NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a thread created to "advertise" the new proposal made by Worldwide Ministries, "Int Commercial Rights"...which is on current voting only by the UN Delegates.

I kindly ask from the UN Delegates to only have a look into the proposal which is located on the 4th page.

HERE IT IS:
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce

This present decision was decided from assembly by the United Nations and in order to activate the previous drawing, the following paragraphs were shaped, based on the new international, commercial rights:

The current resolution applies only to businesses and
multinational companies and only for expansions within UN
nations.

1. Every nation must provide the means and the following
rights for every business/company that wishes to extend in
their nation, in order to ensure the commerce a sure
position in the national economic resources.

Therefore a member nation
must provide them with the following rights:

2a. The right of safe importing-exporting within the
nation's territory(open seaports, new security measures,
etc.).

2b. The guarantee of national services

2c. The benefit of possibility of exploitation(nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale)of natural
resources(parks, mining, cotton, etc.).

2d. The right of protection of the business/company during a war, or any other violent event, period, however with the compulsory benefit of help from the protected commerce.

3. Finally, every UN nation must relax it's frontier
policing(without any serious changes) only for every
business/company that wishes to extend to other member
nations.

Sorry, but no. There can be legitimate reasons to deny a foreign company access to a country, and your proposal does not address that.

Nice effort all the same. Welcome to the United Nations!

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We don't guarantee all of those rights to companies that reside entirely within Kivisto. Why on earth would we want to grant them to multi-nationals who won't be as familiar or respectful of local customs?

Ellelt strongly opposes this measure.

As a Communist Nation with a healthy Soviet System of Economic Management. We will not permit capitalist busnesses into our nation as would be required under this measure.

Demitri Petrolovich
Secretary to Elleltian Ambassador to the UN, Vladimir Khernynko,
Acting Represenetive of the United Socialist States of Ellelt.

Well i guess a lot don't have capitalist nations so everyone opposes this proposal....but i have also to consider the first reply to this thread: a lot of "holes" were created within this proposal but in the beggining i thought it wouldn't hurt the nations because of the lobby(i considered only the capitalist nations, that's why).
I would like to apologise for failing to help the UN society.

---end.

OOC: Don't apologise. It's always interesting to have a new proposal to consider. And if you have more ideas, don't hesitate to suggest them. But I strongly recommend you ask for input before submitting anything.

Is this proposal supposed to "beef up" a resolution?

If so, it is a Format: Amendments violation. You cannot amend or "edit" an existing resolution. You have to get the prior one repealed and craft a replacement.

Four words: No way in Hell.2c. The benefit of possibility of exploitation(nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale)of natural
resources(parks, mining, cotton, etc.).Our natural resources are our natural resources, and we don't allow anyone to develop them. Period. Our whole country is a pristine tropical paradise, and if our annual per capita income is $84.18 (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Community_Property&nationstring=Community_Property), that is nobody's business but ours.

IOW, if we want to say: “No business activity that would involve damaging our environment in any way,” that ought to be our our right. Keep your goddamned grubby multinational hands off our rain forests.____________________EDIT: As a helpful comment, you might want to reconsider some of your assumptions about how everyone else's economy works. What you're proposing comes perilously close to this...All nations must allow each other's business to operate within their borders in accordance with the principle of free enterprise....Which is an implicit ban on communism - a clear rules violation. Should this proposal go forward in its current form, the PDRCP will challenge its legality on this basis (well, that and its anti-environmental slant, which comes perilously close to banning what I will call - for want of a better name - “ecoluddism” [the idea that man's own economic needs come second to Nature's right to remain unsullied - not a philosophy you'll find in any current text on political economy, but quite clearly an idea that many a fair number of “Greens” embrace, enough that it might well be considered an “-ism” that merits protection under the “no ideological bans” rule]).

In contrast, if you say something like...Every nation must grant foreign companies rights equal to their own....Then you would avoid the problems described above (the inspiration for this approach comes from the world of international trade negotiations, where there exists the concept of “Most Favored Nation” status; the term means that the nation granting such status will treat companies from the MFN no worse than those from whatever other country to which it currently awards its best trade deal [IOW, MFN is shorthand for “we will treat you no worse than which ever other nation we favor the most”]).

In real life, this is a good part of what drives the “Seattle” movement (i.e., the odd mixture of Buchananite right-wingers and lefty tree-huggers who oppose free trade): under the free-trade rules being pushed by the WTO, companies are essentially given the right to challenge local laws as “impediments” to trade. Tree-huggers fear that this will lead to an erosion of environmental regulations, in which companies essentially sue national and local governments on the basis that, since Nation X doesn't stop them from dumping their sewage in the river, Nation Y can't, either; a good example of this was the recent fight over Europe's rejection of genetically altered foods, etc. In contrast, the paranoid righties fear that the WTO, among other things, will be used to destroy their political freedoms. Imagine a Chinese-owned shipping company suing the U.S. government under the WTO over the Fourteenth Amendment: “In China, we don't have labor problems, because we just round up the troublemakers and have them shot; it's an unfair obstacle to trade that we can't do the same to troublesome American dockworkers in San Diego.”

The moral is that you need to make sure that you're not making it impossible for someone to have either a dictatorship, democracy, or theocracy, nor can you require free enterprise (banning communism) or ban private property (making capitalism illegal).

Well i guess a lot don't have capitalist nations so everyone opposes this proposal....but i have also to consider the first reply to this thread: a lot of "holes" were created within this proposal but in the beggining i thought it wouldn't hurt the nations because of the lobby(i considered only the capitalist nations, that's why).
I would like to apologise for failing to help the UN society.

---end.

OOC: Like Ariddia said, there's no need at all to apologize. You made an effort. That's more than the constant whiners and complainers do. And, as Ariddia also said, it's wise to post a draft of a proposal here before you submit it. You can see what people think and maybe save yourself the bother of submitting it if you decide it's not going to fly. And you can get some good suggestions, too.

The Confederacy of Gallantaria supports this resolution. It is convinced that this resolution will benefit trade and economy and so be positive for all people.