[PASSED] World Assembly Trade Rights

[Cowardly Pacifists]

With all due respect, you should read your proposal again. I don't see anything in there about Most Favored Nation status, which would (I guess...) include everything commonly understood to come with that status IRL; including the principle of reciprocity. You do talk about "the most favourable trade preference," which as far as I can tell has no special meaning. Presumably it means just what it says: even if your nation "prefers" to trade with another nation, you must give other nations the same trading terms you would give that preferred nation - regardless of whether those other nations offer to reciprocate.

Ah, now I understand what you're talking about. Sorry for the confusion. No, even MFN as implemented in the GATT does not include a requirement for reciprocity.

Umm... no. It's simply daft to claim that GATT and MFN don't involve a principle of reciprocation. It's one of the founding principles of free trade and one of the requirements for that theory to work. The second damn line of the GATT treaty reads: "Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce[.]"

I cannot believe you really just said that. How can you claim to draft legislation on this area of law without even acknowledging the existence of a key tenant of the free trade agreement you're trying to emulate.

As always, Auralia, simply denying that a principle exists will not make it go away. I say again: you've tired to shoehorn an elegant RL treaty into a brief blunt instrument that does not really do the same thing. The failure to include a principle or requirement of reciprocity in trade preferences is just one example. If I had more time, I could flush out others. But this is likely going to pass, so why waste my breath. I'll just vote against and be content to use the exceptions to do whatever I want (just like RL nations).

Best Regards.

[Vagabundas]

Well, war embargos are not covered by the exceptions of this bill...


Yours,

[Auralia]

Umm... no. It's simply daft to claim that GATT and MFN don't involve a principle of reciprocation. It's one of the founding principles of free trade and one of the requirements for that theory to work. The second damn line of the GATT treaty reads: "Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce[.]"

I cannot believe you really just said that. How can you claim to draft legislation on this area of law without even acknowledging the existence of a key tenant of the free trade agreement you're trying to emulate.

It might not be a bad idea to actually read through GATT before accusing me of not understanding its basic principles. First of all, universal most-favoured-nation status and reciprocity are not the same thing. Universal MFN is treating all nations the same, while reciprocity is treating a nation the same way it treats you.

Unlike universal most-favoured-nation status, GATT encourages reciprocal reductions in tariffs, but does not necessarily enforce them. That is to say, should a GATT member nation unilaterally decide to eliminate tariffs for all other member nations, there is no obligation for member nations to eliminate their tariffs as well. This is as it should be - GATT should not allow you to force a nation into a free trade agreement. GATT does, however, encourage the use of bilateral and multilateral negotiations to come up with reciprocal and mutually-agreeable reductions in tariffs, which would then be enforced according to the relevant agreement.

[Vagabundas]

I could support this but what about war embargos??? Please answer us!

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Umm... no. It's simply daft to claim that GATT and MFN don't involve a principle of reciprocation. It's one of the founding principles of free trade and one of the requirements for that theory to work. The second damn line of the GATT treaty reads: "Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce[.]"

I cannot believe you really just said that. How can you claim to draft legislation on this area of law without even acknowledging the existence of a key tenant of the free trade agreement you're trying to emulate.

It might not be a bad idea to actually read through GATT before accusing me of not understanding its basic principles. First of all, universal most-favoured-nation status and reciprocity are not the same thing. Universal MFN is treating all nations the same, while reciprocity is treating a nation the same way it treats you.

Unlike universal most-favoured-nation status, GATT encourages reciprocal reductions in tariffs, but does not necessarily enforce them. That is to say, should a GATT member nation unilaterally decide to eliminate tariffs for all other member nations, there is no obligation for member nations to eliminate their tariffs as well. This is as it should be - GATT should not allow you to force a nation into a free trade agreement. GATT does, however, encourage the use of bilateral and multilateral negotiations to come up with reciprocal and mutually-agreeable reductions in tariffs, which would then be enforced according to the relevant agreement.

