[PASSED] Freedom to Contract

[Sanctaria]

No one has an unalienable right to form a contract. Eat, shelther etc, yes. A contract, no. They can have the freedom to do so.

I don't find your distinction satisfying. Rights can be thought of as positive and negative. If you have a positive right, it means that others (governments) have a duty to take some action. The right to food and shelter (arguably), or (more commonly) a speedy trial, are positive rights in the sense that government is required to take some action to provide you with those things.

A negative right is a freedom the government must respect. If you have a negative right, it means that others (governments) have a duty to avoid certain actions. The right to bear arms, the right against quartering of troops, and the right to free expression are among these negative rights. They all prohibit government from taking certain actions that would infringe on your freedom.

Personally I feel that most rights can be understood as having both a positive a negative aspect if you think about them hard enough. The right to petition, for example, includes both the positive right that governments provide a forum for such petitions, and the negative right that government refrain from actions that would prevent a person from petitioning.

But, again, all this is highly academic and not really worth getting into much more. Suffice to say, I don't find your distinction between a "right" to contract and the "freedom" to contract very satisfying. If people are free to contract, it is only because they have a right against unreasonable government interference in their independent dealings.

This is all highly academic and without wanting to drag you into my belief system on rights ((OOC: It's roughly the same as John Madison's)), I would have to say that while I understand your not liking my distinction, I do think you're incorrect.

Which is a pity, because provided you just removed the "right to" I would probably would have voted for it.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Which is a pity, because provided you just removed the "right to" I would probably would have voted for it.

But it would mess up my whole preamble!

[Sanctaria]

Which is a pity, because provided you just removed the "right to" I would probably would have voted for it.

But it would mess up my whole preamble!

Alas. The price we pay for style. I know it well.

[Quelesh]

The reason clause 2 is worded the way it is all comes back to age of majority. I'd really like to just avoid the whole mess by getting rid of "within that nation" so the clause reads:

2. DECLARES that any person who a member nation regards as competent to manage his or her own affairs shall be permitted to enter into binding contracts;

If I thought folks would not object, I would solve the issue as above. I'm just worried about some nations complaining that the "competent" two-year-olds of Quelesh or Linux and the X are not permitted to contract "in MY nation" even though they are regarded as competent elsewhere. I don't mind your wording, and I may just run it up the flag pole in the next draft and see what folks think.

Perhaps "shall be permitted by that nation to enter into binding contracts"?

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Ainocra]

My main problem is the all parties agreeing, the problem with any judicial system is that someone is going to disagree.
Ask anyone in prison, they are all innocent.

My next problem is that you seem to be focusing on how nations deal internally with contracts rather than making a framework in international law for the same. your approach is in my view flawed.

Nations should work out between themselves what legalities apply in such situations.

back to our tired example, my government and yours should make a treaty outlining what businesses are allowed to trade with each other and such. because while arms sales (our principal export) might be banned in your nation, I am sure I could interest the evil skull over there in some nice grenades.

[Wisconsin9]

My main problem is the all parties agreeing, the problem with any judicial system is that someone is going to disagree.
Ask anyone in prison, they are all innocent.

My next problem is that you seem to be focusing on how nations deal internally with contracts rather than making a framework in international law for the same. your approach is in my view flawed.

Nations should work out between themselves what legalities apply in such situations.

back to our tired example, my government and yours should make a treaty outlining what businesses are allowed to trade with each other and such. because while arms sales (our principal export) might be banned in your nation, I am sure I could interest the evil skull over there in some nice grenades.

Just make sure that nuclear weaponry can't find its way into the hands of a PMC.

[Bob10101010]

the proposal seems good especially because it seems to allow individuals to form contracts which are foundation of productive economy, and individuals can form these contracts outside the abusive and coercive authority of unions.

I'll probably vote for

[Ainocra]

What if you ran to a non member state? or we signed the contract there?

That would seem to run into how nations deal with non member states as well.

All in all this is simply too complex an issue for the cookie cutter approach to work.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

What if you ran to a non member state? or we signed the contract there?

That would seem to run into how nations deal with non member states as well.

All in all this is simply too complex an issue for the cookie cutter approach to work.

Agreed. This proposal is not supposed to be a free trade forum selection law. I've removed the part of provision 5 that was causing confusion.

I've also changed how the Act defines "contract" to make the aims of the law more clear; I've rearranged the language of Clause 2 a bit per the suggestion above; and I've adjusted the language of the preamble so that it no longer refers to a "right" to contract (hopefully, what I did will be enough to appease folks like Sanctaria that are reluctant to think of contact as a "right.")

Best Regards.

[Ainocra]

Looks good, my concerns have been met.

We now feel that this would not cause undue strain on the Ainocran people. I could support this draft.

[Sanctaria]

I'm more inclined to support this after your latest edits.

[Free South Califas]

I believe this tingling feeling is either a libertarian bill picking up steam, or the People's Medicinal Muffins are kicking in.

[Linux and the X]

I demand the removal of clause 4!

[Auralia]

Abstain. I'm not sure why the WA needs to regulate this, but it seems harmless... I think.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Abstain. I'm not sure why the WA needs to regulate this, but it seems harmless... I think.

I'm inclined to agree that - like banning slavery or child prostitutes - a great many nations already recognize a freedom to contract without needing any sort of WA guidance. I dare say that contract is so engrained in many societies, and folks rely on it so heavily in their daily lives, that it's really hard to fathom what life would look like without it. So, this proposal is one part "many nations already do this, but lets make sure everyone gets this freedom just to be sure."

The second part is the recognition of foreign lawful contracts. As I allude to in the preamble, recognizing a universal freedom to contract would likely have some measurable impact on the frequency and ease with which folks in different nations and from different cultures interact both socially and commercially.

I demand the removal of clause 4!

But why? That's the most harmless clause there is.

[Auralia]

I'm inclined to agree that - like banning slavery or child prostitutes - a great many nations already recognize a freedom to contract without needing any sort of WA guidance. I dare say that contract is so engrained in many societies, and folks rely on it so heavily in their daily lives, that it's really hard to fathom what life would look like without it. So, this proposal is one part "many nations already do this, but lets make sure everyone gets this freedom just to be sure."

I take it you've changed your position, then:

Like others, I wonder if a proposal criminalizing homicide is necessary. I also fear the potential aftermath in which nations rush to pass resolutions criminalizing battery, assault, jaywalking, failure to pick-up after your dog, and other fairly uncontroversial offenses.

The second part is the recognition of foreign lawful contracts. As I allude to in the preamble, recognizing a universal freedom to contract would likely have some measurable impact on the frequency and ease with which folks in different nations and from different cultures interact both socially and commercially.

That clause has a major loophole - what if a nation passes a law banning all foreign contracts? In such a case, the contract is illegal under domestic law, and therefore does not have to be enforced.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I'm inclined to agree that - like banning slavery or child prostitutes - a great many nations already recognize a freedom to contract without needing any sort of WA guidance. I dare say that contract is so engrained in many societies, and folks rely on it so heavily in their daily lives, that it's really hard to fathom what life would look like without it. So, this proposal is one part "many nations already do this, but lets make sure everyone gets this freedom just to be sure."

I take it you've changed your position, then:

Like others, I wonder if a proposal criminalizing homicide is necessary. I also fear the potential aftermath in which nations rush to pass resolutions criminalizing battery, assault, jaywalking, failure to pick-up after your dog, and other fairly uncontroversial offenses.

To be fair, there is certainly a relevant difference between the freedom to freely associate and contract, and mandating nations criminalize certain acts.

Then again, your point is well taken. I know that in proposing a freedom to contract, there will be those who object on the "we already do" grounds. The best I can do is offer the opinion that contract is a fundamental liberty interest worth recognizing and enshrining in international law, and that doing so would actually provide some tangible benefit to the international community as a whole.

The second part is the recognition of foreign lawful contracts. As I allude to in the preamble, recognizing a universal freedom to contract would likely have some measurable impact on the frequency and ease with which folks in different nations and from different cultures interact both socially and commercially.

That clause has a major loophole - what if a nation passes a law banning all foreign contracts? In such a case, the contract is illegal under domestic law, and therefore does not have to be enforced.

I was under the impression that the following clause prevented a nation from refusing to enforce contracts on the sole grounds that those contracts are from another jurisdiction:

REQUIRES that Member Nations enforce valid contracts from other nations if those contracts would be valid under domestic law

I really think it's cheating to say "oh we're complying with that provision, it just so happens that all foreign contracts are invalid under domestic law."
I suppose I could fix the problem by just adding some sort of "prohibits nations from refusing to enforce contracts solely on the grounds that those contracts were formed in a foreign jurisdiction" language; and I'll do so if others agree that the language as written does not make the intention clear.

[Linux and the X]

I demand the removal of clause 4!

But why? That's the most harmless clause there is.

Sorry, I was high and decided to demand the removal of important clauses of various proposals, compliance with such demands having apparently become an Assembly requirement.

(That's IC. I was not high IRL. You can piss off, DEA.)

[Cowardly Pacifists]

(That's IC. I was not high IRL. You can piss off, DEA.)

Sure Linux... we all believe that one.

[Linux and the X]

(That's IC. I was not high IRL. You can piss off, DEA.)

Sure Linux... we all believe that one.

The first two sentences are my legal declaration, thereby making the third true.

[Auralia]

I suppose I could fix the problem by just adding some sort of "prohibits nations from refusing to enforce contracts solely on the grounds that those contracts were formed in a foreign jurisdiction" language; and I'll do so if others agree that the language as written does not make the intention clear.

That would be a good idea.

[Free South Califas]

I really think it's cheating to say "oh we're complying with that provision, it just so happens that all foreign contracts are invalid under domestic law."
I suppose I could fix the problem by just adding some sort of "prohibits nations from refusing to enforce contracts solely on the grounds that those contracts were formed in a foreign jurisdiction" language; and I'll do so if others agree that the language as written does not make the intention clear.

Free South Califas would pass this resolution without it, having understood the meaning based on Occam's razor combined with Reasonable Nations Theory. However, we are no longer convinced that the World Assembly consists only of reasonable nations.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Pending additional feedback, I think this proposal is ready for a trial run. I'll be submitting it on Friday, June 8th.

[Ainocra]

I don't like the addition to clause 5. Say I'm in a cold war with you, or have enacted trade sanctions or the like this could force me to exempt a contract from them. I'd like to see that part removed or at the very least add a compelling national interest clause allowing the nation to refuse to enforce said contract should it be necessary

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I don't like the addition to clause 5. Say I'm in a cold war with you, or have enacted trade sanctions or the like this could force me to exempt a contract from them. I'd like to see that part removed or at the very least add a compelling national interest clause allowing the nation to refuse to enforce said contract should it be necessary

I completely agree with your concern and I think the proposal already allows for refusal on legitimate grounds. The provision says you cannot discriminate "solely" on the basis that the contract has a foreign origin. If a contract has a foreign origin and you're also at war with that foreign power (or they're committing genocide, or they're a dangerous economic competitor, etc.), you could refuse to honor the contract.

Nations can refuse to enforce contracts for whatever reason they damn well please so long as "it's from a different place" isn't the ONLY reason.

If you'd like to propose other language to make that more clear, I'm all ears