[PASSED] Fair Arbitration Act

[Cretox State]

OOC: So I've been reading this thread. I'm no lawyer, didn't know the meaning of arbitration before reading this lol. But if I'm reading this correctly, a company can literally break half the laws of WA without any risk arbitrarily discriminate against who ever they want by just using this arbitration clause in their contracts?

OOC: A company can’t break laws against harassment and whatnot without any repercussions by using forced arbitration clauses, but it can severely hamper the ability of the victims to seek compensation for wrongdoing and enforcement of their rights in court.

I’m strongly considering limiting the ban to covering only employment, consumer, and civil rights disputes. Other arbitration agreements (like those regarding international commerce) are in this place where there isn’t much reason to not outlaw them, but they’re hardly the point of the proposal, and there isn’t much need to outlaw them either. In that case, I’ll rename the proposal to better reflect its effects.

[Cretox State]

After some consideration, I decided that there isn't much reason to prohibit predispute arbitration agreements between two relatively equal parties, especially when dealing with international commerce. Also, I renamed the proposal "Fair Arbitration Act" to better reflect its purpose. There are still two things I'm uncertain of, though:

1. Should I specify how issues related to whether this proposal applies to a particular dispute are to be handled (by a court, for example)?
2. Are there any issues with this: "the widespread use by firms of forced arbitration agreements and agreements that waive the right to sue, which are often a condition of employment or using a product or service, are often poorly-understood by the individual, and often take place in a private forum controlled by said firm."

[Kenmoria]

“Why did you specifically pick antitrust, civil rights, consumer and employment disputes above other sorts of disputes?”

[Cretox State]

“Why did you specifically pick antitrust, civil rights, consumer and employment disputes above other sorts of disputes?”

“The purpose of the proposed legislation is to protect individuals and small businesses from signing away their right to seek legal action in one-sided contracts. What other sorts of disputes do you believe should be banned? The reason for no longer prohibiting all forms of predispute arbitration agreements is that two parties in a roughly equal position could find it in their interests to create such an agreement, and we don’t see much of a reason to ban that.”

[Cretox State]

OOC: If there are no objections, I'll submit this by Monday.

[Cretox State]

OOC: Submitted here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1592885315

[Flying Eagles]

While we are in favour, we duly note this resolution uses terms such as "legislation" and "law". Should it not instead use terms such as "resolution"?

[Cretox State]

While we are in favour, we duly note this resolution uses terms such as "legislation" and "law". Should it not instead use terms such as "resolution"?

International law consists of rules and principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, as well as the relations between states and individuals, and relations between international organizations.

Among the greatest achievements of the United Nations is the development of a body of international law, which is central to promoting economic and social development, as well as to advancing international peace and security. The international law is enshrined in conventions, treaties and standards.

There shouldn’t be any issue, though I will definitely just stick to “resolution” in future proposals for simplicity’s sake.

[Cretox State]

OOC: This is now at vote. While it’s definitely too early to say whether this’ll succeed or not, I’d like to give a shout-out to everyone who everyone who offered their input and helped make this happen. In no particular order:

• Tinhampton
• Christian Democrats
• Imperium Anglorum
• American Pere Housh
• Araraukar
• Separatist People’s
• Kenmoria
• Grey County
• Sciongrad
• The New Nordic Union
• Desmosthenes and Burke
• Bananaistan
• Attempted Socialism
• Wayneactia
• Sierra Lyricalia
• Ardiveds
• Tinfect
• Morover

And whoever else I might’ve missed.

[Attempted Socialism]

Though I am not sure how much I have helped, it is a pleasure to vote for.

[Kenmoria]

“I would like to declare my vote for this proposal. It is a reasonable measure that increases the rights of consumers to be free from cruel treatment at the hands of corporations.”

[United England n Wales]

I will be voting FOR

[Eastern Guitaloscialand]

How come this assembly wants to pass this act overwhelmingly but not pass the Police Accountability Bill?! This is HYPOCRISY!

[Kenmoria]

How come this assembly wants to pass this act overwhelmingly but not pass the Police Accountability Bill?! This is HYPOCRISY!

“This is a piece of legislation that effectively upholds consumer rights. The police proposal aimed to avoid instances of police brutality. They are entirely separate pieces of legislation with completely different goals.”

[Honeydewistania]

How come this assembly wants to pass this act overwhelmingly but not pass the Police Accountability Bill?! This is HYPOCRISY!

The other one wasn't brutality, it was to make police more accountable for their actions. Also, it wasn't that good.

[Mendevia]

How come this assembly wants to pass this act overwhelmingly but not pass the Police Accountability Bill?! This is HYPOCRISY!

Because the other one was a flawed bill that wouldn't actually hold the Police accountable and I like voting for bills that will actually work otherwise a whole lot of time and money is spent for nothing.

[Keswickholt]

The Federal Government of Keswickholt sees this Resolution as a way forward in bringing universal equality to all people. For this reason we have voted in favour of this Resolution.

[Keswickholt]

How come this assembly wants to pass this act overwhelmingly but not pass the Police Accountability Bill?! This is HYPOCRISY!

(OOC)Because whilst the author had good intentions in regards to the Police Accountability Resolution, it would be more effective if it was introduced by a nation individually, who wishes to impose tougher rules and regulations on to their Police Services.

Regulatory Measures in regards to Police or Military are best suited for the individual nation to enact.

The Accountability resolution would never pass if this was to be put forward at a real International Governing Organisation as it infringes on the sovereignty of a nation.

Further this is not hypocrisy as the two matters are unrelated and this resolution is a better fit for an International Governing Organisation to be able to ask its members to follow.

[MC United]

MC United considers this resolution to have a misleading title. It should be titled the "Attorneys' Full Employment Act". The Uniter judicial system is already clogged with frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees looking for jackpot justice, filed by bottom-feeding lawyers. Many if not most such issues are resolvable via arbitration. The same applies to other disputes that would be covered by this resolution. Arbitration clauses serve a valuable function and MC United refuses to stand by and watch unscrupulous attorneys and their allies create another mechanism to drain resources from its society, channel them into their own coffers, and raise the cost of doing business for all Uniters.

Vote NO.

[Brinckerhoff]

MC United considers this resolution to have a misleading title. It should be titled the "Attorneys' Full Employment Act". . . . clogged with frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees looking for jackpot justice, filed by bottom-feeding lawyers.

The FRB heartily seconds the above critique of the risks of relying to heavily on Civil Law to to protect the rights of
The People and of every person. Looks too much like dueling for a present-day civilization. We look forward to a well-considered expansion of international criminal law pertaining to cross-border matters of consumer protection, labor rights, and intellectual property, and equally so, the necessary investigative authorities and inspection regimes to afford every person equal protection under said laws.

"Let your eyes look straight ahead and your glance be directly forward.
Survey the path for your feet, and let all your ways be sure.
Turn neither to right nor to left, keep your foot far from evil." -- Proverbs 4:25-7

"Ill-gotten treasures profit nothing, but virtue saves from death." -- Proverbs 10:2

[Cretox State]

MC United considers this resolution to have a misleading title. It should be titled the "Attorneys' Full Employment Act". The Uniter judicial system is already clogged with frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees looking for jackpot justice, filed by bottom-feeding lawyers. Many if not most such issues are resolvable via arbitration. The same applies to other disputes that would be covered by this resolution. Arbitration clauses serve a valuable function and MC United refuses to stand by and watch unscrupulous attorneys and their allies create another mechanism to drain resources from its society, channel them into their own coffers, and raise the cost of doing business for all Uniters.

Vote NO.

“By the Gods, that sounds like a horrible judicial system! Why hasn’t your government taken steps to regulate frivolous lawsuits filed by bottom-feeding scum? We would be more than happy to offer our support for any effort to get your corrupt legal industry back in line.

Regarding this proposal, the issue it tackles isn’t arbitration per se, but individuals waiving their ability to take legal action over wrongs due to unequal positions of power. That’s why we included a clause explicitly protecting voluntary postdispute arbitration, and predispute arbitration agreements between companies engaged in international commerce, or as part of collective bargaining agreements.”

[Cretox State]

MC United considers this resolution to have a misleading title. It should be titled the "Attorneys' Full Employment Act". . . . clogged with frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees looking for jackpot justice, filed by bottom-feeding lawyers.

The FRB heartily seconds the above critique of the risks of relying to heavily on Civil Law to to protect the rights of
The People and of every person. Looks too much like dueling for a present-day civilization. We look forward to a well-considered expansion of international criminal law pertaining to cross-border matters of consumer protection, labor rights, and intellectual property, and equally so, the necessary investigative authorities and inspection regimes to afford every person equal protection under said laws.

"Let your eyes look straight ahead and your glance be directly forward.
Survey the path for your feet, and let all your ways be sure.
Turn neither to right nor to left, keep your foot far from evil." -- Proverbs 4:25-7

"Ill-gotten treasures profit nothing, but virtue saves from death." -- Proverbs 10:2

“What does criminal law, much less the international applicability of criminal law, have to do with arbitration clauses in contracts?”

[MC United]

MC United considers this resolution to have a misleading title. It should be titled the "Attorneys' Full Employment Act". The Uniter judicial system is already clogged with frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees looking for jackpot justice, filed by bottom-feeding lawyers. Many if not most such issues are resolvable via arbitration. The same applies to other disputes that would be covered by this resolution. Arbitration clauses serve a valuable function and MC United refuses to stand by and watch unscrupulous attorneys and their allies create another mechanism to drain resources from its society, channel them into their own coffers, and raise the cost of doing business for all Uniters.

Vote NO.

“By the Gods, that sounds like a horrible judicial system! Why hasn’t your government taken steps to regulate frivolous lawsuits filed by bottom-feeding scum? We would be more than happy to offer our support for any effort to get your corrupt legal industry back in line.

Regarding this proposal, the issue it tackles isn’t arbitration per se, but individuals waiving their ability to take legal action over wrongs due to unequal positions of power. That’s why we included a clause explicitly protecting voluntary postdispute arbitration, and predispute arbitration agreements between companies engaged in international commerce, or as part of collective bargaining agreements.”

Frivolous lawsuits are filed because laws keep getting passed that provide causes of action, which are exploited by lawyers and by those looking to engage in shakedowns.

If this proposal included a "loser pays" provision in the event that a party refuses to agree to arbitration, MC United might look more favorably on it. But more likely, that should be the subject of a future resolution.

As for "unequal positions of power", virtually ALL agreements are made between those in such positions. So what? They still have arbitration rights. Better to take steps to ensure impartial arbitration than to compel the creation of ever more legal causes of action.

Furthermore, you want to stop arbitration agreements that come about due to "unequal positions of power", yet your resolution includes "a clause explicitly protecting voluntary postdispute arbitration." By your logic, any time parties have "unequal positions of power", the weaker party can never agree to "voluntary postdispute arbitration".

So this is what will happen: two parties that have "unequal positions of power" reach a voluntary postdispute arbitration agreement. Then the party with lesser power has a miraculous epiphany, and suddenly realizes that the agreement came about as a result of that power imbalance. By your resolution, that voluntary agreement is now unenforceable, and the weaker party is free to race to the courthouse.

These are matters for individual states to decide, not the WA.

[Cretox State]

"Ambassador, I would first like to say that we are honored by you taking the time out of your day to articulate your concerns here. In fact, we agree with many of the values you've so eloquently expressed. However, I fear that many of the concerns you've raised are not particularly applicable to the at-vote proposal."

Frivolous lawsuits are filed because laws keep getting passed that provide causes of action, which are exploited by lawyers and by those looking to engage in shakedowns.

"Frivolous lawsuits are certainly a vile practice, and they must be regulated in some form. Our nation no longer suffers from such scummy practices, because our legal industry is well-regulated. Why does your outwardly sensible government permit such practices, especially when you recognize as we do that they are clearly an issue?"

If this proposal included a "loser pays" provision in the event that a party refuses to agree to arbitration, MC United might look more favorably on it. But more likely, that should be the subject of a future resolution.

“The purpose of our proposed legislation is to protect the ability of individuals to seek legal enforcement of their rights, and by extension protect said rights. Regulating how an arbitration agreement is to be written is outside the scope of this proposal. As you said, it would be best left to future legislation."

As for "unequal positions of power", virtually ALL agreements are made between those in such positions. So what? They still have arbitration rights. Better to take steps to ensure impartial arbitration than to compel the creation of ever more legal causes of action.

“Of course everyone has the right to seek arbitration should they so desire. That is a right this proposal explicitly does not touch. What this proposal prohibits is individuals being prevented from seeking legal action should they decide said action to be in their interests. Would you, in good faith, allow corporations to prevent people from holding them accountable in court as a condition of an employment contract? A rental agreement?”

Furthermore, you want to stop arbitration agreements that come about due to "unequal positions of power", yet your resolution includes "a clause explicitly protecting voluntary postdispute arbitration." By your logic, any time parties have "unequal positions of power", the weaker party can never agree to "voluntary postdispute arbitration".

“Ambassador, I fear you are conflating what is said in defense of a law with what the law itself says; further, I fear you are conflating the actual effects of the law in question with your government’s inability to keep its house in order. Regulating member-nations’ judiciaries is outside the scope of this proposal, as is dictating how arbitration is to be conducted when said arbitration does occur. After a dispute arises, a party can agree to arbitrate said dispute should it be in their interest. Otherwise, they can take legal action to enforce their rights.”

So this is what will happen: two parties that have "unequal positions of power" reach a voluntary postdispute arbitration agreement. Then the party with lesser power has a miraculous epiphany, and suddenly realizes that the agreement came about as a result of that power imbalance. By your resolution, that voluntary agreement is now unenforceable, and the weaker party is free to race to the courthouse.

“Ambassador, I feel I must question the competency (not to mention the sanity) of a government that allows its citizens to walk out of a contract and ignore its provisions as they please. I know I certainly would not wish to live in such a society. If that is the case in your nation, then you have nothing to fear from our proposal, as I am certain your citizens simply ignore forced arbitration agreements half the time. Again, if your government requires support or guidance in getting your laws in order, we would be more than happy to provide it, financial or otherwise.”

These are matters for individual states to decide, not the WA.

“I wholeheartedly agree with you. Regulating frivolous lawsuits, the impartiality of a given arbitrator, and a system of courts is something we feel is best left to a national government. As we have said, if your government needs help accomplishing these things, we will support you from start to finish. On that note, we find it quite odd that you would complain about frivolous lawsuits and parties ignoring contract provisions, then complain that such matters are best left to an individual state. If you truly feel helpless to enforce contracts or regulate frivolous lawsuits in your own nation, you could always draft up a proposal that accomplished these things for all member-nations. You would have our full support in such an endeavor.”

“However, regulating a member-nation’s court system through a resolution is outside the scope of this legislation, and not something we would want to touch with a barge pole. We feel such regulation would be best left, as you said, to a national government.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: A question: is "firm" used in a way that it equals "business"? Legalese in English is my weak point as a non-native user.

EDIT: And if yes, then why no waiver for agreements between nations?