NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we actually have a World Trade Organisation? This is just an initial draft, I put it in to provide a real-world parallel.

FAIR TRADE ACT - DRAFT 1

Affirming the right of every nation to decide their own economic policy, and,

Affirming the right of nations to protect their local industries by import tariffs or otherwise, and,

Alarmed that some nations would seek to impose their economic ideology on others, and,

Seeking to prevent nations from making unfair profit from poorer nations to the detriment of the poorer nations,

Be it hereby resolved that,

1) No nation shall be coerced or otherwise forced by another nation or by any international organisation, including but not limited to the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, and other international institutions, by any means, into changing their economic policies.

2) No nation or international institution shall make changes to economic policy, including but not limited to abolition of import tariffs, privatisation of state-run enterprises, or transition to a capitalist economy a condition for a loan or for foreign aid.

3) All nations have the right to protect their local industries through import tariffs and taxation.

This is all right, but fairly mild.
Why not make fair trade mandatory, not just permissable?

Presumably because of
Alarmed that some nations would seek to impose their economic ideology on others,

I think that to ensure the freedoms of all peoples and govening bodies, the free trade act is a good Idea. HOWEVER!!! The issue of how this will be A) put into practive and B) enforced is a key issue i do not see addressed. Perhaps a small envoy of representatives could argue this?
Thanks!

I think that to ensure the freedoms of all peoples and govening bodies, the free trade act is a good Idea. HOWEVER!!! The issue of how this will be A) put into practive and B) enforced is a key issue i do not see addressed. Perhaps a small envoy of representatives could argue this?
Thanks!

I think that to ensure the freedoms of all peoples and govening bodies, the free trade act is a good Idea. HOWEVER!!! The issue of how this will be A) put into practive and B) enforced is a key issue i do not see addressed. Perhaps a small envoy of representatives could argue this?
Thanks!

Actually, now that I think of it, a better name for it would be the "Economic Rights Act"

Enforcement would be under the auspices of the UN, and punishment would most likely entail UN sanctions of some kind. This could vary from a condemnation to full-blown economic sanctions (although this seems contradictory, these sanctions don't normally force countries to change their economic policy, sell off state-run enterprises, etc.)

A nation which feels its rights are being violated would lodge a complaint with the UN, which would decide the case.

Changes in draft 2: Name and to article I.

ECONOMIC RIGHTS ACT - DRAFT 2 (Formerly "Fair Trade Act")

Affirming the right of every nation to decide their own economic policy, and,

Affirming the right of nations to protect their local industries by import tariffs or otherwise, and,

Alarmed that some nations would seek to impose their economic ideology on others, and,

Seeking to prevent nations from making unfair profit from poorer nations to the detriment of the poorer nations,

Be it hereby resolved that,

1) No nation shall be coerced or otherwise forced by another nation or by any international organisation, including but not limited to the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, and other international institutions, by any means, including but not limited to unilateral sanctions, threat to withhold aid, or military force, into changing their economic policies.

2) No nation or international institution shall make changes to economic policy, including but not limited to abolition of import tariffs, privatisation of state-run enterprises, or transition to a capitalist economy a condition for a loan or for foreign aid.

3) All nations have the right to protect their local industries through import tariffs and taxation.

Seems good.

If there are no further suggestions, draft 2 will be submitted as the final proposal.

multipost

Well, there it goes... I hope the lack of response means everyone agrees with it rather than no one cares :)

Did nobody notice the irony of the free trade categorisation, which makers us all a bit more capitalist, given that the proposal wants to prevent international organisations being used to force changes to nations' economic policies? :wink:

EDIT: OOC: 500th post! :D

Did nobody notice the irony of the free trade categorisation, which makers us all a bit more capitalist, given that the proposal wants to prevent international organisations being used to force changes to nations' economic policies? :wink:

EDIT: OOC: 500th post! :D

Sshh! Maybe it will sneak through if nobody notices.

Did nobody notice the irony of the free trade categorisation, which makers us all a bit more capitalist, given that the proposal wants to prevent international organisations being used to force changes to nations' economic policies? :wink:

EDIT: OOC: 500th post! :D

Sshh! Maybe it will sneak through if nobody notices.

Kelssek, it seems to me that items (1) and (2) in your proposal are in contradiction.

