[DEFEATED] Standards for International Road Freight

[The New Sicilian State]

"As if you all weren't preoccupied enough!"

Standards for International Road Freight

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the important role of road freight transport in the flow of goods from manufacturers to the consumers,

Seeking to more effectively streamline the flow of goods from transporters to consumers,

Hereby,

I. Defines, for the purpose of this legislation,

1. "international cargo transport vehicle" as a cargo-transporting vehicle that crosses an international border into a WA member nation,
   
2. “transporter” as a legal entity that transports goods from one establishment to another,
   
3. “waybill” as an official document filled out by the transporters, a copy of which must accompany the cargo aboard the transporting vehicle, to be presented to authorities upon request; designating the full contents, specific destination, and intended route of a single transport vehicle,

II. Mandates that foreign transporters communicate with domestic national services ahead of the transporter vehicle's departure to clarify logistical details including, but not limited to, the contents of the cargo being transported and the intended route,

III. Requires member states to have operational points of entry for transport vehicles except in events of the closing of borders due to compelling purposes,

IV. Requires member states to charge a one-time fee on each transport vehicle for its passage through their territory, a charge that can account for, for example, any anticipated toll fees, applicable fees for road maintenance as well as for the environmental impact of cargo traffic,

V. Allows member states to impose a considerably higher payment for routes that transverse environmentally sensitive areas,

VI. Mandates that member states use fair and reasonable judgement in the calculation of the fees, allowing different payment categories for different kinds of vehicles, but not for different nations of origin,

VII. Requires that member states provide upon request, a complete list of all the components of the one-time fee,

VIII. Mandates that international cargo transport vehicles are still expected to follow domestic traffic laws,

IX. Does not restrict member states' ability to search all transport vehicles at the border to ensure compliance with national laws involving contraband goods,

X. Grants special exception to international cargo transport vehicles from stops including, but not limited to, road tolls and province checkpoints except when ordered to stop by law enforcement,

XI. Clarifies that while these standards apply to international cargo transport vehicles carrying potentially hazardous materials and/or live animals, these standards do not address the procedure in which such cargo should be handled by the transporter or those at foreign points of entry.

Coauthored by Araraukar

Standards for International Road Freight

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the role trucking plays in the transportation of goods between states and institutions.

Seeking to ensure a safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and streamlined process for road freight.

Conscious of the potentially negative impact trucking can have on member states' environments

Eager to affirm the rights of the drivers of such distribution vehicles

hereby,

ARTICLE I

I. Defines “International Road Freight” as the mass delivery of goods from or to either a private distributor or a sovereign state via an established road network; synonymous with “trucking”

II. Establishes the World Road Freight Organization (WRO) as a committee of the World Assembly Trade Commission

III. Commissions all private distributors and sovereign states to actively register current and future vehicles used for international road freight with the WRO, and commissions the WRO to accurately tabulate and store these registrations until the state or distributor notifies the organization that a particular vehicle is no longer to be used.

IV. Establishes the Road Freight Waybill Oversight Subcommittee (RFWOS) as a subcommittee of the WRO

V. Defines “waybill” as an official document bearing the signature of a staff member of the RFWOS carrying both a full list of goods being freighted by any particular vehicle, as well as a specific destination to which the goods are being transported to.

VI. Mandates that distributors or states acquire waybills from the WRO for each and every trucking excursion, and that drivers of vehicles carry an official copy of their particular waybill at all times during transport of goods.

ARTICLE II

I. Forbids member states from invoking tolls on waybill donning vehicles

II. Forbids member states from levying charges and taxes against drivers who must transverse their state to deliver goods to another state

III. Encourages states to maintain any border checks or customs policies to ensure that distributor vehicles possess official waybills

IV. Does not restrict states’ abilities to search vehicles with a valid warrant.

Standards for International Road Freight

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the role trucking plays in the transportation of goods between states and institutions.

Seeking to ensure a safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and streamlined process for road freight.

Conscious of the potentially negative impact trucking can have on member states' environments

Eager to affirm the rights of the drivers of such distribution vehicles

hereby,

ARTICLE I- Definitions

I. Defines “International Road Freight” as the mass delivery of goods from or to a distributor or sovereign nation via an established road network; synonymous with “trucking”.

II. Defines “distributor” for the purpose of this resolution as a privately, publicly, or government owned company that brings goods from one location to another.

III. Defines “environmentally sensitive area” as a province, region, city, or town designated by the member state as environmentally or ecologically fragile.

IV. Defines “waybill” for the purpose of this resolution as an official form to be filled out by distributors (and to be held by distributor truck drivers in all distribution excursions) designating the full registry of the cargo, specific destination, and route (only applicable if traveling through environmentally sensitive areas) of a single distributor truck.


ARTICLE II- Committee Establishment

I. Establishes the World Road Freight Organization (WRO) as a committee of the World Assembly Trade Commission

II. Establishes the Road Freight Waybill Oversight (RFWO) as a subcommittee of the WRO


ARTICLE III- Legislation

I. Requires member states to report any environmentally sensitive areas to the WRO, as long as they should remain sensitive, to member states’ best judgement.

II. Provides distributors with a satisfactory number of waybills from the RFWO, as defined by the distributors themselves.

III. Requires member states to establish or designate specific and exclusive points of entry for distributor trucks.

IV. Strongly encourages member states to initiate a one-time charge for drivers’ passage through their state, a charge including anticipated toll fees, any applicable taxes for road maintenance, total weight of vehicle and cargo, as well as any fees for the environmental impact trucks carry in the means of air and noise pollution.

V. Mandates a considerable fee markup for any passages through environmentally sensitive areas.

VI. Mandates that member states use fair and reasonable judgement in the calculation of fees against distributors, and requires states to provide a complete accounting breakdown of all fees to distributors.

VII. Forbids member states from levying any additional fees on distributors (with notable exception of criminal or misdemeanor fines, such as for traffic violations) after the initial border check, granting drivers special exception from stops including, but not limited to, road tolls and province checkpoints.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. We are not fond of losing revenue streams to the World Assembly. Further, there are plenty of situations justifying a warrantless search that states would now be barred from applying."

[The New Sicilian State]

"Opposed. We are not fond of losing revenue streams to the World Assembly. Further, there are plenty of situations justifying a warrantless search that states would now be barred from applying."

"Are states not barred from warrantless searches? I'm fairly sure I've found that in a civil rights resolution somewhere"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. We are not fond of losing revenue streams to the World Assembly. Further, there are plenty of situations justifying a warrantless search that states would now be barred from applying."

"Are states not barred from warrantless searches? I'm fairly sure I've found that in a civil rights resolution somewhere"

"No. Nor ought they be. There are several circumstances where a warrantless search is justifiable."

[The New Nordic Union]

II. Forbids member states from levying charges and taxes against drivers who must transverse their state to deliver goods to another state

'We charge everyone who uses our roads. Why should we make an exception for this one kind of transport?'

[The New Sicilian State]

II. Forbids member states from levying charges and taxes against drivers who must transverse their state to deliver goods to another state

'We charge everyone who uses our roads. Why should we make an exception for this one kind of transport?'

"In this particular instance, it hardly seems fair to capitalize on drivers or distributors that have no other means of getting to their destination than through a non-involved state. This clause intends to bar a circumstance in which states would dump additional taxes or fees onto drivers (and therefore their distributors) simply because their destination was not that state, that their state is merely one to be passed through. Perhaps there is a more effective way to word this. Article II Section I does state that waybill carrying trucks are not subject to tolls, I did intend that as more of a anti-unnecessary time consumption effort.

"No. Nor ought they be. There are several circumstances where a warrantless search is justifiable."

"Is there a certain extent to which a warrantless search is unnecessarily intrusive? A thorough search wastes time, energy, and risks damaging fragile cargo. It occurs to me only now that I haven't considered potentially hazardous and hazardous cargo. Regardless, I do see your point and I will be tweaking that clause, my intent is to create safety and accountability in the road freight business."

"Opposed. We are not fond of losing revenue streams to the World Assembly. Further, there are plenty of situations justifying a warrantless search that states would now be barred from applying."

"The revenue lost to the C.D.S.P would be arbitrary at most, Ambassador Bell. Besides, whatever revenue is lost could be saved by the mere fact that tolls will no longer fall into the budget or expense reports of the state's road freight expenditures."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The revenue lost to the C.D.S.P would be arbitrary at most, Ambassador Bell. Besides, whatever revenue is lost could be saved by the mere fact that tolls will no longer fall into the budget or expense reports of the state's road freight expenditures."

"That saving is passed onto consumers, but not government coffers. Moreover, if the consumers are out of our nation, we don't see those savings.

"Also, I do not think arbitrary means what you think it means. Did you perhaps mean negligable? Because, I assure you that there is no revenue stream that is negligable. That's money on the table."

[The New Sicilian State]

"The revenue lost to the C.D.S.P would be arbitrary at most, Ambassador Bell. Besides, whatever revenue is lost could be saved by the mere fact that tolls will no longer fall into the budget or expense reports of the state's road freight expenditures."

"That saving is passed onto consumers, but not government coffers. Moreover, if the consumers are out of our nation, we don't see those savings.

"Also, I do not think arbitrary means what you think it means. Did you perhaps mean negligable? Because, I assure you that there is no revenue stream that is negligable. That's money on the table."

"I do mean negligible, my apologies. Tired brain has not left me yet, I'm afraid. I understand your argument, but I'd have to disagree on principle. If a small revenue stream is interrupted for the ease and fluidity of goods transport, I do see it as negligible. This disagreement notwithstanding, may I ask what your opinion on the rest of the charter is?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"That saving is passed onto consumers, but not government coffers. Moreover, if the consumers are out of our nation, we don't see those savings.

"Also, I do not think arbitrary means what you think it means. Did you perhaps mean negligable? Because, I assure you that there is no revenue stream that is negligable. That's money on the table."

"I do mean negligible, my apologies. Tired brain has not left me yet, I'm afraid. I understand your argument, but I'd have to disagree on principle. If a small revenue stream is interrupted for the ease and fluidity of goods transport, I do see it as negligible. This disagreement notwithstanding, may I ask what your opinion on the rest of the charter is?"

"Then let us shift the perspective, ambassador: foreign vehicles using domestic resources without having to pay associated tolls or taxes constitutes unjust enrichment on the transporting party's part. Domestic populations absorb the costs of maintaining roads, both financially and in corresponding air, noise, and traffic pollution. It is unreasonable for them to shoulder that burden without receiving compensation for the benefit given to foreign overland shipping. Especially when they themselves do not see benefit from that fluidity of trade."

[The New Sicilian State]

"I do mean negligible, my apologies. Tired brain has not left me yet, I'm afraid. I understand your argument, but I'd have to disagree on principle. If a small revenue stream is interrupted for the ease and fluidity of goods transport, I do see it as negligible. This disagreement notwithstanding, may I ask what your opinion on the rest of the charter is?"

"Then let us shift the perspective, ambassador: foreign vehicles using domestic resources without having to pay associated tolls or taxes constitutes unjust enrichment on the transporting party's part. Domestic populations absorb the costs of maintaining roads, both financially and in corresponding air, noise, and traffic pollution. It is unreasonable for them to shoulder that burden without receiving compensation for the benefit given to foreign overland shipping. Especially when they themselves do not see benefit from that fluidity of trade."

"Hmm... I'll readily admit I hadn't thought of that. Allow me to throw a few ideas off the wall. I wish to ensure the quick and painless transport of goods, would it be more reasonable to establish a single-pay toll and fee system for truckers at the border checks? Therefore, states could tabulate the costs that each vehicle would weigh on the state and could therefore be compensated in full in one instance, rather than in several smaller instances, draining time and effort? Even still, what's to stop states from levying enormous one-time charges against distributors for unreasonable costs?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then let us shift the perspective, ambassador: foreign vehicles using domestic resources without having to pay associated tolls or taxes constitutes unjust enrichment on the transporting party's part. Domestic populations absorb the costs of maintaining roads, both financially and in corresponding air, noise, and traffic pollution. It is unreasonable for them to shoulder that burden without receiving compensation for the benefit given to foreign overland shipping. Especially when they themselves do not see benefit from that fluidity of trade."

"Hmm... I'll readily admit I hadn't thought of that. Allow me to throw a few ideas off the wall. I wish to ensure the quick and painless transport of goods, would it be more reasonable to establish a single-pay toll and fee system for truckers at the border checks? Therefore, states could tabulate the costs that each vehicle would weigh on the state and could therefore be compensated in full in one instance, rather than in several smaller instances, draining time and effort? Even still, what's to stop states from levying enormous one-time charges against distributors for unreasonable costs?"

"A centralized method of collecting those same tolls and costs would absolutely be a more effective method that would streamline the process without leaving locals in the lurch, ambassador. You have had a rather astute and clever idea."

[Separatist Peoples]

"However, rather than tasking the World Assembly with a Heruclean task of managing all national roadways, perhaps a more efficient option would be to require states establish their own omnibus shipping application, which covers all associated tolls, taxes, and costs? But to ensure that all states provide them fairly and apply them universally, require member states accept and approve all such applications that conform to the requirements put forward by the application and any other important factors you wish reserved to the state. That way, states ensure compliance and shippers are guaranteed a minimum baseline of just access."

[The New Sicilian State]

"However, rather than tasking the World Assembly with a Heruclean task of managing all national roadways, perhaps a more efficient option would be to require states establish their own omnibus shipping application, which covers all associated tolls, taxes, and costs? But to ensure that all states provide them fairly and apply them universally, require member states accept and approve all such applications that conform to the requirements put forward by the application and any other important factors you wish reserved to the state. That way, states ensure compliance and shippers are guaranteed a minimum baseline of just access."

"Brilliant, a much more efficient and effective way of putting this together, thank you for your advice. To clarify (I am a tad confused) how would I ensure that all states provide these costs fairly? Do you mean a WA office that analyzes and ensures their fairness, or do you mean an active communication between states, a sort of "haggling" about the costs?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"However, rather than tasking the World Assembly with a Heruclean task of managing all national roadways, perhaps a more efficient option would be to require states establish their own omnibus shipping application, which covers all associated tolls, taxes, and costs? But to ensure that all states provide them fairly and apply them universally, require member states accept and approve all such applications that conform to the requirements put forward by the application and any other important factors you wish reserved to the state. That way, states ensure compliance and shippers are guaranteed a minimum baseline of just access."

"Brilliant, a much more efficient and effective way of putting this together, thank you for your advice. To clarify (I am a tad confused) how would I ensure that all states provide these costs fairly? Do you mean a WA office that analyzes and ensures their fairness, or do you mean an active communication between states, a sort of "haggling" about the costs?"

"Qualify that all costs must be based on the following:
- reasonable processing costs
- overall mileage based on proposed route
- gross weight
- fuel or emissions type
- mileage through sensitive communities

"One might define a sensitive community to include environmental or social factors as needed. If you require national issuing agencies to provide a fair accounting breakdown of all such costs based on the submitted information, shippers can readily assess what is increasing their costs and why."

[The New Sicilian State]

"Qualify that all costs must be based on the following:
- reasonable processing costs
- overall mileage based on proposed route
- gross weight
- fuel or emissions type
- mileage through sensitive communities

"One might define a sensitive community to include environmental or social factors as needed. If you require national issuing agencies to provide a fair accounting breakdown of all such costs based on the submitted information, shippers can readily assess what is increasing their costs and why."

"Ah, I understand now. I will begin working on this as soon as I possibly can!"

OOC: I'm away from home at the moment, but by tonight or tomorrow morning I should have some major revamps to this. Seriously, thank you so much for your patience and advice, you've helped me tremendously. Given that Maryland is shutting down completely tomorrow for COVID-19, I reckon I'll have even more time to work on this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So I'm guessing that the current draft is outdated and doesn't need to be commented on as it's going to be edited?

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: So I'm guessing that the current draft is outdated and doesn't need to be commented on as it's going to be edited?

OOC: I was editing as you sent that out Updated now!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Better feedback later, but given that Araraukar would in IC classify the entire nation as "environmentally sensitive" (and in any case doesn't really have truck traffic as cargo moving through the nation by necessity moves by rail, not road), what does that mean in terms of your proposal? And why is the intended route only necessary on the bits that are environmentally sensitive?

For the record, my uncle and his daughter (my cousin) both drive trucks for a living (my uncle's transporting company), so I've listened to their moaning about the RL regulations and laws related to that, quite a lot.

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: Better feedback later, but given that Araraukar would in IC classify the entire nation as "environmentally sensitive" (and in any case doesn't really have truck traffic as cargo moving through the nation by necessity moves by rail, not road), what does that mean in terms of your proposal? And why is the intended route only necessary on the bits that are environmentally sensitive?

For the record, my uncle and his daughter (my cousin) both drive trucks for a living (my uncle's transporting company), so I've listened to their moaning about the RL regulations and laws related to that, quite a lot.

OOC: it would, unfortunately allow Araraukar to charge more for trucks moving through the country. However, I would like to think that nations would be honest in differentiating these fragile environments (like wetlands, homes for endangered animals, areas undergoing reparations after a particularly gruesome war). And I suppose you’re right, the rest of the route would be pretty important as well, shortsightedness on my part...

And whoah! This should be fun then!

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'll get back to you on this tomorrow (Thursday). Ran out of time today. Sorry.

[The New Sicilian State]

OOC: I'll get back to you on this tomorrow (Thursday). Ran out of time today. Sorry.

OOC: You're all good! Thanks for thinking of me

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Comments have been filtered through common sense, some cynicism and many, many conversations with aforementioned relatives as well as various other people who drive big vehicles for a living.

Also, Thursday turned out to be one of those days that happened to other people instead of me, so a day late...

Acknowledging the role trucking plays in the transportation of goods between states and institutions.

Right off the bat, this sounds just weird. States and institutions? Also, don't use "trucking", it doesn't sound like law text. Instead think of opening with something like "Acknowledging the important role of road freight transport in the flow of goods from manufacturers to the consumers". It's still a weird thing to open with, but it sounds much less weird than what you now have.

Seeking to ensure a safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and streamlined process for road freight.

What process? Driving cargo from point A to point B is less of a process and more of a journey. And anyway, there's no way to make road freight transport really environmentally friendly, so I'd just drop that out entirely. You should make "streamlining (the flow of goods)" the main point of the preamble, as that's your reasoning for the mandates, based on your comments.

Conscious of the potentially negative impact trucking can have on member states' environments

Your punctuation is uneven - some clauses end with it, some don't. Also, you're not writing an environmental resolution, so again, drop that and focus on the 3 W's: WHAT is the actual issue you want to solve, WHY does it need international legislation to deal with, and WHY has it not been dealt with by existing resolutions. There's at least one, probably more, that deal with transport and road safety and such, I suggest reading those even if you didn't end up making changes based on those.

Eager to affirm the rights of the drivers of such distribution vehicles

Rights? What rights? Right to do what? This looks just out of place entirely.

hereby,

Capital letter missing.

ARTICLE I- Definitions

These are entirely unnecessary. Just number the main clauses with a running number and leave these subtitles out entirely.

I. Defines

And speaking of that, you could just make "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution" as the main clause and then didn't have to keep repeating the "defines", if you make the actual definitions subclauses to it.

I. Defines “International Road Freight” as the mass delivery of goods from or to a distributor or sovereign nation via an established road network; synonymous with “trucking”.

As already said, don't use "trucking" - and you actually don't use it in the active clauses, so there's no reason to define it to begin with. Also, what you actually define is "road freight transport", NOT "international road freight transport". Oh and I get that "from or to" is technically correct, but I don't think I've ever seen it in this kind of context as anything else but "to or from". Though your definition is still weird. "To or from a distributor or nation" does not sound very... well, user-friendly. Why are you mentioning nations at all? Most national thingies still operate as companies (they're just 100% state-owned). And you might want to consider the definition to instead have something like "between X and Y", instead of "from or to". Because this form could technically also mean that a garbage van would count for this proposal and you do NOT want to get caught in the quagmire that is waste disposal system. Requiring free pass through nations for potentially hazardous "goods" is not going to be easy.

The finaly "to" that goods are moving between, here, should be the consumer, the buyer of manufactured goods or farmed produce. You might also want to exclude live animal transport from this whole thing.

II. Defines “distributor” for the purpose of this resolution as a privately, publicly, or government owned company that brings goods from one location to another.

"Brings" is used wrongly there. A better word would be "transports". Also, are you intending to use this definition to mean only the transporting company, aka the people that own (and in some cases drive) the transporting vehicles? Or just the people who pay those people to do so? Other than the biggest manufacturers/retailers, the two are usually not the same people, and you're not being entirely clear here.

III. Defines “environmentally sensitive area” as a province, region, city, or town designated by the member state as environmentally or ecologically fragile.

You don't need to define things that are commonly understood.

IV. Defines a “waybill” for the purpose of this resolution as an official form document to be filled out by distributors (and to be held a copy of which will accompany the cargo aboard the transporting vehicle, to be presented to authorities upon request by distributor truck drivers in all distribution excursions) designating the full registry of the cargo contents, specific destination, and intended route (only applicable if traveling through environmentally sensitive areas) of a single distributor truck transport vehicle.

Fixes. Many fixes.

ARTICLE II- Committee Establishment

Okay, in addition to the "throw these subtitles away" thing, you should NOT start from establishing a committee. Give the member nations themselves things to do and ONLY add a committee if you MUST. A committee should not be the beef of the proposal.

I. Establishes the World Road Freight Organization (WRFO) as a committee of the World Assembly Trade Commission

To do what? You're supposed to establish a committee and then give it things to do.

II. Establishes the Road Freight Waybill Oversight (RFWO) as a subcommittee of the WRO

YOU DO NOT NEED TWO COMMITTEES TO DEAL WITH THIS. You probably don't even need a single one.

ARTICLE III- Legislation

...the whole proposal is legislation.

I. Requires member states to report any environmentally sensitive areas to the WRO, as long as they should remain sensitive, to member states’ best judgement.

Mess of a sentence and anyway, why?

II. Provides distributors with a satisfactory number of waybills from the RFWO, as defined by the distributors themselves.

Who provides? And what's defined? If you mean "satisfactory number" with the "defined", then you don't need to say it separately.

III. Requires member states to establish or designate specific and exclusive points of entry for distributor trucks.

Replace "distributor trucks" with "transporting vehicles" throughout the entire proposal. More professional sounding. Also, why?

RL example: Finland has land border with Russia. Lots of trucks go both ways, not just trade between these two nations but also freight that goes through one or both nations to other places. There are a couple of crossings on the border that are for non-heavy traffic only, but the main ones are for both, with separate lanes for transport vehicles and passenger vehicles. Having to build a new crossing ONLY for cargo transport vehicles sounds weird. They need to be connected to roads or be useless anyway, so why couldn't other travelers use the same points?

IV. Strongly encourages member states to initiate a one-time charge for drivers’ passage through their state, a charge including anticipated toll fees, any applicable taxes for road maintenance, total weight of vehicle and cargo, as well as any fees for the environmental impact trucks carry in the means of air and noise pollution.

Okay, several problems here, so breaking that up into bits.

IV. Strongly encourages

Since you're only encouraging this, but later forbid any other fees, the alternative is what, no fees at all? If you're basically making this mandatory by forbidding anything else, just make it properly mandatory.

for drivers’ passage

Fee per driver or fee per cargo container? Because for long hauls you might have two drivers for the same truck, since drivers actually have mandated rest periods, and if your cargo needs to get to where it's going, quickly, you're going to need to be moving practically non-stop. You might also have an apprentice/intern learning the ropes as ride-along, who can drive in a pinch - do they count as driver? It would make more sense, given that the point of the costs is the wear of the road and the pollution from the vehicle, to make the payment per vehicle, rather than play with numbers of people. Especially if pay-per-person could lead to rest times being pinched from, for cost efficiency.

through their state

I'd suggest using "territory" instead of state.

a charge including anticipated toll fees, any applicable taxes for road maintenance

Road tolls are not a thing everywhere. I didn't honestly believe they were a real thing (as opposed to being a Hollywood invention), until I traveled to the USA and actually saw the payment being required to use a highway. Also, taxes for road maintenance are usually vehicular taxes or fuel taxes or a combination of both. Are you trying to say they should be paid in every nation that the vehicle is traveling through?

total weight of vehicle and cargo

This should be in the waybill, but why is it relevant to be in the cost? If the taxes (for road maintenance) take into account the maximum allowed weight of the combination of vehicle and cargo already, or tolls are higher for bigger vehicles, wouldn't this already be calculcated in? And having it there as just "a cost including total weight" sounds weird, when the other bits in the list are different fees. Imagine going to a concert and having the costs include "ticket price, food and drink costs, height and weight, and traveling costs" - it just looks out of place.

as well as any fees for the environmental impact trucks carry in the means of air and noise pollution.

Is this meant to be yet another tax of some kind? Because, again, these costs are usually slapped on in the vehicle and fuel taxes.

V. Mandates a considerable fee markup for any passages through environmentally sensitive areas.

"Fee markup" does not sound like legal text. "Higher payment" sounds a bit more professional. Though, why? If the road goes there and it's a major thoroughway (if it's not, why would a cargo transporter trying to drive through there to begin with?), the costs for such are usually, again, slapped on the vehicle and fuel taxes.

This also has another much more sinister meaning - it appears to mandate that nations must allow international transporters to drive through environmentally sensitive areas even if said roads were closed for domestic heavy traffic. Perhaps somewhere in this proposal there should be something about nations not needing to let international transporters drive where domestic ones aren't allowed. Especially if their cargo is hazardous to environment. (Like some chemicals or oil or such.)

Now, who pays this fee? The person driving the vehicle? Their company? The person or company paying them to transport their goods? Can they have had paid in advance and just display some kind of receipt when asked?

VI. Mandates that member states use fair and reasonable judgement in the calculation of fees against distributors, and requires states to provide a complete accounting breakdown of all fees to distributors.

"Fees against distributors" sounds like you were punishing them. And what does "accounting breakdown" mean? Does it mean what it consists of, or the numbers or what? And wouldn't the "distributors" have to provide the nation that's meant to be setting these fees all the info the fees are based on?

VII. Forbids member states from levying any additional fees on distributors (with notable exception of criminal or misdemeanor fines, such as for traffic violations) after the initial border check

I get what you mean with this, but maybe some wording that emphasized you mean additional transporting fees, would work better. Right now you're basically creating a rule and then having to add tons of exceptions. Like, what about parking fees?

granting drivers special exception from stops including, but not limited to, road tolls and province checkpoints.

Even when the checkpoints are to enforce a quarantine or because the road is out due to landslide or such beyond the stop? Or because police are doing random stops to catch drunk drivers? I think this would be well served with something like "except when ordered to stop by law enforcement".

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: ara, trucking is actually the appropriate technical term for overland truck based transportation. It's often coopted for more casual use, but trucking is to trucks what shipping is to boats as a verb.

I didnt know if that translates into Finnish the same way, is all.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: ara, trucking is actually the appropriate technical term for overland truck based transportation.

OOC: But then what is a truck? Is a truck the same as a lorry? A semi? A tow-truck? A van? Is this a truck? (Much to my surprise, this apparently is a truck. Or will be in the future. )

I didnt know if that translates into Finnish the same way, is all.

It doesn't. There's no verb like "trucking". As for the substantive, even just Google Translate (which is the lowest common denominator when it comes to languages) has these as synonyms for "truck": van, semitrailer, articulated lorry, wagon, freight car, trolley, cart, rig.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: ara, trucking is actually the appropriate technical term for overland truck based transportation.

OOC: But then what is a truck? Is a truck the same as a lorry? A semi? A tow-truck? A van? Is this a truck? (Much to my surprise, this apparently is a truck. Or will be in the future. )

I didnt know if that translates into Finnish the same way, is all.

It doesn't. There's no verb like "trucking". As for the substantive, even just Google Translate (which is the lowest common denominator when it comes to languages) has these as synonyms for "truck": van, semitrailer, articulated lorry, wagon, freight car, trolley, cart, rig.

Ooc: a good question...american English calls most of those "trucks" with little bother for differentiation.