NationStates

This proposal is the first of two proposals relating to international trade and the World Assembly. The first is Resolving WA Trade Disputes.

World Assembly Trade Rights
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Strong

Regretting that World Assembly member nations often face harmful and unnecessary barriers in their trade with other member nations,

Emphasizing that these barriers ultimately serve as obstacles to the economic prosperity of all member nations,

Recognizing that these barriers therefore constitute a serious hazard to national populations,

The General Assembly,

1. 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;
2. 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.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly does this proposal do?
"World Assembly Trade Rights" creates a multilateral trading system for the World Assembly. It guarantees that every WA nation is entitled to the same treatment as any other WA nation in international trade. For instance, if a WA nation decided to give preferential treatment to another WA nation, they would be obliged to provide the same treatment to all other WA nations.

Does this mandate free trade between all WA nations?
No. Nations are still free to adopt tariffs, quotas, internal taxes and any other protectionist measures they deem necessary. The only restriction is that they may not discriminate between WA nations when applying these measures. In this way, the resolution encourages free trade while allowing nations with weaker economies to apply protectionist measures until they feel they are ready to re-join the world economy at large.

Aren't there legitimate reasons for discrimination between WA nations in international trade?
Yes, to some degree. This is why the resolution includes exceptions for disparities in labour, environmental or human rights standards, the maintenance of quality control, the application of domestic subsidies or protection from the same, and vital national security interests. We have also provided a blanket exception for any additional reasonable and appropriate trade regulations that are consistent with the goals of this resolution, as well as the interests aof sustainable development and poverty reduction. We feel that these exceptions do a good job of balancing the promotion of international trade with the particularities of national economies and societies that won't work with a one-size-fits-all free trade policy.

---

Recent Changes

The following is an overview of the major changes from last time:

• Significant formatting changes
• Duties and obligations have been rephrased as rights
• Domestic subsidies as well as disparities in labour, environmental and human rights standards are now valid reasons to suspend MFN and national treatment
• Nations may unilaterally create the "reasonable and appropriate trade regulations", rather than solely through WA resolution
• Dispute resolution has been split to a second resolution

Much better vis-à-vis ITA. I am satisfied that the maniacal drive to further empower ITA has been eliminated. I could agree to this.

Yours,

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Much better vis-à-vis ITA. I am satisfied that the maniacal drive to further empower ITA has been eliminated. I could agree to this.

Yours,

Thanks for your support.

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.

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.

-Title and wording changed to appeal to fluffies.
-Strength upgraded to 'Strong' which seems more appropriate.
-Reworded all the clauses as 'rights' which are entitlements rather than restrictive. Mostly for aestethic reasons.
-Merged the environmental stuff into a single "right".
-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.

World Assembly Trade Rights
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Strong

Regretting that World Assembly Member States often face harmful and unnecessary barriers to their trade,

Emphasizing that such barriers are a clear obstacle to economic prosperity,

Realizing that such discrimination should thus be considered a serious hazard to national populations,

The General Assembly hereby adopts the following resolution:

1. Right to trade

Member States have the right to be granted, at minimum, the most favourable trade preference from another Member State that said State grants to any other Member State;

2. Right to fair taxation

Goods and services exported by Member States to other Member States may not face more taxes or regulations than similar goods and services of domestic origin;

3. Right to establish trade areas

Member States have the right to establish free trade areas or customs unions, so long as these do not infringe on the rights of other Member States;

4. Right to regulate trade

Member States have the right to develop reasonable and appropriate international trade regulations that are consistent with the goals of this resolution, as well as the interests of sustainable development and poverty reduction. Such regulations may include trade restrictions in the event of a significant disparity in labour, environmental or human rights standards, or to ensure reasonable quality control on goods and services, so long as such measures do not constitute discrimination between goods and services from different member nations with similar issues;

5. Right to suspend trade

Member States have the right to suspend the trade rights for any of the following reasons:

• If they suffer from significant damage to their domestic industries as a result of discriminatory subsidies;
• During serious international disputes or times of war;
• In order to comply with previous WA resolutions.

This draft needs further work but it does reflect the direction that this should take, I think.

Knootoss wrote:snip

I took a number of your suggestions, and I think you are correct when you say that the best way to move forward is to rephrase all of the proposal's provisions as rights instead of obligations.

However, I have to disagree about the role of the ITA. The ITA does not enforce the resolution; it provides (optional) mediation and arbitration services in the event of any international trade dispute, regardless of whether it actually violates the terms of the resolution. Furthermore, I don't think that it will result in a loss of votes - Sionis Prioratus, one of the most vocal opponents to the use of the ITA in this resolution, is fine with its current implementation. In fact, others, like Glen-Rhodes, would probably vote against this resolution if I removed the ITA, since they feel that a dispute settlement mechanism is the only way to compensate for the vagueness imposed by the 3,500 character limit on proposals.

Saying that rights "are not absolute" just makes it all sound like less of a good thing, to be honest.

Knootoss wrote:Saying that rights "are not absolute" just makes it all sound like less of a good thing, to be honest.

I can strike that, if you'd like.

Knootoss wrote:-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.

Glen-Rhodes wrote: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.

The following is a brief overview of the major substantive changes at this point:

• Duties and obligations have been rephrased as rights
• Domestic subsidies as well as disparities in labour, environmental and human rights standards are now valid reasons to suspend MFN and national treatment
• Nations may unilaterally create the "reasonable and appropriate trade regulations", rather than solely through WA resolution
• Nations are required to attempt to negotiate with one another in the event of a trade dispute
• Nations have right of appeal after an ITA arbitration ruling

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.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Sionis Prioratus dislikes the provision because he doesn't like me.

Cathérine raises an eyebrow

Dear "doctor", I may forget to shave my legs every once in a while, but for _{your excellency} to mistake my gender is quite pathetic. May I further inquire why is _{your excellency} mistaking my country for its representatives? Quite a few people in Sionis Prioratus do like _{your excellency}. The fact that all of them are institutionalized in psychiatric wards ought not to detract from such a display of affection. To close, _{your excellency} is best advised to drop _{your excellency}'s loopy conspiracy theories, for that is very poor form indeed.

Yours in a most pleasant conversation over cinnamon tea,

Auralia wrote:a. the right to receive, for a good or service originating from said nation, the most favourable trade preference from another member nation that said nation grants to any other member nation for that type of good or service,
b. the right to have applied, for a good or service originating from said nation, the same taxes or regulations applied by other member nations to the same type of good or service of domestic origin, at least once the good or service has legally entered the country, and
c. 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 other member nations;

I had to read clause a) 3 times to fully understand what's being said. May I suggest we simplify the sentence to say:

the right to receive, the most favourable trade preference from another member nation in return for granting a similar privilege for any type of good or service,

For b), would "the right to apply" read better than "the right to have applied"? Also, I believe the last part is not needed (because it is understood. For e.g. You can only levy a tax upon entry. It's also understood that nobody can tax contraband goods since they, well, entered illegally.)

the right to apply, for a good or service originating from said nation, the same taxes or regulations applied by other member nations to the same good or service of domestic origin,

For c), similarly suggest to simplify the sentence to:

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 members, without raising them for non-members;

Overall, a much improved effort over the previous one. Good luck!

Goddess Relief Office wrote:

Auralia wrote:a. the right to receive, for a good or service originating from said nation, the most favourable trade preference from another member nation that said nation grants to any other member nation for that type of good or service,
b. the right to have applied, for a good or service originating from said nation, the same taxes or regulations applied by other member nations to the same type of good or service of domestic origin, at least once the good or service has legally entered the country, and
c. 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 other member nations;

I had to read clause a) 3 times to fully understand what's being said. May I suggest we simplify the sentence to say:

the right to receive, the most favourable trade preference from another member nation in return for granting a similar privilege for any type of good or service,

I'll change it to something similar. It's important to include the fact that the trade preference is relative to what that nation grants to other WA member nations.

the right to receive the most favourable trade preference from another member nation that said nation grants to any other member nation for a particular type of good or service,

Goddess Relief Office wrote:For b), would "the right to apply" read better than "the right to have applied"? Also, I believe the last part is not needed (because it is understood. For e.g. You can only levy a tax upon entry. It's also understood that nobody can tax contraband goods since they, well, entered illegally.)

the right to apply, for a good or service originating from said nation, the same taxes or regulations applied by other member nations to the same good or service of domestic origin,

I'm not sure you understand what the clause does.It guarantees national treatment for all WA nations; every WA nation has the right to have every other WA nation levy the same internal taxes and regulations on their goods and services as they would their domestic goods and services. Internal taxes do exist, by the way.

Goddess Relief Office wrote:For c), similarly suggest to simplify the sentence to:

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 members, without raising them for non-members;

Sounds fine.

Melvin Ruiz Walsh-Romero, who was present while his father was home in Astrolinium to help organize something or other with some state visit and a census or something, scrutinized the proposal carefully and said, "Clause 1b, the language there is making something in my head want to spin. Is it trying to say that once goods from another member state are in your country, they must be treated like goods from your own nation for tax purposes? Furthermore, regarding clause 3d: to what organization would rulings be appealed? I think it would hardly be good for the appealing state if their appeal goes right to the same body whose original ruling they disliked, you know?"

Astrolinium wrote:Melvin Ruiz Walsh-Romero, who was present while his father was home in Astrolinium to help organize something or other with some state visit and a census or something, scrutinized the proposal carefully and said, "Clause 1b, the language there is making something in my head want to spin. Is it trying to say that once goods from another member state are in your country, they must be treated like goods from your own nation for tax purposes?

Yes.

Astrolinium wrote:Furthermore, regarding clause 3d: to what organization would rulings be appealed? I think it would hardly be good for the appealing state if their appeal goes right to the same body whose original ruling they disliked, you know?"

I assume the ITA has a sufficient number of arbitrators to put together a second panel of unrelated officials to hear the appeal.

the International Trade Administration may impose any penalties or sanctions it deems appropriate on member nations as part of the arbitration process, and

Question: can the ITA impose a penalty to force a nation to agree to arbitration?

Auralia wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:Melvin Ruiz Walsh-Romero, who was present while his father was home in Astrolinium to help organize something or other with some state visit and a census or something, scrutinized the proposal carefully and said, "Clause 1b, the language there is making something in my head want to spin. Is it trying to say that once goods from another member state are in your country, they must be treated like goods from your own nation for tax purposes?

Yes.

Astrolinium wrote:Furthermore, regarding clause 3d: to what organization would rulings be appealed? I think it would hardly be good for the appealing state if their appeal goes right to the same body whose original ruling they disliked, you know?"

I assume the ITA has a sufficient number of arbitrators to put together a second panel of unrelated officials to hear the appeal.

"Alright."
Melvin looked again, and added, "Clauses 1a and 1c. I'm not entirely sure what they mean when used together; are or aren't nations allowed to give other nations special treatment?"

Astrolinium wrote:

Auralia wrote:
Yes.



I assume the ITA has a sufficient number of arbitrators to put together a second panel of unrelated officials to hear the appeal.

"Alright."
Melvin looked again, and added, "Clauses 1a and 1c. I'm not entirely sure what they mean when used together; are or aren't nations allowed to give other nations special treatment?"

Clause 1c is an exception to clause 1a; nations are only allowed to give each other special treatment if they reduce trade barriers for those to whom they're giving special treatment, not raise barriers for everyone else.

Auralia wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
"Alright."
Melvin looked again, and added, "Clauses 1a and 1c. I'm not entirely sure what they mean when used together; are or aren't nations allowed to give other nations special treatment?"

Clause 1c is an exception to clause 1a; nations are only allowed to give each other special treatment if they reduce trade barriers for those to whom they're giving special treatment, not raise barriers for everyone else.

Melvin nodded. "Alrighty, then. I'll have to text my father about it first, but I think we'll be able to say yes to this in its current state if it goes to a vote."

Astrolinium wrote:

Auralia wrote:
Clause 1c is an exception to clause 1a; nations are only allowed to give each other special treatment if they reduce trade barriers for those to whom they're giving special treatment, not raise barriers for everyone else.

Melvin nodded. "Alrighty, then. I'll have to text my father about it first, but I think we'll be able to say yes to this in its current state if it goes to a vote."

Thanks for your (tentative) support.

Moronist Decisions wrote:

the International Trade Administration may impose any penalties or sanctions it deems appropriate on member nations as part of the arbitration process, and

Question: can the ITA impose a penalty to force a nation to agree to arbitration?

No. Penalties can only be imposed "as part of the arbitration process" - i.e. once it has already begun, which requires the consent of both nations.

Any other comments on the new draft? If not, I'll be submitting it for a test run soon...

"I completely agree with this proposal. I will approve of it moving onto a vote in the entire GA."

Marquess of the 4th Realm, Sir John Bade, Servant of the Crown

Royalsoldiers wrote:"I completely agree with this proposal. I will approve of it moving onto a vote in the entire GA."

Marquess of the 4th Realm, Sir John Bade, Servant of the Crown

Thanks for your support.