Advertisement
by Ainocra » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:26 am
by Cowardly Pacifists » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:36 am
Ainocra wrote:well I for one am not fond if it still, is this an anti discrimination law or a law about contracts?
What about individual discrimination?
by Ainocra » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:03 am
by Cowardly Pacifists » Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:23 pm
Ainocra wrote:some nations may only recognize contracts that were formed in their jurisdiction.
I am sorry but I can no longer support this with such a clause in place
Auralia wrote:Cowardly Pacifists wrote: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.
by Stalltopia » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:02 pm
by Ainocra » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:41 am
by Merfurian » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:40 am
Stalltopia wrote:I am largely for this. My only issue is with provision 3.
3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling interest;
I worry about the use of the language compelling interest? What is a compelling interest? A compelling interest may be interpreted as something that benefits members of the government while harming its people. I think this wording is too vague, and would therefore allow corrupt governments the power to circumvent this resolution.
I propose the following change.
3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to protect and maintain the civil and humane rights of all involved directly and indirectly;
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:26 am
Merfurian wrote:Stalltopia wrote:I am largely for this. My only issue is with provision 3.
3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling interest;
I worry about the use of the language compelling interest? What is a compelling interest? A compelling interest may be interpreted as something that benefits members of the government while harming its people. I think this wording is too vague, and would therefore allow corrupt governments the power to circumvent this resolution.
I propose the following change.
3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to protect and maintain the civil and humane rights of all involved directly and indirectly;
I think "compelling interest" is where the interest is something that so important that - in this case - the contract cannot or should not be made or enforced. This would normally arise where there are legal loopholes that could be opened should the contract be made or enforced.
by Stalltopia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:03 am
by Stalltopia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:13 am
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:I agree with Murfurian that the present language makes it clear that nations should only regulate contracts where they absolutely have to in order to pursue their legitimate policy goals. At the same time, the language as written does not burden nations in deciding what those goals are for themselves.
by Ainocra » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:57 pm
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:54 pm
Stalltopia wrote:This is the ideal, yes. But the fact is the clause allows for governments to pursue any policy goals corrupt or otherwise. There is a difference between "should" and what governments will do.
...
If a person as the right to freedom of contract than governments should only be allowed to intervene when contracts directly violate national or international law. That allows for Nations to continue to govern under their own laws, but it ensures that corrupt governments cannot simply declare a contract to be against the government's "compelling interest".
by Stalltopia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:13 pm
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:16 pm
Stalltopia wrote:We humble representatives of Stalltopia have listened to your views on the matter, and, after much debate, we have decided that we will gladly support your proposal as written.
by Cowardly Pacifists » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:29 pm
Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:What would this do to Bankruptcy protection?
by Stalltopia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:05 pm
by Ainocra » Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:28 am
by Cowardly Pacifists » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:32 am
Stalltopia wrote:Stalltopia sees nothing wrong with the wording of clause five and as such has voted to keep it as is.
Upon further review, we of Stalltopia have come to realize that this clause seems to be in conflict with Clause 3. What if other governments view these contracts as being against their "compelling interests". It would seem that one clause cannot exist along with the other. Since Clause 3 seems to be very important and well supported, we of Stalltopia move to either strike clause five or amend it to include the prior "compelling interests" wording.
by Stalltopia » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:45 am
by Ainocra » Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:45 am
by Quelesh » Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:55 pm
5. REQUIRES that Member Nations enforce valid contracts from other nations if those contracts would be valid under domestic law, and prohibits Member Nations from refusing to enforce contracts solely on the grounds that those contracts were formed in a foreign jurisdiction;
by Cowardly Pacifists » Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:54 am
Quelesh wrote:By my reading of this clause, it seems to me that the second portion of the clause (after the period) partially duplicates the first portion of the clause, and is entirely unnecessary.
The first part of the clause prohibits member states from refusing to enforce any valid foreign contract that would be valid under domestic law. The second part of the clause prohibits member states from refusing to enforce a foreign contract solely on the grounds of it being a foreign contract, but, under the first part of the clause, member states can't refuse to enforce the contract anyway, unless it wouldn't be valid under domestic law.
If the second part of the clause is intended to allow member states to refuse to enforce foreign contracts for any reason other than that the contract is foreign, then it seems to me that the first part of clause 5 should be removed, as it contradicts this intent.
Am I missing or misinterpreting something?
by Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:26 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement