NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks

Postby Auralia » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:33 am

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

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

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

The General Assembly,

  1. Declares that multilateral trade negotiations must be hosted at the World Assembly at least once every ten years, with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations;
  2. Mandates that the World Assembly Trade Commission provide any financial or logistical assistance that is reasonably required to host these negotiations;
  3. Requires that all member nations send at least one qualified delegate to these negotiations;
  4. Further requires that, during these negotiations, delegates make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other delegates in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved;
  5. Notes that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement.
Last edited by Flibbleites on Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:59 pm, edited 20 times in total.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:57 am

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

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

Postby Ossitania » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:34 pm

I think is pushing the envelope a bit. There's no need for the GA to mandate that everyone participate in trade negotiations.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:22 am

While we are not convinced that the effect would be significant, we would support this addition to Free Trade legislation.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:29 pm

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


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

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


You might be right about the strength. I'll consider changing it to Mild.
Last edited by Auralia on Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:29 pm

Submitted for a test run.

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

Postby Discoveria » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:02 pm

OOC: It seems a bit micromanage-y to me also, but I would probably vote for it. (With 16,000+ representatives at each talk, I doubt one talk could finish before the start of the next. If the delegates take turns to speak, each one has the equivalent of about 33 minutes...)
Last edited by Discoveria on Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

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

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:16 pm

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


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

User avatar
The Solarian Isles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 166
Founded: Oct 08, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Solarian Isles » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:40 pm

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

User avatar
ForTheHorde
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Jul 27, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby ForTheHorde » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm

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

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:33 pm

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


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

User avatar
Wu Wei Shan
Envoy
 
Posts: 265
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wu Wei Shan » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:12 am

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


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


But participation is NOT mandatory. What if you reduced it to WADs and Founders?
Last edited by Wu Wei Shan on Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Libertarian Socialist Tao of Wu Wei Shan: The greatest Taoist haven on NationStates. Who wouldn't want to live here?

Political Compass: Hard Left Libertarian

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18283
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:11 am

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

OOC: On the basis of past precedent, that would be illegal for 'meta-gaming'. Also, founders aren't necessarily WA members.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Wu Wei Shan
Envoy
 
Posts: 265
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wu Wei Shan » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:23 am

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

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



How so? Why couldn't an action by the SC refer to WA delegates?
The Libertarian Socialist Tao of Wu Wei Shan: The greatest Taoist haven on NationStates. Who wouldn't want to live here?

Political Compass: Hard Left Libertarian

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:55 pm

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



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

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

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:01 am

I admit to being somewhat confused as to whether or not this is legal. If you take away the World Assembly Trade Commission's new trade negotiations (i.e. the new actions of the "committee") ... what does this proposal do? Anything? *scratches head*
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:33 am

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


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

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:40 am

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


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

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

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

Outside of your "Committee" (the WATC) ... what else does your proposal do? I don't think I see anything else, which should make this proposal illegal.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:19 am

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

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

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

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


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

Look at it this way: if I were to remove all references to the WATC, the proposal would still stand; I could simply state that negotiations must be held every year, without specifying who would run them.
Last edited by Auralia on Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:30 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The General Assembly,

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


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

Yours in concern,
Last edited by Mousebumples on Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:56 am

Mousebumples wrote:snip


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

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

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:07 pm

Mousebumples wrote:snip


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

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:56 pm

Auralia wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:snip


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

I believe the current version of the draft is legal, yes, after a quick review.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

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

Postby Alqania » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:00 am

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


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


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

IC: Lord Raekevik shook his head. "And where exactly in these headquarters is the Assembly supposed to host these negotiations? We would need a room at least as big as this chamber and this chamber is of course busy with its own proceedings. Is it not enough of a financial nightmare needing to host the Festering Snakepit and the Insecurity Counsel? Do we really want to spend money and gnomes on constructing another massive venue for the ridiculously large number of member states?"
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:18 am

I also don't perceive this doing much ... and what Alq said. It'd be a logistical nightmare as well.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads