Draft: Agreement on Anticompetitive Practices

[Glen-Rhodes]

Agreement on Anticompetitive Practices
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

Recognizing the importance of international trade in securing long-term peace and prosperity,

Realizing that ever-increasing globalization can hurt the economic health of emerging markets in developing countries,

Affirming the need to provide means for member states to protect themselves against anti-competitive behavior of foreign multinational corporations,

The World Assembly hereby adopts the following Agreement on Anticompetitive Practices:

Article I – Definitions
1. “Anti-competitive practices” in this resolution means any unilateral actions or multilateral agreements that limit or harm competition in an economic market, and are regulated by a government or intergovernmental agency.
2. “Competition law” means the body of law and regulations that deals with monitoring or regulating anti-competitive practices.
3. “Good-faith effort” in means an honest and sincere intention to deal fairly with others and comply with the provisions of the law, without any malice or intent to defraud, and without any intent to abuse or exploit weaknesses in the law to avoid its intended effects.

Article II – Domestic Competition Law
Member states are recommended to establish robust and effective laws to prevent businesses and individuals from undertaking anti-competitive practices, including forming dedicated regulatory agencies that can liaise with foreign governments and agencies.

Article III – Cooperation between States
1. Member states are strongly encouraged to work amongst one another to internationally harmonize competition law.
2. Member states are required to make a good-faith effort to cooperate with each other during investigations into anti-competitive practices that cross international jurisdictions.
3. To aid in cooperation, the Legal and Investigative Liaison Office is established within the World Assembly Trade Commission, which will act as an official intergovernmental and interagency liaison, connecting officials with their foreign counterparts and facilitating cooperation during investigations and harmonization.

Article IV – Dispute Settlement
1. Disagreements about domestic and international law that may support or facilitate anti-competitive practices are considered trade disputes, and are thus subject to mediation and arbitrartion by the World Assembly Trade Commission.
2. Should the World Assembly Trade Commission recognize that a member state has failed to implement their arbitration decision, member states adversely impacted by that member nation's lax competition law may impose appropriate trade sanctions to protect their domestic economy, in line with trade rights recognized by the World Assembly.

Article V – Clarification
Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to prevent the World Assembly from reasonably regulating competition law in the future.

---

This is the second draft.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Point Breeze]

Article 4 is quite vague, and I'm sure there will be some RP'ers that will take objection to it. Just what kind of powers will we be giving the WATC over our national laws?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Article 4 is quite vague, and I'm sure there will be some RP'ers that will take objection to it. Just what kind of powers will we be giving the WATC over our national laws?

The process is laid out in WAR#208, Resolving WA Trade Disputes. Mediation and arbitration are voluntarily entered into, but the WATC does have the authority to issue fines and penalties if parties don't comply with binding arbitration.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Corporation de Apple]

I like this quite a lot. QUITE a lot.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I have my doubts about this law as it stands. It's simply too vague, too subjective to be effective. Including a clause that in essence says "you cannot attempt to find loopholes in this law" is not likely to work. Additionally, all of its provisions are simply "recommended" as it stands, except for cooperation with nations in existing laws. It simply doesn't require nations to do anything to prevent international competitive practice - any nation that so desires can simply ignore the crux of the law, the entirety of its effectiveness.

The previous legislation mandated various effective concepts that were effective in fighting anti-competitive practices. This resolution does nothing of the sort. It does not mandate anything that effects a true change in the world. It's "good faith effort" anti loophole clause is doomed to fail - if that was an effective measure, then it would work in all resolutions. Why wouldn't all resolutions have something of the sort? Because all nations have different ideas of what constitutes an effective law, and what constitutes a "good faith effort". It's not a bad idea, and it certainly wouldn't be a bad thing to include, but it can't be a stand alone method of ensuring that vague and subjective laws are followed. A nation opposing anti-competitive practice legislation would certainly not believe that such a law would be effective, and therefore their own definition of a good faith effort would be to not pass such a law in the first place, even if it was mandated by the resolution.

For these reasons, I am opposed to this resolution as it stands.

[Auralia]

Support, though I have a few concerns:

“Anti-competitive practices” in this resolution means any unilateral or multilateral agreements or actions that limit or harm competition in an economic market, and are regulated by a government agency.

What is a "unilateral...agreement[]"?

Laws that support or facilitate anti-competitive practices are subject to World Assembly Trade Commission dispute settlement.

Does this clause fall afoul of the HoC rule? In addition, does this clause mandate the use of WATC dispute settlement, or simply clarify that it is an option?

[Glen-Rhodes]

What is a "unilateral...agreement[]"?

It should be reworded to "unilateral or multilateral actions or agreements," so that the antecedents match up. I don't know what a unilateral agreement would be, but it's better than saying "unilateral actions or multilateral actions or agreements."

Does this clause fall afoul of the HoC rule? In addition, does this clause mandate the use of WATC dispute settlement, or simply clarify that it is an option?

It's kind of tricky, here. Because the WATC is a committee, we can include it without any HOC violations. If Resolving WA Trade Disputes is ever repealed, then WATC will still exist, and it will still be settling disputes about anti-competitive practices laws, but there would be no procedure or anything. I could say something like, "WATC dispute settlement mediation or arbitration," to mitigate that danger. But I don't think I could spell out what the dispute settlement process is, because that would be either duplication or contradicting of Resolving WA Trade Disputes, depending on the wording.

[The Saturnian Republic]

We are in support of this, except for one cosmetic detail. In Article II, it says "Member states are recommended to", which doesn't quite sit right with me. Try "strongly urged" or something similar. Using recommended sounds weird, and reminds me of getting a dinner recommendation from a hotel clerk.

[Free South Califas]

"Limit or harm competition" in what sense? Is there any reason for a voluntary federation of workplace councils and community assemblies to be worried about this draft? (ETA: I don't see one at the moment, nor any particular reason to oppose it.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

We are in support of this, except for one cosmetic detail. In Article II, it says "Member states are recommended to", which doesn't quite sit right with me. Try "strongly urged" or something similar. Using recommended sounds weird, and reminds me of getting a dinner recommendation from a hotel clerk.

It's grammatically correct. I chose it consciously, because we keep seeing so much strong urging coming from the World Assembly, it's nice to break the monotony once in a while. The two are functionally the same. Also, most market economies already have competition law by necessity, so it's not the most important clause to be stressing.

"Limit or harm competition" in what sense? Is there any reason for a voluntary federation of workplace councils and community assemblies to be worried about this draft? (ETA: I don't see one at the moment, nor any particular reason to oppose it.)

In any sense that a member states finds detrimental to the healthy functioning of their economy. Voluntary federations workplace councils and community assemblies should be supportive of this proposal, because it offers flexibility for them to establish competition law in the ways that work best for them. Additionally, it offers a central hub for them to network with other regulatory agencies.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Free South Califas]

That is what we suspected. We fully support this draft then, and look forward to voting for it.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

It's rather watered down, don't you think?

The operative phrases here are "are recommended to establish", "strongly encouraged to work", and "required to make a good-faith effort". Nowhere does it actually require a nation to prohibit anti-competitive practices.

We note that this proposal is listed as "Mild", whereas the proposal it's to replace is "Significant". Are we walking back from a commitment to free trade here?

[Glen-Rhodes]

We note that this proposal is listed as "Mild", whereas the proposal it's to replace is "Significant". Are we walking back from a commitment to free trade here?

It's not walking back from free trade, but rather freeing up room for member states to manage their own competition laws. The World Assembly is stepping away from role as direct regulator, and becoming a facilitator of cooperation, and settling disputes where they arise. If there's strong support for requiring member states to in good faith establish competition laws, that can be added. But the World Assembly shouldn't be wholesale replacing domestic watchdog agencies.

Also, the grand scheme here is to regulate anti-competitive practices through targeted resolutions, if those practices absolutely need to be enforced everywhere by the World Assembly. For example, in the future, I plan on bringing up an anti-dumping proposal, because individual member states have no incentive to prevent dumping, and the victims have no power to force any hands.

[Urcea]

I support this

[Bears Armed]

Could a clause be added specifically allowing nations to temporarily permit and maybeso even help to organise some "anti-competitive practices" in order to stabilise the distribution of limited supplies in wartime, for example by allocating different companies access to different sections of the market (OOC: which the RL UK considered advisable during WW2...), without having to worry about possible WATC intervention?

[Brocwika]

This proposal will never work, as it's very important for competition in an economy.

[Free South Califas]

We note that this proposal is listed as "Mild", whereas the proposal it's to replace is "Significant". Are we walking back from a commitment to free trade here?

It's not walking back from free trade, but rather freeing up room for member states to manage their own competition laws. The World Assembly is stepping away from role as direct regulator, and becoming a facilitator of cooperation, and settling disputes where they arise. If there's strong support for requiring member states to in good faith establish competition laws, that can be added.

The Califan WA Detachment would support that. More importantly, does anything in this draft act to limit the possibility of establishing a standard in competition laws later?

This proposal will never work, as it's very important for competition in an economy.

Perhaps the title is slightly confusing; you seem to have it backwards. This draft would support competition.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Could a clause be added specifically allowing nations to temporarily permit and maybeso even help to organise some "anti-competitive practices" in order to stabilise the distribution of limited supplies in wartime, for example by allocating different companies access to different sections of the market (OOC: which the RL UK considered advisable during WW2...), without having to worry about possible WATC intervention?

WAR#209, World Assembly Trade Rights, allows member states to engage in discriminatory trade practices "to protect vital national security interests during serious international disputes or times of war." Does that cover the concerns raised here? With this proposal specifically, member states could have provisions within their own domestic laws that allow for anti-competitive behavior by some selected firms during wartime. If it's completely domestic, there's no recourse for foreign actors under this proposal, and member states could assert their 2(c) rights under WAR#209 for any domestic or international case, I believe.

The Califan WA Detachment would support that. More importantly, does anything in this draft act to limit the possibility of establishing a standard in competition laws later?

It shouldn't, but the text will further clarify this in the next update.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Bears Armed]

Could a clause be added specifically allowing nations to temporarily permit and maybeso even help to organise some "anti-competitive practices" in order to stabilise the distribution of limited supplies in wartime, for example by allocating different companies access to different sections of the market (OOC: which the RL UK considered advisable during WW2...), without having to worry about possible WATC intervention?

WAR#209, World Assembly Trade Rights, allows member states to engage in discriminatory trade practices "to protect vital national security interests during serious international disputes or times of war." Does that cover the concerns raised here?

OOC: It does, yes. (Can't remember offpaw, wonder if that clause there was due to a suggestion from me? I'll have to check, when I've got the time...) In that case, do you need to add the usual boilerplate about "Except as any earlier resolution tht is still in force might specify" in order to avoid illegality for contradiciton of #209?

[Preconstitutional Utopia]

I have to admit, I wasn't to fond of the proposal at first, since it didn't ban any concrete anti-competitive practices but I'm beginning to like it more and more. The fact, that national laws supporting anti-competitive practices can be brought before the World Assembly Trade Commission for dispute settlement, gives nations a tool to have such practices banned by an impartial arbiter. It also leaves each nation free to build up their own national anti-competitive laws and sanctions against anti-competitive practices.

Just one suggestion, I'd like it better, if the authority of the World Assembly Trade Commission during a dispute settlement was outlined a bit more clearly. Especially, what are the consequences of its rulings and findings? What can it actually do, if it finds a nation in violation of the resolution?

[Free South Califas]

Before the authoring delegation answers that, we think it's important to note that the resolution doesn't block any specific restrictions on anti-competitive practices later.

[The Saturnian Republic]

It's grammatically correct. I chose it consciously, because we keep seeing so much strong urging coming from the World Assembly, it's nice to break the monotony once in a while.

It is? Oh. I couldn't find that specific rule anywhere, so I made my previous comment. I suppose you can just ignore it now.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A second draft has been posted. Changes include a preamble, title change, some minor grammar corrections, and some major changes to the dispute settlement article. This is an RFC for those charges, and particularly on the question of how far the WATC should go in its watchdog/regulator role.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: It does, yes. (Can't remember offpaw, wonder if that clause there was due to a suggestion from me? I'll have to check, when I've got the time...) In that case, do you need to add the usual boilerplate about "Except as any earlier resolution tht is still in force might specify" in order to avoid illegality for contradiciton of #209?

OOC: I don't think so, because it isn't really contradicting it, nor duplicating it. The last article is just saying that disputes over competition law should be heard by the WATC, which is a committee and can be referenced freely without HOC/Contradiction/Duplication problems.

[Araraukar]

By the way, could you please not use center alignment in the draft? On non-wide screen that alignment makes the first post five mile tall, as each line contains only a few words.

[Glen-Rhodes]

By the way, could you please not use center alignment in the draft? On non-wide screen that alignment makes the first post five mile tall, as each line contains only a few words.

It's blockquoted, not center aligned. But I changed it anyways. The forum don't seem to follow best practices when it comes to responsive design. :\