Freedom to Contract

[Gulliver]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: [nation]Cowardly Pacifists[/nation]

The World Assembly:

AFFIRMING that all people have a fundamental right to liberty, which includes the freedom to choose, think, and act as an individual within the confines of socially acceptable behavior;

CONVINCED that a person's freedom to voluntarily and willfully make agreements with others is an important part of their fundamental right to liberty;

BELIEVING that recognition of the freedom to form contractual agreements would improve and promote commercial and social interactions between and within world nations;

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a "contract" for the purposes of this resolution as "an agreement between two or more persons containing specific terms that the parties intend to be legally binding and enforceable;"

2. DECLARES that any person who a member nation regards as competent to manage his or her own affairs shall be permitted by that nation to freely enter into binding contracts;

3. CLARIFIES that while a person must generally be permitted to contract freely, member nations - either individually or through collective WA action - may regulate certain contracts or agreements within their jurisdiction if doing so is necessary to meet some compelling public policy interest;

4. OBLIGATES Member Nations to provide an enforcement mechanism for valid contracts;

5. PERMITS Member Nations - either individually or through collective WA action - to establish reasonable rules regarding the form required for contracts, including whether certain contracts must be in writing, signed by the parties, and/or notarized by a government official.

[Letonna]

When I read the title, I first thought it was referring to your right to contract a disease 

[Eluvatar]

Yeah... it's unfortunately named.

[Delfos]

Nothing in this bill protects each parties singing a contract, no relation to work / employment / service protection, leaves all the gaps to what, member states? It could at least say it must state responsibilities and obligations between two parties and that they're free to choose the consequences of the failure to comply.

I shall vote against unless you tell me there's a bill referring to contracts that already protects both parties "responsibilities and obligations".

[McMasterdonia]

I thought the same as Letonna at first.

I will be voting against because I think that this type of thing can be dealt with at a national level, rather than at the WA level. I can be convinced other wise of course.

[Delfos]

I thought the same as Letonna at first.

I will be voting against because I think that this type of thing can be dealt with at a national level, rather than at the WA level. I can be convinced other wise of course.

It's possible to have contracts based in different legislations, an international regulation for international contracts wouldn't be a bad idea, but either way the bill is so unspecific to all the parameters a contract should have that there's no need to say "hey, yall can make contracts!"

[Gulliver]

When I read the title, I first thought it was referring to your right to contract a disease 

Me too.

[Gulliver]

This is now at a vote. I'm casting a provisional vote of against.

[Gulliver]

I'm calling my final vote as AGAINST.

[Delfos]

Only 3 votes? Come on people

[Gulliver]

As you all know this passed 8,806 votes to 1,748.