[PASSED] Against Corruption

[Weed]

OOC: First and foremost, an apology for the longer than normal delay, I'm less active now-a-days and there were other NS things that came up.

In a sense, your second concern resolves the first, but only by making the proposal completely useless.

The proposal states that bribery is "the act of offering a gift to any public official, officer, agent or employee with the expectation of a specific action or result which the public official will take or cause in the operation of their duties, when that action or result is unethical or illegal." Therefore, if the expected action or result is not unethical or illegal, then a gift to a political official is not a bribe.

As you point out, the definition of ethics varies, and legality is determined by member states. Hence, member nations can essentially redefine bribery as they see fit, and the proposal is completely ineffective; this alone should justify withdrawing and redrafting the proposal.

I don't see it as such at all. In the case of government inspectors or investigators or guards any other 'little guy' that is being paid to look the other way, they would be completely defeating the purpose of their job and failing to complete their fundamental objectives of their employment. That would almost surely violate their contract for employment and all standards of ethics within their occupation, if not. The issue of legislators may not be as clear, but I don't think it is too much more complicated, the same basic truth applies. It is going to be unethical by any reasonable congress' standards to allow a large donation to change your vote on an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but that when it is found out everyone sees it as wrong.

Mandates all member states make the act of bribery an illegal action for a business, citizen, or non-state organization or entity to participate in, with heavy fines for organizations found to be in violation,

Why is this proposal dictating how we punish bribery in our individual nations? What if we find jail time more effective than fines?

I'd be interested to see how one would go about imprisoning an Arms Manufacturing Company... This doesn't mandate that "the only punishment be" so you can still throw whomever you want in jail. The more important aspect would be the fine of course, because that is the direction we need to go to make bribery less profitable.

Clarifying there shall be no difference legally between a person or organization offering a bribe, and contracting a person or entity which engages in bribery, unless the contracting nation clearly indicated bribery was not acceptable,

I suspect this is a typo.

Yes, though it is not in the submitted version, only the one here.

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, gifts as money, assets, favours, services, future employment, or anything which the receiver considers to have value,

I'm not opposed to the proposal in principle, but this definition seems a bit strict since technically everything has value. With this definition you can't even give a public official something as cheap as a pen with your company name on it.

That would be true only if you were giving the pen with the intent that the person will then do you an unethical or illegal favour, which would be an odd offer, but still an (albeit bad) attempt at bribing someone.

Was the donation made to the Hope campaign a bribe? I think so according to the language of your proposal because it was made "with the intent of convincing or persuading the future president into supporting and signing a law." Was the payment made to the campaign wrong? Not really. Groups give money to political campaigns all the time in hopes that it will convince politicians to adopt certain policy positions. Why should such a donation be illegal? I do not know.

I would see it as very hard to make that definition fit. Maybe if I had actually used the word word persuading I'd see it. But that's far from the most straight-forward reading of the current text, "with the expectation of a specific action or result which the public official will take or cause in the operation of their duties." In the situation you provided, they really didn't have a reason to expect their donation would change anything. Had the politician said something more clearly along the lines of 'if I get large donations from the LGBTQA community then I would consider signing..' It might be more reason to expect an outcome, but that is clearly less innocent of a situation. My point in the initial post still stands, unless they make very clear what the intent of their donation is, even if it is very underhanded, it would be unlikely you could make it fit the definition. Again, if the politician specifically says I'll only sign X-bill if you give me Y-money then the specific action expected by the bribe is clear, or if the check for $100,000 had 'only accept if you intend to sign X-Bill in the memo line, then sure I'd say it meets my definition. But I'm okay with that, that's definitely corrupt. Without the offer being clearly explained, I don't think you can say that it is known that there was an expectation of a specific action as opposed to just encouraging friendly behaviour toward the group (in this case LGBTQA) in general. To say it another way, since I'm not sure I'm expressing it clearly, until there is evidence that the contribution wasn't simply with the hope that the new President is generally friendly toward their interests, I don't see how you could say it is with the expectation of a specific result.

