[DEFEATED] Standards for International Road Freight

[Araraukar]

For example, let’s examine the two agricultural inspection stations on I-95 south of the Florida-Georgia state line. There’s a sign on the interstate that says “Agricultural Inspection”, and then there however many miles ahead it is. After that, there’s a list of vehicles types that must stop. Now, let’s apply a similar situation to member states that have provincial checkpoints. Do vehicles have to stop? Member nations could in fact make those signs law enforcement officers.

OOC: Aside from making roadside signs law enforcement officers being the kind of "creativity" that even I think it would be a bad faith reading of the text, are the stop points fully automated? No person there making sure lorries stop for no reason? Or are there personnel doing checks on the vehicles, with possibly police standing by in case someone who should stop, doesn't? If there's personnel there, or even law enforcement, you're really making a problem out of a situation that's not a problem with the proposal.

However, such stops and presumably searches of cargo might contradict the previous resolution. Or resolutions, I can't remember if the cargo markings were separate from the vehicle safety things. Or if the cargo markings thing actually failed to become a resolution... But still, basically dealing with the cargo belongs under a separate resolution and law enforcement officers can still mandate vehicles to stop for whatever reason.

[Boston and Maine]

"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."

Where does it say that?

[Araraukar]

"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."

Where does it say that?

OOC: That comment was for the first version of the draft, not the current at-vote one.

[Terttia]

If there's personnel there, or even law enforcement, you're really making a problem out of a situation that's not a problem with the proposal.

Sure, there are personnel there and even law enforcement officers, but law enforcement officers don’t order specified vehicles to stop. The signs do. More info here.

Or if the cargo markings thing actually failed to become a resolution... But still, basically dealing with the cargo belongs under a separate resolution and law enforcement officers can still mandate vehicles to stop for whatever reason.

search.php?keywords=Cargo+markings&t=30&sf=msgonly

[Araraukar]

If there's personnel there, or even law enforcement, you're really making a problem out of a situation that's not a problem with the proposal.

Sure, there are personnel there and even law enforcement officers, but law enforcement officers don’t order specified vehicles to stop. The signs do.

OOC: And you think a nation is completely incapable of funneling the traffic through a spot, where an actual law enforcement officer gives signal to stop to the kind of vehicle you want to stop?

More info here.

Not so interested on something I think is stupid in general (including road tolls), that I'd waste time reading about it, sorry. And in any case, the border check should be done at the actual border, when the cargo enters the nation. Not between whatever bits the nation has organized itself into. If the bits of the nation don't agree with one another on what should be checked for, then you're going to run into all sorts of problems starting from CoCR.

search.php?keywords=Cargo+markings&t=30&sf=msgonly

Yeah, let me know what you find. IA is on my Foe list, so using that thread is a pain in the neck and I'm tired, so I'll just note that I said "might" - If you have easy proof it does or doesn't, feel free to post it here for argument for others to see too. If you cba check the thread either, then I think we're done here for now.

In any case I'm off to bed now.

[Uan aa Boa]

What fresh hell is this? As a nation that has no road transport for environmental reasons we strongly oppose a law intended to force us to have operational points of entry for road vehicles. I say intended because the author has forgotten to include "road" in the definition of a transport vehicle, but the title suggests that's what it's meant to do.

IC: "Does your nation not have fees or taxes for imports? For the use of your rail network and terminals? Or port services, if you're an island nation? Araraukar certainly does; we don't have a road network for environmental reasons either, and this still wouldn't affect us much, because there already are fees in place for using our infrastructure, which are invoiced to the transporter if foreign. No payment, no entry."

OOC: The definition may be an oops on our part, but the use of "vehicle" may be relevant. I don't ever recall seeing a train being referred to as a vehicle, or a ship, or a plane. But you do make a good point; for next run we could just remove "road" from the title and alter the wording to fit all cargo transport... or just add it to the definition. Both work. *shrug*

So you're telling me that this proposal, whose preamble is explicitly about streamlining the flow of road traffic, would be satisfied if we designated 2 points for receiving cargo bearing hot air balloons? Or did you mean to say that each form of transport that exists within a nation should be available to foreign transporters? There is plenty to clarify if you try again with this.

Also, clause II and IV requires that in every instance, whatever free trade agreements and open borders may otherwise be in place, every goods vehicle crossing a border must give advance notification to some official body of their cargo and intended route and a charge be made in all cases. This is a rare example of a free trade category proposal that significantly limits free trade. Clause X, meanwhile, rules out any requirement that drivers have minimum rest periods during their journey. And why do you define "waybill" in order to then make no further use of the term?

[Chairman Cities]

After Reading The Listed Proposal " International Road Freight" Standards It Seems A Bit Redundant To Stop And Frisk A Freight Haul After It's Inside Boarders, It Would Make More Sense To Cut The Head Of The Snake [ Enforce Border Check Policies And Upadete D.O.T. Procedures ]
We The Government Of USCC Can't Vote "Yea" On This Proposal As It Written Therefore Rejecting The 1st Reading Is The Administration Final Answer .

[Alba and Cymru]

Support.

[Temasek-Riau]

>:( After Reading The Listed Proposal " International Road Freight" Standards It Seems A Bit Redundant To Stop And Frisk A Freight Haul After It's Inside Boarders, It Would Make More Sense To Cut The Head Of The Snake [ Enforce Border Check Policies And Upadete D.O.T. Procedures ]
We The Government Of USCC Can't Vote "Yea" On This Proposal As It Written Therefore Rejecting The 1st Reading Is The Administration Final Answer .

As a country that endorses free trade, Temasek-Riau would like to engage you on this matter constructively.

I think with regards to your concern of redundancy, we can say that most of these trade standards have not yet been implemented and discussed within the World Assembly framework, to which this documents serves as first-of-its-kind. So yes, there is a purpose and use to this resolution which we are advocating for.

With regards to border checks, this clause already states that:

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


Which means states do not lose their sovereign right to conduct border checks. As such, member states are given full flexibility in deciding between a relaxed border check (with the help of the waybill) or a full-on physical check.

As such, we would request you - and the rest of the international community - to reconsider the prevailing mood that is against this bill, to one that looks more favourably upon this resolution.

[The land between the Prut and the Nistru]

Can you please explain XI,it is very hard to follow.

[Kenmoria]

Can you please explain XI,it is very hard to follow.

(OOC: Clause XI has two main purposes. Firstly, it acknowledges that the legislation aims to tackle the issue of dangerous cargo entering member states. However, secondly, clause XI reminds the reader that this legislation does not cover what should happen to this cargo after it has entered member states.)

[The land between the Prut and the Nistru]

(OOC: Clause XI has two main purposes. Firstly, it acknowledges that the legislation aims to tackle the issue of dangerous cargo entering member states. However, secondly, clause XI reminds the reader that this legislation does not cover what should happen to this cargo after it has entered member states.)
Well, doesn't that ruin the entire purpose of the resolution?

[Ardiveds]

"Opposed. Our nation has many privatised roads and bridges with tolls and we'd rather not put unnecessary strain on our bureaucracy by being the middle man between them and the vehicles they charge. They maintain the roads and they can collect the charge for said maintenance themselves at the tolls."
--- Kaiser

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Clause XI has two main purposes. Firstly, it acknowledges that the legislation aims to tackle the issue of dangerous cargo entering member states. However, secondly, clause XI reminds the reader that this legislation does not cover what should happen to this cargo after it has entered member states.)
Well, doesn't that ruin the entire purpose of the resolution?

(OOC: It doesn’t ruin the purpose of the legislation, rather it acknowledges the policy area to which the legislation is constrained. The purpose of this proposal is solely to regulate the international transport of goods, rather than the safe handling of those goods once they’ve been imported.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: @ Uan aa Boa: If your nation can only be reached through air travel, then obviously this wouldn't affect you. Unless you insist on calling airships "vehicles". If you share land border with anyone at all, presumably sometimes people would want to enter your nation by land? So you would most likely already have land crossings, whether or not they were connected to a road network or not.

(OOC: Clause XI has two main purposes. Firstly, it acknowledges that the legislation aims to tackle the issue of dangerous cargo entering member states. However, secondly, clause XI reminds the reader that this legislation does not cover what should happen to this cargo after it has entered member states.)
Well, doesn't that ruin the entire purpose of the resolution?

(OOC: It doesn’t ruin the purpose of the legislation, rather it acknowledges the policy area to which the legislation is constrained. The purpose of this proposal is solely to regulate the international transport of goods, rather than the safe handling of those goods once they’ve been imported.)

OOC: Also, there is at least one if not two existing resolutions that deal with vehicles and traffic safety and fairly sure at least a few others deal with what nations must or must not let through. This one can't contradict any of those, so anything to do with the actual cargo handling is intentionally left out. Since it looks like we need to redraft this anyway, we'll try to make that clearer in the next attempt. Same for the border checks, since a baffling number of people seem to think this aims to eliminate such for some reason? Maybe that clarifying clause should've been like the first clause of the proposal?

"Opposed. Our nation has many privatised roads and bridges with tolls and we'd rather not put unnecessary strain on our bureaucracy by being the middle man between them and the vehicles they charge. They maintain the roads and they can collect the charge for said maintenance themselves at the tolls."
--- Kaiser

IC: "So your nation is not in fact a nation but a collection of fiefdoms? Any viable nation would have to have a central government of some kind to be able to deal with all the already existing resolutions. Or are you saying that it's just that your road network is not really a network?"

[Ardiveds]

"Opposed. Our nation has many privatised roads and bridges with tolls and we'd rather not put unnecessary strain on our bureaucracy by being the middle man between them and the vehicles they charge. They maintain the roads and they can collect the charge for said maintenance themselves at the tolls."
--- Kaiser

IC: "So your nation is not in fact a nation but a collection of fiefdoms? Any viable nation would have to have a central government of some kind to be able to deal with all the already existing resolutions. Or are you saying that it's just that your road network is not really a network?"

IC: "Ummm... forgive me ambassador but I don't get how or where you got that impression. Our nation does have a central govenment elected by the people, for the people. And yes we do deal with all the existing resolutions _{despite how much of a headache some of them are} but the roads that are contracted out to private entities are done so for a reason. You might not like the concept of tolls and bureaucracy might be smooth as butter in your nation but Ardiveds is not your nation and don't assume you know the issues and intricacies of our government."
--- Kaiser

[Araraukar]

"don't assume you know the issues and intricacies of our government."
--- Kaiser

"It is exactly because I don't know your nation that I asked you for more information. If you have private road owners, presumably their roads need to conform at least to some minimum safety standard and be inspected occasionally to make sure they do so? That means they - and most likely the amount of money they collect for the use of their roads - are marked down in some government database somewhere. Does your people's government for the people also have to pay for the use of the roads? How about police or emergency services? The military?"

[Ardiveds]

"don't assume you know the issues and intricacies of our government."
--- Kaiser

"It is exactly because I don't know your nation that I asked you for more information. If you have private road owners, presumably their roads need to conform at least to some minimum safety standard and be inspected occasionally to make sure they do so? That means they - and most likely the amount of money they collect for the use of their roads - are marked down in some government database somewhere. Does your people's government for the people also have to pay for the use of the roads? How about police or emergency services? The military?"

"Ambassador, the private entities don't "own" the road. all the roads in our nation are owned by the government. The companies simply maintain the particular roads. Yes the government does keep a close watch on whether the standards for safety are maintained and yes, both the amount of money they collect and how it is used are recorded in government registries. obviously certain vehicles like emergency services, the military, buses etc. don't have to pay. We hope your curiosity has been sated."
--- Kaiser

[Anaec]

Clause IV states that a fee is required each time a cargo-carrying vehicle in which the cargo is intended to be traded. This is unacceptable to Anaec as we believe in international cooperation, which free trade is a part of. Though countries we don't exactly believe it can take advantage of these, I believe the principle of peaceful international cooperation is better than condemnation and mutual disadvantage.

[Dudecia]

Dudecia cannot support a resolution that charges an industry to do business on its land. This would be detrimental to trade and would no doubt cause a decline in overall trade

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We have voted against the proposal on the basis that clauses IV and X are entirely unacceptable and article VI would be improved by the ommission of all language after the first comma.

OOC: And encourage Ara to change his attitude immensely and do the basic research into actual practices (the primary writer should do so as well) instead of dismissing them as "something I think is stupid in general".

[Kandorith]

The Empire shall vote against the proposal for multiple reasons, but mainly because of clause X. The Empire shall hold every right to stop all transport vehicles at any point, may it be at toll roads, traffic checks or even routine checks, province crossings and of course at the border itself. Also on clause III; transport vehicles can use the regular border crossings like everyone else, there shall be no exceptions for any international traffic.

Furthermore on the clause "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" Nah, we shall not. We shall leave that to the toll services themselves. We will not be put up with this extra layer of bureaucracy.

[Lakshapura]

Lakshapura cannot support this resolution and will vote against.

First, the precise requirements of the law are unclear and vulnerable to abuse. States may use their powers to search, stop, and charge fees to international vehicles to effectively stop commerce without violating the statute. States like Lakshapura with vast national parks and untouched wilderness may designate almost the entire border as "environmentally sensitive areas" under section V, making the law ineffective. Furthermore, section VI grants states the ability to create their own categories of vehicle and charge different rates for each category; without some international standard, other states could take advantage of this power for monetary gain and commerce control. Finally, sections II and VI require nationwide systems of commerce and regulation. Our quiet nation has only recently opened its borders, and only slightly. We do not have the well-funded, well-staffed agencies necessary to comply with these portions of the bill. If the Assembly will mandate economic regulations, it must not pass off the work of enforcement to member states so carelessly.

Second, the law infringes on Lakshapura's sovereignty. The World Assembly is an international cooperative body, and member states do not lose their independence by joining. Section III mandates that states keep open points of entry except when closing their borders "for compelling reasons," a mandate that clearly denies each member state its inherent power to control their own borders. We find it unsettling that this law might pass without ever defining "compelling reasons." Additionally, for most of our history, we have not permitted immigration at all. Lakshapura's immigration system is too young for open borders. And emigration is banned - these permanent entry points will only give lawbreakers and traitors more opportunity to escape. Section X's restriction on stops all but ensures that criminals will flow freely across our borders under the guise of commerce.

Third, our legal experts find the bill's insistence on fees confusing. The bill seems on its face to support the free movement of goods across borders. In its words, it tries to "more effectively streamline the flow of goods from transporters to consumers." Yet it imposes mandatory fees on all vehicles and then leaves the dirty work to individual state governments. Why would the bill not allow states to charge nothing? And the bill does not require any of the fee revenue to go to the World Assembly - so why would the bill require fees at all? We in Lakshapura believe in closing our borders to all except the most worthy immigrants, but we understand that many member states have the opposite philosophy. They will see this bill as a protectionist measure, and rightfully so.

For these reasons, Lakshapura will vote against the bill. We hope that the Assembly can find a better solution for this issue in the future.

[The New Sicilian State]

Lakshapura cannot support this resolution and will vote against.

First, the precise requirements of the law are unclear and vulnerable to abuse. States may use their powers to search, stop, and charge fees to international vehicles to effectively stop commerce without violating the statute.

"Yes, they may search. Yes they may stop vehicles, and yes they must charge fees. However, you've jumped to the stoppage of commerce entirely and I'm not sure upon what this argument is founded upon."

States like Lakshapura with vast national parks and untouched wilderness may designate almost the entire border as "environmentally sensitive areas" under section V, making the law ineffective.

"If anything, I would consider the law more effective because of this particular situation."

Furthermore, section VI grants states the ability to create their own categories of vehicle and charge different rates for each category; without some international standard, other states could take advantage of this power for monetary gain and commerce control.

"Still not too sure where you're coming from on this one. The mentioned clause addresses examples such as charging more for transport vehicles that are known by reputable standards to impact the environment more than others. In short, a member state could charge more for a gas-guzzling truck then one that happens to be a little more eco-friendly. However, in the D.N.S.S, transport vehicles are not often synonymous with 'eco-friendly'. However, I can see your argument and the resulting lack of clarity, the clear definition of transport vehicles will be installed in the next pass."

Finally, sections II and VI require nationwide systems of commerce and regulation. Our quiet nation has only recently opened its borders, and only slightly. We do not have the well-funded, well-staffed agencies necessary to comply with these portions of the bill. If the Assembly will mandate economic regulations, it must not pass off the work of enforcement to member states so carelessly.

"That's what we do here in the World Assembly: pass off the work of enforcement to member states. I assure great care was taken here, ambassador. Had this stood a chance of passing, your state would very well be responsible with its implementation, as it is with every resolution."

Second, the law infringes on Lakshapura's sovereignty.

(OOC: I must admit I'm surprised that it took until this landed at vote for people to start making the NatSov argument)

The World Assembly is an international cooperative body, and member states do not lose their independence by joining. Section III mandates that states keep open points of entry except when closing their borders "for compelling reasons," a mandate that clearly denies each member state its inherent power to control their own borders. We find it unsettling that this law might pass without ever defining "compelling reasons." Additionally, for most of our history, we have not permitted immigration at all. Lakshapura's immigration system is too young for open borders. And emigration is banned - these permanent entry points will only give lawbreakers and traitors more opportunity to escape.

"This is simply incorrect. Please note that Section III only addresses the matter of transport vehicles. You're more than welcome to forbid any other vehicles or persons into your country. Besides, completely locking everything down suggests that you've never and will never welcome transport vehicles from foreign countries including those doing trade with your own country. If that's the case, why are you in this room, sir? Considering the nature of these points of entry, I hardly believe they give any more opportunity for lawbreakers and traitors to escape that of any other point on the border. Criminals are likely to try and escape through areas where no one is around, rather than a fully staffed border checkpoint."

Section X's restriction on stops all but ensures that criminals will flow freely across our borders under the guise of commerce.

"Your state is more than welcome to search the vehicles at the border, as defined by section IX. Note that the resolution does not cover national road freight, but international road freight. If you have criminals traveling around in freight trucks destined to never leave the country, surely that's their problem. And if you happen to miss the criminals at your border search, or if you neglect to search a truck at the border and someone important gets through, surely that's your problem. The resolution does not bear responsibility for neglectful circumstance.

Third, our legal experts find the bill's insistence on fees confusing. The bill seems on its face to support the free movement of goods across borders. In its words, it tries to "more effectively streamline the flow of goods from transporters to consumers." Yet it imposes mandatory fees on all vehicles and then leaves the dirty work to individual state governments.

"I've been more than convinced on this matter, ambassador. In the next pass, we will be removing the mandate on fees. It was my own judgement error, surely you understand."

[Araraukar]

OOC: And encourage Ara to change his attitude immensely and do the basic research into actual practices (the primary writer should do so as well) instead of dismissing them as "something I think is stupid in general".

OOC: I'll never not think road tolls to be stupid. I think many things done by people and governments in RL are stupid. That doesn't mean I was incapable of incorprating them as mentions or reasons in a proposal. Also, the current proposal is perfectly applicable to systems with road tolls - their existence is indeed a big part of the reason for the proposal in the first place. So whether I think they're stupid or not, it has nothing to do with the proposal's contents.

Also, this got to vote at a time that was an inconvenient timing for both of us (IA's proposal having been withdrawn at the last minute), so we were perhaps a little less well prepared than we should have been, for the debate. Not that it or anything we say here, would have helped, given the delegate stomp right out of the gate. It would be useful if someone could post the reasons here, but then big delegacies rarely bother to tell anyone anything on the actual forums... which bafflingly includes IA.