Mallorea and Riva wrote:The WASP cannot enforce any standard that is left explicitly vague, especially when that standard is subjective to each member state. ""Maintain" is used in referring to the facility, not necessarily the specimens within. It is never specified within the text.
What is subjective about the standard? Where are you reading that 'acceptable preservation methods' is 'subjective to each member state?' That
only beings to make sense if you assume that WASP
has no regulatory power. Even then, it's difficult to argue your point because of the very wording itself: 'acceptable' implies objectivity, not subjectivity. The clause itself clearly reads as requiring an objective standard.
Furthermore, the fact that you keep having to use the phrase 'not necessarily' shows that you're being overly semantic in both your reading and argument. The facility is used for scientific research. The organization running it is a scientific research organization. They aren't going to be just changing light bulbs -- the OBM can do that. If you take context into account (which you certainly should, but you currently aren't), 'maintain' means exactly what you think it would mean: operating the facility.
Taking context into account also shows the inherent regulatory power over preservation methods. Why would the author say that acceptable methods need to be used, but not in any way point out what those methods are? Out of context, you're arguing that that's exactly what the author did. But that's simply absurd. Obviously, the author intended for those methods to be declared by some authority. WASP is given substantial authority already. WASP scientists are tasked with many research obligations. In this context, it is abundantly clear that WASP would have the authority to set out the preservation standards.
Mallorea and Riva wrote:As for your statement that there's no reason to add safety protocols, I would simply state that you are reading things into the resolution that are
never even mentioned.
It doesn't need to be. As I've argued before, obviously necessary mandates need not be included in a resolution's text. There is an implied security by the mere characteristic of the facility
and in the authorities over that facility given to WASP. What you're quibbling over is that the resolution doesn't mention specifically security. Well, the resolution doesn't mention specifically that it will have electricity or scientific equipment or even that it be more than ten square feet in area. No reasonable person, however, is going to argue that these things aren't included just because the resolution doesn't specifically include them. They are all implied. What you're asking for is unreasonable and indeed impractical for World Assembly resolutions.
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Indeed the resolution contradicts common sense by explicitly creating a single building to house a massive research project...
You haven't given this argument up, yet? It's been refuted so many times.