NationStates Jolt Archive

National Economic Rights Act
Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REFFERRING to Section I of Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) in order to better illustrate this resolution,

DISTURBED by the adverse effects of certain aspects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in several underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheaper labor in underdeveloped nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse,

DETERMINED, through this resolution, to enact legislation which can lend a helping hand to those displaced through aspects of free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of underdeveloped nations,

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

4) The UN shall retain its rights to abolish tariffs and embargoes for economic sectors in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods from certain nations;

5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to deem any tariffs or embargoes enacted by UN nations on other UN nations to be void if they violate United Nations law;

AFFIRMING the beneficial nature of certain free trade initiatives, such as UN Resolution #117 (The Microcredit Bazaar), UN Resolution #130 (Global Food Distribution Act), and UN Resolution #154 (Nuclear Energy Research Act),

FURTHER AFFIRMING the rights of all nations to enter into free trade agreements if they so desire,

DISCOURAGING the practice of “dumping” goods and services in matters of international trade in the UN and throughout the world,

ENCOURAGING the practice of “fair trade”, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,

HEREBY enacts the National Economic Rights Act

Co-authored by Tarmsden

If anyone can add input, it would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to re-affirm national rights in the United Nations, but I also want to re-affirm the good that is accomplished by the right kind of free trade initiatives, like clothing for the poor and food for the hungry.

I'd also like to add, if you either love or hate free trade, you are welcome to debate the topic in this thread.

I'm convinced that those who support free trade support it for it's positive aspects, such as less expensive goods for lower class individuals and the providing of necessities to all worldwide, and that those who oppose free trade do so because of some of the negative results, such as job loss in developed nations which can lead to increase rates of drug use, criminal activity, and poverty (just take a look at the USA in the 80's).

This Act neither supports nor opposes free trade, all I sought to do was to provide a nice, sensible, and practical middle ground on the matter that can combat some of the adverse effects of the free trade concepts.

I have only one comment. Don't know if you meant to do this or not, but every place you have written "not forbidden by any UN legislation" should be changed to "not forbidden by any prior UN legislation", or it renders the whole resolution absolutly toothless.

With the current wording, future resolutions either promoting free trade and/or tarrifs can be passed without giving this one a second thought because you have exempted them. If you are set on making tarrifs the choice of nations, then that loophole needs to be closed.

That said, if the loophole is closed, it will mean I for one can't support this because it will turn it into a blocker, and having just abstained on the education resolution for that very reason, I can't really turn around and support it here. Even though I do believe in a governments right to use protective measures if they feel it is best for their nation and its economy.

I have only one comment. Don't know if you meant to do this or not, but every place you have written "not forbidden by any UN legislation" should be changed to "not forbidden by any prior UN legislation", or it renders the whole resolution absolutly toothless.
Well, I'm wondering if it's actually deliberate, based on the discussions from last time, and from Clause 4.

Assuming it is, and that it won't be changed to "prior legislation", I'll support this. If it isn't, then I won't. That's not out of zealous neoliberalism - there are some areas where Gruenberg doesn't support free trade - but because I think it should be judged case-by-case.

As it stands, though, this seems a reasonable affirmation of national rights, that will not prevent future progressive legislation by the UN. So I like it. However:
The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to deem any tariffs or embargoes enacted by UN nations on other UN nations to be void if they violate United Nations law;
I am not sure about the legality of this. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it in terms of authorising the UNFTC to arbitrate disputes.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

It seems that what this basically says is _
1/. Prior resolutions on free trade still apply;
2/. Future resolutions about free trade can still be passed;
3/. Nations can use any protectionist measures on international trade that aren't banned by prior resolutions, unless & until they're banned by future resolutions.

How would this differ from the status quo? Does this proposal actually do anything? If it doesn't actually do anything then isn't it illegal?
(Changing the last two clauses from 'DISCOURAGING' & 'ENCOURAGING' to 'DISCOURAGES' & 'ENCOURAGES' might be enough to get around this problem...)

It seems that what this basically says is _
1/. Prior resolutions on free trade still apply;
2/. Future resolutions about free trade can still be passed;
3/. Nations can use any protectionist measures on international trade that aren't banned by prior resolutions, unless & until they're banned by future resolutions.

How would this differ from the status quo? Does this proposal actually do anything? If it doesn't actually do anything then isn't it illegal?
(Changing the last two clauses from 'DISCOURAGING' & 'ENCOURAGING' to 'DISCOURAGES' & 'ENCOURAGES' might be enough to get around this problem...)

To answer your question the best I can, it does do something. Otherwise I wouldn't have written it. It reaffirms the rights of nations to engage in practices such as protective tariffs and embargoes. Since there is no United Nations legislation that says you can use tariffs, it can't be fully assumed that all UN nations have the right to use them.

It's like why the drafters of the US Constitution decided to add the Bill of Rights. It's to make sure that there was something etched in stone that said you can do such things. I've found it to some extent foolish to assume that if there is no law against it, you can do it.

Also, I think that by saying "discourages" and "encourages'', the legislation sounds a little awkward.

As written, this may affirm the right, but it won't stop a free trade proposal passing a week after it does banning all tarrifs and embargos in all UN nations, because you have exempted future proposals. This won't ensure or protect nations rights to do anything.

All UN nations do have the right to use tarrifs, except where past resolutions say they don't, so this really doesn't do anything except confirm the status quo now, and has no real effect on nations that I can see.

If you really want this to pass as an economics rights act, then you need to give it some teeth.

Well, thinking on a rational level, no universal "UN Free Trade Zone" will be set up in NationStates history, for good reason. In case you haven't noticed (believe me, it actually took me a while to realize it too), people here aren't overwhelmingly "free traders". The only free trade resolutions we've really witnessed were designed to actually do some good in the world. They aren't about corporate greed or lobbying, they're about affecting positive change in this sliver of cyber space we call NationStates.

I'm not talking about changing the system, I'm drafting this legislation because I'd at least like to make a dent in it. I'm not a free trader by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't do anyone any good if we try to push legislation that doesn't have a hope of passing. And believe me, if this legislation is a blocker to further free trade initiatives, it will be repealed by those few organized and committed free traders in the UN.

Either way, I was thinking about the addition of something along the line of "No UN free trade area shall be designated without the repeal of this legislation" or something, but I feel it's unnecessary because a UN initiative to eliminate tariffs and embargoes has no hope of passing.

Don't bet on the idea that a universal free trade proposal would never pass. Not a year ago I laughed at the notion of the old abortion and gay rights resolutions being repealed, now they're gone. If someone wrote a good proposal on the subject, presented it in a positive way, and did the work required to get it to quorum, there is a good chance it would go through.

There has been a capitalist/conservative upsurge in the UN for the last 6 months or so, and there is no reason to believe it won't strengthen in the future.

I do know where you're coming from (believe me I agree), and perhaps this little clause will do the trick:

No universal free trade legislation shall be passed by the United Nations without the repeal of this resolution, as such legislation would infringe upon the economic rights of member nations of the UN;

That would probably be illegal. In general, you can give nations rights, but not actively prohibit the UN from doing something.

No, that would definitely be illegal (in my not-so-humble opinion, of course ;) ).

Actually, clause 4 does seem to give this teeth. A resolution can ban the UN from doing something, as the rules prohibit resolutions from directly contradicting each other without a repeal of the previous resolution.

In English, one could not currently pass a resolution giving every nation the right to ban prostitution without first repealing the "Sex-Industry Workers Act." Along the same logic, no UN free trade zone could be established without first repealing this resolution.

I do agree that the wording is imperfect. Perhaps, instead of saying "given these (insert terminology here) are not forbidden by any UN legislation", Belarum could simply add another clause stating "All previous UN legislation forbidding the use of tariffs, embargoes or taxation policies on certain goods remain valid, unless repealed." That would clear up argument, as I think we are all agreeing in the same concept that older UN legislation is legitimate.

As far as the UN Free Trade Commission goes, why not just word it as "5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to deem any tariffs or embargoes enacted by UN nations on other UN nations to be void if they violate United Nations law as affirmed in clauses 4 and 6;"

Would these changes just end the debate over this?

Actually, clause 4 does seem to give this teeth.
No, it doesn't, insofar as the "teeth" need to correlate to the category.

A resolution can ban the UN from doing something
No, not directly it can't.

Along the same logic, no UN free trade zone could be established without first repealing this resolution.
You can't really claim it's "the same logic" when one starts from a legal axiom, and one from an illegal one. A resolution cannot say "the UN shall not/can not/is prohibited from..." It can say "nations have the right to", but that's it. And I can't see a way of stating the idea of a UN free trade zone being banned in terms of national rights, without being appallingly clumsy or leaving it open to loopholes anyway.

I do agree that the wording is imperfect. Perhaps, instead of saying "given these (insert terminology here) are not forbidden by any UN legislation", Belarum could simply add another clause stating "All previous UN legislation forbidding the use of tariffs, embargoes or taxation policies on certain goods remain valid, unless repealed." That would clear up argument, as I think we are all agreeing in the same concept that older UN legislation is legitimate.
No, that's not what the argument is about. The wording you've suggested would be entirely redundant: this resolution cannot repeal older resolutions so there would be no question of it doing so anyway.

The argument is over this: as it stands, the Belarum proposal does not prevent the UN from passing further free trade resolutions, or in fact completely eroding the rights it sets out.

As far as the UN Free Trade Commission goes, why not just word it as "5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to deem any tariffs or embargoes enacted by UN nations on other UN nations to be void if they violate United Nations law as affirmed in clauses 4 and 6;"
Because that sounds just as ugly, and just as illegal.

Resolutions that have used UNFTC so far have generally said: "Authorises the UNFTC to arbitrate any disputes arising from the interpretation of this resolution." I see nothing wrong with using that.

Would these changes just end the debate over this?
The pointless, boring, legalistic malaise of a debate?
No.

The vague possibility of an actual debate on the merits of free trade and protectionism?
That never really stood much of a chance anyway.

Woah, I kind of feel like we're getting sidetracked a bit. If people want to engage in a talk about the merits of neoliberalism as far as international trade goes, that's fine. But I can't help but feel we're getting bogged down in legalese here. Nothing new has yet to be added to the proposal.

How do people on the boards here feel about an amendment to the draft that states individual UN nations don't have to participate in a universal UN free trade initiative if they deem it a violation of their economic rights should a universal free trade zone be established by the UN?

It would allow nations wishing to adhere to the free trade deals to do so, and it would allow individual nations unwilling to participate to their own devices. So I guess it would be a win-win scenario. I'm not sure of the legality of such a clause, but if some legal eagles (looking at you, Gruenberg, you seem to know your stuff) could chime in it would be appreciated.

How do people on the boards here feel about an amendment to the draft that states individual UN nations don't have to participate in a universal UN free trade initiative if they deem it a violation of their economic rights should a universal free trade zone be established by the UN?

It would allow nations wishing to adhere to the free trade deals to do so, and it would allow individual nations unwilling to participate to their own devices. So I guess it would be a win-win scenario. I'm not sure of the legality of such a clause, but if some legal eagles (looking at you, Gruenberg, you seem to know your stuff) could chime in it would be appreciated.
I'm thinking that it would be deemed illegal under the optionality rules.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

well personally i dont know about it being leagal but i can say one thing if given the option my nation would take the free trade. and thoughs nations that dont want to well stay with your ways in fact it sounds good enough to seem allrite. also how can something be ilegal if it is giveing the OPTION of it. serriously if you dont like what is written do your own thing. Frankly i see nothing wrong with protecting and makeing shure there is protection for Free trade. that is if the member nation wants it protected or not.

the closest example i can think of is a DNR (do not ressesitate order) i mean you could chooise to have a hospitol save your life but by haveing a DNR it dosent becuse you told them you dont want them to do there job. thats pretty much whats being said hear the fact of the matter is. if you want it take it if you dont then dont listen. personally id like someting no matter how poorly written on the books to protect my rights to international trade/Tariffs love it or hate it you must admit that by makeing it an option it dosent sound illegal.

Optional resolutions are explicitly verboten by the proposal rules, so, no.

As to Belarum's suggestion...I'm really not sure. I don't necessarily think it violates the optionality rule - probably future proposals would have to do so, though - but it does seem like it would be illegal for limiting the powers of the UN, or something. I'm not sure.

Let's take a radical new route to this thing and just take out the clause banning a universal free trade zone. Seeing as how this legislation (apparently) can't do that, but does give nations tariff/embargo/taxation rights, it is a de facto solution to the problem. There's no need to come out and explicitly ban future legislation when this resolution inherently does so. In other words, this resolution guarantees protection rights, so another resolution cannot merely delete them.

Case closed.

Let's take a radical new route to this thing and just take out the clause banning a universal free trade zone. Seeing as how this legislation (apparently) can't do that, but does give nations tariff/embargo/taxation rights, it is a de facto solution to the problem. There's no need to come out and explicitly ban future legislation when this resolution inherently does so. In other words, this resolution guarantees protection rights, so another resolution cannot merely delete them.

Case closed.

Already done so.

This legislation, as it stands now, is a re-affirming of national economic rights, including the right of a UN nation to enact tariffs, embargoes, and their own taxation policies on all goods except for goods that the UN deems necessary to be traded freely.

I honestly feel it to be important that these rights are outlined in UN legislation, much like the inalienable rights of the first amendment to the US constitution outlines freedom of speech, the press, assembly, etc. These rights were not being abridged at the moment, but the founding fathers had the forsight to enact this legislation in order to protect the people from tyranny by majority.

All rite pressing on and trying to understand what has just happened.

All this bill is trying to do is affirm the UN’s rights to protect Free Trade and Tariffs among other nations within the UN. (correct me if I am wrong please.)

Further more if that’s what 2 pages of debating were for then let’s clear the air, and yes I have read all of what was said. Now is there anything that could be added to or taken away? That is the real question or should this be not even bothered with until a later date, like keep in your back pocket type of thing. what dose every one think?

I think I still don't understand anything you write.

Also, one tiny cosmetic thing. Could this be title something else? We already have the Nuclear Energy Research Act, which is usually referred to as NERA - the same acronym as this proposal. It'd be less confusing if this were National Economic Rights, or National Taxation Rights Act, or National Trade Rights Act, or so on...

Also, one tiny cosmetic thing. Could this be title something else? We already have the Nuclear Energy Research Act, which is usually referred to as NERA - the same acronym as this proposal. It'd be less confusing if this were National Economic Rights, or National Taxation Rights Act, or National Trade Rights Act, or so on...

OOC: Or we could take the opposite tack and, when creating committees and so forth that will be referred to using an acronym, make sure that its name will be NERA, just to confuse nooblets. :p

Also, one tiny cosmetic thing. Could this be title something else? We already have the Nuclear Energy Research Act, which is usually referred to as NERA - the same acronym as this proposal. It'd be less confusing if this were National Economic Rights, or National Taxation Rights Act, or National Trade Rights Act, or so on...It would likewise be less confusing if we simply referred to this act as NaERA ("NAY-ruh"). ;)

Make note of that first syllable; that's how I'll be voting.

Hmmm, I'd have to tinker with my title. It took me a while to get the National Economic Rights Act title as it was. Here are a few titles I can throw out now:

National Economic Development Act
Economic Rights of UN States Act
Domestic Economic Advancement Act
National Industrial Development Act

Hmmm, I'd have to tinker with my title. It took me a while to get the National Economic Rights Act title as it was. Here are a few titles I can throw out now:

National Economic Development Act
Economic Rights of UN States Act
Domestic Economic Advancement Act
National Industrial Development Act
Right to Restrict Trade
National Trade Restriction Rights
Ban the Ceoranan Anti-Tariff Gun
National Protectionism Rights

?

Whoa aren’t some of the titles that you thought up of a bit harsh I mean certainly you can see that they are taking the free trade route not to mention outlining it further so that free trade rules aren’t so ambiguous.

Keep in mind that this is a rough outline and I believe the more constructive criticism you can give it the better off this will be.

In short I have realized one thing we all want the same thing to make sure there isn’t free trade violations within this proposal so the more time we spend throwing our two cents in and not bashing each other’s opinions the better and more constructive we can make this. or are we going to agree to dissagree?

I honestly feel it to be important that these rights are outlined in UN legislation, much like the inalienable rights of the first amendment to the US constitution outlines freedom of speech, the press, assembly, etc. These rights were not being abridged at the moment, but the founding fathers had the forsight to enact this legislation in order to protect the people from tyranny by majority.

But the only "tyranny by majority" that could actually remove these rights (which I hold nations to possess automatically, at least by default as they haven't specifically been legislated away yet) is the UN General Assembly, by passing further resolutions, and as you have left (and had to leave) that possibility open I still think that this proposal runs into trouble with the "Resolutions must actually do something" rule...
(OOC: In fact, as the Mods' usual interpretation of that rule is "Must do something to justify the associated stat change", I still don't see how just outlining & confirming the nations' current rights -- without making any changes to them -- could ever count as a legal proposal...)

If you added in a line encouraging nations to employ tariffs to prevent price dumping, I think it'd be much more likely to be legal.

National Economic Development Act
Economic Rights of UN States Act
Domestic Economic Advancement Act
National Industrial Development Act
Right to Restrict Trade
National Trade Restriction Rights
Ban the Ceoranan Anti-Tariff Gun
National Protectionism RightsThe title was perfect; all these alternatives suck, quite frankly.

I've got a new line that may clear up legality issues:

ENCOURAGING the deployment of tariffs in order to prevent inequitable and unfair relationships between nations engaged in trade, as well as embargoes as a viable course of action in order to protest the acts of nations,

4) The UN shall retain its rights to abolish tariffs and embargoes for economic sectors in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods from certain nations;

I think you might have problems with this line. You might want to specify the necessities and "beneficial goods" as being such as food, clothing, and inexpensive medicine.

Whoa aren’t some of the titles that you thought up of a bit harsh I mean certainly you can see that they are taking the free trade route not to mention outlining it further so that free trade rules aren’t so ambiguous.

Keep in mind that this is a rough outline and I believe the more constructive criticism you can give it the better off this will be.

In short I have realized one thing we all want the same thing to make sure there isn’t free trade violations within this proposal so the more time we spend throwing our two cents in and not bashing each other’s opinions the better and more constructive we can make this. or are we going to agree to dissagree?

OOC: I'm not sure we all want the same thing. I wanna see some bleedin' punctuation and capitalisation -- in short, real fucking English.

Alright, here is the National Economic Rights Act with several modifications made from the reccomendations in this thread:

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REFFERRING to Section I of Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) in order to better illustrate this resolution,

DISTURBED by the adverse effects of certain aspects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in several underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheaper labor in underdeveloped nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse,

DETERMINED, through this resolution, to enact legislation which can lend a helping hand to those displaced through aspects of free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of underdeveloped nations, as well as reduce the rate of poverty, crime, and drug abuse in developed nations,

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and develop their industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

4) The UN shall retain its rights to abolish tariffs and embargoes for economic sectors in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;

5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to arbitrate disputes arising from the previous four mandates;

ENCOURAGING the deployment of tariffs in order to prevent inequitable and unfair relationships between nations engaged in trade, as well as embargoes as a viable course of action in order to protest the acts of nations,

AFFIRMING the beneficial nature of certain free trade initiatives, such as UN Resolution #117 (The Microcredit Bazaar), UN Resolution #130 (Global Food Distribution Act), and UN Resolution #154 (Nuclear Energy Research Act),

FURTHER AFFIRMING the rights of all nations to enter into free trade agreements if they so desire,

DISCOURAGING the practice of “dumping” goods and services in matters of international trade in the UN and throughout the world,

ENCOURAGING the practice of “fair trade”, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,

HEREBY enacts the National Economic Rights Act

Co-authored by Tarmsden

AFFIRMING the beneficial nature of certain free trade initiatives, such as UN Resolution #117 (The Microcredit Bazaar), UN Resolution #130 (Global Food Distribution Act), and UN Resolution #154 (Nuclear Energy Research Act),
The Microcredit Bazaar had nothing to do with free trade. I wouldn't reference it. In fact, I think this whole clause is unnecessary.

ENCOURAGING the practice of “fair trade”, which is defined as an equitable and fair relationship between the marketers in one nation to the producers in another, actively working to provide the labor of producer nations with livable wages, hours, benefits, and opportunities for advancement,
Category violation. This is Social Justice.

I'll have to re-evaluate this then.

It's a tricky issue. What do you do when one of your countries major industries is sabatoged by another country massively subsidizing their local producers?

Utterly free trade has always seemed to us like the right answer, in the long run. In the short run though it's very tempting to embargo your enemies...

A flood of cheap imports can suck when you lose your job... but in many ways those cheap imports are a gift to your nation.

As with most issues I think the right response is education. Re educate your work force, let them find jobs that will serve them better in the long run.

Anyway, we're undecided on this or future variants.

It's a tricky issue. What do you do when one of your countries major industries is sabatoged by another country massively subsidizing their local producers?

Utterly free trade has always seemed to us like the right answer, in the long run. In the short run though it's very tempting to embargo your enemies...

A flood of cheap imports can suck when you lose your job... but in many ways those cheap imports are a gift to your nation.

As with most issues I think the right response is education. Re educate your work force, let them find jobs that will serve them better in the long run.

Anyway, we're undecided on this or future variants.

For once, I actually agree completely with my colleague from Discoraversalism.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

For once, I actually agree completely with my colleague from Discoraversalism.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We reverse our position ;)

First, this version of the resolution is better than the previous one. Bravo on cleaning up most major points of contention.

Second, I agree with the delegation from Gruenberg that the references to other resolutions is unnecessary. I do, however, support the clause encouraging fair trade, as that does address international trade issues, the advancement of industry and the use of tariffs (conceding that it really is slanted towards social justice).

Third, arguments can be and have been made for or against the benefits of free trade vs. protectionism. In the end, the author of this resolution and I agree that this is a valid debate, and we encourage it in every nation. That is why we believe that this resolution is a necessity, as it prevents both a universal UN free trade zone and any mandates forcing nations to accept tariffs. We hope that you will see the inherent benefits in giving every nation its own power to decide these matters.

I've tinkered with the wording in the "fair trade" clause, and I have removed the "commending free trade initiatives" clause. Check it out:

General Assembly of the United Nations,

REFFERRING to Section I of Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) in order to better illustrate this resolution,

DISTURBED by the adverse effects of certain aspects of free trade in a many number of UN nations, which includes the exploitation of labor in several underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheaper labor in underdeveloped nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse,

DETERMINED, through this resolution, to enact legislation which can lend a helping hand to those displaced through aspects of free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of underdeveloped nations, as well as reduce the rate of poverty, crime, and drug abuse in developed nations,

MANDATES the following:

1) All UN nations have the authority to enact protective tariffs on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and develop their industries, given these tariffs are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

