NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread has been started to discuss my resolution "Free Trade Ports." The key points: voluntary, pays for itself, no investment needed by participating nations. For those that do participate, trade will increase, government revenue will increase, more conversation will take place between governments, and there will be an increase in competition. The text is below for you all to read. Please let me know your thoughts! Thanks!

El Pat

RECOGNIZING the importance of aviation in free trade, and

CONCERNED about unnecessary barriers for airlines in foreign markets, and

COGNIZANT of the increase in revenue for both private companies and governments in Free Trade Zones, and

KEEPING IN MIND that the United Nations should not force nations to act in discordance with their principles, be they capitalist, socialist, or otherwise:

1. CALLS UPON participating nations to open a minimum of one airport as a Free Trade Zone airport, allowing all planes from other countries participating in this program to land and unload their cargo without any additional tariffs, taxes, or fees; and

2. AFFIRMS THE RIGHT of participating nations to deny entry to aircraft operating to or from nations or regions hostile to the participating nation; and

3. REQUESTS that tariffs, taxes, and fees be reduced on international aircraft operating into free trade zones be reduced in an effort to further promote and extend international trade; and

4. ADVISES the creation of a Global Aviation Council (GAC), whose duties will include but are not limited to:
i. Arbitrating flight disputes between nations participating in the program, should the nations request arbitration
ii. Promote flight safety and coordinate safety efforts between participating nations
iii. Participate in accident and incident investigations in participating nations as a neutral third-party when the accident or incident involves a foreign aircraft or if a participating nation requests GAC help or oversight
iv. Collect fuel price, tax, tariff, and fees data from participating nations to distribute to all carriers of participating nations; and

5. FURTHER ADVISES that the GAC would be paid for by a $0.01 per 1,000 pounds landing fee on aircraft utilizing the Free Trade Zone airports, creating a body that is free from government constraints and will act in favor of safety and free trade instead of politics; and

6. EXPRESSES THE HOPE that United Nations member countries will embrace the relaxation of trade barriers in an effort to promote international competition and communication between nations.

Is this a call for duty-free shops at airports? I'm not sure I'm quite getting your message.

Okay, but how does this affect me? I don't exactly have need of airports...

You might lose them at "Cognizant". Heck, I don't even know what that word means.

Main Entry: cog·ni·zant
Pronunciation: -z&nt
Function: adjective
: knowledgeable of something especially through personal experience; also : MINDFUL
synonym see AWARE

The use of the word requires proof on the claimant's side that their claims are, indeed, based on events their nation has actually experienced.

This seems to look good, but I see free trade ports only seem to mean air traffic. If anything, perhaps a note on that may be needed. Even in an international setting, not all nations may enjoy traffic networks based on airlines, some rather using seafaring means of transportation.

Aside from this point, this resolution looks good.

This appears to violate the UN taxation ban, and thus would be illegal. Plus, I don't think that abolishing tariffs and fees at airports is necessarily a good idea, since airports may survive on these fees. My libertarian-style nation does not collect public money for running airports; it's simply done through fees paid by the airlines. This is simply asking for a free lunch.

This resolution has potential. However, a few things need to be clarified.

When I first read, free-trade ports, I thought you were referring to sea ports, not air-ports. You need to make the title clear by adding air before ports.

It seems a crammed to me, and point 5 does seem to be a tax after rereading it a few times and fully understanding what it does. It would also be better if it had teeth, but you would need to account for those nations without airports.

I must say that I'm quite pleased with the resolution. I will endorse.

CONCERNED about unnecessary barriers for airlines in foreign markets, and


Unnecessare for whom? The airlines? Clearly. But perhaps the "foreign market" in question relies on tariffs, etc, to sustain its economy.


COGNIZANT of the increase in revenue for both private companies and governments in Free Trade Zones, and


Yes, but as with everything in life, there are winners and losers, and the more fragile economies are likely to suffer from a sudden and rapid introduction to free trade.


KEEPING IN MIND that the United Nations should not force nations to act in discordance with their principles, be they capitalist, socialist, or otherwise:


However, this resolution aims to override your economic principles by allowing free trade anyway- granted access can only be gained through one airport, but it is there all the same.


1. CALLS UPON participating nations to open a minimum of one airport as a Free Trade Zone airport, allowing all planes from other countries participating in this program to land and unload their cargo without any additional tariffs, taxes, or fees; and

So they can land and unload, but that doesn't mean I have to let them sell it? Or leave the airport? Ok, why bring it then? Also, it says allowing ALL planes to land. Firstly, that is a hell of alot of planes for one airport, requiring airport expansion, etc etc- costly. Secondly, ANY plane is a huge security risk- they could be transporting illegal drugs,weapons or immigrants- all these "cargoes" must be allowed into the airport by your proposal.

This proposal just seems like a sneaky way to bring about a tarriff ban that would not suceed if it was more honestly promoted. And to be honest, I'd rather just ban tarriffs.