NationStates

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:33 am**

On Multilateral Trade Talks
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

Recognizing the value of international trade to national economies and populations,

Seeking to promote multilateral trade negotiations between all World Assembly member nations,

The General Assembly,

Declares that multilateral trade negotiations must be hosted at the World Assembly at least once every ten years, with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations;
Mandates that the World Assembly Trade Commission provide any financial or logistical assistance that is reasonably required to host these negotiations;
Requires that all member nations send at least one qualified delegate to these negotiations;
Further requires that, during these negotiations, delegates make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other delegates in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved;
Notes that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:57 am**

Surely somebody must be interested in this proposal, or is everyone sick of free trade resolutions...?

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:34 pm**

I think is pushing the envelope a bit. There's no need for the GA to mandate that everyone participate in trade negotiations.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:22 am**

While we are not convinced that the effect would be significant, we would support this addition to Free Trade legislation.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:29 pm**

Ossitania wrote:I think is pushing the envelope a bit. There's no need for the GA to mandate that everyone participate in trade negotiations.

I don't know how effective the Trade Rights and Disputes resolutions will be unless they're supplemented by periodic multilateral trade negotiations. ((OOC: Besides, the WTO operates in a similar manner.))

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:While we are not convinced that the effect would be significant, we would support this addition to Free Trade legislation.

You might be right about the strength. I'll consider changing it to Mild.

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:29 pm**

Submitted for a test run.

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:02 pm**

OOC: It seems a bit micromanage-y to me also, but I would probably vote for it. (With 16,000+ representatives at each talk, I doubt one talk could finish before the start of the next. If the delegates take turns to speak, each one has the equivalent of about 33 minutes...)

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:16 pm**

Discoveria wrote:OOC: It seems a bit micromanage-y to me also, but I would probably vote for it. (With 16,000+ representatives at each talk, I doubt one talk could finish before the start of the next. If the delegates take turns to speak, each one has the equivalent of about 33 minutes...)

I don't think the negotiations would operate that way. I think we'd see a GA-style drafting process where interested parties could join a developing trade agreement.

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:40 pm**

Improving trade is something we can definitely support, and a framework for negotiations would help.

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm**

Feels useless. There is nothing in here that helps trade. Good faith negotiations with every nation 16000+ are you aware how long that would take. And what if we are having a war or other dispute this resolution just flat out is not feasable. If this lasts a day each nation gets 5.4 seconds to talk good luck getting anything done

Posted: **Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:33 pm**

ForTheHorde wrote:Feels useless. There is nothing in here that helps trade. Good faith negotiations with every nation 16000+ are you aware how long that would take. And what if we are having a war or other dispute this resolution just flat out is not feasable. If this lasts a day each nation gets 5.4 seconds to talk good luck getting anything done

Somehow the GA has managed to accomplish quite a bit, even with 16,000 members.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:12 am**

Auralia wrote:
ForTheHorde wrote:Feels useless. There is nothing in here that helps trade. Good faith negotiations with every nation 16000+ are you aware how long that would take. And what if we are having a war or other dispute this resolution just flat out is not feasable. If this lasts a day each nation gets 5.4 seconds to talk good luck getting anything done

Somehow the GA has managed to accomplish quite a bit, even with 16,000 members.

But participation is NOT mandatory. What if you reduced it to WADs and Founders?

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:11 am**

Wu Wei Shan wrote:What if you reduced it to WADs and Founders?

OOC: On the basis of past precedent, that would be illegal for 'meta-gaming'. Also, founders aren't necessarily WA members.

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:23 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Wu Wei Shan wrote:What if you reduced it to WADs and Founders?

OOC: On the basis of past precedent, that would be illegal for 'meta-gaming'. Also, founders aren't necessarily WA members.

How so? Why couldn't an action by the SC refer to WA delegates?

Posted: **Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:55 pm**

Wu Wei Shan wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: On the basis of past precedent, that would be illegal for 'meta-gaming'. Also, founders aren't necessarily WA members.

How so? Why couldn't an action by the SC refer to WA delegates?

The SC's Metagaming rules are a little looser than the GA's

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:01 am**

I admit to being somewhat confused as to whether or not this is legal. If you take away the World Assembly Trade Commission's new trade negotiations (i.e. the new actions of the "committee") ... what does this proposal do? Anything? *scratches head*

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:33 am**

Mousebumples wrote:I admit to being somewhat confused as to whether or not this is legal. If you take away the World Assembly Trade Commission's new trade negotiations (i.e. the new actions of the "committee") ... what does this proposal do? Anything? *scratches head*

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying that extending the mandate of the WATC could pose a problem if all previous resolutions referencing the WATC were removed? I don't think so, particularly because I've used the same language before in a passed proposal.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:40 am**

Auralia wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:I admit to being somewhat confused as to whether or not this is legal. If you take away the World Assembly Trade Commission's new trade negotiations (i.e. the new actions of the "committee") ... what does this proposal do? Anything? *scratches head*

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying that extending the mandate of the WATC could pose a problem if all previous resolutions referencing the WATC were removed? I don't think so, particularly because I've used the same language before in a passed proposal.

Nope. I'm not saying that it's a House of Cards. I'm wondering if it's violating the Meta-Gaming rule.

