The Gem Trading Accord (PASSED)

[Qumkent]

Realising that the trading of precious gemstones is vital to many member states' economies and,

Dismayed at the deceit employed to falsely trade fake and poor quality gems and precious stones and,

Noting that such trade can badly damage trade in real gems of quality and depress the market in natural stones.

Concerned that fraudulent trade in gems and precious stones may fund international criminal organisations and,

Convinced that standardisation of quality of gems and punishment of fraudulent trade in gemstones is a manifest good,

The WA hereby founds the International Gemological Agency (IGA) and International Gemological Laboratory (IGL).



Definitions:
Precious stone: any naturally occurring mineral valued for relative qualities of its appearance far beyond its intrinsic value
Gem: a cut or otherwise prepared Precious stone.


a) The IGA, funded by normal sources, will cooperate with the IGL to establish standards of gemstone quality for all gems traded within and between WA member states.

b) WA member states and the IGA must ensure that all traded gems are tested to meet these standards.

c) The IGA will accredit laboratories within member states to test and assess the quality of gems and precious stones in order to licence guaranteed trade in real gems, thereby assuring consumers of the standard of quality of their purchases, ending trade in fraudulent and misrepresented gems.

d) The IGA, in cooperation with producers, traders and governments, shall discuss issues and arbitrate disputes regarding the international trade in Gems and Precious stones.

e) The IGA shall assist member states, when needed, to ensure that only WA standard quality gems are marketed as such and that all synthetic or substandard gems are clearly understood to be such at the point of sale.

f) IGA accredited laboratories, with IGL assistance, will certify whether or not coloured gems have undergone any treatments; gems passing this test shall be certified as natural.

g) The IGL shall assist producers of artificial or synthetic gemstones to differentiate their products from naturally occurring gems to avoid such stones may being mistaken for natural gems; trade in synthetic or artificial gems shall remain licit so long as they are not fraudulently sold as natural gems.

h) Trade in gems not certified by IGA accredited laboratories is hereby outlawed; those found to have illicitly traded non-certified gems shall be punished with fines, penalties, or forfeits proportionate to the magnitude of their crime.

i) Member states are strongly urged to thoroughly investigate and vigorously prosecute cases of large scale fraudulent precious stone and gem trading; where sufficient expertise in the field of fraudulent gem trading is lacking, the IGA shall assist in providing experts with relevant experience and qualifications.

j) The provisions of this statute apply to all gems and precious stones sold within WA member states. IGA accredited laboratories will make every effort to protect the integrity of pieces in which gems are set when testing gems in situ, expert craftspersons will be employed to remove and replace gems when necessary. Repair work attendant upon any damage caused by the testing process must be fully detailed to the owners of the pieces in question.









Edited to take account of suggestions

This text has been edited for word count

Edited to take into account the revisions of the honoured Ambassador for Mousebumples

Edited to fix mistakes

[Tiesabre]

Having a "World Assembly Gemological Quality Standardisation Committee" seems redundant as that would be something the a nation's own trade department would investigate.

[Qumkent]

Having a "World Assembly Gemological Quality Standardisation Committee" seems redundant as that would be something the a nation's own trade department would investigate.

But one nation's own trade department would not be able to set international gemological standards of quality, this will effect international trade primarily and internal national trade secondarily. The intent is to insure that international trade in gems can be regulated and that fraudulent poor quality gems are no longer sold on the international market at values beyond their worth.


Yours,

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Category & Strength?

[Qumkent]

O.O.C. I had written it for Free trade since internationalised standards of this kind reduce the burdens and expenses incurred on traders to test gems themselves or alternatively seek expensive and time consuming redress in court for having bought fraudulent gems or being sued or otherwise made liable for selling them unwittingly, the consumer confidence aspect will also increase consumption. I had thought Mild as strength.

[Bears Armed]

O.O.C. I had written it for Free trade since internationalised standards of this kind reduce the burdens and expenses incurred on traders to test gems themselves or alternatively seek expensive and time consuming redress in court for having bought fraudulent gems or being sued or otherwise made liable for selling them unwittingly, the consumer confidence aspect will also increase consumption. I had thought Mild as strength.

OOC: A strength of 'Mild' should be okay, I think, given the relatively small scale of the gem trade... but the category could be a problem. I would probably accept an argument for 'Free Trade', although given the official NS definition of 'Free Trade' I'd like to see a preambulatory clause that specifically called differing standards in different nations an impediment to this trade, but of course I'm not a Mod (and I am the player who, long ago, managed to get a NSUN resolution on setting up an international weather-forecasting organisation passed under this category...) and the Mods have said a time or three that proposals about setting international standards for various matters belong in the 'International Standards' category that we've been waiting for in vain for quite a while now...
I'd certainly try for 'Free Trade', but... hr'rmm ... maybe you could try drafting a 'Moral Decency' argument for it, as an alternative, too?

[Qumkent]

O.O.C. I had written it for Free trade since internationalised standards of this kind reduce the burdens and expenses incurred on traders to test gems themselves or alternatively seek expensive and time consuming redress in court for having bought fraudulent gems or being sued or otherwise made liable for selling them unwittingly, the consumer confidence aspect will also increase consumption. I had thought Mild as strength.

OOC: A strength of 'Mild' should be okay, I think, given the relatively small scale of the gem trade... but the category could be a problem. I would probably accept an argument for 'Free Trade', although given the official NS definition of 'Free Trade' I'd like to see a preambulatory clause that specifically called differing standards in different nations an impediment to this trade, but of course I'm not a Mod (and I am the player who, long ago, managed to get a NSUN resolution on setting up an international weather-forecasting organisation passed under this category...) and the Mods have said a time or three that proposals about setting international standards for various matters belong in the 'International Standards' category that we've been waiting for in vain for quite a while now...
I'd certainly try for 'Free Trade', but... hr'rmm ... maybe you could try drafting a 'Moral Decency' argument for it, as an alternative, too?

O.O.C.

Thank you that's really helpful, I suppose if I wrote it for Moral Decency it would concentrate a bit more on the criminal aspect of the trade in fraudulent gems and how this trade is extremely lucrative for dangerous international crime gangs and such.

I guess if I stick with Free Trade I'll also make the case that international confidence in the quality of gems from foreign sources which will reduce national regulations on their import and export and cut red tape for traders, which considering how many jurisdictions they may be dealing with would be extremely prohibitive indeed.

[Bears Armed]

O.O.C.

Thank you that's really helpful, I suppose if I wrote it for Moral Decency it would concentrate a bit more on the criminal aspect of the trade in fraudulent gems and how this trade is extremely lucrative for dangerous international crime gangs and such.

And explicitly on how having a single set of standards & rules used internationally would make such fraud more difficult, yes.
Oh, and probably you should explicitly "require" that member nations enforce these rules upon the [international] trade within their jurisdictions too, in order to strengthen the contents-category link...

Would these international standards apply in the case of intranational trade within member nations, too? Would you allow the continued use of nations' "traditional" rules alongside these new ones, at least for intra-national trade?

[Qumkent]

Would these international standards apply in the case of intranational trade within member nations, too? Would you allow the continued use of nations' "traditional" rules alongside these new ones, at least for intra-national trade?

OOC.

Well informal ( off the books, cash in hand ) trade in gems would continue to take place under whatever conditions those undertaking it would prefer, but unless the national quality standard testing is of a higher level of efficacy than the WA's then I'm not sure if it would be wise to continue to allow intranational quality standards to remain in place, partly because a WA standard would be of a higher level of reliability anyway. There are two comparisons from the real world, firstly the carats system of measuring the weight of stones which is internationally observed as a way of simplifying the trade in gems and the carats system of identifying the purity of gold present in finished gold products. The second is more pertinent, since falsification of marks of caratage on items of finished gold is not only a civil matter for which one can be sued, but a criminal matter as a form of fraud which so far as I know is internationally recognised.

[Absolvability]

I've been observing this for a while, and can't say as I disagree with it. However, gems seem to be a fairly specific matter... and I'm curious whether or not this would interfere with a future resolution dealing with fraudulant sales in general?

[Quintessence of Dust]

I can't help feel that, off the bat, this might suffer from its title, which sounds very dry and arcane. Some catchier possibilities:

Conflict Diamonds Act
Conflict Gems Act
Blood Diamond Act
Combat Resources Act
Jennifer Connelly's Thighs Act

This is a topic I know nothing about but I do wonder whether the committee needs to found its own laboratory: can't it just use existing ones in member nations, once it's certified them?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs

[Qumkent]

I can't help feel that, off the bat, this might suffer from its title, which sounds very dry and arcane. Some catchier possibilities:

Conflict Diamonds Act
Conflict Gems Act
Blood Diamond Act
Combat Resources Act
Jennifer Connelly's Thighs Act

This is a topic I know nothing about but I do wonder whether the committee needs to found its own laboratory: can't it just use existing ones in member nations, once it's certified them?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs

We will certainly give thought to the issue of naming this statute more catchily Ms Benson, however this statute is not meant to deal with the issue of conflict gems but rather with the far more common and pervasive problem of the misrepresentation of the quality of gems in order to achieve fraudulently high prices for them, and the secondary though related problem of of the treatment of gems of poor quality to give them the seeming appearance of being higher quality than they are.

The problem with this is that as yet no international standard of gem quality exists and no standard of best practice exists in testing for this standard of quality either. The WAGL would be charged with establishing both of these standards and then helping in the process of accreditation of laboratories within member states where these new best practiced tests could take place.

The WAGQC could instead undertake research in to Laboratory testing practices throughout the WA decide which it thinks is the best of the best so to speak and apply that standard in its accreditation processes. However this approach would take an extraordinarily long time and would be open to the problem that the testing practices would be that of a specific member state rather than a "WA" standard. This might lead to certain ugly accusations.

Let us put it this way, were the best practices in testing to happen to be those of the Quintessence of Dust, for instance, the accusation could be that the WA had been partial in deciding this, and this would ultimately undermine confidence in the standard of best practices in testing which the WA was accrediting member state's gemological laboratories too, ultimately undermining confidence in the WA standards of quality of gems which these laboratories would be testing for. Consequently the aim of this statute, being to infuse complete confidence back in to the trade in gemstones, would be undone.

The secondary benefit of a WAGL is that it can develop new and better tests for current methods of gemstone improvement processes both current and future and can disseminate those to WAGQC laboratories throughout the WA.


Yours,

[Qumkent]

I've been observing this for a while, and can't say as I disagree with it. However, gems seem to be a fairly specific matter... and I'm curious whether or not this would interfere with a future resolution dealing with fraudulant sales in general?

Almost certainly not honoured Ambassador, but if you can suggest a way in which this might be the case we may be able to address it in the wording.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

I'd rather not pick nits, as it were. I was simply interested in somebody else's opinion on the thought. This coming first and all... if someone were to draft something more broad, it might be interpretted to encompass gems as well, which would be seen as an amendment... or, if one did their homework very well, a duplication.

However, if vagueness can be practiced appropriately... and you do not think this body would be so pedantic, I am satisfied. Thank you for addressing my concern.

[Qumkent]

I'd rather not pick nits, as it were. I was simply interested in somebody else's opinion on the thought. This coming first and all... if someone were to draft something more broad, it might be interpretted to encompass gems as well, which would be seen as an amendment... or, if one did their homework very well, a duplication.

However, if vagueness can be practiced appropriately... and you do not think this body would be so pedantic, I am satisfied. Thank you for addressing my concern.

Since this statute will only introduce a standard of quality relating to gems which will as an intended side effect make it very difficult to even commit one specific form of fraud, but does not deal with the legalities of fraud of any kind or in general we suspect that no future conflict of the kind your Excellency suggests is likely.

Yours,

[Bears Armed]

I'd rather not pick nits, as it were. I was simply interested in somebody else's opinion on the thought. This coming first and all... if someone were to draft something more broad, it might be interpretted to encompass gems as well, which would be seen as an amendment... or, if one did their homework very well, a duplication.

However, if vagueness can be practiced appropriately... and you do not think this body would be so pedantic, I am satisfied. Thank you for addressing my concern.

OOC: That hypothetical future author could always follow past precedent (from the NSUN at least, if not as yet from the WA too) and incorporate a disclaimer along the lines of "except as specified by any earlier resolutions that are still in force" to cover the point legally.

[Absolvability]

..."except as specified by any earlier resolutions that are still in force"...

Aaah, well put. Thank you both.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I agree with the principles behind the text, and the text certainly seems qualified.

We share with Hon. Del. Benson the concerns about the title's appeal to a broader audience. (We concede, however, everything's a matter of style).

Given the specificity of the topic, I most certainly concur a "mild" would be the most agreeable.

One substantive concern though: What about gem(stone)s produced by means of nanotech/attotech-assembly? Those most certainly possess indistiguishable verissimilitude to "natural" and even may have some "beauty parameters" enhanced. What about them?

Yours truly,

[Qumkent]

I agree with the principles behind the text, and the text certainly seems qualified.

We share with Hon. Del. Benson the concerns about the title's appeal to a broader audience. (We concede, however, everything's a matter of style).

Given the specificity of the topic, I most certainly concur a "mild" would be the most agreeable.

One substantive concern though: What about gem(stone)s produced by means of nanotech/attotech-assembly? Those most certainly possess indistiguishable verissimilitude to "natural" and even may have some "beauty parameters" enhanced. What about them?

Yours truly,

OOC. Goodness, talking to me again are you ?

IC.

The issue of nanotechnological assembly is an interesting one, our own scientists tell us that it is possible to create a molecular "signature" in gems manufactured in this way which will indicate that strictly speaking they are not "natural", in that they are not naturally occurring even though they may be produced by a replication of certain natural processes. We can include a provision within the statute to the effect that such gems must in future have such a molecular signature to set them apart from natural stones. We thank the honoured Ambassador for bringing this aspect of this issue to our attention.

Strictly speaking gems produced by any method invented by sapient beings are not in fact precious because generally such stones are not rare or uncommon. However some processes are so difficult and expensive to undertake (and for most purposes this would be the case for Nanotech and Attotech) that it can be argued that they are indeed uncommon and rare and therefore basically indistinguishable from natural stones. However this argument is countered by the fact that natural precious stones occur almost as an accident of fate, they are the mysterious and exotic byproducts of both titanic and microscopic natural processes which had no intention of creating glittering and enchanting mineral formations which would many millions of years later hold men in their spell and be prized beyond the most expensive of luxuries.

The miraculous nature of the accidental and serendipitous formation of precious stones is what sets them apart from those stones produced intentionally by technological means such as the Vernueil process and others.

We will consider a wording which will set the WAGL with the task of testing for gems produced by the means your Excellency specifies to put them in a proper framework of quality standards but which will stress that these are not natural and should not be sold as such.

[Qumkent]

We have included a new provision to Article 1 to take account of the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus' suggestions. Have any other delegations any other suggestions ?


Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This draft is looking good honoured ambassador.

Now, some ethical suggestions: I would be more happy if action can be taken to prevent the import of diamonds mined in a war zone and sold to finance an insurgency, the invading army's war efforts or a warlord's activity, or allow member states to boycott them.

[Qumkent]

This draft is looking good honoured ambassador.

Now, some ethical suggestions: I would be more happy if action can be taken to prevent the import of diamonds mined in a war zone and sold to finance an insurgency, the invading army's war efforts or a warlord's activity, or allow member states to boycott them.

Thank you your Excellency. Indeed trade in what are called "Conflict Gems" is a very important issue, one we would gladly either write a resolution for or assist another delegation in doing so. However the issue of conflict stones is as complicated or more so than the issue this statute is dealing with, and deserves a completely seperate statute in which it can be fully addressed and properly delt with. To include it tangentially in this one would be unwise and would likely fail to properly address a very grave problem.

It is the assessment of our government that because fraudulent gems are far easier to produce and cheaper too that they likely form the basis of a larger and more widespread trade which doubtless is used to support the kinds of conflicts and other dubious and criminal enterprises your Excellency may be concerned about. Therefore it was our decision to deal with fraudulent gems before conflict stones in an effort to suppress a larger and far more lucrative practice before dealing with a no less grave but significantly smaller problem.



Yours,

[Bears Armed]

I can't actually tell from this draft's wording, is it intended to apply only to "loose" gemstones or would it cover ones that have already been set into jewelery too? If the latter is the case then, although you obviously could (if space allows) mandate the testing of any gems that are going to be newly incorporated into items, selling any items that were produced before this passes would (unless they were specifically exempted from its terms) become rather difficult...

[Qumkent]

I can't actually tell from this draft's wording, is it intended to apply only to "loose" gemstones or would it cover ones that have already been set into jewelery too? If the latter is the case then, although you obviously could (if space allows) mandate the testing of any gems that are going to be newly incorporated into items, selling any items that were produced before this passes would (unless they were specifically exempted from its terms) become rather difficult...

It covers all Gemstones, set or otherwise. There is no need to exempt pieces which contain both natural and artificial gems since such pieces should not be allowed to be sold as containing only natural gems. Henceforth vendors of such pieces would be required to specify which of the stones contained in them were natural and which were not, they would also have to state what quality the natural gems contained in them were. There is no need to exempt the frauds of the past while banning banning the frauds of the future is there your Excellency ?


Yours,

[Bears Armed]

I can't actually tell from this draft's wording, is it intended to apply only to "loose" gemstones or would it cover ones that have already been set into jewelery too? If the latter is the case then, although you obviously could (if space allows) mandate the testing of any gems that are going to be newly incorporated into items, selling any items that were produced before this passes would (unless they were specifically exempted from its terms) become rather difficult...

It covers all Gemstones, set or otherwise. There is no need to exempt pieces which contain both natural and artificial gems since such pieces should not be allowed to be sold as containing only natural gems. Henceforth vendors of such pieces would be required to specify which of the stones contained in them were natural and which were not, they would also have to state what quality the natural gems contained in them were. There is no need to exempt the frauds of the past while banning banning the frauds of the future is there your Excellency ?

But testing 'set' stones in situ is likely to be significantly harder than testing 'loose' ones (No?), and yet in some cases removing them for testing might cause serious damage to the objects concerned. I would like to see an exemption for any pre-existing items that are being sold as antiques and/or artworks, for this reason... After all, if they could be sold only on the clear understanding that the stones they contain haven't been certified, wouldn't that hopefully lead to potential buyers judging them on their overall merits as antiques &/or artworks rather than on the stones that they contain anyway?