Advertisement
by Unibot III » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:31 am
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Dagguerro » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:36 am
Auralia wrote:United Federation of Canada wrote:Really? Has there been an official ruling on this?
Perhaps, though I'm not aware of one. However, if you read through the thread, there seems to be consensus on this point.
Precedent seems to be on my side as well. Biomedical Innovation Organization's non-committee provisions are optional.
◦Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing/Bloggish
Also know as a blogposal, this violation usually results from a proposal not actually doing anything due to lack of an operational clause. Remember, proposals must be more than just your idea and why it's great but must also give directions to the WA or member states in what to do. Operational (or directive) clauses would be words such as 'Requires', 'Urges', 'Demands', 'Mandates', etc. If your proposal reads more like a blog post about how it'd be great if the WA did this, it'll get chucked.
by Parti Ouvrier » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:27 am
governmental reforms designed to promote good governance and remove barriers to foreign investment and international trade, including but not limited to austerity measures, balanced budgets, trade liberalization, privatization and deregulation, sustainable development programs, democratic reforms, improved respect for fundamental human rights, and increased spending on basic public services as appropriate;...
Article III: Sovereign Loans Program
The Foundation is authorized to offer sovereign loans at its discretion to any developing member nation. Nations must have made a good-faith effort towards implementing the governmental reforms recommended by their development strategy, though the Foundation may allow exceptions during times of national emergency and economic crisis.
Member nations shall use these loans exclusively to implement the recommendations from their development strategy, though the Foundation may allow exceptions during times of national emergency and economic crisis.
by Villarshtein » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:49 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:56 pm
Malland wrote:I can see this hitting 50-50 Gonna be an interesting one to watch
by The Union of Gun Toting Nationalists » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:53 pm
by Motor Polska » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:35 pm
by Hittanryan » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:38 pm
by Thesan » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:45 pm
by The Dominion of Plebians » Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:00 pm
by Damanucus » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:52 am
The Dominion of Plebians wrote:I fail to see why so many nations are against this proposal. If one disagrees with this scheme, than one can feel free not to participate in it. Further, by providing the money needed for poor nations to open up their borders and build critical infrastructure, this should boost global economic growth. This provides a potential way out for countries that feel that they have no options.
by Auralia » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:45 am
Damanucus wrote:Although, given that member nations are also ask to assist in debt relief, maybe this will be straw that breaks the camel's back financially? Additionally, shouldn't the Foundation be financed by the General Fund first and foremost, since nations are already investing in it?
Damanucus wrote:Auralia wrote:
- The Foundation is authorized to insure any foreign investment in developing member nations at its discretion when available insurance is inadequate. The grounds for a claim are limited to currency inconvertibility, expropriation, war, terrorism and civil disturbance, breaches of contract, and governmental failure to honour financial obligations.
Care to elaborate on this statement?
Unibot III wrote:At first glance, I'd be worried about adverse conditionalities. For example, what if the WA Development Foundation is recommending the privatization of an area -- this is not only a hypothetical example, The IMF and the WB have horrible records of dismantling entire public water or education facilities because of poor recommendations (often based on faulty right-wing economics).
I think this resolution may necessitate a resolution limiting what conditionalities that the World Assembly can set on loans. I dropped that project a while back because it was deemed to be just a blocker.
by Hittanryan » Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:07 pm
The Dominion of Plebians wrote:I fail to see why so many nations are against this proposal. If one disagrees with this scheme, than one can feel free not to participate in it. Further, by providing the money needed for poor nations to open up their borders and build critical infrastructure, this should boost global economic growth. This provides a potential way out for countries that feel that they have no options.
by Evanicaland » Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:32 am
by Free South Califas » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:12 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement