NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Against Corruption

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 898
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Capitalizt

[PASSED] Against Corruption

Postby Weed » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:50 am

[OOC: Please see the 'final note' at the bottom of this post, and the second post before posting... also, the actual text of the proposal for extra credit points! :p ]
OOC EDIT: This was submitted and put well over quorum, but has been removed to make some minor changes since no one comes to draft these things despite numerous bumps until after submission and campaigning has occurred. <.<

I thank the ambassadors for giving my draft attention. In numerous small nations, like mine, it can be difficult to fight large corporations originating in other nations from corrupting our governments. Inspectors sent to check that all laws are being followed end up bribed or offered higher paying jobs once the illegal project is completed if the inspector just stays quiet.

We are very sympathetic to nations that are not as advanced or rich as our nation, if we were not so well off in those categories on top of being small, it would likely be a losing fight. Often, these corporations stand to make double the revenues through illegally exploiting the resources of these nations than the impoverished nation's government will make in taxes. Increased punishments and investigations are useful, but without the support of the corporation's host nation it often is easier for corporations to essentially buy nearly the entire government than follow the laws. And at that point, the citizens of the nation have no chance of defending their interests, they become helpless actors in the state, no matter what polices they elect people to enact, the policy won't be enforced unless it benefits or fails to harm the corporations. The people's interest just loses in those cases. The World Assembly should stand up to end this corruption that can be so powerful inside developing nations!


Against Corruption
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Weed
The General Assembly,

Seeing bribery as a major problem plaguing poor or developing nations, where major corporations can reward leaders or people in authority for abandoning their nation's interest,

Realizing the enforcing of laws that attempt to protect natural habitat, public safety, and the common good in these nations can be nearly impossible when powerful organizations with extensive resources seek to violate them,

Observing organizations frequently avoid the bad publicity of bribing by contracting third parties, possibly disguised as interpreters or negotiators,

Seeking to improve the ability of poorer or developing nations to protect their people and resources through law,

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, bribery as the act of offering a gift to any public official, officer, agent, or employee with the expectation the gift will motivate the person to decide to take or not take a specific action, when that action or inaction conflicts with a good faith performance or fulfillment of the officials duties, responsibilities, or privileges of the person's job or positions,

Clarifying there shall be no difference legally between a person or organization directly offering a bribe, and contracting a person or entity which engages in bribery, unless the contracting nation clearly indicated bribery was not acceptable,

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, gifts as money, assets, favours, services, future employment, or anything which the receiver considers to have value,

Mandates all member states make the act of bribery an illegal action for a business, citizen, or non-state organization or entity to participate in, with heavy fines for organizations found to be in violation,

Forbids the government or government agents of any member state from participating in bribery for monetary gain, or economic interests,

Further forbids government agents from making a good faith performance of their duties contingent on the receipt of a gift,

Declares that the member states shall deem it illegal for an officer or official of the government to accept a bribe,

Strongly urges nations to:
  • demand officers and officials report attempted bribes,
  • create regulations discouraging or ending the practice of businesses compensating negotiators more or only if a certain end is met in a negotiation as the practice can encourage bribery,
  • require disclosure of spending and contracts of major corporations operating within their nation, which may be most likely to participate in bribery within their nation or any other nation, and the investigation of any highly compensated interpreters or negotiators in important negotiations,
  • consider requiring the reporting or investigating of the finances of political leaders, to check for suspicious income.

On one final note, attached to this summary I'm going to include a statement about what I'm assuming some of the objections/questions/comments that I predict to come, as well as my response. Please look these over before responding! They may give you information as to what my response is going to be to what you are concerned about!

Clinton Tew
Image

WA Ambassador from Weed
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:18 pm, edited 15 times in total.

