Actually I have a number of questions, but these two seem the most compelling.
Member nations' corporations must not establish any private property of said corporations in another country without said country's consent.
- This regulation is exempted in an occupied state.
Firstly - and I realise this might be me just being picky - does "corporations" have a specific definition, or does it mean any company? Because in Calladan "corporations" and "companies" and "businesses" and so forth can all be defined differently, depending on their size, function and commercial structure. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say if Joe Bloggs wants to open up a corner shop in Genovia, Calladan would not consider that to be a "corporation" because it is one premise (premesis?) with two or three staff at most. However this proposal might consider it so and - well, we would like to know if that is the case.
Secondly - why is this regulation not applied in an occupied state?
If Genovia has been occupied by Calladan, then clearly it wouldn't matter whether we had consent or not, because for all intents and purposes Genovia no longer exists and it is part of Greater Calladan so we do not need consent to establish private property in our own territory.
But if Genovia has been occupied by Maryvilleland, then does this mean we do not need the consent of the government of Maryvilleland to establish private property in Genovia? Even though they are now the (for want of a better phrase) operational government of Genovia?
This seems like an important point to get cleared up - and it will also have an impact on the later points of the proposal.
If Calladan can establish a business (the definition of corporation notwithstanding) in a Maryvilleland occupied Genovia with or without the consent of the Maryvilleland government, then according to Clause 3.1 we are required to adhere to Calladan's labour laws (not Maryvilleland's) which seems to be a violation of national sovereignty (Maryvilleland's), according to Clause 3.2 we are required to uphold Genovia's Health and Safety Laws (which seems like a violation of both Maryvilleland's and Calladan's national sovereignty), according to Clause 3.3 we must enforce OUR minimum wage (see my objection to Clause 3.1) and Clause 3.4 seems to be dictating terms as to what WE must set OUR minimum wage at (because apparently if we invade and occupy a country we are required to care about the well being of the citizens of the country we just pillaged which seems a bit odd if you ask me - especially since the proposal SPECIFICALLY states we do NOT have to care about the union and socialised health care of the country).
Given the queue expires in 23 hours and it is about 60% shy of what it needs, this might end up being moot, but I just thought I would ask for clarification on my main point - why does the proposal not apply in countries under occupation and does it matter who is doing the occupying?
