NationStates Jolt Archive

DRAFT:

Description: This present decision was decided from assembly by the United Nations and in order to activate the previous drawing, the following paragraphs were shaped, based on the new international, commercial rights:

The current resolution applies only to businesses and multinational companies and only for expansions within UN nations.

1. Every nation must provide the means and the following rights for every business/company that wishes to extend in their nation, in order to ensure the commerce a sure position in the national economic resources.

Therefore a member nation
must provide the following rights:

2a. The right of safe importing-exporting within the nation's territory(open seaports, new security measures, etc.).

2b. The guarantee of national services

2c. The benefit of possibility of exploitation(nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale)of natural resources(parks, mining, cotton, etc.).

2d. The right of protection of the business/company during a war, or any other violent event, period, however with the compulsory benefit of help from the protected commerce.

3. Finally, every UN nation must relax it's frontier policing(without any serious changes) only for every business/company that wishes to extend to other member nations.

I know this has passed the UN delegates' table but i really want to improve it and have another shot.
In my opinion, apparently, 2c is a really cruel paragraph, any other ideas?

Description: This present decision was decided from assembly by the United Nations and in order to activate the previous drawing, the following paragraphs were shaped, based on the new international, commercial rights:

Before I read any further...er...what?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

lol....i thought it would have been...well...confusing...
anyway,
an assembly of the UN decided to establish new commercial rights and they shaped the following paragraphs...

The entire resolution's generally cruel. If my understanding is correct, this would force open UN nations' markets to MNCs and allow them to use a nation's resources to their hearts' content.

To make it less cruel you may have to strike out or drastically tone down 2c. It may run amok with other (environmental) resolutions. But I am not a mod.

2a raises a question: What if, for instance, that MNC is involved in the production of munitions, and it exports ammunition to a country at war with its nation of residence? 2a may be violated, as well as 2d.

2b. What are these "national services"???

3. How are you going to tell if frontier policing is relaxed (and its should be used.)?? And the term frontier policing is rather untenable-looking for me. Also the word only in this section can be construed to mean that "frontier policing" will be relaxed only for MNCs.

And maybe you can add some general aims of the resolution. That way we would know what exactly would this resolution wants to do.

As it stands, this version probably has to be toned down quite a lot to placate natsov people, command economy folks, and probably a lot of UN people.

well, i guess you are right...i need some time though. Thanks for the tips. I will change it as soon as possible

1. Every nation must provide the means and the following rights for every business/company that wishes to extend in their nation, in order to ensure the commerce a sure position in the national economic resources.
The nation must supply the means? Isn't that the business's responsibility? I'm generally supportive of free trade and creating a healthy business environment, but I also believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to the marketplace.

2b. The guarantee of national services
What is this?

2c. The benefit of possibility of exploitation(nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale)of natural resources(parks, mining, cotton, etc.).
Define "big scale". Also, parks? And why specify cotton?

3. Finally, every UN nation must relax it's frontier policing(without any serious changes) only for every business/company that wishes to extend to other member nations.
Relax frontier policing? Why? What has that to do with trade, or do you consider smuggling to be a component of trade?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Relax frontier policing? Why? What has that to do with trade, or do you consider smuggling to be a component of trade?



A prelude to invasion perhaps?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

1. Every nation must provide the means and the following rights for every business/company that wishes to extend in their nation, in order to ensure the commerce a sure position in the national economic resources.

We'd question this from the very beginning. We feel that a nation should have the right to "provide the means and rights" only to businesses that they want in their nation, not to every business that comes along. If Bob's Mutating Toxic Waste Co. wants to build a big toxic waste dump on the grounds of our Royal Palace, for example, we'd like to be able to tell them to screw off. For that reason, the rest of the proposal simply would never pass muster with us. We would be particularly concerned with clauses 2c and 3:

2c. The benefit of possibility of exploitation(nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale)of natural resources(parks, mining, cotton, etc.).

We may be reading this wrong, but this seems to imply to us that we would need to let any company that comes along "exploit" our natural resources. That's a decision we prefer to leave totally up to our government, and our government alone.

3. Finally, every UN nation must relax it's frontier policing(without any serious changes) only for every business/company that wishes to extend to other member nations.

We would also prefer to be the only ones to get to decide what our border security policies are.

Incidentally, we also find the proposal a bit wishy-washy and ambivalent with its wording. Phrases like "nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale" and "without any serious changes" are really too ambiguous for our liking, especially on such important matters as our environment and our border security.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Good Lord! In the US, there is less Legaleese needed to register you for the Selective Service then in the first part of this resolution. And if I'm translating right, it's saying that any nation from anywhere can come in and explore for and use any natural resource my nation may have, even if it's in the middle of a national nature preserve.

No, No, Hell no.

Nations have a right to establish tariffs. Trade whith whom they want and under what conditions. This draft would errode national sovereignty and would indtroduce capitalism into nations that are dictatorships of the proletariat.

We stand opposed to this measure in its entirety.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

DRAFT:

Description: This present decision was decided from assembly by the United Nations and in order to activate the previous drawing, the following paragraphs were shaped, based on the new international, commercial rights:

The current resolution applies only to businesses and multinational companies and only for expansions within UN nations.

might want to simplify this part.


1. Every nation must provide the means and the following rights for every business/company that wishes to extend in their nation, in order to ensure the commerce a sure position in the national economic resources.

Therefore a member nation
must provide the following rights

2a. The right of safe importing-exporting within the nation's territory(open seaports, new security measures, etc.).

That's not fair, If a nation has a no-nucleaur policy and N00KS 4U wants to expand into their nation they have absolutely no power to tell them no.



2b. The guarantee of national services

to whom?

2c. The benefit of possibility of exploitation(nothing that can harm the environment in a big scale)of natural resources(parks, mining, cotton, etc.).

You might want to change "in a big scale" to "on a large scale". So wouldn't this let mining companies operate in protected areas if there was a mineral under by entirely legal means?


2d. The right of protection of the business/company during a war, or any other violent event, period, however with the compulsory benefit of help from the protected commerce.

what?


3. Finally, every UN nation must relax it's frontier policing(without any serious changes) only for every business/company that wishes to extend to other member nations.

ins't it kinda self-contradictory by adding without any serious changes bit?




The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

No, no, a thousand times no.

I will unhesitatingly vote against any recognisable variant of this proposal as a truly evil encroachment on our national values.

well...

Well this draft is a waste of the UN's time. I do not think there will be broad support for this poorly written peice of garbage.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador

Thank you very much for your open sincerity. You don't even think that modifications will transform this "piece of garbage"?

Actually I can think of a modification that would help. But involves a paper shreader, or if your country doesnt have one of those...perhaps a goat.

It is the inalienable right of sovereign nations to determine what persons, goods and companies may conduct business, enter or otherwise occupy space on their homeland soils.

Antranig Zylovnov.
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador.

Thank you very much for your open sincerity. You don't even think that modifications will transform this "piece of garbage"?
Well, I don't think the resolution's bottom line won't sit well with a most nations in the UN. To be frank, I don't believe this idea is going to take off... but you can always try ;).

A lot of modifications (that is an understatement) is going to be needed to make this more palatable. And in the process, even if this'll fail, probably you'll get the feel of writing a resolution - good for your next attempt.

Thank you very much for your open sincerity. You don't even think that modifications will transform this "piece of garbage"?

There's an expression that comes to mind: "You can put lipstick on a womp rat, but it's still a womp rat."

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

i think i saw the dead end

The right of protection of the business/company during a war, or any other violent event, period, however with the compulsory benefit of help from the protected commerce.

Would that protection apply to a business who's assets were destroyed by an act of war? As read I believe it leave our business open to legal action should the county be attacked.

Sam Seeborn
UN Ambassador
The United States Of Philimbesi