[DRAFT] Repeal "Recognising Achievements Act"

[Christian Democrats]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Repeal "Recognising Achievements Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#146 | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Praising Resolution 146, Recognising Achievements Act, for setting out to reduce discrimination against individuals who are educated in foreign countries by prohibiting accreditation bodies from denying them certification to practice their trades,

Recognizing that a number of degrees, such as medical degrees and engineering degrees, are indeed transitive across national boundaries,

Aware, however, that other degrees, such as legal degrees, are not necessarily transitive and that it is entirely reasonable to treat people differently based on the countries where they were educated if there are systematic cross-national differences,

Realizing that a national government, for example, justly might wish to deny a lawyer trained in a different nation a license to practice law domestically because of major variations between the domestic legal system and the foreign legal system in which the lawyer earned his degree (e.g., substantial differences between common law, civil law, socialist law, customary law, and religious law educations),

Troubled that an individual who is not qualified for admission to a domestic graduate or professional school could take advantage of Resolution 146 to travel to a foreign country to receive an inferior education, which his home country would then be required to recognize as legitimate,

Noting that Resolution 146 is flawed because it uses the terms "academic title" and "professional title" as if they were interchangeable despite the fact that higher academic degrees, such as the Ph.D., D.Phil., or Th.D., and professional degrees, such as the J.D., M.D., or D.N.P., are distinct from one another,

Identifying that Resolution 146 is also deficient because its scope is limited to "national" and "supranational" accreditation bodies and that it fails to account for countries that commit accreditation to subnational jurisdictions, such as provinces, states, territories, counties, or oblasts,

Believing that Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights, is wholly sufficient to stop accreditation bodies from treating foreign-educated individuals unreasonably as it prohibits discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, race, skin color, language, or cultural background without a "compelling practical purpose,"

Repeals Resolution 146, Recognising Achievements Act.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Looks good to me. I look forward to voting for it.

[The Flame Dawn]

I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.

[Halmira]

I would vote for this, great proposal.

[Benian Republic]

I left the WA

[Tinfect]

I left the WA

Good for you. No one cares.

[Bananaistan]

I am slightly disturbed with this trend of repeals blatantly misrepresenting the target resolutions. In this case the target resolution does not do what the repeal says it does:

Realizing that a national government, for example, justly might wish to deny a lawyer trained in a different nation a license to practice law domestically because of major variations between the domestic legal system and the foreign legal system in which the lawyer earned his degree (e.g., substantial differences between common law, civil law, socialist law, customary law, and religious law educations),

There's is nothing in the target resolution preventing a government from doing so. This fella from Ballygobackwards rocks up to the University of Rome. He has a degree in whataboutery from the Ballygobackwards School of Economics (BSE). Now, the University of Rome (UR) can't deny him access to their process on the basis that he's from Ballygobackwards under the PROHIBITS clause. Under the OBLIGES clause, BSE supplies UR with details of their degree in whataboutery. UR can still turn around and tell yer man to GTFO if the BSE degree doesn't match up to theirs.

[Benian Republic]

I left the WA

Good for you. No one cares.

Ouch, Chill comrade kalishnakov.

[Christian Democrats]

I am slightly disturbed with this trend of repeals blatantly misrepresenting the target resolutions. In this case the target resolution does not do what the repeal says it does:

Realizing that a national government, for example, justly might wish to deny a lawyer trained in a different nation a license to practice law domestically because of major variations between the domestic legal system and the foreign legal system in which the lawyer earned his degree (e.g., substantial differences between common law, civil law, socialist law, customary law, and religious law educations),

There's is nothing in the target resolution preventing a government from doing so. This fella from Ballygobackwards rocks up to the University of Rome. He has a degree in whataboutery from the Ballygobackwards School of Economics (BSE). Now, the University of Rome (UR) can't deny him access to their process on the basis that he's from Ballygobackwards under the PROHIBITS clause. Under the OBLIGES clause, BSE supplies UR with details of their degree in whataboutery. UR can still turn around and tell yer man to GTFO if the BSE degree doesn't match up to theirs.

I disagree with your interpretation of the resolution. We're not talking about universities but accreditation boards.

Ahmad is trained extensively in sharia in his home country of Saudi Arabia. He moves to South Dakota, and he demands a license to practice law. The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners asks Saudi Arabia if Ahmad is qualified to practice law, and it says that he is. It is then mandatory for South Dakota to waive its requirement for him to have a degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association. Ahmad crams for the bar exam and passes. South Dakota now must grant him a license. Ahmad goes into family law.

Would it be reasonable for South Dakota to "discriminate" against Ahmad based on the place where he received his legal education? Absolutely. An American legal education and a Saudi Arabian legal education are completely different. That South Dakota must allow Ahmad to practice law just because he's good at test-taking is a travesty. He really needs to earn a new degree first.

Now, if Ahmad were a physician, this would be a different story. It is quite possible that he could be an excellent doctor in South Dakota based on the medical education he received. A medical degree more easily can be taken from one country to another. COCR's prohibition on discrimination based on nationality is sufficient to cover such cases.

EDIT: For the sake of this example, let's temporarily ignore the fact that RAA covers only national and international accreditation boards while letting countries circumvent the resolution through devolution to subnational jurisdictions.

[Bananaistan]

The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners asks Saudi Arabia if Ahmad is qualified to practice law, and it says that he is.

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

OBLIGES all institutes of accreditation to supply information on qualifications inside their area of operation to other institutes of accreditation upon request of such,

Supplying information on qualifications is not merely saying that some person has completed a course. It's clearly dealing with what they have studied and what they are qualified to deal with.

PROHIBITS institutes of accreditation from refusing individuals access to their accreditation process based solely on the nation where their qualification was earned,

Key words here: access and solely. Ahmad can't be refused access to the process because just because he's from Saudi. But there is nothing in this clause or elsewhere in the resolution that says he must be accredited. It just says that he must be allowed access to the process. No more, no less.

[Christian Democrats]

The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners asks Saudi Arabia if Ahmad is qualified to practice law, and it says that he is.

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

Great. A "fundamental disagreement" is not the same thing as a "blatant misrepresentation."

OBLIGES all institutes of accreditation to supply information on qualifications inside their area of operation to other institutes of accreditation upon request of such,

Supplying information on qualifications is not merely saying that some person has completed a course. It's clearly dealing with what they have studied and what they are qualified to deal with.

No, you've missed the fact that RAA requires accreditation bodies to develop lists of equivalent degrees. The two legal educations in my example are equivalent but not identical. If one were to adopt your interpretation, the resolution would be practically meaningless because no two countries have the exact same curricula for educations for specific academic or professional fields. I've taken the view that RAA is actually meant to do something: to force nations to certify people with equivalent titles from foreign nations.

PROHIBITS institutes of accreditation from refusing individuals access to their accreditation process based solely on the nation where their qualification was earned,

Key words here: access and solely. Ahmad can't be refused access to the process because just because he's from Saudi. But there is nothing in this clause or elsewhere in the resolution that says he must be accredited. It just says that he must be allowed access to the process. No more, no less.

Exactly. Access to the process = letting him take the bar exam even though he hasn't graduated from an American law school.

To deny him the opportunity to take the bar exam based solely on his nationality would be a direct violation of the resolution even though it would be perfectly reasonable to engage in that sort of "discrimination" because of systematic differences between American and Saudi Arabian law.

[Bananaistan]

Great. A "fundamental disagreement" is not the same thing as a "blatant misrepresentation."

You're still blatantly misrepresenting the target resolution.

No, you've missed the fact that RAA requires accreditation bodies to develop lists of equivalent degrees. The two legal educations in my example are equivalent but not identical. If one were to adopt your interpretation, the resolution would be practically meaningless because no two countries have the exact same curricula for educations for specific academic or professional fields. I've taken the view that RAA is actually meant to do something: to force nations to certify people with equivalent titles from foreign nations.

They're not equivalent and they can never be equivalent. The resolution requires the sharing of information on qualifications. That hardly just means sharing the name of the course. It means sharing the details of the curricula. If the curricula don't match up, then there is no equivalence and the person is denied accreditation, not on the basis of where he's from, but on the basis that his qualification is not equivalent.

Exactly. Access to the process = letting him take the bar exam even though he hasn't graduated from an American law school.

To deny him the opportunity to take the bar exam based solely on his nationality would be a direct violation of the resolution even though it would be perfectly reasonable to engage in that sort of "discrimination" because of systematic differences between American and Saudi Arabian law.

I have developed this a bit more in my last point. Stopping him from being accredited due to him holding a non-equivalent degree, is not solely because of his nationality, his nationality has nothing to with it.

The way I see it working (using your Ahmad example) is: Ahmad is trained extensively in sharia in his home country of Saudi Arabia. He moves to South Dakota, and he demands a license to practice law. The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners asks Saudi Arabia to "supply information on [his] qualification". They get this information and see that he is only trained in sharia. They then deny him accreditation as his qualification is not equivalent to the local qualifications.

What the resolution does is force local accreditation bodies to look at other qualifications and see how they match up. If they're broadly similar and the qualification produces people with similar skills and abilities as those with local qualifications, then they get accreditation. If the qualifications are not broadly similar, regardless of the titles, they won't get the accreditation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: if a dude can pass a state bar exam just on the alleged strength of being "good at taking tests," either he's a badass who should be practicing law or whatever else he wants to do, or there's something seriously wrong with the exam. I don't see your example as an illustration of any weakness or injustice in the target resolution.

If it required blind acceptance, that would be one thing, but the final two clauses make clear that accreditation boards are expected to do some work to assess the substance of qualifications, not simply assume equivalence:

PERMITS institutes of accreditation to charge a nominal fee to cover the costs involved with accrediting qualifications earned in other nations,

CLARIFIES that this resolution neither requires nor prohibits any particular method or process of academic accreditation.

[Christian Democrats]

Great. A "fundamental disagreement" is not the same thing as a "blatant misrepresentation."

You're still blatantly misrepresenting the target resolution.

Interpretation vs. misrepresentation, ambassador. The former is perfectly legal. I believe my interpretation is the better one.

No, you've missed the fact that RAA requires accreditation bodies to develop lists of equivalent degrees. The two legal educations in my example are equivalent but not identical. If one were to adopt your interpretation, the resolution would be practically meaningless because no two countries have the exact same curricula for educations for specific academic or professional fields. I've taken the view that RAA is actually meant to do something: to force nations to certify people with equivalent titles from foreign nations.

They're not equivalent and they can never be equivalent.

If that were true, the resolution would be pointless! You're conflating equivalence and equality. No two nations are the same. Heck, no two universities are the same. The whole point of equivalence is translating one degree from one nation's system to that of another.

The resolution requires the sharing of information on qualifications. That hardly just means sharing the name of the course. It means sharing the details of the curricula.

That's one part of the resolution but not the only part as you claim.

If the curricula don't match up, then there is no equivalence and the person is denied accreditation, not on the basis of where he's from, but on the basis that his qualification is not equivalent.

The curricula between two countries or even two universities will never match up. Again, you interpret RAA to be pointless.

His qualifications are not equivalent precisely because of the nation where he was educated. Attending any law school but a domestic law school automatically makes him unqualified. He needs either a domestic J.D. or an LL.M. to supplement his previous training.

Exactly. Access to the process = letting him take the bar exam even though he hasn't graduated from an American law school.

To deny him the opportunity to take the bar exam based solely on his nationality would be a direct violation of the resolution even though it would be perfectly reasonable to engage in that sort of "discrimination" because of systematic differences between American and Saudi Arabian law.

I have developed this a bit more in my last point. Stopping him from being accredited due to him holding a non-equivalent degree, is not solely because of his nationality, his nationality has nothing to with it.

His nationality has everything to do with it. In certain fields, any degree but a domestic degree is insufficient. By knocking out RAA and letting COCR have its way, reason will be reinstated in the area.

The way I see it working (using your Ahmad example) is: Ahmad is trained extensively in sharia in his home country of Saudi Arabia. He moves to South Dakota, and he demands a license to practice law. The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners asks Saudi Arabia to "supply information on [his] qualification". They get this information and see that he is only trained in sharia. They then deny him accreditation as his qualification is not equivalent to the local qualifications.

Sharia is the Saudi Arabian equivalent of the South Dakotan legal code. For his nationality, Ahmad has the equivalent training. Thus, South Dakota must recognize that training as legitimate despite the systematic differences between Saudi Arabia and South Dakota.

What the resolution does is force local accreditation bodies to look at other qualifications and see how they match up. If they're broadly similar and the qualification produces people with similar skills and abilities as those with local qualifications, then they get accreditation. If the qualifications are not broadly similar, regardless of the titles, they won't get the accreditation.

But the qualifications are broadly similar. Both are legal educations -- cross-national equivalents. The abilities and skills are similar too given that we're talking about the exact same profession. That said, anything but a match is not acceptable. Unfortunately, RAA does not give nations enough leeway.

OOC: if a dude can pass a state bar exam just on the alleged strength of being "good at taking tests," either he's a badass who should be practicing law or whatever else he wants to do, or there's something seriously wrong with the exam. I don't see your example as an illustration of any weakness or injustice in the target resolution.

If it required blind acceptance, that would be one thing, but the final two clauses make clear that accreditation boards are expected to do some work to assess the substance of qualifications, not simply assume equivalence:

PERMITS institutes of accreditation to charge a nominal fee to cover the costs involved with accrediting qualifications earned in other nations,

CLARIFIES that this resolution neither requires nor prohibits any particular method or process of academic accreditation.

Some work? Nominal work according to the resolution text. Basically, the cost of reviewing an application assembly-line style.

The method or process clause means that accreditation bodies (again, the resolution, in this second clause, conflates academic and professional qualifications as if they were interchangeable) can have additional requirements, such as exams.

OOC: South Dakota has the easiest bar exam in the United States. The average South Dakotan lawyer scored below average on the LSAT a few years earlier, and more than 97% of test-takers pass the state bar exam. In Wisconsin, the passage rate is 99.73%!

http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/2013/04/the-most-difficult-bar-exams.html

[Knootoss]

"Oh, I do like the representatives from Christian Democrats. Such neat, upstanding people! It is a shame, then, that this repeal misrepresents the original resolution. Nowhere does the "Recognising Achievements Act" oblige member states to assume that all diplomas are the same. National accreditation agencies are allowed to inquire into functional differences, say, education at a foreign institute being inferior. They just aren't allowed to refuse individuals access to their accreditation process solely based on the nation where their qualification was earned, which unfortunately used to happen before this resolution was passed.

I'd like to add that the geography of the institution doesn't necessarily determine course contents. There is nothing to stop a Knootian University from setting up a series of courses to train their students to be proficient in a foreign system of law. There are probably some other demands that should be met, such as field experience, but at least the students can be given credit for the course content.

Nevertheless, a national accreditation agency, using national processes, is perfectly free to conclude that the quality or content of the education received at a foreign institution does not 'translate' into an ability to, say, practice law in that country. The proposal is unfortunately illegal. An honest misunderstanding of the law.

Good luck with your other ideas though!"

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Christian Democrats]

Nowhere does the "Recognising Achievements Act" oblige member states to assume that all diplomas are the same.

Of course not. An engineering degree and a sociology degree are different in kind.

National accreditation agencies are allowed to inquire into functional differences, say, education at a foreign institute being inferior.

That actually seems like something that prospective employers or clients should judge. Accreditation is simply a preliminary process for official permission to practice a certain trade. RAA, unfortunately, takes the unreasonable position "that standards of education are rarely, if ever, uniformly low in any one nation." Some nations are backwaters.

They just aren't allowed to refuse individuals access to their accreditation process solely based on the nation where their qualification was earned, which unfortunately used to happen before this resolution was passed.

Did it? COCR prohibits discrimination based on nationality without a "compelling practical purpose." In some fields, there are compelling practical reasons to reject everyone who has not been educated domestically. The law is used as the example in my proposal's text.

If your claim were correct, this proposal would have been illegal ab initio for simply restating COCR in one particular situation. You know and I know that Ossitania's intent was to make degrees transferrable from one nation to another regardless of cross-national differences. This resolution exists for "clarifying the levels of education that individuals have received." If two individuals in two countries have attained the same level of education, the other nation must accredit without regard for the differences.

"You did not attend a law school accredited by the American Bar Association" is a form of discrimination based solely on the nation, and it is a perfectly reasonable form of discrimination given the nature of the legal profession. That's what my repeal argues.

Nevertheless, a national accreditation agency, using national processes, is perfectly free to conclude that the quality or content of the education received at a foreign institution does not 'translate' into an ability to, say, practice law in that country.

No, accreditation agencies are not "perfectly free" because they have to treat equivalent foreign degrees (e.g., a Saudi Arabian law degree) the same as domestic degrees regardless of systematic differences if "the levels of education" are similar.

The proposal is unfortunately illegal. An honest misunderstanding of the law.

Rather than making misplaced accusations and rather than threatening to take this to the moderators, could you try to make a political argument against this repeal proposal, one that the voters might find persuasive?

Furthermore, as the coauthor of RAA, what are your views on the other flaws that this repeal proposal highlights?

I fear that you are engaging in revisionism unconsciously merely to save a law to which your name is signed instead of recognizing that the text, not the concept, is seriously defective. All of these "buts" that you're giving now come from what you think the legislation should say, not what it actually says.

One premise of my repeal is that certain degrees "are not necessarily transitive" across national boundaries even if they are equivalent to degrees offered in other countries. Discrimination based on nationality is precisely what I approbate in certain fields. If you want to practice your trade in a new country, sometimes you'll have to get a new degree before accessing the accreditation process.

Ultimately, the voters should decide whether or not my "certain fields" argument is a good one. Your argument (after that fact!) that national discrimination is permitted in certain fields runs contrary not only to the spirit of the resolution but also its letter.

[Bananaistan]

At this stage there are a number of us claiming that the resolution does one thing while you say it does another. I won't continue to make the same point over and over again.

I will say though that I do not see the resolution as pointless. Where there is equivalence the national bodies can and will accredit. This will be the case in many things, local systems of law notwithstanding.

[Christian Democrats]

At this stage there are a number of us claiming that the resolution does one thing while you say it does another. I won't continue to make the same point over and over again.

On this point, we can agree. There is a literal interpretation and a revisionist interpretation. When there are competing interpretations, the moderators have said that they are hands-off and let the voters decide which view is correct.

My interpretation is based on a straightforward reading of the text, which speaks of "levels of education" (bachelor's degree, master's degree, doctoral degree, etc.) and "area[s] of operation" (law, medicine, nursing, etc.). If a foreign-educated individual has an equivalent level of education in the same area of operation, the accreditation body must decide in his favor.

That accreditation bodies look under the hood (to employ a car analogy) and that they are actually free to engage in overt national discrimination in certain fields are attributes that have been added four years later based on what the resolution should have said.

Also, I want to reiterate that my "certain fields" argument is not the only argument that I am making in this proposal.

[Knootoss]

Did it? COCR prohibits discrimination based on nationality without a "compelling practical purpose." In some fields, there are compelling practical reasons to reject everyone who has not been educated domestically. The law is used as the example in my proposal's text.

If your claim were correct, this proposal would have been illegal ab initio for simply restating COCR in one particular situation. You know and I know that Ossitania's intent was to make degrees transferrable from one nation to another regardless of cross-national differences. This resolution exists for "clarifying the levels of education that individuals have received." If two individuals in two countries have attained the same level of education, the other nation must accredit without regard for the differences.

"You did not attend a law school accredited by the American Bar Association" is a form of discrimination based solely on the nation, and it is a perfectly reasonable form of discrimination given the nature of the legal profession. That's what my repeal argues.

"And here we are at the heart of the misunderstanding. If this 'American Bar Association' is an institute of accreditation, and if (IF!) a foreign lawyer may legally seek work inside their area of operation, then it would make sense for this Association to accredit qualifications earned at a foreign institution, whilst charging a nominal fee to cover the costs involved. There is a difference between the geography of the student and the educational institution and the country-specificity of the education they've received. The "Recognising Achievements Act" was passed to facilitate cross-border accreditation, not to force foreign lawyers onto your no-doubt very advanced legal system that us foreigners couldn't possibly understand.

I'm not in any way threatening you by stating that this repeal is illegal, because you fundamentally misunderstand what the resolution does. I'm not the only one to have said so! I'm hoping for us all, being reasonable people, to see reason. If you must see an appeal to the Secretariat before believing it, well, then we'll have to put this one on their pile? It does seem like a waste of everyone's time for a resolution which helps people find qualified work in other countries and has no negative effect on anyone whatsoever."

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Christian Democrats]

And here we are at the heart of the misunderstanding. If this 'American Bar Association' is an institute of accreditation, and if (IF!) a foreign lawyer may legally seek work inside their area of operation, then it would make sense for this Association to accredit qualifications earned at a foreign institution, whilst charging a nominal fee to cover the costs involved.

A fine political argument for what the association should do, not a legality argument.

There is a difference between the geography of the student and the educational institution and the country-specificity of the education they've received. The "Recognising Achievements Act" was passed to facilitate cross-border accreditation, not to force foreign lawyers onto your no-doubt very advanced legal system that us foreigners couldn't possibly understand.

A continuation of your political argument for keeping the resolution.

I'm not in any way threatening you by stating that this repeal is illegal, because you fundamentally misunderstand what the resolution does. I'm not the only one to have said so!

You're one of two. More people have expressed support for this proposal.

What RAA does is require nations to accredit foreigners with similar levels of education (e.g., a bachelor's degree) in given areas of operation (e.g., business administration). In many fields, this is reasonable. In others, it is not.

In the fields for which it is unreasonable, RAA does not carve out an exemption even though it should have.

It does seem like a waste of everyone's time for a resolution which helps people find qualified work in other countries and has no negative effect on anyone whatsoever.

A political argument.

[Knootoss]

"Because you are such a smart and erudite person, I'm not going to pretend that you don't know the difference between facts and mere political spin. Your dedication to this illegal repeal idea is wonderfully persistent! I love that.

The thrust of your argument, that this draft may not be be sufficiently faulty as to trigger intervention by the Secretariat is... perhaps not the strongest rhetorical flourish. When you are trying to paint the arguments against your draft as 'political' rather than 'legal' so that you don't have to stoop to engaging with us, you might be a little bit over-committed to repealing for the sake of repealing? Or perhaps you'd like another WA Merit badge? Very persistent though. Admirable!"

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Christian Democrats]

My proposal text gives my argument against this resolution. Your argument that RAA "helps people find qualified work in other countries and has no negative effect on anyone whatsoever" is a political argument with which I happen to disagree.

I'm not in any way threatening you by stating that this repeal is illegal, because you fundamentally misunderstand what the resolution does. I'm not the only one to have said so! I'm hoping for us all, being reasonable people, to see reason. If you must see an appeal to the Secretariat before believing it, well, then we'll have to put this one on their pile? It does seem like a waste of everyone's time for a resolution which helps people find qualified work in other countries and has no negative effect on anyone whatsoever.

This paragraph is the perfect example of how you're mixing legality and political claims to try to make this legal proposal appear illegal.

As for the legality, there's no reason to read RAA in any way but a straightforward fashion: Accreditation bodies must be "nation-blind." For anybody who seeks to work in an "area of operation," the accreditation body must recognize a foreign degree as legitimate if the "levels of education" are equivalent, or similar. Taking the nation of origin into account is illegal regardless of the field. The only way to deal with "a great diversity of educational standards and philosophies" is to treat foreign degrees the same as domestic degrees because "standards of education are rarely, if ever, uniformly low in any one nation." For example, three years of legal training is three years of legal training. To deny a Saudi Arabian lawyer access to an American bar exam because he didn't graduate from an American law school would be illegal discrimination under RAA. I think and my proposal argues that this sort of "discrimination" is reasonable.

Finally, you've failed to address the other deficiencies in RAA that I have identified, focusing on only one prong of my repeal.

[Alqania]

"Alqanian law is different enough from Knootian law that the subjects are not the same 'area of operation' - a degree in Knootian law is not considered equivalent to a degree in Alqanian law", informed Lord Raekevik. "On the other hand, in the event that a Knootian institute would start offering degrees in Alqanian law, we would be bound to examine those degrees and determine whether they are indeed equivalent. The simple fact that law degrees may be given without the relevant nation name in the title does not preclude anyone from determining the 'area of operation' as the domestic law of a particular jurisdiction."

"Similarly, a degree in geology may be limited in its 'area of operation' to the conditions on a particular planet and not equivalent to a degree on the geology of a wildly different world. Whereas we cannot discriminate on the origin of the degree - which planet the institute is located on - it is indeed very reasonable to discriminate between different subject matters - which planet the study concerns."

[Christian Democrats]

"Alqanian law is different enough from Knootian law that the subjects are not the same 'area of operation' - a degree in Knootian law is not considered equivalent to a degree in Alqanian law", informed Lord Raekevik. "On the other hand, in the event that a Knootian institute would start offering degrees in Alqanian law, we would be bound to examine those degrees and determine whether they are indeed equivalent. The simple fact that law degrees may be given without the relevant nation name in the title does not preclude anyone from determining the 'area of operation' as the domestic law of a particular jurisdiction."

The common-sense reading of RAA is that it requires accreditation boards to be "nation-blind."

I earned a degree in Alqanian law, and you earned a degree in Knootian law.

I earned a degree in Alqanian law, and you earned a degree in Knootian law.

I earned a degree in law, and you earned a degree in law.

To distinguish Alqanian law from Knootian law for the purpose of not recognizing a Knootian law degree is to discriminate based on the nation. It's a stretch to say that Alqanian law and Knootian law are separate "areas of operation."

In the original debate, Ossitania, RAA's author, said that "equivalent" means "roughly equal" and that his resolution requires accreditation boards to "have a method of comparing degrees earned abroad with the degrees of your nation in order to ensure that everyone who applies for accreditation is given the most appropriate and deserved level of recognition." Giving examples of what he intended, he said that "areas of operation" refer to general professions, "such as 'surgeon', 'engineer', [and] 'architect.'" I assume that "lawyer" could be included in this list as well. "Alqanian lawyer" and "Knootian lawyer" is precisely what Ossitania sought to end.

[Knootoss]

Answering OOC because this is getting pretty ridiculous, not to mention repetitive:

No. Ossitania didn't seek to end Alqanian and Knootian lawyers, though the world might well be better off without lawyers. Seeing how I consulted extensively with Ossitania on the original resolution, I feel that I'm better placed to speak for Ossitania's original intent. What you insist on referring to as the 'common sense' reading of the resolution is your reading, not Ossitania's, not mine, and not certainly the reading of anyone who isn't determined to find fault with the resolution.

While the accreditation boards must be "nation-blind", they are not in any way bound to be "curriculum blind". And as Alqania already pointed out, non-transitive skills may necessitate additional requirements. This happens even within a nation: I personally switched universities between my bachelors' and masters degrees, and my bachelors' content had to be accredited to make sure that I could start my masters' without first completing additional course material. In Real Life organisations such as the European system of accreditation make this process much easier, allowing students to go to different EU countries.

And speaking from personal experience: one of my own RL relatives actually studied for a law degree and went to the United States for a semester with courses that could help him complete his law degree in Europe. That's a transatlantic educational exchange in the only area of study that you've managed to explore in depth in RL. This fapping to the uniqueness of a "national" curriculum is really quite overblown, and this insistence that a person must be educated in the same country where they work strikes me as a pre-globalisation attitude that has no basis in Real Life reality, not to mention the much deeper integration of law that we have with the WA in NationStates.

Finally: I didn't address the "other flaws" because I don't consider them at all flaws. Just technical aspects of the resolution that you bring up to pad your repeal text, seeing how your only proper argument against the resolution ("states should be allowed to ban furriners from qualified work without even a chance at an accreditation process for their foreign credentials") might very well be considered a NatSov argument and thus be illegal in itself. But let me have a quick crack at it:

Noting that Resolution 146 is flawed because it uses the terms "academic title" and "professional title" as if they were interchangeable despite the fact that higher academic degrees, such as the Ph.D., D.Phil., or Th.D., and professional degrees, such as the J.D., M.D., or D.N.P., are distinct from one another,

So? Dromedaries and Bactrians may be distinct, but they are both camels. This is like pointing out that a camel-themed resolution is flawed because it doesn't differentiate between camels with one hump and camels with two humps. The difference is irrelevant for the purpose of the resolution so long as it is a protected title with an accreditation process.

Identifying that Resolution 146 is also deficient because its scope is limited to "national" and "supranational" accreditation bodies and that it fails to account for countries that commit accreditation to subnational jurisdictions, such as provinces, states, territories, counties, or oblasts,

When a nation commits is accreditation to a subnational jurisdiction, it continues to be a national accreditation procedure. The resolution explicitly clarifies "that this resolution neither requires nor prohibits any particular method or process of academic accreditation." This argument is not a common-sense reading but being purposely obtuse.