NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft of a proposal to facilitate the development of transportation technology. Comments?
Transportation Technology Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong/Significant
Description: The United Nations,

REALIZING that the actual transportation of people and goods is an integral part of trade, so

NOTING that improvement in the technologies necessary for this will increase trade between nations and strengthen the global economy,

BELIEVING that it is the duty of the United Nations to encourage advancement of all technologies, including those relating to transportation,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "transportation technology" as any technology used in transportation or transportation mechanisms;
b. "transportation equipment" as any equipment used or planned to be used in transportation or transportation mechanisms, or any equipment used in the research and development of transportation technologies;

2. CREATES the United Nations Legion for Unity in the Development and Deployment Internationally of Transportation Equipment and Solutions (UNLUDDITES) for the purpose of coordinating efforts to improve transportation technologies;

3. IMPLORES nations to cooperate with UNLUDDITES and each other in research and development of transportation technologies and equipment;

4. BANS the use of protectionist devices (including but not limited to tariffs, quotas, embargoes, subsidies, etc) on transportation equipment, excluding protectionist devices on the trade of transportation equipment to or from non-UN member states;

5. PRESERVES the right of nations to restrict, prohibit or tax any mode of transportation, transportation technology, or transportation equipment, provided such restrictions, prohibitions and taxations are imposed equally on domestic and foreign methods, technologies and equipment;

6. PROMOTES and encourages nations to promote modes of transportation that are efficient, clean, environmentally-friendly, and easy-to-use, as well as those that provide seamless transportation between nations.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Bah! This treads on our fluffy revamp of AFTA...

IC: I'm not wild. Whilst I think free trade in this sector is to be promoted, I'm unconvinced of the need for the committee, whose sole point seems to be yet another silly acronym (this one doesn't even work...).

Hence, we would prefer that clause 6 were expanded upon, such that this resolution could be used in repeal attempts on Resolutions #18 and #39.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Comments?Shouldn't ¶5 be “RESERVES” and not “PRESERVES”?

OOC: Oh, were you planning a rewrite of AFTA?

IC: I think the committee serves a fairly useful purpose, although it only really applies to public transportation. Many governments tend to have trouble setting up efficient public transportation systems because there are so many ideas and many of them don't work or aren't acceptable to the public. If there was a central organization committed to helping with the designs and such, so nations would have an easier time building on each other's ideas, public transportation would work better.

OOC/IC: How about turning this into a Free Trade or Environmental proposal on promoting public transportation? A central committee could provide blueprints to help nations get better starts, and trade could be promoted in goods needed to create the systems?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Shouldn't ¶5 be “RESERVES” and not “PRESERVES”?

No, because RESERVES means that I'm blocking stuff like "Right to Ride Bicycles" or whatever. I'm just making a specific clarification from the previous clause.

OOC: Oh, were you planning a rewrite of AFTA?
I thought if we tried something similar to the Nuclear Energy Research Act, only in alternative fuels, and added a nice little rider about trade in alternative fuels, and also in automative parts, it might stand a better chance. But it was only a first thought.

IC: I hadn't picked up that the committee's focus was public transport. Whilst we're ok with that, we're not convinced by its international scope.

... we're not convinced by its international scope.Doesn't “We have concerns about whether this is within the proper scope of operation for the NSUN” sound so much better than, “We have concerns about this on the grounds of national sovereignty”?

<Flashes deceptive “dumb airhead blonde” smile>

Doesn't “We have concerns about whether this is within the proper scope of operation for the NSUN” sound so much better than, “We have concerns about this on the grounds of national sovereignty”?

<Flashes deceptive “dumb airhead blonde” smile>
What?

What?Never mind.

OK. How about this for a draft?
Mass Transit Initiative
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that mass transit can be a good mode of transportation, owing to its use of one vehicle for multiple people or goods,

NOTING that this reduces environmental and logistical problems stemming from private vehicles, therefore

BELIEVING that it is in the public interest to promote mass transit,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "mass transit" as the movement of multiple people or goods by a third party and "mass transit system" as a system by which this is done;

2. STRONGLY URGES nations to implement government-operated mass transit systems in their nation, or contract or encourage private companies to do so;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to set up the infrastructure necessary for mass transit, such as railroad tracks, roads, etc.;

3. BANS the use of protectionist devices (including but not limited to tariffs, quotas, duties, etc., but specifically excluding subsidies) on the trade of equipment used in mass transit systems between UN nations, such as vehicles, logistical software, etc., as well as taxes on the crossing of borders by mass transit vehicles;

4. URGES nations to share information relating to advanced methods of implementing or running mass transit systems, in order to improve the quality of mass transit in UN nations;

5. ENCOURAGES nations to set up cooperative systems between each other to facilitate the travel of mass transit vehicles across national borders;

6. PROMOTES mass transit systems that are environmentally friendly, safe, clean, and efficient.

You have two clause 3's.

3. BANS the use of protectionist devices (including but not limited to tariffs, quotas, duties, etc., but specifically excluding subsidies) on the trade of equipment used in mass transit systems between UN nations, such as vehicles, logistical software, etc., as well as taxes on the crossing of borders by mass transit vehicles;
Where it says "used in mass transit systems between UN nations", does that mean:
- PDs on mass transit systems between UN nations, or
- PDs between UN nations on mass transit systems

The latter makes more sense, and is I think what you mean...but it's not clear from the draft.

Also, I dislike the "as well as taxes..." line. For one thing, that would prevent the use of fuel mile taxation, which seems to run counter to everything in this proposal.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

You have two clause 3's.


Where it says "used in mass transit systems between UN nations", does that mean:
- PDs on mass transit systems between UN nations, or
- PDs between UN nations on mass transit systems

The latter makes more sense, and is I think what you mean...but it's not clear from the draft.
Well, I actually meant to ban PDs on stuff used in mass transit system, like the actual vehicles and stuff. But now that you bring it up, banning protectionist devices on stuff transported via mass transit would be a great way to promote mass transit - companies will be much more inclined to use a huge, efficient train instead of their own little van because they wouldn't have to pay tariffs on the stuff on the train.

Also, I dislike the "as well as taxes..." line. For one thing, that would prevent the use of fuel mile taxation, which seems to run counter to everything in this proposal.

I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with fuel mile taxation...? That line was supposed to ban the mass transit company having to pay a toll at a border, but do you see any unintended consequences of that?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Well, I actually meant to ban PDs on stuff used in mass transit system, like the actual vehicles and stuff. But now that you bring it up, banning protectionist devices on stuff transported via mass transit would be a great way to promote mass transit - companies will be much more inclined to use a huge, efficient train instead of their own little van because they wouldn't have to pay tariffs on the stuff on the train.
No, you misunderstand...

The way the clause is written at the moment, it reads like it applies to "mass transit systems between UN nations" - i.e. a Gruenberg-Ceorana train network. But, I assume, "between UN nations" is meant to apply to the protectionist devices...so protectionist devices between UN nations are banned.

No, you misunderstand...

The way the clause is written at the moment, it reads like it applies to "mass transit systems between UN nations" - i.e. a Gruenberg-Ceorana train network. But, I assume, "between UN nations" is meant to apply to the protectionist devices...so protectionist devices between UN nations are banned.

Ah. Okay. I guess that clause doesn't really make a whole lot of sense as it is.

Although I'm still kind of thinking about mandating a reduction of protectionist devices when the goods are transported via mass transit...maybe cutting them by 25% over a number of years?

So now we have...
Mass Transit Initiative
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that mass transit can be a good mode of transportation, owing to its use of one vehicle for multiple people or goods,

NOTING that this reduces environmental and logistical problems stemming from private vehicles, therefore

BELIEVING that it is in the public interest to promote mass transit,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "mass transit" as the movement of multiple people or goods by a third party and "mass transit system" as a system by which this is done;

2. ENCOURAGES nations to implement government-operated mass transit systems in their nation, or contract or encourage private companies to do so;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to set up the infrastructure necessary for mass transit, such as railroad tracks;

4. BANS the use of protectionist devices (including but not limited to tariffs, quotas, duties, etc., but specifically excluding subsidies) against fellow UN nations on the trade of equipment used in the construction, implementation or operation of mass transit systems, such as vehicles, logistical software, etc., as well as taxes on the crossing of borders by mass transit vehicles;

5. CALLS FOR the elimination of protectionist devices (including but not limited to tariffs, quotas, duties, etc., but specifically excluding subsidies) on the trade of any goods transported by mass transit systems;

6. URGES nations to share information relating to advanced methods of implementing or running mass transit systems, in order to improve the quality of mass transit in UN nations;

7. ENCOURAGES nations to set up cooperative systems between each other to facilitate the travel of mass transit vehicles across national borders;

8. PROMOTES mass transit systems that are environmentally friendly, safe, clean, and efficient;

9. AUTHORIZES the UN Free Trade Commission to arbitrate disputes arising from the implementation of this resolution.

Please forgive us for being blunt, and meaning no disrespect to our distinguished colleague from Ceorana, but we feel strongly on this issue. Once more we have father-knows-best trying to cram the holy principle of free trade down the throats of 30,000 nations, whether it makes sense in their individual economic circumstances or not. We have nothing against the principle of free trade. We certainly would see nothing wrong with nations embracing the principle through bilateral or multilateral treaties. But we see no justification whatever for the NSUN to force-feed it to everyone.

We would support a proposal which encouraged and facilitated the sharing of transportation technology, particularly the establishment of safety and operating standards. But we're frankly tired of seeing proposal after proposal, many with good provisions in them, marred by these attempts to remove nations' ability to set economic policy which accommodates their needs.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We thank you for your comments, and this is indeed an issue upon which we disagree. However, our main goal here has become to promote the use and implementation of mass transit systems, which we believe are beneficial to both the environment and to the daily lives of people, not simply free trade, if you have any ideas for accomplishing that goal differently, we'd be glad to hear them.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Frankly I just don't get it. I can't see how it can be a free trade issue. Mass transit systems are for the most part purchased by governments. They don't need to set up protectionist measures they can simply refuse to buy. Thus this is less of a "free trade" issue than a question of open precurment.

The question of taxes on cross border mass transportation systems is even more stranger. Bridges generally have tolls on them based on vechicle size, or tolls could be placed on a per person basis. The notion that non mass transportation systems (which might be more environmentally friendly than mass transportation systems - compare an electric car to a diesel train) can be taxed but mass transportation systems cannot is grossly unfair and arbitrary.

Frankly I just don't get it. I can't see how it can be a free trade issue. Mass transit systems are for the most part purchased by governments. They don't need to set up protectionist measures they can simply refuse to buy. Thus this is less of a "free trade" issue than a question of open precurment.

The question of taxes on cross border mass transportation systems is even more stranger. Bridges generally have tolls on them based on vechicle size, or tolls could be placed on a per person basis. The notion that non mass transportation systems (which might be more environmentally friendly than mass transportation systems - compare an electric car to a diesel train) can be taxed but mass transportation systems cannot is grossly unfair and arbitrary.

Yeah...I agree that I'm probably going about this the wrong way. Many mass transit systems are operated privately (think airlines), but it doesn't quite seem coherent. I think I'll com back to this in a few months with a clean slate.

While I applaud the representative from Ceorana for writing a largely sovereignty-friendly draft, I would prefer it if a clause were added making room for nations to reject this policy on reasonable grounds given their financial or technological circumstances.

Hellar Gray