[Draft 2] - Vehicle Passage for Landlocked States

[Simone Republic]

Motivation

This is a transplant in WA terminology of Articles 124-132 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which did not make the cut in GA168 given the shorter length of GA resolutions at that time.

This is IRL an issue that matters a lot to the 45 countries worldwide that are landlocked - without access to the sea, and without viable shipping options given that air transport is far more expensive. This is still a case for war - Ethiopia and Somalia being a prime example. Historically, the Gadsden Purchase (Tucson, Arizona and other areas acquired to build a railroad) to the coup in Panama to build the Panama Canal.

Notes:

1. I use the word “open seas” instead of “sea” to avoid arguments over whether a landlocked sea is a lake or a sea. It also includes all exclaves and enclaves etc., to avoid issues (as much as possible) over transit through such space.
2. It still has the Herby clause because it was originally drafted before Herby (claims to) have left the WA and I don’t want her to bug me with an “ehhhh ehhhh ehhhh” again if she comes back. I have dropped this since Herby hasn't turned up for awhile. Handling the idea of sapient cars is a nightmare.

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Concerned that some WA members do not have access to open waters, or contain territory being an exclave or enclave of one or more other states, depriving them of potentially crucial means of transit for passengers and goods;

Hoping to avoid future wars flaring up over access rights or blockades, especially for “doubly landlocked” states that require going through multiple WA states to gain access to open waters;

The WA enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Landlocked state" means a WA state that (i) does not have its own access to open waters, or (ii) has territory entirely surrounded by territory under the jurisdiction of other states.
   2. ”Open waters” means navigable waters not under the jurisdiction of any state used for transportation of goods and passengers.
   3. "Passage state” means a WA state situated in between a landlocked state and open waters, where traffic in passage can pass through;
   4. "Traffic in passage" means individuals, goods, and vehicles used to to transit through a passage state. Transit excludes air travel. Such transit is not “domestic” in nature as it involves more than one WA state..
   5. "Vehicles" means common civilian vehicles used as a means of transport for the landlocked state, such as a car, train, truck, or bus, or a ship if a navigable river exists.
2. Right of access.
   
   1. A landlocked state has a limited right to access open waters or its own exclaves, for the benefit of the landlocked state’s inhabitants.
   2. To this end, a landlocked state shall have limited freedoms to pass through one (or, if needed, more than one) passage states, subject to bilateral agreements.
   3. A landlocked state has the right to request assistance from any WA committee to obtain such limited rights from non-WA states. Any committee of the WA shall satisfy such requests using all necessary means.
3. Leakage.
   
   1. If a landlocked state desires passage of goods prohibited in a passage state (such as certain fruits, alcohol, or nuclear weapons), the onus is on the landlocked state to prevent leakage for any reason during passage, with the assistance of a relevant WA committee if needed.
   2. The landlocked state is fully liable for any compensation to the passage state in case of leakage. The passage state may not prohibit passage of such goods as long as the said measures are in place.
4. Customs, entry-exit rules, and duties.
   
   1. The customs, entry, and exit regulations of a passage state (including passports and visa requirements) shall apply to traffic in passage.
   2. If a passage state does not ordinarily permit foreigners to enter, or has “stay-in-place” quarantine measures in place, the landlocked state and the passage state shall agree to such technical means as necessary to prevent disputes, such as arranging for enclosed through trains that do not embark or disembark in the passage state.
   3. No passage state may impose customs duties, taxes, or other charges on traffic in passage, as long as no passengers or goods embark or disembark during passage, as such traffic is not considered domestic in nature.
   4. No passage state may discriminate between traffic in passage and domestic traffic, such as through differences in road tolls, technical and safety requirements for vehicles, and training for crew members.
   5. The passage state shall offer reasonable assistance to help the landlocked state satisfy any technical and safety requirements of the passage state for vehicles, crew, packaging, and other requirements.
5. Facilities and embargoes.
   
   1. Any provisions that facilitate trade, such as customs check points, free-trade zones, bonded warehouses, and port facilities, shall be subject to negotiations between the relevant states and the conditions defined herein.
   2. Any ordinary course of traffic management by a passage state may not discriminate between domestic traffic and traffic in passage.
   3. No passage state may embargo any traffic in passage unless the passage state is in a declared state of war with the landlocked state.
6. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. Terms in the singular in this resolution include the plural and vice versa.
   2. The WA Judiciary Committee shall adjudicate disputes between WA states on this resolution, including resolving any negotiations between WA states.
   3. All assistance rendered by a WA committee shall be fully indemnified by the requesting state.

Char count: 4,515.

[Rentoln]

Honorable Delegates of the World Assembly,

I stand before you today as a member of the delegation of the People's Republic of Rentoln, a nation committed to the principles of equality, justice, and international cooperation. We are here to discuss the vital issue facing landlocked states and their right to access the ocean, a subject of immense importance to global trade, development, and harmony among nations.

While we commend the efforts of this assembly in drafting a resolution aimed at improving the economic and logistic conditions of landlocked countries, we must express our concerns regarding point 3.C of the proposed legislation. The clause, as currently written, states: "Any provisions that facilitate trade, such as building additional rail lines, customs check points, and port facilities, shall be subject to negotiations between the relevant states and the conditions defined herein."

The People's Republic of Rentoln finds this requirement too restrictive and potentially problematic. It could be interpreted as mandating that all infrastructural developments must be subject to bilateral negotiations between the relevant states, inadvertently excluding the possibility of using existing supranational authorities, multilateral frameworks, or other kinds of arrangements, which might be more efficient and equitable in certain contexts.



Therefore, we propose an amendment to this clause to allow for a more inclusive approach to infrastructure development. The revised clause could read: "Any provisions that facilitate trade, such as building additional rail lines, customs checkpoints, and port facilities, shall be subject to negotiations between the relevant states the conditions defined herein, unless the concerned States shall opt for a different arrangement at least equally capable of guaranteeing and facilitating access to the ocean."

Thank you for your attention fellow delegates.

[Simone Republic]

There's still some wording issues regarding extant resolutions that I haven't fully checked yet, especially the tax bits.

[The Overmind]

There's still some wording issues regarding extant resolutions that I haven't fully checked yet, especially the tax bits.

Isn't clause 4 just completely illegal due to WA General Fund clause 8? Are you arguing that such taxation comprises an "unfair discriminatory tax" because landlocked nations are a special class of nation that can do nothing to about the fact that they are landlocked? Because I think that argument would be colorable if this read that "no passage state may impose an unduly burdensome duty, tax, or other fee or charge on traffic to or from a landlocked state" or something similar. But, as it stands, I do not think you can get away with arguing that just imposing a tax, duty or other fee or charge on the traffic to or from a landlocked state is prima facie unfairly discriminatory.

[The Ice States]

There's still some wording issues regarding extant resolutions that I haven't fully checked yet, especially the tax bits.

Isn't clause 4 just completely illegal due to WA General Fund clause 8? Are you arguing that such taxation comprises an "unfair discriminatory tax" because landlocked nations are a special class of nation that can do nothing to about the fact that they are landlocked? Because I think that argument would be colorable if this read that "no passage state may impose an unduly burdensome duty, tax, or other fee or charge on traffic to or from a landlocked state" or something similar. But, as it stands, I do not think you can get away with arguing that just imposing a tax, duty or other fee or charge on the traffic to or from a landlocked state is prima facie unfairly discriminatory.

Are such taxes "domestic...policies", which is necessary for them to fall under the blocker to begin with?

[The Overmind]

Isn't clause 4 just completely illegal due to WA General Fund clause 8? Are you arguing that such taxation comprises an "unfair discriminatory tax" because landlocked nations are a special class of nation that can do nothing to about the fact that they are landlocked? Because I think that argument would be colorable if this read that "no passage state may impose an unduly burdensome duty, tax, or other fee or charge on traffic to or from a landlocked state" or something similar. But, as it stands, I do not think you can get away with arguing that just imposing a tax, duty or other fee or charge on the traffic to or from a landlocked state is prima facie unfairly discriminatory.

Are such taxes "domestic...policies", which is necessary for them to fall under the blocker to begin with?

Wouldn't they be? They're taxes on the goings on within the passage state's borders.

[Ignis Ferreus]

I don't like this one it means I can't take advantage of poor landlocked states completely against.

[Simone Republic]

Are such taxes "domestic...policies", which is necessary for them to fall under the blocker to begin with?

Wouldn't they be? They're taxes on the goings on within the passage state's borders.

It depends a lot on how I word it. I was the one who fought 2024 [GAS] 2 so I am aware of the implications. I am still considering the exact wording to make it challenge-proof.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=532467

I am leaning towards the "broad definition" angle and therefore that being landlocked is a form of discrimination against having sea access.

At the moment I am going for three angles - (1) that passing through a WA state does not amount to "domestic" tax policies, (2) customs duties are not a domestic form of tax in nature since it's by nature international, (3) even if (1) and (2) do not hold, it's discriminatory in nature.

I don't like this one it means I can't take advantage of poor landlocked states completely against.

Meh.

[Simone Republic]

This has gone to Draft 2 now that Tinhampton is trying to do that word salad that I dislike about international transport.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that some WA states do not have a coast with access to an ocean, or contain territory (or have its entire territory) being an exclave, enclave, or pene-exclave of one or more other states (“landlocked state”);

Concerned by the impact on trade and development for a landlocked state;

Believing that the circumstances amount to a form of discrimination for the landlocked state (or their exclaves, enclaves or pene-exclaves);

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Passage state” means one or more WA states, situated between a landlocked state and an ocean, where traffic in passage can pass through between the landlocked state and the ocean;
   2. "Traffic in passage" means individuals, baggage, goods, and the transport equipment (defined below) used to move the said individuals, baggage, and goods across the territory of one or more passage states. This excludes any travel entirely through the airspace of that WA state. Traffic in passage cannot be considered "domestic" in nature for the purposes of WA resolutions.
   3. "Transport equipment" means anything used as means of transport, such as a car, train, or a ship if a navigable river exists.
2. Exclusions. Transport equipment excludes:
   
   1. any pipelines, power lines, or similar objects between WA states;
   2. any equipment operated by or on behalf of the WA or any of its sub-committees;
   3. any travel through the airspace of that WA state; and
   4. any sapient cars.
3. Right of access.
   
   1. Landlocked states have the right of access to or from an ocean (or to another part of the same WA state) for the benefit of that state’s inhabitants.
   2. A landlocked state shall have the freedom of passage through one or more passage states, subject to negotiations between the relevant states and the conditions defined herein.
   3. Any provisions that facilitate trade, such as building additional rail lines, customs check points, and port facilities, shall be subject to negotiations between the relevant states and the conditions defined herein.
   4. A WA state has the right to request for assistance from any of the sub-committees of the WA in negotiations with non-WA states.
4. Fees and regulations.
   
   1. No passage state may impose customs duties or taxes on traffic to or from a landlocked state, as long as no passengers or cargo embark or disembark during passage, as such traffic is not considered domestic in nature.
   2. No passage state may levy charges on traffic in passage, such as road tolls, that discriminate between traffic in passage and the domestic traffic of that passage state.
5. Licensing.
   
   1. No passage state may impose technical and safety requirements on transport equipment that discriminate between traffic in passage and the domestic traffic of that passage state.
   2. Crew from a landlocked state (such as train crews) are required to meet the training and qualifications requirements of the passage state.
   3. The passage state shall facilitate the satisfaction of the technical and safety requirements of the passage state by equipment used by a landlocked state and by their crew.
6. Passenger entry and exit.
   
   1. The passport and ID regulations of a passage state shall apply to traffic in transit.
   2. If a passage state does not ordinarily permit foreigners to enter, or has quarantine measures in place, the landlocked state and the passage state shall agree to such technical means as necessary to prevent disputes, such as arranging for enclosed through trains that do not embark or disembark in the passage state.
7. Customs.
   
   1. The customs regulations of a passage state shall apply to traffic in transit.
   2. If a landlocked state desires passage of goods prohibited in a passage state (such as fruits, alcohol, or nuclear weapons), the landlocked state must implement all necessary measures to prevent leakage for any reason during passage. The passage state may not prohibit passage of such goods as long as the said measures are in place.
8. Embargoes.
   
   1. Any ordinary course of traffic management by a passage state may not discriminate between domestic traffic and traffic in passage.
   2. No passage state may embargo any traffic in passage unless the passage state is in a declared state of war with the landlocked state.
9. Jurisdiction.
   
   1. This resolution does not govern any additional cooperation between the landlocked state and a passage state exceeding the requirements of this resolution.
   2. The WA Judiciary Committee shall have jurisdiction on any disputes between WA states on this resolution, including compelling the successful conclusion of any negotiations between WA states.

Char count: 4,740.

[Zetaopalatopia]

I disagree with 3.b. I feel it is totally within the right for a nation to be able to inspect and block any product or resource from passing through their own land. ESPECIALLY if it is something like nukes or other prohibited goods. Measures or no, the passage state should be able to block or charge a premium for anything that would be illegal in their own nation. Be it drugs, weapons, religious texts, prisoners, media, etc.

[Simone Republic]

I disagree with 3.b. I feel it is totally within the right for a nation to be able to inspect and block any product or resource from passing through their own land. ESPECIALLY if it is something like nukes or other prohibited goods. Measures or no, the passage state should be able to block or charge a premium for anything that would be illegal in their own nation. Be it drugs, weapons, religious texts, prisoners, media, etc.

4a covers Customs clearance. I removed the word "nuclear" in 3b as that was a joke. I can re-word it so that the importing state has to fully pay for the costs associated with Customs (since the passage state would have to do more work anyway).