[DRAFT] On Investment Equity

[Bears Armed]

Maybe expand

a “WA national investor” as any individual with citizenship/permanent residency in a WA nation, or a firm registered therein, that engages in investment activity;

slightly, to

a “WA national investor” as any individual with citizenship/permanent residency in a WA nation, or a firm registered therein, or a government agency therein, that engages in investment activity;

to allow for 'sovereign wealth funds' & the like?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Start the whole proposal with "The World Assembly" or "The General Assembly", so that you have something that does all the noting and recognizing, and you can shorten the line before the active clauses simply to "Hereby". But if you want to keep it longer, don't shorten World Assembly as "WA" in it. Similarly, rather than using "WA nations", use "member nations" instead. But be sure to then never use "all nations", or it will count as trying to legislate for non-WA nations.

In the definitions, instead of defining "investment", you should perhaps define "investment activity", since that's what the other two definitions use. Also, clause 2 uses "WA national foreign investor", which isn't either of the other definitions.

Since my brain hates trying to translate financial stuff, just asking some clarifications...

Clause 4 would still let the state buy out (as in, buy the shares off of the shareholders) a business to nationalize it, right? It just needs to pay the foreign investors the same amount it pays to the non-foreigners.

Clause 5 I have trouble understanding the necessity at all. If the member states have to abide by the previous 3 clauses, then there really is no exception at all, is there?

Clause 6, I suggest using an actual word with a simple definition, rather than "aegis", which can be both threatening and benign, depending on your interpretation.

[Naboompu]

Maybe expand

a “WA national investor” as any individual with citizenship/permanent residency in a WA nation, or a firm registered therein, that engages in investment activity;

slightly, to

a “WA national investor” as any individual with citizenship/permanent residency in a WA nation, or a firm registered therein, or a government agency therein, that engages in investment activity;

to allow for 'sovereign wealth funds' & the like?

Thanks, Bears Armed, and updated.

[Naboompu]

OOC: Start the whole proposal with "The World Assembly" or "The General Assembly", so that you have something that does all the noting and recognizing, and you can shorten the line before the active clauses simply to "Hereby". But if you want to keep it longer, don't shorten World Assembly as "WA" in it. Similarly, rather than using "WA nations", use "member nations" instead. But be sure to then never use "all nations", or it will count as trying to legislate for non-WA nations.

In the definitions, instead of defining "investment", you should perhaps define "investment activity", since that's what the other two definitions use. Also, clause 2 uses "WA national foreign investor", which isn't either of the other definitions.

Since my brain hates trying to translate financial stuff, just asking some clarifications...

Clause 4 would still let the state buy out (as in, buy the shares off of the shareholders) a business to nationalize it, right? It just needs to pay the foreign investors the same amount it pays to the non-foreigners.

Clause 5 I have trouble understanding the necessity at all. If the member states have to abide by the previous 3 clauses, then there really is no exception at all, is there?

Clause 6, I suggest using an actual word with a simple definition, rather than "aegis", which can be both threatening and benign, depending on your interpretation.

Thanks Araraukar for your invaluable suggestions. Hopefully I've adequately addressed your concerns. As for the clarifications...

Clause 4: Sort of. The clause has a little more teeth than that. It is not enough to simply pay the same amount to foreign investors. The government also cannot systematically favour the nationalisation of foreign-owned businesses, for example.

Clause 5: I meant for this to be a notwithstanding clause that addresses defence contracts and so forth. I'm welcome to additional thoughts and suggestions about this.

Clause 6: I've changed "aegis" to "authority"; "auspices" is too weak and I don't know off hand of a better word to use.

[Araraukar]

Clause 4: Sort of. The clause has a little more teeth than that. It is not enough to simply pay the same amount to foreign investors. The government also cannot systematically favour the nationalisation of foreign-owned businesses, for example.

OOC: But what if they systematically favoured the nationalization of a certain type of businesses, like, say, healthcare related ones, which by coincidence were mostly foreign-owned (who weren't doing good enough a job and hence the nation wanting to nationalize them)? Or any other such basic service (water, electricity, etc.).

[Naboompu]

Clause 4: Sort of. The clause has a little more teeth than that. It is not enough to simply pay the same amount to foreign investors. The government also cannot systematically favour the nationalisation of foreign-owned businesses, for example.

OOC: But what if they systematically favoured the nationalization of a certain type of businesses, like, say, healthcare related ones, which by coincidence were mostly foreign-owned (who weren't doing good enough a job and hence the nation wanting to nationalize them)? Or any other such basic service (water, electricity, etc.).

Let me clarify regarding Clause 4 (now Clause 5 in the new draft) that in the event of said engagement: the act must not be disproportionate, "relatively too large for", foreign investors, i.e. industries cannot be targeted on the basis of being foreign-owned. While the nationalisation of one healthcare company would not in of itself be a violation of this resolution, wholesale nationalisation of the entire healthcare industry very well could be. In the event of nationalising the entire industry, which conveniently for an aggressor nation (in this example) happens to be foreign-owned, the foreign investor would be able to bring forth the case to ISEC to adjudicate on the matter.

[Araraukar]

While the nationalisation of one healthcare company would not in of itself be a violation of this resolution, wholesale nationalisation of the entire healthcare industry very well could be.

OOC: Which sounds odd, because it would make more sense to me for something to be less investor-specific, if an entire industry (including anything domestic-owned that isn't state-owned) was targeted, rather than specific companies/businesses that might be foreign-owned.

For a more apt example, perhaps, arms manufacturing and other defence industries. If a nation is gearing up for war, it might want to nationalize its military-related industries to ensure they're not disrupted at a critical moment. At such a time it shouldn't matter if they happen to be owned by foreign or domestic investors.

I mean, I could understand the restriction if it was about "not allowed to nationalize and then re-sell to domestic investors only", as that would indeed unfairly target foreign investors. But a wholesale ban on nationalizing an industry just because the majority stockholders happen to be foreign, sounds a bit far-fetched. And indeed discriminatory in the other direction (why should foreigners have more rights than domestics).

[Naboompu]

While the nationalisation of one healthcare company would not in of itself be a violation of this resolution, wholesale nationalisation of the entire healthcare industry very well could be.

OOC: Which sounds odd, because it would make more sense to me for something to be less investor-specific, if an entire industry (including anything domestic-owned that isn't state-owned) was targeted, rather than specific companies/businesses that might be foreign-owned.

For a more apt example, perhaps, arms manufacturing and other defence industries. If a nation is gearing up for war, it might want to nationalize its military-related industries to ensure they're not disrupted at a critical moment. At such a time it shouldn't matter if they happen to be owned by foreign or domestic investors.

I mean, I could understand the restriction if it was about "not allowed to nationalize and then re-sell to domestic investors only", as that would indeed unfairly target foreign investors. But a wholesale ban on nationalizing an industry just because the majority stockholders happen to be foreign, sounds a bit far-fetched. And indeed discriminatory in the other direction (why should foreigners have more rights than domestics).

I've the changed the line slightly. The nationalisation of a specific foreign-owned company may still be considered a violation if indeed it was purposed to dilute foreign investment in the member nation. The difference is that one such instance of engagement does not in of itself establish a record of nationalisation of foreign-owned companies that is disproportionate to that of domestic ones; it could still be considered disproportionate based on precedent, however.

The exemption to Provision 2 for defence security services should address this, no?

There is no wholesale ban. If the nationalisation of an industry helps establish a precedent of nationalisation of foreign-owned companies that is disproportionate to that of domestic ones, then it would be considered a violation. As for domestic investors, we leave that to the resident nation. The goal of the resolution is to protect WA national investors abroad.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Some things noticed on a re-read...

I suggest you strike out all the preamble clauses talking about ISEC directly, because they make it appear as though you're trying to amend an existing resolution. You don't really need to detail what the committee was not tasked to do by a previous resolution, after all, as you're going to give it more things to do in your proposal.

I'd also change every instance of the wording of "favourable treatment" to "equal treatment" or something like that instead, to emphasize that you're not looking to give foreign investors more rights, but rather just want them not being financially discriminated against.

First definition still defines "investment", the others use "investment activity". That should probably still be fixed.

Do "foreign investors" include "WA national investors" as a subgroub? Do non-WA foreign investors count as "foreign investors" for the proposal?

Also, given that you're basically just mandating equal treatment, I'm not sure "significant" is the right strength, given the narrowness of application, but I'll let someone with less of a headache when it comes to the language of economics, to be the judge of that.

[Naboompu]

OOC: Some things noticed on a re-read...

I suggest you strike out all the preamble clauses talking about ISEC directly, because they make it appear as though you're trying to amend an existing resolution. You don't really need to detail what the committee was not tasked to do by a previous resolution, after all, as you're going to give it more things to do in your proposal.

I'd also change every instance of the wording of "favourable treatment" to "equal treatment" or something like that instead, to emphasize that you're not looking to give foreign investors more rights, but rather just want them not being financially discriminated against.

First definition still defines "investment", the others use "investment activity". That should probably still be fixed.

Do "foreign investors" include "WA national investors" as a subgroub? Do non-WA foreign investors count as "foreign investors" for the proposal?

Also, given that you're basically just mandating equal treatment, I'm not sure "significant" is the right strength, given the narrowness of application, but I'll let someone with less of a headache when it comes to the language of economics, to be the judge of that.

Thanks again, Araraukar, for your thoughtful suggestions, but I'm somewhat inclined to disagree with the proposed edits.

1) Regarding the first four lines talking about ISEC, they were not in the first draft. I added them in a subsequent revision precisely because a member of GenSec, Bears Armed, advised me to in order to avoid violating the House of Cards rule with a previous resolution and to emphasise that the two resolutions in no way overlap.

2) The actual term used in international trade is "favourable treatment" since "equal" is a loaded word that means something else. Equitable treatment is OK, but it tends to refer to a customary minimum standard beyond which favourable treatment to, say domestic investors, could still apply; hence, why I've worded Clause 2 the way I did. Regardless, since domestic investors in WA nations are also WA national investors, their investments are secured and protected by Clause 3 and ensured fair and equitable treatment.

3) Yes, that's deliberate. I switched it back to investment since that is what I refer to in subsequent enactments. Investment activity is mentioned in the other definitions, because (a) it reads better, (b) it is what bankers call it and (c) any member nation that doesn't understand investment activity is the act/engagement of investments is clearly not interpreting the resolution in good faith.

4) WA national investors are not a subset of foreign investors. If an investor engages in investment activity in his own nation, he is a WA national investor, but he is not in this context a foreign investor. Similarly, a member of a non-WA nation who invests abroad is a foreign investor, but not a WA national investor.

5) I wouldn't change the strength. If I had to change it either way, I'd upgrade it to strong. Given this would have at least some impact across the entire spectrum of investment classes and also establishes an enforcement mechanism, I believe significant is the correct strength.

[Araraukar]

4) WA national investors are not a subset of foreign investors. If an investor engages in investment activity in his own nation, he is a WA national investor, but he is not in this context a foreign investor. Similarly, a member of a non-WA nation who invests abroad is a foreign investor, but not a WA national investor.

OOC: Then perhaps using "domestic investor" instead? Using "WA national" sounds like "anyone from a WA nation", not "someone from this particular WA nation".

5) I wouldn't change the strength. If I had to change it either way, I'd upgrade it to strong. Given this would have at least some impact across the entire spectrum of investment classes and also establishes an enforcement mechanism, I believe significant is the correct strength.

But all it really does is re-iterate CoCR's "everyone's equal before the law", more or less...

EDIT: As per the other wording suggestions you chose to ignore; it's your call as the author, but don't be surprised if they'll come up again and again as choices you need to keep defending.

[Naboompu]

4) WA national investors are not a subset of foreign investors. If an investor engages in investment activity in his own nation, he is a WA national investor, but he is not in this context a foreign investor. Similarly, a member of a non-WA nation who invests abroad is a foreign investor, but not a WA national investor.

OOC: Then perhaps using "domestic investor" instead? Using "WA national" sounds like "anyone from a WA nation", not "someone from this particular WA nation".

5) I wouldn't change the strength. If I had to change it either way, I'd upgrade it to strong. Given this would have at least some impact across the entire spectrum of investment classes and also establishes an enforcement mechanism, I believe significant is the correct strength.

But all it really does is re-iterate CoCR's "everyone's equal before the law", more or less...

EDIT: As per the other wording suggestions you chose to ignore; it's your call as the author, but don't be surprised if they'll come up again and again as choices you need to keep defending.

As per the definition, a WA national investor is anyone with citizenship/permanent residency in a WA nation, or a registered firm or a government agency therein, who/that engages in investment activity. A WA national investor may be a domestic or a foreign investor depending on whether they are investing abroad or at home. They are domestic investors as it pertains to domestic investments and foreign investors as it pertains to foreign investments. Neither WA national or foreign investors are subsets of the other. A WA national investor is precisely any investor from a WA nation. Is this in any way unclear? The definitions seem clear to me, but it is quite possible that I'm not entirely objective here.

I understand your issue with "investment activity", but it is mentioned precisely twice. "Investments" are mentioned far more often and must carry a specific meaning and hence the definition. If it ever proves to be an issue, I'll change it to "engages in investments" and accept the fact that semantics shall get in the way of writing a superior product. Again, with "favourable" and "equitable" as opposed to "equal", I'm just using the terms invoked in international trade law, because they carry specific meanings.