[SUBMITTED] International Land Transport Convention

[Walenstein]

International Land Transport Convention
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Walenstein

---

DRAFT FIVE

The World Assembly,

Understanding the importance of commercial land-based transportation of freight to member states’ economies,

Aware that carriers operating in member states may wish to transport freight internationally on behalf of a customer,

Knowing that for freight to reach its final destination in a foreign member state, it may be required to pass through the jurisdiction of other member states,

Concerned that the lack of international cooperation in this matter could lead to unnecessary complications in transiting jurisdictions, such as the operator being forced to pay tariffs/duties at customs checkpoints for freight that is merely passing through, etc.,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   1. A “Land-based Commercial Vehicle” as a vehicle designed to operate on land, such as a truck/trailer combination, locomotive and railway cars, or any other vehicle designed to operate on land that is carrying freight for the purpose of commercially transporting it between a point of origin and a point of destination.
   2. A “tariff” as a fee, tax or duty levied on a particular class of goods, for their importation or exportation from a member state.
2. Establishes the International Land Transport Committee (ILTC),
   
   
3. Tasks the ILTC with the issuance of “ILT Carnets” to operators of international land-based commercial vehicles:
   
   1. As a one-use document outlining the type of freight in transit and the freight’s value,
   2. If the freight falls into any hazardous goods categories,
   3. It’s origin and destination WA member states, and,
   4. Any other information on the freight deemed by the ILTC as necessary to help facilitate transit between jurisdictions, provided said information does not compromise the economic or national security of any member state,
4. Prohibits member states from levying any tariffs on freight that is transiting their jurisdiction to another on operators of land-based commercial vehicles provided a valid ILT carnet is presented,
   
   
5. Forbids member states from denying entry to a land-based commercial vehicle transiting their jurisdiction to another, provided:
   
   1. A valid ILT carnet is presented, and,
   2. The operator and vehicle meet all applicable customs, immigration, safety, and security standards as set by the member state in question and any applicable WA law,
6. Clarifies that this resolution does not prohibit member states from inspecting freight that is being carried under the provisions of this resolution, compel them to accept a certain type of goods for transit through their jurisdiction if they are prohibited under national law, or to charge tolls to operators of land-based commercial vehicles for use of infrastructure,
   
   
7. Further Clarifies that this resolution does not prohibit member states from rejecting freight with a final destination within the member state’s jurisdiction for any reason, or to charge tariffs on said freight.

OOC: Hello everyone! This is my second WA proposal! As I'm particularly new to the WA (not NS, this is a WA alt account), any feedback would be greatly appreciated! English is also not my first language, so expect some grammar mistakes, and if you find any, I'll fix them lol. Thanks for reading the proposal!

EDIT LOG:
DRAFT 2: Reformed the recommendation in Clause 7 to permit operators to put an ILT sticker on their vehicle in the place of an ILT plate, if they so wish.
DRAFT 3: Dropped clauses 6 & 7 altogether, redid the formatting of the proposal and fixed a few grammar mistakes.
DRAFT 4: Fixed a couple of grammar mistakes, clause 5b to include the ability for member nations to deny freight based on security reasons, and clause 3d to ensure the ILTC must respect the economic security of nations before releasing any additional information on the load,
DRAFT 5: Changed "Under the provisions of the ILT Convention" to "Under the provisions of this resolution" in Clause 8.

[Araraukar]

OOC: There already is an international transport resolution. I suggest you search the passed proposals thread (a sticky somewhere near the top of this forum) with "transport" or "transportation" and similar words to find it and anything else that goes with it.

[Walenstein]

OOC: There already is an international transport resolution. I suggest you search the passed proposals thread (a sticky somewhere near the top of this forum) with "transport" or "transportation" and similar words to find it and anything else that goes with it.

OOC: Yes there is, the resolution I believe you are referencing to is GAR #34, International Transport Safety. What that resolution does is set standards for safety in International Transport.

This proposal does not contradict it, as what it is trying to achieve is making sure member states cannot place tariffs or taxes, or reject the passage of goods through their territory with destinations in other member states unfairly. Basically, what I'm trying to create is an offshoot of the IRL TIR Convention, for NS.

I've gone through it and everything else with "Transport" in the title, and I can't seem to find anything that contradicts the proposal.

EDIT: Actually, Article 7 of GAR #34 could be considered as contradicting to parts of this resolution... I shall fix the proposal up so that's not the case.

[Araraukar]

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
b. A “tariff” as a fee, tax or duty levied on a particular class of goods, for their importation or exportation from a member state.
*snip*
4. PROHIBITS member states from levying any tariffs on freight that is transiting their jurisdiction to another on operators of land-based commercial vehicles provided a valid ILT carnet is presented,

OOC: Well, that is contradiction of another resolution, as the WA is forbidden from meddling with nations' internal taxation. It's probably the National Economic Freedoms, but if not, I'll find you the right one later.

ENCOURAGES operators of land-based commercial vehicles to display a plate with the letters “ILT” on the cargo compartment(s) of their vehicle to identify the freight as operating under the ILT convention,

Even if the "international land transport" in their language is something totally different? In Araraukarian (aka Finnish) it'd be "kansainvälinen/kansainväliset (singular/plural) kuljetukset maata pitkin" (since using "land transport" directly translates to "maakuljetukset" which sounds like you were transporting soil). And that's even with us using the same alphabet.

9. FURTHER CLARIFIES that this resolution does not prohibit member states from rejecting freight with a final destination within the member state’s jurisdiction for any reason, or, to charge tariffs on said freight.

Also contradictory.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tariffs aren't generally considered to be internal taxes. If it is the case that tariffs suddenly become internal, then all of these resolutions are also illegal. search.php?keywords=tariffs&t=30&sf=msgonly

[Bears Armed]

Tariffs aren't generally considered to be internal taxes.

Correct.
Also, any clause here that affects tariffs needs to take [at least] GA Resolution # 224: ‘Promotion of Bee-keeping’ into account.

[Liberimery]

As an Island Nation, The Democratic States of Liberimery will abstain from voting on this issue as all imports and exports terminated at ports of destination nations or use land transports originating in the port's nation. We would suggest that the ILT stamp be placed on the containers as stickers rather than plate so the container may be rotated out of ILT fleets as required by owners.

[Walenstein]

Even if the "international land transport" in their language is something totally different? In Araraukarian (aka Finnish) it'd be "kansainvälinen/kansainväliset (singular/plural) kuljetukset maata pitkin" (since using "land transport" directly translates to "maakuljetukset" which sounds like you were transporting soil). And that's even with us using the same alphabet.

OOC: IRL, vehicles transporting goods under the TIR Convention are required to place a blue plate with the letters "TIR" on it, even if the country the vehicle is registered in does not speak English or even French (Because TIR actually stands for Transports Internationaux Routiers, lol).

I will consider editing/dropping that clause though.

9. FURTHER CLARIFIES that this resolution does not prohibit member states from rejecting freight with a final destination within the member state’s jurisdiction for any reason, or, to charge tariffs on said freight.
Also contradictory.

"How so, Ambassador? The keyword in that clause would be This Resolution, i.e the ILT Convention itself does not place any restrictions on the ability of member nations to charge tariffs if the goods have a final destination in the member state. Other resolutions may, and those restrictions would have to be followed, of course, on top of the ILT Convention should it pass."

Tariffs aren't generally considered to be internal taxes.

Correct.
Also, any clause here that affects tariffs needs to take [at least] GA Resolution # 224: ‘Promotion of Bee-keeping’ into account.

OOC: Unless you're joking, I seriously don't see any contradiction between this proposal and GAR 224...As the resolution places restrictions on tariffs being charged on beekeeping equipment apon importation, but this resolution only affects goods in transit passing through an intermediate nation to get to their final destination.

As an Island Nation, The Democratic States of Liberimery will abstain from voting on this issue as all imports and exports terminated at ports of destination nations or use land transports originating in the port's nation. We would suggest that the ILT stamp be placed on the containers as stickers rather than plate so the container may be rotated out of ILT fleets as required by owners.

"We understand, Ambassador, Island nations with no land border connections such as yours would not really be affected by this resolution. Your suggestion about ILT stickers as opposed to plates has been taken into account, and will appear in the next draft. Thanks for your input."

[Bananaistan]

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
b. A “tariff” as a fee, tax or duty levied on a particular class of goods, for their importation or exportation from a member state.
*snip*
4. PROHIBITS member states from levying any tariffs on freight that is transiting their jurisdiction to another on operators of land-based commercial vehicles provided a valid ILT carnet is presented,

OOC: Well, that is contradiction of another resolution, as the WA is forbidden from meddling with nations' internal taxation. It's probably the National Economic Freedoms, but if not, I'll find you the right one later.

OOC: Tariffs are not internal taxation by their very nature. Also, it's GAR#17.

9. FURTHER CLARIFIES that this resolution does not prohibit member states from rejecting freight with a final destination within the member state’s jurisdiction for any reason, or, to charge tariffs on said freight.

Also contradictory.

OOC: Contradiction with what? I don't recall there's any provision in extant law which forces nations to accept such freight or not to charge tariffs on it. Also, this is only a clarification clause.

IC; "Full support of the concept from Bananaistan. The movement of goods between WA member states is clearly a worthy concern for the Assembly.

"Although we recommend that you consider removing clauses 6 & 7. It's not necessary for the WA to tell people to lock freight containers or to specify stickers for lorries but the committee could be tasked with designating some universal mark which could suffice for this purpose."

- Ted

[Walenstein]

IC; "Full support of the concept from Bananaistan. The movement of goods between WA member states is clearly a worthy concern for the Assembly.

"Although we recommend that you consider removing clauses 6 & 7. It's not necessary for the WA to tell people to lock freight containers or to specify stickers for lorries but the committee could be tasked with designating some universal mark which could suffice for this purpose."

- Ted

"Whilst the original reason those two clauses were included was to ensure that freight can't be tampered with and to help identify the freight in transit as operating under the provisions of the convention, I agree with your recommendations, Ambassador. Clauses 6 and 7 will be removed in the next draft, and there will be an additional one added to task the ILTC with figuring out the branding.

We nevertheless thank you for your support."

[Walenstein]

"A third draft has been prepared, taking into account some recommendations. Clauses 6 & 7 have been dropped altogether, several grammar mistakes in the proposal have been rectified, and the format was redone to appear more like the majority of existing resolutions.

If anybody has anything else to add, please do let me know, otherwise the proposal will likely be submitted sometime this week. Thanks again for your help everyone."

-Walensteiner WA Ambassador, Mr. Casper Reinmann

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Um did you campaigned the delegates? It's not getting enuff approvals.

[Marshite Ponies]

"Hello. I am Ambassador Twilight Sparkle of the Republic of Akila and I am here to review this proposal. We believe that it is important to improve economic cooperation and coordination between member states pursuant to the noble right of states and resolutions passed already. We are therefore intrigued by this proposal.

The Republic of Akila affirms its support of the first clause, pursuant to our understanding that the definition of a vehicle includes any land-based transport such as a cart. It also affirms its support of clauses two and three, with one question: If the ILTC is to provide additional information so as to "help facilitate transit between jurisdictions" on carnets, what protections are there for the destination and origin nations from intermediaries who may seek obscene amounts of knowledge on the commerce of the other two nations? While our concern is highly specific, we do not believe it is entirely unwarranted. Economic security is important as well, and information security of trade is part of that.

The Republic of Akila affirms its support of the fourth clause and the fifth clause. One question about clause five: If a state of war or similar national emergency between two nations emerges and you are the nation caught in the middle of it, I assume that it would fall under 'security' and this be grounds for denial? It seems like a rather obvious state of affairs, but one I believe needs to be stated for the record nonetheless.

The Republic of Akila affirms its support for the sixth clause and the seventh clause.

In totality, I have reviewed the proposal and with the authority of my position, I, Ambassador Twilight Sparkle of the Republic of Akila, declare the Republic's support for this proposal. We hope to see it pass quorum and would be happy to vote for it. We have some concerns that we would appreciate being resolved before such a vote comes to pass, however, as stated in the above analysis.

I would write more but the ink for my quill is running out and the candlelight grows dim. I hope to see this proposal do great things for one and all. Have a harmonious day."

[Araraukar]

Tariffs aren't generally considered to be internal taxes.

OOC: Then what is it? What are "external taxes"? Who gets the money from such a tax? What is the taxing authority? And don't say WA, after you've dragged Real Life into this.

If it is the case that tariffs suddenly become internal, then all of these resolutions are also illegal.

With the inclusion of "for the purpose of this resolution" in the define clause, how'd you get that from it?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tariffs aren't generally considered to be internal taxes.

OOC: Then what is it? What are "external taxes"? Who gets the money from such a tax? What is the taxing authority? And don't say WA, after you've dragged Real Life into this.

It doesn't say all taxation, it says domestic taxation. And tariffs are indirect taxes arising from international trade. It doesn't matter who collects it, it matters what kind of tax it is.

viewtopic.php?p=34519770#p34519770
viewtopic.php?p=34522108#p34522108

Moreover, your interpretation makes basically all trade resolutions illegal, including ones we already passed. It should be rejected without need for much consideration.

[Walenstein]

Um did you campaigned the delegates? It's not getting enuff approvals.

OOC: Damn it, I forgot to send the campaign telegram, I wrote it up and even bought stamps and everything! Oops, lol. It's very likely not going to reach quorum this time, so I'll redraft it to address the concerns listed below, and submit the redraft and campaign in a week or two probably.

-snip-
The Republic of Akila affirms its support of the first clause, pursuant to our understanding that the definition of a vehicle includes any land-based transport such as a cart. It also affirms its support of clauses two and three, with one question: If the ILTC is to provide additional information so as to "help facilitate transit between jurisdictions" on carnets, what protections are there for the destination and origin nations from intermediaries who may seek obscene amounts of knowledge on the commerce of the other two nations? While our concern is highly specific, we do not believe it is entirely unwarranted. Economic security is important as well, and information security of trade is part of that.

IC: "The original intent of clause 3d was to be applied on a case-by-case basis where it might be required, however we do understand your concerns. Clause 3d will be reformed in the next draft to provide said protections."

The Republic of Akila affirms its support of the fourth clause and the fifth clause. One question about clause five: If a state of war or similar national emergency between two nations emerges and you are the nation caught in the middle of it, I assume that it would fall under 'security' and this be grounds for denial? It seems like a rather obvious state of affairs, but one I believe needs to be stated for the record nonetheless.

"Most definitely, Ambassador, I fully agree with you. It will be stated in the next draft."

In totality, I have reviewed the proposal and with the authority of my position, I, Ambassador Twilight Sparkle of the Republic of Akila, declare the Republic's support for this proposal. We hope to see it pass quorum and would be happy to vote for it. We have some concerns that we would appreciate being resolved before such a vote comes to pass, however, as stated in the above analysis.

I would write more but the ink for my quill is running out and the candlelight grows dim. I hope to see this proposal do great things for one and all. Have a harmonious day."

"Thank you very much for your support and all your help, Ambassador."

-Walensteiner WA Ambassador, Mr. Casper Reinmann.

[Kenmoria]

“If you are redrafting, 3c ends with ‘and’, but clause 3d begins with ‘and’, so a continuos reading of the clauses results in repetition.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't say all taxation, it says domestic taxation. And tariffs are indirect taxes arising from international trade. It doesn't matter who collects it, it matters what kind of tax it is.

viewtopic.php?p=34519770#p34519770
viewtopic.php?p=34522108#p34522108

Moreover, your interpretation makes basically all trade resolutions illegal, including ones we already passed. It should be rejected without need for much consideration.

OOC: With all due respect, you're missing the entire point of this proposal. The only two purposes it serves is, one, to prohibit member nations charging tariffs on goods that are passing through their jurisdiction en route to another member nation, and two, encourage trade by prohibiting member nations from denying freight in transit which otherwise meets all applicable regulations with a destination in a third member nation from passing through their jurisdiction. Before the TIR Convention was passed IRL, there were many cases of ridiculous tariffs being charged on goods in transit, especially on the frontiers of the Schengen area at the time with non-Schengen nations. Another intent of the TIR Convention is to simplify customs checks apon importation of the goods to their final destination, but I left those provisions out as to not meddle with national customs systems too much.

Nothing in this resolution prohibits member nations from charging any applicable tariffs on goods with a destination in their nation, subject to any applicable WA law already prohibiting/restricting tariffs on a certain class of goods. The clause you have a problem with is but a clarification clause stating this resolution itself does not set any restrictions on tariffs being charged by the destination nation of the freight in transit. If you wish, I could amend that clarification to clearly state "subject to any applicable WA law", but I don't exactly see why that would be needed.

And, as stated above, the definition of a tariff is for the purposes of this resolution only. Gensec seems to disagree with you that this proposal would invalidate those already passed, as they have issued a unanimous legal vote.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to hear feedback from an esteemed WA resolution author like yourself - If you have any ideas on what should be changed in the resolution to address your concerns, by all means let me know.

Lol, mate, I'm defending your proposal from an argument that, if true, would make it impossible to propose. Legality arguments, especially ones that are this far removed from how we actually play the game are wastes of everyone's time. But you'll get so much salt when the parade of bad arguments passes by your house demanding that the proposal be removed.

Secondarily, you seem to think I'm against reducing tariffs? Or that I'm making the arguments that Ara is making? Reread the forum posts.

[Walenstein]

“If you are redrafting, 3c ends with ‘and’, but clause 3d begins with ‘and’, so a continuos reading of the clauses results in repetition.”

"Thanks for pointing that out Ambassador, it will be fixed in the next draft."

-snip-
Lol, mate, I'm defending your proposal from an argument that, if true, would make it impossible to propose. Legality arguments, especially ones that are this far removed from how we actually play the game are wastes of everyone's time. But you'll get so much salt when the parade of bad arguments passes by your house demanding that the proposal be removed.

Secondarily, you seem to think I'm against reducing tariffs? Or that I'm making the arguments that Ara is making? Reread the forum posts.

OOC: Oh dear, I'm sorry, I totally misconstrued your argument there, lol. That's probably due to me not speaking English that exceptionally well, so sorry again!

[Walenstein]

"A fourth draft has been prepared, taking into consideration all concerns that have been brought forth, and aswell fixing a few minor grammar mistakes in the proposal itself.

A campaign telegram has been prepared, and unless anyone has anything to add, this proposal will now move to final call, and will be resubmitted sometime in the coming days to a week from now maximum. Again, I thank everybody for their valuable assistance in the drafting of my first official proposal."

-Walensteiner WA Ambassador, Mr. Casper Reinmann

[Marshite Ponies]

"The Republic of Akila has reviewed the proposal's changes and finds that they adequately, if imperfectly, answer our concerns. As such, we would like to re-affirm our support for this proposal. We hope it reaches quorum and would be happy to vote for it."

[Kitsco]

I believe this should be left solely to each individual nation, seeing as though these Cargo Ships are passing through my Nations Territory, through seas protected by my Funded military, and causing my Customs and Immigration patrols to work to insure my nations regulations are followed.

I will not have "Free Trade Cargo Ships" traversing my seas, with out paying a fee, same if they are passing by land on roads paved and maintained by my civilians. Also to conclude the fact that Ships, Planes, Trains, etc... that bypass my ports and stations will possibly hinder my economy.

Tariffs collected from ships entering and exiting my Nation provide an income to help maintain my Nation.

I do hope this does not pass, as there is limits on how far Free Trade and Travel can go,

Esteemed Delegate,
Kitsco.

[Walenstein]

I believe this should be left solely to each individual nation, seeing as though these Cargo Ships are passing through my Nations Territory, through seas protected by my Funded military, and causing my Customs and Immigration patrols to work to insure my nations regulations are followed.

I will not have "Free Trade Cargo Ships" traversing my seas, with out paying a fee, same if they are passing by land on roads paved and maintained by my civilians. Also to conclude the fact that Ships, Planes, Trains, etc... that bypass my ports and stations will possibly hinder my economy.

Tariffs collected from ships entering and exiting my Nation provide an income to help maintain my Nation.

I do hope this does not pass, as there is limits on how far Free Trade and Travel can go,

Esteemed Delegate,
Kitsco.

"I would like to bring your attention to the end of Clause 6, Ambassador: Member states are permitted to charge tolls to operators of land-based commercial vehicles for use of infrastructure. Under the provisions of this resolution, you may still charge tolls for the transit of your jurisdiction to foreign operators, provided they do not solely target freight in transit.

This matter is most definitely a concern of the World Assembly, as it involves ensuring the movement of goods between member states can go smoothly."

-Walensteiner WA Ambassador, Mr. Casper Reinmann

[Kitsco]

I believe this should be left solely to each individual nation, seeing as though these Cargo Ships are passing through my Nations Territory, through seas protected by my Funded military, and causing my Customs and Immigration patrols to work to insure my nations regulations are followed.

I will not have "Free Trade Cargo Ships" traversing my seas, with out paying a fee, same if they are passing by land on roads paved and maintained by my civilians. Also to conclude the fact that Ships, Planes, Trains, etc... that bypass my ports and stations will possibly hinder my economy.

Tariffs collected from ships entering and exiting my Nation provide an income to help maintain my Nation.

I do hope this does not pass, as there is limits on how far Free Trade and Travel can go,

Esteemed Delegate,
Kitsco.

"I would like to bring your attention to the end of Clause 6, Ambassador: Member states are permitted to charge tolls to operators of land-based commercial vehicles for use of infrastructure. Under the provisions of this resolution, you may still charge tolls for the transit of your jurisdiction to foreign operators, provided they do not solely target freight in transit.

This matter is most definitely a concern of the World Assembly, as it involves ensuring the movement of goods between member states can go smoothly."

-Walensteiner WA Ambassador, Mr. Casper Reinmann

It only Clarifies Land Based Transportation... not sea based.

[Walenstein]

"I would like to bring your attention to the end of Clause 6, Ambassador: Member states are permitted to charge tolls to operators of land-based commercial vehicles for use of infrastructure. Under the provisions of this resolution, you may still charge tolls for the transit of your jurisdiction to foreign operators, provided they do not solely target freight in transit.

This matter is most definitely a concern of the World Assembly, as it involves ensuring the movement of goods between member states can go smoothly."

-Walensteiner WA Ambassador, Mr. Casper Reinmann

It only Clarifies Land Based Transportation... not sea based.

OOC: Correct, sea based and air based transport is exempt from the provisions of this resolution, as to permit different resolutions to legislate on the matter.