NationStates

(OOC: “Ban on Investor-State Dispute Settlements” fits in the limit on titles both forumside and gameside, so I recommend using that, so that the focus of the proposal is clearer from title alone.)

Tinhampton wrote:Cheers, IA. Changes have been made and I'm looking at a February 14th start.

Ending ISDS: I'm Lovin' It

(IC)
This will pass over my cold, dead*, white, fat bear body.

*Or drunk

My definition of a regular court includes WAJC courts. Gnomes are incorruptible.

"Another round for submission, another round of support from the Barfleurian delegation. We would like to reiterate our prior endorsement of this common sense proposal to ensure accountability and fair hearings for all."

OOC: Yes, I seriously did call a proposal a "common sense" solution. Yes, I hate that phrase as much as the next person.

Bump!

The definition of regular courts are now "domestic courts and any court organised by the World Assembly which is permitted by resolution to hear cases against member states," for clarity's sake and that of future generations who may have but fuzzy memories of the WAJC.

Last-ish call.

Dimitri Angelopoulov rises to comment on the proposal.

I must commend Mr Smith on a well-crafted and important resolution.

Investor-state dispute settlement is one of the worst excesses of the global capitalist market, designed to achieve nothing but the exploitation of the affected nations and their workers.

Rabotia will be voting for this resolution, and urging all nations in The Communist Bloc to do the same – not that that will require much convincing, I would hope!

He sits back down.

extremely based, full support

The Ice States told me this proposal dropped out of queue at major update. I do not know why, although Ice's analysis of this list suggests that delegates leaving their offices was the cause.

Resubmission will be on December 15th. This gives you ten-and-a-half months to prepare a proper countercampaign that'll toss this resolution out so I can get to say I wrote a resolution that dropped out of queue three times for three different reasons.

Calendar of future submission dates, if none of my efforts have reached quorum as of the stated submission date
May 31st 2024
February 7th 2025
October 10th 2025
May 15th 2026
January 8th 2027
August 20th 2027
Good Friday 2028
November 17th 2028
May 18th 2029

If this doesn't go to vote by summer 2029, I will go on an island holiday for a week and cut myself off from the internet. (Location TBD, but tempted to visit Santorini or maybe the Isle of Man.) I will let you know what I will do with this proposal after I return.

It appears that this was quorum raided by Excidium Planetis. Shame on you, EP. That alone motivates me to support this.

Edit: Per discussion on Discord, it appears that this falling out of queue was indeed cause by said quorum raid, though it was only "collateral damage" . At least my initial assumption is incorrect -- I still remain highly disappointed, however, in these shenanigans.

I didn't think EP had it in him. This calls for a round at the bar!

Tinhampton wrote:The Ice States told me this proposal dropped out of queue at major update. I do not know why, although Ice's analysis of this list suggests that delegates leaving their offices was the cause.

*Snip*

.

May I suggest May 18th 2029? I would have long CTE'd by then.

I saw it drop out of queue so I think Magecastle's analysis is correct.

Simone Republic wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Calendar of future submission dates, if none of my efforts have reached quorum as of the stated submission date

May I suggest May 18th 2029? I would have long CTE'd by then.

That's the date for submission if my next... checks nine efforts all fail to make queue somehow. You can do it!

Tinhampton wrote:

The Ice States told me this proposal dropped out of queue at major update. I do not know why, although Ice's analysis of this list suggests that delegates leaving their offices was the cause.

Resubmission will be on December 15th. This gives you ten-and-a-half months to prepare a proper countercampaign that'll toss this resolution out so I can get to say I wrote a resolution that dropped out of queue three times for three different reasons.

Calendar of future submission dates, if none of my efforts have reached quorum as of the stated submission date
May 31st 2024
February 7th 2025
October 10th 2025
May 15th 2026
January 8th 2027
August 20th 2027
Good Friday 2028
November 17th 2028
May 18th 2029

If this doesn't go to vote by summer 2029, I will go on an island holiday for a week and cut myself off from the internet. (Location TBD, but tempted to visit Santorini or maybe the Isle of Man.) I will let you know what I will do with this proposal after I return.

Why the rush?

Bump. Will submit on December 15th as scheduled.

Tinhampton wrote:Bump. Will submit on December 15th as scheduled.

Preferably December 15th in the year 3980 so that I'll likely be dead by then. There's not a snowball's chance in hell this does not contradict both 498 and 512. Legality challenge coming.

Simone Republic wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Bump. Will submit on December 15th as scheduled.

Preferably December 15th in the year 3980 so that I'll likely be dead by then. There's not a snowball's chance in hell this does not contradict both 498 and 512. Legality challenge coming.

498 is a repealed resolution.

The Ice States wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:
Preferably December 15th in the year 3980 so that I'll likely be dead by then. There's not a snowball's chance in hell this does not contradict both 498 and 512. Legality challenge coming.

498 is a repealed resolution.

496 sorry.
viewtopic.php?p=37584094#p37584094

And this remains the most destructive resolution that Tin has ever advocated. Tin writing this hideous resolution that riles me to no end is the main reason I got heavily involved in the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs in TNP, the rest is history.

Woah Black Betty bump-a-lump

Tinhampton wrote:Woah Black Betty bump-a-lump

(OOC: Simone has mentioned that this might contradict GA #496 and GA #512. I struggle to see how this contradicts GA #496, but clause 2 of GA #512 seems rather plainly in direct contradiction to almost the entirety of this proposal. Is there some reason that this contradiction is not manifest?)

Kenmoria wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Woah Black Betty bump-a-lump

(OOC: Simone has mentioned that this might contradict GA #496 and GA #512. I struggle to see how this contradicts GA #496, but clause 2 of GA #512 seems rather plainly in direct contradiction to almost the entirety of this proposal. Is there some reason that this contradiction is not manifest?)

As the text stands today, GA#512 clause 2 is plainly in direct contradiction to this ban, unless Tin is going to argue that arbitration agreements cannot be included as part of an FTA only but can be included elsewhere (which would make this resolution utterly nonsensical, since two states can simply sign agreements on arbitration that's outside the scope of an FTA). Printing on two pieces of A4 papers (or two pieces of velum or sheepskin or whatever) vs printing on one piece of A4 paper for an agreement, or requiring two sets of signatures, do not change the outcome.

GA#496 depended on how state-owned firms are defined but it's a significantly weaker argument that depends on negative inference (ie that the consumer loses the right to arbitrate instead). Tin's wording changed a few times between the draft two years ago and now and Tin has tried to word around it.