[DRAFT] Cargo Transportation Standard

[Random Country 453632]

World Assembly Draft Proposal

Category: Free Trade Strength:Significant

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the right for international road cargo as a key part of international trade,

Noting that international public transportation, especially cargo transport, may be a great need in nations that need the imports of other nations,

Worried that some nations may fall due to other nations not accepting trade and diplomacy,

Further noting the importance of importing and exporting common goods at the international level,

Hereby defines;

1. A public cargo vehicle as a type of transportation used mainly for the following reasons;
   
   
   
   1. Exporting goods to foreign nations,
      
   2. Receiving imported goods,
2. A recipient station as the primary goods dropping and recieving building for international trade,
   
3. An illegal cargo (further known as I.C for this resolution) as a transport that is not governmentally defined as official,
   
4. A transport guard as a station idealized to validate that the transport vehicle is an I.C or is marked official, while also granting them the ability to verify the cargo vehicle,

Clarifies that;

1. Member nations must only allow verified transport to pass borders and enter the destination nation's recipient station,
   
2. While transporting, cargo vehicles must proceed through a multitude of guard stations in order to be verified legal and reach its destination,

Mandates that;

1. member nations must accept trade from every other member nation,
2. no government shall illegalize trade,

Ensuring that;

1. all trade is protected, which will vastly secure international trade,
2. Every member nation is subject to trading with other member nations.

[Random Country 453632]

What do you think? You can help me make this proposal better with feedback.

[Tinhampton]

1: There is no Moderate strength - only Mild, Significant, and Strong.

2: This is currently illegal, nonetheless, for not doing anything other than defining a few terms. Is this supposed to be a finished draft, or are you working on one as we speak?

[Random Country 453632]

1: There is no Moderate strength - only Mild, Significant, and Strong.

2: This is currently illegal, nonetheless, for not doing anything other than defining a few terms. Is this supposed to be a finished draft, or are you working on one as we speak?

It's unfinished, so.. Yeah.

[Random Country 453632]

Is this guy clear to go?

[Ardiveds]

[align=center]
Mandates that;

1. member nations must accept trade from every other member nation,
2. no government shall illegalize trade,

Ensuring that;

OOC: 1. So if a member wants to sell me bananas, I have to accept it even if literally none of my citizens like bananas or my own nations produces more bananas than I'dever need? In other words, I have to accept trade even if someone is selling me literal garbage? Or if the guy trying to trade with me is also at war with me?
2. How does one 'illegalize trade'?

Besides that, how is this at all related to transportation of cargo?

[Grays Harbor]

This is nowhere near significant strength. I also fail to see the utility of this.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

A public cargo vehicle as a type of transportation used mainly for the following reasons;

Why "public"? What would be a non-public cargo vehicle? Also, you're missing the word "vehicle" after the word "transportation".

Exporting goods to foreign nations,

"Exporting" as a word contains the "out of this nation", so "to foreign nations" is not necessary.

Receiving imported goods,

How does a vehicle receive goods? If you were intending to mean "a vehicle that moves exported and imported goods over the border", then you could just define it as that in its entirety.

I do notice, by the way, that you don't actually use your defined term ("public cargo vehicle") anywhere in the proposal. Only define terms that can, if one were to look them up in the dictionary, be a bit unclear as to what exactly is meant, and also only define terms that you actually use.

A recipient station as the primary goods dropping and recieving building for international trade,

"Goods dropping and receiving building" (you have typoed "receiving", by the way) is just pure nonsense and certainly not language that should exist in international law. What "dropping" are you imagining there to happen? And receiving? Who's receiving what? If I order something from a foreign webstore and it arrives by mail, is my home a "recipient station" when I receive it?

An illegal cargo (further known as I.C for this resolution) as a transport that is not governmentally defined as official,

"Cargo" is uncountable, drop the article. And also, cargo is the actual goods, not the transporting vehicle. Unless you meant to define "an illegal cargo vehicle" instead. So as is, this is kinda nonsense as well. It's like you were defining water as a solid metal.

A transport guard as a station idealized to validate that the transport vehicle is an I.C or is marked official, while also granting them the ability to verify the cargo vehicle,

"Idealized"? Verify as what? I don't think you know what half the words you use, actually mean. If English is not your first language, then please be aware that Google Translate is not a good tool for translating sentences. What's your first language? What was the word in your language that you were looking to translate into English?

Member nations must only allow verified transport to pass borders and enter the destination nation's recipient station,

Transport verified as what? Illegal? Also, should likely have "pass their borders", as a nation really can't decide on behalf of another nation.

While transporting, cargo vehicles must proceed through a multitude of guard stations in order to be verified legal and reach its destination,

Where are these guard stations supposed to be? On the border? Inside the nation? If they don't exist, are you making nations to build them? What is their purpose that a simple border check wouldn't be able to handle?

member nations must accept trade from every other member nation,

As already pointed out, this is nonsensical. Trade only happens with at least two parties; a seller and a buyer. If there are no buyers for specific goods from other nations in a nation, why should that nation "accept trade" (whatever that actually means) from other nations? This might also contradict previous resolutions - see about economic sanctions in various resolutions.

no government shall illegalize trade,

Here, too, you're not using "trade" in a way that would make any sense in the context. So I can only assume that English isn't your first language and your own language deals with the words and concepts differently, and that as a result when you directly translate the words instead of the concepts, the message gets garbled.

all trade is protected, which will vastly secure international trade,

Same as above. Nothing in this proposal either protects all trade or makes it more secure.

Every member nation is subject to trading with other member nations.

You can't force nations or the people in the nations to trade with people or nations they don't want to trade. That's like I said you are subject to buying food from all the grocery stores in your nation. Which is nonsense, because most likely you are still going to buy your food from the store that is most conveniently located or cheapest in your own area.