GA Resolution: Ethics in International Trade

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Ethics in International Trade
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs
Proposed by: Unibotian WA Mission


Description: The General Assembly,

Recognizing that an economic disincentive will discourage extreme risks (see c.1) to national populations,

1. Imposes an ethical and ad valorem tariff on any imported good that features one or several of the following criteria:

Said imported goods were manufactured, recovered or generated by those (excluding non-sentient employees, ex. Automata) who do not have,
1.a) The capacity to complete the workload of their occupation, while continuing to actively pursue an education and/or remain in a dignified state of mental and physical health;
1.b) An entitlement to,
• Clean water, sanitation and/or nutrition;
• Assured security --while at their workplace-- from violence, rape, abuse, poisoning and torture from people related to their workplace;
• Sleep, recovery, leisure and rest;
• Fair and just remuneration for the work they provide (unless their work is voluntary and entered into without being pressured, mislead or coerced), that will ensure them and their dependents a dignified existence, if no social protection exists for them otherwise;

2.a) Declares that the set percentage of an ad valorem tariff on each specific imported good’s market value (relevant to c.1), shall be decided by the International Trade Administration (ITA), with consideration from input by any nation or commercial entity;
2.b) Requires the ITA to also consider the following details of each product and their source when finalizing the set percentage:
• The product’s fulfillment of the aforementioned criteria that were stipulated in c.1;
• The source’s current economic strength and development and its reasonable capacity to provide laborers with the rights, entitlements and securities that were stipulated in c.1;
• The competitiveness of the international market, concerning said product;
• The market value and demand for said product;
• Price elasticity of demand, and consumer necessities for said product;
• Any existing past transgressions by the source, regarding attempted circumvention of tariffs;
2.c) Reaffirms that the ITA can rule a zero-percentage of a product's market value as being an acceptable tariff if their considerations (ex. necessity goods) suggest that a robust tariff would be unethical and/or unfair;

3.a) Affirms the freedom of all nations, as well as corporate or commercial entities to request an appeal for any decision made by the ITA;
3.b) Further Affirms the duty of the ITA to consider any legitimate request for an appeal, and in a timely fashion, reevaluate the contested decision;
3.c) Entrusts the ITA with the duty to store all collections from this ethical tariff in the 'WA Humanitarian Fund' for allocation (without running a deficit) to the various social justice and humanitarian programs of the World Assembly;

4. Obligates all member-nations -- within their own borders -- to make a coordinated effort to report to the World Assembly and prevent any distribution and/or sale of goods that have circumvented this ethical tariff, or otherwise were in the process of circumvention.

[Guy]

Your Delegate urges a yes vote.

[Walabamba]

Hmmmmm... I think I'll vote for this one.

[Eist]

Oct 20, 2010 1:58:42 GMT -5 Guy said:

Your Delegate urges a yes vote.

Why this one in particular? I've never seen you write this before.

I voted for by the way..

[Guy]

Oh, well, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think this is a great resolution, one of the most-important ones we've had lately. Instead of forming some irrelevant committee, this one will increase the quality of life for quite a lot of people.

Secondly, I didn't have time to write anything longer, so I tried maximising the effect of my short message.

[Cerb]

I can't sign off on it. It states that all employees become entitled to food. I disagree.
They are entitled to fair remuneration which they can then use to purchase food.

They are entitled to food being available for sale. Just because someone is employed by my company does not mean that I then have a legal requirement to ensure they can get decent chow in the place.

They are entitled to clean water and air free of toxins. Nutrition? no.

[Eist]

Oct 20, 2010 16:14:35 GMT -5 Guy said:

Oh, well, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think this is a great resolution, one of the most-important ones we've had lately. Instead of forming some irrelevant committee, this one will increase the quality of life for quite a lot of people.

Secondly, I didn't have time to write anything longer, so I tried maximising the effect of my short message.

Fair enough. I agree, it is a great resolution.

[Guy]

Cerb:

1.b) An entitlement to,
• Clean water, sanitation and/or

[/b] nutrition;[/quote]

And there is no obligation for you to provide them with food, as I read it. The tariff will help workers which can't afford food and don't have an entitlement for it.

[ImperialPoland]

*sigh* i really don't want to argue this one but i will say that the overall feel of the proposal ticks me off a little (hell, maybe its the wording). if i find something that convinces me to vote otherwise in the ensuing debate, I'll change my position.

[Magthere]

I'm for this

[La Vida De Sangre]

It looks good for me. Voted FOR.

[Harpoon Man Henrik]

(in case anybody has forgotten, Harpoon Man Henrik = Krioval)

I have to argue against this resolution for several reasons.

First, some nations do not guarantee the basic necessities due to extreme poverty. Krioval has many programs designed to assist developing nations to improve labor conditions through trade. Gradually, we help make developing economies more independent so that they don't have to rely on international aid to sustain their populations. This resolution would force us to collect a tax from developing nations to sustain this arrangement, and the money collected would be distributed by a WA committee. Our programs would be endangered.

Second, the idea of using economic protectionism to further international aid seems counterintuitive to me. Reducing international trade seems like it would eliminate sources of wealth development. Krioval would rather fund more direct social justice programs than to use punitive tariffs. Besides, economic protectionism just seems to carry a tinge of xenophobia - it creates an us versus them mentality ("our industry needs to be protected from them") regardless of its intent.

Third, and admittedly much more political, I am uncomfortable with the WA trying to impose laws on non-WA states. I am completely in favor of improving the quality of people's lives, but the WA is supposed to be a voluntary institution, and as a result, it should not be attempting to legislate on nations that cannot vote on that legislation (at least for GA resolutions).

Well, those are my arguments against. I hope that this wasn't too long, and interested nations should contact Unibot if they are interested in their arguments in favor.

[Kanaia]

EDIT: FOR
Uni's response has explained it to me better:
UNIBOT:
""Do we put tariffs on their goods, and therefore make the goods less likely to be bought, simply because they are not developed enough to have better living conditions? "

I foresaw this and there is a clause that allows the ITA to rule a 0% tariff if they see a tariff is ethically undeserved.

"This would give the WA a huge ability to regulate trade as they see fit. The ITA could put fees and tariffs on anything at any percentage they want while only needing to "consider" nations input and predicament. This leads to the WA having power that is ripe for rampant abuse: Your water isn't clean enough around your dairy processing plants? 75% tariff on your cheese exports! Your mill workers aren't getting enough vacation days? 90% tariff on your steel exports! "

Although those are gross exaggerations that would not happen anyway, you do realize that as a WA author I have the duty to write assuming that the World Assembly's gnomes will be enlightened and incorruptible. The resolution would not be legal otherwise. "


This resolution would be extremely detrimental to the economies of developing countries.

"1.a) The capacity to complete the workload of their occupation, while continuing to actively pursue an education and/or remain in a dignified state of mental and physical health;
1.b) An entitlement to,
• Clean water, sanitation and/or nutrition;
• Assured security --while at their workplace-- from violence, rape, abuse, poisoning and torture from people related to their workplace;
• Sleep, recovery, leisure and rest;"

There are many countries where this is simply not possible due to political strife, poverty etc.
Do we put tariffs on their goods, and therefore make the goods less likely to be bought, simply because they are not developed enough to have better living conditions?
Do we penalize them because there is a civil war occurring in their country?
Punish them because they don't have the ability to produce clean water?
Punish them because they lack universities in their country?
This would only lead to further economic hardship and worse living conditions for the peoples of the countries where these goods are produced, not better.

"2.a) Declares that the set percentage of an ad valorem tariff on each specific imported good’s market value (relevant to c.1), shall be decided by the International Trade Administration (ITA), with consideration from input by any nation or commercial entity;"

This would give the WA a huge ability to regulate trade as they see fit. The ITA could put fees and tariffs on anything at any percentage they want while only needing to "consider" nations input and predicament. This leads to the WA having power that is ripe for rampant abuse: Your water isn't clean enough around your dairy processing plants? 75% tariff on your cheese exports! Your mill workers aren't getting enough vacation days? 90% tariff on your steel exports!

You can't legislate ethics. Period.