[Draft] World Assembly Free Trade Agreement

[Sciongrad]

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Affirming that it is a goal and duty of this assembly to provide benefits to its member nations whenever it is feasible,

Regretting that trade barriers may serve as an impediment to the trade of goods and the economies of member nations,

Understanding that reducing the aforementioned barriers, when economically feasible, is conducive to a healthy international economy,

Believing that to ensure such interaction and to promote economic and diplomatic relations internationally, trade barriers must be eliminated when possible,

And to this end resolves;

1. Member nations are strongly urged to trade goods, services, and commodities openly and freely amongst one another;

2. The World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) shall have its duties expanded to include developing a mandatory process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices (which shall include, but shall not be limited to tariffs, subsidies, transit fees, duties etc.) on all goods, services, and commodities between member nations in a manner that is economically feasible to all relevant parties, subject to limitations recognized by extant international legislation;

3. The right to establish further protectionist devices shall be reserved exclusively by member nations unless either:

a. The WATC, in its capacity to eliminate tariffs, mandates otherwise, or
b. Extant international legislation permits restriction by the World Assembly.

The General Assembly,

Understanding that free and open trade between nations is conducive to a healthy international economy,

Believing that to ensure such interaction and to promote economic and diplomatic relations internationally, trade barriers must be eliminated when possible,

Noting as well that free trade cures cancer and prevents the tears of orphans,

And to this end resolves;

1. No member nations may adopt or maintain any prohibition on the importation of any goods, services, and/or commodities of another member nation, excepting instances enumerated in clause two;

2. Member nations may restrict the flow of goods, services, and/or commodities by other member nations through or to their territory, should the goods in question originate from a member nation with which they are at a state of war, with which they are blockading, embargoing, or sanctioning, that is experiencing a pandemic or a similar situation that may pose a health hazard to the citizens of the transit nation or the recipient nation, or should such goods or services be illegal to purchase, obtain, or use in the transit or recipient nation;

3. The World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) shall have its duties expanded to include developing a mandatory process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices (which shall include, but shall not be limited to tariffs, subsidies, transit fees, duties etc.) on all goods, services, and commodities between member nations;

4. Exemptions shall be made in instances where the stability of major domestic industries, national security, or the economy of a member nation rely on such devices, where revenue is required for the purpose of economic recovery, where protectionist devices may be required to prevent price dumping, or where protectionist devices are first placed on a member nation, to which they may respond with a similar device in direct proportion;

5. The right to establish further protectionist devices shall be reserved exclusively by member nations unless either the WATC, in its capacity to eliminate tariffs, mandates otherwise, or previous international law recognizes limitation.

This here proposal is in direct response to my efforts to repeal GAR#118. Questions, comments, suggestions, and the like are much appreciated.

[Grays Harbor]

Hmm. While I am not a rabid protectionist, I do believe there are times when it is valid to put your own peoples welfare above that of other nations when cheap imports threaten livelihoods.

[Sciongrad]

Hmm. While I am not a rabid protectionist, I do believe there are times when it is valid to put your own peoples welfare above that of other nations when cheap imports threaten livelihoods.

This is a statement I generally agree with, and I'm certainly open to the idea of providing further exemptions for placing tariffs and such. I can expand the line to read:

4. Exemptions shall be made in instances where the stability of major domestic industries, national security, or the economy rely on such devices, where revenue is required for the purpose of economic recovery, where protectionist devices may be required to prevent price dumping, where the well-being of a member nation's citizens is dependent on the reasonable application of protection devices, or where protectionist devices are first placed on a member nation, to which they may respond with a similar device in direct proportion;

If you don't find that agreeable enough, I'm more than willing to hear you, or others, out on further suggestions.

[Slafstopia]

Is that 3rd clause a joke? Perhaps you could make it sound more professional than "Free trade cures cancer." Perhaps "Noting that free trade leads to technological advances that could lead to the curing of terminal diseases such as cancer."

What about societies that have no monetary system, and no classical economy based on imports and exports?

[Sciongrad]

Is that 3rd clause a joke? Perhaps you could make it sound more professional than "Free trade cures cancer." Perhaps "Noting that free trade leads to technological advances that could lead to the curing of terminal diseases such as cancer."

What about societies that have no monetary system, and no classical economy based on imports and exports?

Your Excellency, Sciongrad certainly does not find cancer to be a joke. Furthermore, I have received counsel from Sciongrad's top medical experts, who have all confirmed that the sheer concept of free trade does, in fact, cure cancer. Granted, the advice of these same experts did cause the Great Sheep Crisis of '08...

OOC: Yea, it's a joke, but unless told otherwise, I might keep it there.

IC: Regarding your questions, I'm not sure I see your points. If a nation doesn't use currency, then placing tariffs and such would be difficult in the first place. Other protectionist devices such as quotas may still exist in such a system, and would be affected like any other device. Regarding your second point - nations without imports or exports would not be affected by this resolution.

[The Akashic Records]

OOC: Yea, it's a joke, but unless told otherwise, I might keep it there.

OOC: Given the grim feel the assembly is giving off, we need more of GAR #8 calibre of resolutions.

IC: Not bad, we might even be able to support your repeal effort. Though, number 4 seems to be an exploitable loophole, as we don't exactly know who will be deciding what constitutes these necessities, unless you mean for number 3 to include such tasks, in which case, I shall reserve further questions for when I require further clarification.

3. The World Assembly Trade Commission (WATC) shall have its duties expanded to include developing a mandatory process for the gradual elimination of protectionist devices (which shall include, but shall not be limited to tariffs, subsidies, transit fees, duties etc.) on all goods, services, and commodities between member nations;

4. Exemptions shall be made in instances where the stability of major domestic industries, national security, or the economy rely on such devices, where revenue is required for the purpose of economic recovery, where protectionist devices may be required to prevent price dumping, or where protectionist devices are first placed on a member nation, to which they may respond with a similar device in direct proportion;

[Novislavia]

Hm. The World Assembly Trade Commission was created by another resolution, correct?

[The Akashic Records]

Hm. The World Assembly Trade Commission was created by another resolution, correct?

One can assign duties to various committees created by the World Assembly.

[Novislavia]

Hm. The World Assembly Trade Commission was created by another resolution, correct?

One can assign duties to various committees created by the World Assembly.

But what happens if the resolution that created the committee (in this case, the World Assembly Trade Commission) is repealed?

[The Akashic Records]

But what happens if the resolution that created the committee (in this case, the World Assembly Trade Commission) is repealed?

They will do whatever this resolution tells them to. The committees can only act in whatever capacity is mandated to them, either by the one that created them, or future resolutions. If the creating resolution is repealed, whatever task they were doing for that resolution stops, but whatever tasks that were assigned to them before the creator resolution is repealed, remains. What resolutions cannot do is, rely on another resolution to do whatever it is trying to do.

[Ardchoille]

OOC: Yea, it's a joke, but unless told otherwise, I might keep it there.

*tells you otherwise*
*spanks*

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Yea, it's a joke, but unless told otherwise, I might keep it there.

OOC: Given the grim feel the assembly is giving off, we need more of GAR #8 calibre of resolutions.

IC: Not bad, we might even be able to support your repeal effort. Though, number 4 seems to be an exploitable loophole, as we don't exactly know who will be deciding what constitutes these necessities, unless you mean for number 3 to include such tasks, in which case, I shall reserve further questions for when I require further clarification.

I see your point, although I think that the cases for exemptions are objective enough to be followed without a case-by-case analysis by say, the WATC. I'm of the belief that a nation can't simply declare all their industries "major industries" and thus ignore the resolution or some similar circumstance. Plus, I feel that the WATC's mandate is flexible enough to get around shenanigans like that.

OOC: Yea, it's a joke, but unless told otherwise, I might keep it there.

*tells you otherwise*
*spanks*

*is heartbroken <///3*

Foiled again by Ard and her dastardly witchcraft! But wait, let's hold on just a second. If I'm making half-assed jokes in the preambulatory clauses, and you're running the evil mod conspiracy secretly bent on stopping said jokes... then who's flying the plane?

[The Akashic Records]

I see your point, although I think that the cases for exemptions are objective enough to be followed without a case-by-case analysis by say, the WATC. I'm of the belief that a nation can't simply declare all their industries "major industries" and thus ignore the resolution or some similar circumstance. Plus, I feel that the WATC's mandate is flexible enough to get around shenanigans like that.

Well, we pretty much deduced that much, it's simply for the benefit of the latecomers, assuming that they decide to peruse the debate transcript, that is.

[Sciongrad]

I see your point, although I think that the cases for exemptions are objective enough to be followed without a case-by-case analysis by say, the WATC. I'm of the belief that a nation can't simply declare all their industries "major industries" and thus ignore the resolution or some similar circumstance. Plus, I feel that the WATC's mandate is flexible enough to get around shenanigans like that.

Well, we pretty much deduced that much, it's simply for the benefit of the latecomers, assuming that they decide to peruse the debate transcript, that is.

In which case, we thank your Excellency for your foresight and hope to hear suggestions from your delegation in the future.

Re: cancer, I felt as if the clause was too short, so I included the prevention of orphan tears as well. I'm concerned that this addition causes the clause to lose its deadpan humor though. Suggestions regarding that would be nice as well.

[Araraukar]

This should be on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807

[Sciongrad]

This should be on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807

I don't think I understand. Was that meant to be an insult, or have you only read the last few messages in the transcript...?

EDIT: Perhaps you should read the proposal before you try making suggestions, because it seems that based on the last few posts, you've come to the conclusion that the entire proposal is meant to be a joke.

[Araraukar]

This should be on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807

I don't think I understand. Was that meant to be an insult, or have you only read the last few messages in the transcript...?

No, I actually read it, and it still actually has this:

Noting as well that free trade cures cancer and prevents the tears of orphans,

[Sciongrad]

I don't think I understand. Was that meant to be an insult, or have you only read the last few messages in the transcript...?

No, I actually read it, and it still actually has this:

Noting as well that free trade cures cancer and prevents the tears of orphans,

Yes, so it seems. I still don't see how this is at all a "joke proposal."

[The Akashic Records]

No, I actually read it, and it still actually has this:

Yes, so it seems. I still don't see how this is at all a "joke proposal."

If we take the words of Ard at face value, then Miss Leveret would be correct.

[Sciongrad]

Yes, so it seems. I still don't see how this is at all a "joke proposal."

If we take the words of Ard at face value, then Miss Leveret would be correct.

If I'm wrong, please do correct me, but I'm fairly certain Ard wasn't being entirely serious. There is precedent that would suggest the contrary.

[Araraukar]

[Max Barry Day] & [World Assembly Headquarters]

The Mods have admitted the Max Barry Day was let to vote stage by accident. The repeal is dated 2007. And World Assembly Headquarters passed in 2008. If you can point a resolution that's passed within the last couple of years with a fair amount of cheeky language in it, I might revise my position. But right now, your little joke makes this proposal a little joke, and hence it should be in the GA Joke Thread.

[Sciongrad]

[Max Barry Day] & [World Assembly Headquarters]

The Mods have admitted the Max Barry Day was let to vote stage by accident. The repeal is dated 2007. And World Assembly Headquarters passed in 2008. If you can point a resolution that's passed within the last couple of years with a fair amount of cheeky language in it, I might revise my position. But right now, your little joke makes this proposal a little joke, and hence it should be in the GA Joke Thread.

You've provided no logical or legal rationale as to why these resolutions are to be discounted as legal by today's standards, and I'm unaware of any significant change in the rules regarding jokes in the proposal since 2008 and 2013. As recently as the very end of 2010, this resolution was passed. To my knowledge, joke proposals are illegal if their sole purpose is to be humorous; this is not the case. All you've done thus far is commented on the existence of a joke, deemed the whole proposal to be a joke, and then without clear rationale, determined that it was illegal and thus belonged in the joke proposal thread. This proposal is not a joke proposal, it contains a joke and is a fully legal draft, and therefore has no place in the joke proposal thread no matter how much you protest that jokes are against the rules.

Now, barring any moderator intervention, I'd prefer we stay on track and discuss the proposal.

EDIT: The link was the the repeal of Max Barry Day, so the original is not relevant. It was the repeal that contained what you believe to be tainted text.

[The Akashic Records]

"I would err on the side of caution when using Read the Resolution Act. The language was written in the best way possible to avoid the illegalities of breaking the fourth wall, while still being something sensible. The repeal attempt should shed some light on it. We can't quite remember where, but we certainly do remember that someone said that past rulings can't be entirely relied upon as precedents." Coleman shrugs and sighs at his own words, a little disappointed at how reliable things can be.

[Sciongrad]

"I would err on the side of caution when using Read the Resolution Act. The language was written in the best way possible to avoid the illegalities of breaking the fourth wall, while still being something sensible. The repeal attempt should shed some light on it. We can't quite remember where, but we certainly do remember that someone said that past rulings can't be entirely relied upon as precedents." Coleman shrugs and sighs at his own words, a little disappointed at how reliable things can be.

Yes, the illegality it sought to avoid was breaking the joke proposal rule. The entire piece of legislation is satirical in nature, and that's one of the reasons I see it as such a wonderful resolution, but it's legal despite its humor because it has a definite purpose. This proposal is clearly not a joke, and does not violate the joke proposal rule -

These are proposals which serve no other purpose than to be humorous. If you really want to share your amusing proposal then post it in the GA forum.

- as this proposal's entire purpose is not to be humorous but to eliminate trade barriers in a very legal way. Innocuous jokes have been legal in the past and Miss Leveret's questionable loathing for humor of any kind in this assembly is both tiresome and distracting. Now, I am personally asking that this derailment be put behind us so that we can focus on the proposal.

[Novislavia]

But what happens if the resolution that created the committee (in this case, the World Assembly Trade Commission) is repealed?

They will do whatever this resolution tells them to. The committees can only act in whatever capacity is mandated to them, either by the one that created them, or future resolutions. If the creating resolution is repealed, whatever task they were doing for that resolution stops, but whatever tasks that were assigned to them before the creator resolution is repealed, remains. What resolutions cannot do is, rely on another resolution to do whatever it is trying to do.

Makes sense. Thanks.