Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] Standards for international road freight

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:45 am
by Rivierenland
Whilst some countries choose to open up their borders to any foreign power, whether it be for trade, travel, work, et cetera, other countries don't (understandably, since it's their choice to do so). Whilst it's important to maintain a nation's sovereignty, it's also important to stimulate trade between countries and with closed borders that will make it more complicated to do so.

And while some countries will most likely oppose this bill, it's important to understand that this isn't a complete change to force everyone to open up their borders, but instead this bill is only meant to try and set small steps in that direction, whilst still keeping most of the issues of border control to the nation's themselves. This bill is only meant to enact open borders for international road freight

If the World Assembly may:

1. Definitions

a. International road freight means freight moved on land by trucks, vans and every other land-purpose vehicle
b. When referring to nations, all non-isolationist nations within the World Assembly are being mentioned
c. resolution means General Assembly resolution
d. Bill also refers to General Assembly resolution
e. Logistical travel refers to the travel of international road freight

2. Cooperation

All members should work in keeping their borders open to international road freight travel at all times, except in situations in where the nations see fit to close their borders to international road freight (during a pandemic, war, threat of attack, et cetera). Nations are also stimulated to make agreements with each other on certain terms of the freely travelling international road freight.

3. Non-exclusivity

No nations are allowed to;
a. Make agreements with other nations to only allow the travel of international road freight provided by some companies. All logistical ventures should be allowed to pass freely from nation to nation.
b. Make agreements with other nations to close the borders completely, thus overriding this resolution, without a good reason to do so in the first place.
c. Withhold the necessary tools for the international road freight (infrastructure, staff, equipment, vehicles) to travel between two nations.
d. Fail to implement policies aiding free logistical travel and implement policies meant to restrict the international road freight from travelling freely.

4. Exceptions

Unless stated other wise by a previous resolution, as said in section 2, nations are allowed to disobey this resolution if there's an event that could pose a threat to the nation and the logistical travel. Reasons include war, global health crises, threat of attack (either by foreign power or independent organisation), natural disaster, civil unrest, et cetera.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:48 am
by Tinhampton
Rivierenland wrote:d. Bill also refers to General Assembly resolution

At the top of your post, you have two paragraphs beginning "Whilst some countries..." and "And while some countries..." respectively. Are those supposed to be part of your resolution text?

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:49 am
by Rivierenland
Tinhampton wrote:
Rivierenland wrote:d. Bill also refers to General Assembly resolution

At the top of your post, you have two paragraphs beginning "Whilst some countries..." and "And while some countries..." respectively. Are those supposed to be part of your resolution text?

Yes, i wrote them as an opener for this resolution

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:59 am
by Tinfect
OOC:
For the record, mandating open borders to trade like this, is uh, probably not the best of ideas.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:01 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Open borders is a great free lunch of an idea. It's just politically unpalatable. As I communicated to the author in the WA Discord, I think the proposal could take an interesting turn towards non-discrimination between firms engaging in trade writ large. It could be similar to IRL WTO indirect state aid regulations.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:05 pm
by Tinfect
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Open borders is a great free lunch of an idea. It's just politically unpalatable. As I communicated to the author in the WA Discord, I think the proposal could take an interesting turn towards non-discrimination between firms engaging in trade writ large. It could be similar to IRL WTO indirect state aid regulations.


OOC:
Don't we already have such a law though?

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:05 pm
by Anurial
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Open borders is a great free lunch of an idea. It's just politically unpalatable. As I communicated to the author in the WA Discord, I think the proposal could take an interesting turn towards non-discrimination between firms engaging in trade writ large. It could be similar to IRL WTO indirect state aid regulations.


I second this suggestion. Total freedom of movement is not politically viable, but legislating non-discrimination is a good route for this resolution to go down.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:15 pm
by Rivierenland
I have looked at all of the replies to this thread and i'd just want to say that i have read them, and tomorrow i'll try and change my proposal accordingly