by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 2:05 am
by Jarish Inyo » Fri May 15, 2015 3:20 am
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 3:30 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:No sharp edges and unbreakable? So, you've basically outlawed blocks, toy cars, doll accessories, tea sets and books. And everything breaks. There is no avoiding that.
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 3:35 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:No sharp edges and unbreakable? So, you've basically outlawed blocks, toy cars, doll accessories, tea sets and books. And everything breaks. There is no avoiding that.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri May 15, 2015 3:51 am
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 3:55 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"How is this an international issue that member states cannot handle adequately on their own?"
by Separatist Peoples » Fri May 15, 2015 4:26 am
Caracasus wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"How is this an international issue that member states cannot handle adequately on their own?"
It's designed to create a designated benchmark of safety for children's products. Basically it creates a stamp that means anything bearing said stamp on the international market abides by certain standards of safety.
There is nothing that would stop a nation placing more stringent levels of safety, or less stringent levels on products manufactured within their state here.
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 5:34 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Caracasus wrote:
It's designed to create a designated benchmark of safety for children's products. Basically it creates a stamp that means anything bearing said stamp on the international market abides by certain standards of safety.
There is nothing that would stop a nation placing more stringent levels of safety, or less stringent levels on products manufactured within their state here.
"So it would seem. However, your micromanaging attempt isn't legal. It has no operative clause; it's a string of definitions. It violates the rule requiring resolutions actually do something."
by Separatist Peoples » Fri May 15, 2015 5:45 am
Caracasus wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"So it would seem. However, your micromanaging attempt isn't legal. It has no operative clause; it's a string of definitions. It violates the rule requiring resolutions actually do something."
Indeed. As I said, this is my first shot at writing one of these. Looking for guidance really.
Maybe it'd help if I explained the point. Basically this is to avoid products aimed at or consumed by children containing dangerous toxins or being rather obviously harmful to children.
The operating clause would be:
REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above.
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri May 15, 2015 5:49 am
Caracasus wrote:Indeed. As I said, this is my first shot at writing one of these. Looking for guidance really.
by Grays Harbor » Fri May 15, 2015 5:56 am
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 5:59 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Caracasus wrote:
Indeed. As I said, this is my first shot at writing one of these. Looking for guidance really.
Maybe it'd help if I explained the point. Basically this is to avoid products aimed at or consumed by children containing dangerous toxins or being rather obviously harmful to children.
The operating clause would be:
REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above.
"That would certainly make this legal in terms of an operative clause. I do wonder if this violates National Economic Freedoms, but the Secretariat seems to have decided against actually enforcing it long ago, so I imagine that is more of a noted curiosity than a problem. I still maintain that this is unnecessary, as different cultures and species will have different requirements, and standardizing them does nothing but micromanage the issue."
by Esalonia » Fri May 15, 2015 6:08 am
Tech level: NS MT
Esalonian Factbook *does not use NS Stats anymore*
DEFCON: 1 2 3 4 [5]
Member of these Multilateral Organizations
Fortitudinem wrote:They're a budding power. Pun intended.
Marquesan wrote:You have a damned fine advanced understanding of interior and exterior ballistics for a fifteen year old.
Gim wrote:Esalonia wrote:Certainly me. My best pic so far.
You would be an excellent Filipino Super Junior member. :p
Facebook chat:
Sum frind: okay klng? (Are you okay?)
Me: Yes. I am definitely okay in a mental asylum
Sum frind: ?
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 6:12 am
Grays Harbor wrote:Given the amount of products, especially toys, that are imported and exported daily, this may actually be a valid international issue. (OOC: Yeah, i said that. Try not to faint, you pack of over-zealous intfeds). I shall have to look this over carefully for some suggestions on possible improvements.
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 6:15 am
Esalonia wrote:Well, let's just say that every nation has their own safety tests.
But then here we have nations who do away with safety tests.
This legislation is needed so that safety tests will be ensure to be done. A few things I would like to point out:
"sharp edges and points"
we still have blocks' corners, and Legos (childhood burns in your feet, mate?), which are very notorious. But at least in the first place they don't become lethal fragments.
And the overall thing. Some of this can apply to general goods, not just kids' products.
-Garren Pritchards, Esalonian Representative to the WA
by Separatist Peoples » Fri May 15, 2015 6:32 am
Caracasus wrote:
This is precisely why legislation like this is needed. It shows, by means of an easily identifiable stamp, that said product conforms to a set of safety criteria that anyone can read up on. It is completely up to individual states weather they wish to legislate within that state for anything else.
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 6:53 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Caracasus wrote:
This is precisely why legislation like this is needed. It shows, by means of an easily identifiable stamp, that said product conforms to a set of safety criteria that anyone can read up on. It is completely up to individual states weather they wish to legislate within that state for anything else.
"Nations would better be able to handle this by regulating their own import standards rather than have the World Assembly hold the hands of every state and tell them what is and isn't any good to buy. Then no consumer would have to do any research: unsafe items would simply not pass through Customs."
by Separatist Peoples » Fri May 15, 2015 7:12 am
Caracasus wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Nations would better be able to handle this by regulating their own import standards rather than have the World Assembly hold the hands of every state and tell them what is and isn't any good to buy. Then no consumer would have to do any research: unsafe items would simply not pass through Customs."
This isn't about hand holding. It's about minimum safety standards - no customs and import control in the world is going to be able to analyse every single type of toy, pram or cot coming through its borders, and nor should it have to. By placing the responsibility on the product manufacturer to ensure that products for the international market are built to minimum safety requirements we provide a level of informed choice to the consumer and to importing nations; namely that this product meets internationally recognized safety guidelines.
Your preferred method would result in a list of government sanctioned products - the only feasible way this could work would be for the nation's government to inspect every product before allowing it to be imported. This way customers and importing companies can easily identify products that are considered safe for consumption.
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 7:26 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Caracasus wrote:
This isn't about hand holding. It's about minimum safety standards - no customs and import control in the world is going to be able to analyse every single type of toy, pram or cot coming through its borders, and nor should it have to. By placing the responsibility on the product manufacturer to ensure that products for the international market are built to minimum safety requirements we provide a level of informed choice to the consumer and to importing nations; namely that this product meets internationally recognized safety guidelines.
Your preferred method would result in a list of government sanctioned products - the only feasible way this could work would be for the nation's government to inspect every product before allowing it to be imported. This way customers and importing companies can easily identify products that are considered safe for consumption.
"That is exactly the system that most states utilize, ambassador. A long laundry list of acceptable products that meet their standards for safety, based on manufacturer and nation of origin. Every type of product for importation is generally inspected prior to being allowed to import, because the alternative is to allow a potentially dangerous item be imported with no oversight. I'm sure you intended to do more investigation on how commercial importation worked before pitching this, but I well understand the time constraints that being an ambassador places on oneself."
by Kakhovske » Fri May 15, 2015 7:30 am
Caracasus wrote:DEFINING for sale on the international market in this context as any product exported from its country of origin for consumption by citizens of another state.
by Grays Harbor » Fri May 15, 2015 7:36 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Caracasus wrote:
This is precisely why legislation like this is needed. It shows, by means of an easily identifiable stamp, that said product conforms to a set of safety criteria that anyone can read up on. It is completely up to individual states weather they wish to legislate within that state for anything else.
"Nations would better be able to handle this by regulating their own import standards rather than have the World Assembly hold the hands of every state and tell them what is and isn't any good to buy. Then no consumer would have to do any research: unsafe items would simply not pass through Customs."
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri May 15, 2015 7:48 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"The scope of this is a bit narrow. Why only children's products? Even given the expansive definition, that seems unnecessarily restrictive. The WA has barely any law on product safety in general. You could easily expand this to creating international standardisation in manufactured goods hazard labels.
Caracasus wrote:Okay - this is my first go at making a proposal. I've searched the lists of WA and even the old UN proposals and haven't found anything on this yet. I feel that this is a reasonable proposal and I'd like some input.
AIM To impose a set standard of safety for children's products for sale on the international market.
RECOGNIZING The need for parents to ensure that products designed for consumption by their children are relatively safe for consumption.
FURTHER RECOGNIZING that many nations do have rigorous safety standards for their products, but noting that standards vary wildly between countries and that parents may not be aware of the safety standards that products purchased for their children were made to before purchasing a product - hence the need for a comprehensive, recognizable benchmark for safety in products
DEFINING Children's products as any product designed for the consumption of children, marketed for sale to children or parents/guardians. Including, but not limited to, toys, educational products and accessories such as prams.
DEFINING safety standards as: Being free from known toxic substances that could easily enter the body during routine use such as lead paint. Not manufactured using a material and with sharp edges or points capable of inflicting serious injury. manufactured to a level of durability that requires that the product would not break into potentially lethal fragments under expected, reasonable use. Requiring a recommended age range on products discouraging sale of products with potentially dangerous components to younger children. Requiring an easily recognizable quality assurance stamp to be displayed somewhere on the product.
DEFINING for sale on the international market in this context as any product exported from its country of origin for consumption by citizens of another state.
DEFINING imposing a set.... as the formation of a body charged with the oversight and administration of safety tests and implementation of agreed upon safety standards.
REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above.
by The Northern Kingdoms » Fri May 15, 2015 7:52 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri May 15, 2015 7:54 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sir
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I refuse to believe that the personnel at HM Customs, the personnel at stores, the companies which produce (and would need to recall these broken toys), and the customer who buys these toys are all dumb enough that they need some sort of WA mandate to tell them what they should and should not buy.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"That is exactly the system that most states utilize, ambassador. A long laundry list of acceptable products that meet their standards for safety, based on manufacturer and nation of origin. Every type of product for importation is generally inspected prior to being allowed to import, because the alternative is to allow a potentially dangerous item be imported with no oversight. I'm sure you intended to do more investigation on how commercial importation worked before pitching this, but I well understand the time constraints that being an ambassador places on oneself."
by Caracasus » Fri May 15, 2015 8:03 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:"The scope of this is a bit narrow. Why only children's products? Even given the expansive definition, that seems unnecessarily restrictive. The WA has barely any law on product safety in general. You could easily expand this to creating international standardisation in manufactured goods hazard labels.
The reason why the Excellent Ambassador won't broaden their proposal, Sir, is because then, they won't be able to say 'think of the children! think of the children!'.Caracasus wrote:Okay - this is my first go at making a proposal. I've searched the lists of WA and even the old UN proposals and haven't found anything on this yet. I feel that this is a reasonable proposal and I'd like some input.
AIM To impose a set standard of safety for children's products for sale on the international market.
RECOGNIZING The need for parents to ensure that products designed for consumption by their children are relatively safe for consumption.
FURTHER RECOGNIZING that many nations do have rigorous safety standards for their products, but noting that standards vary wildly between countries and that parents may not be aware of the safety standards that products purchased for their children were made to before purchasing a product - hence the need for a comprehensive, recognizable benchmark for safety in products
DEFINING Children's products as any product designed for the consumption of children, marketed for sale to children or parents/guardians. Including, but not limited to, toys, educational products and accessories such as prams.
DEFINING safety standards as: Being free from known toxic substances that could easily enter the body during routine use such as lead paint. Not manufactured using a material and with sharp edges or points capable of inflicting serious injury. manufactured to a level of durability that requires that the product would not break into potentially lethal fragments under expected, reasonable use. Requiring a recommended age range on products discouraging sale of products with potentially dangerous components to younger children. Requiring an easily recognizable quality assurance stamp to be displayed somewhere on the product.
DEFINING for sale on the international market in this context as any product exported from its country of origin for consumption by citizens of another state.
DEFINING imposing a set.... as the formation of a body charged with the oversight and administration of safety tests and implementation of agreed upon safety standards.
REQUIRES that products manufactured for the international market for consumption by children bear a visible stamp confirming that the product meets the minimum safety standards outlined above.
I refuse to believe that the personnel at HM Customs, the personnel at stores, the companies which produce (and would need to recall these broken toys), and the customer who buys these toys are all dumb enough that they need some sort of WA mandate to tell them what they should and should not buy.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barfleur, Bisofeyr, New Westmore, The Ice States, The Overmind
Advertisement