First of all, saying that GATT doesn't "require" reciprocation because "there is no obligation for member nations to eliminate their tariffs as well" is a cheat. Of course I'm not going to go through and point out to you every single example of reciprocity in the text. But I don't have to because your argument makes no sense. Reciprocity it's a foundational principle that guides all parties in entering multilateral trade agreements. You would have us believe that a foundational principle was just included as some friendly advice and is not a substantial component of the Act. On the contrary, every nation that has signed that treaty did so because of the principle of reciprocity. Without it, the whole damn thing falls apart - nobody is going to enter into an agreement to provide trade preferences without some assurance that they will get that preference in return.

Which brings me back to this: you're attempting to replication a complex RL treaty via a blunt instrument in a place (NS) where it does not belong and with substantial components missing.

Moreover, you're just wrong. GATT both incorporates and allows for enforcement of the principle of reciprocity:

In broad terms, the principle of reciprocity refers to the ideal of mutual changes in trade policy that bring about changes in the volume of each country’s imports that are of equal value to changes in the volume of its exports. This principle is pervasive in the GATT/WTO. Reciprocity arises as a norm in GATT/WTO negotiations, where governments often seek a “balance of concessions.” Reciprocity also appears in many GATT/WTO rules. For example, Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 provides circumstances under which a concession withdrawal by one government
can entitle another to withdraw a “substantially equivalent concession.”

Look it up on page six.

Your proposal has no similar provision, and does not require nations to "balance concessions." It simply says give everyone the same trade preference as if that alone is wise or effective. But it's not. The principle of reciprocity is necessary for this kind of agreement to work; by excluding it you're forcing nations to either abolish trade preferences altogether, or suffer damages from free-rider nations who take advantage of those preferences without providing any in return.

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate and Vice President of Europeia will be voting NAY on this proposal after a 3/4 split internal vote. We are not keen on the idea of being forced to grant preferential status to all World Assembly nations when there are some we strongly disagree with but not enough to be counted out on the clarifies terms.

Looks likely to pass anyway so... good luck!

[Auralia]

snip

I think we need to decide on what the word "reciprocity" means. I'm not sure if you're talking about fairness in negotiated trade agreements, or some kind of rule that states that if Nation A decides to unilaterally lower its trade barriers for Nation B, Nation B must do the same for Nation A.

Reciprocity in the latter sense is not present within GATT or my proposal. This is because both GATT and my proposal are not multilateral trade agreements, but rather multilateral trading systems. They set the rules for international trade in general, rules that tend to push people toward free trade. Two of the main ones are universal MFN and national treatment, both implemented in GATT and my proposal. Reciprocity is not one of them; as I stated before, a nation cannot and should not unilaterally impose a free trade agreement on any nation it wishes.

Your examples of reciprocity in GATT have nothing to do with its role as a multilateral trading system, but rather its secondary role of facilitating multilateral trade negotiations. It is true that GATT contains provisions which require that reciprocity be a part of agreements negotiated directly through the GATT. However, this is reciprocity in the former sense, since reciprocity is only a requirement for trade agreements specifically negotiated through the GATT with the consent of all parties involved; it is not part of the entire multilateral trading system.

Now, I chose not to include provisions for negotiating trade agreements through WATC in this resolution, because I didn't feel they were necessary. I believed that nations were perfectly capable of negotiating bilateral and multilateral agreements on their own. That said, nations might be more willing to negotiate if the negotiations were held under the auspices of the WA, and so I might expand the mandate of the WATC accordingly in a future resolution. But it really has nothing to do with the rules surrounding the multilateral trading system, which stand alone and have nothing to do with reciprocity.

By the way, all real-life treaties are complex. In the World Assembly, with only 3,500 characters to work with, the best we can accomplish with any resolution is a weak approximation of what the real thing might be like. That doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying.

[Damanucus]

I could support this but what about war embargos??? Please answer us!

