NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:If there's no majority on the duplication one, then I propose a framework like this:

– The main opinion on contradiction
– Concurring on duplication (minor duplication legal)
– Concurring on duplication (duplication too minor → illegal)

The concurrings shouldn't require full votes, which would expedite this process. At the same time, this would give a clear answer on the contradiction question and making it also clear where different members lie on the duplication question.

This works for me.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
This works for me.

Very well. My post has been so edited.

Bananaistan wrote:I sign too.

We are asked to determine the legality of the proposal "Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban." Specifically, does the proposal duplicate or contradict the existing GAR #441?

We reach no agreement on the duplication question; see concurrences for more information. Meanwhile, the contradiction is plain. The existing resolution prohibits intentional disposal of hazardous waste in all possible circumstances, full stop; while the proposal "Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation," which directly contradicts the existing prohibition on all waste disposal. While it may be unwise for the existing resolution to be so rigid (e.g. if the dumping and replacement of radioactive coolant might prevent a nuclear meltdown), or legislators IRL would immediately amend the relevant language to permit such emergency dumping, the law here is quite clear: no dumping shall take place, at all. The proposal's attempt to carve out a situation where emergency dumping is legal, while perhaps wise and forward-thinking, is nevertheless an inescapable contradiction, and we therefore find the proposal illegal.

I find there is not enough duplication to render the challenged proposal illegal for duplication. #441's focus is on freshwater resources in a broad sense, while this proposal deals with oceanic and ocean-adjacent dumping of hazardous wastes. Both resolutions, given their particular foci, have good reason to issue their own prohibitions on dumping waste; so I am inclined to rule simply on principle that an overlapping plank apiece in otherwise non-overlapping resolutions should be legal. But even in the absence of that general principle I would still see not enough overlap in the particular case. GAR #441 states:

6. Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply

...while the challenged proposal states:

Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous waste, materials containing hazardous waste, or materials known to break down into hazardous waste, by governments or corporations, into oceans or water bodies that feed into oceans

The common elements there are 1) dumping, 2) oceans, and 3) governments and businesses. #441 also mentions international waters and the public drinking supply, which the challenged proposal does not. Meanwhile the challenged proposal rules on not just the wastes themselves, but also materials that break down into such waste, and adds "all water bodies that feed into oceans," a class of water on which #441 is silent. The two particular clauses at issue are therefore themselves focused differently enough that any duplication must be classed as minor. I and my co-signers therefore believe the challenged proposal legal on the duplication question.

Grays Harbor wrote:I sign

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Concurring (minor duplication legal by SL): SL, Banana, BA
Concurring (minor duplication illegal): Sep

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:I sign

Awesome! Which one?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Concurring (minor duplication legal by SL): SL, Banana, BA
Concurring (minor duplication illegal): Sep