User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 898
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Capitalizt

Postby Weed » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:56 am

As I said on the summary page, this page details what I assume to be some common concerns or questions about this proposal. Please read over this before posting, in case what you have to say is here.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't agree. The international issue this addresses is rich, developed nations taking advantage of a under-developed nation's resources against its people's will. This is something that happens not-so-rarely. Big-business interests move in to smaller or poorer nations where they can throw money in the direction of anyone that notices their illegalities and take control out of the hands of the people. That kind of conflict between nations, is an international issue. The system through which rich nations take advantage of the resources of poor nations, is an international issue.
No. Bribes to get away with breaking a nation's laws are a way of taking control out of the hand of the legitimate government of a nation for the personal gain of a business and the corrupt authority. That's not legitimate, it is underhanded and puts these poor nations in a rough position where it matters little what laws they pass, if they aren't in the corporation's interest they will just be ignored by payed-off officers of the government.
There's a bit of a technicality here. I'm not one to say it is the World Assembly's place to say that corporations cannot contribute to a campaign of a political leader. If that's what you were looking for, I cannot be that radical. Sorry. That's something a future resolution authored by someone else will have to accomplish.

The only way this effects a donation to a political campaign is if the donation is made to bring about a "specific action or result". In other words, a large insurance firm donating money to a candidate for President to create general good-will between the candidate (future president) and the firm is fine. If the donation was made in order to make the candidate generally friendly to the interests of the insurance industry that is fine. If it was made with the intent of convincing or persuading the future president into supporting and signing a law that would require people to buy the service the firm supplies, no matter what they charge, THAT is required to be illegal, because they are trying to get him/her to do something specific. So, in summary: you could't give donations in order to get specific results.

Also, when I say "is fine" in the above paragraph I don't mean those actions are legal. I mean it is up to member nations if they are legal. You can choose to allow it or ban it, either one.

Finally, I have considered adding a requirement that all political donations be disclosed, then if a candidate is being bought the people have an opportunity to know. Oddly enough, I don't see that requirement already made by the WA. I'm sure I missed it though, so I did not include this requirement.
See the political donations section above. The definition means that a lobbyist could not give a gift in exchange for a specific result. Giving a congressman a coat to make him friendly toward your industry, does not violate this resolution. Giving a congressman a coat in order to have him vote against a regulation on your industry, violates this resolution.

I have considered, and would be open to strengthening this aspect of the proposal. I am much less gun-ho about leaving all lobbying laws up to member nations as I am about political donations.
A good question!

This resolution, in the most simple terms, is meant to see that big corporations find it more difficult to get out of the laws a nation passes. It is about, primarily, the stopping of bribes of guards/inspectors/officers/etc. (the little guys). Political donations and lobbying are issues about how a nation makes law, and is about the bribing of presidents/governors/senators/etc. (the big guys). It seems odd that I intend to regulate the little fish more than the big fish, so let me explain:

The two issues are separate. This is about seeing that laws are enforced with integrity. A proposal on lobbying/political donations is about seeing that laws are created with integrity. As I have said, I am open to this proposal expanding into the second issue slightly, but on a basic level how a nation chooses to create law is a much more sacred and controversial thing for the WA to interfere with. It is also true that voters are capable of watching their few congressmen and chief executives easier than every guard and inspector in the nation. And the people generally have means through referendum or sheer political (potentially violent) pressure of instituting regulations on what a leader can and cannot do. If the leader breachs it, it is a whole lot easier to spot than if a random inspector that few people know, looks past a violation.

To make a long statement short: I believe the World Assembly's role is much more clearly to interfere in the enforcement side of law, rather than the creation. That side is also the side the people have much less of an ability to act on their own.
I can already hear dozens of ambassadors from militaristic states screaming that this would destroy their ability to bribe enemy agents or members of some cell for information. The same concern could be made about bribes to bring down drug cartels or such.

The only regulation on bribes from a government is that they cannot be made for monetary or economic gain. In order to advance your military, intelligence, or anti-criminal interests would still be completely legal uses of bribes.
Clarifying there shall be no difference legally between a person or organization offering a bribe, and contracting a person or entity which engages in bribery, unless the contracting nation clearly indicated bribery was not acceptable,
This means that if CorporationX tries to open a mine in TestLandia, but the land the mine would be on is too near a national forest for pollution to be allowed, and CorporationX would like to bribe the inspector that comes to investigate their site to be sure it complies, they cannot simply hire a translator and pay him 40,000 dollars for the translator to translate the meeting, with the unspoken understanding that the translator is going to give the official 35,000, keep 5,000 and everyone makes money, while all that occurred on paper was a very expensive translator was hired.

This puts the obligation on the corporation when hiring translators or people to help with negotiations and meetings to make it clear in contracts that no bribery is to occur, and then not to contradict that message with anything else they say to those parties, or they find themselves in violation.
[OOC: Also, in case anyone wonders, I've reached a puzzle I'm not sure how to solve with my last project. I'm going to sit on that one for a bit, come back to it in a few weeks or so and see if I can figure out how I want it to do exactly what I want it to do, and not what I don't want it to do. I need very specific but still simple wording. :P At any rate, I've given myself somewhat of a schedule / goal since my "to-do" list got longer in 2012 rather than shorter. So I'm going to try to keep working on a project while taking a break from the other.]
EDIT: Adding these that came up in the debate, they were not present before submission:
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Being 'corrupt' is not ideological like being a capitalist or conservative. Corruption isn't an ideology. The analogy I used several times through this discussion is with violence: Violence is related to ideology in the sense it can be used to advance your ideological goals, sure, but it isn't an ideology itself. It is a tool many ideologies use to advance themselves, but yet we have never hesitated to regulate violence because violence is an ideology. In the exact same way, corruption can be a means to advance your ideology or interests, but it is not your ideology itself, and thus it is just as open to be regulated as violence.
Secretariat [ooc: NS Moderator] response to the issue.
Again, short answer: No.
Long answer: The proposal doesn't prevent all cases and types of corruption, therefore, a government could still offer and accept bribes and be considered corrupt by the game. If this passes there could and would still be corrupt dictatorships in the WA, just less-corrupt-than-they-were-before-dictatorships. Nowhere in the proposal does it say "nations may not be corrupt dictatorships" or anything like that.
Secretariat [ooc: NS Moderator] response to the issue
Ahem, with that in mind, I open the floor for discussions on my proposal.
Clinton Tew
Image

WA Ambassador from Weed
Last edited by Weed on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:03 am

OOC: You realize there's a "corrupt dictatorship" gameside category, right? My nation usually... *checks* ...and currently belongs to that. This fact makes this smell somewhat like an ideological ban to me, or possibly metagaming or something along that vein.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
The United Planet
Envoy
 
Posts: 262
Founded: Jun 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Planet » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:42 am

100% support.
Government type: Federal Parliamentary Constitutional Republic
President (Head of State): Ricky Gervias
Prime Minister (Head of Government): Max Kelly
On the Political Spectrum: Economic Left/Right: -4.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00
For: Scottish Unionism, Progressivism, Social Democracy, Social liberalism, Democratic Socialism, European Union (excluding Euro), Human Rights, Egalitarianism and Republicanism

Against: Scottish Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Conservatism, Nationalism (anywhere), Monarchism, Communism, Privatisation, Religious fundamentalism, Euroscepticism and Anti-egalitarian e.g. Fascism, Racism or Sexism.

User avatar
The Republic of Equestria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Equestria » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:28 pm

The United Planet wrote:100% support.


Any democratic nation would support this. It doesn't matter whether the country is a matriarchy, monarchy, or principality - those kinds of countries would support this.
Last edited by The Republic of Equestria on Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
United Bobtopia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 185
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby United Bobtopia » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:50 pm

It represents an ideology ban of the worst order.

If we were forced to pretend that the bribes in our country were just campaign contributions, we would not be able to have the level of transparency that we currently have in our country. Our current Tribune of the Assembly, Foster Sona, makes no bones about the bribes given to him by our gun lobby.

The greatest check on corruption in my country is that the corruption occurs in the open, and without the pretense seen in other nations. We quite simply don't criminalize bribery because it's part of human nature. Our only rule is that it must be disclosed and available to the pubic. This legislation would force it to go underground, creating a black market of bribery.

Much like with drugs, prostitution and booze, we found that you can't legislate human nature. We will not turn our citizens into criminals for the simple act of bribery.

On that note, WA delegates are welcome to contact their Bobtopia embassy if they wish for a cash contribution for voting against this resolution. Consult your own nation's laws to see if this is legal for you.

User avatar
Point Breeze
Diplomat
 
Posts: 709
Founded: Dec 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Point Breeze » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:37 pm

I'm afraid to say, while I absolutely love this proposition, its purpose, clear language, and comprehensive writing, I must deny any support. This is an ideological ban.
Thane of WA Affairs for Wintreath

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:07 pm

"Perhaps His Excellency Ambassador Tew could be persuaded to clarify how this proposal would reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare", Lord Raekevik requested.
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:46 pm

Alqania wrote:"Perhaps His Excellency Ambassador Tew could be persuaded to clarify how this proposal would reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare", Lord Raekevik requested.


Indeed. This is clearly Political Stability.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18574
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:03 pm

The Republic of Equestria wrote:
The United Planet wrote:100% support.


Any democratic nation would support this. It doesn't matter whether the country is a matriarchy, monarchy, or principality - those kinds of countries would support this.

Wrong. We are a democratic monarchy and oppose this 100%
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
United Federation of Canada
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1417
Founded: Oct 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby United Federation of Canada » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:05 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
The Republic of Equestria wrote:
Any democratic nation would support this. It doesn't matter whether the country is a matriarchy, monarchy, or principality - those kinds of countries would support this.

Wrong. We are a democratic monarchy and oppose this 100%


Why?

Corruption is horrible and must be smashed at all costs. I like it. Yes it is an ideological ban, but with proper wording this can be overcome.

SUPPORT

User avatar
The Republic of Equestria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Equestria » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:20 am

United Federation of Canada wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Wrong. We are a democratic monarchy and oppose this 100%


Why?

Corruption is horrible and must be smashed at all costs. I like it. Yes it is an ideological ban, but with proper wording this can be overcome.

SUPPORT


@Grays Harbor: 2-1 and not in your favour. Get outta that one. :lol:

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1282
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:09 am

The Republic of Equestria wrote:@Grays Harbor: 2-1 and not in your favour. Get outta that one. :lol:

OOC: Check again, it's at least 3-2 against, maybe more against. It's also still an ideological ban and thus illegal.
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Dilange
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7074
Founded: Mar 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Dilange » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:14 am

Beyond it being and ideological ban, there is a severe amount of implimentation problems that this proposal holds.

AGAINST without discrimination.

User avatar
The Republic of Equestria
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Equestria » Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Potted Plants United wrote:
The Republic of Equestria wrote:@Grays Harbor: 2-1 and not in your favour. Get outta that one. :lol:

OOC: Check again, it's at least 3-2 against, maybe more against. It's also still an ideological ban and thus illegal.


Isn't 'illegal' a sick bird?
Last edited by The Republic of Equestria on Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:30 pm

Weed wrote:Further mandates all member states terminate any person accepting a bribe, and refuse to employ them in the future,


"Did you mean 'terminate the employment of'?" asked Matthew. "Because I'm not comfortable with summary execution of anyone who accepts a bribe."

"More to the point - I am concerned that making bribes illegal will severely impact the ability of Discoveria's Office for Internal Stability to carry out effective counter-intelligence work in countries where bribery is culturally ingrained. This proposal is idealistic but we doubt whether it can be implemented in practice." [OOC: Objection withdrawn]
Last edited by Discoveria on Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 898
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Capitalizt

Postby Weed » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:12 pm

Exactly, what ideology is being banned? Corruption? The idea that corruption is an ideology and those taking bribes are ideological corruptists is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Corruption, like violence, is not an ideology. It is a method to advance your ideology or just a personal interest no matter what your ideology (or interest) is, and just like violence it should be open to regulation by this body. If the Secretariat wants to stop by and rule corruption to be an ideology, I will abandon this effort. But regardless of secretariat ruling, corruption as an ideology is laughable. Though to argue for the other side for a moment, I do observe many have expressed a great desire to see corruption never be stopped because it would mean the suffering of the loss of some's personal wealth, I would suspect such a ruling could certainly be a very profitable venture for the secretariat, indeed.

Also, to the ambassador from Discoveria: if you see the final note and giant message written atop the draft, your concern was covered in the list of questions and comments I predicted. Your ability to use bribes for counter-intelligence is certainly not impacted here. We do however acknowledge "terminated" was a lapse in judgement on my part during writing. I'll take your suggestion there! [ooc: I'm operating without a mouse now, and that's why I haven't quoted any posts. I'll edit it over the weekend or sometime when I can, for the record.]

To the ambassadors of Ossistania and Alquania: I also considered this. I honestly wrote it as a political stability proposal first, but the newer drafts over the months have focused more on businesses doing the bribing. If you read the list of proposals and descriptions the secretariat has provided to us, it clearly says: ""Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms." That seems to be what fits to me. This is about regulating business spending, so I changed it to the type of resolution that is about regulating business also known as decreasing economic freedoms.

As to why I don't think it is a political stability draft any longer, the newer drafts don't touch political donations hardly at all. A political stability resolution decreases political freedoms. I don't see how this resolution, in any way shape or form, decreases the say the average person has in their government. As I've said, this resolution focuses on seeing that business don't bribe to get around set policies, but allows them to lobby and donate to candidates in order to get generally more friendly policies. I can see how a bribe could be seen as a political freedom, maybe, but it is also definitely an economic freedom too. Regarding the contents of this particular draft, it seems to me to clearly focus less on the political bribes and more on the personal-gain (economic) bribes.

Clinton Tew
Image

WA Ambassador from Weed

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:38 pm

I think it still comes under political freedom because you're specifically doing it to a public official, who constitutes a part of the state, therefore you're using the political power of the state to gain personally. The economic freedom would be to pay people generally to do things which benefit you, but that's just called capitalism. When it becomes a bad thing is when you pay people do illegal or unethical things. Given that the illegal or unethical things here are to use their position within the state (i.e. their political power) to do things which benefit you, the specific issue of bribing public officials seems to be a political freedom to me and would come under Political Stability in my mind for that reason. It's not a big deal but I can see someone opposed to this filing a GHR for its removal on category violation grounds and it would really suck if you got it to quorum and someone did that just to knock it out.

Just a quick look at this clause;

"Further mandates all member states terminate any person accepting a bribe, and refuse to employ them in the future,"

Okay, before anything else, please change "terminate" to "dismiss", as it really sounds like you're ordering their murder.

Right, now that that's out of the way - I'm not comfortable with this clause. First of all, you're demanding a punitive measure but only urging the criminalisation of accepting bribes. I'm also not satisfied that the WA has a sufficient mandate to justify setting employment criteria of member-states' governments. Maybe you can justify it being a cause of such weighty international concern to warrant it, but I'm not satisfied at the present moment that it is.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Abacathea
Minister
 
Posts: 2151
Founded: Nov 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abacathea » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:57 pm

Ossitania wrote:I think it still comes under political freedom because you're specifically doing it to a public official, who constitutes a part of the state, therefore you're using the political power of the state to gain personally. The economic freedom would be to pay people generally to do things which benefit you, but that's just called capitalism. When it becomes a bad thing is when you pay people do illegal or unethical things. Given that the illegal or unethical things here are to use their position within the state (i.e. their political power) to do things which benefit you, the specific issue of bribing public officials seems to be a political freedom to me and would come under Political Stability in my mind for that reason. It's not a big deal but I can see someone opposed to this filing a GHR for its removal on category violation grounds and it would really suck if you got it to quorum and someone did that just to knock it out.

