[Challenge] WA Peacekeeping Charter

[Christian Democrats]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I join SL's opinion.

Okay, so the opinions should be delivered thus:

Sierra Lyricalia, joined by Separatist Peoples and Sciongrad.
Christian Democrats, joined by Glen-Rhodes, concurring.
Bears Armed, concurring.

The opinions ought to be listed from most popular to least popular with the most popular being the plurality opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I join SL's opinion.

Okay, so the opinions should be delivered thus:

Sierra Lyricalia, joined by Separatist Peoples and Sciongrad.
Christian Democrats, joined by Glen-Rhodes, concurring.
Bears Armed, concurring.

The opinions ought to be listed from most popular to least popular with the most popular being the plurality opinion.

We really need to manage a majority and not a plurality this time.

[Sciongrad]

Okay, so the opinions should be delivered thus:

Sierra Lyricalia, joined by Separatist Peoples and Sciongrad.
Christian Democrats, joined by Glen-Rhodes, concurring.
Bears Armed, concurring.

The opinions ought to be listed from most popular to least popular with the most popular being the plurality opinion.

We really need to manage a majority and not a plurality this time.

I agree. If we're going to rule on such a sweeping issue, we really shouldn't have three concurrences and no controlling opinion. It would make more sense to rule on very narrow grounds, otherwise.

[Christian Democrats]

We really need to manage a majority and not a plurality this time.

I agree. If we're going to rule on such a sweeping issue, we really shouldn't have three concurrences and no controlling opinion. It would make more sense to rule on very narrow grounds, otherwise.

In my view, my opinion is the narrowest.

[Separatist Peoples]

I agree. If we're going to rule on such a sweeping issue, we really shouldn't have three concurrences and no controlling opinion. It would make more sense to rule on very narrow grounds, otherwise.

In my view, my opinion is the narrowest.

It does look to be...I hate to flip flop, but I have no great qualms with any of the suggested opinions, and I'm willing to sign on to one that will avoid the issue of a plurality.

[Christian Democrats]

In my view, my opinion is the narrowest.

It does look to be...I hate to flip flop, but I have no great qualms with any of the suggested opinions, and I'm willing to sign on to one that will avoid the issue of a plurality.

It is possible to sign onto multiple opinions at once.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Not to be a pain... but "shortest" ≠ "narrowest." All of us are in agreement that the particular thing it violates is that it contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, yes? Finding that the nature of that contradiction is military requires, IMO, that we throw out, or at least find a way around, the convention that "if there is an interpretation that a reasonable person could have and find the resolution legal, the [mods, us, whoever] must use that interpretation." CD's opinion ignores the convention entirely; BA's accepts it, then argues as to why it's not sufficient; mine accepts it and moves on to other grounds. It seems to me the "narrowest grounds" are those which don't require us to ignore or circumvent a convention that (I believe) the mods used when this was their job, and that any of us would demand that we follow if it were our work on the line.

TL;dr - despite my lengthy verbiage, I actually believe the "police action = 'actions of the police'" is the narrowest possible grounds to dismiss this resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

Not to be a pain... but "shortest" ≠ "narrowest." All of us are in agreement that the particular thing it violates is that it contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, yes? Finding that the nature of that contradiction is military requires, IMO, that we throw out, or at least find a way around, the convention that "if there is an interpretation that a reasonable person could have and find the resolution legal, the [mods, us, whoever] must use that interpretation." CD's opinion ignores the convention entirely; BA's accepts it, then argues as to why it's not sufficient; mine accepts it and moves on to other grounds. It seems to me the "narrowest grounds" are those which don't require us to ignore or circumvent a convention that (I believe) the mods used when this was their job, and that any of us would demand that we follow if it were our work on the line.

TL;dr - despite my lengthy verbiage, I actually believe the "police action = 'actions of the police'" is the narrowest possible grounds to dismiss this resolution.

I don't reject the convention. I reject your formulation of it. A better formulation: "If a proposal admits of several reasonable interpretations, the Secretariat ought to choose that interpretation on which the proposal is legal."

Application: The WA Peacekeepers' stated goal is preventing and ending armed conflicts. This point is not in dispute. This goal cannot reasonably be reconciled with Resolution 2's prohibition on WA participation in armed conflicts, no matter how many reasonable people try to fool themselves into thinking that it can be so. In text and in purpose, this proposal and Resolution 2 are incompatible.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Not to be a pain... but "shortest" ≠ "narrowest." All of us are in agreement that the particular thing it violates is that it contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, yes? Finding that the nature of that contradiction is military requires, IMO, that we throw out, or at least find a way around, the convention that "if there is an interpretation that a reasonable person could have and find the resolution legal, the [mods, us, whoever] must use that interpretation." CD's opinion ignores the convention entirely; BA's accepts it, then argues as to why it's not sufficient; mine accepts it and moves on to other grounds. It seems to me the "narrowest grounds" are those which don't require us to ignore or circumvent a convention that (I believe) the mods used when this was their job, and that any of us would demand that we follow if it were our work on the line.

TL;dr - despite my lengthy verbiage, I actually believe the "police action = 'actions of the police'" is the narrowest possible grounds to dismiss this resolution.

I don't reject the convention. I reject your formulation of it. A better formulation: "If a proposal admits of several reasonable interpretations, the Secretariat ought to choose that interpretation on which the proposal is legal."

Application: The WA Peacekeepers' stated goal is preventing and ending armed conflicts. This point is not in dispute. This goal cannot reasonably be reconciled with Resolution 2's prohibition on WA participation in armed conflicts, no matter how many reasonable people try to fool themselves into thinking that it can be so. In text and in purpose, this proposal and Resolution 2 are incompatible.

I disagree with the underlined portion. The operative clauses within any resolution must override preambulatory embellishment and marketing statements. Here, "prevention of conflict or restoration of peacetime activities" (emphasis added) are advertised; the resolution makes clear its subject force is incapable of being used in a military fashion, and I'm unclear how such a body could work to prevent conflict, while somehow "participating" in it, without some form of military authorization. Such authorization is expressly denied.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're accepting the stated goal uncritically (and even giving it extra force), while dismissing the material roadblocks the resolution itself puts in place against achieving that goal militarily. While this may be a reasonable way to look at it, it is not the only reasonable way.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Again, I have to agree with CD here. There are so many military aspects of this proposal. It's very hard to reconcile the idea of these Peacekeepers -- having been given military-sized mandates-- being described as "preventing and ending conflict" is a violation. That description is binding. It's not a preambulatory clause, but an active one. You have to ignore the phrase "whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict" to reach the conclusion that the litany of military-related duties can be read as non-military assistance. I just don't agree that you can write a blatantly illegal proposal and tack on "the WA peacekeepers can't do whatever makes the above list of thing illegal" and everything's ok.

Anyways, if we go by this draft procedure (not all of you have voted yet ), mods would have to choose between SL's and CD's opinions.

[Bears Armed]

Do the Mods get a vote in cases like this, where we have a clear majority on the 'Legality/Illegality' question although we disagree about the reasoning? I'd have thought that they'd only get one if we were tied on the basic 'Legality/Illegality' question itself...

Anyway, my opinion is as "final" as it's going to get so as far as I am concerned you can go ahead and post the ruling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I suppose not. It's unfortunate, though, that authors aren't going to be given any valuable guidance on what Article 10 allows or disallows. We really ought to be able to reach a majority opinion on these issues. We're not helping anybody by giving 3 different competing reasons for why a proposal is illegal.

[Sciongrad]

I agree with SL's reasoning, but I'll sign on with CD's ruling just so that we have a controlling opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

I agree with SL's reasoning, but I'll sign on with CD's ruling just so that we have a controlling opinion.

Likewise. This can be considered my final opinion.

Shall we pull the trigger?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I agree with SL's reasoning, but I'll sign on with CD's ruling just so that we have a controlling opinion.

Likewise. This can be considered my final opinion.

Shall we pull the trigger?

I'll go ahead and do so then.