International Waters Trading Freedom Act of 2015

[Whitefist America]

International Waters Trading Freedom Act of 2015

DEFINITION:A Treaty Company is a company that was established by a treaty of a nation in order for free-trading rights to be implemented between two or more nations. It's predecessor was called a charter company but without territorial holdings on foreign soil.
I. The Rights of the NUMEROUS nations to trade freely within International Waters should NEVER be infringed upon by any non-aligned Nation to let a ship pass through without incident.
II. The maximum number of ships shall be 10 to 15 at a time in any port. A heavy fine for VIOLATING the number of ship shall be implemented by the Government of the nation.
III. A NATION within the trading route that OPPOSES to the current status of the act shall take the Treaty Company or Companies to the International Judicial Council.
IV. Any VIOLATIONS against this act shall be banned from the TRADING COUNCIL for a year to a permanent ban.
V. PIRACY and TERRORISM against the trading nations shall be dealt with by the MILITARY of that nation.
VI. No NATION shall REWRITE or FORGE this act at time. This will result in legal action against the Nation or Nations involved.
VII. ALL Treaty Companies shall report their success or incidents in digital logbooks.
VIII. No ship is to SMUGGLE any illegal drugs, contrabands, or weapons from or to any countries.
IX. No ships can be SEARCHED without a warrant from the local authorities.
X.Finally all workers and employees of the Treaty Companies shall be responsible for their own actions and conduct.

Is this a fair act for my world? I'm an Empire of Trading and Multiculturalism!

[Leppikania]

"What is a 'treaty company'? How much is this heavy fine? There are many more questions like this, and they all must be answered for my support.

"Actually, no, never mind. Your proposal is illegal for blocker violations and forcing legislation onto non-member states."

[Whitefist America]

"What is a 'treaty company'? How much is this heavy fine? There are many more questions like this, and they all must be answered for my support.

"Actually, no, never mind. Your proposal is illegal for blocker violations and forcing legislation onto non-member states."

A Treaty Company is a company that was established by a treaty of a nation in order for free-trading rights to be implemented... Like a charter company but without territorial holdings on foreign soil.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This is incredibly illegal. Go read the Rules if you want to draft anything, and please do consider that not every nation wants foreigners to show up and interfere with their markets.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This runs afoul of so many other proposals, it hurts. You should really take a look through the. Passed Resolutions list and come up with something less...illegal."

[Whitefist America]

OOC:
This is incredibly illegal. Go read the Rules if you want to draft anything, and please do consider that not every nation wants foreigners to show up and interfere with their markets.

However the nations agreed

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
This is incredibly illegal. Go read the Rules if you want to draft anything, and please do consider that not every nation wants foreigners to show up and interfere with their markets.

However the nations agreed

"Then it becomes optional, which is also illegal."

[Whitefist America]

However the nations agreed

"Then it becomes optional, which is also illegal."

III. A NATION within the trading route that OPPOSES to the current status of the act shall take the Treaty Company or Companies to the International Judicial Council.

[Whitefist America]

The nations in green signed the act.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then it becomes optional, which is also illegal."

III. A NATION within the trading route that OPPOSES to the current status of the act shall take the Treaty Company or Companies to the International Judicial Council.

"An international judiciary violates the text of Universals Jurisdiction. Which is still illegal. Besides, this still allows for members to not partake. That makes this optional. This is a hot mess of illegalities, and probably can't be salvaged. I see at least three resolutions this Duplicates.

"Also, I've never seen that map in my life."

OOC: real life and nationstates are not the same thing.

[Whitefist America]

III. A NATION within the trading route that OPPOSES to the current status of the act shall take the Treaty Company or Companies to the International Judicial Council.

"An international judiciary violates the text of Universals Jurisdiction. Which is still illegal. Besides, this still allows for members to not partake. That makes this optional. This is a hot mess of illegalities, and probably can't be salvaged. I see at least three resolutions this Duplicates.

"Also, I've never seen that map in my life."

OOC: real life and nationstates are not the same thing.

Hey I made a typo The Rights of the NUMEROUS nations to trade freely within International Waters should NEVER be infringed upon by any non-aligned Nation to let a ship pass through without incident.

[Separatist Peoples]

"An international judiciary violates the text of Universals Jurisdiction. Which is still illegal. Besides, this still allows for members to not partake. That makes this optional. This is a hot mess of illegalities, and probably can't be salvaged. I see at least three resolutions this Duplicates.

"Also, I've never seen that map in my life."

OOC: real life and nationstates are not the same thing.

Hey I made a typo The Rights of the NUMEROUS nations to trade freely within International Waters should NEVER be infringed upon by any non-aligned Nation to let a ship pass through without incident.

"That's great. This is still illegal."

[Whitefist America]

Hey I made a typo The Rights of the NUMEROUS nations to trade freely within International Waters should NEVER be infringed upon by any non-aligned Nation to let a ship pass through without incident.

"That's great. This is still illegal."

Okay can you help me rewrite it please

[Kaboomlandia]

International Waters Trading Freedom Act of 2015

Ditch the "2015". As it is, your title is way too long anyway.

I. The Rights of the NUMEROUS nations to trade freely within International Waters should NEVER be infringed upon by any non-aligned Nation.

Ditch the all-caps.

II. The maximum number of ships shall be 10 to 15 at a time in any port. A heavy fine for VIOLATING the number of ship shall be implemented by the Government of the nation.

What, so even though Ralia is Kaboomlandia's only link to the sea, and has a high-capacity port handling both passenger and cargo ships, we need to limit how many ships we can have in port at a time? Utterly ridiculous.

III. A NATION within the trading route that OPPOSES to the current status of the act shall take the Treaty Company or Companies to the International Judicial Council.

There is no International Judicial Council enshrined in WA law right now.

IV. Any VIOLATIONS against this act shall be banned from the TRADING COUNCIL for a year to a permanent ban.

How?

V. PIRACY and TERRORISM against the trading nations shall be dealt with by the MILITARY of that nation.

Already covered by GAR #20 and #25.

VI. No NATION shall REWRITE or FORGE this act at time. This will result in legal action against the Nation or Nations involved.

No need; amendments are illegal.

VII. ALL Treaty Companies shall report their success or incidents in digital logbooks.
VIII. No ship is to SMUGGLE any illegal drugs, contrabands, or weapons from or to any countries.
IX. No ships can be SEARCHED without a warrant from the local authorities.
X.Finally all workers and employees of the Treaty Companies shall be responsible for their own actions and conduct.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on this.

This is an unworkable draft. I suggest you drop it now (put [SCRAPPED] in the title or something like that), participate in some debates around here, and read the pinned threads on top of this forum, particularly the rules and list of passed resolutions.

Good luck to you.

[Separatist Peoples]

"That's great. This is still illegal."

Okay can you help me rewrite it please

"I don't believe this can be successfully rewritten. You'd have to make this mandatory for all naions, drop the judiciary wing, drop all references to piracy and terrorism, and then find a way to get around National Economic Freedoms, which lets a nation engage in protectionism. I don't think it can be done."

[Whitefist America]

Okay I screwed up really bad

[Grays Harbor]

VI. No NATION shall REWRITE or FORGE this act at time. This will result in legal action against the Nation or Nations involved.

If this badly worded gobbledygook means what I surmise it means then this is incredibly illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay I screwed up really bad

OOC: No, you didn't. This is a reasonable error to make. Next time, you should read the rules and look over the passed resolutions list. Then, take time to participate in other peoples threads. It takes a while to learn the ins and outs of writing proposals.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"An international judiciary violates the text of Universals Jurisdiction. Which is still illegal.

I don't think so. The International Appellate Court thread that popped up some time ago had a ruling in it which spoke about how oUJ was not infringed by an appellate court, since criminal and appellate jurisdiction are separate.

[Separatist Peoples]

"An international judiciary violates the text of Universals Jurisdiction. Which is still illegal.

I don't think so. The International Appellate Court thread that popped up some time ago had a ruling in it which spoke about how oUJ was not infringed by an appellate court, since criminal and appellate jurisdiction are separate.

OOC: this isn't an appellate court. It's a court that makes rulings, as far as I can tell, on how to deal with disputes. An arbitration court. Without the term Judicial, this wouldn't be an issue, but te name evokes a court deliberately. As Ard says, in an appellate court, it's the law that is in the dock, not the individual nations. This isn't the case in this proposal, so it cannot be an appeals court.

[The KissMySwissRumparoo]

Free trade usually allows for imbalanced trade that may cause a huge deficit for your country therefore hurting your own citizens.

[Bears Armed]

Okay I screwed up really bad

No, you didn't: You posted your draft here, and have listened politely to people explaining why it's illegal.

*(sends over a gift basket of this nation's produce, including a large jar of high-quality honey and a large bottle of high-quality maple syrup as well as assorted fruits and nuts,)*

Screwing up "really bad" would have been submitting it straight off, without posting it for discussion here first, or responding to the critiques & advice by insulting the other players involved and then submitting it anyhows...

[Grays Harbor]

Okay I screwed up really bad

No, you didn't: You posted your draft here, and have listened politely to people explaining why it's illegal.

*(sends over a gift basket of this nation's produce, including a large jar of high-quality honey and a large bottle of high-quality maple syrup as well as assorted fruits and nuts,)*

Screwing up "really bad" would have been submitting it straight off, without posting it for discussion here first, or responding to the critiques & advice by insulting the other players involved and then submitting it anyhows...

^^what the Bear said^^

[Separatist Peoples]

No, you didn't: You posted your draft here, and have listened politely to people explaining why it's illegal.

*(sends over a gift basket of this nation's produce, including a large jar of high-quality honey and a large bottle of high-quality maple syrup as well as assorted fruits and nuts,)*

Screwing up "really bad" would have been submitting it straight off, without posting it for discussion here first, or responding to the critiques & advice by insulting the other players involved and then submitting it anyhows...

^^what the Bear said^^

OOC: Ditto. You're fine. Welcome to the GA keep that open mind and you'll do great.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is how I see it. This is a good idea. Further free trade increases the stability and ability of nations to effectively maintain control over its own jurisdiction. However, entirely ignoring any legality concerns, there is a more underlying problem here. Trade is always voluntary and reciprocal (and always benefits people who partake in this, contrary to what 'The KissMySwissRumparoo' said). So far as trade is always voluntary and reciprocal, creating a system which forces trade will not work. Nations, because they will change their own laws to adapt to trading requirements, will always do so without needing World Assembly intervention. So far as that is true, then the WA need not act.

The only remaining sections that are relevant are the questions on activities in international waters. Those activities have already been regulated in the past, which is where legality (constitutionality, basically) comes back into the picture. Duplication of prior legislation is not permitted, which this would do.