[Passed] Repeal "International Competition Law"

[The Dourian Embassy]

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the intentions of GA#70 to reduce anti-competitive practices in the international market,

Admiring those intentions and lauding the efforts of the International Trade Administration,

Believing that the resolution in question has limited effectiveness, because it does not account for new or evolved anti-competitive practices,

Disappointed that the failure of foresight has led to the proliferation of many such practices worldwide,

Recognizing that the methods of regulation tasked to the International Trade Administration are excessively cumbersome,

Noting that the resolution seeks an international solution to the problems many national regulatory agencies face,

Understanding, however, that easing the burdens national regulatory agencies face in the pursuit of good business practices, rather than assuming those burdens, would be a preferable solution to those problems,

Believing that the World Assembly can work to ease those burdens and stop anti-competitive practices more easily without GA#70,

Hereby repeals GA#70.

Co-Authored By Glen-Rhodes.

It should be noted that my co-author is also the author of the resolution we are repealing. Discuss!

[Araraukar]

I'll reserve further commenting until G-R posts here, but do you have a replacement in the works?

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'll reserve further commenting until G-R posts here, but do you have a replacement in the works?

I won't speak to the intentions of my co-author, but I do not plan any such replacement.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Yes, this is true, I am the co-author. And I do have a replacement in the works, but I can't tell you when it will be posted. This is one of the busiest weeks in Parliament, so I may not have a lot of downtime.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Anyone have comments?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Yeah. Since when is GR a member of Parliament?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah. Since when is GR a member of Parliament?

Luckily, I'm not an MP. Unfortunately, working in the office of an MP means being busy during the last few weeks before the House rises. Surprisingly, I've had a lot of downtime today, though. I was able to sketch out a framework for the replacement. I may be able to have a draft written tomorrow, if I don't have to go to anything.

[Auralia]

Anyone have comments?

Perhaps you could include some examples of "new or evolved anti-competitive practices" in the resolution text itself, to strengthen your case?

[The Dourian Embassy]

Perhaps you could include some examples of "new or evolved anti-competitive practices" in the resolution text itself, to strengthen your case?

That's actually part of our problem with the original. The exactness is a weakness, because there are so many complicated ways to manipulate the marketplace any exhaustive list would still fall short.

[Corporation de Apple]

As long as one gets the promised replacement, for.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Submitted this. Anyone with comments has a day or so before I start the TG campaign.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Looks fine. The old one was good, but if it's to be replaced by a new one by the same author, I have no problem with it. Approved.

[Free South Califas]

Perhaps you could include some examples of "new or evolved anti-competitive practices" in the resolution text itself, to strengthen your case?

That's actually part of our problem with the original. The exactness is a weakness, because there are so many complicated ways to manipulate the marketplace any exhaustive list would still fall short.

The original sets out policy, though. This would just be giving some examples of why we should repeal it. Without any list, the argument is frankly less compelling than it seems it could be, IMHO. Lists of examples are supposed to "fall short" - that's the point of giving examples, to summarize, not to cover every contingency.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That's actually part of our problem with the original. The exactness is a weakness, because there are so many complicated ways to manipulate the marketplace any exhaustive list would still fall short.

The original sets out policy, though. This would just be giving some examples of why we should repeal it. Without any list, the argument is frankly less compelling than it seems it could be, IMHO. Lists of examples are supposed to "fall short" - that's the point of giving examples, to summarize, not to cover every contingency.

The list of anti-competitive practices wasn't a list of examples, but an exhaustive list of practices monitored by the ITA. The only practices covered under the resolution are price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive dealing, group boycotts and market divisions. That is a very small list. For instance, dumping wouldn't be covered, nor would resale price maintenance. Evolving forms of anti-competitive behavior also aren't covered, like digital rights management and intellectual property misuse. The ITA is powerless to monitor those issues.

Additionally, the burden placed on the ITA is simply too large. One organization, even a massive one like the ITA, cannot handle the influx of information. It would be better for the World Assembly Trade Commission to offer its services for competition law harmonization, government-to-government liaison, and dispute settlement. Those three things are easier to manage. I'm still mulling over whether or not the WATC should get involved in large MNC mergers.

[Free South Califas]

The original sets out policy, though. This would just be giving some examples of why we should repeal it. Without any list, the argument is frankly less compelling than it seems it could be, IMHO. Lists of examples are supposed to "fall short" - that's the point of giving examples, to summarize, not to cover every contingency.

The list of anti-competitive practices wasn't a list of examples, but an exhaustive list of practices monitored by the ITA. The only practices covered under the resolution are price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive dealing, group boycotts and market divisions. That is a very small list. For instance, dumping wouldn't be covered, nor would resale price maintenance. Evolving forms of anti-competitive behavior also aren't covered, like digital rights management and intellectual property misuse. The ITA is powerless to monitor those issues.

Sure, go with that. I would say go ahead and throw at least one of those examples in there. JMHO.

[Triptania]

sympathetic as I am regarding the removal of red tape and easing burdens on Nat'l agencies, i'm afraid, as long as we all agree that "price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive dealing, group boycotts and market divisions" are all valid anti-competitive practices, which should be enforced against, voting to repeal the legislation might be a bit extreme. wouldn't it be easier to simply amend it with language regarding new and/or evolved anti-competitive practices?

I joined the WA only two days ago but if the concern is the burden on Nat'l agencies, then won't repealing this law, in lieu of having another WA measure in place, simply task these already-burdened-Nat'l agencies with things this law removed from their plates?

[Free South Califas]

wouldn't it be easier to simply amend it

Unfortunately, no. Much as we might like to, it is impossible to do so, and that will not change. It must be repealed and replaced if it is to be changed at all. We shouldn't clog this thread up about it, BTW; read the threads on top of this forum (General Assembly).

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal makes no argument.

AGAINST

[Discoveria]

Looks fine. The old one was good, but if it's to be replaced by a new one by the same author, I have no problem with it. Approved.

"We are inclined to vote FOR, for the same reason," said Matthew.

[Mediobogdum]

Although my WA representative has yet to vote on this matter, I'm of the opinion that something is better than nothing, or a bird in the hand etc. Until the pending new legislation has been drafted and circulated for comment, if that is the usual protocol, I feel that we should await developments rather than probably undo the good work that the existing law has achieved. I understand the frustration of many who think that the existing law has many 'holes' in it terms of monitoring/policing, but taking precipitous action before a replacement is on the table would, in mho, be foolish in the extreme.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Although my WA representative has yet to vote on this matter, I'm of the opinion that something is better than nothing, or a bird in the hand etc. Until the pending new legislation has been drafted and circulated for comment, if that is the usual protocol, I feel that we should await developments rather than probably undo the good work that the existing law has achieved. I understand the frustration of many who think that the existing law has many 'holes' in it terms of monitoring/policing, but taking precipitous action before a replacement is on the table would, in mho, be foolish in the extreme.

Here is the drafted replacement.

This proposal makes no argument.

AGAINST

How so? It is arguing that the ITA's mandate is too cumbersome, and that the exhaustive list of anti-competitive practices not only excludes existing ones, but would also exclude new and evolving forms.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal makes no argument.

AGAINST

How so? It is arguing that the ITA's mandate is too cumbersome, and that the exhaustive list of anti-competitive practices not only excludes existing ones, but would also exclude new and evolving forms.

- Dr. B. Castro

How are "the methods of regulation tasked to the International Trade Administration . . . excessively cumbersome"?

What sorts of "new or evolved anti-competitive practices" have emerged?

How can the World Assembly "work to ease those burdens and stop anti-competitive practices more easily without GA#70"?

[Auralia]

How so? It is arguing that the ITA's mandate is too cumbersome, and that the exhaustive list of anti-competitive practices not only excludes existing ones, but would also exclude new and evolving forms.

- Dr. B. Castro

How are "the methods of regulation tasked to the International Trade Administration . . . excessively cumbersome"?

What sorts of "new or evolved anti-competitive practices" have emerged?

How can the World Assembly "work to ease those burdens and stop anti-competitive practices more easily without GA#70"?

GR gave some examples above. I agree that they should have been included in the resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

How are "the methods of regulation tasked to the International Trade Administration . . . excessively cumbersome"?

The ITA was tasked with monitoring every single multinational business and approving every single international merger. I'm not saying this to be mean or catty, but did you read the original resolution? This question has a really obvious answer...

What sorts of "new or evolved anti-competitive practices" have emerged?

Well, DRM and intellectual property are two new and evolving practices that have the potential to be abused to reduce competition. The point, though, is that we don't know what these practices could be, so we should keep the avenues open, so to speak.

How can the World Assembly "work to ease those burdens and stop anti-competitive practices more easily without GA#70"?

Starting the premise that the ITA is overburdened, we can redirect resources towards things like competition law harmonization, dispute settlement, and interagency liaising. It's not necessary for the World Assembly to be directly involved in monitoring individual corporations, or approving individual mergers. Those things are already done domestically, so it would be smarter to just ensure that different government agencies can communicate and network internationally through a common hub. This is what I've proposed with my draft replacement.

[Free South Califas]

For our part, we are satisfied with the co-author's explanation, and urge passage of this repeal.