[Challenge] Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined"

[Christian Democrats]

Challenge thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=415091
Rule cited: Honest Mistake
Proposal text:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=wallenburg_1497186950

Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#389
Proposed by: Wallenburg

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the potential benefits of international policy on quarantines,

Aware that GAR #389 was meant as an improvement upon GAR #385, "Quarantine Regulation", which was repealed for several reasons expressed in GAR #387, "Repeal 'Quarantine Regulation'",

Concerned that the definition of "treatment", identical to that in "Quarantine Regulation", continues to include various forms of violence against and abuse of patients,

Noting that nearly all of the fourth clause of GAR #389, identical to that of its predecessor, mandates that quarantines "provide every treatment to all infected persons", rather than only those treatments necessary and beneficial to the health of quarantined individuals,

Alarmed that GAR #389 therefore gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations,

Further noting that GAR #385 and #389 maintain identical mandates on the distribution of infected persons between quarantines, forcing the infected into the nearest quarantine rather than accounting for the personal needs of infected persons,

Regretting that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center's duties do not have any concrete effect on quarantines or treatment of the quarantined,

Finding that GAR #389, as a replacement for its predecessor, entirely fails to resolve the issues raised in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth clauses of GAR #387, and that all of these clauses retain their full force as powerful marks against GAR #389,

Refusing to allow a replacement resolution to remain in effect that does not address the concerns raised against its previous iteration,

Hereby repeals GAR #389, "Rights of the Quarantined".

[Christian Democrats]

I don't agree with all the points raised in the challenge, but I do think this repeal violates the Honest Mistake Rule:

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

In particular, I think it's a gross misrepresentation for the repeal proposal to say that the target resolution allows nations "to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination o[n] quarantined populations." To the contrary, the target resolution requires "proper consideration [for] the infected person's well-being" and "ensure[s] that infected individuals are treated fairly with regards to individual freedom and dignity." I can't find the Mass Murder Clause to which the repeal proposal is referring anywhere in the target resolution's text.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is a classic case for the Reasonable Nations Theory. No reasonable nation is going to interpret that as requiring "abuse" or "violence" against quarantined patients, in the form of harmful or deadly unnecessary treatments.

The repeal author is reading an unreasonable interpretation into the targeted resolution, for the purposes of making a good case to repeal it. One can try to make the case that it's simple exaggeration, but to me, it's more than exaggeration to say the resolution is doing the exact opposite of what it intends and ten-fold. So, I agree that it falls under "Honest Mistakes", and it might be a good time to remind everybody about RNT.

[Sciongrad]

This is a classic case for the Reasonable Nations Theory. No reasonable nation is going to interpret that as requiring "abuse" or "violence" against quarantined patients, in the form of harmful or deadly unnecessary treatments.

The repeal author is reading an unreasonable interpretation into the targeted resolution, for the purposes of making a good case to repeal it. One can try to make the case that it's simple exaggeration, but to me, it's more than exaggeration to say the resolution is doing the exact opposite of what it intends and ten-fold. So, I agree that it falls under "Honest Mistakes", and it might be a good time to remind everybody about RNT.

I agree 100%.

[Christian Democrats]

This is a classic case for the Reasonable Nations Theory. No reasonable nation is going to interpret that as requiring "abuse" or "violence" against quarantined patients, in the form of harmful or deadly unnecessary treatments.

The repeal author is reading an unreasonable interpretation into the targeted resolution, for the purposes of making a good case to repeal it. One can try to make the case that it's simple exaggeration, but to me, it's more than exaggeration to say the resolution is doing the exact opposite of what it intends and ten-fold. So, I agree that it falls under "Honest Mistakes", and it might be a good time to remind everybody about RNT.

I agree 100%.

Okay, we have you posting here and four votes in the GenSec panel: Christian Democrats, Glen-Rhodes, Sierra Lyricalia, and Separatist Peoples. That makes the vote 5-1 with Bears Armed being the one legal vote. I think it's time to write an opinion. Any volunteers?

By and large, the five of us seem to have the same thoughts, so there shouldn't be any need for concurring opinions.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would, but I'm relegated to my mobile until tomorrow, so even if I did write it, you guys would have to wait.

[Christian Democrats]

I would, but I'm relegated to my mobile until tomorrow, so even if I did write it, you guys would have to wait.

