[CHALLENGE] Repeal "Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc"

[Separatist Peoples]

I can do it.

[Bears Armed]

Given the fairly detailed public debate we should be able to get the opinions out on this fairly quickly. Any takers?

I should also update the ruling post with the vote totals but that could wait for a day or two. We've all voted on point 2, waiting on BA for point 1, and BA and Scion on point 3.

Re point 1: We have precedent for "bans" that only restrict something rather than actually ban it completely. Point 1 is therefore not an illegality.

[Sciongrad]

Given the fairly detailed public debate we should be able to get the opinions out on this fairly quickly. Any takers?

I should also update the ruling post with the vote totals but that could wait for a day or two. We've all voted on point 2, waiting on BA for point 1, and BA and Scion on point 3.

Re point 1: We have precedent for "bans" that only restrict something rather than actually ban it completely. Point 1 is therefore not an illegality.

If "ban" isn't categorical, wouldn't that mean that the repeal is an honest mistake on that point, because it argues the original isn't truly a ban?

[Separatist Peoples]

I've drafted an opinion on issues 1 and 2, per the vote.

First, we are asked to interpret the Honest Mistake rule regarding an argument about the target resolution. The repeal argues that "that the resolution bears a misleading title, as it does not actually ban the sterilisation of minors[.]" The challenge argues that "[t]he assertion that the target resolution does not ban the sterilisation of minors is false. The sterilization of minors is explicitly banned when it is not approved by an IRB as specified by the target resolution. Therefore, the clause makes a factually inaccurate claim about the target resolution’s function which could very easily have been fixed by claiming it does not ‘totally ban sterilization’ or some derivative of such."

Initially, the standard for an Honest Mistake requires the author make a colorable interpretation of WA law. GenSec won't limit plausible interpretations, but will strike down those patently unreasonable or unworkable. Repeal arguments need not be the best argument or interpretation, merely a colorable one.

The contention is that the term "ban" as used in the target does not operate as a ban. While constraining ourselves to a narrow view is arguably safer, there are unquestionably other resolutions that use the term "ban" in the title without operating as an absolute ban. Even were that not the case, the term ban is not itself absolute in ordinary parlance or in legal contexts. A ban is a prohibition, but the existence of exceptions does not obviate the prohibition. Thus, as the proposal does ban the sterilisation of minors, it is an Honest Mistake to say the resolution does not. Such an interpretation is not a colorable interpretation, and unfairly misconstrues the operation of GAR#472.

Next, we are asked to apply the Honest Mistake rule to an interpretation of how committees operate in the GA. The Repeal states, in relevant part: "Alarmed that clause two freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;" The challenge argues that "[i]t is factually incorrect to claim that the committee (WACC) can ‘freely’ create regulations . . . It is limited to the scope of regulation permitted by the targeted legislation, specifically: 'regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution.'" We agree with the challenger's position.

Committees in GA law operate, by necessity, on a delegation of power scheme. The WA can only act where the membership democratically concedes power. Similarly, a committee cannot do what the WA could not by direct mandate. Nor either can a committee reasonably act beyond it's directive, simply by nature of how the game works. Resolutions are created by statements and directives: without a directive, there is nothing. Those directives may be sweeping, but are necessarily limited by the World Assembly's empowering explicit directives to the committee.

Whether a committee, then, can act freely depends on the extent of a committee's directive. Freely means the ability to act without restriction or interference. Being unable to exceed it's directive is a restriction, and a committee requires a new resolution, passed democratically by the World Assembly, to expand it's directive. This is not free. Thus, the argument that a committee can act without restriction from the World Assembly is a patently unreasonable interpretation and does not survive the colorability test for Honest Mistake. Thus, the repeal is illegal.

[Bananaistan]

Issue no 1 regarding ban also had a majority (4) illegal.

I will write up a dissent (without the need for the controlling opinion(s) to be held) shortly re number 2.

[Separatist Peoples]

I added in an analysis of point 1. I tried to keep it relatively brief while still going through all the analytical steps.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Issue no 1 regarding ban also had a majority (4) illegal.

I will write up a dissent (without the need for the controlling opinion(s) to be held) shortly re number 2.

If you get held up I'll produce one, otherwise I'll most likely just join yours. Either way, no need to delay posting the majority.

[Bananaistan]

Issue no 1 regarding ban also had a majority (4) illegal.

I will write up a dissent (without the need for the controlling opinion(s) to be held) shortly re number 2.

If you get held up I'll produce one, otherwise I'll most likely just join yours. Either way, no need to delay posting the majority.

If you don't mind, can you take this please? As I posted in the absences thread I will be unexpectedly under RL pressure for the next ten days or so.

[Separatist Peoples]

The majority opinion look good?

[Separatist Peoples]

Beuller?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Oh, uh... the first three paragraphs look good and I join the majority as to the HM question of the word "ban" only.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Draft

Dissent as to the Question of "Freely"

While I agree with the Majority's analysis of the "ban" question, I respectfully dissent regarding the repeal's use of the word "freely." The language of the repeal's target (GAR #472) as well as that of the previous resolutions that mention the WA Compliance Commission (GAR #390 and GAR #440) is quite expansive in its vision of how this committee is to operate.

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Establishes and empowers the WACC, hereafter referred to as the Compliance Commission, to conduct investigations on matters vis-à-vis observance with World Assembly resolutions and thereby establish an impartial and objective factual basis for future claims of jurisdiction and prosecutions thereof;

Article II. Compliance Commission

1. The World Assembly establishes the World Assembly Solicitor’s Office (“WASO”) as a subset of the WA Compliance Commission (“WACC”), and directs it to:

1. Review investigations regarding member noncompliance;
   
2. Accept reports of noncompliance from both member states and individual and sub-national entities, subject to WASO discretion;
   
3. File a complaint, containing evidence and all applicable law, to the Independent Adjudicative Office and accordingly prosecute that complaint;
   
4. Communicate with those member states which are the subject of the complaint and inform them of any available steps that might prevent filing of a complaint;
   
5. Maintain discretion over which compliance violations to pursue.

2. The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution.

In the resolutions that give the WACC its initial mandate, there is virtually no national law or conduct that escapes its notice. It is first and foremost an investigative agency whose jurisdiction is every possible violator of WA law - chiefly every member state government, but also those individuals in positions of power from which they could commit every international crime from slavery or hazardous child labor to being insufficiently ardent in their promotion of beekeeping. And now, with the target resolution, this overarching investigative agency is tasked with enforcement of a particular resolution.

Not only enforcement, but also clarification. Not only may the WACC create regulations to enforce the ban on sterilization of minors, it may also issue opinions and regulations to "clarify" what it means. The interpretative power opens up a universe of potential regulations that no reasonable person would expect to see as an enforcement aid for the target resolution, but which we cannot claim the WACC wouldn't enact. Further, the WACC may do any of this at its sole discretion. "The WACC may make regulations..." not "...shall..." (emphasis added). As Bananaistan put it here, "The committee is free, IE without any oversight or control from the GA, to implement any such regulations (or none) in furtherance of its mandate to enforce the target. This is substantially greater freedom to act than committees are usually granted in resolutions."

"The committee finds that the use of certain hormones (annex A) on dairy cattle leads to an increased concentration of these hormones in dairy milk and products produced from cattle so treated as to be above the naturally occurring level.

The committee further finds that evidence exists, of sufficient strength, to conclude that consumption of such excess hormones from food sources poses a significant danger to the reproductive ability of minors, including possible sterilization at sufficient prevalence in the food chain.

The committee hereby bans the production, importation, or exportation of milk and milk products from cows treated with hormones included in annex A of this order as unnecessary to the long-term health of any person."

When given such a broad mandate as this, "freely" may even be an understatement. I therefore cannot support the Majority's ruling that the word, or the argument in which it appears, constitutes an Honest Mistake.

@Banana (or anyone else finding themselves newly convinced ) - please let me know if I left out anything of import.

(edit: typo fixed [to -> do])

[Bananaistan]

Draft

...

@Banana (or anyone else finding themselves newly convinced ) - please let me know if I left out anything of import.

Looks good, I sign.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm gonna post the majority opinion on Friday, so speak now or forever hold the peace.

[Grays Harbor]

I have no objections.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm gonna post the majority opinion on Friday, so speak now or forever hold the peace.

Did this happen, or should we do so now? On phone rn.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ah hell, no I didnt. I think I had a hearing I forgot to write on my calendar.

I'm mobile atm, but will post. If I dont have it today, somebody ping me before Tuesday.

[Separatist Peoples]

Posted.