Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Auralia wrote:Acknowledging that such practices may be permitted by the "compelling practical purposes" exception to the aforementioned clause, whilst cautioning that this is a narrow exception and there is no guarantee that the aforementioned relevant authorities shall interpret the resolution to permit these forms of differential treatment,
This is bullshit. Mod (or GenSec) interpretations of the law only apply to whether a proposal contradicts or duplicates standing legislation. Such interpretations have no force of law whatsoever in roleplay, meaning nations can still interpret the law as they see fit.
Why shouldn't they impact roleplay insofar as rejecting these interpretations constitutes non-compliance? How can two interpretations of the same resolution exist simultaneously? One of them is necessarily wrong.