[PASSED] Repeal "Ethics in International Trade"

[Sciongrad]

Category: Repeal | GAR#118 | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

CONDEMNING the detrimental nature of internationally mandated protectionism on the world economy as imposed by GAR#118, Ethics in International Trade, especially considering the ineffective means by which the original resolutions seeks to accomplish its goals,

ALARMED that the World Assembly's economic intervention may disrupt the value of goods based on traditional factors caused by competition and instead place monetary value in social and ethical issues,

CONCERNED that a company may fire workers, depriving them of what livelihood they had, in an attempt to offset the costs of the tariff, thus worsening the conditions of the very laborers that GAR#118 seeks to help,

REMINDING members nations of the obligations incumbent upon them to comply with extant World Assembly legislation which deals with issues of social justice and the fair treatment of workers (in greater detail than the conditions enumerated in clause 1b), such as GAR#4, "Restrictions on Child Labor," GAR#7, "Workplace Safety Standards Act," GAR#21, "Living Wage Act," GAR#23, "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking," GAR#43, "WA Labor Relations Act," GAR#107, "Clean Water Act," GAR#176, "Disability Welfare Act," and GAR#234, "Freedom to Read and Learn," and others,

CONFUSED as to the purpose of the wildly redundant and expensive system of assessment provided under the ITA's mandate, considering the issues of clause 1b are eclipsed entirely by the aforementioned guarantees provided by the World Assembly,

CONSIDERING, with the foregoing obligations already incumbent on member nations in mind, that the ITA's focus must be on non-member nations, despite not having the jurisdiction to properly assess the conditions of laborers in such nations, as they cannot be compelled to comply with investigations into their labor conditions by the World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that non-member nations willing to submit to ITA investigation are likely to already have labor standards at least comparable to those stipulated in GAR#118, whereas non-member nations that refuse to allow investigation cannot be properly assessed anyway,

AWARE that the magnitude of information that the ITA would have to regularly assess regarding literally every product and commodity produced would inevitably result in inaccurate or inequitable rulings based off of limited information,

DISPUTING the need for a bureaucracy mired by redundancy and superfluous procedures and whose mandate is crippled by its inability to properly perform its duties in non-member nations, making for a costly and thoroughly unworkable expense on member nations which benefits neither member nations, nor the workers that it seeks to aid,

ASSERTING that it is a duty of the World Assembly to facilitate worthwhile goals, such as promoting the economic well-being of member nations, not putting member nations at an economic disadvantage by instituting idealistic policies that serve as an active detriment to member nations,

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #118, Ethics in International Trade.

The General Assembly,

VIEWING instances of social and economic injustice as anathema to the ideals of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING the magnanimous efforts of GAR#118 "Ethics in International Trade" to ameliorate such injustices through the imposition of an ethical tariff on products imported by member nations,

DISPUTING, however, the notion that breaching vague standards such adequate leisure time constitutes an "extreme hazard to national population,"

CONSIDERING that the magnitude of information that the ITA would have to regularly assess regarding literally every product and commodity produced would inevitably result in inaccurate or inequitable rulings based on limited information,

FURTHER CONSIDERING that the ITA does not have the jurisdiction to properly assess the conditions of laborers in non-member nations, as non-member nations cannot be compelled to comply with investigations into their labor conditions,

RECOGNIZING that non-member nations willing to submit to ITA investigation are likely to already have similar standards regarding labor, whereas non-member nations that refuse to allow investigation cannot be properly assessed anyway,

BELIEVING that the World Assembly should hold itself to a higher standard of efficiency and fairness in arbitration,

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #118, Ethics in International Trade.

The General Assembly,

VIEWING instances of social and economic injustice as anathema to the ideals of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING the magnanimous efforts of GAR#118 "Ethics in International Trade" to ameliorate such injustices through the imposition of an ethical tariff on products imported by member nations,

DISPUTING, however the notion that breaching vague standards such adequate leisure time constitutes an "extreme hazard to national population,"

CONSIDERING the further impracticality of the International Trade Administration successfully assessing the conditions enumerated within clause 1B, regarding tens of trillions of workers within tens of thousands of nations,

FURTHER CONSIDERING that the ITA does not have the jurisdiction to properly assess the conditions of laborers in non-member nations, as non-member nations cannot be compelled to comply with investigations into their labor conditions,

APPALLED that the burden of proof lies not on the ITA to prove that the application of a tariff is "legitimate," but on the appellate party, which must prove that the application of a tariff is illegitimate,

DEEPLY SADDENED that a company may fire workers, depriving them of what livelihood they had, in an attempt to offset the costs of the tariff, thus worsening the conditions of the very laborers that GAR#118 seeks to help,

BELIEVING that it is a responsibility of this assembly to promote the removal of trade barriers when possible, not to restrict commerce,

CONVINCED that the aforementioned flaws are inefficient, impractical, and an undue burden on the economies of member nations,

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #118, Ethics in International Trade.

The General Assembly,

VIEWING instances of social and economic injustice as anathema to the ideals of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING that GAR#118 "Ethics in International Trade" seeks to ameliorate such injustices through the imposition of an ethical tariff on products imported by member nations,

DISPUTING the efficacy and practicality of harming the economic well being of member nations due to the actions of what may be a single company or producer,

CONSIDERING the further impracticality of the International Trade Administration successfully assessing the conditions enumerated within clause 1B, regarding tens of trillions of workers within tens of thousands of nations,

FURTHER CONSIDERING that the ITA does not have the jurisdiction to properly assess the conditions of laborers in non-member nations, as they cannot be compelled to comply with investigations into the labor conditions within their nation,

SHOCKED that the ITA is permitted to determine what constitutes and acceptable wage or salary, an appropriate amount of personal comfort within an individual's personal life, and an adequate amount of rest or vacation time, and to punish such nations accordingly:

- An acceptable wage or salary,
- An acceptable amount of personal comfort within an individual's personal life
- An appropriate amount of rest or vacation time,

APPALLED that the burden of proof lies not on the ITA to prove that the application of a tariff is "legitimate," but on the appellate party, which must prove that the application of a tariff is illegitimate,

REALIZING that, notwithstanding any supposed social or economic justice brought about by a bureaucratically imposed tax on member nations, commercial entities may choose to accept the tariff, thus doing little to improve the conditions of abused workers,

DEEPLY SADDENED that a company may fire workers, depriving them of what livelihood they had, in an attempt to offset the costs of the tariff, thus worsening the conditions of the laborers that GAR#118 seeks to help,

BELIEVING the aforementioned flaws to be inefficient, impractical, and an undue burden on the economies of member nations,

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #118, Ethics in International Trade.

The General Assembly,

VIEWING instances of social and economic injustice as anathema to the ideals of the World Assembly,

OBSERVING that GAR#118 "Ethics in International Trade" seeks to ameliorate such injustices through the imposition of an ethical tariff on products imported by member nations,

DISPUTING the efficacy and practicality of harming the economic well being of member nations due to the actions of what may be a single company or producer,

NOTING that GAR#118 states, in relevant part:

"2.a) Declares that the set percentage of an ad valorem tariff on each specific imported good’s market value (relevant to c.1), shall be decided by the International Trade Administration (ITA), with consideration from input by any nation or commercial entity;"

CONSIDERING the further impracticality of the International Trade Administration successfully assessing the conditions enumerated within the aforementioned clause 1B, regarding tens of trillions of workers within tens of thousands of nations,

SHOCKED that the ITA is permitted to determine what constitutes the following, and to punish such nations accordingly:

- An acceptable wage or salary,
- An acceptable amount of personal comfort within an individual's personal life
- An appropriate amount of rest or vacation time,

APPALLED that the burden of proof lies not on the ITA to prove that the application of a tariff is "legitimate," but on the appellate party, which must prove that the application of a tariff is illegitimate,

REALIZING that, notwithstanding any supposed social or economic justice brought about by a bureaucratically imposed tax on member nations, they may choose to accept the tariff, thus doing little to improve the conditions of abused workers,

BELIEVING the aforementioned flaws to be inefficient, impractical, and an undue burden on the economies of member nations,

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #118, Ethics in International Trade.

[Grays Harbor]

No objection so far...

[Lillitania]

I already give my full support to this proposal.

Jerry Greyer
General Assembly Office

[Glen-Rhodes]

DISPUTING the efficacy and practicality of harming the economic well being of member nations due to the actions of what may be a single company or producer,

This sounds an awful lot like a misunderstanding of what the resolution actually does. The ad valorem tariffs are placed upon specific imported goods, not blanket tarrifs on states or even entire companies. It is not a charge paid by the exporting manufacturers, but by the importers. That means that importers cannot simply shop around for a cheaper source that has the same kinds of workplace and labor issues. Their governments would have to withdraw from the World Assembly.

That provides an incentive for domestic manufacturers to improve the livelihoods of their employees, because importers must either agree to pay a tariff or move to a source where the tariff doesn't apply. What exactly is being disputed about the efficacy of this plan?

CONSIDERING the further impracticality of the International Trade Administration successfully assessing the conditions enumerated within the aforementioned clause 1B, within tens of thousands of non-member nation,

This is a typical, unsupported anti-committee clause. Billions of dollars are processed everyday in stock exchanges. Governments manage to enforce complicated tax codes, ranging from income-based taxes to more complicated value-added taxes. Just because it's the World Assembly doesn't mean that it's impossible.

SHOCKED that the ITA is permitted to determine what constitutes the following, and to punish such nations accordingly...

Why? The World Assembly itself and several other agencies make these kinds of decisions every day. The World Assembly has even determined what an acceptable wage is.

APPALLED that the burden of proof lies not on the ITA to prove that the application of a tariff is "legitimate," but on the appellate party, which must prove that the application of a tariff is illegitimate,

Are you suggesting that it would be better for companies to determine if a tariff should apply to them?

REALIZING that, notwithstanding any supposed social or economic justice brought about by a bureaucratically imposed tax on member nations, they may choose to accept the tariff, thus doing little to improve the conditions of abused workers,

That seems more like an argument for higher tariffs than an argument against tariffs altogether.

BELIEVING the aforementioned flaws to be inefficient, impractical, and an undue burden on the economies of member nations,

Three accusations left completely unsupported.

Glen-Rhodes is generally in favor of furthering the global transition to free trade. However, developing countries almost always lose, while rich countries benefit from free trade policies. It's necessary to ensure that everybody has an acceptable standard of living. One way to do this is an ethical tariffs on imports. So Glen-Rhodes must strongly oppose this repeal.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sciongrad]

This sounds an awful lot like a misunderstanding of what the resolution actually does. The ad valorem tariffs are placed upon specific imported goods, not blanket tarrifs on states or even entire companies. It is not a charge paid by the exporting manufacturers, but by the importers. That means that importers cannot simply shop around for a cheaper source that has the same kinds of workplace and labor issues. Their governments would have to withdraw from the World Assembly.

That provides an incentive for domestic manufacturers to improve the livelihoods of their employees, because importers must either agree to pay a tariff or move to a source where the tariff doesn't apply. What exactly is being disputed about the efficacy of this plan?

Let me preface this by saying, first and foremost, thank you, Your Excellency, for taking the time to make your criticisms public so that I may potentially adjust the repeal accordingly. However, I'm going to let you know that I'm aware of your eternal opposition to this repeal effort, and as such, am not interested in engaging in continued banter after this rebuttal - I hope you understand. Anyways, I do appreciate the explanation, but I am well aware of what an ad valorem tariff is, and I'm especially aware of how tariffs work. The clause suggests that it is possible for an economy to be damaged by the actions of a single entity - this is in fact true. Should a large corporation - say a company that produces an important commodity like oil, coal, what-have-you - act in a way that the ITA finds disagreeable, then the result would be a damaging tariff on a major industry within a nation. Sciongrad finds this most disagreeable.

This is a typical, unsupported anti-committee clause. Billions of dollars are processed everyday in stock exchanges. Governments manage to enforce complicated tax codes, ranging from income-based taxes to more complicated value-added taxes. Just because it's the World Assembly doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Sciongrad has no problems with the effective use of bureaucracy, and I personally think it's one of the most useful tools a legislator has in their arsenal. So I must respectfully request that your Excellency not use that catch-all excuse as a scapegoat. My concern is that no realistically sized committee can assess the intricacies enumerated in GAR#118 among tens of trillions of workers in billions of workplaces in tens of thousands of nations on a regular basis. Unless you subscribe to the belief that gnomes are unpaid and spontaneously spring into existence when their presence is required, the very concept of such oversight is impractical.

Why? The World Assembly itself and several other agencies make these kinds of decisions every day. The World Assembly has even determined what an acceptable wage is.

The member nations of the World Assembly come to a consensus on most policy based off of a democratic vote. Even its bureaucracy is established in such a manner. However, I find it a gross overreach of World Assembly policy to have a bureaucracy determine specific standards like leisure time in nations that are not within their jurisdiction. The resolution is a cowardly attempt at maneuvering around the established law of the World Assembly: that its resolutions may not dictate the policy of non-member nations. And this sets an egregious precedent of future World Assembly overreach.

Are you suggesting that it would be better for companies to determine if a tariff should apply to them?

No, your Excellency, I'm suggesting that companies should not be required to prove their own innocence regarding the vaguely defined edicts handed down by the ITA. The ITA should be responsible for proving the supposed guilt of its victims, not the other way around.

That seems more like an argument for higher tariffs than an argument against tariffs altogether.

I apologize if it reads that way ambassador - perhaps I can adjust it to read more lucidly. The meaning of the clause is that as it currently stands, nations are not required to change who they decide to purchase goods from if it's still profitable. Regardless of how you perceive the argument, it seems you've at least acknowledged its legitimacy. Progress, if I do say so myself.

Three accusations left completely unsupported.

I must respectfully disagree with your Excellency.

Glen-Rhodes is generally in favor of furthering the global transition to free trade. However, developing countries almost always lose, while rich countries benefit from free trade policies. It's necessary to ensure that everybody has an acceptable standard of living. One way to do this is an ethical tariffs on imports. So Glen-Rhodes must strongly oppose this repeal.

GAR#118 is anathema to the very ideals of free trade. There are other mediums through which the World Assembly may ameliorate the injustices of the world, and restricting trade almost universally is not only a bad way of doing so, but an egregious example of the World Assembly overstepping its boundaries.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Your Excellency, for taking the time to make your criticisms public so that I may potentially adjust the repeal accordingly. However, I'm going to let you know that I'm aware of your eternal opposition to this repeal effort, and as such, am not interested in engaging in continued banter after this rebuttal - I hope you understand. Anyways, I do appreciate the explanation, but I am well aware of what an ad valorem tariff is, and I'm especially aware of how tariffs work.

I so wish you would, because it's very clear you don't fully understand the resolution you want to repeal. But that's your choice, of course, and if you feel that my comments aren't useful, then so be it.

As a major contributor to the resolution in question, I anticipated scenarios where the added-value tariff would do more harm to workers in developing countries than it would pressure the governments and businesses to improve their quality of life. That is why is the ITA is empowered to exclude goods from the tariff when that scenario is true. Article 2, section C.

My concern is that no realistically sized committee can assess the intricacies enumerated in GAR#118 among tens of trillions of workers in billions of workplaces in tens of thousands of nations on a regular basis. Unless you subscribe to the belief that gnomes are unpaid and spontaneously spring into existence when their presence is required, the very concept of such oversight is impractical.

Your concern is unfounded, plain and simple. Followed to its conclusion, it would proscribe global governance altogether.

The member nations of the World Assembly come to a consensus on most policy based off of a democratic vote. Even its bureaucracy is established in such a manner.

The World Assembly voted to grant the ITA those powers.

However, I find it a gross overreach of World Assembly policy to have a bureaucracy determine specific standards like leisure time in nations that are not within their jurisdiction. The resolution is a cowardly attempt at maneuvering around the established law of the World Assembly: that its resolutions may not dictate the policy of non-member nations. And this sets an egregious precedent of future World Assembly overreach.

Again, willful misunderstanding of the resolution. Member states choose to import goods from non-members, and also choose to comply with international laws and regulations passed by the World Assembly. In this case, the World Assembly has agreed that its members should charge their domestic importers an ethical value-added tariff for choosing to source goods from countries and companies unwilling to improve the lives of their people.

No, your Excellency, I'm suggesting that companies should not be required to prove their own innocence regarding the vaguely defined edicts handed down by the ITA. The ITA should be responsible for proving the supposed guilt of its victims, not the other way around.

This doesn't make any sense. Your premise is that the ITA just determines whether or not tariffs apply by spinning a wheel and throwing a dart. The ITA obviously investigates first and then determines if the tariff applies. That is the only way tariffs and taxes have ever been applied in the history of states.

GAR#118 is anathema to the very ideals of free trade.

That's a wildly false statement. Free trade does not preclude protections for developing countries. In fact, protections are one of the fundamental pillars. The idea that free trade and tariffs are mutually exclusive has only ever existed in the headline summary versions of international economics people and politicians read to avoid spending too much time learning about a complicated area of policy.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sciongrad]

I expected nothing less from the good doctor - dismissing my points as "wildly false," in some cases without so much as an explanation. Alas, I intend to stay true to my word and focus on improving the repeal, rather than engaging in acrimony that will no doubt lead to a fruitless conclusion.

Anyway, I thank the ambassadors of Grays Harbor and Lillitania for their support. Further suggestions would be very much appreciated.

[Auralia]

Support. It has long been recognized that boycotting goods from developing countries with poor labour conditions only harms local economies and increases unemployment. While it may be a difficult pill to swallow, a low-paying job is always preferable to starvation. This argument should be added to the repeal.

[The Akashic Records]

I'm sorry, but as much as I detest protective tariffs, the target resolution had outlined reasonable limitations by which it operates, as well as reasonable conditions by which workers should be at least treated. The International Trade Administration, is about as functional as the World Assembly Development Foundation, and we don't fund them to hire inept workers who can't do what's in their job description. Also, this repeal reads similarly to the repeal of Reduction of Abortion Act; intentionally misleading arguments that would sway most voters who wouldn't care to read the target resolution.

[Sciongrad]

Support. It has long been recognized that boycotting goods from developing countries with poor labour conditions only harms local economies and increases unemployment. While it may be a difficult pill to swallow, a low-paying job is always preferable to starvation. This argument should be added to the repeal.

Your Excellency's support is deeply appreciated, as is your suggestion - that's a brilliant point that hadn't crossed my mind and I'll be certain to add it into the next draft. I hope to hear future suggestions from you, your Excellency!

I'm sorry, but as much as I detest protective tariffs, the target resolution had outlined reasonable limitations by which it operates, as well as reasonable conditions by which workers should be at least treated. The International Trade Administration, is about as functional as the World Assembly Development Foundation, and we don't fund them to hire inept workers who can't do what's in their job description. Also, this repeal reads similarly to the repeal of Reduction of Abortion Act; intentionally misleading arguments that would sway most voters who wouldn't care to read the target resolution.

Reasonable conditions? Perhaps vague yet magnanimous is a more apt description. And even so, the idea of tariffs as an effective medium for social change is a system broken at its very core - restricting free trade and potentially the livelihood of workers in an attempt to coerce businesses into changing their policies is not effective. If a business finds trade with the tariff more profitable than changing their methods, than at best, the tariff will be ignored, and at worst, workers will lose the jobs they had in order to cover the costs of the tariff.

Regarding the ITA: I still find the notion that any one committee can regularly check the conditions of trillions of people unrealistic. I think that committees should remain within the realm of practicality, and to accomplish such a goal, this committee would be expensive, inefficient, and most likely ineffective. The cause is laudable, but the funding required at the expense of member nations is not.

Finally, please do tell me what arguments you find are intentionally misleading because I most certainly don't want arguments of that nature in the repeal. Point them out and I'll gladly change them if need be.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Regarding the ITA: I still find the notion that any one committee can regularly check the conditions of trillions of people unrealistic. I think that committees should remain within the realm of practicality, and to accomplish such a goal, this committee would be expensive, inefficient, and most likely ineffective. The cause is laudable, but the funding required at the expense of member nations is not.

I don't really care if you ignore me, so I'm going to continue to refute this anti-committee propaganda. It is not that hard to determine a group's socioeconomic status and labor conditions. Underfunded agencies and non-profit NGOs do it regularly in the real world, even in underdeveloped countries that lack any kind of government statistics department and are hostile to human rights organizations.

This entire repeal is based upon false premises. To think that the ITA can't determine socioeconomic statuses, you'd have to start from the premise that it's the only such organization doing so. In reality, there are thousands of these organizations, if not tens of thousands given the size of the World Assembly universe. There are NGOs and government agencies. There are human rights organizations monitoring worldwide labor conditions. The ITA isn't working alone even in the World Assembly: there's an agency call the World Assembly Development Foundation whose sole purpose is to research the socioeconomic environments of developing countries and improve their economies.

This kind of boilerplate anti-commiteeism is intellectually lazy. You include it because you think it'll go over well with voters, not because you've actually sat and thought about how global governance works. It's this kind of stuff that routinely diminishes the quality of content produced by WA authors.

[The Akashic Records]

Ambassador, I believe that Dr. Castro had explained it with greater eloquence than I could ever dream of, but here's another point of note; quoting a relevant section of the target resolution out of context.

When you read clause 2 as quoted by you in the repeal, it sounds as if the ITA is some sort of incompetent committee that won't know what to do, however, if you read the target resolution, their duties have been duly outlined reasonably. To say that the ITA shouldn't be able to determine the most basic of living conditions based on their judgment AND input from nations and commercial entities, is preposterous. Clause 1 outlines, what we would consider as conditions better than slavery; clause 2(b) outlines under what conditions these tariffs are to be implemented, with due considerations of market prices, demands, needs, and worker conditions as was outlined in clause 1; if the tariff would be too much of a burden, or is unethical, then clause 2(c) allows the ITA to rule a zero-percentage tariff. What exactly is unethical about the target resolution, when it is aimed at improving the socioeconomic conditions of those involved in the manufacture of trading goods?

[Abacathea]

As much as we tend to support the Sciongrad delegacy, and we have often failed to see eye to eye with the good Dr.Castro, in this instance we see insufficient failings in the act to support this.

We will resultantly be siding on the against side of the fence on this particular draft and wish the Sciongrad delegation all the best despite our objections.

[Sciongrad]

Regarding the ITA: I still find the notion that any one committee can regularly check the conditions of trillions of people unrealistic. I think that committees should remain within the realm of practicality, and to accomplish such a goal, this committee would be expensive, inefficient, and most likely ineffective. The cause is laudable, but the funding required at the expense of member nations is not.

I don't really care if you ignore me, so I'm going to continue to refute this anti-committee propaganda. It is not that hard to determine a group's socioeconomic status and labor conditions. Underfunded agencies and non-profit NGOs do it regularly in the real world, even in underdeveloped countries that lack any kind of government statistics department and are hostile to human rights organizations.

This entire repeal is based upon false premises. To think that the ITA can't determine socioeconomic statuses, you'd have to start from the premise that it's the only such organization doing so. In reality, there are thousands of these organizations, if not tens of thousands given the size of the World Assembly universe. There are NGOs and government agencies. There are human rights organizations monitoring worldwide labor conditions. The ITA isn't working alone even in the World Assembly: there's an agency call the World Assembly Development Foundation whose sole purpose is to research the socioeconomic environments of developing countries and improve their economies.

This kind of boilerplate anti-commiteeism is intellectually lazy. You include it because you think it'll go over well with voters, not because you've actually sat and thought about how global governance works. It's this kind of stuff that routinely diminishes the quality of content produced by WA authors.

Your Excellency, I do not intend on ignoring you - I simply think that any back-and-forth banter will not be efficient. But I will address this concern seeing you seem to find this argument particularly offensive. You seem to be comparing a variety of NGOs responsible for collecting data from millions of laborers with a single entity responsible for collecting data from tens of trillions. Is it possible for any single entity to accomplish such a goal? Probably, I did not argue it was impossible. But to argue that any agency can efficiently and effectively assess the working conditions of so many workers regularly is simply ludicrous. You can paint me as anti-committee - facts will vindicate me as I've never shied away from using bureaucracy in the past. But you can't keep throwing different examples: "stock exchanges, tax codes, NGOs," as none of these properly parallel with the factor of size. Furthermore, the legal justification behind the World Assembly managing to allow themselves to investigate conditions within non-member nations is non-existent. How anyone can see it as ethical to impose a tariff on a non-member nation that refuses to comply with request to investigate the working conditions within their nation is beyond me.

This point is something I simply will not concede on as I find the assertion that an entity so massive and responsible for such large quantities of information cannot possibly be both cost efficient and effective. And I'm never surprised that the conclusion to your arguments are that my delegation is incapable of understanding the topic properly simply because our views are different - I suppose it's something with which I'll have to become accustomed.

Ambassador, I believe that Dr. Castro had explained it with greater eloquence than I could ever dream of, but here's another point of note; quoting a relevant section of the target resolution out of context.

When you read clause 2 as quoted by you in the repeal, it sounds as if the ITA is some sort of incompetent committee that won't know what to do, however, if you read the target resolution, their duties have been duly outlined reasonably. To say that the ITA shouldn't be able to determine the most basic of living conditions based on their judgment AND input from nations and commercial entities, is preposterous. Clause 1 outlines, what we would consider as conditions better than slavery; clause 2(b) outlines under what conditions these tariffs are to be implemented, with due considerations of market prices, demands, needs, and worker conditions as was outlined in clause 1; if the tariff would be too much of a burden, or is unethical, then clause 2(c) allows the ITA to rule a zero-percentage tariff. What exactly is unethical about the target resolution, when it is aimed at improving the socioeconomic conditions of those involved in the manufacture of trading goods?

Clause 1 vaguely outlines what is considered basic living conditions. The ITA is responsible for defining these conditions almost unilaterally. Corporations do not get a say as to what constitutes basic living conditions - they may only contribute input to how severely they'll be punished by an entity that was autocratically forced upon them. The rest of what you mentioned seems like you're attempting to define all of the parts of the resolution you seem to consider effective at ensuring the ITA does not abuse its taxing power.

Regarding what I find so deplorable in the original resolution: the method at which it goes about trying to solve the problem. In theory, the purpose of the resolution is to coerce corporations into treating their workers fairly - this is certainly a laudable goal. But under the surface, the workers are actually harmed more than they're helped. When a corporation is presented with two options - improve wages, increase leisure time, etc. or face the wrath of a tariff, or ignore the tariff and fire workers and/or cut wages and rest hours to make up the difference, the latter seems to be the more profitable choice for such a corporation. If the World Assembly was to go about meddling in the affairs of non member nations - which I do not think is appropriate conduct for an entity with a clearly defined jurisdiction - then it should do so in a way that does not potentially hurt workers and the economies of member nations. You can defend GAR#118 by claiming that at least the way in which tariffs are presented is done so in a clear and organized manner, but I'm not going to buy into the argument that this justifies the great deal of damage done to all involved parties.

As much as we tend to support the Sciongrad delegacy, and we have often failed to see eye to eye with the good Dr.Castro, in this instance we see insufficient failings in the act to support this.

We will resultantly be siding on the against side of the fence on this particular draft and wish the Sciongrad delegation all the best despite our objections.

I'm deeply saddened to hear that your Excellency does not see the great deal of damage dealt by GAR#118, and I can only hope to hear that you'll have a change of heart as the debate progresses. I thank you for your kind words, however.

[The Akashic Records]

Clause 1 vaguely outlines what is considered basic living conditions. The ITA is responsible for defining these conditions almost unilaterally. Corporations do not get a say as to what constitutes basic living conditions - they may only contribute input to how severely they'll be punished by an entity that was autocratically forced upon them. The rest of what you mentioned seems like you're attempting to define all of the parts of the resolution you seem to consider effective at ensuring the ITA does not abuse its taxing power.

Regarding what I find so deplorable in the original resolution: the method at which it goes about trying to solve the problem. In theory, the purpose of the resolution is to coerce corporations into treating their workers fairly - this is certainly a laudable goal. But under the surface, the workers are actually harmed more than they're helped. When a corporation is presented with two options - improve wages, increase leisure time, etc. or face the wrath of a tariff, or ignore the tariff and fire workers and/or cut wages and rest hours to make up the difference, the latter seems to be the more profitable choice for such a corporation. If the World Assembly was to go about meddling in the affairs of non member nations - which I do not think is appropriate conduct for an entity with a clearly defined jurisdiction - then it should do so in a way that does not potentially hurt workers and the economies of member nations. You can defend GAR#118 by claiming that at least the way in which tariffs are presented is done so in a clear and organized manner, but I'm not going to buy into the argument that this justifies the great deal of damage done to all involved parties.

Ambassador, do pardon me, but if we're going to talk about potential, then every bureaucracy that these hallowed halls have brought into existence would be at least as questionable. Your argument thus far have relied solely on the powers of the ITA, and the supposed fact that they are inept and incapable of carrying put their mandates to the best interests of the people and nations. I would also question how ad valorem tariffs on specific goods would cause any and all corporations to choose to destroy their workers, and still be in business.

[Sciongrad]

Clause 1 vaguely outlines what is considered basic living conditions. The ITA is responsible for defining these conditions almost unilaterally. Corporations do not get a say as to what constitutes basic living conditions - they may only contribute input to how severely they'll be punished by an entity that was autocratically forced upon them. The rest of what you mentioned seems like you're attempting to define all of the parts of the resolution you seem to consider effective at ensuring the ITA does not abuse its taxing power.

Regarding what I find so deplorable in the original resolution: the method at which it goes about trying to solve the problem. In theory, the purpose of the resolution is to coerce corporations into treating their workers fairly - this is certainly a laudable goal. But under the surface, the workers are actually harmed more than they're helped. When a corporation is presented with two options - improve wages, increase leisure time, etc. or face the wrath of a tariff, or ignore the tariff and fire workers and/or cut wages and rest hours to make up the difference, the latter seems to be the more profitable choice for such a corporation. If the World Assembly was to go about meddling in the affairs of non member nations - which I do not think is appropriate conduct for an entity with a clearly defined jurisdiction - then it should do so in a way that does not potentially hurt workers and the economies of member nations. You can defend GAR#118 by claiming that at least the way in which tariffs are presented is done so in a clear and organized manner, but I'm not going to buy into the argument that this justifies the great deal of damage done to all involved parties.

Ambassador, do pardon me, but if we're going to talk about potential, then every bureaucracy that these hallowed halls have brought into existence would be at least as questionable. Your argument thus far have relied solely on the powers of the ITA, and the supposed fact that they are inept and incapable of carrying put their mandates to the best interests of the people and nations. I would also question how ad valorem tariffs on specific goods would cause any and all corporations to choose to destroy their workers, and still be in business.

Your Excellency, I mean this with the utmost respect, but this is entirely incorrect. While I do rely on the fact that the ITA cannot possibly accomplish its duties effectively (exorbitant amount of information gathering, impossibility of the ITA forcing non-member nations to permit investigations into the working conditions of their nation, etc.), I use several other arguments; among which include that large multinational corporation would either not be harmed by the tariff, or would cut wages or fire workers to compensate for the loss in profit. Smaller businesses without the means to improve the conditions of their workers would either be forced to close down, thus damaging the economies and conditions of workers to an even greater extent, or fall under the zero percent tariff exception, thus doing nothing to improve the conditions of workers.

[The Akashic Records]

Your Excellency, I mean this with the utmost respect, but this is entirely incorrect. While I do rely on the fact that the ITA cannot possibly accomplish its duties effectively (exorbitant amount of information gathering, impossibility of the ITA forcing non-member nations to permit investigations into the working conditions of their nation, etc.), I use several other arguments; among which include that large multinational corporation would either not be harmed by the tariff, or would cut wages or fire workers to compensate for the loss in profit. Smaller businesses without the means to improve the conditions of their workers would either be forced to close down, thus damaging the economies and conditions of workers to an even greater extent, or fall under the zero percent tariff exception, thus doing nothing to improve the conditions of workers.

I do apologize as well, ambassador Santos, I have yet to restore some energy this morning, and got a little bit too fired up in my argument, and misused some words, namely, the word 'solely' when I should've used 'mostly'. While you did use other arguments, your most prominent cause for the repeal, is the ineptitude of the ITA. As much as we believe that these bureaucratic layers of committees are capable of doing their job, they do not operate outside of their mandates, unless otherwise instructed by other resolutions.

The resolution instructs the member nations in order to "make a coordinated effort to report to the World Assembly and prevent any distribution and/or sale of goods that have circumvented this ethical tariff, or otherwise were in the process of circumvention", that is to say, the WA will not be investigating these instances; the members will be the ones to do so, or, should there be any form of human rights organizations existing to monitor these events, the information would go through the member nations, and are reported accordingly.

I do however, agree that, to some extent, it is capable of harming small businesses and workers in large multinational corporations as you have pointed out, however, we are not a fan of "repeals without better replacements", unless they are severely flawed..

[Sciongrad]

I do apologize as well, ambassador Santos, I have yet to restore some energy this morning, and got a little bit too fired up in my argument, and misused some words, namely, the word 'solely' when I should've used 'mostly'. While you did use other arguments, your most prominent cause for the repeal, is the ineptitude of the ITA. As much as we believe that these bureaucratic layers of committees are capable of doing their job, they do not operate outside of their mandates, unless otherwise instructed by other resolutions.

Fret not, your Excellency - I'm no stranger to the plight of misspeaking once in a while. But anyways, if it seems that a decent portion of the repeal is dedicated to the inability of the ITA to effectively do its job, that's because I am confident that this is the case.

The resolution instructs the member nations in order to "make a coordinated effort to report to the World Assembly and prevent any distribution and/or sale of goods that have circumvented this ethical tariff, or otherwise were in the process of circumvention", that is to say, the WA will not be investigating these instances; the members will be the ones to do so, or, should there be any form of human rights organizations existing to monitor these events, the information would go through the member nations, and are reported accordingly.

Making such a good faith effort would require that the goods in question circumvent a tariff, which cannot be justly applied in the first place if the WA cannot legally investigate working conditions in non-member nations without their express consent. So yes, member nations are responsible for reporting instances in which goods get around the tariff - that doesn't solve the problem of the ITA being unable to actually effectively gather the information required to determine if a tariff is required in the first place.

I do however, agree that, to some extent, it is capable of harming small businesses and workers in large multinational corporations as you have pointed out, however, we are not a fan of "repeals without better replacements", unless they are severely flawed..

I'm glad your Excellency is beginning to see the harm that this resolution actually does. However, I must inform you that I have no intention of replacing the resolution as I believe the concept to be flawed, not only the execution.

[Sciongrad]

The draft has been updated to reflect recent suggestions, and the old draft has been placed in spoilers as "Draft 1".

[Glen-Rhodes]

You seem to be comparing a variety of NGOs responsible for collecting data from millions of laborers with a single entity responsible for collecting data from tens of trillions. Is it possible for any single entity to accomplish such a goal?

You completely missed the point.

But you can't keep throwing different examples: "stock exchanges, tax codes, NGOs," as none of these properly parallel with the factor of size.

Stock exchanges handle billions of dollars -- and if we're considering the WA universe a whole, likely factors more than trillions -- in trade daily. To do so, sophisticated systems judge the health of stocks based on a variety of data inputs. Tax codes can be incredibly complicated, and deal with individuals and their specific incomes, which is arguably more complicated than determining the socioeconomic status of groups of people. Both of these things are leagues more complicated than what the ITA is tasked with, at least to the extent of its socioeconomic research.

You may disagree, but it doesn't make you right. You are vastly overstating how complicated broad socioeconomic research actually is. You are also still assuming that the ITA is the only agencies doing any of the work.

Furthermore, the legal justification behind the World Assembly managing to allow themselves to investigate conditions within non-member nations is non-existent.

The World Assembly isn't placing any legal burden on non-member states, so the legal justification is crystal clear. It's not the first time the World Assembly has restricted relations between member states and non-member states, and it certainly won't be the last. Can the ITA send in its own field investigators? Likely not. That doesn't mean it's impossible for them to gather information, bringing us back to the point I tried to make that you seemed to not understand about the ITA working in an environment of pre-existing institutions.

And I'm never surprised that the conclusion to your arguments are that my delegation is incapable of understanding the topic properly simply because our views are different - I suppose it's something with which I'll have to become accustomed.

I think you're fully capable, just wholly unwilling. I'm not sure which is worse. It's not unique to you, either. Plenty of authors choose the easy road of using populist arguments, rather than taking the time to really consider how complicated systems might function correctly.

The ITA is responsible for defining these conditions almost unilaterally. Corporations do not get a say as to what constitutes basic living conditions - they may only contribute input to how severely they'll be punished by an entity that was autocratically forced upon them.

Again, this is wrong. Governments and businesses are involved in every step of the decision-making process. The ITA has the final say, because it's the only agency without a vested interest in not placing a tariff on imported goods.

But under the surface, the workers are actually harmed more than they're helped. When a corporation is presented with two options - improve wages, increase leisure time, etc. or face the wrath of a tariff, or ignore the tariff and fire workers and/or cut wages and rest hours to make up the difference, the latter seems to be the more profitable choice for such a corporation.

Such actions would result in higher and higher punitive tariffs, per Article 2, Section B, part 6. Since businesses can anticipate being heavily punished for trying to bypass the effects of the tariffs, it's a large assumption to make that they'll do it anyways.

e: Because that can get confusing, we need to remember that the businesses transgressing the Article 1 requirements aren't the ones paying the tariffs, but rather it's the importers in member states doing so. The idea being that the importers can exert considerable influence on their sources, including the option of finding different sources altogether.

[Downtrot]

I support.

[Sciongrad]

The World Assembly isn't placing any legal burden on non-member states, so the legal justification is crystal clear. It's not the first time the World Assembly has restricted relations between member states and non-member states, and it certainly won't be the last. Can the ITA send in its own field investigators? Likely not. That doesn't mean it's impossible for them to gather information, bringing us back to the point I tried to make that you seemed to not understand about the ITA working in an environment of pre-existing institutions.

The legal justification is that the World Assembly can technically place a tariff on goods - this, of course, neglects the fact that, depending on one's opinion on non-compliance, only commercial entities within non-member nations would be affected. So yes, you're correct, the ITA cannot investigate labor conditions within non-member nations; the fact that they must rely on the efforts of independent NGOs is a testament to the fact that the ITA cannot properly or fairly carry out the bulk of its duties. And even then, NGOs will run into the same obstacles faced by the ITA, in that they do not have the authority to investigate against the will of non-member nations and/or commercial entities. All you've done is told me that for the ITA to properly function, it must rely on independent entities, and this does not fix its inability to accurately assess labor conditions in non-member nations that are under no obligation to comply with calls for investigation nor does it convince me that the ITA itself is any more effective than I initially thought.

I think you're fully capable, just wholly unwilling. I'm not sure which is worse. It's not unique to you, either. Plenty of authors choose the easy road of using populist arguments, rather than taking the time to really consider how complicated systems might function correctly.

There is a clear difference between willfully misunderstanding and holding a conflicting opinion, and it seems you either do not see this, or you're willfully misunderstanding (yes, yes, thank you. I'll be here all week, try the veal) the very concept of debating.

Again, this is wrong. Governments and businesses are involved in every step of the decision-making process. The ITA has the final say, because it's the only agency without a vested interest in not placing a tariff on imported goods.

Governments and businesses are entitled to argue regarding the severity of the tariff, but the burden of proof still lies on them, which is inherently unfair and biased towards the application of a tariff.

Such actions would result in higher and higher punitive tariffs, per Article 2, Section B, part 6. Since businesses can anticipate being heavily punished for trying to bypass the effects of the tariffs, it's a large assumption to make that they'll do it anyways.

The notion that the ITA can possibly assess the specific reasoning behind the firing of workers is absolutely absurd, especially in nations unwilling to permit investigations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... the fact that they must rely on the efforts of independent NGOs is a testament to the fact that the ITA cannot properly or fairly carry out the bulk of its duties.

Socioeconomic research is arguably the easiest part of the ITA's duties, here. I imagine negotiating with governments and businesses on an acceptable import tariff takes up most of their time.

And even then, NGOs will run into the same obstacles faced by the ITA, in that they do not have the authority to investigate against the will of non-member nations and/or commercial entities.

You can't just assume that NGOs won't be able to gather data. You can't even assume in the first place that the ITA can't gather data without putting field investigators on the ground. You are vastly overstating both the difficulty of getting this kind of information and the unwillingness non-member states may have to be transparent.

There is a clear difference between willfully misunderstanding and holding a conflicting opinion, and it seems you either do not see this, or you're willfully misunderstanding (yes, yes, thank you. I'll be here all week, try the veal) the very concept of debating.

It took several back-and-forths for you to even admit that the ITA isn't the sole agency with data-gathering capabilities. That was certainly willful ignorance. I don't have a lot of faith that you're considering other somewhat complex facets of the resolution you're trying to repeal. It's pretty clear you have this mistaken idea of what free trade is, and therefore don't like tariffs of any sort, and no argument will convince you otherwise. I'd have a harder time refuting your repeal with technical arguments if you would just stick to the ideological stuff that's really guiding this repeal.

Governments and businesses are entitled to argue regarding the severity of the tariff, but the burden of proof still lies on them, which is inherently unfair and biased towards the application of a tariff.

Again, you're assuming that the ITA is throwing darts to figure out who to target for a tariff. This ITA conduct significant research before even beginning the tariff process. It's gathered the evidence. It's provided the proof. The burden of proof lies on the exporters to refute that, or to argue that a low or zero-percentage tariff is in order. What other way is there?

The notion that the ITA can possibly assess the specific reasoning behind the firing of workers is absolutely absurd, especially in nations unwilling to permit investigations.

Yes, because the employees of the World Assembly are the most idiotic low-intelligence life forms in existence. They can barely remember to breath, let alone put two and two together to see that a company engaging in those actions is trying to skirt around the tariff.

[Sciongrad]

Socioeconomic research is arguably the easiest part of the ITA's duties, here. I imagine negotiating with governments and businesses on an acceptable import tariff takes up most of their time.

You've missed my point. The ITA cannot legally investigate non-member nations without their express consent, and you seem to be ignoring that. You can argue the research is easy, but without consent by non-member nations, it's both impossible and illegal.

You can't just assume that NGOs won't be able to gather data. You can't even assume in the first place that the ITA can't gather data without putting field investigators on the ground. You are vastly overstating both the difficulty of getting this kind of information and the unwillingness non-member states may have to be transparent.

I can assume that the ITA will have difficulty assessing labor conditions in non-member nations because unless such a nation is willingly transparent, then the ITA can't investigate at all. Furthermore, I'm hesitant to accept the fact that all non-member nations would welcome investigators from an organization of which they've chosen not to take a part. Your idealism and optimistic world view are quaint but impractical and contrary to reason and established World Assembly law.

It's pretty clear you have this mistaken idea of what free trade is, and therefore don't like tariffs of any sort, and no argument will convince you otherwise. I'd have a harder time refuting your repeal with technical arguments if you would just stick to the ideological stuff that's really guiding this repeal.

Sciongrad has never attempted to hide its support for free trade, but our ideological leanings do not in any way diminish the arguments made within the repeal. Your insistence that this protectionist monstrosity masquerading as a human rights resolution is anything but harmful towards the concept of free trade is absurd and intellectually disingenuous. Rather than utilizing a theory of development that died with the early 20th century, it would do this body well to focus on incentives for ensuring dignified working conditions, rather than creating an inefficient system of penalties that make it more difficult to help developing nations grow to a point where they may improve labor conditions. This resolution makes it very difficult to ameliorate poor labor conditions in developing nations by making trade more difficult, and this is unacceptable.

Again, you're assuming that the ITA is throwing darts to figure out who to target for a tariff. This ITA conduct significant research before even beginning the tariff process. It's gathered the evidence. It's provided the proof. The burden of proof lies on the exporters to refute that, or to argue that a low or zero-percentage tariff is in order. What other way is there?

The ITA can impose a tariff upon any commercial entity due to a supposed breach in vague ethical standards. The ITA's duty, as stated by the resolution, is in part to levy tariffs, so to imply that the recipients of such a penalty should be the one's responsible for arguing against their punishment is a travesty. Any quasi-judicial body with a modicum of sense or fairness would be responsible for proving that the nations upon which they intend to levy a tariff are in fact guilty - how you can think that bias against nations is fair or conducive to free trade?

Yes, because the employees of the World Assembly are the most idiotic low-intelligence life forms in existence. They can barely remember to breath, let alone put two and two together to see that a company engaging in those actions is trying to skirt around the tariff.

How intelligent the employees of the ITA are is irrelevant when you realize that it's not legal for them to investigate outside of their jurisdiction without consent by non-member nations. Simply noticing that any given commercial entity is firing its workers is not any reason to suspect that they're attempting to circumvent a tariff, especially without further investigation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You've missed my point. The ITA cannot legally investigate non-member nations without their express consent, and you seem to be ignoring that. You can argue the research is easy, but without consent by non-member nations, it's both impossible and illegal.

The World Assembly cannot mandate that non-member provide it information or allow its employees in their countries. There's no proscription against the World Assembly or any of its agencies conducting research on non-member states. This truth affects several of your later arguments, but I'll save space instead of repeating it over and over.

Your insistence that this protectionist monstrosity masquerading as a human rights resolution is anything but harmful towards the concept of free trade is absurd and intellectually disingenuous.

Intellectually disingenuous? The idea of trade protections for developing countries is not anathema to free trade in its actual practice.

Any quasi-judicial body with a modicum of sense or fairness would be responsible for proving that the nations upon which they intend to levy a tariff are in fact guilty - how you can think that bias against nations is fair or conducive to free trade?

What do you think the extensive research is about? Why do you think governments and businesses are brought in before any tariff is applied?