NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi, just wanting your opinion for a potential proposal that I have had some time wanted to do buut now I'm actually wanting to do it, but I need some ideas.

Basic Concept:

1. Not to legalise or illegalise trade of controversial items (such as arms and drugs)

2. Enshrine rights for nations to decide what they require of trade ships.

3. Honest records about what is actually on board...

4. Other potential items regulating but not restricting trade

I'm jusdt wanting peoples opinions before I try and draft something, should there be something included or couuld there be issues with the goals that I might need to be aware of.

Thanks

The Basic concept sounds fine to me. The proof is in the pudding apparently.

You need to be sure to categorize it correctly. If you put restrictions or regulations on trade, it can't be categorized as "Free Trade". It also doesn't strike me as a great fit with "Advancement of Industry / Protective Tariffs", though that's probably what it would end up needing to be. It could be written to incorporate something from "Social Justice" or "International Security" if you wanted to take it in that direction. However, you can only pick one of these. There is no such thing as a crossover proposal.

Read the category descriptions in Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) carefully and use that as your base. Once you've chosen a direction, THEN you should post your draft.

You need to be sure to categorize it correctly. If you put restrictions or regulations on trade, it can't be categorized as "Free Trade".

The recent copyright legislation exactly put restrictions and regulations on trade, and was categorized as "Free Trade." How would this be different?

The recent copyright legislation exactly put restrictions and regulations on trade, and was categorized as "Free Trade." How would this be different?
Strictly speaking, it probably shouldn't have gone through as Free Trade, but the author provided a decent rationalization."CONCLUDING that an international convention on copyrights would give authors an incentive to market their work both internationally and nationally, improving economies through increased trade,"If the author of this one can convince us that his proposal is "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce," without contradicting himself in the text, then it would probably be OK.

We're pretty limited in our choices here. At least make an effort to fit within the terms of those choices.

Strictly speaking, it probably shouldn't have gone through as Free Trade, but the author provided a decent rationalization."CONCLUDING that an international convention on copyrights would give authors an incentive to market their work both internationally and nationally, improving economies through increased trade,"If the author of this one can convince us that his proposal is "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce," without contradicting himself in the text, then it would probably be OK.

We're pretty limited in our choices here. At least make an effort to fit within the terms of those choices.

I agree the intent of the copyright resolution was to help economies and increase trade. (As most probably know by know I disagree as to whether that would be the effect). Even so, increasing trade is very different from freeing trade.

This is a political body, and it's no surprise people stick to politically popular language. Copyright sounds better then "artificial monopoly" and free trade sounds better then, "help our economies at the price of yours."

However that resolution did not lead to more freedoms in trading, and this one would. Or at least I hope it would, I'm having trouble guessing the authors intent :) However it seems to be an attempt to discourage covert shipment of goods by encouraging trade ships to be honest in their manifests.

Currently, it's in the interest of trade ships to only describe their cargo as much as absolutely necessary. Too many nations raid or seize ships holding cargo they do not agree with. The purpose of the resolution seems to be to give trade ships greater freedom to carry a wider assortment of goods, and thereby encourage them to be more honest in their manifests.

If draconian copyright measure count as "free trade" then this certainly does.

Something about openness in trade should, I think, be under Furtherment of Democracy.

But I also think it could be swung around to be Free Trade, if the preamble argues it as such.

snip unnecessary post about copyrights
Would the representative from Discoraversalism please shut about copyrights, especially in threads that have nothing to do with them.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

Would the representative from Discoraversalism please shut about copyrights, especially in threads that have nothing to do with them.
The Gruenberger delegation breaks into wild spontaneous applause.

Would the representative from Discoraversalism please shut about copyrights, especially in threads that have nothing to do with them.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

Fine fine. I had hoped to walk the line, using the copyright legislation as an example of legislation passed under the heading of "free trade" that fit the definition worse then this. It's very hard for me to avoid ranting on the subject.