[PASSED] Respondeat Superior

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

This resolution should not pass on the basis that the matter of businesses liability on the employee should fall on national law jurisdictions. We don't want it to lean towards pro business or to the employee. Even with reasonable language used like reckless and intentionally is used it can be led to interpretation. We vote no.

[Separatist Peoples]

This resolution should not pass on the basis that the matter of businesses liability on the employee should fall on national law jurisdictions. We don't want it to lean towards pro business or to the employee. Even with reasonable language used like reckless and intentionally is used it can be led to interpretation. We vote no.

"This is exactly the mindset I sought to address with this proposal. The reckless use of employees as legal shields for the company discourages employment in sectors that face risk, such as security and driving, and shifts the burden of costs equitably to the entity responsible for the employee's presence: the employer. This statement suggests the good ambassador does not fully understand the economic realities underlying tort law."

[Emendatus Paradisium]

To whom it may concern,

The government of Emendatus Paradasium is most concerned with the amount of authority this proposition attempts to exert upon member nations. We believe that this proposed regulation is outside the bounds of both the purpose and the scope of the World Assembly, and that the Assembly should not have the authority to regulate a notion on this level. Not only is this outside of the bounds of the Assembly's authority, but it should be regarded as a waste of time. The Assembly has much more important matters to consider.

We fear and regret that too many economic restrictions of this caliber would restrict the World Assembly's influence by causing economically Libertarian nations - like Emendatus Paradisium - to leave the World Assembly in order to maintain a free and strong economy. This could also cause any nation to leave because they find the World Assembly's law to intrude upon previous laws that they consider to be better. This would hinder the World Assembly's ability to regulate more important matters, especially those pertaining to the prevention of war or preservation of human life.

Ιεσους Κυριος,
Cotton Renihan, Baptist
Emendatus Paradisium Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

To whom it may concern,

The government of Emendatus Paradasium is most concerned with the amount of authority this proposition attempts to exert upon member nations. We believe that this proposed regulation is outside the bounds of both the purpose and the scope of the World Assembly, and that the Assembly should not have the authority to regulate a notion on this level. Not only is this outside of the bounds of the Assembly's authority, but it should be regarded as a waste of time. The Assembly has much more important matters to consider.

We fear and regret that too many economic restrictions of this caliber would restrict the World Assembly's influence by causing economically Libertarian nations - like Emendatus Paradisium - to leave the World Assembly in order to maintain a free and strong economy. This could also cause any nation to leave because they find the World Assembly's law to intrude upon previous laws that they consider to be better. This would hinder the World Assembly's ability to regulate more important matters, especially those pertaining to the prevention of war or preservation of human life.

Ιεσους Κυριος,
Cotton Renihan, Baptist
Emendatus Paradisium Ambassador to the World Assembly

"Ambassador, liability is the best alternative to regulation to achieve social goals. This avoids regulation, a boon to libertarian organizations."

[Liberimery]

To whom it may concern,

The government of Emendatus Paradasium is most concerned with the amount of authority this proposition attempts to exert upon member nations. We believe that this proposed regulation is outside the bounds of both the purpose and the scope of the World Assembly, and that the Assembly should not have the authority to regulate a notion on this level. Not only is this outside of the bounds of the Assembly's authority, but it should be regarded as a waste of time. The Assembly has much more important matters to consider.

We fear and regret that too many economic restrictions of this caliber would restrict the World Assembly's influence by causing economically Libertarian nations - like Emendatus Paradisium - to leave the World Assembly in order to maintain a free and strong economy. This could also cause any nation to leave because they find the World Assembly's law to intrude upon previous laws that they consider to be better. This would hinder the World Assembly's ability to regulate more important matters, especially those pertaining to the prevention of war or preservation of human life.

Ιεσους Κυριος,
Cotton Renihan, Baptist
Emendatus Paradisium Ambassador to the World Assembly

"Ambassador, liability is the best alternative to regulation to achieve social goals. This avoids regulation, a boon to libertarian organizations."

Perhaps you should have been plainer in your language as was requested during drafting.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, liability is the best alternative to regulation to achieve social goals. This avoids regulation, a boon to libertarian organizations."

Perhaps you should have been plainer in your language as was requested during drafting.

"Ambassador, if the delegates of this Assembly cannot handle a little jargon, I weep for our future."

Ooc: I dont cater to dullards.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Perhaps you should have been plainer in your language as was requested during drafting.

"I'm really not sure how it's possible to be plainer or clearer than the black and white text of the preamble:

Believing that tort reform serves as an effective alternative to industry regulation by providing an opportunity for injured individuals to hold liable their institutional tortfeasors,

"You can lead an ambassador to the emphasized text, but you sure can't make him read it."

[Blackledge]

Opposed.

[TooBigRabbits]

"Ambassador, liability is the best alternative to regulation to achieve social goals. This avoids regulation, a boon to libertarian organizations."

Perhaps you should have been plainer in your language as was requested during drafting.

