price you pay for having a 3,500 character word limit.

The economic policy of the Commonwealth and the Republic are sovereign rights which have never been asserted as a matter of international law.

Finally, most governments reserve the right to negotiate trade agreements freely. This Resolution forces a trade agreement upon Us along with Our WA membership which We sought for greater security for Us and Our subjects.

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.

Clegstopia will be opposing this legislation, noting with dismay its destruction of our national self-determination in regards to economic policy..

I'm sorry to say that we have fundamental ideological differences about the role of the World Assembly in promoting international trade. I've already explained why free(r) trade is generally beneficial for all nations. There's nothing else I can say to convince you otherwise, I'm afraid. Ultimately, the WA electorate will determine whether this proposal violates a "sovereign right".

Passage of this Resolution will likely require Our withdrawal from the World Assembly.

Dibs on your office.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Unfortunately, I must abstain from this vote. I affirm that in the history of nations, most develop favorable trading relations with certain others after countless years of negotiation and cooperation. Favorable trading preferences are a reward for years of mutually beneficial conduct and trustworthiness. This proposal will put nations in the awkward position of either abolishing long-time preferential treatment, or else providing that treatment to every other nation regardless of whether their conduct and dealings are deserving of that preference. That is, if they don't choose to simply file for an exception.

I abstain only because I am convinced that the exceptions in this act sufficiently swallow the rule and ultimately permit nations to operate pretty much as they always have. While I would lament the additional paperwork alleging "a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards," or "serious international disputes," I would ultimately view the passage of this legislation as a no-harm, no-foul situation. (OOC: Plus, I won't mind the Economic Freedoms stat boost).

[Vagabundas]

Isn't there any previous legislation regarding the rights and duties mentioned on this Bill?

Are embargos between WA members being prohibted also???

Yours,

[Rampony]

This bill feels like an abuse as my rights as a nation to conduct trade with whomever I want. Against.

I agree. It seems like this bill could force nations to trade with other nations they may not wish to support, and possibly other infringements of trade rights. Against.

[Auralia]

I affirm that in the history of nations, most develop favorable trading relations with certain others after countless years of negotiation and cooperation. Favorable trading preferences are a reward for years of mutually beneficial conduct and trustworthiness.

OOC: Except in real life, where just about every nation has joined the World Trade Organization, which implements policies similar to those laid out in this proposal.

I abstain only because I am convinced that the exceptions in this act sufficiently swallow the rule and ultimately permit nations to operate pretty much as they always have. While I would lament the additional paperwork alleging "a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards," or "serious international disputes," I would ultimately view the passage of this legislation as a no-harm, no-foul situation.

Keep in mind that you have to fulfill your obligations under this resolution in good faith, as per GAR#2.

Are embargos between WA members being prohibted also???

Depends. Would such an embargo fall under one of the exceptions listed under clause 2?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I affirm that in the history of nations, most develop favorable trading relations with certain others after countless years of negotiation and cooperation. Favorable trading preferences are a reward for years of mutually beneficial conduct and trustworthiness.

OOC: Except in real life, where just about every nation has joined the World Trade Organization, which implements policies similar to those laid out in this proposal.

I wouldn't say "except" in real life, since both your draft and the real WTO recognize the historical trade preferences that I describe (hence the Euro Zone). Also, if we're talking about the real WTO - I'm pretty sure most favorable trade preference is not offered to just any other nation, but those who reciprocate the preference. That detail seems to have been left out of this proposal.

I abstain only because I am convinced that the exceptions in this act sufficiently swallow the rule and ultimately permit nations to operate pretty much as they always have. While I would lament the additional paperwork alleging "a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards," or "serious international disputes," I would ultimately view the passage of this legislation as a no-harm, no-foul situation.

Keep in mind that you have to fulfill your obligations under this resolution in good faith, as per GAR#2.

You don't have to quote GA #2 at me. I'm simply saying that those nations we discriminate against will probably be the ones we have serious international disputes with, or ones with a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards from our own.

That said, I remain in (quiet) abstention on this matter.

