NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, here it finally is. After a discussion on an international drugs issue, I argued that this could be extended to everything, keeping defintions on what is legal or illegal deliberately vague to avoid making assumptions on legality, and also extending the scope of the proposal to combat illicit imports.

This is a first draft - international trade is not my strong suit, and I suspect this can be refined, and reorganised, but here is a first draft

NOTING the issues surrounding trade between member states;

CONCERNED regarding the illicit import and export of goods between member states;

CONCERNED regarding the import and export of illicit goods between member states

NOTING that what constitutes illicit varies from state to state;

EAGER that member states work in co-operation to combat the international illicit import and export of goods, and the international import and export of illicit goods;

DESIRING to facilitate international trade,

DESIRING to reduce the expense incurred by redescribing, reclassifying and recoding goods as they move from one classification system to another in the course of international trade and to facilitate the standardization of trade documentation and the transmission of data,

CONSIDERING that offences against Customs law are prejudicial to the economic, social and fiscal interests of States and to the legitimate interests of trade,

CONSIDERING that action against Customs offences can be rendered more effective by co-operation between Customs administrations;

URGES member states to develop bilateral and multilateral agreements concerning the international transport of goods, and develop methods to monitor and protect the international transport of goods, such as asset tracking methods, secure storage and Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems.

URGES member states foster international co-operation between customs and other relevant agencies, to share best practice, to communicate as partners, and to supply mutual assistance with a view to preventing, investigating and repressing Customs offences

URGES member states co-operate in Monitoring of controlled goods (e.g., wastes, stolen goods, narcotics, chemical weapons, ozone layer depleting substances, endangered species) on an international, regional, or bilateral scale as appropiate.

EAGER that member states forbid the transport of goods to a destination where those goods are considered illicit.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/toothless5kd.jpg

Hirota, I suggest you take a look at the drafts for my Drug Trafficking Act, located on the UNOG forum (the final draft towards the bottom of this (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=556&st=60) page). Might provide a few hints, as well as things to stay away from. That was specific to drugs, but still may relate to your proposal.

What's the purpose of a proposal that doesn't actually do anything other than spout a lot of fancy words?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/toothless5kd.jpg

It's just like top trumps.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad0iy.png

Anyhow, this is not a proposal, it's a draft. It's meant to be here to get constructive comments. If you can't do that, then go elsewhere. I noticed you liked Enn's work, so hopefully you'll stick around :)

Hirota, I suggest you take a look at the drafts for my Drug Trafficking Act, located on the UNOG forum (the final draft towards the bottom of this page). Might provide a few hints, as well as things to stay away from. That was specific to drugs, but still may relate to your proposal.Thanks, I'll have a look. I was trying to find previous examples, but stinking work computer is blocking my access to all sorts of sites (including here, for a little while....;))
What's the purpose of a proposal that doesn't actually do anything other than spout a lot of fancy words?I'll tell you what it is intended to do, and then you can either contribute or carry on elsewhere :)

The intention is to call upon member states to co-operate with one another in combatting the import/export of illicit goods, or the illicit import/export of goods (those two are not the same thing). It also seeks to ensure the sharing of best practices between customs agencies, sharing of information, and to make the business of importing and exporting more streamlined, and more secure. It varies from drugs import/export in that there are other commodities that may need regulation on an internation, regional, or bilateral basis.

Unlike in the real world the UN here does more then suggest people do things. Anyway it is a bit more then this in this game. It is a body that tells you to do things. This only suggest to do things and in effect does even less then such a thing would in the real UN because at least there countries pressure each other to follow.

If you made this all madating then it would need to be more specific so I suggest thinking about this more.


DESIRING to reduce the expense incurred by redescribing...

redescribing is not a word.

URGES member states co-operate in Monitoring of controlled goods (e.g., wastes, stolen goods, narcotics, chemical weapons, ozone layer depleting substances, endangered species) on an international, regional, or bilateral scale as appropiate.

appropriate not appropiate

I know those are minor things but at least run this stuff through spell check. A resolution with a spelling mistake looks really bad.

I'm doing this sans quotes because I'm feeling lazy.

It lacks teeth so as to avoid conflict that can be created through the unnecessary use of such things. It is intended to encourage better trading practices, not to enforce rabid were-tiger customs officials at the border of every nation.

The UN is fully capable of making suggestions. We don't have to mandate every little thing that we discuss. Nations are more than welcome to apply pressure to other nations that they feel are not acting either on good faith or in the spirit of a resolution (RP it). Actually a nation doesn't even need as much reason as that. Nations pressuring their neighbours into certain choices, actions, or situations is fairly common.

Redescribing is a word. It means to describe again. Even lacking a dictionary that contains it, rely on your cognitive capabilities to make sense of it.

It is vague for the reason listed at the top of the first post. Specificity limits its' capacity to affect all areas.

Don't like it. There are some serious issues that need tackling; I'm worried by taking this softly-softly approach, it will render the UN incapable of legislating more forcefully on the issues later.

To expand:

A policy statement is fine where binding international legislation is unsuitable. Gruenberg has no problem with encouragements and endorsements in fields where one could not reasonably mandate or require.

But "optional" statements of this kind are not fine where they would potentially obstruct more binding legislation - which in several of the areas skimmed over by this proposal would be needed.

Furthermore, we find this proposal insufficiently detailed. Better to deal with it subject by subject, as demonstrated by resolutions such as "Reduce Black Market Arms Sales" or "Waste Disposal Convention", or proposals such as Enn's drug act (and hopefully St Edmund's ozone depletion act).

What a lot of 'urges' in one proposal.

Bahgum's glorious leader had 'urges', but then the mother in law visited and that put a stop to that.

Moral: Urges don't achieve anything and can even have unpleasant outcomes.

Lydia was happy to note a proposal from Hirota on her desk. Unfortunately after reading it this happiness was tinged with regret at having to forward a negative response. Still it was good to be in contact again and there was always going to be other proposals she hoped.

Honoured delegation

Regrettably my office can not offer our support within the framework of the current draft. We are concerned in some instances there may be cause why our government would not be able to support the objectives within this proposal. For example if a specific nation chose to ban a medicine used to immunise certain diseases we would have difficulty in supporting this, particularly if said state’s neighbours could be adversely affected. An additional example may also be placing contraception on an illicit register, something I feel again my government would not be comfortable with.

While we respect other governments rights to place items on an illicit list it does not follow that all goods deemed illicit by members states should by definition be deemed illicit in international law. In our humble opinion there are too many variables to consider for such a blanket policy.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs.
HM Government of Telidia

Gruen: You make good points. Me feel silly.

URGES member states to develop bilateral and multilateral agreements concerning the international transport of goods, and develop methods to monitor and protect the international transport of goods, such as asset tracking methods, secure storage and Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems.

URGES member states foster international co-operation between customs and other relevant agencies, to share best practice, to communicate as partners, and to supply mutual assistance with a view to preventing, investigating and repressing Customs offences

URGES member states co-operate in Monitoring of controlled goods (e.g., wastes, stolen goods, narcotics, chemical weapons, ozone layer depleting substances, endangered species) on an international, regional, or bilateral scale as appropiate.

EAGER that member states forbid the transport of goods to a destination where those goods are considered illicit.

YOU URGE members states to do what most already do then EAGER them to forbid something... Thus not sure what to do with that last EAGER.. MANDATE it or RECOMMEND it..

Since most already do the first ones then don't see a reason the UN needs to get into this as you clearly by wording leave this to individual nations thus why even get the UN into it.

A few things to go through here, so thanks for the feedback. I’ll answer most of the key issues all together.

1) Unlike in the real world the UN here does more then suggest people do things. Anyway it is a bit more then this in this game. It is a body that tells you to do things. This only suggest to do things and in effect does even less then such a thing would in the real UN because at least there countries pressure each other to follow.Moral: Urges don't achieve anything and can even have unpleasant outcomes. YOU URGE members states to do what most already do then EAGER them to forbid something... Thus not sure what to do with that last EAGER.. MANDATE it or RECOMMEND it..For me, this is a matter of style, and I like to try to keep to original (RL) style of UN resolutions. That’s a bit more softer than the tones resolutions tend to take here.
Like I said, it’s a personal thing, and I’m happy to change that to give the perception of having teeth.

2)redescribing is not a word.
appropriate not appropiate

I know those are minor things but at least run this stuff through spell check. A resolution with a spelling mistake looks really bad.Redescribing is a word. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=redescribing&x=0&y=0) Admittedly not a very common word, but a word nonetheless. As for spelling…well, I wrote the resolution on a server that did not have the luxury of word, so it was typed on WordPad. (It’s the only way I can get on this site, as my normal PC does not allow me onto such sites. Thankfully, the power of RDP means I can get onto this site from my desk connecting via the server). I normally run spell checks as a matter of course, and will be doing so in subsequent drafts. :)

3)For example if a specific nation chose to ban a medicine used to immunise certain diseases we would have difficulty in supporting this, particularly if said state’s neighbours could be adversely affected. An additional example may also be placing contraception on an illicit register, something I feel again my government would not be comfortable with.For a start I agree with your concerns – my government would be equally alarmed if another member state made such choices that would affect the health and wellbeing of their citizens.

However, that does not give us other nations the right to ignore their laws and export illegal medicines into their country. Taking a RL example, it’s pretty clear America is not keen on Columbia exporting what it does. Take a NS example, not all nations legalise cannabis.

The only way I could see this directly affecting other nations is if nation A was surrounded on all borders by nation B. However, all of this is pretty aside from the draft – if something was illegal before, it’s still going to be illegal now – I’m not sure I can see this having consequences.

Actually, I can see what you mean. I should read the whole post: While we respect other governments rights to place items on an illicit list it does not follow that all goods deemed illicit by members states should by definition be deemed illicit in international law. In our humble opinion there are too many variables to consider for such a blanket policy.I understand now, I had tried to cover this with: URGES member states co-operate in Monitoring of controlled goods (e.g., wastes, stolen goods, narcotics, chemical weapons, ozone layer depleting substances, endangered species) on an international, regional, or bilateral scale as appropriate. I made deliberate distinctions between international law and national law, but perhaps this needs to be made more explicit.

(and hopefully St Edmund's ozone depletion act).

Which has been delayed not only becaue our drafting unit got sidetracked onto other projects (OOC: and due to other demands on my time in RL...) but because the team is still trying to find a way of fitting a reasonably detailed list of the chemicals whose use should be phased out into the limited space available...

Firstly we appreciate you taking the time to look at our concerns and secondly for adding an amendment. In the interest of avoiding confusion I’d like to clarify my comment on immunisation and please forgive the RL example.

Let’s assume a vaccine against the HIV virus is found. Certain countries in RL suffer with more infected persons than others, however in some of these States (hypothetically) the government place the vaccine on an illicit register. Surely in these cases the international community has a duty to override the State’s decision on humanitarian grounds.

My comment on contraception was somewhat related, if said State bans contraception on religious grounds for example and deny the most effective method of disease control, should we not have the right to interfere here also? Disease do not understand borders and for most developed members international travel for its citizenry is a given.

While the behaviour of a government committing such an act would seem utterly senseless to us, in RL the South African government banned HIV retro-virals provided by the US aid program on grounds it had to be tested for safety. It took a court case spanning a number of years before the government’s decision was overturned by the high court and drugs were made available to the citizenry. It is my fear the last clause (if strengthened) could restrict the international community in such cases.

Actually in my view the criticism that the proposal has not teeth is actually an advantage. As it stands the UN will make known its position on illicit trade which I feel is necessary, however it does allow scope for intervention.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

My comment on contraception was somewhat related, if said State bans contraception on religious grounds for example and deny the most effective method of disease control, should we not have the right to interfere here also? Disease do not understand borders and for most developed members international travel for its citizenry is a given.

This is a very complex issue, there is no easy back and white solution, and in the case of the standard gray area each case must be considered carefully. If the diease is really international in potential threat then one can condier the international aspect as a mater for intervention. Should there be a fundamental issue of human rights, there may be a cause for intervention.

But, and this is the most important but, in addressing the problem we should never fixate on one possible solution. Is "contraception" the only way to control diease. The most effective is ideal but any reasonably effective method is still perfectly acceptable. If the most effective had a 98% effective rate and the second most had a 96% effective rate, then we are arguing over 2%. Is that really worth possibly destroying a culture and a people? (For what is a people without their culture?)

But as this applies to the proposal I most strongly disagree. It is one thing to have the UN override the principles of the member nation, but it is another thing for another nation, or a corporation, or an indvidual to override the principles of any other nation. If something is illegal in a nation it almost stands to reason you shouldn't bring it into that nation.

But I have to agree with Cluichstan, this proposal lacks teeth. It's not clear what teeth to give it in the first place. It's not really an effective anti-smuggling bill. It's not really a good secure container bill either, although it is the closest thing to actually doing something. And finally if we were to establish a secure container system, let's all do it. Let's not have a plethora of bilateral agreements and an encyclopedia to determine how to ship your product to all the nations in the UN.

This is a very complex issue, there is no easy back and white solution, and in the case of the standard gray area each case must be considered carefully. If the diease is really international in potential threat then one can condier the international aspect as a mater for intervention. Should there be a fundamental issue of human rights, there may be a cause for intervention.

But, and this is the most important but, in addressing the problem we should never fixate on one possible solution. Is "contraception" the only way to control diease. The most effective is ideal but any reasonably effective method is still perfectly acceptable. If the most effective had a 98% effective rate and the second most had a 96% effective rate, then we are arguing over 2%. Is that really worth possibly destroying a culture and a people? (For what is a people without their culture?)

But as this applies to the proposal I most strongly disagree. It is one thing to have the UN override the principles of the member nation, but it is another thing for another nation, or a corporation, or an indvidual to override the principles of any other nation. If something is illegal in a nation it almost stands to reason you shouldn't bring it into that nation.

But I have to agree with Cluichstan, this proposal lacks teeth. It's not clear what teeth to give it in the first place. It's not really an effective anti-smuggling bill. It's not really a good secure container bill either, although it is the closest thing to actually doing something. And finally if we were to establish a secure container system, let's all do it. Let's not have a plethora of bilateral agreements and an encyclopedia to determine how to ship your product to all the nations in the UN.

OOC: Btw I like the country name, how do you pronounce it?

IC:
We welcome the comments from the honourable member of Tzorsland and we agree one should always try and keep one’s ‘options open’ to a coin a phrase. The limited examples I gave was just an indication on what possible problems may occur that may/may not (dependent on one’s view) require the UN to intervene. In all such cases as you correctly point out, it must be a matter of judgement and certainly we should never as a matter of course seek to override a State’s choice on what they deem illicit or not.

With that in mind we find it hard to agree to strengthen this proposal and add ‘teeth’ as you put it. The variables involved in what nations decided to class as illicit and what possible future consequences may come from such decisions in our humble opinion does not lend itself to a strong stance on the subject. I can think of a number of scenarios where a strong stance might not stand in our favour, though will refrain from mentioning them in order to avoid turning the debate in to a scenario discussion and thus detract from the proposal itself. If however the Hirota delegation would like to discuss such scenarios in more detail I’d be happy to oblige.

Sufficient to say we welcome the Hirota delegation’s proposal to highlight this important topic, deal with our concerns on international law and make clear the UN’s position on illicit trade. However if the proposal were strengthened to such a degree that intervention would be forbidden or severely hampered my office would regrettably have a hard time in offering support.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia