[DEFEATED] Repeal "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes"

[Bananaistan]

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

OOC: I think we need to have a chat about these two clauses.

What evidence is there that the target seeks "to invoke requirement" with the word "should"?

How does this make the ability to recommend unavailable to the GA in future?

Edit:

Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,

You're trying to have it both ways here. This "concerned" clause outlines that the "should" clauses are not requirements. The above "believing" clauses alleges that it is a requirement. The same clause in the target cannot do both. I think I can say with certainty that one or the other is an honest mistake.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Where does it say that the target does those things?

[Bananaistan]

What's the point then? If it's not implying it then it's arguing something completely irrelevant to the target and is also an honest mistake.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What's the point then? If it's not implying it then it's arguing something completely irrelevant to the target and is also an honest mistake.

That's a provision applying to the resolution as a whole, not to each clause. Such an interpretation would definitely also strike out the words 'The World Assembly'.

At a broad level, it is definitely permissible to give counter arguments and then refute them. Or to provide to the public the kinds of problems that emerge when people take those counterarguments. Banning something along the lines of "X, and not X leads to bad things Y" would seem to me eminently irresponsible.

[Kranostav]

I don't see how it doesn't, having people enforce resolutions by the letter of the law & not the spirit has a long-accepted history, I see no reason why this doesn't follow under the same.

Well I was implying that I interpret should as more binding than something like 'urging' or 'recommending'. Especially when already present in a binding clause, assuming good faith compliance that you 'should' do something. Thus why your argument:

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

is nonsensical to me. And would really come down what gensec thinks on the issue. Since I don't know how you can say that if 'should' is ruled as binding, the rest of the possible recommendation terms are invalid. I'm sure a legality challenge will come of this somewhere to confirm or set precedent on the usage of 'should'.

[Kranostav]

snip

Okay, I concede that should is in no way operative. So there's that.

Regardless I want to go on to bring from my discord comments about the logic of the proposal. Yes multiple arguments can be made at once to allow for the repeal to appeal to those who find certain ones more valid than others. However the 'X, it not X, then Y' logic cannot save you from an HM violation if X is incorrect

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm not certain that the repeal's language actually constitutes an Honest Mistake, because those words, dictionary-wise, can be read the way the author reads them. But I don't see any binding precedent for interpreting "should" forevermore as a mandate. If "should" were being used as a stand-alone clause initiator, that would be one thing (and also moot as there'd be no way to read it as mandatory). But what we have here is a clarification of an unquestionably rigid mandate. Future uses of "should" will most likely not be credibly interpreted as mandates.

In other words I don't think the second (mandatory) interpretation of "should" is correct, but it's not obviously enough wrong that it's illegal.

Anyway, the Honest Mistake rule applies to statements about the target resolution. The language in question here is a statement about judicial interpretation. If anything, it's Metagaming. But we don't necessarily have a precedent that it's actually so, and it's couched pretty vaguely. I'm inclined to vote Legal.

[Bananaistan]

Anyway, the Honest Mistake rule applies to statements about the target resolution. The language in question here is a statement about judicial interpretation. If anything, it's Metagaming. But we don't necessarily have a precedent that it's actually so, and it's couched pretty vaguely. I'm inclined to vote Legal.

The first part of the honest mistake rule states that repeals should address the content of the target as does the last part which states that "an 'honest mistake' is ... content that doesn't address the resolution". This statement about judicial interpretation is either not addressing the target as well as being metagaming, or is a misinterpretation of the target.

[Separatist Peoples]

Anyway, the Honest Mistake rule applies to statements about the target resolution. The language in question here is a statement about judicial interpretation. If anything, it's Metagaming. But we don't necessarily have a precedent that it's actually so, and it's couched pretty vaguely. I'm inclined to vote Legal.

The first part of the honest mistake rule states that repeals should address the content of the target as does the last part which states that "an 'honest mistake' is ... content that doesn't address the resolution". This statement about judicial interpretation is either not addressing the target as well as being metagaming, or is a misinterpretation of the target.

Hang on, just because one argument doesn't address the repeal doesn't make the whole repeal illegal.

[Bears Armed]

I'm not certain that the repeal's language actually constitutes an Honest Mistake, because those words, dictionary-wise, can be read the way the author reads them. But I don't see any binding precedent for interpreting "should" forevermore as a mandate. If "should" were being used as a stand-alone clause initiator, that would be one thing (and also moot as there'd be no way to read it as mandatory). But what we have here is a clarification of an unquestionably rigid mandate. Future uses of "should" will most likely not be credibly interpreted as mandates.

In other words I don't think the second (mandatory) interpretation of "should" is correct, but it's not obviously enough wrong that it's illegal.

OOCAgreed.

The first part of the honest mistake rule states that repeals should address the content of the target as does the last part which states that "an 'honest mistake' is ... content that doesn't address the resolution". This statement about judicial interpretation is either not addressing the target as well as being metagaming, or is a misinterpretation of the target.

Hang on, just because one argument doesn't address the repeal doesn't make the whole repeal illegal.

OOC
Agreed. The requirement is for the repeal as a whole to do so, not that every individual clause within the repeal must. It's a comparable situation to National Sovereignty being illegal as a repeal's sole argument but the inclusion of one clause invoking NatSov in a repeal that also has valid other arguments being legal.

[Cosmosplosion]

I would like to begin by stating that, as the original author, I agree with the interpretation of the word "should" in this repeal, and I am in support of repeal and replace.

Applauding the efforts of the target resolution to improve health by reducing smoking and related issues,

Thank you.

Reminding itself that passed resolutions cannot be amended to resolve errors,

Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,

This was an honest mistake in the drafting process, for which I apologize.

Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

I do agree on this.

Observing that not all member member nations are composed of species harmed by the targeted products and believing such to be an unnecessary overreach,

We can address this in the replacement.

Further observing that the educational requirements would cause waste of resources in nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent,

This as well. It's still an international issue and I do not want this to turn into an excuse for the NatSov folks to attack any replacement resolution.

Hopefully consigning to private essays rather than General Assembly resolutions titles starting with the word "On",

Noted.

Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal,

Replacement on the way. I am in support.

[Cosmosplosion]

What's the point then? If it's not implying it then it's arguing something completely irrelevant to the target and is also an honest mistake.

The use of the word "should" was an honest mistake - hope that clears it up.

[Bananaistan]

Hang on, just because one argument doesn't address the repeal doesn't make the whole repeal illegal.

OOC
Agreed. The requirement is for the repeal as a whole to do so, not that every individual clause within the repeal must. It's a comparable situation to National Sovereignty being illegal as a repeal's sole argument but the inclusion of one clause invoking NatSov in a repeal that also has valid other arguments being legal.

There's no basis in the rule for this. The honest mistake rule says that an 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution. Why do we rule a repeal illegal on the basis of one clause being a factual inaccuracy or misrepresentation but if I read your comments right here, the whole would have to be content not addressing the target in order to rule it illegal for that? This has not been our practice in CP rulings and looks like a huge departure from precedent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Some of this response is continued from Discord.

The part that was just raised by Sep and SL, having to do with the relevance portion of the HM rule, is the source of the distinction I termed veracity and relevance. There are two portions of the HM rule: veracity, which applies to all clauses about reasonable interpretations, and relevance, which applies to the proposal as a whole. The latter has an 'all' burden, that is, all clauses must fall afoul. Perhaps this is new terminology, but I was under the impression that this standard of judgement was standard (buh dum ching, terrible pun). It also happens to be the standard under which Repeal "Freedom of Expression" was passed, which has nothing directly addressing the resolution at all. In fact, that whole resolution simply lays out some general remarks about good things, then repeals GA 30.

The section in question talks about the consequences of adopting a certain (wrong) interpretation. It does not claim that (wrong) interpretation is correct. I think the correct reading of the section in the proposal is a secondary argument for why 'should = optional' is the correct interpretation. The veracity of those consequence claims is outside the scope of HM because those are fundamentally fact claims. If anyone disagrees on that, I've got about 400 words about that. I've also got lots of words about metagaming, but after work.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Agreed. The requirement is for the repeal as a whole to do so, not that every individual clause within the repeal must. It's a comparable situation to National Sovereignty being illegal as a repeal's sole argument but the inclusion of one clause invoking NatSov in a repeal that also has valid other arguments being legal.

There's no basis in the rule for this. The honest mistake rule says that an 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution. Why do we rule a repeal illegal on the basis of one clause being a factual inaccuracy or misrepresentation but if I read your comments right here, the whole would have to be content not addressing the target in order to rule it illegal for that? This has not been our practice in CP rulings and looks like a huge departure from precedent.

OOC
Maybe because there's potentially a difference between an 'Honest Mistake' that actively misrepresents the target and one that simply doesn't address it?
I'm going to think further about this -- and about which side of that line this particular clause falls on -- overnight...

Believing that llamas are better than squirrels,

[Imperium Anglorum]

Regarding fact claims on general things, which is what this is about, the moderators were quite clear: viewtopic.php?p=24142594#p24142594 . To deal with the inevitable counter-argument, the section I'm talking about refers to factual errors, not unreasonable interpretations. The part that many GA regulars revolted against was the permission for interpretive errors, which was overturned.

Moreover, regarding such fact claims, GenSec already ruled that it does not want to inject a counter majoritarian decision on what constitutes an extreme hazard, viewtopic.php?p=34134698#p34134698 , something which I think can be crossapplied to fact claims made generally in repeals – the alternative would require Secretariat members to have degrees in everything.

[Cosmosplosion]

I am withdrawing my support for this repeal, pending ongoing legal discussions.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Just to be clear. Nobody in GenSec has proposed a sua sponte review as of yet nor has anyone lodged a challenge.

As far as I can see the questions are:

1) Are the believing and further believing clauses content not addressing the target?

2) If so, how much content not addressing the target is permitted under the HM rule?

3) Regardless of this "content not addressing the target" aspect, is the further believing clause a misrepresentation, factually inaccurate, or allowable exaggeration ?

I note IA has referred to fact checking. I don't think any of us, particularly members of GenSec, want GenSec to get involved in fact checking. In this case, assessing the claim made in the further believing clause is a bit beyond merely reading and understanding the repeal and the target but it is still within the scope of the GA and GenSec's operations.

I also note that this part of the HM rule (IA refers to it as relevance here) only came about as the second version of the HM rule in the 2016 rewrite of the rules. There is no modly or GenSec precedent on it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can't access NS from work, so I can't directly post this response. Instead, I'm going to post a GitHub gist of what I want to say. If you have any objections to that: (1) seriously? and (2) bully to you.

https://bit.ly/2C2BwzR#file-summary-md

Later, I may update this post with the contents thereof. Done. See below.

I agree with Banana where the main clash is and on the three questions he poses. They are the same ones which I have repeatedly addressed above. I would just reorder them. There is a clear decision tree that must be followed.

Relevance and veracity

First contention is that the Honest mistake rule can be distinguished into two sections: relevance and veracity. And that the part about relevance solely requires that the proposed repeal in fact have any part addressing the resolution (i.e. an "all" standard). The part on veracity, which is far older, has an "all" standard, that is, it applies to every clause independently. To adapt a phrase from Banana, if 9/10 clauses are okay, but one breaks veracity, then the proposal as a whole is not.

Why should these burdens take this approach? (Also known as why are every one of my statements so long?) Veracity is rooted in equity to authors whose resolutions are to be repealed. The Relevance portion exists solely as a mechanism to ensure that repeals in fact target the right targets. Making claims about the world as a whole has no impact on equity. Nor is it preferable. Restriction here means (1) less ability for authors to establish the premises for their repeal argument, (2) restricts the ability to call for new legislation, and (3) effectively query the Assembly for mandates to future legislation. These all improve the specificity of the Assembly and are tools that authors have used in the past for repeals and replace, as well as normal repeals.

Basing this on equity also justifies the differential burden. Veracity applies to all clauses because any clause can be inequitable. But only a resolution as a whole can be mistargeted. The units being analysed are fundamentally different.

What do the clauses claim?

The clauses claim that for a judicial body, national or international, to interpret the word should to impose a requirement, as it would if we were to accept the arguments regarding good faith brought forth initially by Araraukar, Bears Armed, and Kranostav, there would be lots of bad things that happen. For a discussion on metagaming, see https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... tement.png . (Or the Discord chat, #snakes-on-a-wa, because this link might be broken, it's a stupendously long string.)

It does not appear that those bad things happen is up for debate, as it is for _those_ reasons that most of the Secretariat has dismissed out of hand that interpretation. As the author of those clauses, I can tell you that the reason why they are there is to preempt the possible argument that GA 2's "good faith" requirement creates a mandatory action. It does not claim that the target should be or could be interpreted in the manner which Araraukar, Bears Armed, Kranostav, etc. initially wanted to interpret it.

Statements about the world in general do not fall into Veracity. The only things that fall into Veracity, because of its founding in equity, are statements made about target resolutions. There are other things which may fall into equity for target resolution authors. But the prohibiting of truthful statements about the world in general is not one of those things.

The remaining question is that of relevance. Other clauses directly address the target resolution. Relevance's burden is met. The proposal is not illegal for any violation of veracity, relevance, or metagaming.

[Cosmosplosion]

As the author of this bill, I have reconsidered my position and am firmly agains this proposal.

Firstly, while yes the interpretation of "should" technically allows nations to print the warning labels in whatever language they wish, that interpretation would be in poor taste. The small amount of nations who do so may be in compliance, however a better solution that solves this issue and many more has been come to - a resolution requiring labeling in native and widely spoken languages is coming to fix not only this resolution, but any other resolution which requires labeling.

Second, GAR #459 requires education on the issue of tobacco and even without the labeling requirement, that education is still done. The point of this was to educate consumers, and it still does that very effectively.

I am most confident that the GA will see it the same way.

[Lord Dominator]

Firstly, while yes the interpretation of "should" technically allows nations to print the warning labels in whatever language they wish, that interpretation would be in poor taste.

But still, notably a legal interpretation.

[Wallenburg]

This is now at vote.

[Cosmosplosion]

Firstly, while yes the interpretation of "should" technically allows nations to print the warning labels in whatever language they wish, that interpretation would be in poor taste.

But still, notably a legal interpretation.

Yes, for now - not for long, however.

[Lynwood]

There should be a forum specifically for OOC posts.. I thought this forum was to debate the leglisations portraying your respected nation you control

[Wallenburg]

There should be a forum specifically for OOC posts.. I thought this forum was to debate the leglisations portraying your respected nation you control

There are many relevant GA ideas (especially ones concerning legality) that depend on OOC discussion, and beyond that forcing everyone to roleplay all the time is just a dick move.