My second concern regards the definition of a bribe. In the definition, a bribe is labeled as something done that "is unethical or illegal." As a matter of normative ethics, I believe that objective morality exists. As a matter of descriptive ethics, it is obvious to anyone who thinks that morality is subjective. Beliefs about what is and is not ethical differ from person to person. Thus, what meaning does the "unethical" part of your definition have if any at all? Also, is it not nonsensical to make something illegal by defining it in terms of something else that is assumed already to be illegal? What if that other thing is not already illegal in the member state where your proposal would be applied? In that case, it seems evident that your proposal would mean nothing; it would have no effect whatsoever in that member state.

To strike at why it says ethical first, you used morality and ethics interchangeably in your statement, which is not totally accurate. Morality is more universal throughout ones life (not in the universal sense that everyone has the same morals, but in how you apply the morals you do have to yourself), if you think it is morally wrong to lie then it is wrong to lie in the context of work, family, social (friends), and any other setting you find yourself in. Ethics are more based on what you should do in your role within a group or as some position, in this case we are talking specifically about the code of ethics a governmental agent of some kind should follow. The difference is slight but comes to play clearly: morals may differ on what a psychologist/lawyer should do if their patient is displaying signs that they are dangerous, or if their client confesses to the crime they are charged, some would say the morally right thing to do is betray the trust in the name of justice or safety while others to keep the trust. But ethically, in their role as a lawyer/psychologist and under those codes of ethics, what they should do ethically is clear. Though granted, as I said, sometimes we see it as morally wrong to follow what we should do ethically, and we see it as morally right to do what we should not do ethically.

Now, let's apply this to a guard or forest ranger at a nature preserve in some country. The ranger comes upon someone without permission to be in the preserve and who has a gun. Ethically it is clear he should force the person to leave (or arrest the person if he has that legal power) and investigate if the person was poaching, that is one of the primary reasons he would be staffed at the preserve and so it would be a major failure in his duties not to preform those acts. Morally, there could be a large number of things that influence what is the 'right' thing to do. The ranger may know the poacher well, it could even be is brother. But none of that changes what he is expected to do within the specific context of his job.

To extend this example to why 'illegal' was included: Let's say it would be illegal for the ranger to fail to do his job here, because for whatever reason there is a law saying as a forest ranger you must do XYZ and may not allow XYZ to go without being investigated and reported. (That may be less likely in the case of a forest ranger but in more security or financial based jobs it is more likely.) In this example it is already illegal for the ranger to let the poacher stay in the park and act like he saw nothing. It is possibly not already illegal for the poacher to offer him money to do so, thus why it is in the definition, because after the passing of this it would be illegal to make such an offer. And, if this resolution to pass into law if the ranger did allow the poacher to stay because he was paid off, he'd be guilty of two crimes, accepting a bribe and the first crime, which isn't problematic to me because he has done something worse than if he just committed the first crime out of laziness.

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Potted Plants United]

"As we still see no great difference between what you call corruption, and normally paying for services rendered, we will remain against this proposal."

[Christian Democrats]

My second concern regards the definition of a bribe. In the definition, a bribe is labeled as something done that "is unethical or illegal." As a matter of normative ethics, I believe that objective morality exists. As a matter of descriptive ethics, it is obvious to anyone who thinks that morality is subjective. Beliefs about what is and is not ethical differ from person to person. Thus, what meaning does the "unethical" part of your definition have if any at all? Also, is it not nonsensical to make something illegal by defining it in terms of something else that is assumed already to be illegal? What if that other thing is not already illegal in the member state where your proposal would be applied? In that case, it seems evident that your proposal would mean nothing; it would have no effect whatsoever in that member state.

To strike at why it says ethical first, you used morality and ethics interchangeably in your statement, which is not totally accurate. Morality is more universal throughout ones life (not in the universal sense that everyone has the same morals, but in how you apply the morals you do have to yourself), if you think it is morally wrong to lie then it is wrong to lie in the context of work, family, social (friends), and any other setting you find yourself in. Ethics are more based on what you should do in your role within a group or as some position, in this case we are talking specifically about the code of ethics a governmental agent of some kind should follow. The difference is slight but comes to play clearly: morals may differ on what a psychologist/lawyer should do if their patient is displaying signs that they are dangerous, or if their client confesses to the crime they are charged, some would say the morally right thing to do is betray the trust in the name of justice or safety while others to keep the trust. But ethically, in their role as a lawyer/psychologist and under those codes of ethics, what they should do ethically is clear. Though granted, as I said, sometimes we see it as morally wrong to follow what we should do ethically, and we see it as morally right to do what we should not do ethically.

In normative ethics and descriptive ethics (which I mention), I do not believe that it is possible to draw a distinction between ethics and morals. To quote the "Ethics" article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (emphasis omitted):

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. . . . Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.

The task of normative ethics "is to arrive at moral standards." According to the Wikipedia article on "Descriptive ethics" (emphasis omitted):

Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality.

In other words, descriptive ethics, which is largely social scientific, poses the question, What do people think is moral and immoral?

In applied ethics (which I do not mention), I totally agree with you that a distinction can be drawn between ethics and morals. Applied ethics is the branch of ethics that analyzes specific sorts of issues, such as what lawyers and doctors should do in particular situations.

I stand by my use of ethics and morals interchangeably because I was referring to fields -- normative ethics and descriptive ethics -- in which those terms can be used in place of one another. If I had been discussing applied ethics, it would not have been proper to use those terms in the way I did.

[Weed]

OOC: Maybe I'm drawing a distinction because I'm a philosophy minor where no one else would see one, but they definitely are unique in relation to my classes. I've been considering redrafting anyway, since I think I want to add a word to the definition because I think I let some of my Missouri dialect into the text, and it doesn't quite mean what I think it means. I'll "decide for sure" if I want to remove it from quorum in a couple days.

[Christian Democrats]

In some areas of ethics, I think there is a distinction to be drawn; in others, I think no such distinction exists.

[Damanucus]

Fortunately, the Damanucus Independent Commission Against Political Corruption and Malfeasance (DICAPCAM) (detailed in Amendment 1) was established over a year ago for this very reason, after the Dent Demesc incident. (OOC: My way of explaining away my four-year absence.) And we would like to see political corruption stamped out as much as the next nation. We are supporting this resolution, and will vote for when it comes to vote.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Kringalia]

THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KRINGALIA TO THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

Upon consultation with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the position of the Republic of Kringalia is to oppose this proposed resolution. It is the belief of this nation that corruption is despicable and should be rejected by all nations.
Nonetheless, it is as well the policy of the Republic of Kringalia to oppose any and all undue interferences from the World Assembly into the internal affairs of its member nations. A ban on corrupt practices is, in the view of the Republic of Kringalia, an undue interference into the criminal justice system of all nations.

The Permanent Representative of the Republic of Kringalia to the World Assembly

[Fairgreen]

We are opposed to this resolution. We're a corruptiotocracy, therefore our ideology actually is banned. Our system of government is centred on progressive promotion based on ability to earn money in exchange for illegal or unethical ends. We therefore believe this resolution is illegalz.

[Weed]

I have just filed a request with the Secretariat to remove this proposal in order to make a change to it. I'll update the draft tonight, I'll look at any possible changes to address the above objections that don't change what I know it already means.

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Weed]

Okay. I've made all of the changes I feel I need to. I did work on the definition to maybe make it more clear. I'll add emphasis to the changed bits, first the old definition:

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, bribery as the act of offering a gift to any public official, officer, agent, or employee with the expectation the gift shall cause a specific action or result which the public official will take or cause in the operation of their duties, when that action or result is outside of a good faith performance or fulfillment of the officials duties, responsibilities, or privileges,

And then the new:

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution bribery as the act of offering a gift to any public official, officer, agent or employee with the expectation the gift will motivate the person to decide to take or not take a specific action, when that action or inaction conflicts with a good faith performance or fulfillment of the officials duties or responsibilities or privileges of the person's job or position,

The first change, actually one of the two main reasons I wanted to remove the proposal to add some bits, was the addition of the "motivate" bits. Adding those words draws a more clear distinction between contributing to candidates who support taking an action which you would like to see, as opposed to offering a contribution or gift to someone already in the position/more likely to get the position in the hopes they change their mind. It states much more clearly that the payment is the reason the person takes the action, and implies if it were not for the payment the action probably would not occur or would be less certain.

The changes near the end of the definition are an attempt to restate the unethical or illegal bits, which others had problems with. Ethics are necessarily involved here I believe, so the ability to lie and identify acts that are wrong as being acceptable will always be present. That is of course outside of the mandatory compliance in "good faith" of Rights and Duties of Member States, but some will nevertheless claim it is a flaw. I chose the wording I did, so that if they choose to define "good faith" in a way that doesn't mean what it obviously means, they would also have done so in the Rights and Duties resolution and so they can basically interpret anything I say as whatever they want it to be anyway. This is probably the most iron-clad definition of the honest or ethical performance of a job we will have.

This clause was also added:

Further forbids government agents from refusing to do what they should do in a good faith performance of their job or duties unless a gift is given to the agent personally,

This, the second and more important reason I thought I needed to back and resubmit, recognizes a failure in my first text to recognize another type of bribery. This is the case when the briber is actually the victim of the "bribe-ee" (person getting a bribe). An example of this would be a license bureau in [fictional] Ukraineia which will only say that you passed the drivers test if you slip the officer giving the test some money. Since the briber is actually the victim I don't include these types in the definition (the good faith bit specifically excludes them) because it shouldn't be illegal to offer¹ a bribe in this case since it was demanded of you. I think would be a failure of any corruption proposal not to forbid this type of action though, and I want to be clear that this definitely differentiates between paying the government for the ability to take test and paying the person to allow you to pass. You're allowed to pay the government to reimburse them for the expenses of giving you the test or for any amount they ask, but the payment cannot go to the officials own personal account or pocket, but instead to the government.

Finally, this was added to the list of things strongly urged at the end:

consider requiring the reporting or investigating of the finances of political leaders, to check for suspicious income.

This is only 'urged' so I did not use careful language at all, nations can make their own carefully worded policies from this idea or refuse too follow our urges if they want. This would be a way to cut down on corruption if nations chose. It was added on somewhat of a whim.

I would really appreciate commentary on these changes or any other elements of the proposal.
¹ I'm aware I could add these cases into the definition and defend the position from the standpoint of what an "offer" is and in these cases the offer is made by the government agent and the person giving the "bribe" is really just accepting the offer. But, this way is less technical and hard to explain even if it is more wordy.

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Discoveria]

OOC: I'd like to do a once-over check before you resubmit this. It will probably be over the Easter weekend - TG me if you don't hear from me.

[Weed]

OOC: I'd like to do a once-over check before you resubmit this. It will probably be over the Easter weekend - TG me if you don't hear from me.

OOC: Okay, will do my best to remember.

[Neoconstantius]

Neoconstantius fully SUPPORTS this proposal.

[Damanucus]

This clause was also added:

Further forbids government agents from refusing to do what they should do in a good faith performance of their job or duties unless a gift is given to the agent personally,

The wording of this statement worries me, due to its ambiguity. (OOC: This may just be my translation of it, as I'm reading two ways it can be interpreted into it.) I would strongly suggest you reword this so that it is more clear, like:

Further forbids government agents from undertaking certain actions only when a bribe is given to them or their representative,

I also included the acceptance of bribes on the behalf of another in this suggestion, as this can sometimes also occur.

We shall continue to support this proposal's passage.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Weed]

This clause was also added:

Further forbids government agents from refusing to do what they should do in a good faith performance of their job or duties unless a gift is given to the agent personally,

The wording of this statement worries me, due to its ambiguity. (OOC: This may just be my translation of it, as I'm reading two ways it can be interpreted into it.) I would strongly suggest you reword this so that it is more clear, like:

Further forbids government agents from undertaking certain actions only when a bribe is given to them or their representative,

I also included the acceptance of bribes on the behalf of another in this suggestion, as this can sometimes also occur.

We shall continue to support this proposal's passage.

That would not fit with the definition of bribe the proposal works on, as I said. It is very wordy, but there was and is a reason to do it that way.

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd like to do a once-over check before you resubmit this. It will probably be over the Easter weekend - TG me if you don't hear from me.

OOC: Okay, will do my best to remember.

OOC: I'd also like to ask you to postpone submitting over the Easter weekend. I want to give you a more thorough opinion, but I don't know if I'll have time before next Tuesday.

[Ossitania]

That would not fit with the definition of bribe the proposal works on, as I said. It is very wordy, but there was and is a reason to do it that way.

---

Clinton Tew

(Image)

WA Ambassador from Weed

There's also a reason to change the clause in question, as it's currently highly ambiguous. It can reasonably read as saying that government agents can refuse to carry out good-faith duties once they've received a bribe. You don't need to adopt Ambassador Orman's wording, but you do need to change it.

[Weed]

That would not fit with the definition of bribe the proposal works on, as I said. It is very wordy, but there was and is a reason to do it that way.

---

Clinton Tew

(Image)

WA Ambassador from Weed

There's also a reason to change the clause in question, as it's currently highly ambiguous. It can reasonably read as saying that government agents can refuse to carry out good-faith duties once they've received a bribe. You don't need to adopt Ambassador Orman's wording, but you do need to change it.

That would be a silly way to read it since the resolution forbids them from taking the bribe, and thus the more straight-forward and simple reading was clear. Nevertheless, changed to:

Further forbids government agents from only doing what they should do in a good faith performance in cases when a gift was given to the agent personally,

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Ossitania]

There's also a reason to change the clause in question, as it's currently highly ambiguous. It can reasonably read as saying that government agents can refuse to carry out good-faith duties once they've received a bribe. You don't need to adopt Ambassador Orman's wording, but you do need to change it.

That would be a silly way to read it since the resolution forbids them from taking the bribe, and thus the more straight-forward and simple reading was clear. Nevertheless, changed to:

Further forbids government agents from only doing what they should do in a good faith performance in cases when a gift was given to the agent personally,

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

How about this far simpler approach:

"Further forbids government agents from making a good faith performance of their duties contingent on the receipt of a gift,"

[Toronina]

If this gets to vote, I will support it

[United slabovian socialist empire]

I don't think it's going to stop corruption. You'll still have nations that violate all of the rules and regulations so there's really no point

[Frisbeeteria]

[OOC: Please see the 'final note' at the bottom of this post, and the second post before posting... also, the actual text of the proposal for extra credit points! ]
OOC EDIT: This was submitted and put well over quorum, but has been removed to make some minor changes since no one comes to draft these things despite numerous bumps until after submission and campaigning has occurred. <.<

I thank the ambassadors for giving my draft attention. In numerous small nations, like mine, it can be difficult to fight large corporations originating in other nations from corrupting our governments. Inspectors sent to check that all laws are being followed end up bribed or offered higher paying jobs once the illegal project is completed if the inspector just stays quiet.

We are very sympathetic to nations that are not as advanced or rich as our nation, if we were not so well off in those categories on top of being small, it would likely be a losing fight. Often, these corporations stand to make double the revenues through illegally exploiting the resources of these nations than the impoverished nation's government will make in taxes. Increased punishments and investigations are useful, but without the support of the corporation's host nation it often is easier for corporations to essentially buy nearly the entire government than follow the laws. And at that point, the citizens of the nation have no chance of defending their interests, they become helpless actors in the state, no matter what polices they elect people to enact, the policy won't be enforced unless it benefits or fails to harm the corporations. The people's interest just loses in those cases. The World Assembly should stand up to end this corruption that can be so powerful inside developing nations!

Against Corruption
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Weed

The General Assembly,

Seeing bribery as a major problem plaguing poor or developing nations, where major corporations can reward leaders or people in authority for abandoning their nation's interest,

Realizing the enforcing of laws that attempt to protect natural habitat, public safety, and the common good in these nations can be nearly impossible when powerful corporations with extensive resources seek to violate them,

Knowing that most corporations now attempt to avoid the bad publicity of bribing by hiding the act with middlemen contracted to obtain a certain result in a negotiation, who can pay the bribe out of their own compensation,

Seeking to improve the ability of poorer or developing nations to protect their people and resources through law,

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, bribery as the act of offering a gift to any public official, officer, agent, or employee with the expectation the gift will motivate the person to decide to take or not take a specific action, when that action or inaction conflicts with a good faith performance or fulfillment of the officials duties, responsibilities, or privileges of the person's job or positions,

Clarifying there shall be no difference legally between a person or organization offering a bribe, and contracting a person or entity which engages in bribery, unless the contracting nation clearly indicated bribery was not acceptable,

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, gifts as money, assets, favours, services, future employment, or anything which the receiver considers to have value,

Mandates all member states make the act of bribery an illegal action for a business, citizen, or non-state organization or entity to participate in, with heavy fines for organizations found to be in violation,

Forbids the government or government agents of any member state from participating in bribery for monetary gain, or economic interests,

Further forbids government agents from refusing to do what they should do in a good faith performance of their job or duties because a gift was not given to the agent personally,

Declares that the member states shall deem it illegal for an officer or official of the government to accept a bribe,

Strongly urges nations to:

• demand officers and officials report attempted bribes,
• create regulations discouraging or ending the practice of businesses compensating negotiators more or only if a certain end is met in a negotiation as the practice can encourage bribery,
• require disclosure of spending and contracts of major corporations operating within their nation, which may be most likely to participate in bribery within their nation or any other nation, and the investigation of any highly compensated interpreters or negotiators in important negations,
• consider requiring the reporting or investigating of the finances of political leaders, to check for suspicious income.

On one final note, attached to this summary I'm going to include a statement about what I'm assuming some of the objections/questions/comments that I predict to come, as well as my response. Please look these over before responding! They may give you information as to what my response is going to be to what you are concerned about!

---

Clinton Tew

(Image)

WA Ambassador from Weed

*the wa rep for timsvill gives no support to this*

[Kringalia]

THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KRINGALIA TO THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

Upon consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Kringalia can confirm the previous position that our nation, despite being opposed to corrupt practices, believes that this issue does not require international legislation and all attempts to do so would entail undue interference into the internal affairs of WA member nations. Therefore, the Republic of Kringalia encourages transparent and democratic practices in all nations but regrets the attempts to regulate those in through undue means.

The Permanent Representative of the Republic of Kringalia to the World Assembly

[Damanucus]

That would be a silly way to read it since the resolution forbids them from taking the bribe, and thus the more straight-forward and simple reading was clear. Nevertheless, changed to:

Further forbids government agents from only doing what they should do in a good faith performance in cases when a gift was given to the agent personally,

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

How about this far simpler approach:

"Further forbids government agents from making a good faith performance of their duties contingent on the receipt of a gift,"

That I prefer. But you do need to put in there, as I see it, a clause which prevents bribes being taken by a representative of an official in order to see that an action is undertaken.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Weed]

"Further forbids government agents from making a good faith performance of their duties contingent on the receipt of a gift,"

I'm okay with this.

I'm going to be sending a telegram to those I said I would. Hopefully we can still move toward this goal despite the recent outbreaks.

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed