NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs

The United Nations,

Recalling Resolution #128, "Representation in Taxation", and its decision to endorse national rights in the setting of domestic taxation,

Remaining true to the principle that taxation is an aspect of inherently domestic policy, and as such is best set at the national level,

Conscious of the benefits of international agreement in areas of taxation, such as the negotiation of tariffs,

Opposing attempts to fully stifle all international trade in the name of isolationism,

Further opposing attempts to wrest control of all aspects of taxation policies from their appropriate levels of implementation,

Wishing to establish a flexible regime, that both protects the rights of individuals to have tax policies set by their representative legislatures, and allows for further international legislation in the area of global trade,

Working together towards international solutions to international problems:

1. Declares that all member nations have the right to set their own tariffs, custom duties, import and export taxes, and other forms of taxation upon goods and services entering and leaving their nation;

2. Declares that all member nations have the right to institute subsidies, subventions and other forms of payments and loans to their own businesses, for the purposes of promoting development of infant industries, securing production in times of emergency, war or economic collapse, or otherwise;

3. Declares that all member nations have the right to impose protectionist measures on trade with non-UN nations to prevent dumping;

4. Declares that all member nations have the right to establish embargoes, economic sanctions and import quotas, as part of a humanitarian or political protest, in times of emergency, war or economic collapse, or otherwise;

5. Declares that all member nations must adhere to the principle of the supremacy of international law, and that member nations may be required to surrender the above rights to comply with international legislation;

6. Promotes efforts at harmonisation of international taxation, whether through the UN, trade agreements, or otherwise, and especially the negotiation of common external tariffs and of greater trading freedoms between all nations.

This is the first proposal to be written by Dr Renn Korbitz, Gruenberg's newly appointed economic advisor to the UN office. Comments are welcome, and there is evidently still substantial room for improvement.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador to the UN
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

3. Declares that all member nations have the right to impose protectionist measures on trade with non-UN nations to prevent dumping;

And why not UN Member nations as well?

And why not UN Member nations as well?
For the simple reason that dumping can be countered within the UN. We are considering a resolution on the subject, in fact. But no matter how much we legislate away the ability of UN members to dump, we cannot touch non-UN members. As such, this insurance is necessary.

For the simple reason that dumping can be countered within the UN. We are considering a resolution on the subject, in fact. But no matter how much we legislate away the ability of UN members to dump, we cannot touch non-UN members. As such, this insurance is necessary.

I definitly like the idea of the proposal, but I'm just not sure about the omission of UN-Member nations from that clause. You're right, I know that there's a proposal being written about the anti-competition stuff. Maybe I need to read over what's on the table before I let that clause bug me.

Are you allowed to repeal something and impose rules at the same time? I didn't think you were able to. Anyway even though this kinda goes against my normal belif that we should not stop the UN from doing anything I still support this because of the shear volume of requests that people make on things like taxes.

Anyway I would like to say that maybe the UN in certain situations should be allowed to impose tarrifs on nations. This could only be used in extreme situations but there are some time that such things are nessasary. With so many nations in the UN a Un wide tarrif would be a scary thing to non member nations and the effect would be little to the UN. This is only in very extreme situations though. I do belive the Un should not be allowed in any circumstance to stop you from putting tarrifs on countries. It avoids war in some situations.

The Ceoranan delegation wholeheartedly supports this effort.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

We are extremely pleased with the contents of this proposal. Fully supported. :)

We are extremely pleased with the contents of this proposal. Fully supported. :)

What he said. ;)

We read the draft and were very concerned by the absolutist language granting national rights to use protectionist devices. We were thinking, "Do the existing free trade measures even make exception to allow nations to do this?" But now we're thinking Clause 5 covers it all, and have elected to attribute our former concerns to typical Kennyite thick-headedness, and support this legislation.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Are you allowed to repeal something and impose rules at the same time? I didn't think you were able to.You can't, but it's a moot point because this is not a repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

5. Declares that all member nations must adhere to the principle of the supremacy of international law, and that member nations may be required to surrender the above rights to comply with international legislation;Then why are we getting these rights if all somebody has to do is make and international law to take them back from us? Also if there is already one that stops us from having these rights then how can you in this give us rights banned under international law. As you clearly believe that international law overrides this. Thus if there is no international law in place now that bans such actions then nations can do what they want. Thus already have these rights. Until international law comes along and bans them then they don't have them.. So what is it you are doing here again?

To me giving us rights as long as there are not international laws against it that we already have. Thus for us this is a wasted effort that does nothing.. and clause 5 will keep it from ever doing anything.

The people of Airatum agree that clause #5 seems to undermine the rest of the document. We encourage its removal.

Otherwise, we support this resolution.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Any other suggestions? Clause 5 will obviously remain in, and as otherwise the proposal would be illegal.

On which note, standard request for a mod ruling.

Dicey.

Game Effect: Tarrifs are created
Flavor Text: Tarrifs can be created

This may not live up to the requirements of the category.

5. Declares that all member nations must adhere to the principle of the supremacy of international law, and that member nations may be required to surrender the above rights to comply with international legislation;


This would be an infringment of soveriegnty.
Interfering with the foriegn policy of nation.

This would be an infringment of soveriegnty.
Interfering with the foriegn policy of nation.

I'm sure it's just there to leave the door open to more free trade proposals in the future.

Any other suggestions? Clause 5 will obviously remain in, and as otherwise the proposal would be illegal.

On which note, standard request for a mod ruling.

We request further explanation, as we don't understand why removal of Clause 5 would make the proposal illegal. We thank the representative of Gruenber in advance for patience with our lack of understanding.

If Clause 5 must stay in, we wonder what the point of this legislation then is? Is there any net effect to stating that "All members have X rights except when this body shall decide they don't"?

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We request further explanation, as we don't understand why removal of Clause 5 would make the proposal illegal.

The proposal would contradict with a number of passed resolutions. That makes it illegal. By stating that nations must still obey NSUN legislation, the contradictions are removed.

Ok, anyone have a softer wording for clause 5? Enough flags have been raised that it's clearly unpopular.

Dicey.

Game Effect: Tarrifs are created
Flavor Text: Tarrifs can be created

This may not live up to the requirements of the category.
So it is for every Mild resolution. Of course, there's no Mild qualifier in this, because the category doesn't have that option. Hmm.

Well, what about proposals in other categories with no Mild option? For example, "Support Hemp Production"? The effect of that is "hemp production is supported" [well, it's not, but bear with me]; the text "hemp production can be supported". The same would be true for at least six categories, and several resolutions.

I understand the adherence to the game effect, but does it always work? If Hirota's proposal passes, it will increase human rights in Hirota. Yet I'm betting its provision are already law there. It will have no effect on Hirota, yet the game will register one. Equally, a mild resolution could conceivably have no effect on any nation: what if none of them opt into its schemes or adopt its suggestions?

So, as a direct set of questions:
- would I have to at least encourage the raising or setting of tariffs to qualify?
- if not, would Free Trade, Mild, be acceptable?

The proposal would contradict with a number of passed resolutions. That makes it illegal. By stating that nations must still obey NSUN legislation, the contradictions are removed.

Thank you for the explanation.

We suggest an exception included for previously passed legislation by the UN. This would make it legal, since it wouldn't conflict with passed resolutions, but would give it some teeth in that it would prevent further legislation that contradicted it.

Correct?

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We suggest an exception included for previously passed legislation by the UN. This would make it legal, since it wouldn't conflict with passed resolutions, but would give it some teeth in that it would prevent further legislation that contradicted it.
Ok, I'll spell it out. I don't want it to prevent further legislation.

Clause 5 renders the entire resolution redundant, does it not?

Redundant isn't the word you're looking for, but even when you replace it with, say, arbitrary, no, it does not.

These no-strength-categories are beginning to piss me off...

- would I have to at least encourage the raising or setting of tariffs to qualify?That would be preferable. Supposing a Mild category existed, you'd need what amounts to an URGES clause. Right now, you've almost got nothing but definitions.

Of course, I may just be taking too hard an interpretation of "DECLARES"

- if not, would Free Trade, Mild, be acceptable?Oh lawdy, no. Free Trade's all about demolishing things like tarrifs.

I think including something urging, encouraging, saying-they're-quite-spiffy, or whatever about tariffs would be good. You did raise a good point about :Mild not existing for this, making it a little more difficult. See if you can make an urging clause fit and flow nicely. If it just doesn't work, or feels to forced, I'll reexamine this.