[PASSED] Commercial Arbitration Recognition

[Honeydewistania]

To be honest, I will not be voting for [nor against] any of your proposals until you at the absolute least tell us the name of the person representing your nation in the WA. This is a roleplay game. Boasting of having 30 proposal drafts yet not even being able to engage with the basic way the game is played isn't a good thing.

That was not intended as boasting; I was responding to a question on that topic. However, you make a very valid point, and I'll start sorting that out shortly.

Promote the man behind the curtain!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Substituting the definitions for the words defined, subclause 4.a. becomes this:

the judgement on the merits of the deciding of a legal dispute in a forum outside of a member nation's judiciary or international court of law by an arbitration tribunal, including judgments made by arbitrators appointed for a particular case as well as judgments made by a permanent arbitral body or the agreement providing for the deciding of a legal dispute in a forum outside of a member nation's judiciary or international court of law of a dispute preceding it are invalid under said judgement on the merits of the deciding of a legal dispute in a forum outside of a member nation's judiciary or international court of law by an arbitration tribunal, including judgments made by arbitrators appointed for a particular case as well as judgments made by a permanent arbitral body or governing law of the greement providing for the deciding of a legal dispute in a forum outside of a member nation's judiciary or international court of law of a dispute

Possibly more recursive but I may have missed one or two substitutions.

Also, how is this Free Trade?

[Cretox State]

Possibly more recursive but I may have missed one or two substitutions.

You do understand that "governing law" doesn't just apply to WA law, right?

Also, how is this Free Trade?

This proposal strikes down barriers to commerce by facilitating the efficient resolution of disputes arising from commercial agreements.

[Wallenburg]

"This resolution gives priority to the decisions of foreign business boards and industry cabals over the laws and courts of member states. Wallenburg will not bind its citizens to the rulings of extralegal bodies with no jurisdiction within our territory. Much less extralegal bodies almost universally dedicated to the implementation of a power structure which privileges the wealthy owner class and crushes the agency of the ordinary citizen."

[Araraukar]

Possibly more recursive but I may have missed one or two substitutions.

You do understand that "governing law" doesn't just apply to WA law, right?

OOC: And did you know that it may be due to Mie scattering rather than Rayleigh scattering that grey eyes on humans appear grey instead of blue, despite both colours actually having brown pigmentation? In other words, what does that have anything to do with anything?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ara, what is your claim, warrant, and impact?

[Rust]

"Honestly, the blatant cronyism on display here is nothing short of appalling. How this resolution's gotten so much support is beyond me.The very idea of giving control of legal arbitration over to any non-government entity is a willful abandonment of government's duty to enforce the law and a slap in the face to transparency and justice. Rust will not be signatory to this blatant judicial miscarriage, regardless of its passage, and if the WA or any other member nations have a problem with that, they are cordially invited to shove it."

[Kenmoria]

“This seems like a well-worded and effectively-crafted piece of legislation. As such, I have voted in favour.”

"Honestly, the blatant cronyism on display here is nothing short of appalling. How this resolution's gotten so much support is beyond me.The very idea of giving control of legal arbitration over to any non-government entity is a willful abandonment of government's duty to enforce the law and a slap in the face to transparency and justice. Rust will not be signatory to this blatant judicial miscarriage, regardless of its passage, and if the WA or any other member nations have a problem with that, they are cordially invited to shove it."

(OOC: Refer to the Administrative Compliance Act. It is considered god-modding, a form of poor RP etiquette, to just ignore GA resolutions whenever you feel like it. Roleplaying consequences and disputes is fine and even encouraged, but just no-selling passed legislation is seen as generally impolite.)

[Flying Eagles]

Is Clause 4e a catch-all that allows member states to refuse the enforcement of arbitral awards for any reason before the date the award comes into force? That seems like a massive oversight, giving too much power to member nations and undermining already established best practices on arbitration.

[Cretox State]

Is Clause 4e a catch-all that allows member states to refuse the enforcement of arbitral awards for any reason before the date the award comes into force? That seems like a massive oversight, giving too much power to member nations and undermining already established best practices on arbitration.

OOC: If the award has not yet come into force, why should member nations enforce it?

Edit: By definition, an award not yet in force would be unenforced.

[No god]

any communist nation should oppose this bill because its a capitalist bill

[Panterland]

“With all due respect, ambassador, your nation has authored many fine proposals to come before this assembly, but this proposal is not one of them. Arbitration is a way to make backroom deals at the expense of people. Strongly opposed.”

Yes yes yes! Panterland also submitted a vote against the proposal because a liberated economy comes at the expense of people's rights.

[Cretox State]

“With all due respect, ambassador, your nation has authored many fine proposals to come before this assembly, but this proposal is not one of them. Arbitration is a way to make backroom deals at the expense of people. Strongly opposed.”

Yes yes yes! Panterland also submitted a vote against the proposal because a liberated economy comes at the expense of people's rights.

...you people do understand that entering into arbitration is ultimately voluntary, right? And that a socialist country can simply choose to not enter into these agreements? And that the scope of this proposal is limited to arbitration of commercial disputes?

[Eluney]

“With all due respect, ambassador, your nation has authored many fine proposals to come before this assembly, but this proposal is not one of them. Arbitration is a way to make backroom deals at the expense of people. Strongly opposed.”

"We wholeheartedly agree with your judgement that arbitration can be easily exploited in situations where the parties agreeing to it are in unequal positions of power. However, this proposal aims specifically to facilitate international commercial agreements, i.e., situations where the involved parties are entering into a mutually beneficial contract that is incredibly unlikely to be coerced. When disputes arise from international commercial agreements, arbitration is a highly desirable way of resolving said disputes. Let's say one of my nation's companies breaches a contract with one of yours. Do you truly believe that my nation's court system would be completely impartial in the matter? It would be far better to settle things in a neutral forum by experienced professionals in tune with international commercial culture, no? International arbitration allows for a high degree of neutrality in the dispute resolution process and in the seat where the arbitration is occurring. In today's global business environment, we would certainly value the highest degree of neutrality attainable in international disputes over any possible inconveniences of travel.

A further benefit of international commercial arbitration is the confidentiality of proceedings. While this may be an issue in situations where the balance of power is unequal, it is a huge advantage in commercial agreements. Would you seriously support distracting trials by media in cases where publicity is wholly unnecessary?

Arbitration is not a black and white issue, Ambassador. Few things ever are."

Yes yes yes! Panterland also submitted a vote against the proposal because a liberated economy comes at the expense of people's rights.

...you people do understand that entering into arbitration is ultimately voluntary, right? And that a socialist country can simply choose to not enter into these agreements? And that the scope of this proposal is limited to arbitration of commercial disputes?

“Eluney fully agrees with the arguments of the author of this proposal and will vote in favor of it.

Encouraging arbitration agreements in the framework of international trade is essential to grant companies (private and public) greater legal security when deciding where to invest and, as a consequence, generate employment and economic development.

Likewise, we welcome the reasons why a State may refuse to enforce an arbitration award in Clause 4, so we understand that this proposal ensures a healthy balance between the protection and incentive to international trade and the efforts to avoid the abusive practices of some arbitration courts.

All of the above, always bearing in mind that the signing of an arbitration agreement is completely voluntary”.

Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.

[Cat-Herders United]

Where is the assurance that arbitration would be unbiased? Sounds like this would just allow companies to sneak in clauses mandating arbitration using an ostensibly neutral arbiter, but which in fact has close ties to the company.

If this passes, the Cat-Herders United legislature will review its options for allowing the people the full power of section 4, especially clause b and f, e.g. redefining “sufficient notice” as it pertains to section 4, or having codifying a small list of “subject matter” that can legally be arbitrated.

[Kenmoria]

Where is the assurance that arbitration would be unbiased? Sounds like this would just allow companies to sneak in clauses mandating arbitration using an ostensibly neutral arbiter, but which in fact has close ties to the company.

If this passes, the Cat-Herders United legislature will review its options for allowing the people the full power of section 4, especially clause b and f, e.g. redefining “sufficient notice” as it pertains to section 4, or having codifying a small list of “subject matter” that can legally be arbitrated.

“The arbitration will be conducted by an unbiased third party, because that is what the legislation defines it as. To put it another way, ambassador, arbitration that is not unbiased is not arbitration according to this proposal, and therefore outside the scope of the legislation. When your government decides to ‘review its options’, I suggest you advise to remain well within the boundaries of compliance, lest fines become a large part of national expenses.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Arbitration is conducted by an agreed upon third party. You have a dispute with your friend, both of you pick a mutual friend to arbitrate.

[Tinhampton]

Commercial Arbitration Regulation was passed 10,131 votes to 4,015.

[Kenmoria]

Commercial Arbitration Regulation was passed 10,131 votes to 4,015.

(OOC: Congratulations, Cretox.)

[Cretox State]

Commercial Arbitration Regulation was passed 10,131 votes to 4,015.

(OOC: Congratulations, Cretox.)

OOC: Thanks!