[Legality Challenge] Trade of Endangered Organisms (RULED)

[Araraukar]

This proposal has reached quorum.

Link to the drafting thread.

Rule broken: Category.

The proposal was written as an Environmental one, I know as in part I helped make it so. However, it was then changed into Moral Decency with only a slight modification to the preamble. All the active clauses still belong into the Environmental category, not Moral Decency.

Title: Trade of Endangered Organisms

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Applauding its members' continued efforts on the preservation of endangered organisms,

Concerned that illegal collection and smuggling of endangered organisms could undermine preservation efforts,

Noting the loss of endangered species has the potential to cause extreme harm to member nations populations; such as possibly hindering the development of life saving medicines and industrial materials, and the destruction of ecosystem services,

Believing that because extinction is irreversible, and letting a species that currently exists in only one nation become extinct therefore permanently renders all nations incapable of ever acquiring populations of that species, member nations have a moral obligation -- not only to their own peoples today, but also to future generations of those peoples and to the international community -- to take action against such illegal collection and smuggling;

Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, including the fact that trade involving certain groups of organisms may already be covered separately by such legislation:

1. Instructs the World Assembly Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) and WA member nation's governments to cooperate with each other in creating and maintaining up-to-date lists of the populations of species and subspecies that qualify as 'Endangered';

2. Bans the international import and export into or from member nations of all organisms from endangered species or subspecies, and of goods derived wholly or in part from said organisms, unless any of the following exemptions applies:

1. They are specimens or goods that are being collected or being returned as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;
   
2. They are specimens or goods derived from specimens that originate from a non-wild source such as a farm, laboratory, or nursery, and are birthed, grown, or hatched from seeds, spores, eggs or other material, that itself was collected from a non-wild source or as part of a scientifically run species restoration program;
   
3. They are commercial, scientific, or other goods that were derived from specimens under the guidance of a species restoration program and collected in a manner which does not further endanger the species;
   
4. They are durable goods such as lumber, which can be historically or scientifically proven to have been processed before the species was first noted as being endangered by WAESC;
   
5. They are unintentionally distributed reproductive or other microscopic materials such as seeds, pollen, eggs or spores in trace amounts that are in or on other trade goods;

3. Requires member nations to ardently enforce measures designed to stop the illegal collection and international trade of endangered species and products derived from them, within their jurisdictions;

4. Urges member nations to pass legislation preventing transporting and profiting from endangered species and products derived from them, within their own borders.

Co-authored by Bears Armed

[Glen-Rhodes]

Gotta say I agree that it being a Moral Decency proposal is tenuous at best. Just because you throw in moralizing language doesn't mean it's automatically qualified as Moral Decency-- you can moralize anything. Concerns about preservation and ecosystems destruction definitely read like a proposal rooted in environmentalism. Absent a general trade restrictions category, the next best fit does seem to be Environmental: All Businesses. That's what Endangered Species Protection is under, as well.

[Ransium]

Since Bears Armed was the major advocate for the category change, I have asked them to argue our case. However given the time sensitive nature of this challenge (since the proposal is in quorum), I've decided to also make several arguments. Since Bears Armed is by far the more experienced WA author and understand the working of the Secretariat council far better than I their opinion should be considered more important than mine, and should they contradict any parts or all of my arguments then I agree with their contradiction and withdraw that part or all of my argument.

That being said I have to general lines of my argument for why this category is legal are: 1) There is clear precedence, and 2) It is not obvious that this is an environmental category and not moral legislation to me.

For argument 1) I would argue that the most clear precedence for the regulation of trade of endangered organisms is not Endangered Species Protection, but Sensible Limits on Hunting. Sensible Limits on Hunting, which is in the moral decency category, regulates the international trade of hunted endangered animals. Admittedly it also does several other things, but if we assume regulating the trade of endangered animals alone should be of the environmental category, it is not clear how any of those other things push it out of environmental and into the moral decency.

For argument 2) let's imagine three different hypothetical pieces of WA legislation. Legislation 1 says it is illegal to cut down old growth trees. This legislation is regulating the management of the environment and therefore clearly of the environmental category. Now let's imagine a different piece of legislation, legislation 2, which says that if one cuts down an old growth tree, one must subsequently mill it into timber rather than just letting rot in the woods. Most could recognize the concern of the legislation to be in the genre of environmental, but it is not clear that such legislation would necessarily be environmental category. After all a country could cut down all it's old-growth forest and denude its environment and be perfectly compliant with the legislation, provided it milled the timber it cut down. Rather the legilslation is based on a moral principal that it is wrong to wasteful cut down trees. I would argue that such legislation could and should be legitimately placed in the moral decency category, not environmental. Now let's imagine a third piece of legislation which says that is illegal to import or export old-growth timber except under certain conditions. Again the legislation does not regulate the management of the forest; a country could cut down all it's trees legally under legislation 3, just not import or export the resultant timber. What is being legislated on is the immorality of importing and exporting the timber, not the actual management of old growth forests. Does the morality have its roots in environmentalism? Of course. But it does nothing to actually regulate the management of the environment. To state the purpose of this already painfully obvious metaphor outright, Endangered Species Protection is clearly regulating the management of endangered species and related habitats and is therefore clearly environmental category. My legislation is regulating the trade of the organisms and goods derived from organism after management has occurred.

I am sympathetic to the statement the much the WA legislation could be reduced to moral decency if an author tried hard enough. However, I feel it is equally true that many pieces of moral decency legislation find their morality rooted in a branch of morality related to other categories.

In conclusion given that there is clear precedence for my legislation being placed in the moral decency, and, at the very least, legitimate logical ambiguity for which category was the proper one, I don't know how you could expect me, as the author, to conclude that submitting this legislation under the moral decency category would be illegal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You're using a logic that would end up making the Moral Decency category a catch-all, as long as authors include a single line of moralizing language. Just because you can shoe-horn something into a moral issue doesn't mean it fits into the Moral Decency category. Every law that places an obligation on someone by nature restricts their freedom and 'rights.' I'm not convinced at all that the bar for Moral Decency is so low, despite what Ardchoille seems to have ruled before.

I would argue Sensible Limits on Hunting is in the wrong category, as well.

[Gruenberg]

Seems straightforwardly legal. Article 2 is a simple restriction on individual freedoms, of mild strength, and the preamble contains the requisite language to avoid contradiction of NEF.

I would argue Sensible Limits on Hunting is in the wrong category, as well.

This argument cropped up when you tried to use your position to get Electoral Bananas deleted too. I hope if this is going to continue, at some stage the Council will be able to compile a list of which previously passed resolutions are in the wrong category so future authors aren't misled by false precedent.

[Araraukar]

From the proposal's thread:

[OOC] Just to state what I think we all know. Environmental/All Industries is too strong of a categorization for this proposal. Since there is no single industry (of the available) I could logically argue that this resolution falls under if I submit it as environmental, I feel I have no choice but to submit it as All Industries. I think we have a decent argument now for why this can be submitted as Moral Decency / Low Strength which is a more appropriate strength classification. If there was a way I could submit this as Environmental / Low Strength I probably would, but I see no reason that extinction cannot be viewed through the frame of moral decency as we now argue.

That boils down to "I can't find a good enough AoE in Environmental, so we're switching categories". That's not how AoE-categories work. If your thing doesn't fit, then you need to rewrite it until it fits, and if you're changing categories, the active clauses should change too.

Also, I know there was a mod ruling (or at least mod confirmation) about mild resolutions being okay in Environmental, at least in the other AoE's, but probably in the All as well. I'll try to find it, but I know it was around the time (or a bit before) I was working on GAR #376, since its language is essentially that of a mild resolution. I'll try to find that later, but it came up in a separate thread.

I would argue Sensible Limits on Hunting is in the wrong category, as well.

So would I, and for the same reasons I've made this challenge.

---

By the way, since the legality challenge means that one of you council peeps is going to have to excuse theirself from the decision-making, would that mean Bears has to present his arguments in this thread as well, rather than on your separate subforum?

[Ransium]

Also, I know there was a mod ruling (or at least mod confirmation) about mild resolutions being okay in Environmental, at least in the other AoE's, but probably in the All as well. I'll try to find it, but I know it was around the time (or a bit before) I was working on GAR #376, since its language is essentially that of a mild resolution. I'll try to find that later, but it came up in a separate thread.

I sincerely appreciate your help in drafting my legislation, but why didn't you bring this up in drafting? You essentially told me the opposite in drafting without any indication that this is true:

Your area of effect is "all businesses", which is usually considered to have the same effect as "significant or strong" strength in other categories. You should have more requirements.

I hope if this is going to continue, at some stage the Council will be able to compile a list of which previously passed resolutions are in the wrong category so future authors aren't misled by false precedent.

I'd like to echo this. As a author that is new to the general assembly you must understand how incredibly disheartening it is to be told that previously passed resolutions may not have precedent. If an experienced author says something is a certain way, points you to a resolution that is a certain way, how in the world am I supposed to conclude on my own that it is not really that way?

By the way, since the legality challenge means that one of you council peeps is going to have to excuse theirself from the decision-making, would that mean Bears has to present his arguments in this thread as well, rather than on your separate subforum?

I don't know the answer to that but they haven't logged in since this challenge has been filled so I don't think Bears Armed is making an argument anywhere yet.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Seems straightforwardly legal. Article 2 is a simple restriction on individual freedoms, of mild strength, and the preamble contains the requisite language to avoid contradiction of NEF.

If Article 2 were the sum of the resolution, this might be enough; but there's too much else to cram in there - it just doesn't fit in Moral Decency that I can see.

I would argue Sensible Limits on Hunting is in the wrong category, as well.

This argument cropped up when you tried to use your position to get Electoral Bananas deleted too. I hope if this is going to continue, at some stage the Council will be able to compile a list of which previously passed resolutions are in the wrong category so future authors aren't misled by false precedent.

This is a fair concern. I don't know that I'd agree SLOH is as wrongly categorized as this one looks to be: this proposal constrains individual activity and economic activity, while requiring additional scientific spending; all these things together only fit if the category is Environmental. By contrast, SLOH really only requires constraints on individual action (the hallmark of Moral Decency). I would accept the latter as either Environmental or MD given its range and subject matter; but this one is too big for Moral Decency.

I agree that if we're going to retroactively de-precedentize past passed resolutions, we should be proactive and open about it; but I'm not sure that's what's happening here, since this one is so much more expansive than its alleged "precedent."

[Ransium]

By contrast, SLOH really only requires constraints on individual action (the hallmark of Moral Decency). I would accept the latter as either Environmental or MD given its range and subject matter; but this one is too big for Moral Decency.

I mean this seriously and not argumentatively, can you explain to me how:

2. Requires all member nations to regulate hunting within their borders, according to relevant expert advice, so as to keep the animal stocks involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels (except that they need not protect ‘invasive’ species, species parasitic on people or domestic livestock, or species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people);

3. Urges member nations that set quotas for the hunting of any animals to give adequate priority for hunting rights to those communities there for whom those hunts are economically and/or culturally the most important;

4. Requires member nations to prohibit the sale and use of meat or other goods obtained by illegal hunting;

5. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through hunting, may only be exported from or imported into member nations if they are correctly certified as having been
A. Obtained through legal hunting;
B. Tested properly for risks to public health, and confirmed as safe;
and
C. Taken only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are (i) live animals, embryos, or gametes, being sent for use in scientifically-run breeding programmes; (ii) previous exports being repatriated; (ii) live animals taken from captivity, being sent for release in the proper environment; (iv) obtained in ways that did not increase their stock’s endangerment, and being sent for academic use; or (v) materials included in artworks or antiques, and originally taken (from stocks then not obviously endangered) at least 99 years ago;

Does not require constraints on economic activity, while requiring additional scientific spending?

To explain my reason for asking this question, I read 2 as requiring additional scientific spending to get relevant expert advice.

And all four of those clauses seems to me to be constraining economic activity. 3 says to consider the rights of communities that may be economically hurt by regulating internal hunting, I read this as acknowledging constraining economic activity. This resolution is also constraining internal and international economic activity by my reading, where as my resolution only mandates things about international economic activity.

[Araraukar]

I sincerely appreciate your help in drafting my legislation, but why didn't you bring this up in drafting? You essentially told me the opposite in drafting without any indication that this is true:

Your area of effect is "all businesses", which is usually considered to have the same effect as "significant or strong" strength in other categories. You should have more requirements.

That still holds. And personally I still think it should be the case. That's why I remember the mod ruling/confirmation to the opposite, because it didn't sound sensible to me. Bears should've known about the mild = ok thing.

I'd like to echo this. As a author that is new to the general assembly you must understand how incredibly disheartening it is to be told that previously passed resolutions may not have precedent. If an experienced author says something is a certain way, points you to a resolution that is a certain way, how in the world am I supposed to conclude on my own that it is not really that way?

Well, the proposal rules themselves changed not long ago, and new categories (Health) and different AoE's (at least in Environmental) have been added since the passage of many/most of the extant resolutions. I think some resolutions had their categories/AoE's shifted to fit better now, but I can't remember which ones, and obviously don't know if all of the ill-fitting ones were. Bears should know all of that.

I don't know the answer to that but they haven't logged in since this challenge has been filled so I don't think Bears Armed is making an argument anywhere yet.

Oh I didn't mean he had done so already, I was more asking for the way these things are going to be handled now and in the future. SP is in the council and writes a lot of proposals - sooner or later one of his is going to be challenged as well, so it helps non-councilors if there's a pattern to expect.

We obviously can't forbid the involved councilor(s) from reading the private forum's debate, but in my opinion they shouldn't be treated any different to any other player whose proposal is targeted, when it comes to replying to challenges.

Also, Bears, please do not bite me too badly just because I'm seemingly singling you out...

[Gruenberg]

I do also think some allowance needs to be made for the absence of an Environmental, Mild subcategory - something that has been extensively discussed before - that essentially forces authors to box their proposals in like this. It's an unwieldy system, but one the admins have ruled out changing, so we're stuck with it.

Seems straightforwardly legal. Article 2 is a simple restriction on individual freedoms, of mild strength, and the preamble contains the requisite language to avoid contradiction of NEF.

If Article 2 were the sum of the resolution, this might be enough; but there's too much else to cram in there - it just doesn't fit in Moral Decency that I can see.

#2 is a restriction of individual freedoms (what you can take through customs, basically). #4 is in the same vein, only non-mandatory and with a domestic focus. #3 is an enforcement provision; mod rulings on this have been kind of variable but we can generally assume that enforcing measures to prevent illegal trade could involve some restriction of individual freedom, for example, restricting the "right to roam" in areas known for poaching.

The only operative clause that isn't Moral Decency is the first - Educational, maybe. But it's not uncommon for resolutions to have small portions - and this clause is clearly less substantial than the two that follow - that belong in different categories. Global Disarmament resolutions sometimes require a small amount of defence spending, Human Rights resolutions sometimes also contain a small restriction on freedoms, Free Trade resolutions sometimes contain a restriction on economic freedoms.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I do also think some allowance needs to be made for the absence of an Environmental, Mild subcategory - something that has been extensively discussed before - that essentially forces authors to box their proposals in like this. It's an unwieldy system, but one the admins have ruled out changing, so we're stuck with it.

While Environmental - All Business has a stronger effect than the AoE subcategories, in the sense that it affects the entire economy and not just specific industries, it's not the equivalent of a "Strong" strength. Mods in the past have been lenient in allowing mild proposals to be submitted under All Business.

The answer to this problem isn't to open up Moral Decency as a catch-all category. Social Justice used to be that way, and admins did an overhaul of various categories to end that. We can continue allowing mild environmental laws to be submitted under All Business, until [violet] feels like it's appropriate to overhaul the Environmental category altogether.

Seems straightforwardly legal. Article 2 is a simple restriction on individual freedoms, of mild strength, and the preamble contains the requisite language to avoid contradiction of NEF.

I would argue Sensible Limits on Hunting is in the wrong category, as well.

This argument cropped up when you tried to use your position to get Electoral Bananas deleted too. I hope if this is going to continue, at some stage the Council will be able to compile a list of which previously passed resolutions are in the wrong category so future authors aren't misled by false precedent.

If it was possible to recategorize past resolutions, I would be at the forefront of pushing that. Until then, be wary of saying your proposal is in the right category just because there's a similar one in that category that was passed a long time ago, because not only do the categories themselves change sometimes, but our understanding of them can be refined over time. When in doubt, ask. That's not much of a burden.

For what it's worth, Sensible Limits of Hunting's categorization as Moral Decency was challenged. Ardchoille's ruling that it put limits on what people can eat wasn't a very good ruling. All laws that put an obligation on people affect their freedoms and rights. That doesn't make all laws applicable to Moral Decency.

[Separatist Peoples]

Seems straightforwardly legal. Article 2 is a simple restriction on individual freedoms, of mild strength, and the preamble contains the requisite language to avoid contradiction of NEF.

I would argue Sensible Limits on Hunting is in the wrong category, as well.

This argument cropped up when you tried to use your position to get Electoral Bananas deleted too. I hope if this is going to continue, at some stage the Council will be able to compile a list of which previously passed resolutions are in the wrong category so future authors aren't misled by false precedent.

I had largely come to the same conclusion, although I didn't really consider NEF until I saw your post. While Environmental | All Business would be the better category, I don't see how Moral Decency isn't correct, especially considering precedent. I am really loathe to move away from precedent unless it is strictly necessary, and this doesn't seem to be the case here.

Moral Decency requires more than just an appeal to morality. It involves the restriction of otherwise legal action by individuals by the government. Apparently in some noncommercial capacity, as well, or it becomes an economic freedom proposal. That said, this affects noncommercial collection of endangered species, and not just commercial sale, so I think it squeaks into Moral Decency territory.

Again, I reiterate that its entirely likely that Environmental | All Business is a more correct category, but I don't think Moral Decency ultimately is illegal, and I am inclined to let voters determine if the category bothers them. Certainly I find it reasonable considering the strength requirements for All Business.


And as usual, the conversation swirls past my point as I hit submit.

[Ransium]

Will a ruling on this be made before it comes to vote?

[Gruenberg]

I do also think some allowance needs to be made for the absence of an Environmental, Mild subcategory - something that has been extensively discussed before - that essentially forces authors to box their proposals in like this. It's an unwieldy system, but one the admins have ruled out changing, so we're stuck with it.

While Environmental - All Business has a stronger effect than the AoE subcategories, in the sense that it affects the entire economy and not just specific industries, it's not the equivalent of a "Strong" strength. Mods in the past have been lenient in allowing mild proposals to be submitted under All Business.

Really? Do you have an example you can link to? Because if they have, then that's a glaring inconsistency with longstanding precedent:

Third, the strength. The categories that don't give you a choice of saying Mild, Significant or Strong are treated as being automatically Strong. You should therefore write proposals in those categories with very broad international effect and/or inescapable phrasing -- requires, insists, mandates, prescribes, rather than encourages, recommends, advises, applauds.