[Auralia]

Also, if we're talking about the real WTO - I'm pretty sure most favorable trade preference is not offered to just any other nation, but those who reciprocate the preference. That detail seems to have been left out of this proposal.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Under the GATT, all member nations must offer MFN status to each other, with limited exceptions. This proposal does the exact same thing.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Also, if we're talking about the real WTO - I'm pretty sure most favorable trade preference is not offered to just any other nation, but those who reciprocate the preference. That detail seems to have been left out of this proposal.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Under the GATT, all member nations must offer MFN status to each other, with limited exceptions. This proposal does the exact same thing.

With all due respect, you should read your proposal again. I don't see anything in there about Most Favored Nation status, which would (I guess...) include everything commonly understood to come with that status IRL; including the principle of reciprocity. You do talk about "the most favourable trade preference," which as far as I can tell has no special meaning. Presumably it means just what it says: even if your nation "prefers" to trade with another nation, you must give other nations the same trading terms you would give that preferred nation - regardless of whether those other nations offer to reciprocate.

[Damanucus]

Lemme have a look at this:

Grants the following rights to each member nation:

1. the right, for a good or service originating from said nation, to receive the most favourable trade preference from any other member nation that said other nation grants to any other member nation for the same type of good or service,
2. the right, for a good or service originating from said nation, to have applied the same taxes or regulations by any other member nation that said other nation applies to the same type of good or service of domestic origin, at least once the good or service has legally entered that nation,
3. the right to create or maintain existing free trade areas or customs unions, so long as such areas or unions ultimately lower trade barriers between their members, not raise trade barriers for non-members;

These right seem fairly straightforward enough. I was going to raise a question about the first point, but I feel it is better addressed below. The inclusion of the third point, I feel, is especially notable, and, were these rights listed in a preferential order, I'm sure this would've been at the top.

Clarifies that member nations may suspend their individual responsibilities under the above provision in the following cases:

1. in the event of a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards, or to ensure reasonable quality control on goods and services, but only if such a suspension does not constitute discrimination between goods and services from different member nations with similar issues,
2. to apply domestic subsidies, or to protect domestic industries against a discriminatory subsidy applied by another member nation, so long as any retaliation in the latter case is directly proportional to the original subsidy,
3. to protect vital national security interests during serious international disputes or times of war, or
4. to develop any other additional reasonable and appropriate trade regulations that are consistent with the goals of this resolution, as well as the interests of sustainable development and poverty reduction, either unilaterally through domestic legislation or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

The first and third do not need explaining, I feel. The second I'm going to assume means when the local industry is under threat of being made extinct from international imports (please correct me if I'm wrong). The fourth one, I think you may need to flesh out in a bit more detail for me.
The part I am going to ask about, however, is purely preferential treatment, without reason. Now, yes, I have no doubt it's the least sensible reason for giving someone preference (because you "feel like it"), not just because of its lack of reason but—[turns towards the tapping on her shoulder, whispers something with the aide behind her, the returns]—please, excuse my direction, I seemed to have forgotten my studies.

All in all, it looks pretty good. They're pretty much basic rights which we, as nations, should be maintaining anyhow. [cough from behind her] And yes, it also eliminates the excuse of "becasue I feel like it," [mumbles incoherently] In all, I shall support this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Auralia]

With all due respect, you should read your proposal again. I don't see anything in there about Most Favored Nation status, which would (I guess...) include everything commonly understood to come with that status IRL; including the principle of reciprocity. You do talk about "the most favourable trade preference," which as far as I can tell has no special meaning. Presumably it means just what it says: even if your nation "prefers" to trade with another nation, you must give other nations the same trading terms you would give that preferred nation - regardless of whether those other nations offer to reciprocate.

Ah, now I understand what you're talking about. Sorry for the confusion. No, even MFN as implemented in the GATT does not include a requirement for reciprocity.

The second I'm going to assume means when the local industry is under threat of being made extinct from international imports (please correct me if I'm wrong).

That's one case where it could apply, assuming the international imports are being supported through foreign subsidies.

The fourth one, I think you may need to flesh out in a bit more detail for me. The part I am going to ask about, however, is purely preferential treatment, without reason.

The clause allows nations and the WA to put in place regulations that I haven't thought of but might be necessary, so long as they have the ultimate goal of lowering trade barriers with other nations.