[Draft] Quality in Consumer Goods

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

Quite. I agree. I think this is correct, appeals and civil courts are still permitted given the use of 'criminal' in the resolution.

I would also go further and claim that 312 GA § 9 means that any duplication or contradiction claims ought be immediately dropped. If they were upheld, then that would go against § 9 that states "nothing in this resolution precludes the World Assembly from passing further legislation on criminal jurisdiction, international police or judicial cooperation, or extradition". Thus, the establishment of a new ICC would be permitted because otherwise, something in the resolution would preclude further legislation on such subjects.

If we have a resolution, we should interpret that resolution to mean what it says and to treat it how it states that it ought be treated. If I included a clause stating that my resolution cannot preclude future legislation, I should not expect that future legislation is precluded by that resolution. The integrity of the internal text should be upheld before moving onwards to duplication-contradiction challenges.

[Sciongrad]

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

"I agree that would be a better solution and I would, of course, welcome any input or suggestions you have."

[Christian Democrats]

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

"I agree that would be a better solution and I would, of course, welcome any input or suggestions you have."

Our nation's delegation can best be reached by telegram.

EDIT: Or we could move this to the super-secret UNOG forums . . .

[Sciongrad]

"Updated. I've split out the free trade provision and went with a focus on litigation rather than regulation. His Excellency of Christian Democrats has been listed as co-author for his significant contributions."

[Tinfect]

"As the sole cause of contention within this draft has been removed, the Imperium now finds itself with no reason to oppose this legislation, but little reason to support it; however, at this time, the Imperium is prepared to offer our tentative support of this draft.

However, the Imperium wishes to note the redundancy of this 'court of international claims'. It appears to somewhat overlap with the goals and intents of the World Assembly Trade Commission."

[Christian Democrats]

In Section 3, there's an extra "it" before "grants." At the end of Subsection 5(c), I'd remove the word "and."

My only substantive criticism is the definition of "hazardous product." I suppose that I would redefine it as "an inherently dangerous product that can cause serious injury to a consumer, handler, or other person" and that I'd give the WATC, as a regulatory agency, the power to designate with specificity which products in international commerce should be considered "hazardous products."

EDIT: Also, I think more should be added to the preamble. This proposal needs to justify why Advancement of Industry is the proper category. Why is uniformity in the international trade of hazardous products preferable to a patchwork of 25,000 regulatory codes?

[Scardino]

Alcohol and tobacco are major products in our nation. What implications would this have? What about sugary products? It seems to us that any unhealthy product finds itself in danger of being litigated out of existence. We suggest making the language more specific.

[Bananaistan]

"International courts do not have a good record in this assembly. Are you sure that giving another court exclusive jurisdiction in any area is a politically wise course of action? Perhaps giving this international court appellate jurisdiction in the area would be a better option and more palatable to member states? Particularly when it is within the power of this body to require member states to force their exporters to answer for their negligence in the appropriate forum.

"Perhaps you might also clarify just exactly who a "person in international commerce" is? If two private individuals, say, Joe Bloggs in Bananaistan and Johnny Citizen in Sciongrad are neither international traders nor domestic traders in widgets, and Joe buys a widget over the internet from Johnny. Are they now persons in international commerce? Perhaps the widget manufacturer is a small business which makes and sells widgets only in Johnny's locality, they sold the widget to Edward's and Tubbs' local shop for local people and he bought it from them prior to selling it onto Joe. Are the widget manufacturer or Edward's and Tubb's local shop for local people now persons in international commerce despite them having never sold anything outside their own locality?

"I also have a few concerns about the details in clause 5. Shouldn't the defendant also get damages in the first case? In the second case, why should the plaintiff get compensatory damages if he was negligent? This clause seems to completely remove contributory negligence as a possible finding of the court. Also in the second case, if neither have been negligent why should the plaintiff get compensatory damages? In the third case, why treble damages?

"And who's going to pay for all these damages and what mechanism does the court have to enforce payment of same of the parties to any trial? And indeed the same could apply to the costs issues. I'd be concerned that this would create a huge cost to the General Fund which is ultimately paid for the taxpayers of each member state.

"And if the member states or general fund don't ultimately have to bear the cost, wouldn't the potential award of costs against a plaintiff be a chilling effect on the likelihood of any Joe Citizen taking on a multinational corporation in such a case. Particularly when they have to go this WA court rather than just down the road to the local small claims court."

- Ted Hornwood

OOC: I couldn't think of an adequate way to put this in character. There just seems to be something off to me in definition of negligence but I can't put my finger on it precisely between clauses 2 and 4. They don't seem to hit the elements of negligence (at least as I was thought anyway, luckily wikipedia was on hand to refresh my memory): the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached the duty of care, harm to the claimant resulted from that breach of the duty of care, and the harm that arose must not be too remote a consequence of the breach of the duty of care.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

There will certainly be revisions to this proposal, but we believe that its approach is reasonable. The rationale behind strict product liability is that manufacturers of dangerous products, if required to pay damages for all harms that result from use of those products, will engage in a high degree of self-regulation, seeking to minimize defects so as to save the greatest amount of money.

We also don't believe that anybody would consider local sales of local goods to be international commerce.

"I also have a few concerns about the details in clause 5. Shouldn't the defendant also get damages in the first case?

The defendant hasn't suffered any harm or loss, except for the attorney fees.

In the second case, why should the plaintiff get compensatory damages if he was negligent? This clause seems to completely remove contributory negligence as a possible finding of the court.

A negligent plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages if and only if the defendant was negligent too. Perhaps, this clause could be revised, however, to make it so that the plaintiff is awarded no more than compensatory damages.

Also in the second case, if neither have been negligent why should the plaintiff get compensatory damages?

See above. My first paragraph in this post.

In the third case, why treble damages?

To dissuade manufacturers from being negligent without regulating them.

[Bananaistan]

<snip>

There will certainly be revisions to this proposal, but we believe that its approach is reasonable. The rationale behind strict product liability is that manufacturers of dangerous products, if required to pay damages for all harms that result from use of those products, will engage in a high degree of self-regulation, seeking to minimize defects so as to save the greatest amount of money.

We also don't believe that anybody would consider local sales of local goods to be international commerce.

"The proposal doesn't currently say that though. And in my example Johnny Citizen sold the widget internationally. Is he now responsible for its defects even though domestically the manufacturer would likely be held responsible? And if he is neither responsible nor a person in international commerce, then does Joe Bloggs have any chance of a legal remedy for the widget which blew up in his face even though he operated it according to the manufacturer's instructions?

"Also if the intention is to make manufacturers stand over their products, this needs to be clearly stated. If I buy a defective washing machine from a retailer, typically in consumer law, it will be up to the retailer to deal with me, not the manufacturer.

A negligent plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages if and only if the defendant was negligent too. Perhaps, this clause could be revised, however, to make it so that the plaintiff is awarded no more than compensatory damages.

"But it may be the case that the contributory negligence of the defendant was only, say, 30%. Why shouldn't he get a 70% award of damages?"

- Ted Hornwood

[Calladan]

I really cannot agree with Clause 5b - if both groups are at fault, or if neither group is at fault, then I would argue it is a wash and the plaintiff should be sent home and told not to be so bloody stupid in the future (assuming they were at fault that is. If they weren't, they should just be sent home).

Clauses 5a and 5c seem to establish the idea that if someone is negligent, they should be punished and the party that was not negligent be the beneficiary of that punishment. So Clause 5b - where neither party is any more at fault than the other - should not reward or punish either of them.

Also it took me seven attempts to understand what Clause 1 was trying to say, and even now I am not sure I get it. Does it mean a *fault* product that, when used correctly, is a danger to the user and to others? Because it might be helpful to specify the *faulty* part (because a gun, when used correctly, is a danger to other people. But - unless I have WILDLY misjudged this proposal, that is not what you are getting at in this proposal, is it?)

[Sciongrad]

"Consider this draft revived," Natalia said as a sleep deprived Ricardo passed around paper copies of the proposal.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Consider this draft revived," Natalia said as a sleep deprived Ricardo passed around paper copies of the proposal.

Fairburn: Gah, a zombie! Kill it with fire!

Neville: Wait, an international civil court? I call plagiarism! Someone call a barrister; we patented that concept!

Harold enters the chamber dressed as a barrister.

Harold: You called?

[Bakhton]

"I am generally in support however why should in 5-b. the damages go to the plaintiff when neither side was negligent, or both?"

[Aclion]

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

Would this not make the CIC partially bound to the laws of member nations? In which case what nations laws are the CIC expected to follow in the event of dispute?

[Christian Democrats]

"I am generally in support however why should in 5-b. the damages go to the plaintiff when neither side was negligent, or both?"

Ah, yes. Product liability is a rather strange creature. The more time you spend contemplating it, however, the more reasonable strict liability becomes. Perhaps, Ambassador, we can facilitate your delegation's understanding of this proposal by asking two questions:

1. A consumer goes to the store and purchases a product. While he's using the product properly, the product malfunctions and causes him serious injury. There's no evidence that the manufacturer was negligent. Nonetheless, who should pay for the consumer's losses: the unlucky consumer who happened to buy the defective product or the manufacturer who made the defective product?

2. More importantly, from a public policy standpoint, if the government imposes strict liability on manufacturers for all harms resulting from the proper use of their products (i.e., product defects), what do the manufacturers have an economic incentive to do?

The first question might be called the implied warranty question. The second question might be called the cost-benefit analysis question.

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

Would this not make the CIC partially bound to the laws of member nations? In which case what nations laws are the CIC expected to follow in the event of dispute?

In our opinion, a manufacturer who is violating the law is being negligent ipso facto. The CIC would, in some sense, be partially bound by national laws; but we don't think this is an unfair arrangement in a federal or confederal system. Let's say that consumer X in Nation A is suing manufacturer Y in Nation B. If X proves that Y was violating B's laws, do you think he's proved that Y was being negligent?

[Aclion]

In our opinion, a manufacturer who is violating the law is being negligent ipso facto. The CIC would, in some sense, be partially bound by national laws; but we don't think this is an unfair arrangement in a federal or confederal system. Let's say that consumer X in Nation A is suing manufacturer Y in Nation B. If X proves that Y was violating B's laws, do you think he's proved that Y was being negligent?

Not at all. For that he'd have to prove that Y was responsible for the product being imported into nation B and that following the law would reasonably be expected to reduce the products potential to cause harm to the point that failure to do so constitutes a lack of due care.

If they fail to prove the first then the negligence does not lie with the manufactured but with person who imported the product into a place where it would be unsafe. If they fail to prove the second then the law is of no relevance to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Consider a test case: In Aclion the manufacture and sale of marijuana is perfectly legal, in the neighboring United States it is illegal. John grows marijuana and sells in Aclion. Dave buys some and sneaks it in, there he uses far too much and overdoes(Yes I know, shut up. It's just an example.). Is John negligent?

[Christian Democrats]

In our opinion, a manufacturer who is violating the law is being negligent ipso facto. The CIC would, in some sense, be partially bound by national laws; but we don't think this is an unfair arrangement in a federal or confederal system. Let's say that consumer X in Nation A is suing manufacturer Y in Nation B. If X proves that Y was violating B's laws, do you think he's proved that Y was being negligent?

Not at all. For that he'd have to prove that Y was responsible for the product being imported into nation B

Maybe, our example was too oversimplified.

and that following the law would reasonably be expected to reduce the products potential to cause harm to the point that failure to do so constitutes a lack of due care.

We don't believe the World Assembly should be a censor of national economic regulations, but you do have a point. Would your delegation be satisfied if the Scionite delegation and ours modified the definition of negligence? Perhaps:

Defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise reasonable care or to follow relevant national or subnational product safety laws on hazardous products. (proposed additions underlined)

[Aclion]

Not at all. For that he'd have to prove that Y was responsible for the product being imported into nation B

Maybe, our example was too oversimplified.

I think the over simplification lies in the assumption that the manufacture is always responsible for what is done with their product after it leaves their hands. I think manufactures are at least entitled to a reasonable assumption that distributors will not export their products to countries where they would violate the law.

and that following the law would reasonably be expected to reduce the products potential to cause harm to the point that failure to do so constitutes a lack of due care.

We don't believe the World Assembly should be a censor of national economic regulations

Nor do we, but if the WA is to hold our citizens accountable to those laws then we must insist that those laws be reasonable and relevant. Otherwise international Tort law becomes a matter of who can best abuse the law, the opposite of tort reform.

Would your delegation be satisfied if the Scionite delegation and ours modified the definition of negligence? Perhaps:

Defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise reasonable care or to follow relevant national or subnational product safety laws on hazardous products. (proposed additions underlined)

Possibly; If the definition makes clear that relevant national laws refers to the relevance of the laws to the case, or to the nations involved in the dispute? That is, the fact that a law exists and is nominally a product safety law does not mean it has any relevance to the case in question.

The law would have to be damn good for me to support anything touched by Natalia though.

[Christian Democrats]

Maybe, our example was too oversimplified.

I think the over simplification lies in the assumption that the manufacture is always responsible for what is done with their product after it leaves their hands. I think manufactures are at least entitled to a reasonable assumption that distributors will not export their products to countries where they would violate the law.

The proposal doesn't say that the manufacturer is always responsible. That's just the party whom we used in our example above.

We don't believe the World Assembly should be a censor of national economic regulations

Nor do we, but if the WA is to hold our citizens accountable to those laws then we must insist that those laws be reasonable and relevant. Otherwise international Tort law becomes a matter of who can best abuse the law, the opposite of tort reform.

If an Aclionian is suing a foreign company for harm that he suffered, we don't believe this proposal would negatively affect Aclion if the foreign company is incorporated in a nation where the economy is overregulated (i.e., it's easier for the Aclionian to prove negligence). If a foreigner is suing an Aclionian company for harm that he suffered, we don't believe this proposal would negatively affect Aclion because it would impose only a standard of "reasonable care," plus relevant Aclionian regulations.

This proposal is tort reform, at least to the extent that it would prevent member states from externalizing unreasonable standards. No longer could Sovietstani courts, let's say, make themselves a forum for frivolous suits against foreign companies. Multinational companies wishing to do business in economically totalitarian nations could be assured that the judges of the Court of International Claims would be fairer to them than partisan, crackpot people's courts, whose judges are "accountable" to party bosses.

[Christian Democrats]

Sciongrad, as the coauthor, I'm providing some recommendations below.

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,

[add another preambulatory clause justifying Advancement of Industry -- something about how setting uniform international standards on product liability will make it easier for companies to do business abroad]

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

2. Further defines a "hazardous product in international commerce" as a hazardous product that was (a) wholly or substantially produced in a foreign member state, (b) assembled in a foreign member state, 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 it grants it exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur in international commerce involving hazardous products in international commerce;

5. Declares that any person (natural or legal) in international commerce 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 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 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 and;

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. [I think you should rewrite this final clause.]

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

[Aclion]

Sciongrad, as the coauthor, I'm providing some recommendations below.

These changes address our concerns perfectly.

[Wallenburg]

"This is all well and good, Ambassador, but can't the civil courts of member states handle these cases instead?"

[Sciongrad]

"This is all well and good, Ambassador, but can't the civil courts of member states handle these cases instead?"

"Don't you think a civil court may be biased towards the party from their own country? And who would be responsible for determining which country's civil courts to use?"

[Wallenburg]

"This is all well and good, Ambassador, but can't the civil courts of member states handle these cases instead?"

"Don't you think a civil court may be biased towards the party from their own country? And who would be responsible for determining which country's civil courts to use?"

"I suppose so. If this proposal remains exclusively relevant to international exchanges, then I accept this increased bureaucracy."