I guess you can write it. If you don't want to write it, I'll draft the majority opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would, but I'm relegated to my mobile until tomorrow, so even if I did write it, you guys would have to wait.

I guess you can write it. If you don't want to write it, I'll draft the majority opinion.

I got my computer back, so I'll do it if you'd like.

[Separatist Peoples]

We are asked to determine the legality of Repeal: Rights of the Quarantined as challenged under the Honest Mistakes rule. The repeal argues the target resolution approves otherwise illegal abuse in the name of preserving a quarantine, and that, but for the rule that repeals cannot asserts that passed resolutions violate the rules, the target resolution would be illegal. The first two arguments of the challenge asserts that the repeal contains a misrepresentation or factual inaccuracy by making its claim, arguing that such abuse wouldn’t be consistent with extant law in the first place, and thus has no merits of the argument. The third argument we consider asserts that the repeal’s criticism of the efficacy of the committee in Rights of the Quarantined is in error, as committee obligations are law in themselves. We agree with the challenge’s reasoning in part.

Honest Mistake and Approval of Otherwise Illegal Abuse
The Honest Mistakes rule provides that: “Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.”

When considering language for a resolution, authors are not constrained to accommodate every absurd interpretation, merely those interpretations that a reasonable nation might apply. This theory is referred to as the Reasonable Nation Theory, which provides, in relevant part, that “most nations in the WA are sensible and fair-minded (i.e., are "reasonable nations") and will exercise good faith in implementing the legislation, should it pass.” While the Reasonable Nation Theory is not itself a rule, it is a convention that authors, moderators, and now GenSec will rely upon in interpreting law.

Here, the repeal asserts, generally, that the powers Rights of the Quarantined grants to states extends into approving action currently barred by WA Law, specifically regarding medical treatment, extermination, or other abuses of individual autonomy. Such an interpretation fails the Reasonable Nation Theory, as no sensible and fair-minded nation exercising good faith in implementing WA law would violate existing law to follow a new law where there is ample opportunity to comply with both. While we don’t doubt that there are nations that would prefer to ignore WA law given the choice, it does not follow the interpretive convention we apply in assessing resolutions.
As such, the repeal contains either a factual inaccuracy, if unintentional, or a misrepresentation, if deliberate, as to the actual effect of the resolution. Which is irrelevant; we will not stoop to suspicion or accusation.

Mandates of a Committee as Law
The challenge asserts that the repeal misconstrues the powers of the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center as nonbinding. It essentially argues that committees, as empowered agents of the World Assembly, may enforce their mandates as law. Conversely, the repeal argues that the efforts of EPARC do not have the “concrete effects” the target resolution intended. While we agree that EPARC’s mandates as a committee bear the power of law, the assertion that a committee fails to effect its mandate for lack of sufficiently assertive mandates, rather than inapplicability of administrative law, is a legitimate interpretation, and not an Honest Mistake.

The rest of the challenge deals with the subjective efficacy of the target resolution, Rights of the Quarantined, which we will not consider.

[Sciongrad]

We are asked to determine the legality of Repeal: Rights of the Quarantined as challenged under the Honest Mistakes rule. The repeal argues the target resolution approves otherwise illegal abuse in the name of preserving a quarantine, and that, but for the rule that repeals cannot assert that passed resolutions violate the rules, the target resolution would be illegal. The first two arguments of the challenge asserts that the repeal contains a misrepresentation or factual inaccuracy by making its claim, arguing that such abuse wouldn’t be consistent with extant law in the first place, and thus has no merits of the argument. The third argument we consider asserts that the repeal’s criticism of the efficacy of the committee in Rights of the Quarantined is in error, as committee obligations are law in themselves. We agree with the challenge’s reasoning in part.

Honest Mistake and Approval of Otherwise Illegal Abuse
The Honest Mistakes rule provides that: “Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.”

When considering language for a resolution, authors are not constrained to accommodate every absurd interpretation, merely those interpretations that a reasonable nation might apply. This theory is referred to as the Reasonable Nation Theory, which provides, in relevant part, that “most nations in the WA are sensible and fair-minded (i.e., are "reasonable nations") and will exercise good faith in implementing the legislation, should it pass.” While the Reasonable Nation Theory is not itself a rule, it is a convention that authors, moderators, and now GenSec will rely upon in interpreting law.

Here, the repeal asserts, generally, that the powers Rights of the Quarantined grant to states extends into approving action currently barred by WA Law, specifically regarding medical treatment, extermination, or other abuses of individual autonomy. Such an interpretation fails the Reasonable Nation Theory, as no sensible and fair-minded nation exercising good faith in implementing WA law would violate existing law to follow a new law where there is ample opportunity to comply with both. While we don’t doubt that there are nations that would prefer to ignore WA law given the choice, it does not follow the interpretive convention we apply in assessing resolutions.
As such, the repeal contains either a factual inaccuracy, if unintentional, or a misrepresentation, if deliberate, as to the actual effect of the resolution. Which is irrelevant; we will not stoop to suspicion or accusation.

Mandates of a Committee as Law
The challenge asserts that the repeal misconstrues the powers of the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center as nonbinding. It essentially argues that committees, as empowered agents of the World Assembly, may enforce their mandates as law. Conversely, the repeal argues that the efforts of EPARC do not have the “concrete effects” the target resolution intended. While we agree that EPARC’s mandates as a committee bear the power of law, the assertion that a committee fails to effect its mandate for lack of sufficiently assertive mandates, rather than inapplicability of administrative law, is a legitimate interpretation, and not an Honest Mistake.

The rest of the challenge deals with the subjective efficacy of the target resolution, Rights of the Quarantined, which we will not consider.

Good!

[Bears Armed]

I'll try to get my opinion typed-up tomorrow.

[Christian Democrats]

We are asked to determine the legality of Repeal: Rights of the Quarantined as challenged under the Honest Mistakes rule. The repeal argues the target resolution approves otherwise illegal abuse in the name of preserving a quarantine, and that, but for the rule that repeals cannot assert that passed resolutions violate the rules, the target resolution would be illegal. The first two arguments of the challenge asserts assert that the repeal contains a misrepresentation or factual inaccuracy by making its claim, arguing that such abuse wouldn’t be consistent with extant law in the first place, and thus has no merits of the argument. The third argument we consider asserts that the repeal’s criticism of the efficacy of the committee in Rights of the Quarantined is in error, as committee obligations are law in themselves. We agree with the challenge’s reasoning in part.

Honest Mistake and Approval of Otherwise Illegal Abuse
The Honest Mistakes rule provides that: “Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.”

When considering language for a resolution, authors are not constrained to accommodate every absurd interpretation, merely those interpretations that a reasonable nation might apply. This theory is referred to as the Reasonable Nation Theory, which provides, in relevant part, that “most nations in the WA are sensible and fair-minded (i.e., are "reasonable nations") and will exercise good faith in implementing the legislation, should it pass.” While the Reasonable Nation Theory is not itself a rule, it is a convention that authors, moderators, and now GenSec will rely upon in interpreting law.

Here, the repeal asserts, generally, that the powers Rights of the Quarantined grant grants to states extends into approving action currently barred by WA Law, specifically regarding medical treatment, extermination, or other abuses of individual autonomy. Such an interpretation fails the Reasonable Nation Theory, as no sensible and fair-minded nation exercising good faith in implementing WA law would violate existing law to follow a new law where there is ample opportunity to comply with both. While we don’t doubt that there are nations that would prefer to ignore WA law given the choice, it does not follow the interpretive convention we apply in assessing resolutions.

As such, the repeal contains either a factual inaccuracy, if unintentional, or a misrepresentation, if deliberate, as to the actual effect of the resolution. Which is irrelevant; we will not stoop to suspicion or accusation.

Mandates of a Committee as Law
The challenge asserts that the repeal misconstrues the powers of the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center as nonbinding. It essentially argues that committees, as empowered agents of the World Assembly, may enforce their mandates as law. Conversely, the repeal argues that the efforts of EPARC do not have the “concrete effects” the target resolution intended. While we agree that EPARC’s mandates as a committee bear the power of law, the assertion that a committee fails to effect its mandate for lack of sufficiently assertive mandates, rather than inapplicability of administrative law, is a legitimate interpretation, and not an Honest Mistake.

The rest of the challenge deals with the subjective efficacy of the target resolution, Rights of the Quarantined, which we will not consider.

I also support this opinion. Above, I've indicated two minor errors that should be corrected before publication (see ¶¶ 1, 4).

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'll sign on to that

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sorry...

But I'm uncomfortable re-inflating RNT back into "reasonable nations act reasonably" from the ditch into which we rightfully kicked that notion back in this ruling. There is a much narrower and easier-to-detect honest mistake that doesn't involve the convoluted dredging up of the most annoying interpretation of Reasonable Nation Theory.

The proposed repeal is illegal, but not for these reasons.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Sorry...

But I'm uncomfortable re-inflating RNT back into "reasonable nations act reasonably" from the ditch into which we rightfully kicked that notion back in this ruling. There is a much narrower and easier-to-detect honest mistake that doesn't involve the convoluted dredging up of the most annoying interpretation of Reasonable Nation Theory.

The proposed repeal is illegal, but not for these reasons.

Nobody killed RNT with that ruling, and I'm not sure why you think that ruling did so? The repeal was struck down because its arguments weren't based in the text of the target resolution. RNT wasn't ever invoked.

RNT is a bedrock of this game. We need to acknowledge rationality, otherwise we'll need to accept illogical arguments that lead to nations hurting their own interests. A reasonable nation isn't going to choose the interpretation of a resolution that leads it to violate another, when there's an equally valid interpretation allowing compliance with all resolutions. Nor should players here have to contend with wankers who dream up wild interpretations of resolutions that no reasonable nation would ever think up. That's one of the GA's organizing principles.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sorry...

But I'm uncomfortable re-inflating RNT back into "reasonable nations act reasonably" from the ditch into which we rightfully kicked that notion back in this ruling. There is a much narrower and easier-to-detect honest mistake that doesn't involve the convoluted dredging up of the most annoying interpretation of Reasonable Nation Theory.

The proposed repeal is illegal, but not for these reasons.

Nobody killed RNT with that ruling, and I'm not sure why you think that ruling did so? The repeal was struck down because its arguments weren't based in the text of the target resolution. RNT wasn't ever invoked.

RNT is a bedrock of this game. We need to acknowledge rationality, otherwise we'll need to accept illogical arguments that lead to nations hurting their own interests. A reasonable nation isn't going to choose the interpretation of a resolution that leads it to violate another, when there's an equally valid interpretation allowing compliance with all resolutions. Nor should players here have to contend with wankers who dream up wild interpretations of resolutions that no reasonable nation would ever think up. That's one of the GA's organizing principles.

You are correct that RNT means nations will not act counter to what they perceive their interests to be. That, I think, is the limit though. The more expansive version the above draft hints at comes close to duplicating the thesis of that repeal, which is more or less that reasonable nations will always see where their long term interest lies and act according to the most enlightened possible view, in which rational liberal policies will lead to rainbows and unicorns.

Now, dictators will absolutely scramble for excuses to kill off their opposition, but the target here doesn't give them grounds to do so. THAT is where the honest mistake is - not that they won't want to kill off their people, but that there's no interpretation of the target that someone would see as giving them the blessing to do so.

Working on a short (for reals this time, you guys!) concurrence, but busy too. Check back soon.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You are correct that RNT means nations will not act counter to what they perceive their interests to be. That, I think, is the limit though. The more expansive version the above draft hints at comes close to duplicating the thesis of that repeal, which is more or less that reasonable nations will always see where their long term interest lies and act according to the most enlightened possible view, in which rational liberal policies will lead to rainbows and unicorns.

Nobody's talking "rainbows and unicorns," but saying that it's just all about "perception" ultimately means that RNT has no meaning. The purpose of RNT is to provide a baseline of what's reasonable when debating nations in the abstract, such as how a nation might interpret a resolution. "Rational" and "reasonable" aren't interchangeable, and I think you're imagining the former when assessing RNT, something I accidentally did as well after reading the decision you linked. Anything can be explained as rational depending on how you define an actor's (nation's) preferences. Reasonable is a different beast altogether, and it much closer to the "reasonable person" legal fiction than rational choice theory.

The core purpose of RNT is that authors don't need to "jump through hoops to satisfy the eccentricities of every outlier nation in the World Assembly." In this case, IA is arguing that there may be a nation out there that will read this resolution and decides it requires treatments that will, say, end up killing the quarantined patients, because the resolution says "provide every treatment." Maybe there's a nation out there that's so stupid. But authors aren't expected to legislate for every idiotic interpretation of the English language. (And in this case, it's obvious that IA is providing an interpretation he doesn't actually believe. He just wants to repeal the resolution.) The interpretation doesn't pass the smell test. It's not reasonable. Reasonable nations would not subscribe to such a gross and dumb interpretation.

Now, dictators will absolutely scramble for excuses to kill off their opposition, but the target here doesn't give them grounds to do so. THAT is where the honest mistake is - not that they won't want to kill off their people, but that there's no interpretation of the target that someone would see as giving them the blessing to do so.

Some upstart showing up in a thread and saying "Our Powerful Nation believes this means we can kill the opposition" is exactly why RNT was adopted. No reasonable person reads that clause and walks away thinking it mandates lobotomies for SARS patients.

There will always be a tortured interpretation you can use to repeal a resolution. RNT is what the community created to force repeal authors to be more reasonable.

[Bears Armed]

Maybe there's a nation out there that's so stupid.

They've posted in the drafting threads...

[Christian Democrats]

If it will prevent the publication of multiple opinions, can we just say that all interpretations of resolutions made by repeals must be reasonable -- i.e., within the realm of rationality -- and that this repeal proposal's portrayal of the target resolution is unreasonable?

EDIT: Also, SP, just publish this opinion, for the author's and challenger's sakes, since there are already four votes for it.

[Separatist Peoples]

If it will prevent the publication of multiple opinions, can we just say that all interpretations of resolutions made by repeals must be reasonable -- i.e., within the realm of rationality -- and that this repeal proposal's portrayal of the target resolution is unreasonable?

EDIT: Also, SP, just publish this opinion, for the author's and challenger's sakes, since there are already four votes for it.

Will post after 5pm when I'm free.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I join the majority opinion, except as to paragraphs 3 and 4 ("When considering language...in assessing resolutions."). The Majority's over-expansive interpretation of Reasonable Nation Theory is directly at odds with GenSec's previous ruling in "Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations.'" However, the proposed repeal of 'Rights of the Quarantined' is in fact illegal for an Honest Mistake, and I join the Majority in striking it down.

'Rights of the Quarantined' provides, in part, that nations shall "provide every treatment to all infected persons." The proposed repeal claims that this "gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations."

This interpretation cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. The allegation rests on an extremely spurious reading of the target's definition of "treatment;" a definition which by necessity allows nations a certain amount of flexibility.

...any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:

curing the infected person;

rendering the infected person non-contagious;

ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or

ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

By the simple pitfalls of life (i.e. "shit happens") it is very often impossible to accomplish all four of these goals on a single patient, or on many patients. That does not mean nations have carte blanche to carry out one at the intentional expense of the others.

The inclusion of all of these actions (encompassing as they do every stage of medical practice, from diagnosis to hospice); plus the conspicuous omission of any text to the effect of "...by any means necessary..." or "...even if that means a mass culling..." - makes clear that the target's purpose is actually treatment, as medical professionals and ordinary lay persons understand the term.

In order to justify interpreting this definition as including some perverted acceptance of "clean it with fire," the target would have to have more textual clues than the single word "or" which the repeal argument appears to rely on. Therefore the argument is a textbook Honest Mistake and the repeal is illegal.

Another crippling blow (if a slightly more obscure one) comes from the text of GA Res. #140, "Institutional Psychiatry Act." That resolution uses the term "patient" without apparently limiting its requirements to psychiatric patients only; nor "for purposes of this resolution" only. It provides, in part:

2. No patient shall be subject to medication or punishment that is not in their best medical interests or lacks a therapeutic or diagnostic purpose (e.g., as a method of punishment, for the convenience of staff, misuses of seclusion or electroconvulsive therapy, lobotomization, embarrassment via group therapy);

While the given examples pertain to psychiatric practice, there is no text actually limiting the mandate to mental hospitals only. "The law does what the law says." Therefore there is no reason to think this mandate applies to anything less than the entire class of medical patients, across all member states, in all circumstances. Therefore the argument of this repeal would require the target to be in contradiction of GAR #140, an impossible result; and the repeal is therefore illegal on that score as well.