On the one hand, you say "No nation shall be coerced...into changing their economic policies. " Then you turn around and say that "No nation...shall make changes to economic policy...a condition for a loan..." What if it is the economic policy of a nation not to make loans to those with poor economic policies? That nation would either (a) make policy change a condition for a loan, or (b) it would be compelled to change its own existing policies. Either scenerio violates the terms of the proposal.

In addition, I have to take issue with the idea that this offers any actual rights to the lending nations. Loans are often rejected for reasons of concern that they may never be paid back. Some nations' economic policies are downright irresponsible. Surely you don't wish to propose the UN literally compel responsible nations to make loans to deadbeats!

No affect within the UN is specified.

(go try to create a proposal (but don't actually create one) and you'll find that you need to select what effect this proposal has)

Example: Civil Rights -- mild/significant, etc.

I forget the options, but it should be specified how this resolution affects member states.

Any nation is free to refuse to lend money to another. What this proposal forbids is offering a loan, but saying "oh, but if you accept it, you have to sell us your utility company." If you see a nation as a bad credit risk, don't lend them money. Simple.

I still don't see how putting a condition on a loan is a bad thing. Shouldn't I, as the lender, be allowed to offer a loan ONLY IF a country will do x,y,z in return? It's better than not offereing it at all. There isn't any difference between requiring collateral, requiring that tariffs be dropped, or requiring the sale of a utility company. These are all consideration for a contratual agreement.

Nations should be free to make deals (lending or otherwise) on whatever terms they agree on. Frankly, those terms are none of the UN's business.

DP

DP

"Nations should be free to make deals (lending or otherwise) on whatever terms they agree on. Frankly, those terms are none of the UN's business.

Not quite true. Let's say that East Hackney sells arms to Rehochipe. Rehochipe then uses these arms in an attack on Watfordshire. All three nations are UN members. The UN is here to promote peace and stability. This is a UN issue as the safety of one UN member state is at risk from a second member state, partly due to the actions of a third UN state.

Apologies to the nations cited in this scenario.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

DP

Hee hee hee. We could so take Watfordshire.

Not with the military dancers do-se-doing you into the ground.

:P

Rehochipe's military have, to a man, an intimate knowledge of aikido and a deep hatred of folk dancing.

Anybody tries to docey-do 'round us is going to suddenly find themselves breakdancing.

I'd draw the line at taking on morris dancers. Have you seen what they do with those sticks?

Incidentally, when did the UN turn into an ACA regional meet?

*wanders in, waves to everybody*

Let's say that East Hackney sells arms to Rehochipe. Rehochipe then uses these arms in an attack on Watfordshire. All three nations are UN members. The UN is here to promote peace and stability. This is a UN issue as the safety of one UN member state is at risk from a second member state, partly due to the actions of a third UN state.


Your example does not call to question the conditions of that agreement, only the fact that they had an arms sale agreement in the first place. If they violated a UN arms embargo against Rehochipe, or if the sale was of prohibited arms, then yes it is the UN's business. What East Hackney may have required as consideration for that agreement is irrelevant. Whether East Hackney required Rehochipe to embrace capitalism before they would sell the arms is not at issue.

In any event, if East Hackney sold those weapons in good faith, you can hardly blame them for Rehochipe's actions. Would the UN question Baskin&Robins if I threw my icecream at you?

/multiple post

I still don't see how putting a condition on a loan is a bad thing. Shouldn't I, as the lender, be allowed to offer a loan ONLY IF a country will do x,y,z in return?.

In truth, this isn't what I intended to block at all. The proposal seems to be heading for death, so I'll be rewriting it anyway, and in the next version the word "loan" will be struck from Article 2.

In this proposal, the intent was to prevent a poverty-stricken nation from being exploited by a more powerful nation, through something like "We'll loan you the money, but you must drop all tariffs on our exports", or "you must remove your minimum wage laws."

I was also more mindful of international organisations like the real-world IMF, which has trashed several developing economies (Argentina and Russia are some examples) by forcing them to follow economic "fixes" which simply don't work, under threat of withholding funds and using its influence to prevent them getting loans from other sources.

Also, to prevent something along the lines of how Brazil sued the United States through the WTO to stop the American government from subsidizing its cotton farmers.

The main purpose of the proposal is in "Seeking to prevent nations from making unfair profit from poorer nations to the detriment of the poorer nations", and I'll be rewriting with that in mind.

Oh yes, and the category was indeed chosen for its effect - economy would increase, as a result of countries being able to protect local businesses.

The most appropriate category is probably Social Justice, but the effect doesn't match up, as it causes a rise in income tax (any tax rises would be on imports, and not on the population).

In this proposal, the intent was to prevent a poverty-stricken nation from being exploited by a more powerful nation, through something like "We'll loan you the money, but you must drop all tariffs on our exports", or "you must remove your minimum wage laws."
--
The main purpose of the proposal is in "Seeking to prevent nations from making unfair profit from poorer nations to the detriment of the poorer nations", and I'll be rewriting with that in mind.

I still don't see how your proposal does anything to help nations in need.

Let's say a East Hackney is in financial trouble. They ask me for a loan (or a grant or whatever). My team of economists note that East Hackney has been crippling its economy with a ridiculously high minimum wage--lets say $10,000/hr just for fun. I don't want to make them a loan if they are going to continue to run their economy into the ground.

If the UN says that Richardelphia cannot make lifting this minimum wage a condition of our sending them aid, we'll end up just letting them fend for themselves. That doesn't do much for East Hackney's problem. At least under my "exploitative" offer, they have an option. If a nation's tariffs or labor laws are more important than our loan, they can always turn us down.

Yes, that's why I'm taking off the word "loan".

Yes, that's why I'm taking off the word "loan".

Substitute whatever word you like... loan, aid, assistance, happy thoughts... that doesn't change the core issue. If the UN prevents nations from assisting others at arms length and out of their own self-interest, the ammount of help even offered will drop, leaving nations in need no better off.

Besides, you said you'd take out the word loan, but then you said the "intent was to prevent a poverty-stricken nation from being exploited by a more powerful nation, through something like 'We'll loan you the money, but you must drop all tariffs on our exports', or 'you must remove your minimum wage laws.'"

/multiple post

There's a difference between a loan and aid. I agree that the intent of a loan is an investment, you expect some kind of return, and if it were a large amount, you would be perfectly justified in asking that the nation make some modifications to its policies, but not to the point of exploitation, and not to that nation's detriment, and not against the will of the nation's population (or the government, for the non-democratic nations). The problem for me as a proposal writer is where to draw the line between genuine help and exploitation.

Aid is different. Aid is a gift out of compassion, and implies that nothing is expected in return, so it should be kept as such, and not used as a hostage of sorts for the more powerful nation's gain. Let's not be so cynical to say that no one will offer aid as opposed to a loan because of the restrictions imposed. Many compassionate nations are freely aiding poverty-stricken nations in this manner already, Kelssek among them.

Besides, it can be argued that those who offer help conditional to them getting something out of it aren't really helping out of kindness. They're reaching out a hand to someone hanging off a cliff and saying, "I'll save you, but if you take my hand, you've got to give me your CD player."

It'll take some tricky rewriting to get this all to sound right though.

The problem for me as a proposal writer is where to draw the line between genuine help and exploitation.
Why not let the nation seeking help decide where that line is? If you offer me a deal and I believe it is exploitative, I'll refuse it.

Aid is different. Aid is a gift out of compassion, and implies that nothing is expected in return, so it should be kept as such, and not used as a hostage of sorts for the more powerful nation's gain.
Again I disagree. Let's drop it down to a personal level just for example. Your mother is an alcoholic. She blew her rent money on booze. You want to help your mother out by paying her rent. (You want to aid her.) Is it exploitative to make a condition of your monetary gift that she seek treatment?

If a communist nation blows its money on a rogue nuclear weapons program, and finds itself without the funds to provide relief for starving citizens and a recent train collision, would it be unreasonable to ask that they become more responsible with their funds, perhaps even more capitalistic, in return for your aid?

Let's not be so cynical to say that no one will offer aid as opposed to a loan because of the restrictions imposed.
I didn't say that. I said the ammount of help offered would drop. I know this, because my nation would be very quick not to offer aid if we weren't allowed to make sure a nation pulled their head out of their ass before accepting it.

Besides, it can be argued that those who offer help conditional to them getting something out of it aren't really helping out of kindness. They're reaching out a hand to someone hanging off a cliff and saying, "I'll save you, but if you take my hand, you've got to give me your CD player."

So now the UN is going to mandate kindness??

Put yourself in this situation. You're hanging off a cliff. I'm the only other person around. Say I'm just a big, evil, capitalist meanie, and I don't want to help you unless I get something in return. The UN says I can't put any conditions on helping you. I walk away and leave you for dead.

At that moment, hanging on by your fingernails and starting to slip, would you be thankful that the UN would not let me "exploit" you by offering to save your life in return for your CD player?

I have to agree with the Richardelphia delegate, his analogy is apt, though not very diplomatic.

The proposal you offer is very hypocritical, making the nations agree not to mandate economic changes? Also, the point of the UN is to promote global harmony, not protectionism. The WTO was created to PROMOTE free trade, and it has the authority to do so over members. The UN promotes globalism, as it is a GLOBAL body.

*relaxes*

I apologize. In the defense of free trade, removing tariffs allows superior, cheaper goods that lower class citizens can afford to be sold in a nation, and provides competition to local indutries which ecnourages increases in quality while decreases in prices. In short, it is benefitial to nations' citizens.

Thank you.

Also, those who are reading this might be interested to know it was based on Lindim's proposal, that can be found in the forums, entitled "Gradual Reduction of Tariffs." Lindim is a proud sponser of capitalism and free trade.

We are also glad to see life has been brought back into the UN.

Respectfully,
Yuni Hu
UN Ambassador of Lindim

*pauses, listening to her earpiece*

Sorry to be so loquacious, but another mention of our proposal and why it is benefitial to everyone.

The current problem with free trade is that not everyone accepts it. If everyone does, then the local businesses can profit as much as foreign ones. Our proposal does exactly this, and thus domestic and foreign businesses succeed.

So foreign goods must always be superior to locally-produced ones? Let us not forget that foreign companies enter a market to make money, not out of some noble effort to bring superior goods to the world.

From what you said, you seem to hold the WTO sacrosanct. However the truth is if we as the UN feel it is not doing its job, is not doing it properly, or is taking its mandate too far (which I feel is certainly the case with the RL WTO, but let's not get into that), we have every right to strip it of its authority.

Kelssek is not against globalisation per se, nor do we aim to stop it through this proposal. We support our local industries because when the going gets tough, as it certainly will, they are the ones who aren't going anywhere, while multinationals have a tendency to flee, and who can blame them for that?

Insulation from the world can have only negative effects. It is the more harmful effects, such as the privatisation of utility companies (which causes a captive market, held captive not to a government they can vote/throw out of office, but to a corporation), or forbidding nations to aid their struggling farmers because it would be "unfair" to imported foods.

How a nation's economy is run is the business of the nation's government, and no one else. Quite frankly, the government is the only one that can be trusted to act in the population's interests, because they are responsible to the population. I believe that dictatorships like your North Korea example are the exception to the rule, because even if you're a tyrant, you won't get the money to build a palace for every day of the year without your taxpayers healthy, not starving, and working their butts off for you. Or they can siphon off the aid money, but if that happens the aid gets withdrawn.

The current problem with free trade is that not everyone accepts it.

Not everyone accepts it because it doesn't work for everyone.

The current problem with free trade is that not everyone accepts it.

Not everyone accepts it because it doesn't work for everyone.

It doesn't work for everyone because not everyone accepts it. Wouldn't it be easier to solve this paradox by simply approving this resolution and then encouraging governments to help domestic businesses with tax reductions, subsidies, or other similar policies? This would allow everyone to benefit.

*pauses to listen into earpiece*

It doesn't work for everyone because not everyone accepts it. Wouldn't it be easier to solve this paradox by simply approving this resolution and then encouraging governments to help domestic businesses with tax reductions, subsidies, or other similar policies? This would allow everyone to benefit.

Your resolution would enforce this acceptance. Mine seeks to allow nations to accept free trade or not. As much as you might say my proposal is contradictory, so is yours - a true free market would have no subsides at all, and the government would have little say in it. Also, it would unfairly impose a free trade type of policy on Communist economies.

Draft 3 has been toned down quite a bit.

ECONOMIC RIGHTS ACT - DRAFT 3

Affirming the right of every nation to decide their own economic policy, and;

Affirming the right of nations to protect their local industries by import tariffs or otherwise, and;

Alarmed that some nations would seek to impose their economic ideology on others, and;

Seeking to enshrine these rights of individual member nations;

Therefore, be it hereby resolved that:

1) No nation shall be coerced by another nation or by any international organisation into making fundamental changes to its
economic policy.

1a) A judiciary panel, hereafter the Economic Rights Committee, shall be established under the supervision of the General Assembly to ensure the fair and proper enforcement of Article 1, and as a recourse for nations which feel their rights are under threat of being or have been violated. The Economic Rights Committee shall have the power, through the General Assembly, to bring sanctions against any nation or organisation which acts in defiance of its rulings.

2) The United Nations shall condemn any nation which uses military force to enforce its economic ideology onto a member nation, and shall support the member nation under threat.

3) Nations shall be free to protect their local industries by any means, including but not limited to import tariffs or a ban on imports.

---

To explain 1a), establishing a panel to decide on a case-by-case basis would fulfil the role of protecting nations from exploitation or from making changes against their will. This is especially for the case of the WTO or IMF.

It would still allow nations loaning money to make fair requests of the debtor ("You have to use the money to improve the rail system", "Stop making so damn many anthrax missiles" or "Aren't 490 palaces enough?"). We do accept that the best recourse of a nation under such duress is to simply refuse the loan, though.

1) No nation shall be coerced by another nation or by any international organisation into making fundamental changes to its
economic policy.

1a) A judiciary panel, hereafter the Economic Rights Committee, shall be established under the supervision of the General Assembly to ensure the fair and proper enforcement of Article 1, and as a recourse for nations which feel their rights are under threat of being or have been violated. The Economic Rights Committee shall have the power, through the General Assembly, to bring sanctions against any nation or organisation which acts in defiance of its rulings.

2) The United Nations shall condemn any nation which uses military force to enforce its economic ideology onto a member nation, and shall support the member nation under threat.

3) Nations shall be free to protect their local industries by any means, including but not limited to import tariffs or a ban on imports.



We will not support this, but we do suggest you take out number two, as it appears unnecessary. What nation would do that, it's pointless.

Secondly, referring to number one, the moment you join the UN you are giving up some of your independent rights. There have been many UN Resolutions approved that I am guessing you wouold disagree with, but you are still a part of the UN. Other nations that passed resolutions have forced their beliefs about a variety of subjects upon you, it is a natural part of the UN.

Your proposal seems to state that no resolution governing anything should be allowed. However, they are.

Respectfully,
Yuni Hu
UN Ambassador of Lindim

No, only extremist resolutions which say "Everyone must be communist" or "Everyone must be capitalist" or, "Governments cannot own companies" would be disallowed. Fundamental changes. These resolutions would violate game mechanics anyway.

And a war over economic ideology has been fought before. The Korean War, anyone? And wasn't the entire Cold War a fight between capitalism and communism?

((OOC: My first comment about wars of economic philosophies was a joke. Yes, the Cold War was PARTLY about economic philosophies. However, it ran deeper than that, it was a war about differing views of human beings. When will you submit your proposal?))

Kelssek, thank you for taking our objections into consideration when rewriting this proposal. In light of the new changes, notably the fact that nations will remain free to negotiate agreements on their own terms, Richardelphia now offers its wholehearted support to this bill.

We would like to suggest that the explanation at the bottom of your forum post be included as a footnote to the actual bill. This will perhaps help calm some of the reservations other nations may have about its intentions.

Barring any objection from the members of The Five Pacifics, we will vote our approval.

We give it our support, as we in principle agree with it, though we believe it is misguided for reasons we have stated in other threads.

However, it may have some influence on another proposal we are drafting that you and the Richardelphia delegate may be intertested in. It has a new topic in the forums.

Because this needs a bit of humor:

Why don't you mention your proposal to the person who submitted the "MANDATORY PLANNED ECONOMICS" proposal. He seems to appose private business and capitalism too.

;)

This proposal will be submitted on Tuesday 4 May.

Proposal submitted.

His Holiness the Governor-General desires to express dismay after reading the proposed resolution.

This proposal is faulted for being vague where clarity is required and completely unenforceable even if made to be [less] vague.

What could `No nation shall be coerced or otherwise forced...' possibly mean?
If a poorer nation receives aid from a richer nation's generous and charitable supply, the poorer nation may of her own free will, most consciously and with great deliberation, choose to emulate the economic and political practices of the richer nation. The richer nation, in the altruistic act of offering assistance, completely devoid of any expectation of repayment, become an international victim under this legislation and therefore become unjustly persecuted under the auspices of the United Nations.
It is also understood that no nation is obligated to donate and offer charity to other nations, even when both surplus and need are evident. Nations are currently free to engage in any treaty, compact, bargain, or contract they see fit. A prosperous nation may grow weary of continuous, and therefore temporary, charity when the solution is obviously economic reformation. If ratified this proposal will only increase the suffering and inqeuity present in the world economy because solutions will no longer be applicable. Prosperous nations will no longer offer aid and support to nations under duress, because this proposal will only serve to facilitate an inequity. His Holiness asserts charity, the gift of plenty completely absent of any repayment expectation, may only exist in the absence of legislation.

Such legislation would nullify international generosity and thus serve to increase the gap between the prosperous and the needy. Such legislation is contrary to the very nature of The United Nations.


In the interests of social equality and human rights, His Holiness must object most strenuously to this proposal and encourage other nations to likewise withhold their support in the name of social equity and human rights.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

Your problem is exactly what Article 1a is mean to address. Article 1 is by needs vague, to give leeway for interpretation by the Committee. The point is to free nations to do what they want with their economy, not to restrict them, and to prevent nations from being restricted. More specific things will come as cases come before the Panel, through the already-established legal system - the Committee would be basically an international legal body which holds authority by the authorization of the General Assembly.

I think you didn't read the entire debate before posting, or didn't see the latest draft.

His Holiness the Governor-General offers rebuttal.

Your problem is exactly what Article 1a is mean[sic] to address.
This is exactly why the whole of Article 1 must be rewritten.

Article 1 is by needs vague, to give leeway for interpretation by the Committee.
His Holiness also notices `leeway' and `elasticity' are buzz-words commonly heard in police-states, because only with the liberal application of `leeway' can the lawful be subjugated.

The point is to free nations to do what they want with their economy, not to restrict them, and to prevent nations from being restricted.
His Holiness agrees and concurrently correctly identifies this legislation as an attempt to restrict lawful sovereignty. This logical contradiction means the proposal does not even qualify as a sham.

More specific things will come as cases come before the Panel, through the already-established legal system - the Committee would be basically an international legal body which holds authority by the authorization of the General Assembly.
His Holiness again notes where you are incorrect. The principles of Good Governence require crimes must be identified and codified before any trials may commence. The very root of all legal systems in the civilized world is Habeas Corpus, which requires a crime must actually have occured before any may be accused of committing a crime. Such a vague, nebulous, amorphous - even vacuous! - resolution will only serve to turn the United Nations into a tool used by the devious to strike petty attacks and offer harassment to the innocent.

His Holiness also notes, with great bemusement, that there is no provision for Conflict of Interests mentioned concerning any nations serving on, or even chairing, the Economic Rights Committee. If a nation were to serve in the ERC she would wield considerable power over the nations she conducts trade with, and nations serving in the ERC would also have considerable power when engaging in commerce between themselves. His Holiness has great concerns were a league or cartel to form within the ERC. His Holiness believes the words `Machiavellian' and `Impunity' are not lacking basis in this matter.


I think you didn't read the entire debate before posting, or didn't see the latest draft.
His Holiness read draft #3, which should be the draft in question!

[signed]
Alderman-Major Thomas Abaizad of The Triumviri of Industry of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

The ERC would be a civil claims type, not a criminal type court. The burden of proof would thus be on the plaintiff, and if the nation cannot prove that it is being exploited or is unfairly penalised by the nation or body in question, then its case would be dismissed. This eliminates harrassment.

It would be impossible to codify in black and white what is and what isn't allowed. Economics, by its nature, has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For a RL example, an embargo on microchip exports wouldn't have much effect on Somalia, but it would have a disastrous effect on Taiwan.

There are too many factors to be considered to make blanket rules, unlike typical criminal cases where it's clear-cut: either the accused committed the crime or not, or in typical civil claims, either the person's actions cost you money or not. The subjective nature of this makes it impossible to codify all the rules, so the proposal provides a guiding principle for the ERC to make its decisions.

Note "shall have the power, through the General Assembly". The ERC would function as an arm of the General Assembly. The General Assembly would vote on the members of the judiciary panel, and can, by majority vote, veto its decisions if it strays from its mandate (I might write this into a future draft).

Also, any sanctions it wants to take has to be approved by the General Assembly first. This ensures it doesn't go overboard and that it stays in line with the prevailing will of the UN. I think this is more than enough of a check, even to the point of restricting the ERC's power.

"His Holiness agrees and concurrently correctly identifies this legislation as an attempt to restrict lawful sovereignty. This logical contradiction means the proposal does not even qualify as a sham"

If you don't point out how it would restrict sovereignity, I can't rectify it. This is totally beyond me because the intention of the proposal is to improve sovereignity, not curtail it.

Yes, the latest is draft 3. Sorry about that, it's just that when you quote a previous draft and address an issue I have already discussed, that's the idea I get.

His Holiness the Governor-General is mostly concerned with the issues surrounding Conflicts of Interest.

Considering the ERC is both the police force, and the investigative body, and futher understanding the General Assembly serves purely in an oversight rôle, His Holiness would like safeguards against Conflicts of Interest explicitly stated in the resolution.
The ERC, by the very definition in the proposal, are to act as both police and investigatory body which facilitates considerable opportunity for wrong-doing. His Holiness would seek this issue addressed. Over-sight only functions - by definition! - in an after-the-fact method.

His Holiness asserts that even the largest of corporations are incapable of as much wrong-doing as even the most minute of governments, and knowing the ERC is composed of governments, presages the necessity for Conflicts of Interests articles lest the ERC become an oligarchy itself.

His Holiness understands your dificulties and appreciates your efforts. His Holiness debates the issues because he believes them to be worthy of his support, not so he may belittle the issues.

[signed]
Alderman-Major Thomas Abaizad of The Triumviri of Industry of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

In any case with a possible conflict of interest, the ERC member with such a conflict would be required to remove him/herself from the case. This is already done in most RL legal courts.

ECONOMIC RIGHTS ACT - DRAFT 4

Affirming the right of every nation to decide their own economic policy, and;

Affirming the right of nations to protect their local industries by import tariffs or otherwise, and;

Alarmed that some nations would seek to impose their economic ideology on others, and;

Seeking to enshrine these rights of individual member nations;

Therefore, be it hereby resolved that:

1) No nation shall be coerced by another nation or by any international organisation into making fundamental changes to its
economic policy.

2) A judiciary panel, hereafter the Economic Rights Committee, shall be established under the supervision of the General Assembly to ensure the fair and proper enforcement of Article 1, and as a recourse for nations which feel their rights are under threat of being or have been violated. The Economic Rights Committee shall have the power, through the General Assembly, to bring sanctions against any nation or organisation which acts in defiance of its rulings.

2a) Members of the Economic Rights Committee must remove themselves from any participation in any case where there is a possible conflict of interest.

2b) The General Assembly may, by a majority vote, veto or overrule the decisions of the Economic Rights Committee.

3) The United Nations shall condemn any nation which uses military force to enforce its economic ideology onto a member nation, and shall support the member nation under threat.

4) Nations shall be free to protect their local industries by any means, including but not limited to import tariffs or a ban on imports.

ECONOMIC RIGHTS ACT - DRAFT 4

Affirming the right of every nation to decide their own economic policy, and;

Affirming the right of nations to protect their local industries by import tariffs or otherwise, and;

Alarmed that some nations would seek to impose their economic ideology on others, and;

Seeking to enshrine these rights of individual member nations;

Therefore, be it hereby resolved that:

1) No nation shall be coerced by another nation or by any international organisation into making fundamental changes to its
economic policy.

2) A judiciary panel, hereafter the Economic Rights Committee, shall be established under the supervision of the General Assembly to ensure the fair and proper enforcement of Article 1, and as a recourse for nations which feel their rights are under threat of being or have been violated. The Economic Rights Committee shall have the power, through the General Assembly, to bring sanctions against any nation or organisation which acts in defiance of its rulings.

2a) Members of the Economic Rights Committee must remove themselves from any participation in any case where there is a possible conflict of interest.

2b) The General Assembly may, by a majority vote, veto or overrule the decisions of the Economic Rights Committee.

3) The United Nations shall condemn any nation which uses military force to enforce its economic ideology onto a member nation, and shall support the member nation under threat.

4) Nations shall be free to protect their local industries by any means, including but not limited to import tariffs or a ban on imports.

His Holiness the Governor-General is most pleased with, and in full support of, the ERA as is written in Draft #4.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

Thank you. I plan to re-submit tomorrow.