Christian Democrats wrote:I'll quote the Rules:Contradiction: From the verb 'to contradict' - to state [the] opposite or deny a concept or idea. Proposals which conflict with explicit clauses within an active resolution will be removed.
In my opinion, a requires clause doesn't "state the opposite" or "deny" an encourages clause.
In my opinion, in that context, it would: Requiring that member nations not do something that an existing resolution encourages them to do certainly seems contradictory enough for illegality.
Anyway, although I still hold by the opinion that I gave in the post Gruen quoted in the Challenge (namely that a resolution banning a type of action requires member nations' governments to refrain from such actions themselves and to try preventing the performance of such actions by anybody else within their jurisdictions, but doesn't automatically require that they prosecute -- or impose serious sentences on -- people who do perform such actions) -- despite Mouse having ruled to the contrary -- I think that the evidence-gathering which this proposal "strongly encourages" member nations to conduct is something that they almost certainly should (and, at least in most nations, would) already doing as a part of good-faith compliance.
Therefore I hold that that encouragement alone is not enough to make the proposal legal under "Not just 'Committee Only'" rule, and that if it is re-submitted without a significant change in that respect then it should be deemed Illegal on that basis.