Jump to content

World Trade Organisation


Kevin Kingswell

Recommended Posts

Tianxia will join the WTO on the condition that leaders agree to comply with rulings from the Security Council in regards to sanctions and that by penalizing those out of compliance, Tianxia will not incur penalties or found in violation of WTO rulings.  Further Tianxia must reserve the right to judge nations based on their human rights records, fair labor and environmental standards, and lastly a commitment to end subsidies to industries particularly in high tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In regards to enforcement it means that if one member nation makes an agreement with another and then renegades on said agreement then the WTO will use measures it deems necessary to ensure that the offending member nation follows the agreement they have made. These measures can include trade sanctions, increased costs on their imports from other member nations, removal from the WTO. I am of course open to any other ideas for ensuring that agreements are met. Though at this time I would not condone military force. Those sort of actions are best left to the UNSC".

Mitsushima Takehiro had been sent to watch the ongoing debates on the World Trade Organisation. While government at home was not interested in becoming a founding member of the organisation, it had not been ruled out that maybe Dai-Tōhoku could one day join a free trade regime. When Mitsushima however looked over the transcripts he had been handed, he mostly just dismissed such a notion and decided to serve as observer for the rest of the conference.

 

"I do hope I did not misunderstand the representant of the Grand Republic and host of this conference, when they said that 'at the current time he would not condone military force'. In any case, it should be kept in mind that the WTO is not going to supercede the UN Charta, where it explicitly states that member states refrain from the use or threat of force as means of compelling other states. This is in force at all times and thus at no times should the WTO think it has any say in when it can use force. The Security Council is the sole authority that can decide to take military action to ensure that threads to world peace are pacified, should no other means present themselves anymore. This much I would like to make clear.

 

Next, I sadly must say, that as of this moment, there is hardly any way I see this organisation as beneficial to the national interests of my country. While we support free trade and see it as a valuable guarantor of peace and a contribution to overall prosperity, I do believe that the decision making process and voting mode would give undue influence to other states over what I see as our sovereign affairs, with little to no gain attached to it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you misunderstand my point.  The WTO in no way should be inclined to support force nor can it be able to authorize, that is the domain of the sovereign on the defense and the security council in all other matters, however, the Security Council in a hypothetical scenario may decide to enact economic sanctions on trading nuclear energy technology to a nation out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  In such a scenario all states are compelled to follow this sanction.  Should one go out of compliance and give them technology anyways, the security council may choose to impose sanctions on trading with that nation.  However, if they are a member of the WTO, states would be enacting an unfair trading practice on the member under the WTO if the WTO does not rule it fair.  That would put nations in a situation where either way they are breaking international law and it would be fundamentally untenable.  Therefore we believe hat the WTO must acknowledge the Security Council's supremacy in the matter as the sole and principal enforcement mechanism of international law and providing security, which surely you must agree is prerequisite for trade too flourish.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Would the WTO represent a platform in which one could use to negotiate trade deals amongst multiple partners?"

 

"Indeed one of the main functions of the WTO will be for providing help and assistance in negotiating trade deals whether between single nations or multiple partners".

 

Tianxia will join the WTO on the condition that leaders agree to comply with rulings from the Security Council in regards to sanctions and that by penalizing those out of compliance, Tianxia will not incur penalties or found in violation of WTO rulings.  Further Tianxia must reserve the right to judge nations based on their human rights records, fair labor and environmental standards, and lastly a commitment to end subsidies to industries particularly in high tech.

 

 

Mitsushima Takehiro had been sent to watch the ongoing debates on the World Trade Organisation. While government at home was not interested in becoming a founding member of the organisation, it had not been ruled out that maybe Dai-Tōhoku could one day join a free trade regime. When Mitsushima however looked over the transcripts he had been handed, he mostly just dismissed such a notion and decided to serve as observer for the rest of the conference.

 

"I do hope I did not misunderstand the representant of the Grand Republic and host of this conference, when they said that 'at the current time he would not condone military force'. In any case, it should be kept in mind that the WTO is not going to supercede the UN Charta, where it explicitly states that member states refrain from the use or threat of force as means of compelling other states. This is in force at all times and thus at no times should the WTO think it has any say in when it can use force. The Security Council is the sole authority that can decide to take military action to ensure that threads to world peace are pacified, should no other means present themselves anymore. This much I would like to make clear.

 

Next, I sadly must say, that as of this moment, there is hardly any way I see this organisation as beneficial to the national interests of my country. While we support free trade and see it as a valuable guarantor of peace and a contribution to overall prosperity, I do believe that the decision making process and voting mode would give undue influence to other states over what I see as our sovereign affairs, with little to no gain attached to it."

 

 

Yes you misunderstand my point.  The WTO in no way should be inclined to support force nor can it be able to authorize, that is the domain of the sovereign on the defense and the security council in all other matters, however, the Security Council in a hypothetical scenario may decide to enact economic sanctions on trading nuclear energy technology to a nation out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  In such a scenario all states are compelled to follow this sanction.  Should one go out of compliance and give them technology anyways, the security council may choose to impose sanctions on trading with that nation.  However, if they are a member of the WTO, states would be enacting an unfair trading practice on the member under the WTO if the WTO does not rule it fair.  That would put nations in a situation where either way they are breaking international law and it would be fundamentally untenable.  Therefore we believe hat the WTO must acknowledge the Security Council's supremacy in the matter as the sole and principal enforcement mechanism of international law and providing security, which surely you must agree is prerequisite for trade too flourish.

 

"First I would like to state that the WTO would always follow UNSC rulings as a priority. The UNSC enforces international law and the WTO will abide by their rulings. Secondly the WTO will never use military force to enforce anything that right and privilege belongs solely to the UNSC we would use other means to ensure that agreements are met".

 

"I would also like to request that the Dai-Tōhoku representative explain what influence they feel the WTO would have on their affairs?"   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Our trade policy is a carefully crafted policy that takes into account the special situation of our country. To join the WTO, with an equalisation of our trade relationships would harm the economy of our country. Additionally, we do not see the point behind codifying the possibility for countries to withhold certain ressources. Why would the WTO touch our ability to keep reserves in the first place? It sounds as if it was something new that we could and would withhold wares that we have a domestic need for, while it is only natural that a country exports what it has in surplus, unless special circumstances force it to behave differently.

 

With membership in the WTO, there would be the possibility that the rules within the WTO would be modified to include other areas of our economy and trade as well. Should this ever be the case, or even if our country would have to accept the non-discriminatory trade regime, then it would be up to the WTO to make decisions on what policies and sanctions to put into place. And I do fear that in such a case, economies will be judged, based on statehood, not on people or contribution to the global economy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so to clarify, all members of the WTO would recognize the authority of the UNSC as a prerequisite correct?

"Selenarctos objects to a requirement that WTO member states must recognize the authority of the United Nations Security Council. We would prefer that WTO member states decide whether the goals of the WTO align with those of the UNSC before adopting a course of action proposed by the UNSC."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Selenarctos objects to a requirement that WTO member states must recognize the authority of the United Nations Security Council. We would prefer that WTO member states decide whether the goals of the WTO align with those of the UNSC before adopting a course of action proposed by the UNSC."

 

"Legion seconds this objection. For the World Trade Organization to have credibility it must stand as an independent group, not a satrapy to the P-3's whims."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Paraguayan government wishes to express its support for the UNSC in matters pertaining to international peace and security. And it's right to exercise economic sanctions against others when deemed absolutely necessary.

- UN Ambassador Silandra Lopez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WTOs historic origins are in an international order with the UNSC at the center. The authority and rule of law which is universal can only be derived from the UN. In its absence is anarchy and disorder which the world shall not accept. This is not a position which can be altered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The UNSC is not a council of dictators, but of old and respected nations. Members states of the United Nations are obliged to adhere to any resolutions placed at them by the council, non-member states however, are not obliged under any circumstance, and Tianxia should respect that. With only a half handful of nations in the entire world not being members of the United Nations, it should not be such a massive problem and it certainly does not lead to disorder and anarchy. The world managed just fine beforehand and the previous Trade Federation, decades ago, only ceased to exist after its member states collapsed either through war or other means.

 

Tianxia also does not speak for the entire P-3, or the entire UNSC council for that matter, and such strong words and claims, I insist be put forward to discussion and vote within the UN General Assembly and it will be raised in the near future for debate by Norse representatives . Unless of course Tianxia is adamant on its position, its which case it would need to break the UN charter to enforce such rulings. This is a trade organization, not a military bloc to counter the UNSC in any way, shape or form and such attitudes being displayed towards those here today, including threats, will do nothing but sow the seeds of discontent and anger towards an organization who's goal is to maintain a peaceful and stable global society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: No idea whether it is going on, but well...

 

IC:

 

"If the WTO wants to ignore the framework of the UN it is their choice to make. It's not a crime and member nations of the UN do not have to bring up the UNSC for every treaty they conclude. However, we would like to advise caution, as the UNSC will hardly have any regard for the interests of the WTO and should a nation's obligations conflict between what it should commit to the UN and what it owes this treaty, then the WTO will not hold as an excuse, just as no other international treaty should stand in the way of a country's committment to the global community they joined. UN member nations would be better off thus, to see to it that conflicts of interest do not arise, be it by harmonising the WTO with the UN Charter, or by choosing which system they are bound to."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...