I believe the language used was fine but I agree that this is out of the scope of the WA. The WA should deal with international issues. I don't believe this has anything to do with international law.

[Queen Yuno]

Not a WA Delegate anymore but I hope this passes :3
I studied this law before ^_^
The way you wrote it IS like how it is in the textbook

[Jus]

Too much jargon. As a layman, I'm having a hard time understanding what the actual purpose of this proposal is. From what I do understand, it doesn't sound like an international issue.

[Weed]

On the one hand, the mere idea that we need an international law to require something that is so common place and obvious is a bit ridiculous. Of course, if an employee of a private institution does something wrong the employer should be liable. It doesn't really matter the other facts, even if the employee is directly defying training, orders, or procedures. It isn't the customer's fault that the employee is not a good one, they should be made whole one way or the other, and often the employee is not going to be capable of doing so.

I don't find the general premise to be controversial, but I also find it to be so simple and obvious that it seems to defy logic that we'd need an international law for this purpose. Almost all rational states are going to adopt the core of this policy, and if, for some strange reason, a state did not, it is hard to imagine even then that a civil tort between two people in a member state could become an issue of international importance. The imposition of the World Assembly into civil torts between our citizens is improper, even if the intent is to impose "thou shall not steal" levels of obvious standards.

Finally, and on an issue that it does not seem anyone has raised yet. Not that the author's intent is of any significance a this point, but out of curiosity was the emphasized term:

A plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single defendant may enjoin and hold liable the defendant's employer where the defendant:

had an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business;

Meant to exclude non-business employers from the operative clauses of this resolution? Such as member states themselves? I'm not sure it was successful, which could be a problem.

And even if it was successful, why would that not exclude not-for-profit or religious entities arbitrarily too? Are you telling me <<in an insane fictional nation that needs global big-brother to tell them>> the corporate bakery chain is liable if a delivery man hurts someone in an automobile accident when delivering a cake to a wedding, but the church is not liable if the preacher does the same?

[The Rhenish League]

On the one hand, the mere idea that we need an international law to require something that is so common place and obvious is a bit ridiculous. Of course, if an employee of a private institution does something wrong the employer should be liable. It doesn't really matter the other facts, even if the employee is directly defying training, orders, or procedures. It isn't the customer's fault that the employee is not a good one, they should be made whole one way or the other, and often the employee is not going to be capable of doing so.

I don't find the general premise to be controversial, but I also find it to be so simple and obvious that it seems to defy logic that we'd need an international law for this purpose. Almost all rational states are going to adopt the core of this policy, and if, for some strange reason, a state did not, it is hard to imagine even then that a civil tort between two people in a member state could become an issue of international importance. The imposition of the World Assembly into civil torts between our citizens is improper, even if the intent is to impose "thou shall not steal" levels of obvious standards.

Finally, and on an issue that it does not seem anyone has raised yet. Not that the author's intent is of any significance a this point, but out of curiosity was the emphasized term:

A plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single defendant may enjoin and hold liable the defendant's employer where the defendant:

had an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business;

Meant to exclude non-business employers from the operative clauses of this resolution? Such as member states themselves? I'm not sure it was successful, which could be a problem.

And even if it was successful, why would that not exclude not-for-profit or religious entities arbitrarily too? Are you telling me <<in an insane fictional nation that needs global big-brother to tell them>> the corporate bakery chain is liable if a delivery man hurts someone in an automobile accident when delivering a cake to a wedding, but the church is not liable if the preacher does the same?

"To answer your primary question, Ambassador, why this needs to be an international issue: because ... oh, wait. I have no idea. Uh, maybe because there is the common idea that, if even the most basic things are not codified in international law, it is to be expected that every nation does what it wants ...? There should also be a Water Is Wet Act to prevent nations from falsely passing laws saying it isn't.

Enough of sarcasm. While we do see the merits of legislation on liability, we think it should solely be a domestic issue. Can we please go back to international matters, which this Assembly once has been intended to do? Thank you, and sadly, again voted against."

[United States of Americanas]

Internationally mandated Workman’s Comp.

I’m liking the idea. Why didn’t it happen much sooner is the real question!

[Wrapper]

Internationally mandated Workman’s Comp.

I’m liking the idea. Why didn’t it happen much sooner is the real question!

OOC: This has absolutely zero to do with worker's compensation.

[Firstaria]

OOC: The entire point of leaving definitions out is to leave freedom to member states on how to implement those meanings.

OOC: My point is indeed that if it needs so much open arguments to work, maybe should not exist in the first place as it will be very likely both misused or ignored.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The entire point of leaving definitions out is to leave freedom to member states on how to implement those meanings.

OOC: My point is indeed that if it needs so much open arguments to work, maybe should not exist in the first place as it will be very likely both misused or ignored.

Ooc: I dont think you understand the law then. Most of the language here has a particular plain meaning and requires no definition. The only operative term of art is Scope of Employment, and that is dependant on domestic cultural and legal concepts.

None of this faces obviation except through bad faith interpretations with which authors need not contend.