Just a quick look at this clause;

"Further mandates all member states terminate any person accepting a bribe, and refuse to employ them in the future,"

Okay, before anything else, please change "terminate" to "dismiss", as it really sounds like you're ordering their murder.

Right, now that that's out of the way - I'm not comfortable with this clause. First of all, you're demanding a punitive measure but only urging the criminalisation of accepting bribes. I'm also not satisfied that the WA has a sufficient mandate to justify setting employment criteria of member-states' governments. Maybe you can justify it being a cause of such weighty international concern to warrant it, but I'm not satisfied at the present moment that it is.


We personally would be happy with WA Endorsed capital punishment for bribery....
G.A #236; Renewable Energy Installations (Repealed)
G.A #239; Vehicle Emissions Convention (Repealed).
G.A #257; Reducing Automobile Emissions (Repealed).
G.A #263; Uranium Mining Standards Act
G.A #279; Right of Emigration
G.A #292; Nuclear Security Convention
(Co-Author)
G.A #363; Preservation of Artefacts (repealed)
S.C #118; Commend SkyDip
S.C #120; Commend Mousebumples
S.C #122; Condemn Gest
S.C #124; Commend Bears Armed
S.C #125; Commend The Bruce
S.C #126; Commend Sanctaria
S.C #131: Commend NewTexas
(Co-Author)
S.C #136; Repeal "Liberate St Abbaddon" (Co-Author)
S.C #143; Commend Hobbesistan
S.C #146; Repeal "Liberate Hogwarts"

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:32 pm

Abacathea wrote:We personally would be happy with WA Endorsed capital punishment for bribery....


I actually wouldn't be opposed to requiring the criminalisation of accepting a bribe, but fucking around with employment criteria bugs me because it presumes that the state isn't capable of deciding who's an appropriate hire.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1282
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:41 pm

A large potted plant suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"What is the philosophical difference between trading and bribery? Aren't both used as something that will buy you the services of the other?"
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:46 pm

Potted Plants United wrote:A large potted plant suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"What is the philosophical difference between trading and bribery? Aren't both used as something that will buy you the services of the other?"


In the case of bribery, the services being bought are the aid of an agent of the state in the commission of illegal or unethical acts. It should be against the law to purchase such services.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1282
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:07 pm

Ossitania wrote:In the case of bribery, the services being bought are the aid of an agent of the state in the commission of illegal or unethical acts. It should be against the law to purchase such services.

"Didn't United Bobtopia and Discoveria give examples where it wasn't considered illegal or unethical? Or is the proposal targeted exactly for the cases where the intend is to procure illegal services? That would sound more sensible to us, since ethics and morals seem to vary depending who you ask."
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:11 pm

Potted Plants United wrote:
Ossitania wrote:In the case of bribery, the services being bought are the aid of an agent of the state in the commission of illegal or unethical acts. It should be against the law to purchase such services.

"Didn't United Bobtopia and Discoveria give examples where it wasn't considered illegal or unethical? Or is the proposal targeted exactly for the cases where the intend is to procure illegal services? That would sound more sensible to us, since ethics and morals seem to vary depending who you ask."


If it's not illegal or unethical, it's not covered by the resolution, because the resolution defines bribery as being for the purpose of obtaining an illegal or unethical result.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5487
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Linux and the X » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:20 pm

We are opposed to a ban on offering or giving bribes, but we would consider a ban on accepting bribes. So long as this ban excepted WA ambassadors, of course.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads