WA proposal legality/deletion

[Glen-Rhodes]

First, would the emphasized clauses in this resolution be contradicting National Economic Freedoms if it passes?

REALIZING that anti-competitive practices are restrictive to the international market and inhibit the fair trade of goods,

The World Assembly hereby

LIMITS this resolution to the international market,

HOWEVER reserves the inherent right to openly legislate further on the subjects of competition law and commerce regulation;

GENERALLY DEFINES “collusion” as a public or private agreement which occurs between two or more businesses to divide a market, set prices, limit production, or generally prevent competition;

DEFINES “cartel” as a group of two or more businesses that collude to limit competition within an industry or market;

BANS the formation of cartels and instructs the International Trade Administration (ITA) to determine the existence of a cartel, and restrict existing and future cartels from interacting on an international scale,

DEFINES “price-fixing” as the collusion of two or more business to sell the same product or service at the same price and “bid-rigging” as the collusion of two or more businesses as to which business will submit the winning bid in a competitive bidding process;

BANS price-fixing and bid-rigging and instructs the ITA to monitor and report any suspected actions of price-fixing and bid-rigging to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

DEFINES “anti-competitive exclusive dealing” as the collusion of two or more businesses to buy or sell products or services only among themselves, if either of the businesses are independent, but contractually owned by the other, and there exists a conspiracy to monopolize or a potential for diminished competition;

DEFINES “group boycott” as the collusion of two or more businesses, in an effort to decrease competition, to refuse to interact with another business until they agree to stop interacting with a targeted business;

BANS anti-competitive exclusive dealing and group boycotting; instructs the ITA to monitor and report anti-competitive exclusive dealing and group boycotting to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

DEFINES “market division” as the collusion of two or more businesses to allocate shares of the market among themselves, wherein no party will interfere with another in their allocated market;

BANS market division and instructs the ITA to monitor and report any suspected actions of market division to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

PROTECTS governments from being held financially liable for foreign monetary losses that are a result of the dissolution of a business on grounds of the above proscribed practices;

EXTENDS the authority of the ITA to:

INVESTIGATE and approve or deny international business mergers, ensuring that such mergers are not acts of monopolization or may unintentionally prevent competition;

SUGGEST the dissolution of businesses to national governments;

COMPILE annually a list of repeat offenders of anti-competitive practices and distribute it among the general market.

If so, I might as well request for it to be deleted. In that case, would removing "commerce regulation" in the first clause and changing the other clause to this make it legal?

PROTECTS governments from being held financially liable for non-tangible foreign monetary losses that are a result of the dissolution of a business on grounds of the above proscribed practices;

NEF makes nations liable for "physical property or money seized", which could be read in this case as the "physical" applying to both "property" and "money" (meaning, actual dollar bills, for example). So, changing the above clause would clarify that little grammatical misstep, for better or for worse.

[Ardchoille]

I think you'd have to change the first bolded sentence to get around the explicit definition of "commerce" in NEF. Your proposal appears to be about "markets", not so much actual "commerce", anyway.

I'm sure you'll have noted that the last two clauses of National Economic Freedoms aren't the total blockers that they first appear to be, thanks to the intro: REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA .

I read them as forbidding a general limitation of commerce, but not preventing specific limitation -- that is, a GA hell-bent on regulating commerce could do it by regulating a particular industry, then another industry, and so on.

I'll have to have a closer look at the two proposals side by side for the second part of your query, but it's too late here for me to give it proper attention, so I'll get back to it tomorrow. My general reading is that your proposal's concept will still be legal even if NEF passes, but remember, you can stretch meanings, but not twist them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think you'd have to change the first bolded sentence to get around the explicit definition of "commerce" in NEF. Your proposal appears to be about "markets", not so much actual "commerce", anyway.

Are we able to nitpick here? If we go by definitions, markets are where commerce occurs, and NEF wouldn't limit the regulation of that specifically. Commerce as defined in NEF covers all aspects of the market, though, and not just the buying and selling of stuff.

I'm sure you'll have noted that the last two clauses of National Economic Freedoms aren't the total blockers that they first appear to be, thanks to the intro: REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA .

I read them as forbidding a general limitation of commerce, but not preventing specific limitation -- that is, a GA hell-bent on regulating commerce could do it by regulating a particular industry, then another industry, and so on.

Would that be an official ruling, if NEF passes? It came up in the debate that those clauses wouldn't actually do anything aside from "encourage debate" anyways, since the meaning of "extreme hazard" is so open-ended that all you need to do is say that something is an extreme hazard to fill that prereq.

... but remember, you can stretch meanings, but not twist them.

I only mentioned the adjective thing since Krioval seemed to oppose the idea that national governments would be held liable for things like loses in stock markets. Right now, if some government were to shut down a company, the company would be removed from the stock market (if that's how it works :\ ), so the government would be held liable for those losses.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Could I ask that whatever mod decision is made on this, it is made quickly? Time is obviously a very sensitive factor here, because if this turns out to be a violation, it will be too late to do anything about it, since it will already be at vote. If the two resolutions contradict each other, you had best urge GR to withdraw his proposal.

[Ardchoille]

If so, I might as well request for it to be deleted.

Done.