NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] "Protecting International Trade Routes in Wartime"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Germantica
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Apr 17, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DRAFT] "Protecting International Trade Routes in Wartime"

Postby Germantica » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:35 pm

Created a bill on International Trade,
Is it legal, are there mistakes, are there questions?

Let me know,

Description: The World Assembly Human Rights, Significant,
To protect neutral countries from being destroyed by foreign wars, the following shall be made law

[b]NOTING [/b] that in wartime blockading an enemies trade routes is a significant strategy

[b]CONCERNED [/b] that small or neutral nations dependant on materials brought in by trade, may be cut off from one or all of their required income sources to sustain life.

[b]BELIEVING [/b] all nations have the right to use trade routes for the good of their country and have international waters needed for foreign trade to be open and not be blocked by an aggressor nation.

[b]ACKNOWLEDGING [/b] that a wartime strategy is to block ones enemies supply routes which is permissible under military doctrine.

[b] NEVERTHELESS [/b] during a blockade of trade routes the aggressor may not prohibit the export of materials needed to sustain neutral or uninvolved nations that require trade income for survival.

[b]ENACTING [/b] the National Trade Directory

[b] National Trade Directory [/b] All Nations must have all their trade and trade routes filed with the WA to insure that in time of war neutral or uninvolved nations receive their necessary trade or get restitution from the blockading force or WA if necessary.

[b]INSISTING [/b] that the below guidelines will be followed to insure uninvolved or neutral nations be able to continue normal operations without having their trade routes interrupted.

1) Nations at war
i) Have the right to blockade their enemy's trade routes
ii) Have the right to prohibit the crossing of merchant vessels that are non essential to uninvolved nations survival (provided that it is legal according to WA documentation listed above)
iii) Cannot blockade ships that are the sole supply of income to neutral or uninvolved nations
iv) Must pay restitution to neutral or uninvolved nations which suffer due to a blockade no matter if they win or lose (if the neutral nation petitions it according).

2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to petition a blockade which coincides with the Trade Directory
iv) Has the right with WA supervision to mobilize its own blockade on the aggressor nation as long as it does not violate this bill or other WA law
iv) Can petition such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.

3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) If a neutral country petitions a blockade, the WA shall place embargos on the aggressor nation
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.
iv) In accordance to section ii and iii if a neutral country is found to have aided any party at war (any supplies used for war/ unconventional trade items) shall have their neutrality revoked and will be void of the WA help listed above
v) Will try to help neutral nations in order to keep their economy stable

[b]FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING [/b] blockades are still legal as long as they don’t endanger neutral countries. Also Sanctions are still separate and are still honored and legal, this bill does not prohibit separate sanctions.

[b]HEREBY [/b] passes into law that a blockade must be limited to the import trade of another combatant and is not infringe on a neutral or uninvolved nations trade endeavors.
Last edited by Germantica on Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:22 am, edited 4 times in total.
-Helmut Galland
Supreme Chancellor,
Federation of Germantica

User avatar
Jorren
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Apr 22, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Jorren » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:08 pm

Ambassador Gat stands up.

Honorable Ambassador to Germantica. The Grand Leader of The Borderlands of Jorren has authorized me to provide his opinion on this resolution draft.
Germantica wrote:Description: The World Assembly,

This also needs a category and strength.
Germantica wrote:iii) Cannot blockade ships that are the soul supply of income to neutral or uninvolved nations

Opposed. If I were to go to war with someone, I am going to use whatever measure I can to end it quickly and decisively with as little bloodshed as possible. If my enemy is completely entrenched, allowing me to blockade all avenues of income and resource will save on needless bloodshed on both sides. Also, in the highlighted word, I believe you meant sole.
Germantica wrote:iv) Must pay restitution to neutral or uninvolved nations which suffer due to a blockade (if the neutral nation petitions it).

Opposed both for the reasons above and because it is redundant. Regardless of whether I win or lose a war, there will already be restitution in rebuilding infrastructure and replacing lives and equipment lost on one or both sides.
Germantica wrote:2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.

Needs rewording. It offers no provisions for retaliation against neutral countries who have been proven to aid one country in war covertly while still "maintaining" their neutral status to the WA or the world. If proof is given, there should be a provision for revocation of their neutral status. Also, I am curious if you are meaning position in the words I have highlighted.
Germantica wrote:3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.

Opposed to 3iii because it involves reasons listed above. I approve of 3i and 3ii so long as "neutral" and "uninvolved" remain that way. In the event that proof is shown that they are no longer "neutral" or "uninvolved", such status should be revoked and protection ceased.

As for the positives, the Grand Leader is pleased that someone is looking out for neutral and uninvolved nations as it has been our policy not to get involved in wars between neighbors that do not directly affect us. He is also pleased in your brevity as he finds some of the more longwinded proposals annoying to read. Furthermore, your writing and use of language are done very well compared to some others. If this is your first proposal, it is a well-written one.

Ambassador Gat nods curtly before returning to his seat.
Last edited by Jorren on Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lichian wrote:"Er, what the ambassador is saying is that, uhm, he does not endorse this."

"You're God [redacted] [redacted] right I don't!" the ambassador called from the hallway.
Stamped with the seal of Ambassador Torm Gat
Representative of The Borderlands of Jorren
Father Knows Best Country
North Pacific
*A low tone dings in the distance* It is time to take your Prozium.

Postscript at the bottom reads:
"Mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war than he ever did in pursuit of peace." --Father

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12684
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:25 pm

This bill would prohibit nations from using sanctions as a peaceful method of accomplishing change. The Empire opposes any regulations on the trade of goods during wartime.

Something feels illegal about this section, but I don't remember exactly what it is. I'll get back to you on it.

3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:38 pm

2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.

3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.


Sections 2iii and 2iv - what the hell is the right to "potion"?

Overall, bad idea. There is already this covering medical supplies, and this covering the rights of neutrals.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Jorren
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: Apr 22, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Jorren » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:43 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.

3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.


Sections 2iii and 2iv - what the hell is the right to "potion"?


Ambassador Gat stands up once again.

Honorable Ambassador, the Grand Leader of the Borderlands of Jorren made mention of the usage of that word and believes he meant to use "position" rather than potion and requested clarification.

Jorren wrote:
Germantica wrote:2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.

Needs rewording. It offers no provisions for retaliation against neutral countries who have been proven to aid one country in war covertly while still "maintaining" their neutral status to the WA or the world. If proof is given, there should be a provision for revocation of their neutral status. Also, I am curious if you are meaning position in the words I have highlighted.


Ambassador Gat nods curtly before returning to his seat once more.
Last edited by Jorren on Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lichian wrote:"Er, what the ambassador is saying is that, uhm, he does not endorse this."

"You're God [redacted] [redacted] right I don't!" the ambassador called from the hallway.
Stamped with the seal of Ambassador Torm Gat
Representative of The Borderlands of Jorren
Father Knows Best Country
North Pacific
*A low tone dings in the distance* It is time to take your Prozium.

Postscript at the bottom reads:
"Mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war than he ever did in pursuit of peace." --Father

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:43 pm

I also might recommend you read through this thoroughly before starting another draft.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:46 pm

Jorren wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
2) Neutral Nations
i) Have the right to protect their trade routes without committing a state of war offence
ii) Must have their trade routes and trade income on file with the WA
iii) Have the right to potion a blockade while keeping their neutrality,
iv) Can potion such blockade which under law dictates the blockading force must pay restitution.

3) WA Elected body
i) Promises to ensure no neutral or uninvolved nation during wartime may be destroyed or severely depleted of necessary resources.
ii) Will try to help neutral nations in whatever way possible
iii) Will intervene in time of war to place embargoes on a blockading fleet's nation if they harm neutral nation's trade income or refuse to pay restitutions.


Sections 2iii and 2iv - what the hell is the right to "potion"?


Ambassador Gat stands up once again.

Honorable Ambassador, the Grand Leader of the Borderlands of Jorren made mention of the usage of that word and believes he meant to use "position" rather than potion and requested clarification.

Jorren wrote:Needs rewording. It offers no provisions for retaliation against neutral countries who have been proven to aid one country in war covertly while still "maintaining" their neutral status to the WA or the world. If proof is given, there should be a provision for revocation of their neutral status. Also, I am curious if you are meaning position in the words I have highlighted.


Ambassador Gat nods curtly before returning to his seat once more.

It still makes no sense even then. I do not operate under suppositions. The author can clarify what he means.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Germantica
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Apr 17, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Germantica » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:57 pm

Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?
-Helmut Galland
Supreme Chancellor,
Federation of Germantica

User avatar
Germantica
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Apr 17, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Germantica » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:03 pm

Germantica wrote:Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?


Tell me if there is a bill on "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" I looked and couldn't find one, it would be about how to engage hostile submarines and limits on USW
Last edited by Germantica on Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Helmut Galland
Supreme Chancellor,
Federation of Germantica

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:20 pm

Germantica wrote:
Germantica wrote:Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?


Tell me if there is a bill on "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" I looked and couldn't find one, it would be about how to engage hostile submarines and limits on USW

How about participating in debates first before going off on writing tangents submitting one illegal draft after another. Throwing a bowl of spaghetti against the wall in hopes one noodle may stick is hardly an ideal way to write proposals.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:22 pm

Germantica wrote:Firstly its updated and its petition sorry for any mix up secondly shouldn't neutral nations be protected from a foreign war, they could be destroyed simply because a conquering army blockaded its enemy. Please don't say "that's war, what can we do about it" a country that does that, Winner or Loser should help out the country that fell. Maybe this bill is too complex on what i'm saying but do you get my point?

Don't want neutral shipping sunk trying to run a blockade? Maybe they shouldn't in a war zone.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12684
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:35 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Germantica wrote:
Tell me if there is a bill on "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" I looked and couldn't find one, it would be about how to engage hostile submarines and limits on USW

How about participating in debates first before going off on writing tangents submitting one illegal draft after another. Throwing a bowl of spaghetti against the wall in hopes one noodle may stick is hardly an ideal way to write proposals.

It certainly was a certain-member-who-leant-better's initial manner of writing proposals.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21482
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:30 am

Germantica wrote:
Germantica wrote:Tell me if there is a bill on "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare" I looked and couldn't find one,

OOC: I looked and found, quickly, that the one whose drafting process I remembered had been submitted once without reaching quorum and that its author is still in NS so possibly might return to the topic...
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Kaboomlandia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7395
Founded: May 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kaboomlandia » Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:11 am

OOC: Slow the fuck down, buddy. Pick one draft and stick with it. Don't throw stuff against the wall hoping it sticks - I know from experience that it doesn't work.
In=character, Kaboomlandia is a World Assembly member and abides by its resolutions. If this nation isn't in the WA, it's for practical reasons.
Author of GA #371 and SC #208, #214, #226, #227, #230, #232
Co-Author of SC #204
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

"Your legitimacy, Kaboom, has melted away in my eyes. I couldn't have believed that only a shadow of your once brilliant WA career remains."

User avatar
Whovian Tardisia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 779
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Whovian Tardisia » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:27 am

OOC: First thing I noticed and no one has mentioned: your emboldening tags are incorrectly formatted. Firstly, use a capital 'B' and secondly, make sure the brackets are tight to the text you are attempting to embolden.
An FT (Class W11) nation capable of space travel, but has never attempted invading another planet. The Space Brigade is for defense only! Also, something happened to Ambassador Pink.
From the desk of Rupert Pink:
The Grand Gallifreyan Republic of Whovian Tardisia
Floor 12, Office 42 of WAHQ
Proud patron of the World Assembly Stranger's Bar.
The Interstellar Cartographers are back! This time, they explore Methuselah.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12684
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:32 pm

Whovian Tardisia wrote:OOC: First thing I noticed and no one has mentioned: your emboldening tags are incorrectly formatted. Firstly, use a capital 'B' and secondly, make sure the brackets are tight to the text you are attempting to embolden.

OOC: You don't need to use a capital B. You can do this. Not exactly sure why those tags are not working, honestly. Weird.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5235
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:33 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote: do this. Not exactly sure why those tags are not working, honestly. Weird.


OOC:
It is possible to disable BBCode in your posts, he likely did that.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, He/Him
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, He/Him
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, She/Her


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
SS Thief
Attaché
 
Posts: 80
Founded: Nov 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby SS Thief » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:30 pm

OOC: If you really wanna roll with this, here's my input.
First, you really need to define what makes an import/export vital to a nation's survival. Without it, one could argue that the SS Thief requires the export of rum to survive.

Second, define what makes a nation neutral, as it could become a major argument over if a nation is neutral or not. Supporting them economically by buying exports could be considered assisting, making them no longer neutral. Could be a problem. This would also prevent a lot of potential loopholes, like if a 'neutral' nation wants to give away some guns to a warring nation, they could merely charge them an extremely small amount for them and say that they're just doing normal exports and imports.

Third, the restitutions are very iffy. Could be argued it's a fine, which I believe would make this illegal. It also makes a major potential problem if two or more nations decided to work together to get money from another nation. Let's say nations A, B, and C exist. A and B are at war. A and C decide to make a deal. A tells C that they'll send them a very suspicious shipping supply. They know that B won't like this and will attempt to stop it. Let's say it's a supply of bananas it turns out. C can claim they require those bananas to survive. A suddenly ups the price by a ton. B gets hit by this resolution for blocking that banana shipment. Suddenly B is required to pay C a ton of money. C takes it and either keeps it to weaken B's economy or they split it with A. Obviously this is a very specific scenario, but it could be done, and be a problem.

All I can think of right now. I wouldn't suggest rolling with this resolution, at least not in its current form, it needs a lot more detail and thought to make it more airtight and legal. Good luck in future attempts.

Edit: Upon further thought, the embargoes placed upon aggressor nations upon being petitioned- a few things wrong with that. First, and most important, it's not clear. Does this mean that the embargo will be placed on them by all WA nations? Or just the WA itself? If that's the case, it doesn't really make sense, the WA itself doesn't make trades. If it's the nations in the WA, that makes this sound illegal, though I'm not sure. Even if it's not, this has a lot of power and could potentially be abused very easily. Any nation going to war could potentially be brought into economic bankrupcy if a neutral nation petitions. Especially since it doesn't seem to say that the petition will be reviewed by the committee you're establishing. An event similar to the one I described earlier could happen, when a nation is suddenly being embargoed by all other WA nations. Major problem, easily abused. You'll definitely want to rewrite that to fix it.
Last edited by SS Thief on Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bosphorus Callig - Ambassador to the SS Thief, Consul of the Nova Roman Empire.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads