[Draft] Quality in Consumer Goods

[Sciongrad]

Category: Regulation | AoE: Consumer Protection | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Affirming that consumers have the right to purchase products with the reasonable expectation that such products will not injure them when used appropriately,

to this end resolves that:

1. A Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur involving hazardous products in international commerce pursuant to section 3;

2. Any person (natural or legal) who suffers physical or emotional harm or loss of consortium due to some hazardous product in international commerce, or the survivor or representative of such a person if they have died, has the right to sue the manufacturer, including manufacturers of component parts, distributor, and retailer responsible for said product in the CIC Trial Division;

3. Each case in the CIC Trial Division shall be heard by one trial judge, and shall be decided based on the preponderance of the evidence and according to the following tests:

1. Manufacturing defect: If the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular product was faulty in its manufacture and the manufacturing defect was both the factual and proximate cause of the injury, then the plaintiff may recover compensatory, including hedonic, damages. For the purposes of this resolution, a product's manufacture is defective when the particular unit departs from the design of an ordinary unit. The paradigmatic example is a malfunctioning unit;
2. Design defect: If the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular product was faulty in design and that the design defect was both the factual and proximate cause of the injury, then the plaintiff may recovery compensatory, including hedonic, damages. Depending on the severity of the defect and the potential egregiousness of the oversight, the CIC Trial Division may award punitive damage. For the purposes of this resolution, a product's design is defective when the design embodies excessive preventable danger, unless the benefits of the design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. The plaintiff in general must offer a reasonable alternative design that would have reduced the foreseeable risk of injury. The plaintiff does not need to provide a reasonable alternative design if they can establish to the satisfaction of the CIC Trial Division that the product in question was irreducibly dangerous, which means its value may be considered minimal;
3. Warning defects: If the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular product's warning was inadequate, then the plaintiff may recovery compensatory, including hedonic, damages. The CIC Trial Division shall adopt a heeding presumption, which means that it will presume as a matter of law that an ordinary consumer will read the warning; the burden falls to the defendant to show that the user would not have followed an adequate warning if one had been given. Warnings must be provided for inherent risks that reasonably foreseeable users of the product would reasonably deem significant in deciding whether they will use or consume the product. The CIC Trial Division may consider the following factors in determining whether a product's warning is adequate:
   
   1. whether the warning adequately indicates the scope of the danger posed by the product,
   2. whether the warning communicates the extent of the harm that may result from misuse,
   3. whether the warning itself would alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger;

4. Manufacturers, including manufacturers of component parts, distributors, and retailers that sell products which fall under the rules established in section 3 shall remain liable, even if the those parties have taken all possible precautions in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of their product or the user of the product did not purchase it from the manufacturer or enter into any contractual relation with it;

5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall each have the right, within 90 days, to make an appeal to the CIC Appellate Division. Each appeal shall be heard by three appellate judges; and they shall have the power, by majority vote, to vacate the judgment and order a retrial in the CIC Trial Division if they find that the trial judge engaged in judicial misconduct or made a decision that is clearly erroneous;

6. Member nations are forbidden from immunizing, legally or in practice, their domestic manufacturers from either the jurisdiction of the CIC or liability generally under the terms of this resolution;

7. Members nations are encouraged to adopt independently domestic quality standards to diminish the likelihood of public consumption of hazardous products;

8. The ability to establish and enforce domestic tort and consumer protection law in disputes between domestic parties is reserved to member nations, under the terms of this resolution; and

9. Nothing in the terms of this resolution shall preclude the World Assembly from expanding the mandate of the CIC, within the bounds of extant World Assembly law.

Co-authored by Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Believing it is the right of consumers to purchase products with the reasonable expectation that such a product will not injure them when used appropriately,

1. Defines a "hazardous product" as a product that, while used properly, causes serious injury to the consumer or those around it;

2. Further defines a "hazardous product in international commerce" as a hazardous product that was (a) wholly or substantially produced in a different state than the one in which it was purchased, (b) assembled in a different stated than the one in which it was purchased, or (c) shipped at any time across a national border;

3. Further defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise reasonable care or to follow relevant national or subnational product safety laws on hazardous products;

4. Establishes the Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, and grants it exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur involving hazardous products in international commerce;

5. Declares that any person (natural or legal) who suffers harm or loss due to a hazardous product in international commerce has the right to sue the person (natural or legal) responsible for said product in the CIC Trial Division;

6. Further declares that each case in the CIC Trial Division shall be heard by one trial judge, and shall be decided based on the preponderance of the evidence and according to the following criteria:

1. If the plaintiff was negligent and if the defendant was not negligent, no damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be awarded attorney fees for the inconvenience that the plaintiff has caused,
2. If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent or if the plaintiff and the defendant were both negligent, compensatory damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff based on the standard of strict liability,
3. If the plaintiff was not negligent and if the defendant was negligent, treble damages and attorney fees shall be awarded to the plaintiff, thus compensating the plaintiff and discouraging the defendant from committing future negligence;

7. Stipulates that the plaintiff and the defendant shall each have the right, within 90 days, to make an appeal to the CIC Appellate Division. Each appeal shall be heard by three appellate judges; and they shall have the power, by majority vote, to vacate the judgment and order a retrial in the CIC Trial Division if they find that the trial judge engaged in judicial misconduct or made a decision that is clearly erroneous;

8. Encourages members nations to independently adopt domestic quality standards to diminish the likelihood of public consumption of hazardous products.

Co-authored by: [nation=short+noflag]Christian Democrats[/nation]

The General Assembly,

Believing it is the right of consumers to purchase products with the reasonable expectation that such a product will not injure them when used appropriately,

1. Defines a "hazardous product" as a product that causes serious injury to the consumer or those around it while used properly;

2. Defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise reasonable care or to follow relevant national or subnational law on hazardous products;

3. Establishes the Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, and it grants it exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur in international commerce involving hazardous products;

4. Declares that any person in international commerce who suffers harm or loss due to a hazardous product has the right to sue in the CIC Trial Division;

5. Further declares that each case in the CIC Trial Division shall be heard by one trial judge, and it shall be decided based on the preponderance of the evidence and according to the following criteria:

1. If the plaintiff was negligent and if the defendant was not negligent, no damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be awarded attorney fees,
2. If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent or if the plaintiff and the defendant were both negligent, compensatory damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff,
3. If the plaintiff was not negligent and if the defendant was negligent, treble damages and attorney fees shall be awarded to the plaintiff and;

6. Stipulates that the plaintiff and the defendant shall have the right, within 90 days, to make an appeal to the CIC Appellate Division. Each appeal shall be heard by three appellate judges; and they shall have the power, by majority vote, to order a retrial in the CIC Trial Division if they find that the trial judge engaged in judicial misconduct or made a decision that is clearly erroneous;

7. Encourages members nations to independently adopt domestic quality standards to diminish the likelihood of public consumption of hazardous products.

Co-authored by: [nation=short+noflag]Christian Democrats[/nation]

The General Assembly,

Believing it is the right of consumers to purchase products with the reasonable expectation that such a product will not injure them when used appropriately,

Reaffirming its commitment to expanding access to consumer goods and eliminating trade barriers,

Recognizing the extreme hazard posed to national populations by such barriers,

1. Defines a "significant product hazard" as a product defect with the capacity to cause serious injury to the consumer or those around it, while such a product is used properly;

2. Mandates that member nations shall take all practical and effective measures to limit the production and distribution of items that possess significant product hazards and the retail of such items to consumers in their nations;

3. Declares that no items that possess a significant product hazard shall be exported to other member nations unless that hazard is clearly publicized in such a way that a potential consumer may be aware of such a hazard prior to purchasing the item;

4. Instructs the International Trade Agency to liaise with relevant officials from members nations in order to negotiate the gradual removal of all imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on products that do not possess a significant product hazard;

5. Permits members nations to implement protectionist devices on consumer products that possess significant product hazards under the following circumstance:

1. An unstable economic situation requires such protectionist devices to ensure the production of essential products,
2. The exporter of a given product is in violation of extant or future international legislation on human rights, environmental standards, or quality standards, provided such protectionist devices are assigned proportionally to all exporters that violate the aforementioned legislation,
3. To protect domestic industries from discriminatory protectionist devices implemented by other member nations, provided the protectionist devices by the former nation are reasonable and proportional to the discriminatory protection devices,
4. To stabilize or protect industries during times of economic crisis.

[/list]

[Tinfect]

4. Authorizes the International Trade Agency to liaise with relevant officials from members nations in order to negotiate the gradual removal of all imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on products that do not possess a significant product hazard;

"The rest of this draft, while entirely harmless, seems to be little more than a vessel to slip in yet more legislation intended to damage those States that do not wish foreigners to interfere with their National markets, and those practicing sensible, Socialist economic policies.
This clause alone renders the draft unacceptable, and we strongly suggest it be removed going forward, as it irrelevant to do with the stated goal of the Draft."

[Bears Armed]

You probably need to insert the boilerplate about acting in accordance with earlier resolutions that are still in effect, to keep your clause #4 legal.
'Promotion of Bee-keeping', for example, specifically addresses tariffs on the relevant goods, and forbids member nations

To limit any place customs duties, tariffs, or other taxation, that they place on the international trade in bees, bee-keeping equipment, and/or the products of bee-keeping, to levels that do not exceed taxation on the internal trade in such goods within their borders, except that if any imported goods received government subsidies within their country of origin at higher rates than equivalent goods are subsidised within the receiving nation then additional tariffs may be imposed to balance that difference.

[Sciongrad]

4. Authorizes the International Trade Agency to liaise with relevant officials from members nations in order to negotiate the gradual removal of all imposts, duties, tariffs and other protectionist devices on products that do not possess a significant product hazard;

"The rest of this draft, while entirely harmless, seems to be little more than a vessel to slip in yet more legislation intended to damage those States that do not wish foreigners to interfere with their National markets, and those practicing sensible, Socialist economic policies.
This clause alone renders the draft unacceptable, and we strongly suggest it be removed going forward, as it irrelevant to do with the stated goal of the Draft."

"Sciongrad's objective is to expand access to safe, quality consumer goods. Proposing the gradual elimination of protectionist devices is not only 'irrelevant' but is central to the aims of this draft. Sciongrad also understands that nations that totally close off their markets to foreign trading partners may be uncomfortable with gradually eliminating those trade barriers, but I firmly believe that objections on the grounds that expanding trade will "damage" such states, as you phrased it, are overstated. Rather, eliminating trade barriers will ultimately reduce the price of consumer goods in all nations. I will also note that if Tinfect is truly socialist in that it provides all goods based strictly on need and lacks a currency, there is no way for goods to enter their market in the first place. If Tinfect does not operate on such a system, it will enjoy reduced prices and the concomitant prosperity enabled by freer trade."

You probably need to insert the boilerplate about acting in accordance with earlier resolutions that are still in effect, to keep your clause #4 legal.
'Promotion of Bee-keeping', for example, specifically addresses tariffs on the relevant goods, and forbids member nations

To limit any place customs duties, tariffs, or other taxation, that they place on the international trade in bees, bee-keeping equipment, and/or the products of bee-keeping, to levels that do not exceed taxation on the internal trade in such goods within their borders, except that if any imported goods received government subsidies within their country of origin at higher rates than equivalent goods are subsidised within the receiving nation then additional tariffs may be imposed to balance that difference.

"Excellent suggestion. We will make appropriate changes shortly."

[Tinfect]

"Sciongrad's objective is to expand access to safe, quality consumer goods. Proposing the gradual elimination of protectionist devices is not only 'irrelevant' but is central to the aims of this draft."

"Ambassador that is a complete and obvious falsehood. The specific title of this draft is 'Quality in Consumer Goods', not 'Trade Barrier Reduction'. Beyond the lone questionable clause, the Draft deals solely with the the production and trade of consumer products. A clause allowing the World Assembly yet further power in harassing Member-States that do not wish to allow foreigners to interfere in their markets has absolutely nothing to do with the goals of this legislation."

"Sciongrad also understands that nations that totally close off their markets to foreign trading partners may be uncomfortable with gradually eliminating those trade barriers, but I firmly believe that objections on the grounds that expanding trade will "damage" such states, as you phrased it, are overstated. Rather, eliminating trade barriers will ultimately reduce the price of consumer goods in all nations."

"Your firm belief does not sway the Imperium, I am quite pleased to say."

"I will also note that if Tinfect is truly socialist in that it provides all goods based strictly on need and lacks a currency, there is no way for goods to enter their market in the first place. If Tinfect does not operate on such a system, it will enjoy reduced prices and the concomitant prosperity enabled by freer trade."

"As I have stated on numerous occasions in the past, the Imperium practices a form of Mixed-Market Economy. Further, the Imperium has seen no evidence that opening its markets to foreign interference will do anything beyond damaging the Imperium, and aiding foreign states. The constant, largely baseless claims of delegations such as your own to the contrary have not been convincing.

In any case Ambassador, you attempts at proselytizing the position of free trade are not appreciated, nor will the further attempts by the World Assembly you seem to be intent on causing. Do keep in mind Ambassador, that we take little exception to this draft, beyond its needless inclusion of a method by which the World Assembly will be allowed to harass States that do not open their Markets to foreign interference."

[Sciongrad]

"Ambassador that is a complete and obvious falsehood. The specific title of this draft is 'Quality in Consumer Goods', not 'Trade Barrier Reduction'. Beyond the lone questionable clause, the Draft deals solely with the the production and trade of consumer products."

"I refer you to the second clause of the proposal:"

Reaffirming its commitment to expanding access to consumer goods and eliminating trade barriers,

"Your firm belief does not sway the Imperium, I am quite pleased to say."

"You are welcome to express your opposition to Scionite 'proselytizing' when the resolution is presented to the assembly for an up-down vote."

"As I have stated on numerous occasions in the past, the Imperium practices a form of Mixed-Market Economy. Further, the Imperium has seen no evidence that opening its markets to foreign interference will do anything beyond damaging the Imperium, and aiding foreign states. The constant, largely baseless claims of delegations such as your own to the contrary have not been convincing.

"Sciongrad has and will continue to be resolute in its commitment to expanding access to affordable consumer goods. One-liners about 'foreign interference' and 'damaging the Imperium' are likely sincere, but not convincing counter-arguments.

In any case Ambassador, you attempts at proselytizing the position of free trade are not appreciated, nor will the further attempts by the World Assembly you seem to be intent on causing. Do keep in mind Ambassador, that we take little exception to this draft, beyond its needless inclusion of a method by which the World Assembly will be allowed to harass States that do not open their Markets to foreign interference."

"I am glad that you agree to the majority of the draft. Unfortunately, the fourth clause is a central pillar of this resolution and Sciongrad's trade policy. While it is indeed unfortunate that we cannot enlist the support of the Imperium, we have no choice but to press on anyway."

[Tinfect]

"I refer you to the second clause of the proposal:"

Reaffirming its commitment to expanding access to consumer goods and eliminating trade barriers,

"Ambassador, I hope you do not sincerely believe that a piece of irrelevant preamble is sufficient grounds to include a completely irrelevant clause in a proposal intended to ensure quality in consumer products."

"I am glad that you agree to the majority of the draft. Unfortunately, the fourth clause is a central pillar of this resolution and Sciongrad's trade policy. While it is indeed unfortunate that we cannot enlist the support of the Imperium, we have no choice but to press on anyway."

"Ambassador, your 'all-or-nothing' stances have become quite tiresome. If I remember correctly, you have conceded a similar point in a previous attempt legislation, the second attempt at "Responsible Arms Trading", if memory serves. In which debate, your delegation agreed that a clause that prohibited Member-States from providing armaments to States engaged in Warfare, or the preparation for such, would be better suited to be remade into a resolution of its own.

In that situation, you had a much stronger case for the relevance of the Clause within the Draft, as the Draft was intended to ensure exactly what the title would imply, the responsible trading of weapons. This draft does not have nearly the same defense, as stated within its title, and in all other clauses within the Draft, it solely targets the production and trade of consumer goods deemed unsafe. The fourth clause pays mere 'lip-service' to that goal, and has otherwise very little to do with the draft as a whole.

Such a goal as espoused by the fourth clause, would be best relegated to a draft of its own, rather than quietly hidden inside an entirely different piece of legislation so as to deceive voters into the assumption that the Legislation contains only common-sense legislation, rather than attempts to radically change the trade policies of Member-States."

[Sciongrad]

"Ambassador, I hope you do not sincerely believe that a piece of irrelevant preamble is sufficient grounds to include a completely irrelevant clause in a proposal intended to ensure quality in consumer products."

"Far from irrelevant, the preamble states the goals of the resolution, and I know that an experienced ambassador like yourself is aware of that. The goal of this resolution is not only to ensure consumer goods do not harm consumers, but that consumers have access to them. I make this goal absolutely and explicitly clear in the second and third clause. You are free to oppose this resolution because you disagree with clause four, but it borders on misinterpretation to say clause four is not relevant to the goals of this proposal."

"Ambassador, your 'all-or-nothing' stances have become quite tiresome. If I remember correctly, you have conceded a similar point in a previous attempt legislation, the second attempt at "Responsible Arms Trading", if memory serves. In which debate, your delegation agreed that a clause that prohibited Member-States from providing armaments to States engaged in Warfare, or the preparation for such, would be better suited to be remade into a resolution of its own.

In that situation, you had a much stronger case for the relevance of the Clause within the Draft, as the Draft was intended to ensure exactly what the title would imply, the responsible trading of weapons. This draft does not have nearly the same defense, as stated within its title, and in all other clauses within the Draft, it solely targets the production and trade of consumer goods deemed unsafe. The fourth clause pays mere 'lip-service' to that goal, and has otherwise very little to do with the draft as a whole.

Such a goal as espoused by the fourth clause, would be best relegated to a draft of its own, rather than quietly hidden inside an entirely different piece of legislation so as to deceive voters into the assumption that the Legislation contains only common-sense legislation, rather than attempts to radically change the trade policies of Member-States."

"I would not be so quick to criticize 'all-or-nothing' policies, your Excellency, when your delegation has uniformly decried free trade in all circumstances as damaging to your nation's economy (typically without much explanation or empirical evidence). That is an all or nothing approach to policy. It is important not to conflate that attitude towards legislation with ideological opposition, which you seem to be doing. Sciongrad believes free trade is generally good policy and that nations will prosper by reducing trade barriers. That is not an all-or-nothing approach to policy, unless you believe adherence to any ideological position, no matter how mainstream, is 'all-or-nothing.' Complaining that the very existence of free trade as a valid exercise of World Assembly authority is not only poor policy but an affront to the Imperium and its citizens, on the other hand, is an all-or-nothing policy. That is certainly something I find tiresome.

I continue to be confused by your suggestion that clause four is 'quietly hidden inside an entirely different piece of legislation so as to deceive voters' when the majority of the preamble explicitly states that this proposal's goal is to eliminate trade barriers and expand access to quality consumer goods."

[Tinfect]

"Far from irrelevant, the preamble states the goals of the resolution, and I know that an experienced ambassador like yourself is aware of that. The goal of this resolution is not only to ensure consumer goods do not harm consumers, but that consumers have access to them. I make this goal absolutely and explicitly clear in the second and third clause."

"Your assumption that goods produced by closed-economies cannot be reasonably safe or inexpensive is quite naive."

"I would not be so quick to criticize 'all-or-nothing' policies, your Excellency, when your delegation has uniformly decried free trade in all circumstances as damaging to your nation's economy (typically without much explanation or empirical evidence)."

"The Imperium has thus far operated under the assumption that all Delegations present are aware of the risks of opening markets to foreign interference, and how such risks increase with States that do not, in full or in part, practice market economics. Clearly, we were mistaken in this assumption. The concerns of the Imperium, in any case, are not wholly within the realm of Economics, but include the Security of the Imperium, and Imperial Technologies.

Foreign businesses operating within the Imperium may damage, or push out entirely, Imperial Businesses, due to said foreign business' nature as international, operating with a resource base that would be impossible for Imperial Businesses to counter. Foreign products uninvolved with the greater Imperial economy may supplant those produced within the Imperium, further removing the people of the Imperium from the market, and granting control over it to foreigners. Both scenarios decrease the independence of the Imperium and create a reliance on foreign markets and civilizations in order to ensure the prosperity of the Imperium and its people. Such a situation is unacceptable for a variety of, hopefully obvious, reasons, as well as something that is unacceptable to the core principles of the Imperium. We will not allow our prosperity to be held hostage by foreign powers, nor will we rely on the prosperity of others to ensure our own.

As for the Security of the Imperium; Imperial Technologies remain key to the continued existence of the Imperium. Advanced cybernetic technologies ensure the superiority of Imperial personnel over foreign personnel, weapons technologies held solely by the Imperium allow us to retain a military dominance that ensures the safety of the Imperium from attack, and so on. Subspace Technologies in particular allow us great advantages over known civilizations, near-instantaneous long-distance communication, travel over extreme distance is no longer a careful matter of balancing what supplies can be carried, what must be produced or acquired in transit, and what luxuries can be lived without. Further, as you may yet be aware, Subspace Technologies play a significant role in the defense of the Imperium, were such technologies acquired by hostile powers, not only will the defensive ability of the Imperium be irrevocably crippled, leaving all worlds within it under constant threat of attack, but may even allow for foreign powers to develop weapons technologies that are simply unsafe in the hands of many civilizations. Perhaps you have heard of Imperial Planetcrackers? Such weapons cannot be entrusted to civilizations with the capacity to abuse them.*

Further, existing World Assembly Legislation has created a hostile trading environment for those states wishing to retain some protectionist measures, and those States that do not operate under market economies."

"That is an all or nothing approach to policy."

"Do keep in mind that the Imperium has voiced little opposition to legislation on this topic that has little effect on the border and trade policies of the Imperium, and do not seek to utilize the World Assembly to further the economic interests of certain States."

"Sciongrad believes free trade is generally good policy and that nations will prosper by reducing trade barriers."

"And the Imperium, and many Member-States disagree. The Imperium does not wish to infringe upon the rights of your State to trade with willing partners. We must ask why your Government believes it acceptable to infringe upon the rights of States to maintain closed economies, if not that your Government seeks to gain at the expense of said States?"

"Complaining that the very existence of free trade as a valid exercise of World Assembly authority is not only poor policy but an affront to the Imperium and its citizens, on the other hand, is an all-or-nothing policy. That is certainly something I find tiresome."

OOC:
I've never argued against the existence of the Free Trade category ICly, partially because I do actually agree that it is something the WA should be working with. I argue against it OOCly, because I'm goddamn tired of asinine legislation getting pushed through that category that makes it incredibly difficult to maintain a fair trading environment, under guise of creating one.

OOC:
*If you're bothered by the all the FT, replace Planetcrackers with Nukes, and pretend that by Subspace, I meant Radio and Cars.

[Argonic]

OOC: i fucked up, really sorry for that :[ i didn't think that would be bad since it was a joke, no excuse sorry.

[Cybraxia]

"Cybraxia opposes due to the arguements of the Ambassador from Tinfect. Foreign goods in our markets that aren't from our native universe are quite objectionable. What's the phrase? 'We reserve the right to refuse service and goods to anyone.'"

[Europe and Oceania]

We support this.

[Normlpeople]

"I dislike the misleading title" Clover said "as I dislike the forced removal of tariffs and forced opening of our markets this would provide. A few points of concern, how does this not violate GAR #17 (Domestic taxation) or NEF?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I dislike the forced removal of tariffs and forced opening of our markets this would provide

OOC: As a matter of nations implement the laws, I presume you can determine how gradual that removal is going to be. If you want it slower than glacial, I guess you can do that.

[Bears Armed]

"A few points of concern, how does this not violate GAR #17 (Domestic taxation) or NEF?"

"According to past precedent and Secretariat rulings, tariffs and taxes on international trade do not count as 'domestic' taxation for the purpose of GA legislation."

[Sciongrad]

"I dislike the misleading title" Clover said "as I dislike the forced removal of tariffs and forced opening of our markets this would provide. A few points of concern, how does this not violate GAR #17 (Domestic taxation) or NEF?"

"The title is not misleading. This resolution's goal is to make quality consumer goods more accessible. And even if there was any doubt about the goal of this proposal, the preamble states it explicitly. Furthermore, GAR#17 does not affect tariffs or taxes on international trade and according to precedent, GAR#68's requirement can be satisfied by including a preambulatory clause that identifies an "extreme hazard to national populations," as this proposal does."

[Christian Democrats]

Would these sorts of issues not be better addressed by tort law than by economic regulation? Perhaps, the GA could establish an international court to redress injuries suffered by persons who imported dangerous products from foreign member states.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would these sorts of issues not be better addressed by tort law than by economic regulation? Perhaps, the GA could establish an international court to redress injuries suffered by persons who imported dangerous products from foreign member states.

This is interesting. I agree that this would be a better solution... just nobody wants to see their legal systems taken over or whatever.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would these sorts of issues not be better addressed by tort law than by economic regulation? Perhaps, the GA could establish an international court to redress injuries suffered by persons who imported dangerous products from foreign member states.

"Except On Universal Jurisdiction makes it illegal to set up an international court! Yet another reason to repeal the damn thing."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would these sorts of issues not be better addressed by tort law than by economic regulation? Perhaps, the GA could establish an international court to redress injuries suffered by persons who imported dangerous products from foreign member states.

"Except On Universal Jurisdiction makes it illegal to set up an international court! Yet another reason to repeal the damn thing."

A court of original jurisdiction, yes.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Except On Universal Jurisdiction makes it illegal to set up an international court! Yet another reason to repeal the damn thing."

A court of original jurisdiction, yes.

"The WA is specifically barred from creating any appeals court, as a reversal would necessarily preempt the universal jurisdiction of member states. So, unless the appeals court never overturns anything, it would be illegal."

[Christian Democrats]

Would these sorts of issues not be better addressed by tort law than by economic regulation? Perhaps, the GA could establish an international court to redress injuries suffered by persons who imported dangerous products from foreign member states.

"Except On Universal Jurisdiction makes it illegal to set up an international court! Yet another reason to repeal the damn thing."

On Universal Jurisdiction prohibits the creation of an international criminal court. Torts are not part of the criminal law. Therefore, the GA could set up courts to decide tort cases. In our nation's view, this course of action would be best.

If Sciongrad wants to work together with our delegation on such a proposal, we would be more than willing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Except On Universal Jurisdiction makes it illegal to set up an international court! Yet another reason to repeal the damn thing."

On Universal Jurisdiction prohibits the creation of an international criminal court. Torts are not part of the criminal law. Therefore, the GA could set up courts to decide tort cases. In our nation's view, this course of action would be best.

Criminal court only?

7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions; (Source)

Edits for SO MANY SPACING ERRORS

[Separatist Peoples]

"Funny that. OUJ has no criminal modifier."

[Christian Democrats]

On Universal Jurisdiction prohibits the creation of an international criminal court. Torts are not part of the criminal law. Therefore, the GA could set up courts to decide tort cases. In our nation's view, this course of action would be best.

Criminal court only?

7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions; (Source)

Indeed. The resolution defines "universal jurisdiction" as "the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual." Take this definition, insert it into Section 7, and you get:

Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's [right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual] under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions.

The establishment of international civil courts and administrative courts is still permitted.