PASSED: International Competition Law

[Gobbannium]

It was Dr. Castro's Food Welfare Act, ambassador. If my memory serves me correctly.

Your memory would appear flawless in this case, honoured ambassador. It has the honour, appealing to our national love of bureaucracy, of being the second committee to be created by that act. This would appear to be an entirely reasonable use of its time, more relevantly.

[Havensky]

The Skyan Senate passed a law that forbids any national buisness from engaging in trade wiith any nation who deals in slavary AND those that tolerate it. This means that we have a 'refusal to deal' with a number of nations - if I understand the resolution correctly.

We can not support a resolution that inhibits our ability to use our thriving economy to influence nations diplomaticly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Its being said before, Ambassador. But I must reiterate the concerns for the proposal. The devoid of pragmatic organization in favor of implementing trickery in the wording and flow, with the use of alternating cycles of Define & Ban replace what could be a much more straightforward, clean, shorter and organized proposal.

I can't begin to understand the fuss over layout, and how it somehow indicates attempted deception. I see no reason to further defend myself.

They are pertinent to the legislation in that they create great flaws in it. You see only that which you wish to see, Dr Castro, and anything which does not fit your worldview is redefined until it does. While this is normally only personally exasperating, when it applies to the definitions of words in legislation it is little short of disastrous.

Perhaps this is true, but it would do better to mention specifics pertinent to the legislation at hand. I don't intend to self-reflect and reach some general epiphany on my views of international politics and law, especially on the floors of this hall.

This would be a classic example. We never mentioned fair trade, Doctor. Fair trade and free trade are not even close to one another in outlook or philosophy, and conflating them in this manner is at best unhelpful.

How Your Excellency can interpret my comments as conflating the two is beyond me; indeed, the two are opposites and -- But I digress. This is not the debate of this moment.

We aren't entirely convinced about the category, but will freely admit that we are very much not an expert in this particular field.

Free Trade would seem the most relevant for international competition law.

You do realise that these are two distinct conditions, don't you? We just wish to be clear on this point, since it has considerable implications for national law.

Yes. My intention is to regulate international competition only, not domestic competition.

The existence of a cartel is often a matter of opinion, and the absolute requirements of this ban sit ill with that observation. Perhaps the ITA should be given leave to adjudicate as to what is or is not a cartel?

Probably so. This could be said about the rest of the bans, no?

Here we have a considerable problem. The definition of collusion above, combined with the qualifier "by any method", renders national boycotts untenable. A national government is perfectly at liberty to demand that businesses within its borders not deal with the businesses of another country. Sadly, any companies complying with such a law would be colluding to refuse to deal in a very literal manner.

Aside from anything else, we need a degree of convincing that this section is necessary or useful at all. It seems to us a fundamental that businesses should have the right to deal or not deal with whomsoever they choose, just as individuals can choose not to interact with those they find offensive. What situations is this section intended to resolve that are unethical, and could it be rewritten to target such more effectively?

The language may not be achieving its goal. Refusal to deal is commonly a protected right, when referring to purely private business. However, when such refusal to deal is part of a process (or a conspiracy of a process) of monopolization or other anti-competitive practices, then it is inherently unethical and harmful to competition. For instance, non-merger horizontal restraints to trade: a business exclusively deals with a manufacturer, resulting in a refusal to deal with any other manufacturer (and the manufacturer's refusal to deal with other businesses). The end result is cheaper production, as the cost of raising the barrier of entry in to that industry. Admittedly, refusal to deal and exclusive dealing are incredibly similar.

"Group boycotting" is essentially two or more businesses strong-arming another business in to refusing to deal with a target. It is intended to drown out the target, thus decreasing competition.

These are four distinct duties that do not sit well in such a listing, being unrelated except in fine detail. We would prefer each to have its own clause or subclause ourself, not least because the wording of the merger item troubles us somewhat. Regrettably at this point we are unable to put our finger on what precisely makes us uneasy about it; we shall return with more useful comment when it occurs to us.

I would be willing to more visually enumerate the duties and to expand on the merger clause. An updated draft should be available shortly.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Glomeland]

I can't begin to understand the fuss over layout, and how it somehow indicates attempted deception. I see no reason to further defend myself.

Maybe I'm just strange but I actually like the layout. DEFINES, followed by BANS, for each practice covered by the resolution seems an eminently sensible way of doing things. Glomeland will likely support this legislation.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

[Surote]

this is more of an states choice not a choice you want to force on people I believe in capitalism but not everyone else does.

[Gobbannium]

They are pertinent to the legislation in that they create great flaws in it. You see only that which you wish to see, Dr Castro, and anything which does not fit your worldview is redefined until it does. While this is normally only personally exasperating, when it applies to the definitions of words in legislation it is little short of disastrous.

Perhaps this is true, but it would do better to mention specifics pertinent to the legislation at hand. I don't intend to self-reflect and reach some general epiphany on my views of international politics and law, especially on the floors of this hall.

You asked a general question, Dr Castro, so we gave a general answer. By this time we don't expect an epiphany, but occasional accuracy would be nice.

This would be a classic example. We never mentioned fair trade, Doctor. Fair trade and free trade are not even close to one another in outlook or philosophy, and conflating them in this manner is at best unhelpful.

How Your Excellency can interpret my comments as conflating the two is beyond me; indeed, the two are opposites and -- But I digress. This is not the debate of this moment.

We assumed conflation because the alternative was that you knowingly dishonest. Answering a point made against fair trade by explaining how it does not apply to free trade fails utterly to address the point, yet leaves the impression that you have done so. We prefer not to throw accusations of intellectual dishonesty around, but if you insist we see little alternative.

We aren't entirely convinced about the category, but will freely admit that we are very much not an expert in this particular field.

Free Trade would seem the most relevant for international competition law.

A bald statement is in and of itself unconvincing. Why would it so seem?

You do realise that these are two distinct conditions, don't you? We just wish to be clear on this point, since it has considerable implications for national law.

Yes. My intention is to regulate international competition only, not domestic competition.

We were evidently unclear. It is clear to you that "the international market" and "where trade happens between two or more commercial entities of differing national headquartering" are distinct and differing conditions, overlapping considerably but not by any means identical? The clause as written means that the legislation does not apply to multinational organisations that happen to be headquartered in the same nation, even when considering trading between different branches of those organisations in two entirely separate countries. It that intentional?

The existence of a cartel is often a matter of opinion, and the absolute requirements of this ban sit ill with that observation. Perhaps the ITA should be given leave to adjudicate as to what is or is not a cartel?

Probably so. This could be said about the rest of the bans, no?

Most of them. As we observed and you omitted from your reply, you take this step in one of the cases; why not the others?

Here we have a considerable problem. The definition of collusion above, combined with the qualifier "by any method", renders national boycotts untenable. A national government is perfectly at liberty to demand that businesses within its borders not deal with the businesses of another country. Sadly, any companies complying with such a law would be colluding to refuse to deal in a very literal manner.

Aside from anything else, we need a degree of convincing that this section is necessary or useful at all. It seems to us a fundamental that businesses should have the right to deal or not deal with whomsoever they choose, just as individuals can choose not to interact with those they find offensive. What situations is this section intended to resolve that are unethical, and could it be rewritten to target such more effectively?

The language may not be achieving its goal. Refusal to deal is commonly a protected right, when referring to purely private business. However, when such refusal to deal is part of a process (or a conspiracy of a process) of monopolization or other anti-competitive practices, then it is inherently unethical and harmful to competition. For instance, non-merger horizontal restraints to trade: a business exclusively deals with a manufacturer, resulting in a refusal to deal with any other manufacturer (and the manufacturer's refusal to deal with other businesses). The end result is cheaper production, as the cost of raising the barrier of entry in to that industry. Admittedly, refusal to deal and exclusive dealing are incredibly similar.

So it is not the refusal to deal itself, but the ends to which that refusal is directed? Although considerably trickier, it may be better to direct the proposal at those.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A bald statement is in and of itself unconvincing. Why would it so seem?

Increasing competition decreases economic barriers of entry. The Free Trade category is for any resolution that seeks "to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce".

We were evidently unclear. It is clear to you that "the international market" and "where trade happens between two or more commercial entities of differing national headquartering" are distinct and differing conditions, overlapping considerably but not by any means identical? The clause as written means that the legislation does not apply to multinational organisations that happen to be headquartered in the same nation, even when considering trading between different branches of those organisations in two entirely separate countries. It that intentional?

It most certainly was not. Would it be a problem to simply leave 'international market' undefined? The phrase really does define itself already.

Most of them. As we observed and you omitted from your reply, you take this step in one of the cases; why not the others?

I believe I have edited the proposal to give the ITA proper authority in the cartels clause. "To monitor and report", to me at least, implies investigatory power, which should cover the rest of the banning clauses.

So it is not the refusal to deal itself, but the ends to which that refusal is directed? Although considerably trickier, it may be better to direct the proposal at those.

I've attempted to fix the clarity. I removed the refusal to deal clause, and expanded the exclusive dealing cause. Thoughts?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Gobbannium]

Increasing competition decreases economic barriers of entry. The Free Trade category is for any resolution that seeks "to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce".

And yet the proposal is a list of "Thou shalt not"s, imposing specific barriers to free trade and commerce. As we said we are hardly experts in this field, but this does trouble us.

We were evidently unclear. It is clear to you that "the international market" and "where trade happens between two or more commercial entities of differing national headquartering" are distinct and differing conditions, overlapping considerably but not by any means identical? The clause as written means that the legislation does not apply to multinational organisations that happen to be headquartered in the same nation, even when considering trading between different branches of those organisations in two entirely separate countries. It that intentional?

It most certainly was not. Would it be a problem to simply leave 'international market' undefined? The phrase really does define itself already.

That is our opinion too. We were uncertain as to whether this was the usual humpty-dumptyism or a deliberate exemption; removing the temptation for either seems to be the wisest course.

Most of them. As we observed and you omitted from your reply, you take this step in one of the cases; why not the others?

I believe I have edited the proposal to give the ITA proper authority in the cartels clause. "To monitor and report", to me at least, implies investigatory power, which should cover the rest of the banning clauses.

Precisely our point. Thank you.

So it is not the refusal to deal itself, but the ends to which that refusal is directed? Although considerably trickier, it may be better to direct the proposal at those.

I've attempted to fix the clarity. I removed the refusal to deal clause, and expanded the exclusive dealing cause. Thoughts?

We freely admit to not understanding the "exclusive dealing" clause terribly well, and should yield the floor to someone more economically competent than ourself at this point. The definition is terribly hard to understand -- we suspect that at least one comma is not so much redundant as actively misleading, but we are not sufficiently well-versed in the subject matter to be able to offer meaningful comment.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And yet the proposal is a list of "Thou shalt not"s, imposing specific barriers to free trade and commerce. As we said we are hardly experts in this field, but this does trouble us.

They are barriers in the strictest sense. However, they are barriers intended to foster competition, which is a vital aspect of free trade and commerce. Without competition law, it is possible for a few international monopolies to control vast areas of the marketplace, while not allowing other businesses a chance to participate.

Free trade is a policy wherein there are no artificial barriers to trade. It's of my opinion -- and probably many others, but I will not speak for them -- that the practices outlined in this proposal create artificial barriers, by preventing competition from dictating which products or services succeed and fail.

Of course, I should probably explain the official stance of Glen-Rhodes on the subject of free trade. On a national level, essential industries are mostly state-owned, although some leaders have begun a slow process of privatization. Essentially, we operate under democratic socialism, depending on a strong non-essential market to carry the weight of our economy. On an international level, however, democratic socialism cannot work; there is no single world government that owns essential industries and regulates non-essential ones. What's left is capitalism, which is probably the most efficient economic model on an international level. Currently, what we have is unrestricted, laissez-fair capitalism, due to the absence of legitimate, codified competition law. (And, as a side note, if the World Assembly Economic Union was re-passed, that laissez-fair capitalism would have been codified and supported by the World Assembly. I'm unsure if competition law would have even been possible.) The formation of monopolies is an inevitable, and the corruption and corrosion they cause is inherent. This is why I seek to institute competition law before the WAEU resurfaces, in whatever form it does.

We freely admit to not understanding the "exclusive dealing" clause terribly well, and should yield the floor to someone more economically competent than ourself at this point. The definition is terribly hard to understand -- we suspect that at least one comma is not so much redundant as actively misleading, but we are not sufficiently well-versed in the subject matter to be able to offer meaningful comment.

Perhaps Your Excellency has heard of horizontal and vertical integration, in regards to monopolization? Regulating exclusive dealing aims to prevent those things.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]






(OOC: Helpful links are OOC...)

[Arkinesia]

Having read over this proposal, the Economic Bureau of Arkinesia heartily supports this resolution. The desire to rid the world of industrial cartels is a fine cause indeed, however, we have some "beef", as some would say, with a bit of this.

There's nothing really wrong with allowing a collusion to exist. A collusion is often self-defeating, eventually.

Thus, we feel that banning collusionary corporations may not be a wise idea. It's even possible for collusions to create a more competitive market in the long term.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I have reassessed the resolution this morning, this resolution appears to be working well at last. Just one thing though, have you missed out on the tackling of offending directors (sometimes it isn't the companies that are offending, but sometimes it's the mind of one director).

[Enn]

Lady Faren has instructed me to support this, as long as her privately owned monopoly of the Ennish Shandy market is allowed to be maintained. Since this seems to mainly talk about collusion and cartels, she seems pleased.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Kelssek]

Although Kelssek could not, to be honest, feel strongly either way about this issue, we nonetheless commend the delegation of Glen-Rhodes on what we feel is a well-drafted proposal with commendable goals. We shall gladly support this proposal.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Dr. Castro seems to be happy and has submitted it. I am please to announce that I will support it in a jiffy.

[The Palentine]

Ye effing gods! Anytime fluffies like and support a free trade proposal it must be a bad one. Therefore, The Palentine is strongly opposed to this piece of fluffy crap. Especially since I really don't trust Dr. Castro's motives. Given his purple-faced, frothing rages against capitalism and free trade in the past, Its kinda like a vegan extolling the nutritional value of eating porterhouse steaks.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Gobbannium]

OOC: OK, given what I've said, I really do have to ask for a mod ruling on the category.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: OK, given what I've said, I really do have to ask for a mod ruling on the category.

OOC: The very purpose of competition law is to remove practices that restrict free trading and competition. Yes, it's restrictive in the sense that it's preventing businesses from doing certain things. But what's more restrictive to "free trade and commerce" is the monopoly, which brings with it lack of competition and false barriers of entry. Preventing monopolies from forming has a net effect of increasing competition and removing those false barriers of entry, which serves to "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."

I think that maybe you're assuming that Free Trade's description implies that the resolutions can only reduce government-imposed restrictions to free trade and commerce, instead of also being able to reduce business-imposed restrictions. But I would be fine with a mod coming in and delivering an official ruling on the extent of the Free Trade category.

(By the way, if anybody's wondering, this submission is apparently a test-run. I'd thought I had enough time to do a TG campaign, but I ended up not...)

[Gobbannium]

OOC: OK, given what I've said, I really do have to ask for a mod ruling on the category.

OOC: The very purpose of competition law is to remove practices that restrict free trading and competition. Yes, it's restrictive in the sense that it's preventing businesses from doing certain things. But what's more restrictive to "free trade and commerce" is the monopoly, which brings with it lack of competition and false barriers of entry. Preventing monopolies from forming has a net effect of increasing competition and removing those false barriers of entry, which serves to "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce."

OOC: Yes, you've said that before. You're still not a mod.

[Ardchoille]

OOC: Freely admitting that I share Gobbannium's lack of confidence about economic matters, I'm going to rule that the proposal is LEGAL in terms of category requirements, based on this:

Free Trade:A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Social Justice:A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all WA member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all WA member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

The sections bolded indicate to me that the economies that should be restricted or freed by proposals in these two categories are domestic economies.

The proposal's restrictions are directed at international businesses. While international businesses have an undoubted effect on domestic economies, they are not themselves domestic economies.

I accept the argument that control of business monopolies will free, not restrict, the operation of the international market. Thus, in effect, it will increase the economic freedoms of domestic economies, by making it easier for their agencies, whether big national companies or government-owned companies, to operate on the international market.

It would, of course, be possible for a large international company to "buy" a nation, so that its economy is their economy, and hence attempt to avoid these laws; or for a nation to evolve to the same point (I think the way Frisbeeteria RPd his nation would be an example). In such cases, I would see the "monitor and report" function of the ITA coming into play, where they would decide whether the would-be monopolist or cartel member is, in fact, a business, or a nation. (And since the Gnomes who would comprise the ITA are unbribable, utterly neutral and always decide cases on their merits, I am confident they would always come down on the side of The People and stick it to The Man ; but that's irrelevant.)

I'm somewhat doubtful about the strength of this submission, and if you resubmit I think you should consider whether restraint of international businesses will have a strong, or merely a significant, effect on increasing the freedom of domestic economies. Since we don't really know much about NS's international market, I'd be inclined to steer for the middle ground.

I also think you should look closely at this clause:

RESTRICT businesses from interacting on an international scale, if they are repeat offenders of anti-competitive practices;

This seems to me to raise the same point Charlotte Ryberg objected to in the International Court of Justice draft: that it forces RP. The WA's power comes from the nations that comprise it; so, if you are talking of penalties, they would have to be imposed using the powers of said nations. I imagine this would involve the ITA "urging" WA member nations to take some action against offending businesses. However, since this might well involve the nations doing something that would damage their domestic economies, or somewthing illegal under the proposal itself, you'd have to avoid being specific about what action.

If you must mention penalties (and there's nothing that obliges you to), I think you would do well to use a bit of handwavium here. Something like "urges nations to take appropriate action against entities identified by the ITA as repeat offenders ...".

[Gobbannium]

OOC: Freely admitting that I share Gobbannium's lack of confidence about economic matters, I'm going to rule that the proposal is LEGAL in terms of category requirements,[...]

OOC: Fairy nuff. I'll admit to being a bit more wary of Free Trade proposals than most because the category gets used for shoe-horning all sorts of agreements and protocols into proposal form. Quite reasonably in most cases, but still.

[Cynthia McKinney]

Democratic Socialist Alliance supports your International Competition Law although we believe your resolution should be in the category called advancement of industry instead of the free trade category since it improves the economy but opposes the neoliberal/free market capitalist agenda of globalization.

[Glen-Rhodes]

RESTRICT businesses from interacting on an international scale, if they are repeat offenders of anti-competitive practices;

This seems to me to raise the same point Charlotte Ryberg objected to in the International Court of Justice draft: that it forces RP. The WA's power comes from the nations that comprise it; so, if you are talking of penalties, they would have to be imposed using the powers of said nations. I imagine this would involve the ITA "urging" WA member nations to take some action against offending businesses. However, since this might well involve the nations doing something that would damage their domestic economies, or somewthing illegal under the proposal itself, you'd have to avoid being specific about what action.

If you must mention penalties (and there's nothing that obliges you to), I think you would do well to use a bit of handwavium here. Something like "urges nations to take appropriate action against entities identified by the ITA as repeat offenders ...".

OOC: Assuming that you're intended to say that the clause is illegal, I have a question about this. When did it become illegal to 'force RP'? As far as I know, all 65 resolutions force people to roleplay a certain way (if they roleplay WA compliance); they can't use landmines, have slaves, child militants, or biological weapons, for example; they were forced in to an economic union, to have science in their schools, to allow euthanasia, etc. What's the functional difference, in regards to how roleplaying is affected, between banning the use of landmines and banning the use of anti-competitive businesses? It doesn't make much sense to me... I've never seen this type of thing questioned for legality. The World Assembly has always had the inherent authority (and effect, really), I think, to 'force RP'.

If you aren't intending to say that the clause is illegal, then I suppose it's not much of a worry to me. While the resolution could probably stand without the ITA having authority to deny businesses interacting with the international market, it is rather appropriate for competition law, especially as a replacement of a dissolving ability. I don't think including that authority hurts the chances of the proposal reaching quorum or passing. I think the issue of forcing RP that CR brought up isn't really valid to the World Assembly, anyways; there's always been a disconnect between the WA and the rest of the roleplaying sections of NationStates... what happens in one section doesn't affect the other.

[James Bluntus]

What a surprise. I read this statue expecting to see a whole lot of good comments after it. All I see is the usual bad comments by Qumkent. Ambassador, It is time you work up and smelt the air. WA politics isn't all flowers. Every resolution you have commented on, you have said bad things about it. (or of the ones I have seen) Maybe it may be better for your nation to leave the WA and leave the WA to nations that actually will support some legislation.

Yours,

[Gobbannium]

What a surprise. I read this statue expecting to see a whole lot of good comments after it. All I see is the usual bad comments by Qumkent. Ambassador, It is time you work up and smelt the air. WA politics isn't all flowers. Every resolution you have commented on, you have said bad things about it. (or of the ones I have seen) Maybe it may be better for your nation to leave the WA and leave the WA to nations that actually will support some legislation.

The point of the drafting process is to support legislation by pointing out the errors in the draft, not by making fluffy but essentially meaningless noises in its favour. Sometimes the errors are conceptual, as when the approach taken is wrong-headed or simply ignorant of important details of the matter in question, such as the humpty-dumptyism we regularly accuse Dr Castro of; sometimes they are stylistic, as when our verbosity is raised or the occasional delegate is castigated for overweening pride; and sometimes they are matters of factual detail, at which times we are regularly amazed at the powers of denial that authors and objectors both possess. Whatever the reason, raising such matters is supportive of the WA and the quality of its legislation. We hope, but are far from convinced, that the Ambassador for James Bluntus would recognise that as being far more important than being supportive of individual pieces of legislation, regardless of their quality.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The proposal has reached the minimum threshold for quorum. Debate is still ongoing, of course, given the possibility that this proposal may have to be removed from the queue. There are obviously certain clauses within this proposal that contradict clauses found in National Economic Freedoms. Barring a preemptive removal by the powers that be, if their authorities extend that far, I won't be requesting its removal unless it's obvious that National Economic Freedoms is going to pass.

The category strength has been changed to 'Mild' and the explicit trade restriction clause has been removed, so ensure its legality.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]