[B4kst4br]

Ambassador Keller stands, straightening his black tie as he clears his throat to address the Assembly

"For our part, we would contend that this is a well written and sensible proposal that all nations should have, or should, adopt within their own Nations."

Keller pauses for a moment, taking stock of the room, letting his eyes fall to Ambassador Bell.

"However, this legislation is outside the scope of this body. We are considering here dictating not just tort law, but possibly even more defined and personal legislation in the future. We see this as a slippery slope, and encourage all Esteemed Representatives to vote against this for the purpose of your Nation's ability to enact your own laws and legal legislation."

Ambassador Keller takes his seat, crossing one leg over the other, and watches the room intently for further discussion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Keller stands, straightening his black tie as he clears his throat to address the Assembly

"For our part, we would contend that this is a well written and sensible proposal that all nations should have, or should, adopt within their own Nations."

Keller pauses for a moment, taking stock of the room, letting his eyes fall to Ambassador Bell.

"However, this legislation is outside the scope of this body. We are considering here dictating not just tort law, but possibly even more defined and personal legislation in the future. We see this as a slippery slope, and encourage all Esteemed Representatives to vote against this for the purpose of your Nation's ability to enact your own laws and legal legislation."

Ambassador Keller takes his seat, crossing one leg over the other, and watches the room intently for further discussion.

"The Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't work on rational legislators. We're capable of legislating on an issue that is not obviously international in scope (though it is) without devolving into constant micromanagement. NEXT!"

[B4kst4br]

Ambassador Keller stands, straightening his black tie as he clears his throat to address the Assembly

"For our part, we would contend that this is a well written and sensible proposal that all nations should have, or should, adopt within their own Nations."

Keller pauses for a moment, taking stock of the room, letting his eyes fall to Ambassador Bell.

"However, this legislation is outside the scope of this body. We are considering here dictating not just tort law, but possibly even more defined and personal legislation in the future. We see this as a slippery slope, and encourage all Esteemed Representatives to vote against this for the purpose of your Nation's ability to enact your own laws and legal legislation."

Ambassador Keller takes his seat, crossing one leg over the other, and watches the room intently for further discussion.

"The Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't work on rational legislators. We're capable of legislating on an issue that is not obviously international in scope (though it is) without devolving into constant micromanagement. NEXT!"

"I am glad you have the ability to do so, but you do not represent the body as a whole. As well, you may not like the lingo I decided to use, however it remains that this legislation will be a precedent of this body enacting a legal course that should not be dictated by any other than a Nations legislative systems, whatever form that may take. This could lead to proposals in the future calling to take away sovereign nation rights to govern as they see fit in a humanitarian manner for the sake of what may look to be a 'sound course of action' in the future.

"Lastly, we were kind enough to give a nod to your proposal, and I maintain those words. It is, very well written, and something we ourselves have, albeit written differently. That does not mean that we agree that it should be enacted by this body to be enforced on other nations who may not agree with it. Further, myself, and my nation, not agreeing with your proposal does not give you a reason to act rude when trying to have a discussion. Steel your emotions Ambassador, your proposal has not passed yet."

Ambassador Keller finally stands and takes a sip of his water, he turns from Ambassador Bell to the rest of the congregation.

"This body is here to enact resolutions which make the world as a whole safer, fairer, a better place to live. It is not here to dictate how you run your countries, or your industries. That choice, is yours alone. I would compel you to vote against this resolution..."

Keller turns a knife hand to point at Ambassador Bell

"Unless Ambassador Bell here can give sound reason as to the need to force a resolution that should be dictated at the national level, and why it is supremely important that this passes, or the world will be worse off without it"

Keller pauses for affect, before taking his seat once more.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Anyone who claims that the WA has a scope that doesn't include tort reform should look at the category/sub-category and then get back to us. The WA clearly has the vague meaningless 'scope' to talk about tort reform.

Next, they should get around to defining scope, because that seems to have always been a problem with dumb NatSov.

[Separatist Peoples]

Anyone who claims that the WA has a scope that doesn't include tort reform should look at the category/sub-category and then get back to us. The WA clearly has the vague meaningless 'scope' to talk about tort reform.

Next, they should get around to defining scope, because that seems to have always been a problem with dumb NatSov.

"What he said."

[Aclion]

"The Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't work on rational legislators."

"We're talking about the World Assembly membership though"

[Arasi Luvasa]

"The Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't work on rational legislators."

"We're talking about the World Assembly membership though"

"With the number of ambassadors that cry National Sovereignty each and every time legislation is proposed, I would argue that this isn't really an issue. Besides, we only need a large enough majority who thinks that legislation is going into micromanagement. Some who have criticized proposals for this issue include those who seem to be in favor of this resolution."

[Promisit Dominus]

This Resolution is trying to interfere with the court systems of our respective nations. It may work for some, but not all of our nations, in the long run I don't think that this Resolution will work. There will be a rebellion on the nations that have a different court system, this Resolution should not pass.