NationStates Jolt Archive

Here’s another ‘Free Trade’ proposal that I drafted recently _

Commercial Law Agreement

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that international trade can allow nations and their peoples to benefit from access to wider ranges of materials and products than exist locally,

NOTING that this trade may be hindered by differences in contractual law and other relevant legislation between or even within nations, that the people and businesses involved may face problems if they have to bring cases in foreign courts, and that concern about such potential problems may itself deter them from this trade;

1. ACCEPTS that nations and (where national laws allow this) their political sub-units have the right to pass and use their own laws in this field, except as any earlier UN Resolutions that are still in force might specify otherwise;

2. URGES the nations to work towards harmonisation of these laws;

3. REQUIRES that any lawsuits about matters of international trade be judged and enforced without unfair discrimination on the grounds of nationality, and that courts make suitable interpreters available if plaintiffs or defendants need such assistance during those cases;

4. ESTABLISHES the ‘UN Commercial Law Executive’ (or ‘UNCLE’), which shall maintain at least one branch in each UN member-nation that allows international trade, for the following purposes_
A. To codify the relevant national and local laws, and to compare them with the equivalent laws from other jurisdictions;
B. To identify any cases where those laws contradict UN Resolutions that are currently in force and are themselves therefore not currently valid;
C. To make advice based on this information generally available, and to help in the drafting of valid contracts about international trade, upon request and upon the payment of reasonable fees;
D. To hold copies of contracts about international trade, if requested to do so by their signatories;
E. To assist in finding suitable interpreters if and when these are needed either for commercial negotiations, in which case it may charge reasonable fees for its help, or for lawsuits about international trade in which case the relevant courts shall meet any costs involved;
F. To draft a new ‘Uniform Commercial Law’ (or ‘UCL’) that covers all relevant topics in as clear and consistent a manner as possible, both for current use and to serve as a possible model for international harmonisation of law on this subject;

5. REQUIRES that national (and, where relevant, sub-national) governments recognise any contracts about international trade that are drawn up under the UCL as legally binding within their jurisdictions, and agree either to try any resultant lawsuits properly through their own legal systems or to let UNCLE establish its own courts there for that purpose;

6. ELCUIDATES that UNCLE shall have no ‘police’ powers;

7. REQUIRES that national governments recognise UNCLE branches as equivalent to diplomatic missions, granting their personnel all the applicable rights and immunities, but also that UNCLE prevent any consequent abuse of those rights and immunities;

8. AGREES that UNCLE will also open branches in any non-member nations whose governments request this, if those nations agree to comply fully with this Resolution (to the same extent that UN member-nations would have to do so, which includes ensuring that any subordinate governments they might have also comply) and to pay reasonable contributions towards UNCLE’s overall budget.

It’s already had a test-run (Friday to Monday), during which it received thirty-something approvals, and has just been re-submitted. If we can get it passed then it will boost all UN member-nations’ economies, so I hope that those of you who are Delegates will give it your approval...

Uncle?

edit: and why isn't it letting me type it UNCLE up there^?

edit: and why isn't it letting me type it UNCLE up there^?
(I think) Jolt has an anti-shout function: if your post is all caps, it automatically changes it to lower case.

I don't understand it. I never followed a law that I didn't understand, but if it promotes trade it must be good.

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

I don't understand it. I never followed a law that I didn't understand, but if it promotes trade it must be good.

Says it all, really. Though I have to say that the idea of UNCLE not having police powers is just wrong :-)

Aside from possible jokes about the representative of the committee being the "Man from UNCLE" I find no objections to this well writen proposal.

:D

This is certainly a well-crafted resolution and, in the main, seems deserving of support. However, we have a serious objection to one provision: Article 7.

Article 7 requires governments to recognize UNCLE branches as "equivalent to diplomatic missions, granting their personnel all the applicable rights and immunities". This appears to require governments to grant diplomatic immunity to all UNCLE representatives and employees in country. This is in clear contradiction to NSUNR #127, which provides:

EMPHASISING that the decision to grant diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the nation in which the diplomat is to be serving (hereafter referred to as the host nation), and that diplomatic immunity may be revoked by either the host nation or the nation that the person represents (hereafter referred to as the home nation)

If this clause were removed, we would quite likely support the resolution. As it stands, we must oppose it and, in fact, consider asking for its deletion on the grounds of violation of the Contradiction rule. We apologize to the author for not raising this issue earlier in the preparation of the proposal. Circumstances precluded our giving it the attention it deserves. We hope he will see fit to redraft the proposal with the offending clause removed.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Oops! I'd forgotten about that clause of the DIplomatic Immunity resolution (although of course I was actually referring to the general concept of diplomatic rights, rather than to the specifc rules covered there, because otherwise that would have been a breach of the HoC rule...).

Umm.

That might need re-writing, I agree... From context, does the DI clause refer to the rejection of specific indivdiduals -- which would presumably still be possible under this proposal, if the nations concerned were following the DI resolution rather than older traditions -- or allow for the rejection of complete missions?

(Don't worry about not having mentioned tthis point earlier in the drafting: In fact I didn't actually post any drafts here, and only opened this thread after my initial submission of the proposal...)

Oops! I'd forgotten about that clause of the DIplomatic Immunity resolution (although of course I was actually referring to the general concept of diplomatic rights, rather than to the specifc rules covered there, because otherwise that would have been a breach of the HoC rule...).

Umm.

That might need re-writing, I agree... From context, does the DI clause refer to the rejection of specific indivdiduals -- which would presumably still be possible under this proposal, if the nations concerned were following the DI resolution rather than older traditions -- or allow for the rejection of complete missions?

(Don't worry about not having mentioned tthis point earlier in the drafting: In fact I didn't actually post any drafts here, and only opened this thread after my initial submission of the proposal...)

Under NSUNR #127, the decision to grant or revoke diplomatic immunity is the exclusive prerogative of the host nation. Whether done on a person-by-person basis or for people as a group really isn't germane. The NSUN cannot mandate that a nation do it.

Looking at the clause again, we have a suggestion: insert "and consider" before "granting". That would be reasonable and perfectly in accord with the "Diplomatic Immunity" resolution.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I fear that it’s not quite going to reach quorum this time either, anyway, and so I hope that the Mods will leave it in the list just so that I can see who else approves it before it runs out of time… but if it does get removed early due to this apparent clash then I’ll understand and accept the fact gracefully.
During the last few hours I found the time in which to draft the following possible probable re-write for the “offending” clause:
7. DECLARES that UNCLE branches shall count as diplomatic missions, with all UNCLE staff whose presence the host nations accept having all the normal diplomatic privileges, but that UNCLE will prevent any abuse of those privileges by its staff;
Does that seem acceptable, in your opinion?

I fear that it’s not quite going to reach quorum this time either, anyway, and so I hope that the Mods will leave it in the list just so that I can see who else approves it before it runs out of time… but if it does get removed early due to this apparent clash then I’ll understand and accept the fact gracefully.
During the last few hours I found the time in which to draft the following possible probable re-write for the “offending” clause:

7. DECLARES that UNCLE branches shall count as diplomatic missions, with all UNCLE staff whose presence the host nations accept having all the normal diplomatic privileges, but that UNCLE will prevent any abuse of those privileges by its staff;

Does that seem acceptable, in your opinion?

We'd be hard-pressed to argue that the clause, as amended, was actually a violation of NSUNR #127. It would depend on what was considered "normal" diplomatic practice. We'd much prefer the clause as we suggested it be rewritten:

7. REQUIRES that national governments recognise UNCLE branches as equivalent to diplomatic missions and consider granting their personnel all the applicable rights and immunities, but also that UNCLE prevent any consequent abuse of those rights and immunities;

This clearly removes any possible contradiction of the extant resolution, and we think it serves the purpose without muddying the issue. It might also be worthwhile to remove "equivalent to". That would remove another possible point of question: what the "equivalency" means.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

"Normal" diplomatic processes include the right of a nation to refuse to entertain a diplomatic mission from another nation at all. That right clearly doesn't exist in relation to UNCLE, so I'd have to go with Ambassador Thwerdock's version to feel at all comfortable about the idea.

Having thought a bit more deeply that "I don't like this" about the proposal, this bit worries me a lot:

F. To draft a new ‘Uniform Commercial Law’ (or ‘UCL’) that covers all relevant topics in as clear and consistent a manner as possible, both for current use and to serve as a possible model for international harmonisation of law on this subject;

5. REQUIRES that national (and, where relevant, sub-national) governments recognise any contracts about international trade that are drawn up under the UCL as legally binding within their jurisdictions, and agree either to try any resultant lawsuits properly through their own legal systems or to let UNCLE establish its own courts there for that purpose;
This gives a very mixed message as to what UCL is supposed to be. 4.F says that it's a model for international harmonization. 5 says that it's part of your national law, like it or lump it (otherwise your own legal system would have nothing to rule on). Given that it's drawn up by a UN organisation, apparently on a global basis and without reference back to the General Assembly, it can't be both.

I don't want it anyway, since "one size fits all legislation" tends to actually be "one size fits none", and it's one of the really obvious ways that free trade becomes unfair trade, but either way this apparent self-contradiction needs resolving.