This legislation covers embargoes sufficiently. If you're referring to blockades, however, legislation already exists regarding that. I should know, after all: Dr Forshaw (the former ambassador from Connopolis) and I wrote the most recent one.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We are also worried by the power that this proposal would give to tax havens, and so we hope that the idea that a lack of tax can be sensibly considered an implicit subsidy is generally acknowledged?

Could you elaborate on why granting MFN status to a tax haven would be a problem?

Well, it's part of the whole effective wage thing. A place with lower taxes will be able to produce things more cheaply. Although if this does pass, we will be happy to consider it an implicit subsidy anyway.

As for the whole reciprocity argument, we agree we would prefer a direct reference to allow nations to set tariffs for any nation at whatever rate that nation sets tariffs at for them, or none if not otherwise set; however we are satisfied that our narrow interpretation of 'service' used earlier allows for corporations under nations to acquire the services of that nation, and hence be subject to distinct tarrifs depending on their governments; allowing us to continue to differentiate and maintain the reciprocity. Equally this may be considered to be consistent with 1(c) or 2(d) or 2(b) when implicit subsidies are considered; a sufficient four loopholes consistent with the principal of free trade.

[People United Together]

Sorry to disrupt any discussion, but Atrigeas has voted eight to three in support of this proposal. Therefore, I'm voting in favor, too. Good work, ambassador from Auralia.

[Great Kingdom of Calomo]

My nation and I voted FOR.

Our reasons are the same as this Act tells:


We know that World Assembly member nations often face harmful and unnecessary barriers in their trade with other member nations.

We experienced that these barriers ultimately serve as obstacles to the economic prosperity of all member nations.

We believe that these barriers therefore constitute a serious hazard to national populations.


-Simply that: thank you for reading our opinion.-


Yours sincerely,

[Vagabundas]

1a is really confusing!

Yours,

[Great Kingdom of Calomo]

1a is really confusing!

Yours,

Dear Vagabundas,

What do you mean? We do not understand what you are saying.

Yours sincerely,

[Eurussia]

Eurussia supports this General Assembly Resolution since it promotes trade liberalization.

Our nation believes the advantages of this resolution's effect towards all economies.

Eurussia further extends the support from the World Union of almost 84% of our members!

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Eurussia supports this General Assembly Resolution since it promotes trade liberalization.

Our nation believes the advantages of this resolution's effect towards all economies.

Eurussia further extends the support from the World Union of almost 84% of our members!

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The resolution has now passed and been implemented in all WA nations. Our Economic rating has just fallen from 64 to 51.

We suspect that the authors of this proposal did not think their cunning plan through.

[Eurussia]

Eurussia congratulates the proponent of this GA Resolution for its passage.

[Damanucus]

Eurussia supports this General Assembly Resolution since it promotes trade liberalization.

Our nation believes the advantages of this resolution's effect towards all economies.

Eurussia further extends the support from the World Union of almost 84% of our members!

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The resolution has now passed and been implemented in all WA nations. Our Economic rating has just fallen from 64 to 51.

We suspect that the authors of this proposal did not think their cunning plan through.

Strange. Ours went up to 97.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

Ours also improved significantly.

[Ossitania]

We likewise saw a rise.

[Auriga]

Auriga also saw a rise in it's economy from 87 to 93. But as a negative side-effect we were reclassified from a New York Times Democracy to a Corporate Bordello. And I know someone else had their nation reclassified at the same time the bill passed, though they passed no resolutions at the time. Does anyone else believe that the passing of this resolution may have caused this?

[Flibbleites]

We saw no change whatsoever, but I suspect that we're actually rated higher than the scale goes too.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Discoveria]

Discoveria's Office for Finance and Industry also noted an improvement in indices of economic performance.

Matthew Turing
Discoverian Ambassador to the World Assembly

(OOC: 96 to 97, reclassified to New York Times Democracy I think.)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Shouldn't it have resulted in a rise in the Pro-market index?

[Auriga]

Shouldn't it have resulted in a rise in the Pro-market index?

Yes, it did that but in the process it changed economic freedoms. That must have been enough for some nations' classifications to be changed.