[Bears Armed]

Your area of effect is "all businesses", which is usually considered to have the same effect as "significant or strong" strength in other categories. You should have more requirements.

That still holds. And personally I still think it should be the case. That's why I remember the mod ruling/confirmation to the opposite, because it didn't sound sensible to me. Bears should've known about the mild = ok thing.

Knew about it, didn't like it because it contradicts the longstanding "issue IC effects should justify the stat changes" rule...
The administration has mentioned the possibility of us [finally] gaining an 'Environmental (Mild)' option, which would solve the problem, but I don't know whether they've actually stated work on the necessary coding.

Well, the proposal rules themselves changed not long ago, and new categories (Health) and different AoE's (at least in Environmental) have been added since the passage of many/most of the extant resolutions. I think some resolutions had their categories/AoE's shifted to fit better now, but I can't remember which ones, and obviously don't know if all of the ill-fitting ones were. Bears should know all of that.

No, as I recall, the official decision was to leave all previously-passed resolutions in the categories/AoE's under which they had actually been passed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

While Environmental - All Business has a stronger effect than the AoE subcategories, in the sense that it affects the entire economy and not just specific industries, it's not the equivalent of a "Strong" strength. Mods in the past have been lenient in allowing mild proposals to be submitted under All Business.

Really? Do you have an example you can link to? Because if they have, then that's a glaring inconsistency with longstanding precedent:

Third, the strength. The categories that don't give you a choice of saying Mild, Significant or Strong are treated as being automatically Strong. You should therefore write proposals in those categories with very broad international effect and/or inescapable phrasing -- requires, insists, mandates, prescribes, rather than encourages, recommends, advises, applauds.

Precedent from 2011 may not be as longstanding as you think, or applied very consistently in the past 5 years. WA Environmental Council was passed in 2009 under All Businesses, and didn't do anything other than conduct & publish environmental research and "urge" member states to fix problems. All Businesses has also housed very targeted environmental issues like oil tankard construction standards, banning seeds that have been genetically modified to be sterile, and highly targeted safety standards for nuclear power plants. In fact, All Businesses has been used rarely for resolutions that have an equivalent strength of Strong and effect all businesses.

The way the category works, as far as I'm aware, is that the stat effect is stronger in the aggregate than the other subcategories, but it's spread out so that it only affects individual sectors a little bit. That doesn't comport with a mandatory "Strong" classification, nor with how the subcategory has been used most of the time.

Ransium's proposal has nothing to do with actual moral issues. It's obviously an environmentalist resolution. To steal an argument from one of my colleagues, "Environmental: All Businesses" constrains people's choices both in the political freedoms sense and the economic freedoms sense; they increase awareness of environmental issues; and they increase government spending on the environment, either directly or through enforcement costs. "Moral Decency", the other hand, doesn't impact environmental stats, doesn't increase awareness of the environment, and doesn't affect economic freedoms. All it does is decrease political freedoms. Ransium's proposal fits all the descriptors of an Environmental resolution, but the bulk of its written policy wouldn't be reflected under the Moral Decency categorization.

[Christian Democrats]

*** GA Secretariat Decision ***

As a coauthor, Bears Armed has recused from this case, leaving five councilors to decide it. Four have expressed their views so far, and three are convinced that this proposal commits a *** Category Violation ***. Three is a majority of five, so we've asked the moderators to pull this proposal. Opinions are forthcoming. The general sense is that this proposal primarily restricts business freedoms, and business freedoms (as opposed to personal freedoms) are not part of the Human Rights and Moral Decency categories.

Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat Member

[Sedgistan]

It's an unwieldy system, but one the admins have ruled out changing, so we're stuck with it.

Please stop peddling this falsehood. I called you out on it just earlier today. Admin has definitely not ruled out changing from the category system.

[Gruenberg]

Precedent from 2011 may not be as longstanding as you think, or applied very consistently in the past 5 years. WA Environmental Council was passed in 2009 under All Businesses, and didn't do anything other than conduct & publish environmental research and "urge" member states to fix problems. All Businesses has also housed very targeted environmental issues like oil tankard construction standards, banning seeds that have been genetically modified to be sterile, and highly targeted safety standards for nuclear power plants.

I can't find where these were explicitly ruled legal, though? Can you link to the rulings? Because obviously, the mere fact a resolution passed doesn't make it legal. There's an inconsistency in your argument here: on the one hand, you're appealing to previously passed resolutions, while at the same time, dismissing the precedent of Sensible Limits on Hunting.

Ransium's proposal has nothing to do with actual moral issues.

There's no requirement that Moral Decency proposals do. All they have to do to meet the category requirement is to reduce individual freedoms: in this case, limiting the right to travel freely.

"Moral Decency", the other hand, doesn't impact environmental stats, doesn't increase awareness of the environment, and doesn't affect economic freedoms. All it does is decrease political freedoms.

Moral Decency has 0 impact on political freedoms. Have to say it's particularly great you're enforcing rules on a category you don't even know the meaning of.

It's an unwieldy system, but one the admins have ruled out changing, so we're stuck with it.

Please stop peddling this falsehood. I called you out on it just earlier today. Admin has definitely not ruled out changing from the category system.

That's just not accurate. Admin were clear that an automatic category system would have to be retained. All they were open to was adding custom stats on top of that, but without the removal of the automatic system all the benefits of that change would be utterly negated.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Ransium's proposal has nothing to do with actual moral issues.

There's no requirement that Moral Decency proposals do. All they have to do to meet the category requirement is to reduce individual freedoms: in this case, limiting the right to travel freely.

I disagree. It's pretty hard to argue convincingly that "restricting civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency" doesn't require an actual moral issue at hand.

"Moral Decency", the other hand, doesn't impact environmental stats, doesn't increase awareness of the environment, and doesn't affect economic freedoms. All it does is decrease political freedoms.

Moral Decency has 0 impact on political freedoms. Have to say it's particularly great you're enforcing rules on a category you don't even know the meaning of.

And now this conversation is over, because you have this inherent need to be snarky and unpleasant, while others are trying to have an actually decent conversation with you. You should take your own advice and be bit less acrimonious.

GenSec's decision has been delivered. The logic of the opinion forthcoming is that if it walks and talks like an Environmental resolution, it's not a Moral Decency one.

[States of Glory WA Office]

While Environmental - All Business has a stronger effect than the AoE subcategories, in the sense that it affects the entire economy and not just specific industries, it's not the equivalent of a "Strong" strength. Mods in the past have been lenient in allowing mild proposals to be submitted under All Business.

Really? Do you have an example you can link to? Because if they have, then that's a glaring inconsistency with longstanding precedent:

Third, the strength. The categories that don't give you a choice of saying Mild, Significant or Strong are treated as being automatically Strong. You should therefore write proposals in those categories with very broad international effect and/or inescapable phrasing -- requires, insists, mandates, prescribes, rather than encourages, recommends, advises, applauds.

I know that I'm a little late to the party (RL hasn't been kind) but I'm surprised that no-one has pointed out this ruling. As far as I can tell, that's the most recent precedent regarding this issue.

[Araraukar]

I know that I'm a little late to the party (RL hasn't been kind) but I'm surprised that no-one has pointed out this ruling. As far as I can tell, that's the most recent precedent regarding this issue.

Thank you, that's the one I was referring to and trying to find.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

By contrast, SLOH really only requires constraints on individual action (the hallmark of Moral Decency). I would accept the latter as either Environmental or MD given its range and subject matter; but this one is too big for Moral Decency.

I mean this seriously and not argumentatively, can you explain to me how:

2. Requires all member nations to regulate hunting within their borders, according to relevant expert advice, so as to keep the animal stocks involved at sustainable and environmentally suitable levels (except that they need not protect ‘invasive’ species, species parasitic on people or domestic livestock, or species carrying agents likely to cause serious epidemics in people);

3. Urges member nations that set quotas for the hunting of any animals to give adequate priority for hunting rights to those communities there for whom those hunts are economically and/or culturally the most important;

4. Requires member nations to prohibit the sale and use of meat or other goods obtained by illegal hunting;

5. Requires that meat, captive wild animals, and other goods obtained through hunting, may only be exported from or imported into member nations if they are correctly certified as having been
A. Obtained through legal hunting;
B. Tested properly for risks to public health, and confirmed as safe;
and
C. Taken only from non-endangered stocks, unless they are (i) live animals, embryos, or gametes, being sent for use in scientifically-run breeding programmes; (ii) previous exports being repatriated; (ii) live animals taken from captivity, being sent for release in the proper environment; (iv) obtained in ways that did not increase their stock’s endangerment, and being sent for academic use; or (v) materials included in artworks or antiques, and originally taken (from stocks then not obviously endangered) at least 99 years ago;

Does not require constraints on economic activity, while requiring additional scientific spending?

To explain my reason for asking this question, I read 2 as requiring additional scientific spending to get relevant expert advice.

And all four of those clauses seems to me to be constraining economic activity. 3 says to consider the rights of communities that may be economically hurt by regulating internal hunting, I read this as acknowledging constraining economic activity. This resolution is also constraining internal and international economic activity by my reading, where as my resolution only mandates things about international economic activity.

Here's how I read it.

2. Requires regulation of hunting...
I don't see the increase of expenditures to retain expert advice as reaching the threshold of a scientific/environmental program. At most your Fish & Wildlife agency is sending some letters out and updating the records they're already keeping about animal populations in your country.

3. Urges [my emphasis] nations to give hunting priority to indigenous people [this is me paraphrasing, interpreting]
Non-required clause asks nations to shuffle people who've hunted such and so animals from time immemorial, to the top of the list for issuing hunting licenses. In other words, an optional tweak of bureaucracy to recognize civil rights of cultural minorities, certainly on the Human Rights/Moral Decency spectrum.

4. Simple enforcement provision. Not much incentive to follow the hunting laws if there's no penalty for accessories to breaking them. You can't sell stolen cars, either, but that doesn't make anti-theft laws a Social Justice (impingement of economic freedoms) measure. The language here is also weaker than the mandate to give 'em hell! that your proposal lists in its Clause 3, though that may just be stylistic.

5. Again I'd say the bureaucratic imposition on the tiny minority of meat products obtained by hunting as opposed to herding/husbandry/ranching/farming, doesn't rise to the same level of economic disruption that an environmental law would cause. A lot of this is just requiring a little extra paperwork - like, did you check that the Bigtopian Elk was legal, non-endangered, in season, etc. before you went hunting? If not, you can't sell the antlers to that natural history museum in Brasilistan. But if you have the permits, you're clear. At most this is a niche market - if we were talking about the Beef industry, that would absolutely be a different story.

I know there's likely to be some disagreement on this argument, but I honestly don't see a problem with Sensible Limits on Hunting as MD (if marginally), while Trade of Endangered Organisms requires decisively more spending and activity in all the areas that Environmental resolutions touch.

TL;dr - I see Sensible Limits on Hunting looking more at deer and even bear populations, which are mostly a "stamp your permit" and "let's not murder too many animals" kind of thing; Trade of Endangered Organisms is going after the ivory trade, an altogether more lucrative and commercial powerhouse, and needing much more active input from all facets of government There is a moral component, but that's a much smaller proportion of the whole effort here than it was in the prior resolution.

[Ransium]

Thanks for clarifying.