NATION

PASSWORD

PASSED: International Competition Law

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

PASSED: International Competition Law

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:53 pm

International Competition Law
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Significant


REALIZING that anti-competitive practices are restrictive to the international market and inhibit the fair trade of goods,

The World Assembly hereby

LIMITS this resolution to the international market,

HOWEVER reserves the inherent right to openly legislate further on the subjects of competition law and specific market regulation;

GENERALLY DEFINES “collusion” as a public or private agreement which occurs between two or more businesses to divide a market, set prices, limit production, or generally prevent competition;

DEFINES “cartel” as a group of two or more businesses that collude to limit competition within an industry or market;

BANS the formation of cartels and instructs the International Trade Administration (ITA) to determine the existence of a cartel, and restrict existing and future cartels from interacting on an international scale,

DEFINES “price-fixing” as the collusion of two or more business to sell the same product or service at the same price and “bid-rigging” as the collusion of two or more businesses as to which business will submit the winning bid in a competitive bidding process;

BANS price-fixing and bid-rigging and instructs the ITA to monitor and report any suspected actions of price-fixing and bid-rigging to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

DEFINES “anti-competitive exclusive dealing” as the collusion of two or more businesses to buy or sell products or services only among themselves, if either of the businesses are independent, but contractually owned by the other, and there exists a conspiracy to monopolize or a potential for diminished competition;

DEFINES “group boycott” as the collusion of two or more businesses, in an effort to decrease competition, to refuse to interact with another business until they agree to stop interacting with a targeted business;

BANS anti-competitive exclusive dealing and group boycotting; instructs the ITA to monitor and report anti-competitive exclusive dealing and group boycotting to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

DEFINES “market division” as the collusion of two or more businesses to allocate shares of the market among themselves, wherein no party will interfere with another in their allocated market;

BANS market division and instructs the ITA to monitor and report any suspected actions of market division to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

PROTECTS governments from being held financially liable for non-tangible foreign monetary losses that are a result of the dissolution of a business on grounds of the above proscribed practices;

EXTENDS the authority of the ITA to:

INVESTIGATE and approve or deny international business mergers, ensuring that such mergers are not acts of monopolization or may unintentionally prevent competition;

SUGGEST the dissolution of businesses to national governments;

COMPILE annually a list of repeat offenders of anti-competitive practices and distribute it among the general market.


[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]
Last edited by Flibbleites on Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:19 pm, edited 12 times in total.

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Qumkent » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:28 pm

Flawed, and utterly wrongheaded, Dr Castro, why governments should be allowed to continue to operate or license anti-competative monopolies is utterly beyind us and smacks of caprice and absurdity.



Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:39 pm

Qumkent wrote:Flawed, and utterly wrongheaded, Dr Castro, why governments should be allowed to continue to operate or license anti-competative monopolies is utterly beyind us and smacks of caprice and absurdity.


Is the exclusion of government-allowed or government monopolies the only "flawed, and utterly wrongheaded" part, or does Your Excellency have beef with the any of the text of the resolution?

Anyways, I've chosen to exclude those things because it is a such a robust issue in itself, that I could not possibly legislate on those and legislate on international competition law in general within a single resolution.

Although, since you've cast the line, I might as well bite: why does Your Excellency immediately cast government or government-allowed monopolies in a bad light? Many nations (and indeed perhaps the entire international economy) have benefited from them, especially government monopolies: postal services, emergency services, healthcare, copyrights, patents... the list goes on. Perhaps this outburst is just a free-trade knee-jerk reaction to the word 'government'?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Qumkent » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:58 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Qumkent wrote:Flawed, and utterly wrongheaded, Dr Castro, why governments should be allowed to continue to operate or license anti-competative monopolies is utterly beyind us and smacks of caprice and absurdity.


Is the exclusion of government-allowed or government monopolies the only "flawed, and utterly wrongheaded" part, or does Your Excellency have beef with the any of the text of the resolution?

Anyways, I've chosen to exclude those things because it is a such a robust issue in itself, that I could not possibly legislate on those and legislate on international competition law in general within a single resolution.

Although, since you've cast the line, I might as well bite: why does Your Excellency immediately cast government or government-allowed monopolies in a bad light? Many nations (and indeed perhaps the entire international economy) have benefited from them, especially government monopolies: postal services, emergency services, healthcare, copyrights, patents... the list goes on. Perhaps this outburst is just a free-trade knee-jerk reaction to the word 'government'?

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]




There is no need to become rhetorical Dr Castro, our problem with this statute is that it cannot pretend to seek to outlaw or regulate against anti-competetive practices if it explicity allows a massive chunk of the world economy to continue to behave in an anti-competetive way. In fact by allowing this exemption this statute would become an anti-competition law, formalising a specific handicap of the ability of the private sector to compete with the public sector.


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:09 pm

Qumkent wrote:There is no need to become rhetorical Dr Castro, our problem with this statute is that it cannot pretend to seek to outlaw or regulate against anti-competetive practices if it explicity allows a massive chunk of the world economy to continue to behave in an anti-competetive way. In fact by allowing this exemption this statute would become an anti-competition law, formalising a specific handicap of the ability of the private sector to compete with the public sector.


If I could include it, I honestly would. But, since I'm not about to completely outlaw them with a single clause, addressing them would take more space than is provided. Government monopolies and government-granted monopolies are not always Bad Things, which is probably where our two mindsets diverge, and Your Excellency probably wants me to ban those Bad Things. We could have a debate on government and government-granted monopolies, but what is the purpose of debating here?

Furthermore, I think Your Excellency is wildly incorrect in calling government and government-granted monopolies a 'massive chunk of the world economy'. Perhaps if you weren't meaning to be relative...

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Qumkent » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:31 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Qumkent wrote:There is no need to become rhetorical Dr Castro, our problem with this statute is that it cannot pretend to seek to outlaw or regulate against anti-competetive practices if it explicity allows a massive chunk of the world economy to continue to behave in an anti-competetive way. In fact by allowing this exemption this statute would become an anti-competition law, formalising a specific handicap of the ability of the private sector to compete with the public sector.


If I could include it, I honestly would. But, since I'm not about to completely outlaw them with a single clause, addressing them would take more space than is provided. Government monopolies and government-granted monopolies are not always Bad Things, which is probably where our two mindsets diverge, and Your Excellency probably wants me to ban those Bad Things. We could have a debate on government and government-granted monopolies, but what is the purpose of debating here?

Furthermore, I think Your Excellency is wildly incorrect in calling government and government-granted monopolies a 'massive chunk of the world economy'. Perhaps if you weren't meaning to be relative...

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]




Dr Castro please point out to us where we have ever said that government monopolies are a bad thing ?


Our point, if your care to read what we have written instead of inventing our position for yourself, is not that government monopolies are "bad", but that a law attempting to deal with anti-competetive practices should do so, and not introduce new anti-competetive biases.

We accept that the matter of government monopolies is a broad subject but does that mean that it should be left out of a statute dealing with competition law, merely that the law should be flexible enough to deal broadly with a full range of competition issues.


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2449
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Krioval » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:32 pm

The issue is not whether government monopolies can be a force for good or evil, but whether legislation mandating international competition should exclude governmental entities outright. There are loopholes here so large that any nation could effectively "nationalize" every sector of their private economy while allowing the individual players to have the exact level of control they already enjoy. In short, the Great Chiefdom feels that not addressing governmental monopolies would effectively make this proposal do absolutely nothing at the end of the day.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Qumkent wrote:Our point, if your care to read what we have written instead of inventing our position for yourself, is not that government monopolies are "bad", but that a law attempting to deal with anti-competetive practices should do so, and not introduce new anti-competetive biases.

I interpret what I read, if a clear position isn't exactly given. Your Excellency should review what they say, making sure that they are indeed saying what they mean. Your comments aren't exactly enlightening: they sound to me like the same-old anti-government vitriol. I'm assuming, based on this response, that Your Excellency and Ambassador Tyvok share the same concerns.

Qumkent wrote:We accept that the matter of government monopolies is a broad subject but does that mean that it should be left out of a statute dealing with competition law, merely that the law should be flexible enough to deal broadly with a full range of competition issues.

And what are your suggestions on doing so? This question goes for Ambassador Tyvok, also. I'm certainly interested in ensuring that nationalized industries are also bound by international competition law, but I'm not at all convinced that it can be done fairly and effectively with the rather draconian character limits. There are certain services that benefit from government monopolies on the international scale; postal unions, for example.

Furthermore, does Your Excellency believe that the World Assembly should be enforcing competition laws on both the domestic and international markets? I careened off of the purpose of this legislation while responding to your concerns. If we are only interested in international markets, I could just reword "business" to something else.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Qumkent » Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:05 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
I interpret what I read, if a clear position isn't exactly given. Your Excellency should review what they say, making sure that they are indeed saying what they mean. Your comments aren't exactly enlightening: they sound to me like the same-old anti-government vitriol. I'm assuming, based on this response, that Your Excellency and Ambassador Tyvok share the same concerns.



We gave you a clear position Dr Castro, pretending that we did not in order to justify berating us about opinions you imagine us to hold and then proceeding to become unpleasant and vaguely insulting towards us is of no benefit to anyone. In order to preclude any further occasion for such behaviour we will leave you to this task with no further input on the part of the mission of the Principality of Qumkent. We wish you the best of luck Dr Castro.


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:39 pm

Qumkent wrote:We gave you a clear position Dr Castro, pretending that we did not in order to justify berating us about opinions you imagine us to hold and then proceeding to become unpleasant and vaguely insulting towards us is of no benefit to anyone. In order to preclude any further occasion for such behaviour we will leave you to this task with no further input on the part of the mission of the Principality of Qumkent. We wish you the best of luck Dr Castro.

Your Excellency is overreacting. I understood Ambassador Tyvok's stance on the current draft in his first response. I did not understand yours. You may have not said that government monopolies were a bad thing, but you certainly didn't say they were good; from my reading, your comments showed a clear distaste for them. Obviously, I was wrong. If Your Excellency would speak more economically and less fiery, then perhaps I wouldn't have interpreted the exclusion of government monopolies being "flawed, and utterly wrongheaded ... [smacking] of caprice and absurdity" as meaning Your Excellency asking for their total outlawing.

But, if Your Excellency is so quick to resort to diplomatically ostracizing my delegation, then I question how strongly Your Excellency feels on the subject anyways. It doesn't do anybody any good sitting a locked room while the house is burning down. I've offered my thoughts on how to begin to address your concerns; I am awaiting yours. There's a rather annoying habit within the World Assembly (one that I am sometimes guilty of) in which delegations go on and on about what they think is wrong with a proposal, but never give any actual, substantial suggestions in regards to language. I obviously excluded government monopolies because I did not think I could address them in this resolution... If I knew of a way, I would have done it. Please, enlighten me. I think this unilateral way of shaping the international economy is getting a tad old, so I don't want to go through with this without both sides of the aisle having a share.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:07 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:09 pm

OOC: Just one preambulatory clause? I would suggest adding a little more fluff there...
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:11 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:OOC: Just one preambulatory clause? I would suggest adding a little more fluff there...

(OOC: I wouldn't be surprised if the final draft didn't have any preambulatory clauses, considering the topic and how much might need to be covered. :\ That and I couldn't think of anything when I was writing this. Feel free to suggest. :) )

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:39 am

So far, Ms. Harper thinks this resolution has a great potential to succeed. If I find any problems later I will inform you accordingly.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18642
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:17 am

OOC: I like it, but considering the Assembly's apaprent stance on 'Free Trade' nowadays I doubt its viability...

Wouldn't banning government monopolies, too, effectively be an 'ideological ban' against Communism?
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:23 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: I like it, but considering the Assembly's apaprent stance on 'Free Trade' nowadays I doubt its viability...

Wouldn't banning government monopolies, too, effectively be an 'ideological ban' against Communism?

(OOC: Well, it depends on what stance you think the World Assembly has taken on the trade debate. I don't think it leans toward fair trade, but instead regulation. Even a democratic socialist like myself sees the value in competitive business. Also, I never thought about the ideological ban: I wouldn't want to outright ban government and government-allowed monopolies, but instead regulate them so that states themselves wouldn't have an entire regional market at their fingertips... The question there is how much regulation is too much?)

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:44 am

While we find the blocking nature of this proposal as it applies to domestic trade policy highly entertaining, we fear that it suffers from all of Dr Castro's usual problems. We find the slipping of operative bans into the subordinate clauses of the definitions particularly underhand.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Krioval
Minister
 
Posts: 2449
Founded: Jan 24, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Krioval » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:52 am

Gobbannium wrote:While we find the blocking nature of this proposal as it applies to domestic trade policy highly entertaining, we fear that it suffers from all of Dr Castro's usual problems. We find the slipping of operative bans into the subordinate clauses of the definitions particularly underhand.


Such as honesty and directness in speech? Trust me, Your Excellency, you are hardly the first to notice.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:21 pm

Gobbannium wrote:While we find the blocking nature of this proposal as it applies to domestic trade policy highly entertaining, we fear that it suffers from all of Dr Castro's usual problems. We find the slipping of operative bans into the subordinate clauses of the definitions particularly underhand.

Exactly how does this resolution block future resolutions from regulating domestic trade policy? What are my "usual problems"?

And why would I attempt to hide the bans, if the entire point of the resolution is to ban those actions? Use some common sense; it's nothing but styling. I tend to group like things together, if you did not decipher that little mind-trick already.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:08 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Gobbannium wrote:While we find the blocking nature of this proposal as it applies to domestic trade policy highly entertaining, we fear that it suffers from all of Dr Castro's usual problems. We find the slipping of operative bans into the subordinate clauses of the definitions particularly underhand.

Exactly how does this resolution block future resolutions from regulating domestic trade policy?

While it is highly arguable, we take the position that the encouragement to align domestic policy with the mandates of this proposal will make more intrusive legislation on the subject, in either direction, at the very least tricky.

What are my "usual problems"?

If you have not listened to us on the subject before, Dr, you are not going to start now.

And why would I attempt to hide the bans, if the entire point of the resolution is to ban those actions?

Because given the current anti-Free Trade sentiment of the assembly, your proposal is more likely to pass if the voters do not notice the bans that they are voting for. Given the verbal camouflage employed, this can but be seen as underhand.

Use some common sense; it's nothing but styling. I tend to group like things together, if you did not decipher that little mind-trick already.

We did not notice, largely because we have rarely deduced much connection between thing that you consider to be 'like'. We remain unconvinced, frankly.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:50 pm

Honoured Dr. Castro,

It may be wise to emphasise that member states should still be able to, if they wish, retain monopolies on essential public services (such as water, electricity, gas, maybe telephone or postal services).

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:53 pm

Gobbannium wrote:While it is highly arguable, we take the position that the encouragement to align domestic policy with the mandates of this proposal will make more intrusive legislation on the subject, in either direction, at the very least tricky.

It would likely be tricky with or without the encouragement. But I can't see the correlation between encouraging nations to adopt competition laws and the difficulty of passing World Assembly resolutions doing it for them. I suppose the encouragement clause could be construed as supporting a NatSov view of domestic competition regulation. If it's too worrisome to include, and too insignificant to fight for, I have no objections to removing the clause altogether.

Gobbannium wrote:If you have not listened to us on the subject before, Dr, you are not going to start now.

I'm not sure how old you are, Prince Rhodri. But I'm well nearing sixty, and I couldn't possibly remember each and every debate between our delegations. Are these problems pertinent to the legislation, or commentary of my delegation? (OOC: In other words, I've been involved in so many debates, I couldn't begin to wonder where you've mentioned these 'problems'...)

Gobbannium wrote:Because given the current anti-Free Trade sentiment of the assembly, your proposal is more likely to pass if the voters do not notice the bans that they are voting for. Given the verbal camouflage employed, this can but be seen as underhand.

Competition and the destruction of monopolies and corrupt conglomerates and cartels is not antithetical to fair trade, if ever this recent trend is even in support of fair trade. I've always maintained that the general voting body is rather fickle, and with the failure of a trade regulation act has blown my regulation theory out of the water. This proposal is a direct response to the Trade Enhancement Act, which would have fostered the growth of international monopolies and cartels, so perhaps it might be a good idea to work that in the proposal, and remind the fickle body that "this resolution against TEA; TEA bad; this resolution GOOD".

Gobbannium wrote:We did not notice, largely because we have rarely deduced much connection between thing that you consider to be 'like'. We remain unconvinced, frankly.

Define cartels; ban cartels. Define price-fixing; ban price-fixing. It should be a predictable pattern.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
[/float][float=right]Image[/float]
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 208
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:49 pm

Its being said before, Ambassador. But I must reiterate the concerns for the proposal. The devoid of pragmatic organization in favor of implementing trickery in the wording and flow, with the use of alternating cycles of Define & Ban replace what could be a much more straightforward, clean, shorter and organized proposal.
Last edited by Stash Kroh on Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Rutgaria
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: May 14, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Rutgaria » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:18 pm

I will be quite honest, I am new to the WA resolutin/proposal scene, but please, Dr. Castro, if you will, clearify this statement for me:

HOWEVER reserves the inherent right to legislate further on the general subject of competition law.


This short line seems to implicant a "loop hole" in the ITA of being able to legislate on all matters of competition. Seemingly suggests the ITA's ability to manage competition in "general" which includes national and international. Now perhaps your intention isn't for the ITA to oversee competition on a national level, because that would be a gross intrusion on a Nation's soverignty, but if it isn't I personally would like to see a more clear "definition", since you seem to like them, of what exactly this inherent right implies.

Now it isn't out of the realm of possiblity that i am misinterpreting it, but a response would be appreciated.

Scincerly,
Ambassador Rutgaria
Rutgaria, Honorable and Esteemed Ambassador and Founder of Imperia

User avatar
Gobbannium
Envoy
 
Posts: 332
Founded: Jan 10, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Gobbannium » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:20 am

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Gobbannium wrote:If you have not listened to us on the subject before, Dr, you are not going to start now.

I'm not sure how old you are, Prince Rhodri. But I'm well nearing sixty, and I couldn't possibly remember each and every debate between our delegations. Are these problems pertinent to the legislation, or commentary of my delegation? (OOC: In other words, I've been involved in so many debates, I couldn't begin to wonder where you've mentioned these 'problems'...)

They are pertinent to the legislation in that they create great flaws in it. You see only that which you wish to see, Dr Castro, and anything which does not fit your worldview is redefined until it does. While this is normally only personally exasperating, when it applies to the definitions of words in legislation it is little short of disastrous. (OOC: as to when, HRH has gone on about this sort of thing in about 50% of his responses since you started drafting your education act. There's no shortage of places to look, just not recently since I've been away.)

Gobbannium wrote:Because given the current anti-Free Trade sentiment of the assembly, your proposal is more likely to pass if the voters do not notice the bans that they are voting for. Given the verbal camouflage employed, this can but be seen as underhand.

Competition and the destruction of monopolies and corrupt conglomerates and cartels is not antithetical to fair trade, if ever this recent trend is even in support of fair trade.

This would be a classic example. We never mentioned fair trade, Doctor. Fair trade and free trade are not even close to one another in outlook or philosophy, and conflating them in this manner is at best unhelpful.

Gobbannium wrote:We did not notice, largely because we have rarely deduced much connection between thing that you consider to be 'like'. We remain unconvinced, frankly.

Define cartels; ban cartels. Define price-fixing; ban price-fixing. It should be a predictable pattern.

We note that it is now a visible pattern, despite these protests.

But enough of structure and habit. Let us move on to the proposal as it stands.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Category: Free Trade | Strength: Strong

We aren't entirely convinced about the category, but will freely admit that we are very much not an expert in this particular field.

LIMITS this resolution to the international marketplace, in which trade happens between two or more commercial entities of differing national headquartering;

You do realise that these are two distinct conditions, don't you? We just wish to be clear on this point, since it has considerable implications for national law.

HOWEVER reserves the inherent right to legislate further on the general subject of competition law;

As an aside to the delegate of Rutgaria, this is conventional if self-important wording making it clear that the World Assembly may introduce further legislation on the subject. Of itself it is pointless, since it changes the World Assembly's legal position not one whit, but it does have the effect of reassuring the nervous. We believe it was introduced as a replacement for a previous statement that somewhat ambiguously stated that the WA was not legislating on purely national anti-competitive matters, which was similarly pointless but reassuring.

GENERALLY DEFINES “collusion” as a public or private agreement which occurs between two or more businesses to divide a market, set prices, or limit production;

Note this for later.

DEFINES “cartel” as a group of two or more businesses that collude to limit competition within an industry or market;

BANS the formation of cartels and instructs the International Trade Administration (ITA) to restrict existing and future cartels from interacting on an international scale,

The existence of a cartel is often a matter of opinion, and the absolute requirements of this ban sit ill with that observation. Perhaps the ITA should be given leave to adjudicate as to what is or is not a cartel?

Incidentally, we can't recall when the ITA was set up (OOC: and it's been a long enough lunch break already that I don't want to go hunting through past resolutions). Could someone with the information at their fingertips enlighten us, please?

DEFINES “price-fixing” as the collusion of two or more business to sell the same product or service at the same price and “bid-rigging” as the collusion of two or more businesses as to which business will submit the winning bid in a competitive bidding process;

BANS price-fixing and bid-rigging and instructs the ITA to monitor and report any suspected actions of price-fixing and bid-rigging to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

Conversely, this does give the ITA the requisite duty that would allow the ban to be implemented. Much better.

DEFINES “refusal to deal” as the collusion of two or more businesses which restricts by any method the entities to whom goods or services are sold or bought; further defines “group boycott” as the collusion of two or more businesses to refuse to interact with another business until they agree to stop interacting with a targeted business;

BANS any practices that can be defined under “refusal to deal”, including the group boycotting, and instructs the ITA to monitor and report such actions to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

Here we have a considerable problem. The definition of collusion above, combined with the qualifier "by any method", renders national boycotts untenable. A national government is perfectly at liberty to demand that businesses within its borders not deal with the businesses of another country. Sadly, any companies complying with such a law would be colluding to refuse to deal in a very literal manner.

Aside from anything else, we need a degree of convincing that this section is necessary or useful at all. It seems to us a fundamental that businesses should have the right to deal or not deal with whomsoever they choose, just as individuals can choose not to interact with those they find offensive. What situations is this section intended to resolve that are unethical, and could it be rewritten to target such more effectively?

DEFINES “exclusive dealing” as the collusion of two or more businesses to buy or sell products or services only among themselves;

BANS the use of exclusive dealing if either of the businesses involved are independent, but contractually owned by the other; instructs the ITA to monitor and report exclusive dealing to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market, if it is suspected that such dealing can lead to intended or unintended monopolization;

Again, we must query the utility and ethics of this.

DEFINES “market division” as the collusion of two or more businesses to allocate shares of the market among themselves, wherein no party will interfere with another in their allocated market;

BANS market division and instructs the ITA to monitor and report any suspected actions of market division to the governments of the nations involved, as well as the general market;

While we wouldn't have used these words, we are satisfied that this will have desirable results.

EXTENDS the authority of the ITA to investigate and approve of international mergers, ensuring that such mergers are not acts of monopolization or may unintentionally prevent competition; to restrict businesses from interacting on an international scale, if they are repeat offenders of anti-competitive practices; to suggest dissolution of businesses to national governments; to compile annually a list of repeat offenders of anti-competitive practices and distribute it among the general market.

These are four distinct duties that do not sit well in such a listing, being unrelated except in fine detail. We would prefer each to have its own clause or subclause ourself, not least because the wording of the merger item troubles us somewhat. Regrettably at this point we are unable to put our finger on what precisely makes us uneasy about it; we shall return with more useful comment when it occurs to us.
Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc.
Ambassador to the World Assembly of the Principalities of Gobbannium

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:56 am

Gobbannium wrote:(OOC: and it's been a long enough lunch break already that I don't want to go hunting through past resolutions). Could someone with the information at their fingertips enlighten us, please?


It was Dr. Castro's Food Welfare Act, ambassador. If my memory serves me correctly.
Last edited by Unibot on Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads