[Draft] Eminent Domain Compensation Act

[Morover]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=521781 ← repeal for GA68

---

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the recent repeal of Resolution 68, “National Economic Freedoms”, which included a clause guaranteeing compensation for property seized by national governments,

Believing that, despite the repeal of this Resolution, there still exists a practical purpose for eminent domain to be covered by the World Assembly, and

Hoping to diminish the burden that government seizure of property has on the average citizen,

Enacts the following into World Assembly law:

1. All private property seized by any government under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly must provide the owner of the seized property compensation at the replacement value not inclusive of hedonic damages. This requirement does not apply to assets seized for their use in criminal enterprise, nor for assets seized in declared conflicts or wars between two entities, nor for any assets that have been declared by the World Assembly to no longer be eligible to be private property.
   
2. The World Assembly shall not seize any property of any member states or subdivisions thereof unless explicitly required or allowed by another resolution.

Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

I've sent this to a few people and to a few groups and gotten no feedback, so I decided to go ahead and post it for y'all's consideraitons. this isn't my area of expertise by any means but I kinda just did what was intuitive so let me know what y'all feel like about this.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the recent repeal of Resolution 68, “National Economic Freedoms”, which included a clause guaranteeing compensation for property seized by national governments,

Believing that, despite the repeal of this Resolution, that there still exists a practical purpose for eminent domain to be covered by the World Assembly, and

Hoping to diminish the burden that government seizure of property has on the average citizen,

Enacts the following into World Assembly law:

1. All private property seized by any government under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly must provide the owner of the seized property compensation at, or above, the property’s fair market value. This requirement does not apply to assets seized for their use in criminal enterprise, nor for assets seized in declared conflicts or wars between two entities, nor for any assets that have been declared by the World Assembly to no longer be eligible to be private property.
   
2. The World Assembly shall, under no circumstances, seize assets of a member nation or any subdivisions thereof, unless one of the following is true:
   
   1. The nation is in non-compliance with an extant World Assembly resolution;
   2. A World Assembly resolution mandates temporary seizure of property in order to carry out the mandates of the resolution, so long as this seizure is directly necessary for the enactment of said resolution and is temporary in nature;
   3. The seized territory is a direct threat to the existence of the World Assembly or its existing assets.
3. No entity shall seize property from an individual if such an action would place that individual under threat of harm or death without that individual’s consent, unless not seizing the property would result in greater overall danger to another person or the general populace.

[Hulldom]

“My Delegation generally supports this idea with two notes.

In clause 1, compensation ought to be set “…compensation at, or above, the property’s fair market value.” rather than “…compensation in the amount of the property’s fair market value.”

In clause 2b, “…carry out the mandates of a resolution…” rather than “…carry out the clauses within the resolution…”

I also question the qualification after “unless” in clause 3. I would specify a greater number than one person rather than just “if another person stands to be harmed”.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"We suggest a clarification that the World Assembly may at its discretion rule that some forms of property aren't. That is, the WA may pass a resolution stating that, say, bodies of water may not be owned by any legal person, period, and therefore nations are not obligated to compensate alleged 'owners' for their seizure. And if that sounds like an alarming precedent, consider that until Resolution #23, natural persons - sapient beings - could be considered private property under WA law. Had this proposal, or its precedent, existed at that time, slaveowners would be mandated full market value compensation for the loss of their 'property.' If the WA should in future see fit to reclassify some other type of property as beyond the vagaries and degradations of commodity markets and the whims of individual owners, it ought not to constrain itself from doing so."

[Bananaistan]

"While member states, rightly, retain full control over domestic taxation, any provisions related to compensation are pointless. There's nothing stopping a member state from introducing a "Proceeds of CPOs tax" and setting it at 100%. Furthermore, fair market value is a nonsense concept. Let's say there's a communist revolution in GloriousPeoplesUtopiaStan. How well do you think "fair market values" are going to hold up? Markets always lose their nerve at the slightest hint of democratic control."

[Morover]

"I have resolved many of the issues brought forth - unfortunately, the only way to deal with the taxation 'issue', though I'm dubious at its validity, is to either repeal the General Fund or to not go through with this resolution at all. I don't think that people would take too kindly to repealing 68 while not addressing eminent domain in another resolution, and obviously the former option is a nonstarter, so this will be the standard for now."

[Bananaistan]

"I have resolved many of the issues brought forth - unfortunately, the only way to deal with the taxation 'issue', though I'm dubious at its validity, is to either repeal the General Fund or to not go through with this resolution at all. I don't think that people would take too kindly to repealing 68 while not addressing eminent domain in another resolution, and obviously the former option is a nonstarter, so this will be the standard for now."

“Just to be clear Ambassador, your effort here is to push through a repeal and inferior replacement that you know is easily loopholed?

“Also, you did not address the inherent vagueness of “fair market value”.

“Furthermore what is the point of section 2? The WA is precluded from police action so just how does it go about seizing any property anywhere? Seems to me you need two more repeals to make this worth the paper it’s written on. And then another resolution letting the WA devise taxes and set tax rates. Can’t see too many people being in favour of that.”

[Tinhampton]

2. The World Assembly shall, under no circumstances, seize assets of a member nation or any subdivisions thereof, unless one of the following is true:
i. The nation is in non-compliance with an extant World Assembly resolution

Opposed, for the same reasons given here. (viz. Sanctions have always been the prerogative of member states, never the WA as a collective. Changing this precedent would be remarkably dangerous.)

I'm not even going to pretend to touch 2ii and 2iii

[Morover]

"I have resolved many of the issues brought forth - unfortunately, the only way to deal with the taxation 'issue', though I'm dubious at its validity, is to either repeal the General Fund or to not go through with this resolution at all. I don't think that people would take too kindly to repealing 68 while not addressing eminent domain in another resolution, and obviously the former option is a nonstarter, so this will be the standard for now."

“Just to be clear Ambassador, your effort here is to push through a repeal and inferior replacement that you know is easily loopholed?

“Also, you did not address the inherent vagueness of “fair market value”.

“Furthermore what is the point of section 2? The WA is precluded from police action so just how does it go about seizing any property anywhere? Seems to me you need two more repeals to make this worth the paper it’s written on. And then another resolution letting the WA devise taxes and set tax rates. Can’t see too many people being in favour of that.”

"Ambassador, the existing resolution would have the exact same 'loophole' that you cite here. Unless there's a fix, it's not worth talking about this being inferior for that reason. WIth regards to 'fair market value', I did not find it necessary to define it - your example is not one which this fails under, in my view. If the item is not worth as much anymore, then compensation will be less. If the regime becomes communist and prices become fixed, then the market value is inherently that fixed cost." (OOC: If someone with a better economics background has a better term to use, or a good definition to put, then I'm not strictly opposed to that.)

"For someone who seems so concerned about World Assembly overreach, you sure do seem opposed to additional protections that the World Assembly does not participate in substantial overreach. Clause two works."

2. The World Assembly shall, under no circumstances, seize assets of a member nation or any subdivisions thereof, unless one of the following is true:
i. The nation is in non-compliance with an extant World Assembly resolution

Opposed, for the same reasons given here. (viz. Sanctions have always been the prerogative of member states, never the WA as a collective. Changing this precedent would be remarkably dangerous.)

I'm not even going to pretend to touch 2ii and 2iii

Assuming OOC: That clause does nothing that would allow the World Assembly to seize property for non-compliance, it just leaves the door open in the future for people to do so if they want. The WA has no mechanism to seize property, so this clause is essentially a blocker, but the situations I excepted seemed reasonable.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Support.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. Perhaps instead of fair market value (perhaps due to a market being extremely thin), you might consider "replacement value not inclusive of hedonic damages" or something like that. As to section 3, seizing someone's house to build a railroad would certainly increase the chance of the person's death... it may also be preferable for society writ large. No "overall danger" standard should be applied.

I would omit section 2 or perhaps change it to a general statement that the WA does not do that unless expressly authorised by resolution. I can't immediately think of cases where doing a seizure might be necessary, but I am very sure that it would be better to debate it in that instance rather than set a rule now.

[Morover]

C Marcius Blythe. Perhaps instead of fair market value (perhaps due to a market being extremely thin), you might consider "replacement value not inclusive of hedonic damages" or something like that. As to section 3, seizing someone's house to build a railroad would certainly increase the chance of the person's death... it may also be preferable for society writ large. No "overall danger" standard should be applied.

I would omit section 2 or perhaps change it to a general statement that the WA does not do that unless expressly authorised by resolution. I can't immediately think of cases where doing a seizure might be necessary, but I am very sure that it would be better to debate it in that instance rather than set a rule now.

I've followed the advice given here.

This probably won't be submitted upon the (presumed) passage of the repeal, but I do intend to submit it before the end of the month certainly.

[Morover]

Given the lack of comments, I'll tentatively set the submission date on this for August 26.

[Bananaistan]

"The current wording is such that this proposal would have no impact on communist states, socialist states or societies transitioning to same. Despite the arcane term "hedonic damages" which appears to be an incredibly niche legal term only found in one or two jurisdictions, replacement value is acceptable to the Party due to the fact that it will be £0 where private markets in the particular class of private property are abolished.

"We will not vote against."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Correct me uh, if I am wrong, Ambassador, but uh, under the current draft of your proposal, if the state s-seized assets to, uh, fulfill the payment of debts or court mandated fines, wouldn't this proposal, er, paradoxically require the state to compensate the individual for the property they are seizing for non-payment?"

[Attempted Socialism]

"In addition to the comments by our good comrade from the People's Republic of Bananaistan, we would like to applaud the decision to allow for taxation of 100% of the assessed value of an asset, thus allowing even social democratic market economies or other economies very early in their transition to implement eminent domain without compensation. Seeing as this resolution does nothing to limit Socialist or Communist communities and that there are outlets for any state trying to transition away from exploitation, we see this particular draft as merely an internal matter for the capitalist and imperialist countries."

[Bananaistan]

"Correct me uh, if I am wrong, Ambassador, but uh, under the current draft of your proposal, if the state s-seized assets to, uh, fulfill the payment of debts or court mandated fines, wouldn't this proposal, er, paradoxically require the state to compensate the individual for the property they are seizing for non-payment?"

"This is true. The term "criminal enterprise" is too narrow considering that there's a difference between criminality and criminal enterprise. Furthermore, your typical so-called liberal democracy would reasonably seize assets arising from the proceeds of crime and not just those used in "criminal enterprise". Requiring drug lords to be compensated out of the pocket of the international proletariat when their ill gotten gains are seized by the state appears to be a particularly distasteful requirement.

"At least the old law only required token compensation. In Bananaistan, every citizen received £-/2/6¾ per annum as a precautionary measure to ensure compliance. This nebulous "replacement value not inclusive of hedonic damages" requirement is likely to cause serious difficulties for the capitalist and imperialist countries referred to by Comrade Mortimer."

[Old Hope]

All private property seized by any government under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly must provide the owner of the seized property compensation at the replacement value not inclusive of hedonic damages

No.
Replacement value is a bad idea. Usually, the government will attempt to seize a rare resource for the common good. But seizing a lot of that rare resource will cause the price to skyrocket, which means paying replacement value might cause the nation to go bankrupt.
Replacement has to be balanced with feasibility and public needs.
There's also another matter: Not everything can get replaced at all. That what cannot get replaced will not be compensated for at all. That's not a problem with things taht should not be private property at all, like land. But for everything else...