Araraukar wrote: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.