[GA, Failed Quorum] International Land Transport Convention

[Sil Dorsett]

International Land Transport Convention
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Walenstein | Onsite Topic​

---

The World Assembly,

Understanding the importance of commercial land-based transportation of freight to member states’ economies,

Aware that carriers operating in member states may wish to transport freight internationally on behalf of a customer,

Knowing that for freight to reach its final destination in a foreign member state, it may be required to pass through the jurisdiction of other member states,

Concerned that the lack of international cooperation in this matter could lead to unnecessary complications in transiting jurisdictions, such as the operator being forced to pay tariffs/duties at customs checkpoints for freight that is merely passing through, etc.,

Hereby,

[ol][li]Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
[ol][li] A “Land-based Commercial Vehicle” as a vehicle designed to operate on land, such as a truck/trailer combination, locomotive and railway cars, or any other vehicle designed to operate on land that is carrying freight for the purpose of commercially transporting it between a point of origin and a point of destination.
[li] A “tariff” as a fee, tax or duty levied on a particular class of goods, for their importation or exportation from a member state.[/li][/ol]

[li] Establishes the International Land Transport Committee (ILTC),


[li] Tasks the ILTC with the issuance of “ILT Carnets” to operators of international land-based commercial vehicles:
[ol][li] As a one-use document outlining the type of freight in transit and the freight’s value,
[li] If the freight falls into any hazardous goods categories,
[li] It’s origin and destination WA member states, and,
[li] Any other information on the freight deemed by the ILTC as necessary to help facilitate transit between jurisdictions, provided said information does not compromise the economic or national security of any member state,[/li][/ol]

[li] Prohibits member states from levying any tariffs on freight that is transiting their jurisdiction to another on operators of land-based commercial vehicles provided a valid ILT carnet is presented,


[li] Forbids member states from denying entry to a land-based commercial vehicle transiting their jurisdiction to another, provided:
[ol][li] A valid ILT carnet is presented, and,
[li] The operator and vehicle meet all applicable customs, immigration, safety, and security standards as set by the member state in question and any applicable WA law,[/li][/ol]

[li]Clarifies that this resolution does not prohibit member states from inspecting freight that is being carried under the provisions of this resolution, compel them to accept a certain type of goods for transit through their jurisdiction if they are prohibited under national law, or to charge tolls to operators of land-based commercial vehicles for use of infrastructure,


[li]Further Clarifies that this resolution does not prohibit member states from rejecting freight with a final destination within the member state’s jurisdiction for any reason, or to charge tariffs on said freight.[/li][/ol]

---

Voting Instructions:[ul][li]Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.[li]Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.[li]Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.[li]Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.[/li][/ul]

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

 

[Sil Dorsett]

[Reserved for MoWAA Recommendation]

 

[El Fiji Grande]

....hmm.. FOR ....

Here's why:
Despite the small typo in 3c (Its) - which alone is no reason to deny the passage of a resolution - the proposal is in my opinion very well written, and clarifies every immediate concern. 3d very important because it allows exemptions for economic and national security. 5b leaves some room for interpretation, because it allows member states to set its own customs and standards. 6 is clearly necessary, because without the legal authority to conduct inspections, none of the exemptions is meaningful. 7 is also a good clarification, because it allows member states some border control in that way.

 

[bowloftoast]

Against
(El Fiji, we're 0 for 3

The proposal doesn't take into account the marked increases in wear and tear on the infrastructure of a nation through which items may be passing, as a result of this 'free-passage' law. It also doesn't consider the additional costs that may be incurred by the nation being traversed, should there be an accident, spill, or greater disaster. This is particularly true in the case of hazardous goods, where the potential exists for entire communities to be impacted and even destroyed (see Lac Megantic, QC).
It's reasonable to assume a nation that doesn't regularly accommodate hazardous goods on it's roads and rails would be required to make investments in increased police, fire, healthcare, and emergency services if neighboring nations were granted greater, unencumbered access to their routes. Those nations should have some reasonable means to recuperate those increased costs, from the nation(s) of origin. Regular road tolls would not be enough to cover those increased expenses, and even if the proposal does allow for increased tolls on a case by case basis, there will always be some who interpret those increases as a tariff.
If a nation wishes to ship through another to reach a destination, it is reasonable for the nation being traversed to seek some reasonable portion of the profit on the sale for that service. The nation being traversed has invested in the roads and rails that make the sale possible in the first place, making them a partner in the sale, to some degree.
While I agree this fee should not be usurious, waiving a nation's right to any fee at all doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

But I think this proposal does have exemptions for those points. It allows for nations to charge tolls for the use of its infrastructure, and it allows nations to exempt goods for economic security, which I interpreted to possibly include hazardous goods.

 

[bowloftoast]

Yeah, I see that, but road tolls usually apply to wear and tear for roads exclusively. They're usually pretty low. They don't apply to all routes.
They'd have to be some pretty enhanced tolls to cover some of those expanded costs: Police, fire, ems, increased carbon emissions, spill cleanup, lane additions/expansions of existing roads, etc. At that point, there may as well just be a universal fee, and leave the toll rates the same for all.
For me, that just feels like the better way to address the costs that an agreement like this will impose on nations. Especially if it's a small nation, being traversed by a much larger nation next-door. I just see the potential for great inequity in an arrangement like this, where the larger nation sees a much greater benefit than the smaller. A universal fee allows the smaller nation to cover it's costs more effectively, and maybe even profit by the growth in trade of the larger, raising all boats.
Hazardous goods doesn't always have to mean things like nuclear waste. It can be as simple a oil, gasoline, solvents. Things that a nation would otherwise be transporting across it's road and rail anyhow. It wouldn't make realistic sense for a nation to ban the transport through, of products like this. But if Nation A is shipping fuel oil to Nation C, through B, and there's an accident or spill, Nation B shouldn't really be on the hook for the costs of that clean-up, unless they have taken some manner of payment as insurance against such an accident.
Again, I just think the better approach is to have a fair, universal fee among all nations - perhaps tiered, based on what's being shipped - to cover these sorts of costs, but, that fee has to be defined as being different from a tariff.