10-24-2017, 07:09 PM
Quote: Who has standing to raise an IAO complaint? Just the Compliance Commission? Can individual member states do so as well?[/quote]
Just IAO, but members and individuals can report violations to the IAO. Do I have that in there? I should add that in there to be sure.
Quote:
This clause should also require that the fine be proportionate to the violation. This should remain so even if the only proportionate fine is likely insufficient to coerce compliance. Such is the nature of punishment.[/quote]
The fine is not a punishment. It is an incentive. That's where most of these trip up, they try to apply a universal standard of justice. This way, the GA's legislation can pursue justice, and the agency merely needs to pursue compliance.
Quote:
Is there any right to appeal an IAO decision?[/quote]
Not currently. Would it matter if there was? The gnomes are presumptively infallible so as to avoid any need for excessive legislation on WA anti-corruption. It's not a magic wand wave but a tool so authors needn't address structural issues at the cost of substantive ones in resolutions. Even if there was, is there any expectation that the result is different? You'd still be appealing to the WA, probably as an agency.
Quote:
This is perhaps the most important clause in the proposal because realistically this is the sole mechanism that the IAO has to enforce compliance.
I note that the clause requires the application of the "strongest possible" economic sanctions in response to any refusal to pay an IAO fine, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying violation of international law. However, as with the fine clause, inducement of compliance cannot be our only concern. There must be a clear proportionality requirement.[/quote]
Nope. The whole point of this is inducement of compliance. Justice is for the legislators in this case.
Quote: You also have to consider how this clause interacts with existing World Assembly resolutions requiring the elimination of trade barriers between member states. Such resolutions generally do not make exceptions for enforcement of non-compliance penalties, so the actual remedies available under this clause might be quite limited.[/quote]
I looked at current free-trade resolutions, and I didn't see that any of them prevented the use of coercive sanctions or embargoes. I've looked at a few of those, and I don't think that this kind of enforcement interferes with general free-trade requirements.
Just IAO, but members and individuals can report violations to the IAO. Do I have that in there? I should add that in there to be sure.
Quote:
This clause should also require that the fine be proportionate to the violation. This should remain so even if the only proportionate fine is likely insufficient to coerce compliance. Such is the nature of punishment.[/quote]
The fine is not a punishment. It is an incentive. That's where most of these trip up, they try to apply a universal standard of justice. This way, the GA's legislation can pursue justice, and the agency merely needs to pursue compliance.
Quote:
Is there any right to appeal an IAO decision?[/quote]
Not currently. Would it matter if there was? The gnomes are presumptively infallible so as to avoid any need for excessive legislation on WA anti-corruption. It's not a magic wand wave but a tool so authors needn't address structural issues at the cost of substantive ones in resolutions. Even if there was, is there any expectation that the result is different? You'd still be appealing to the WA, probably as an agency.
Quote:
This is perhaps the most important clause in the proposal because realistically this is the sole mechanism that the IAO has to enforce compliance.
I note that the clause requires the application of the "strongest possible" economic sanctions in response to any refusal to pay an IAO fine, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying violation of international law. However, as with the fine clause, inducement of compliance cannot be our only concern. There must be a clear proportionality requirement.[/quote]
Nope. The whole point of this is inducement of compliance. Justice is for the legislators in this case.
Quote: You also have to consider how this clause interacts with existing World Assembly resolutions requiring the elimination of trade barriers between member states. Such resolutions generally do not make exceptions for enforcement of non-compliance penalties, so the actual remedies available under this clause might be quite limited.[/quote]
I looked at current free-trade resolutions, and I didn't see that any of them prevented the use of coercive sanctions or embargoes. I've looked at a few of those, and I don't think that this kind of enforcement interferes with general free-trade requirements.