NationStates

INTERNATIONAL POSTAL UNION
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Grays Harbor

NOTING the diversity of national postal systems;

WORKING to eliminate inefficiencies in international postal delivery;

The World Assembly,

1. CREATES the International Postal Union (IPU), as a union of postal administrations of all member states that will aim to work together to coordinate postal deliveries between all member states;

2a.1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution, the Freedom of transit, as the obligation for all postal administrations within the IPU to:
a) Relay and deliver postal items to or towards its destination in the most direct, safest and fastest route as possible;
b) Not discriminate between domestic and international postal items originating from postal administrations within the IPU;

2a.2. EMPHASISES that the definition of the freedom of transit shall not imply that a member state is obliged to permit all postal administrations within the IPU to traverse its territory, in order to relay or deliver the postal items;

2b. FURTHER DEFINES, also for the purpose of this Resolution:
• Hostilities, to include war, territorial and/or trade disputes, or refusal to recognize a nation's current government;
• Hazardous materials, as any nefarious inclusion to a mail package that could cause illness, injury, or death in a postal worker during routine transit, including but not limited to, chemical and biological agents, or explosives;

3a. INTRODUCES the International Reply Coupon which can be exchanged for the postage rate of one basic unregistered letter to be sent to a member state within the IPU;

3b. SPECIFIES that postal administrations in member states are not obliged to issue International Reply Coupons, but are required to honour International Reply Coupons in exchange for the postage of one basic unregistered letter at the international rate;

4. GUARANTEES the freedom of transit for all postal items throughout all member states, except where specifically limited elsewhere in this legislation;

5. SPECIFIES that:
a) Member states currently involved in hostilities shall be under no obligation to carry mail addressed to or sent from nations engaged in hostilities with them, except where mandated by international law;
b) Member states may determine procedures for handling hazardous materials in postal administrations under that nation's jurisdiction, and to determine which items may or may not be transmitted through that nation's postal system; including but not limited to hazardous or illegal materials;

6. PRESERVES the right of each postal administration in all member states to collect a reasonable fee for its handling of postal materials;

7. ENCOURAGES the development of fair common standards and the use of technology in postal delivery, including fee schedules and the proper handling of hazardous materials;

8. CALLS FOR monitoring and updating effective technical cooperation to meet the needs of postal customers.

(Co-authored by Krioval; Editing by Charlotte Ryberg)

BURNINATI0N wrote:I don't see any major problems with it. However, I am unsure how it will affect nations with different types of postal systems. In other words, I'm not sure how this would affect private postal systems verse government controlled ones.

Tanaara wrote:The major quibble I can see is this... Quote "Encouraging the adoption of fair common standards and the use of technology;..."

"What if a nation has very minimal technology? Must they suddenly advance technology wise - will they nill they - to accomodate this? What if they integrate some extreme technology, such as psionics or the arcane -will other nations be forced to change to 'keep up with the jones's' ?" The UnDelegate asked

"and I think that you very much forget that the members of the World Assembly come from more than one world, one planet. Must each nation now develope the means to transit postal items to the far flung corners of the galaxy and beyond? That does not do their economy much good now does it?"

Bears Armed wrote: Would there be an exemption for the postal services within nations that are currently at war with those to which the items in question are addressed?

Bears Armed wrote:Would nations have a right to ban the transit of 'hazardous' materials unless these are packed in a way that meets the nation's standards of safety?

Bears Armed wrote:Would nations have a right to ban the transit of goods of types whose possession by people within those same nations would be illegal?

Tanaara wrote:The major quibble I can see is this... Quote "Encouraging the adoption of fair common standards and the use of technology;..."

"What if a nation has very minimal technology? Must they suddenly advance technology wise - will they nill they - to accomodate this? What if they integrate some extreme technology, such as psionics or the arcane -will other nations be forced to change to 'keep up with the jones's' ?" The UnDelegate asked

"and I think that you very much forget that the members of the World Assembly come from more than one world, one planet. Must each nation now develope the means to transit postal items to the far flung corners of the galaxy and beyond? That does not do their economy much good now does it?"

Snrubenahs wrote:I have another concern. The postal system is really a business, whether it be privately or publicly owned, so what if one postal system edges out the WA system with better prices? Will we continue funding a defunct business somehow? What I am saying is, who is to pay for this massive infrastructure?

Grays Harbor wrote:

Snrubenahs wrote:I have another concern. The postal system is really a business, whether it be privately or publicly owned, so what if one postal system edges out the WA system with better prices? Will we continue funding a defunct business somehow? What I am saying is, who is to pay for this massive infrastructure?

You misconstrue this. This is not a WA postal system. This is an international multi-lateral treaty between the postal systems of the WA nations to ensure the timely and efficient movement of mail between the nations. This is not setting up a new postal system for everybody, just an agreement between each system and nation. It is designed so that the nations do not have to sign individual mail treaties with everybody else, but to put them all under one roof, so to speak. Each nation may set their own postal fees and regulations. This just ensures that mail can and will be carried between them without hinderance. (It is like the RW Universal Postal Union in that regard)

(Prior to the UPU, a postal system could charge extra fees to carry mail from another country. For example, prior to the UPU, if I sent a letter from New York to London, and it went via Portugal, Spain and France.. each of those could charge their own fee's for transit of the letter, payable by the addressee.)

2.) That Nations currently involved in hostilities are not required or obligated to carry the mail of those engaged in hostilities with them, either directly, or by transiting items from a third party addressed to the enemy.

2. Member states currently involved in hostilities shall be under no obligation to carry mail addressed to or sent from nations engaged in hostilities with them.

Grays Harbor wrote:Postal systems are not required to carry any materials, hazardous or illegal, which have been banned in their nation.

Grays Harbor wrote:

BURNINATI0N wrote:I don't see any major problems with it. However, I am unsure how it will affect nations with different types of postal systems. In other words, I'm not sure how this would affect private postal systems verse government controlled ones.

I would think that the ownership of postal systems (private vs government) would be a minor issue, and that the cooperation of all systems whether public or private would be the important consideration. I am sure that private systems would see the benefit of this as something to their advantage as it would help ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective international delivery of mail. Thats the theory, anyhow.

If you can think of a way to more clearly word the proposal so as to indicate that, I am open for improvements.

Linux and the X wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:Postal systems are not required to carry any materials, hazardous or illegal, which have been banned in their nation.

Is there any reason to specify "hazardous or illegal" materials which have been banned? Removing that clause would make the proposal more succinct, and the only practical difference is that it would remove the argument that nations are not required to carry materials that are illegal but not banned.

Serrland wrote:What is meant by "hostilities?" War, embargo, lack of recognition of sovereignity? Serrland is very much in agreement with this proposed resolution, but would like to see a clarification of the definition of "hostilities" in this context.