2) All UN nations have the authority to enact embargoes on foreign goods and services in order to protect their labor forces and industries, or as a means of protesting the acts of nations, given these embargoes are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

3) All UN nations have the authority to set their own taxation policies on all foreign goods and services entering their nation, given these taxation policies are not forbidden by any UN legislation;

4) The UN shall retain its rights to abolish tariffs and embargoes for economic sectors in order to prevent the withholding of necessities and beneficial goods such as, but not limited to food, clothing, or medicine from certain nations;

5) The UN Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) shall hold the authority to arbitrate disputes arising from the previous four mandates;

ENCOURAGING the deployment of tariffs in order to prevent inequitable and unfair relationships between nations engaged in trade, as well as embargoes as a viable course of action in order to protest the acts of nations,

AFFIRMING the rights of all nations to enter into free trade agreements if they so desire,

DISCOURAGING the practice of “dumping” goods and services in matters of international trade in the UN and throughout the world,

CONVINCED that these measures will bring about a more equitable and fair relationship between nations engaged in trade,

HEREBY enacts the National Economic Rights Act

Co-authored by Tarmsden

More suggested revisions:
The General Assembly of the United Nations,

REFFERRING to Section I of Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States) in order to better illustrate this resolution,
Don't see what point this serves. Rights and Duties is only relevant insofar as this resolution doesn't contradict it.

DISTURBED by the adverse effects of certain aspects of free trade in a many number of UN nations,
"a number of", or "many". "a many number of" makes no sense.

which includes the exploitation of labor in several underdeveloped nations, the crippling of smaller businesses which cannot compete with multinational corporations with access to cheaper labor in underdeveloped nations, and massive job loss in developed nations, which has been proven to lead to increased rates of crime, poverty, and drug abuse,

You've already said in many nations, so the repetetions of "in...nations" is unnecessary.

DETERMINED, through this resolution, to enact legislation which can lend a helping hand to those displaced through aspects of free trade and outline an effective plan to advance the economies of underdeveloped nations, as well as reduce the rate of poverty, crime, and drug abuse in developed nations,
I don't see how anything in this proposal does any of this, but ok.

MANDATES the following:
"MANDATES" doesn't really make sense. "DECLARES" would be better.

CONVINCED that these measures will bring about a more equitable and fair relationship between nations engaged in trade,
This revision is much better.

There is something missing in this revision i can't place it...but there is something. or mabey im being pesimistic?

There is something missing in this revision i can't place it...but there is something. or mabey im being pesimistic?

I'd agree, but I have a feeling I'd oppose it if anything was added to it.

It's not a blocker is it?

Nope, it's not a blocker.

Nope, it's not a blocker.
Oh good :) It can be hard to tell! Some resolutions (like a lot of the blockers we've seen recently), have been cleverly written not to appear to be blockers.

Congratulations on creating a much better revision. At last, this proposal really seems like it has lost its excess weight and honed in where it needs to. I finally feel a consistent and coherent sense of purpose to this legislation.

I agree with the sentiment that something seems to be missing from this latest rendition. I'm not sure what it is, but it feels like there should be a little more consequence to this. Don't get me wrong, an affirmation of national rights is all we set out to do in the first place, but it seems like there could be a little more.

How about something recommending that nations use any tariff fees collected to improve the standard of living for their citizens, especially those engaged in industry and agriculture? You know, something to make it clear that we want (although really can't mandate) that tariff money goes towards the blue-collar commoners, not the elite ruling or business classes?

I will agree with you on one part the tariff money be put to good use the only downfall is like you said it would be impossible to control… so in essence it may just be better to let the nations decide on what to do with the extra cash they have in there pockets.

Hear is the thing guys and ladies should there be something on the act that says the nations can take the tariff cash and do what they need to do with it or no?

May I add that I liked Tarmsden’s idea I just don’t know if it would even be necessary or if necessary how could it be put in there without it being an Achilles heel.

Like always please correct me if I am off the path.