[PASSED] Freedom to Contract

[Free South Califas]

It's not sexism. It's a reference to some popular media

[The Palentine]

THe good but unwholesome senator sulla looks out from behind his desk, and gives his fellow ambasadors a smile most unpleasent and says,

"You lucky, lucky sods! I wish I could sit here and listen to me all day. Anyway on general principles I and my nation oppose this legislation. Its a human rights proposal, and I fear if I vote in favor of too many of those boogers, y'all will start to think that I've become softer than a sneakerfull of grits. However I don't deeply despise it down in the cockles of my blackened soul, so i'm willing to comprimise. For the right fiduciary incentive I will change my vote to a yea....or if the price is right I'll keep it as a negative. Its your choice fellow ambassadors, and remeber all gifts are non-refundable, and in God I trust, but all others must pay cash!"

At this point the good but unwholesome senator reaches under his desk to grab his large empty Fine Yeldan pickle jar(TM), which he then places on the desk.

[Calderax]

"A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" - More like a resolution to impose WA Tyranny on individual nationstates.

While Clause 2. leaves it to individual states to decides who is able to enter into contracts ("any person who a nation regards as competent"), the latter clauses completely spits on this sham of any kind of freedom for individual states.

Clause 3 essentially states, "The WA can regulate your nation's contracts or agreements."
Clause 4 essentially states, "You must enforce the rules/regulations which the WA can/will regulate."
Clause 5 essentially states, "The WA, in addition to regulating rules and regulations of contracts, can also regulate the medium in which contracts are considered valid."

This resolution is absolutely ridiculous. It's pure tyranny wrapped in a pretty name, declaring that it will provide human and civil rights, but it does NOTHING BUT PROVIDE POWER TO THE WA over what goes on inside individual nationstates.

Calderax votes AGAINST.

Actually, I don't think this bill is giving such power to the World Assembly and I suggest that the Honorable Delegate of Calderax should read this proposal again.

Yours,

3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest;

5. PERMITS Member Nations - either individually or through collective WA action - to establish reasonable rules regarding the form required for contracts, including whether certain contracts must be in writing, signed by the parties, and/or notarized by a government official.

Relevant areas indicated. "collective WA action" I assume means another resolution by the WA. So, essentially, Sir Vagabundas, this resolution opens the door to more WA regulation of contracts within member nations.

Clause 3 indicates that the WA may impose resolutions regulating "certain contracts...if doing so is [in] some compelling interest;" --notice the very vague "some"... So, we're looking at a bill that opens the door for more regulation being shoved through easily due to "some" compelling interest of the WA collective body.

Clause 5 does the same; introduces further guarantees for more imposing regulations on individual member nations, which Clause 4 then forces us to enforce on our own dime.

[Ossitania]

3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest;

5. PERMITS Member Nations - either individually or through collective WA action - to establish reasonable rules regarding the form required for contracts, including whether certain contracts must be in writing, signed by the parties, and/or notarized by a government official.

Relevant areas indicated. "collective WA action" I assume means another resolution by the WA. So, essentially, Sir Vagabundas, this resolution opens the door to more WA regulation of contracts within member nations.

Clause 3 indicates that the WA may impose resolutions regulating "certain contracts...if doing so is [in] some compelling interest;" --notice the very vague "some"... So, we're looking at a bill that opens the door for more regulation being shoved through easily due to "some" compelling interest of the WA collective body.

Clause 5 does the same; introduces further guarantees for more imposing regulations on individual member nations, which Clause 4 then forces us to enforce on our own dime.

Balderdash. It doesn't open the door to more regulation - the door was open anyway and it leaves it open. The honourable ambassador from Vagabundas is correct - this resolution doesn't give the WA any power. Member-nations already had the power to regulate contracts collectively through WA action before this proposal was put forward, the text simply states that member-states retain the ability to legislate on contract law via the WA, just as they did before.

As for your other points;

1. You completely misunderstand Clause 4. Clause 4 says that member-states have to provide a legal mechanism by which individuals who form contracts can demand that the contracts be enforced. In lay terms, it means that if someone is in a contract and the other party is breaking the contract, your nation has to have some body or institution that will force the other party to keep up their end of the bargain or bring some punishment against them if they don't. It has nothing to do with enforcing WA regulations.

2. You've rather disingenuously left out two important words when ranting about the compelling interests stipulation. Those words are "public policy". What Clause 3 actually says is that member-states, individually or collectively, retain the right to prevent individuals from making contracts which are contrary to public policy, for example, contracts to commit illegal actions like sex trafficking or assassination.

In closing, the Ossitanian delegation feels compelled to suggest that the government of Calderax recall its current ambassador and find a replacement with a reckonable degree of literacy and greater familiarity with this noble institution.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

EDIT: Ninja'd by Oss ^

Actually, I don't think this bill is giving such power to the World Assembly and I suggest that the Honorable Delegate of Calderax should read this proposal again.

Yours,

3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest;

5. PERMITS Member Nations - either individually or through collective WA action - to establish reasonable rules regarding the form required for contracts, including whether certain contracts must be in writing, signed by the parties, and/or notarized by a government official.

Relevant areas indicated. "collective WA action" I assume means another resolution by the WA. So, essentially, Sir Vagabundas, this resolution opens the door to more WA regulation of contracts within member nations.

Clause 3 indicates that the WA may impose resolutions regulating "certain contracts...if doing so is [in] some compelling interest;" --notice the very vague "some"... So, we're looking at a bill that opens the door for more regulation being shoved through easily due to "some" compelling interest of the WA collective body.

Clause 5 does the same; introduces further guarantees for more imposing regulations on individual member nations, which Clause 4 then forces us to enforce on our own dime.

The resolution "opens the door" to nothing that wasn't already well within the power of the World Assembly. In fact, the language in Clause 3 had to be included, since the WA has already regulated contracts in various ways (the Patient's Rights Act, Restrictions on Child Labor, and the Forced Marriages Ban are all good examples). If I would have tried to close the door on future WA regulation of agreements I would have lost a lot of supporters (all of them, I think) and my proposal probably would have been an illegal contradiction of all the WA regulations on contracts already on the books.

As for Clause 5, the same reasoning applies: the WA had that power long before I said anything about it. I included that language because I anticipate someone may one day attempt a Statute of Frauds, or some sort of Free Trade forum selection law and I wanted to make sure that this proposal wasn't read as closing the door on that.

Your "WAH Government Tyranny" argument is ridiculous. There's no tyranny here. I haven't opened the door to anything that wasn't available already. What's more, the provisions of this Act give individual nations wide discretion in how its terms are implemented. If I wanted to be tyrannical, I would have taken away the power of nations to regulate and enforce their own contracts and given it solely to the WA.

Best Regards.

[Knootoss]

Let me be the first to prematurely congratulate the World Assembly on the successful adoption of a core principle of liberty.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Cowardly Pacifists]

THe good but unwholesome senator sulla looks out from behind his desk, and gives his fellow ambasadors a smile most unpleasent and says,

"You lucky, lucky sods! I wish I could sit here and listen to me all day. Anyway on general principles I and my nation oppose this legislation. Its a human rights proposal, and I fear if I vote in favor of too many of those boogers, y'all will start to think that I've become softer than a sneakerfull of grits. However I don't deeply despise it down in the cockles of my blackened soul, so i'm willing to comprimise. For the right fiduciary incentive I will change my vote to a yea....or if the price is right I'll keep it as a negative. Its your choice fellow ambassadors, and remeber all gifts are non-refundable, and in God I trust, but all others must pay cash!"

At this point the good but unwholesome senator reaches under his desk to grab his large empty Fine Yeldan pickle jar(TM), which he then places on the desk.

Every year, 6% of The Palentine's population mysteriously disappear and are presumed dead. That's a staggering 920,400,000 people (as of the most recent census) - many of them women and children.

As a sign of good will (and for no other reason, cough cough), my nation has allocated $920.40 in greenbacks to the Office of Senator Sulla, for the purpose (we presume) of establishing the Senator Sulla Missing Persons Relief Foundation: an organization that will work to support the families of disappeared Palentinians.

Best Regards.

EDIT: My thanks to Ambassador Koopman for his congratulations. The passage of this proposal does seem assured, baring a significant adverse development. (knocks on wood)

[Vagabundas]

My first question wasn't answered at all. I know it is a dumb question but I still want an answer if it is possible...

Yours,

[Quelesh]

I've voted FOR this resolution.

The proposal says nothing about minors. They are not yet old enough to make a sound decision.

This resolution only applies to people who are considered competent to manage their own affairs. If your nation wishes to use an age of majority to differentiate between competent and incompetent people, this resolution will not prevent your nation from doing so.

While the United Socialist States of New Matawan believes in the right of an individual to hold a contract at their own profit or expense, it strongly favors capitalist nations in its dialogue and manner. While we understand, Cowardly Pacifists, that it does not intend to impose capitalism or capitalist-like laws onto our nation, other nations may attempt to use this legislature to alter our nation into a more capitalist-friendly one.

Therefore, we cannot vote in favor of this act.

Very well. I should expect that many pro-socialism nations might hear the word "contract" and run for the hills. While I think it's clear that the Act in no way infringes upon the policy goals of socialist and communist nations, I'll (try to) refrain from offering further defenses of this kind. Nations are perfectly capable of reading the resolution and coming to their own conclusions about its merits.

Indeed. Quelesh is a largely socialist nation, and this resolution does not conflict with our ideals at all, nor does it conflict with socialism.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Cowardly Pacifists]

My first question wasn't answered at all. I know it is a dumb question but I still want an answer if it is possible...

I would be happy to know if we really need a legislation like that! Is this bill really useful for any matter? Why should someone support this bill?

Sorry. I didn't answer your question because I really don't know where to begin. If you want to know why the freedom of individuals to make binding agreements with one another is important, I'm hardly up to the task. That's one of those principles I expect most folks to simply understand innately. If you'd like a good philosophical explanation of the principle of contractual freedom, go read Locke or Hobbes. They'll do a much better job explaining it than I ever could.

This proposal mandates that the freedom of individuals to contract be the general rule in all member nations. It goes a step further and obliges nations to provide some form of societal enforcement of contracts - something that is required if the freedom to contract is to have real meaning within a society.

While the proposal does allow nations to curtail the freedom to contract, it requires that they have a compelling public policy interest to do so. While some nations will treat that as a box they simply have to check, most nations will understand that the freedom to contract must ordinarily remain sacrosanct unless there is some strong reason to curtail it. Even in nations that would simply check a box, the proposal requires them to at least have a reason - they cannot infringe on contractual rights for no reason at all.

I understand that the proposal recognizes a right which many nations probably already recognize. The right to contract as I've described it is so fundamental that most people probably couldn't even comprehend what a nation would look like without it. That said, there have been societies in the past that do not recognize the right to freely contract - and I dare say some of those societies survive in the WA to this day. This proposal is necessary to protect the liberty interests of individuals living within such societies.

I certainly hope that this satisfactorily answers your question about the importance and usefulness of this Act.

[Retired WerePenguins]

While Clause 2. leaves it to individual states to decides who is able to enter into contracts ("any person who a nation regards as competent"), the latter clauses completely spits on this sham of any kind of freedom for individual states.

They do? I wasn't aware that clauses spit. Camels spit, clauses do not. I will assume that this is a problem in translation which I will take up once again with the WA gnomes.

Clause 3 essentially states, "The WA can regulate your nation's contracts or agreements."

Clause 3 is a Nat Sov friendly clause, what are you talking about? "member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate ..." Doesn't say the WA may regulate.

By the way, the WA can do whatever it feels like doing. If you don't like it, vote against it or leave. But that's what you agreed to when you joined the WA.

Clause 4 essentially states, "You must enforce the rules/regulations which the WA can/will regulate."

All WA resolutions are absolutely binding on all member states. NO EXCEPTIONS. It's in the fine print you signed when you joined.

But that's moot because that is not what clause 4 states. Clause 4 states that member nations must provide a valid enforcement mechanism for valid contracts. WHO DO YOU THINK EOFORCES CONTRACTS? THE TOOTH FAIRY? It's governments, stupid. If you are going to have VALID CONTRACTS you need a VALID ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. If that ain't government, please tell me what you think government is there for?

Clause 5 essentially states, "The WA, in addition to regulating rules and regulations of contracts, can also regulate the medium in which contracts are considered valid."

CLAUSE 5 says "MEMBER NATIONS"... CLAUSE 5 says "MEMBER NATIONS"

Please out down whatever it is you are smoking ... it is clearly bad stuff.

Pleae do not confuse nat sov clauses with int fed clauses; you only look like an ass when you do and most asses don't want to be associated with you.

[Retired WerePenguins]

At this point the good but unwholesome senator reaches under his desk to grab his large empty Fine Yeldan pickle jar(TM), which he then places on the desk.

Three small penguins debate among themselves for a few monents.

"Do you think we should?"
"Well it's still a lot you know."
"Oh you mean it's ..."
"I suppose in this case, we should make the exception. For the sake of the club."

They then approach the unwholesome senator.

"Senator Sulla, on behalf of the RWPSSFC* we would like to present to you a donation of twenty thousand flovers from the Retired WerePenguins Whiskey Explorer's Club, good towards the purchase of any fine whiskey you might personally desire. Good enough for a bottle or two of the really good stuff. We would encourage you to vote in favor of this legislation, but we would rather want you to be happy."

* RWPSSFC = Retired WerePenguins Senator Sulla Fan Club, apparently a group conposed entirely of Adlie Penguins who drink single malt scotch. (And on rare occasons Wild Turkey Rare Breed.)

[Retired WerePenguins]

I've voted FOR this resolution.

"Do you think we should change our vote?"
"Of course not."
"Broken analog clocks still tell the correct time twice a day."
"Good point."

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolakr, World Assembly Delegate and Vice President of Europeia will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 6/4 internal vote. Ultimately it does nothing harmful but isn't exactly too necessary. Regardless of such, our internal vote has determined I vote in favour.

[Datavia]

Congratulations to the proponents of this really needed legislation for the overwhelming support they are gathering. I hope that the next proposal we see here is something along the line of "Freedom to Breathe Act".

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Congratulations to the proponents of this really needed legislation for the overwhelming support they are gathering. I hope that the next proposal we see here is something along the line of "Freedom to Breathe Act".

Some ambassadors get so catty when it becomes clear that their position is utterly detached from that of the majority.

[Free South Califas]

Congratulations to the proponents of this really needed legislation for the overwhelming support they are gathering. I hope that the next proposal we see here is something along the line of "Freedom to Breathe Act".

We do not find the fundamental individual freedoms to be such fertile ground for humor.

[Datavia]

Congratulations to the proponents of this really needed legislation for the overwhelming support they are gathering. I hope that the next proposal we see here is something along the line of "Freedom to Breathe Act".

Some ambassadors get so catty when it becomes clear that their position is utterly detached from that of the majority.

We do not find the fundamental individual freedoms to be such fertile ground for humor.

Come on! I began my intervention on this forum recognizing that I would be in the losing side this time. At least, you have to admit that this would be a slightly duller debate without my rather scarce and short remarks. Nothing wrong with making people to think a little about the obvious

[Scriptless]

The United Socialist Systems of Scriptless is unanimous in their vote against this legislation, on the ground that the wording presents too large a loophole to be allowed into international law.

The legislation states the agreement of a contract to only be between individuals, at no point does it state, or is legally binding to corporations, governments or other such organisations.

As a union we perceive this to be a major and damning flaw and will oppose this legislation until such time as it is removed from the world stage.

[Datavia]

The United Socialist Systems of Scriptless is unanimous in their vote against this legislation, on the ground that the wording presents too large a loophole to be allowed into international law.

The legislation states the agreement of a contract to only be between individuals, at no point does it state, or is legally binding to corporations, governments or other such organisations.

As a union we perceive this to be a major and damning flaw and will oppose this legislation until such time as it is removed from the world stage.

As it is, states can certainly revoke it (a citizen's right to contract) pretty much on the basis of, well, anything.

[Datavia]

That said, and seeing the massive support, I won't advocate for any repeal of this resolution, as it is for the most part harmless. But I would be glad to see in the future something more internationally relevant, such as jurisdiction in international contracts and/or agreements, etc. Unfortunately, I am not savvy enough on the clockwork of WA resolution-making to do it myself.

[Jesoland]

For sure, despite voting in a different way with respect to our Regional Delegate, the King's cabinet informed me that I'm free to cast my vote pro this proposal.

Respectfully yours,

Alexander Bonaga-Tronchera,
Duke of the Bonagan Contado
WA Plenipotentiary Minister of HM Francis I Bonaga the King of Jesoland

[Free South Califas]

In opening legislative sessions today, the Twelfth Federal Assembly of the Federated Communities and Economies of Free South Califas passed 12FAR WAGA1 "Celebrating Freedom to Contract" by consensus, though only a Califan supermajority (80%+) was required. The Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Federal Assemblies also supported what is now known as GAR205 Freedom to Contract, dating back to the original domestic legislation on the proposed resolution, 9FAR WAGA118 Support "Freedom to Contract" Act. 9FAR WAGA118 obliged the General Assembly detachment of the World Assembly delegation to express vocal support for the proposed international legislation and vote for it, on the grounds that it would increase individual freedom without compromising the people's right to collective self-determination, specifically our libertarian socialist economic policies.

Through 9FAR WAGA118, 10FAR WAGA63, 11FAR WAGA19 and 12FAR WAGA1, the people of Free South Califas have reiterated that socialists should support this motion and celebrate its nearly inevitable victory. Additionally, 9FAR WAGA118 commended the Cowardly Pacifists delegation for their tireless work in defense of individual and social freedoms, which each of the aforementioned domestic resolutions also reaffirmed. In addition, 12FAR WAGA1 commends all 8,806 nations which voted for GAR205, a truly daunting list for an impressive victory.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 205
Freedom to Contract
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

AFFIRMING that all people have a fundamental right to liberty, which includes the freedom to choose, think, and act as an individual within the confines of socially acceptable behavior;

CONVINCED that a person's freedom to voluntarily and willfully make agreements with others is an important part of their fundamental right to liberty;

BELIEVING that recognition of the freedom to form contractual agreements would improve and promote commercial and social interactions between and within world nations;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a "contract" for the purposes of this resolution as "an agreement between two or more persons containing specific terms that the parties intend to be legally binding and enforceable;"

2. DECLARES that any person who a member nation regards as competent to manage his or her own affairs shall be permitted by that nation to freely enter into binding contracts;

3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest;

4. OBLIGATES Member Nations to provide an enforcement mechanism for valid contracts;

5. PERMITS Member Nations - either individually or through collective WA action - to establish reasonable rules regarding the form required for contracts, including whether certain contracts must be in writing, signed by the parties, and/or notarized by a government official.

Votes For: 8,806
Votes Against: 1,748

Implemented: Mon Jun 25 2012

[Quelesh]

Clause 3 essentially states, "The WA can regulate your nation's contracts or agreements."

Clause 3 is a Nat Sov friendly clause, what are you talking about? "member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate ..." Doesn't say the WA may regulate.

By the way, the WA can do whatever it feels like doing. If you don't like it, vote against it or leave. But that's what you agreed to when you joined the WA.

Clause 5 essentially states, "The WA, in addition to regulating rules and regulations of contracts, can also regulate the medium in which contracts are considered valid."

CLAUSE 5 says "MEMBER NATIONS"... CLAUSE 5 says "MEMBER NATIONS"

Please out down whatever it is you are smoking ... it is clearly bad stuff.

Pleae do not confuse nat sov clauses with int fed clauses; you only look like an ass when you do and most asses don't want to be associated with you.

To be fair, the clauses in question also say "through collective WA action," which means that one of the ways member nations can regulate these areas is by passing a WA resolution. (OOC: I'm almost certain that no mod would rule such a proposal illegal for this reason, due to the "collective WA action" wording.)

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador