[PASSED] Anti-Counterfeiting Pact

[Bears Armed]

We can't legally urge non-members to act as though they are members.
We can legally instruct members to treat any non-members who voluntarily choose to comply with these restrictions (by acting as though they were members) in the same way that the members are instructed to treat each other.

[Havendes Forvenson]

The Tax of Havendes Forvenson is interested as to how this does not already overlap with local laws regarding the counterfeiting of currency, even if the currency in question is local or not.

As for the possible use of counterfeit currency to destabilise other Nations, Havendes Forvenson believes that this would be covered under local anti-smuggling and counterfeiting laws.

Overall the Tax of Havendes Forvenson see limited use in this resolution and will not support it.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Tax of Havendes Forvenson is interested as to how this does not already overlap with local laws regarding the counterfeiting of currency, even if the currency in question is local or not.

As for the possible use of counterfeit currency to destabilise other Nations, Havendes Forvenson believes that this would be covered under local anti-smuggling and counterfeiting laws.

Overall the Tax of Havendes Forvenson see limited use in this resolution and will not support it.

"International law superceeds local law. And not all local law deals with these. The idea is to prevent member states from producing counterfeit money to hurt other states and, in return, be protected themselves. This has very little effect on domestic counterfeit laws, smuggling, etc."

[Bears Armed]

How about an exemption for when the nations concerned are actually at war with each other? It seems rather silly that nations actively trying to kill each other's troops and [maybeso] to bomb each other's cities wouldn't be allowed to try destabilising each other's currencies too...

[Separatist Peoples]

How about an exemption for when the nations concerned are actually at war with each other? It seems rather silly that nations actively trying to kill each other's troops and [maybeso] to bomb each other's cities wouldn't be allowed to try destabilising each other's currencies too...

"As hesitant as I am to allow it, I can honestly see no compelling counter-argument on that front. Existing in a declared state of war, which is little more then an overt statement to destroy as much of the enemy's national sovereignty as possible, at least informs other nations well enough for them to prepare. Such is a different creature entirely from destabilizing a nation during peacetime. Alright, such an exception can be added in the next draft."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Many apologies to the ambassadors who's comments and concerns I have not addressed. I'll be doing my best to play catch-up."

"Sujabi!" Sia Hedishi exclaims in Haki, "Excellent, you do not know how wonderful it is for me to finally see something professional again in this Assembly! This is a really well written draft that I wholeheartedly support. The only stumble I can find on this first draft that stands out to me is the lack of a definition for the crime of 'counterfeiting', which I would recommend adding in a thorough and thought out manner. Other than that, well done. You have made my day."

"I had hoped the term "counterfeiting" was broadly understood enough to avoid needing a definition. I'll add one if confusion arises on that front, but I think the Translators will do an acceptable job in this case."

''I find it wonderful that you gave it a go ambassador! And this is beautifully written and clear(at least for me). I have no objections and see no mistakes, but I am new to this so my opinion doesn't hold much value.''

''I know I need to include non-state businesses instead of just member states in Clause 1, but I'm finding the wording somewhat illusive.''

''Again, I mention my (lack of) experience but I'll try to help in this matter. How about a sub-clause referring to non-members?''
1. Member states are henceforth required to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency, or the direct support of such, with the intention of releasing it as legal tender into the market to devalue or otherwise defraud another member state.
1.a) All nations are strongly urged to do as/what member states are required to do in clause 1. (compact)
1.a) All nations are strongly urged to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency, or the direct support of such, with the intention of releasing it as legal tender into the market to devalue or otherwise defraud another member state. (extensive)

[OOC:Maybe I missunderstood what you meant on the quote, if so correct me. Also, i don't know what you mean with preambulatory clauses, i shall research on the matter.]

[EDIT/OOC:Done...can't help alot but i think a few things should be changed in the existing ones:

Recognizing the negative impact of counterfeit currency operations on (member states) nations;<--ends with ;
If your going to mention non-members on the 1st clause ,the preambulatory clauses should include them, i believe.

Realizing such actions not only degrade value of and trust in currency within nations, but also obstruct free trade and damage relations between (national) economic partners,<--ends with ,

They should both end with the same ponctuation.
As always ,corrections are always welcome]

"Astute observations, ambassador. I'll take them under serious advisement. I can't promise anything until after I play with the Master Draft to see what fits best stylistically."

[Defwa]

How about an exemption for when the nations concerned are actually at war with each other? It seems rather silly that nations actively trying to kill each other's troops and [maybeso] to bomb each other's cities wouldn't be allowed to try destabilising each other's currencies too...

"As hesitant as I am to allow it, I can honestly see no compelling counter-argument on that front. Existing in a declared state of war, which is little more then an overt statement to destroy as much of the enemy's national sovereignty as possible, at least informs other nations well enough for them to prepare. Such is a different creature entirely from destabilizing a nation during peacetime. Alright, such an exception can be added in the next draft."

I would be concerned about those with shared currencies uninvolved in whatever war and the potential disproportionate impact on civilians.
That said, in my own draft, a state of war allows nations to bombard civilians with large debris from orbit so I guess I can't really justify restricting economic warfare.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would be concerned about those with shared currencies uninvolved in whatever war and the potential disproportionate impact on civilians.
That said, in my own draft, a state of war allows nations to bombard civilians with large debris from orbit so I guess I can't really justify restricting economic warfare.

"Collateral damage in war is inevitable. That certain governments don't care about said collateral is equally inevitable. It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, Angela, though I share your sentiments."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I would be concerned about those with shared currencies uninvolved in whatever war and the potential disproportionate impact on civilians.
That said, in my own draft, a state of war allows nations to bombard civilians with large debris from orbit so I guess I can't really justify restricting economic warfare.

At the risk of seeming to evoke my, um, esteemed predecessor's ridiculous views on this topic, I'll point out that permission isn't the same thing as encouragement. Allowing various tactics in warfare (as long as they don't deliberately violate other WA conduct resolutions) is simply admitting that the status quo exists.

Besides which, I'd be hard-pressed to name two countries that share a currency but not a mutual-defense arrangement: the majority of "third-party" nations who share a suddenly-vulnerable currency with a belligerent power are likely to be involved to some extent themselves. Anyway, any serious war has its share of financial shenanigans by default: one of the ways a conquering power exerts control is by minting an occupation currency (and, as corrolary, one of the duties of resistance fighters is to devalue it with barter, bullion, alternative currency, or, yes, counterfeiting). Imaginative belligerents have fully-backed new currency stockpiled and ready to deploy in a worst-case scenario. Admitting that this situation exists is not placating warmongers; it's simply acknowledging that there are many ways to skin a cat. The warfare exception will not lessen protections against nonbelligerents being blindsided by underhanded, secret economic warfare. Those are still well in place.

Unconditional (in the ordinary course) support, in case this wasn't clear.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Esteemed colleagues, the second draft is up."

[Flamels Stone]

I have two concerns:
Should it be specified that nations which don't have physical curency(E.G.:digital only currency) are not afected by this proposal(or maybe they are, correct me if wrong).
Is this within the caracter limit?(I don't actualy know how many caracters are allowed, it just looks "big")

[Separatist Peoples]

I have two concerns:
Should it be specified that nations which don't have physical curency(E.G.:digital only currency) are not afected by this proposal(or maybe they are, correct me if wrong).
Is this within the caracter limit?(I don't actualy know how many caracters are allowed, it just looks "big")

"No, currency is currency for the purpose of this draft. Manufacturing digital currency to defraud another state has the same effect. The vector should not matter. And this is below the 3,500 character limit, coming in at 2,622 characters, with spaces."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

1. Except in the case of declared war, member states are henceforth required to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency with the intention of releasing it as legal tender into the market to devalue currency or otherwise defraud another member state.

I'm probably nitpicking, but does this leave a loophole for nations to execute counterfeiting operations where the intent is something other than currency devaluation or the defrauding of a WA member? If the Republic of Rhetorical Examples has reason to believe the Bigtopian Defense Minister is about to go rogue and unilaterally violate the ban on radiological terrorism, but thinks he could be bribed to change his mind and retire, but only if he's paid in Brobdingnagian Megawampum - they might convince themselves, gee, the only place we could get ahold of that much megawampum without raising eyebrows is by printing it ourselves. But that would have the secondary, collateral effect of devaluing megawampum even though the intention is unrelated.

I suppose what I'm asking is, is the "with the intention..." clause completely necessary, or do you have in mind some scenario in which counterfeiting a member nation's currency in peacetime would be held legitimate? I would think Reasonable Nation Theory should preclude most such outlandish imaginings, but figured it was worth raising just in case.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The added term "or otherwise defraud" comes into play in such an instance, ambassador. Theoretically, producing any unbacked banknote and using it defrauds somebody. Unless said Megawampum was officially backed by the Brog...Brogdi...the other government, you'd still be defrauding somebody, ultimately the Brog-something government, as theirs are the resources ultimately backing such a note. I realize the example is rather paper currency-centric, but it's the simplest example available, currently. Does that absolve your concern?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"The added term "or otherwise defraud" comes into play in such an instance, ambassador. Theoretically, producing any unbacked banknote and using it defrauds somebody. Unless said Megawampum was officially backed by the Brog...Brogdi...the other government, you'd still be defrauding somebody, ultimately the Brog-something government, as theirs are the resources ultimately backing such a note. I realize the example is rather paper currency-centric, but it's the simplest example available, currently. Does that absolve your concern?"

Legally, yes. Aesthetically... the presence of the words following "foreign currency" make it seem like there's some imagined loophole that it's your intent to keep open. Is there a reason why the paragraph reads as it does, rather than as simply

1. Except in the case of declared war, member states are henceforth required to outlaw the counterfeiting of foreign currency [full stop]

? ?

The only thing I can come up with right now would be "Well, it's our intention to sit on it until we are in a declared state of war, then use it as we would any other weapon." If this result is acceptable to the resolution, we still have no objection, but our debate here should reflect the possibility. We'd also have no objection to tightening it up with the full stop, to rule out an arms race of stockpiling counterfeit currency (since in the event of a security breach, the ban on market release would be effectively castrated).

[Wrapper]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper don't understand why, in the case of declared war, it shouldn't be illegal to counterfeit the opponent's money. Dealing with the aftereffects of war is bad enough on civilians, and now you want to legally devalue their currency as well? Help me understand why we should allow this, Ambassador.

OOC: Just for fun I looked up some past instances of counterfeiting during wartime. Found some interesting tidbits about wartime counterfeiting by the British (American Revolution), the Nazis (WWII) and the US (Vietnam). Learn something new every day!

the presence of the words following "foreign currency" make it seem like there's some imagined loophole that it's your intent to keep open.

Actually, as we read it, such wording would exempt the foreign production of items that can be used in a barter system-based economy. Make all the chewing gum you want, Ambassador, and spend it in our country, please!

[Separatist Peoples]

We the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper don't understand why, in the case of declared war, it shouldn't be illegal to counterfeit the opponent's money. Dealing with the aftereffects of war is bad enough on civilians, and now you want to legally devalue their currency as well? Help me understand why we should allow this, Ambassador.

OOC: Just for fun I looked up some past instances of counterfeiting during wartime. Found some interesting tidbits about wartime counterfeiting by the British (American Revolution), the Nazis (WWII) and the US (Vietnam). Learn something new every day!

the presence of the words following "foreign currency" make it seem like there's some imagined loophole that it's your intent to keep open.

Actually, as we read it, such wording would exempt the foreign production of items that can be used in a barter system-based economy. Make all the chewing gum you want, Ambassador, and spend it in our country, please!

"The Wads have the right of it, Ambassador Zakalwe, and put it better then I could have. I feel that stockpiling counterfeits is of limited use unless kept absolutely, completely secret, and has no real impact in the mean time, as well as being less then cost-effective.

"As for your concern about wartime, Ari, I can't see much reason not to ban it. Post-conflict, it's easy to change the currency enough to stop the fakes from circulating (OOC: Great Britian and the German counterfeits from WWII spring to mind), and is but one weapon in a vast arsenal of economic options. It's rather like banning a 30-30 caliber round from war and leaving all other variants of .30 caliber and 7.62mm rounds untouched. Since it has some strategic value, I'm inclined to leave it unless I can be sufficiently swayed."

[Wrapper]

"As for your concern about wartime, Ari, I can't see much reason not to ban it. Post-conflict, it's easy to change the currency enough to stop the fakes from circulating (OOC: Great Britian and the German counterfeits from WWII spring to mind), and is but one weapon in a vast arsenal of economic options. It's rather like banning a 30-30 caliber round from war and leaving all other variants of .30 caliber and 7.62mm rounds untouched. Since it has some strategic value, I'm inclined to leave it unless I can be sufficiently swayed."

Caliper... round....?

Ahume whispers in Ari's ear.

Ah, bullets, right. Ummm... very well, Ambassador Bell, on second thought, we suppose that using currency as an instrument of war would do far less damage than, say, a nuclear bomb, so, we'll withdraw the objection.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...as we read it, such wording would exempt the foreign production of items that can be used in a barter system-based economy. Make all the chewing gum you want, Ambassador, and spend it in our country, please!

"The Wads have the right of it, Ambassador Zakalwe, and put it better then I could have. I feel that stockpiling counterfeits is of limited use unless kept absolutely, completely secret, and has no real impact in the mean time, as well as being less then cost-effective.

That addresses that, then. It might be useful to add "computers" or "design or programming equipment" or an "of whatever kind" to Paragraph 5, to encompass the forging of electronic currency such as ByteCoins, and/or to make clear that counterfeiters' design and imaging tools are also subject to confiscation, and not just the dies, mills, hammers, and printing presses.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Another thought occurred to me, Mr. Bell: is the Secretariat likely to implement this as a Free Trade proposal? I was under the impression that category is reserved exclusively for resolutions that reduce regulations; while this introduces regulations and prohibits an entire class of (destructive, detrimental, and deficient ethically, but still) economic activity. I agree that its overall effect will be to benefit economies of nations in particular and of the world/multiverse at large in general; but it doesn't technically slash tariffs or repress labor movements or cut discretionary spending. Since the gnomes still believe the old bankers' lie that regulation is per se antagonistic to economic health, and not its sine qua non, this resolution might be more in line (from a strictly technical perspective) with International Security / Mild, or (stretching) Political Stability.

[Separatist Peoples]

That addresses that, then. It might be useful to add "computers" or "design or programming equipment" or an "of whatever kind" to Paragraph 5, to encompass the forging of electronic currency such as ByteCoins, and/or to make clear that counterfeiters' design and imaging tools are also subject to confiscation, and not just the dies, mills, hammers, and printing presses.

“I’m wary of specifying specific text, ambassador. I think it affects the finesse of the language of a law when not crucially necessary.

Another thought occurred to me, Mr. Bell: is the Secretariat likely to implement this as a Free Trade proposal? I was under the impression that category is reserved exclusively for resolutions that reduce regulations; while this introduces regulations and prohibits an entire class of (destructive, detrimental, and deficient ethically, but still) economic activity. I agree that its overall effect will be to benefit economies of nations in particular and of the world/multiverse at large in general; but it doesn't technically slash tariffs or repress labor movements or cut discretionary spending. Since the gnomes still believe the old bankers' lie that regulation is per se antagonistic to economic health, and not its sine qua non, this resolution might be more in line (from a strictly technical perspective) with International Security / Mild, or (stretching) Political Stability.

“I was also worried about the category. I thought that the precise wording of “Free Trade” category requirements, which is:

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

“In my opinion, counterfeit currency is a barrier to commerce and free and open trade. However, I’m not married to the category. I was genuinely considering International Security, as it will increase police duties by making counterfeiting illegal, and require a corresponding budget increase. I’m not sure Political Stability is as viable a choice, though it does, ostensibly, put certain responsibilities in the hands of the government and out of the hands of the people. It’s a bit of a stretch, though. I intend to consider it, and welcome discourse on the matter before taking it to the Secretariat for consideration. I may yet pull a Chester Pearson and change the category purely for the popularity of International Security as a category, all other things being equal.”

[Bears Armed]

Another thought occurred to me, Mr. Bell: is the Secretariat likely to implement this as a Free Trade proposal? I was under the impression that category is reserved exclusively for resolutions that reduce regulations;

The official definition is "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". If an author can make a convincing case for how their proposal will do that (and persuade the Secretariat to accept that argument) then actually reducing regulations isn't necessary. After all, I managed to get a resolution on international cooperation in weather-forecasting through as 'Fair Trade' on the basis that good weather forecasts are important for various industries and so governmental unwillingness (or just inability) to share meteorological information with their neighbours is a barrier that needed to be reduced...


...and, for that matter, we've even had one or two resolutions that increased regulation but that passed as Free Trade because that regulation would improve consumer confidence and thus increase sales...

[Balenderg]

Wait, I tried to make something like this awhile back, and you (and a bunch of other people) shot it down and said it was an awful idea from the start!

Link: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=309242&hilit=Counterfeit

[Wrapper]

You wanted my nation to engrave its chewing gum! This proposal makes no such preposterous restrictions on those nations who use consumables as currency.

[Separatist Peoples]

Wait, I tried to make something like this awhile back, and you (and a bunch of other people) shot it down and said it was an awful idea from the start!

Link: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=309242&hilit=Counterfeit

"What's your point, ambassador? This draft is entirely different. It approaches the problem from a fresh angle and uses entirely different mechanisms of enforcement which are infinitely more palpable then your draft was, I'm afraid."