Per the Rules thread:

Creating Stuff
Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings (gnomes) that instantly spring into existence and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does. NOTE: Acronyms for Committees must not be used to brand a proposal.

Outside of your "Committee" (the WATC) ... what else does your proposal do? I don't think I see anything else, which should make this proposal illegal.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:19 am**

Mousebumples wrote:
Auralia wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean by that? Are you saying that extending the mandate of the WATC could pose a problem if all previous resolutions referencing the WATC were removed? I don't think so, particularly because I've used the same language before in a passed proposal.

Nope. I'm not saying that it's a House of Cards. I'm wondering if it's violating the Meta-Gaming rule.

Per the Rules thread:
Creating Stuff
Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings (gnomes) that instantly spring into existence and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does. NOTE: Acronyms for Committees must not be used to brand a proposal.

Outside of your "Committee" (the WATC) ... what else does your proposal do? I don't think I see anything else, which should make this proposal illegal.

Ah, I see now. No, I still believe the proposal is legal, since the trade negotiations themselves are not part of any committee. If that were the case, the proposal would be illegal for another reason - having nations sit on a committee.

Look at it this way: if I were to remove all references to the WATC, the proposal would still stand; I could simply state that negotiations must be held every year, without specifying who would run them.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:30 am**

Auralia wrote:Ah, I see now. No, I still believe the proposal is legal, since the trade negotiations themselves are not part of any committee. If that were the case, the proposal would be illegal for another reason - having nations sit on a committee.

Look at it this way: if I were to remove all references to the WATC, the proposal would still stand; I could simply state that negotiations must be held every year, without specifying who would run them.

Yes, it COULD BE written without the WATC. However, you didn't write it that way. If you remove the WATC and what your proposal has the WATC do ... there's nothing left.

Very often, proposals can be written without committees. They're not essential. Granted, I include enough committees in my proposals, so this isn't meant to be a rant against committees - or even the WATC itself. I wish I'd noticed this before you'd submitted, but I've - understandably - been busy with getting my own drafts ready for submission.

Let's go through your proposal, line by line ...

Recognizing the value of international trade to national economies and populations, Preamble. Irrelevant.

Seeking to promote multilateral trade negotiations between all World Assembly member nations, Preamble. Irrelevant, still.

The General Assembly,

Extends the mandate of the World Assembly Trade Commission to include the hosting of yearly multilateral trade negotiations, with the ultimate goal of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations; Puts the yearly multilateral trade negotiations within the WATC.
Mandates that all member nations send at least one qualified representative to these negotiations; Members nations need to contribute to the WATC efforts.
Further mandates that, during these negotiations, all member nations make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other nations in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved; Member must act in good faith when working on the negotiations through the WATC.
Declares that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement. Agreements made through the WATC are binding.

Again, am I missing a magical line that is NOT WATC-specific? If you cut out all the WATC lines, you're left with your preamble and "The General Assembly."

Yours in concern,

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:56 am**

Mousebumples wrote:snip

I believe that the fact that the negotiations are conducted with the assistance of the WATC does not make my proposal exclusively about the WATC. As I stated before, the negotiations stand alone, and so the second, third and fourth clauses have nothing to do with a committee.

If you genuinely believe this proposal is illegal, you're free to file a GHR, but you should be aware that this proposal has been submitted once already, and the mods saw no reason to take it down then.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:07 pm**

Mousebumples wrote:snip

All right, it seems the mods agreed with you. I've posted an updated version which fixes the issue, and the mods have confirmed that "it would solve your current problem". Would you agree?

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:56 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:snip

All right, it seems the mods agreed with you. I've posted an updated version which fixes the issue, and the mods have confirmed that "it would solve your current problem". Would you agree?

I believe the current version of the draft is legal, yes, after a quick review.

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:00 am**

Auralia wrote:
Discoveria wrote:OOC: It seems a bit micromanage-y to me also, but I would probably vote for it. (With 16,000+ representatives at each talk, I doubt one talk could finish before the start of the next. If the delegates take turns to speak, each one has the equivalent of about 33 minutes...)

I don't think the negotiations would operate that way. I think we'd see a GA-style drafting process where interested parties could join a developing trade agreement.

OOC: How would this come about exactly? Are you suggesting a new forum section? Are you suggesting we roleplay these negotiations and their agreements? How would a roleplayed agreement be accepted by players as both canonical and binding on their nations? ICly, I do consider the GA (and the SC) to be constantly in session, even though my Ambassador isn't there all the time. It's in session regardless of whether Alqania participates or not. This proposal on the other hand would obligate Alqania to participate in trade negotiations - what would happen if someone doesn't show up? Would everyone have to wait for everyone else before negotiations can commence?

IC: Lord Raekevik shook his head. "And where exactly in these headquarters is the Assembly supposed to host these negotiations? We would need a room at least as big as this chamber and this chamber is of course busy with its own proceedings. Is it not enough of a financial nightmare needing to host the Festering Snakepit and the Insecurity Counsel? Do we really want to spend money and gnomes on constructing another massive venue for the ridiculously large number of member states?"

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:18 am**

I also don't perceive this doing much ... and what Alq said. It'd be a logistical nightmare as well.

NationStates

[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks

[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks