[PASSED] Repeal Convention on Animal Testing

[Concrete Slab]

At its current rate, "Convention on Animal Testing" looks like it's going to pass. I've made a repeal and want to get it out pretty quick, so I'm putting it here for early critiques. Please give me any advice or changes you think of!

This august World Assembly,

Believing that the resolution, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects,

Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation, however,

Noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals;

Shocked that this definition provides nations with an extensive loophole by allowing them to conduct potentially harmful experiments on animals, then claim it was not their goal to intentionally harm the subjects,

Concerned that the limited definition of ethical testing does not include negligently causing severe harm not required for the legitimate purposes of the testing, leaving test animals at risk of unnecessary harm in a substantial number of circumstances,

Further realizing that there is no way to prove whether member nations did intend to maliciously harm a test animal,

Believing that this definition also allows nations to avoid taking responsibility for the harm of testing animals by stating it was not their intention to harm the subject,

Convinced that, through this loophole, the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,”

Believing that Clause 3 is also rendered null, as the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,”

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A requires member nations to report all procedures carried out on animals to the WABB, resulting in a massive overreach that would greatly inconvenience testing facilities and cause instances of unethical testing to be lost in the plethora of reports,

Recognizing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection ii’s giving of animals to legal entity requires that the testing animal has a “good disposition,” preventing it from finding a home if it is not perfectly well behaved,

Further seeing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection iii requires the giving of testing animals to a legal entity if it is “unable to survive without help,” contradicting Section C of the same clause which allows for testing animals to be humanely euthanized if they cannot find a good home,

Concluding that this resolution’s definition of “ethical testing” provides member nations a means of dodging the entire resolution,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #477 will lead to an effective replacement being passed in its place,

Hereby repeals GAR#477 “Convention On Animal Testing.”

Co-authored by Angshire, Bobberino

This august World Assembly,

Believing that GAR#477, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects,

Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation, however,

Noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Concerned that the limited definition of ethical testing does not include negligently causing severe harm not required for the legitimate purposes of the testing, leaving test animals at risk of unnecessary harm in a substantial number of circumstances,

Further realizing that there is no way to prove whether member nations did intend to maliciously harm a test animal,

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” which member nations can dodge through its narrow view,

Concerned by GAR #477's complete disregard of the spectrum of species intelligence, as species characterized with low intelligence are unlikely to be under distress,

Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” as it is impossible to prove a nation’s intent,

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A requires member nations to report all procedures carried out on animals to the WABB, resulting in a massive overreach that would greatly inconvenience testing and research facilities,

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep testing on test animals until they die by claiming they are using them for research,

Further seeing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection iii requires the giving of test animals to a legal entity if they are “unable to survive without help,” contradicting Section C of the same clause which allows for test animals to be humanely euthanized if they cannot find a good home, causing confusion when these sections are to be enforced,

Concluding that this resolution’s definition of “ethical testing” provides member nations a means of dodging the entire resolution,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #477 will lead to an effective replacement being passed in its place,

Hereby repeals GAR #477 “Convention On Animal Testing.”

This august World Assembly,

Believing that GAR#477, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects,

Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation,

However, noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Realizing that it is difficult and laborious to prove whether an individual intended to maliciously harm a test animal or if the harm was caused by negligence or carelessness,

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, allowing the administrator to avoid conviction,

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” which member nations can easily dodge by taking advantage of the resolution's narrow scope,
Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as, given the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing”, the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing; it is impossible to prove a researcher’s or facility’s intent,

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A’s ambiguity in using the term “procedures” allows for testing facilities to either get swamped reporting every minute detail or take an excessive amount of license on what they report,

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”

Concluding that the clear potential for evading the requirements apparently imposed by the target resolution render it ineffective,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #477 will lead to an effective replacement being passed in its place,

Hereby repeals GAR #477 “Convention On Animal Testing.”

This august World Assembly,

Believing that GAR #477, “Convention on Animal Testing,” is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects,

Noting, however, that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Realizing that it is difficult and laborious to prove whether an individual intended to maliciously harm a test animal or if the harm was caused by negligence or carelessness,

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm to the animal than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, allowing the administrator to avoid conviction,

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” which member nations can easily dodge by taking advantage of the resolution's narrow scope,

Further convinced that the definition of “ethical testing” allows for animals to experience severe distress and harm as long as tests are not done in a malicious manner or that the harm and distress during the tests is “moderate,”

Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as, given the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing”, the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing; it is impossible to prove a researcher’s or facility’s intent,

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A’s ambiguity in using the term “procedures” allows for testing facilities to adopt the definition of said term that is most favourable to them and thus avoid reporting crucial matters, including instances of abuse of test animals,

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming their negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”

Further worried that Clause 7 is rendered almost useless, as test animals can be killed in a non-cruel manner before reaching “former test animal” status, as killing test animals is only prohibited after experiments on them are concluded in Clause 5,

Concluding that the clear potential for evading the requirements apparently imposed by the target resolution render it ineffective,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #477 will lead to an effective replacement being passed in its place,

Hereby repeals GAR #477 “Convention On Animal Testing.”

This august World Assembly,

Believing that GAR #477, “Convention on Animal Testing,” is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects,

Noting, however, that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Realizing that it is difficult and laborious to prove whether an individual intended to maliciously harm a test animal or if the harm was caused by negligence or carelessness,

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm to the animal than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, making conviction impossible because the administrator has the malicious intent while the employee actual carries out the procedure,

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” which member nations can easily dodge by taking advantage of the resolution's narrow scope,

Further convinced that the definition of “ethical testing” allows for animals to experience significant distress and harm as long as tests are not done in a malicious manner or that the harm and distress during the tests is “moderate,”

Noting that the division between “severe” distress or harm and moderate distress or harm is not made objectively measurable in any way at all in the target resolution, allowing member nations to set an arbitrary and undesirably high threshold for severity,

Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as, given the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing”, the WABB is unable to create reports of unethical testing; it is impossible to prove a researcher’s or facility’s intent,

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A’s ambiguity in using the term “procedures” allows for testing facilities to adopt the definition of said term that is most favourable to them and thus avoid reporting crucial matters, including instances of abuse of test animals,

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming their negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”

Further worried that Clause 7 is rendered almost useless, as test animals can be killed in a non-cruel manner before reaching “former test animal” status, as killing test animals is only prohibited after experiments on them are concluded,

Anxious that, in addition to this, Clause 7 even gives research facilities the incentive to find a way to kill no longer needed test animals within the course of animal testing, so as to avoid having to support them and attempt to adopt them out,

Concluding that the clear potential for evading the requirements apparently imposed by the target resolution render it ineffective,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #477 will lead to an effective replacement being passed in its place,

Hereby repeals GAR #477 “Convention On Animal Testing.”

Co-authored by Maowi.

[Kenmoria]

“You have a few instances of missing line breaks, and I don’t think that your second ‘noting’ clause is required, but this looks overall very supportable.”

[Concrete Slab]

“You have a few instances of missing line breaks, and I don’t think that your second ‘noting’ clause is required, but this looks overall very supportable.”

Edited

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Not sure why you should wait until August. Wouldn't November or December be good enough?

[The Undersea Caverns of Aimia]

OOC: Not sure why you should wait until August. Wouldn't November or December be good enough?

I believe the intended meaning is not the eighth month of the year but rather august as in "1. Inspiring mingled reverence and admiration; magnificently impressive; stately, solemnly grand; venerable, revered. 2. Venerable from birth or position; dignified, eminent, majestic."

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Not sure why you should wait until August. Wouldn't November or December be good enough?

OOC: Dec 2020
Response soon

[Maowi]

"I've made annotations on this for you, ambassador. I hope you find them useful. Maowi is in support of the repeal at the moment.

This August World Assembly,

Believing that the resolution, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects, Grammatically speaking, you ought to remove the first comma - but I'd replace "the resolution" with "GAR 477"; if you decide to do that, the comma should be kept.

Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation, however, Replace the first comma with a semicolon or something else stronger than a comma.

Noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals;

Shocked that this definition provides nations with an extensive loophole by allowing them to conduct potentially harmful experiments on animals, then claim it was not their goal to intentionally harm the subjects, Is this not a blatant example of bad-faith? The good-faith compliance requirement should cover this. Instead, I think you could flesh out your rather stronger point which you make in the next clause.

Concerned that the limited definition of ethical testing does not include negligently causing severe harm not required for the legitimate purposes of the testing, leaving test animals at risk of unnecessary harm in a substantial number of circumstances,

Further realizing that there is no way to prove whether member nations did intend to maliciously harm a test animal,

Believing that this definition also allows nations to avoid taking responsibility for the harm of testing animals by stating it was not their intention to harm the subject, Now I'm confused - is this not the exact point you made in the "Shocked" clause? If not, I would advise rephrasing the latter for clarity, and the feedback I have given there would apply here. If they are the same point ... remove this clause?

Convinced that, through this loophole, the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” I'd recommend being more explicit here that your point is that the main role of the WABB is alrerady covered by the WACC (at least, I think that's what your point is!)

Believing that Clause 3 is also rendered null, as the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” How so? I assume you are building on your points about the impossibility of proving intent, but I think it would be beneficial to clarify that.

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A requires member nations to report all procedures carried out on animals to the WABB, resulting in a massive overreach that would greatly inconvenience testing facilities and cause instances of unethical testing to be lost in the plethora of reports, I'm not sure how accurate the latter part of this is, given the WABB's perfect efficiency.

Another loophole you could mention is in Clause 5: Requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiments: ... etc. This doesn't have any sort of specified time frame so research facilities could just keep the animals somewhere until they die, claiming they are using them for research. This would allow them to dodge all the adoption/releasing into wild requirements.

Recognizing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection ii’s giving of animals to legal entity entities (or "to a legal entity") requires that the testing animal has a “good disposition,” preventing it from finding a home if it is not perfectly well behaved,

Further seeing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection iii requires the giving of testing animals to a legal entity if it is “unable to survive without help,” contradicting Section C of the same clause which allows for testing animals to be humanely euthanized if they cannot find a good home, You could drive this point home further by talking about the confusion in enforcement this would cause, etc.

Concluding that this resolution’s definition of “ethical testing” provides member nations a means of dodging the entire resolution,

Hoping that the repeal of GAR #477 will lead to an effective replacement being passed in its place,

Hereby repeals GAR#477 “Convention On Animal Testing.”

Co-authored by Angshire, Bobberino

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just pointing out that "good disposition", in terms of animal behaviour, means that it's not dangerous and aggressive, not that it behaves perfectly. Basically, it can't be unpredictably dangerous to its new owners.

[Concrete Slab]

The draft has been updated.

[Maowi]

Further seeing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection iii requires the giving of testing animals to a legal entity if it is “unable to survive without help,”

OOC: Change "if it is" to "if they are" so that it matches with the plural "testing animals". I'd also change "testing animals" to "test animals" because that is the term used in the target.

contradicting Section C of the same clause which allows for testing animals to be humanely euthanized if they cannot find a good home, causing confusion when these Sections are too be enforced,

Same thing about "testing animals" vs "test animals - upon a second glance, it looks like you do this throughout the whole proposal. Is there any reason "Sections" is capitalised? Feels a bit odd to me. You also need to change "too" to "to".

Just those minor grammatical things, but if I think of any more feedback in time I'll post it here

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘recognising’ clause is not necessary, and doesn’t sound legislative anyway. You also have some semicolons in your first few clauses then the rest are commas; you should stick to one punctuation style.”

[Concrete Slab]

Edited

[Araraukar]

Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation, however,

OOC: Is the "however" meant to refer to this clause, as it now reads, or the next? If the next, put it in the next. Right now you're basically saying "yeay target resolution for trying to put in these regulations, however these regulations are needed", which doesn't make much sense.

Noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Concerned that the limited definition of ethical testing does not include negligently causing severe harm not required for the legitimate purposes of the testing, leaving test animals at risk of unnecessary harm in a substantial number of circumstances,

Is there anything in the resolution that would stop you from writing one about criminalizing negligent animal cruelty? If that's your main complain, just write one that does so - extend it to pets and livestock as well as test animals, to get the necessary scope - without needing to repeal this one.

Further realizing that there is no way to prove whether member nations did intend to maliciously harm a test animal,

No, but there are ways to prove individuals doing that. The same way it happens in real life; someone sees another hurting an animal unnecessarily, either directly or via surveillance systems, or an animal reacts fearfully to one person only out of many, or there are injuries found on the animal that aren't explainable otherwise, etc. You know, the same way animal cruelty is found out in RL in general.

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” which member nations can dodge through its narrow view,

Underlined bit doesn't make sense and looks like the remains of a thought collission or incomplete edit.

Concerned by GAR #477's complete disregard of the spectrum of species intelligence, as species characterized with low intelligence are unlikely to be under distress or even pain,

Actually, in all measures in which pain can be measured in RL - distress and avoidance behaviour being the most prevalent - pretty much every macro-organism (meaning, things you can see with the naked eye) species examined, has shown pain responses. Even vascular plants react to tissue damage very similarly to animals (though obviously most often they can't withdraw bodyparts, they do produce stress hormones the same way animals do). Just because you can't talk with it, doesn't mean it doesn't experience pain.

Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” as it is impossible to prove a nation’s intent,

Again, the point is not national intent, but individual intent.

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A requires member nations to report all procedures carried out on animals to the WABB, resulting in a massive overreach that would greatly inconvenience testing and research facilities,

Given that legitimate research facilities make those reports for their own purposes anyway (I have friends who work or have worked in animal testing facilities and projects; they've told me about the paperwork involved), it's not really a huge effort to also send the reports to the WA committee.

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep testing on test animals until they die by claiming they are using them for research,

Well if they keep the animals, then there's no problem with it, since they have to treat the animals nicely, right? The problem tackled was what happens to test animals once they're no longer "useful", since that tends to be the point of biggest chance of maltreatment. (Being cruel to an animal you're running tests on can affect the test results, but once it's no longer under intensive observation... I'm sure you can understand the problem.)

Further seeing that Clause 5 Section B Subsection iii requires the giving of test animals to a legal entity if they are “unable to survive without help,” contradicting Section C of the same clause which allows for test animals to be humanely euthanized if they cannot find a good home, causing confusion when these sections are to be enforced,

Actually, it requires that if the animal is "expected to live for over a year after its adoption, is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition, and it is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;". It's an "and" list, barring the "or a species commonly kept as pet or livestock" bit at the end. If the animal doesn't fit the requirements of the and-list (meaning, it needs to fit all the parts of it, or be a pet/livestock species), and no suitable adopter has been found, then the animal can be euthanized. Basically, you're focusing on a single bit that isn't the point of the clause.

Concluding that this resolution’s definition of “ethical testing” provides member nations a means of dodging the entire resolution,

How? You keep saying that a lot, but you don't actually spell out how that works out in your opinion. If you mean it lacks the bit about negligence, then that obviously wasn't the focus of the resolution, and there's no reason a new resolution couldn't fix the issue you perceive is the problem.

[Insaanistan]

While supportable, as someone who voted for the resolution, I refuse to vote to repeal it.

[Concrete Slab]

My apologies for the delay, ambassadors, but a new draft is ready for your viewing and feedback.

[Refuge Isle]

Haven't seen any movement in a few days, thought I'd drop in.

Believing that GAR#477, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects,

Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation,

However, noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

I might recommend just discarding "Recognizing the need for this sort of legislation,". It doesn't lead into the next clause with any more persuasion than "Believing...is well-meaning..." and it isn't really a complete enough thought to stand alone.

Because you do start off with the Believing clause, you could go right in to "Noting, however, that the definition of..."

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, allowing the administrator to avoid conviction,

This is a bit word salad, and I'm not 100% of its intention. It sounds like you're trying to argue that bad administration is a method by which a state can be in non-compliance, so the resolution should be scrapped.

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless

I could be wrong on the English, but "is rendered almost useless" sounds like it implies that WABB existed before #477, but with this resolution, it was stripped of its teeth. Really it has always lacked the power to enforce ethical animal testing because of a narrow scope. I think there's room for you to go into those problems a bit.

As far as I can tell, the target resolution allows for the treatment of animals to experience severe distress and harm - not in a malicious manner, or levels of harm and distress which are considered less than severe, such as "moderate", in a malicious manner. That's pretty yikes for an animal testing convention.

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”

I think this can be refined to include an argument with clause 7 where a lab is under no obligation to release any animals, for a test animal can always be killed in a non-cruel manner before reaching "former test animal" status. Because killing an animal is only restricted after it is discharged in clause 5, there's a financial incentive to find a "test" to kill it before then in order to save money and not be a makeshift animal shelter.

[Marxist Germany]

However, noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Realizing that it is difficult and laborious to prove whether an individual intended to maliciously harm a test animal or if the harm was caused by negligence or carelessness,

OOC all: It is the same mechanism used to differentiate between Manslaughter and murder.

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, allowing the administrator to avoid conviction,

Nope, the research lab still carried out the test with malicious intent.

Convinced that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is rendered almost useless, as its main purpose is to report instances of noncompliance by member nations through the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing,” which member nations can easily dodge by taking advantage of the resolution's narrow scope,

Missing a space after this one.

Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as, given the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing”, the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing; it is impossible to prove a researcher’s or facility’s intent,

It is possible, especially when the facilities themselves have to make that report.

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A’s ambiguity in using the term “procedures” allows for testing facilities to either get swamped reporting every minute detail or take an excessive amount of license on what they report,

Whats the problem with reporting the details of every procedure that relates to the actual experiment?

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”

Abusing animals is definitely not ethical testing.

[Maowi]

OOC:

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, allowing the administrator to avoid conviction,

This is a bit word salad, and I'm not 100% of its intention. It sounds like you're trying to argue that bad administration is a method by which a state can be in non-compliance, so the resolution should be scrapped.

The argument is that an administrator could bypass the target resolution's requirements by getting an employee to be the one physically causing the unnecessary harm to the animal without being aware that it is unnecessary. That way, neither of them are both causing harm and doing so maliciously. To the author: perhaps putting "to the animal" after the first mention of "harm" would help clarify this?

However, noting that the definition of “ethical testing” in Clause 1, Section C, limits the scope of the resolution to preventing testing that is maliciously intended to cause harm or distress to animals,

Realizing that it is difficult and laborious to prove whether an individual intended to maliciously harm a test animal or if the harm was caused by negligence or carelessness,

OOC all: It is the same mechanism used to differentiate between Manslaughter and murder.

In practice, that's probably a whole different beast. Disclaimer: not a lawyer, but I get the impression that the problem with manslaughter vs murder lies more in identifying what actions were in fact taken, and once those are established, the rest is clear(ish). With something like this, on the other hand, a person doing something with malicious intent would take pretty much the same actions as someone doing it out of negligence/ignorance. I don't think it's a valid comparison to make.

Further realizing that an administrator of a facility could order an employee to carry out a procedure that causes more harm than necessary, leading to the employee causing harm while not maliciously intending to, allowing the administrator to avoid conviction,

Nope, the research lab still carried out the test with malicious intent.

Oh, sorry, I forgot inanimate objects had intent.

Believing that Clause 3 is rendered null, as, given the resolution’s definition of “ethical testing”, the WABB will not be able to create reports of unethical testing; it is impossible to prove a researcher’s or facility’s intent,

It is possible, especially when the facilities themselves have to make that report.

Are you saying that you expect facilities to report themselves for non-compliance?

Horrified that Clause 4 Section A’s ambiguity in using the term “procedures” allows for testing facilities to either get swamped reporting every minute detail or take an excessive amount of license on what they report,

Whats the problem with reporting the details of every procedure that relates to the actual experiment?

From Convention on Animal Testing:

4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:

1. Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;

The only criterion given there is that the procedures to be reported are carried out on animals. That's amazingly broad. And if facilities are allowed to pick and choose which ones to report, why can't they leave out the procedures involved in the animal testing, as well as all the other irrelevant ones?

Worried that Clause 5 does not provide a time frame for when a research facility is “finished” with a test animal, allowing nations to keep abusing animals by claiming negligence through the vagueness of “ethical testing,”

Abusing animals is definitely not ethical testing.

I believe this is just another reference to the difficulty of proving intent, i.e. the fact that the requirements can be evaded with a pretence of negligence.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Are the animal testing procedures procedures acted out on the animals? They are? Then they must be reported. And euthanisations too.

Look, everyone protesting the reporting bit; the reports must already be made for research purposes only, you would just send copies of some of them to the committee. It's not as ponderous as you make it sound.

[Maowi]

OOC: Are the animal testing procedures procedures acted out on the animals? They are? Then they must be reported. And euthanisations too.

Look, everyone protesting the reporting bit; the reports must already be made for research purposes only, you would just send copies of some of them to the committee. It's not as ponderous as you make it sound.

OOC: Yes, that all makes sense, but where are you getting that reports on only some of the procedures are going to be sent? The target says that reports on all procedures must be sent to the committee. And no definition of "procedure" is given. That is such a vague term. Google gives me three possible relevant definitions:

1. An established or official way of doing something.
2. A series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner.
3. A surgical operation.

What's stopping member nations/research facilities from taking interpretation number 3 and thus avoiding reporting a huge number of potentially problematic procedures? (Edit was a typo)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Are the animal testing procedures procedures acted out on the animals? They are? Then they must be reported. And euthanisations too.

Look, everyone protesting the reporting bit; the reports must already be made for research purposes only, you would just send copies of some of them to the committee. It's not as ponderous as you make it sound.

OOC: Yes, that all makes sense, but where are you getting that reports on only some of the procedures are going to be sent? The target says that reports on all procedures must be sent to the committee. And no definition of "procedure" is given. That is such a vague term. Google gives me three possible relevant definitions:

1. An established or official way of doing something.
2. A series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner.
3. A surgical operation.

What's stopping member nations/research facilities from taking interpretation number 3 and thus avoiding reporting a huge number of potential problematic procedures?

OOC: Does everything need to be defined?

[Maowi]

OOC: Yes, that all makes sense, but where are you getting that reports on only some of the procedures are going to be sent? The target says that reports on all procedures must be sent to the committee. And no definition of "procedure" is given. That is such a vague term. Google gives me three possible relevant definitions:

1. An established or official way of doing something.
2. A series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner.
3. A surgical operation.

What's stopping member nations/research facilities from taking interpretation number 3 and thus avoiding reporting a huge number of potential problematic procedures?

OOC: Does everything need to be defined?

OOC: No. But a term as vague as this does, if you don't want your mandate to be so easily avoided.

[Kenmoria]

“Your reasoning in the second part of the ‘Horrified’ clause negates that which is in the first part. If it is possible for a laboratory to report only surgical procedures, then no reasonable operation would do anything else. There is no logical reason for a member nation to take such a broad interpretation of ‘procedure’.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: Yes, that all makes sense, but where are you getting that reports on only some of the procedures are going to be sent? The target says that reports on all procedures must be sent to the committee.

OOC: "All procedures carried out on animals", not all procedures carried out in the laboratory! So, you don't need to report your procedures on data storage or human resources management or whatever, only what you do to the animals.

[Concrete Slab]

OOC: Sorry for the long delay, I've been sick and visiting with family. I hope to address most of the feedback throughout the day.