[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined"

[Umeria]

Rules Broken: Honest Mistake

I believe there are three sections in this proposal which each constitute an honest mistake violation. I'll start with the most important one.

Noting that nearly all of the fourth clause of GAR #389, identical to that of its predecessor, mandates that quarantines "provide every treatment to all infected persons", rather than only those treatments necessary and beneficial to the health of quarantined individuals,

Alarmed that GAR #389 therefore gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations,

The main point of concern here stems from the word "provide". The author of this repeal has insisted that the only reasonable interpretation of "provide" in 389 GA is to mean "administer", forcing nations to treat patients harmfully. His only reason for this interpretation is a clause from 387 GA, "Repeal 'Quarantine Regulation'", which states that 385 GA "requires any appropriate treatment available to be given to infected persons", which would by extension be true for 389 GA as well. However, 387 GA clearly states that only appropriate treatments will be given, and it does not say anything regarding the other treatments. Since 387 GA does not state that the "extreme abuse or even selective extermination" treatments, which are almost always not appropriate, must be given, using 387 GA to say those treatments must be given is an invalid argument. Thus, there is no reason to interpret "provide" in this clause to mean "administer", but there is reason to interpret it to mean "offer". The reason is that unless treatments which harm the patient are considered optional (and they should be an option; otherwise euthanasia would be forbidden), the resolution would run afoul of several human rights resolutions, such as GA 29 and 140. Since 389 GA passed, it cannot be illegal, so it cannot contradict other resolutions and thus cannot force harmful treatments to be given. Therefore the only way to interpret "provide" in this case is to mean "offer", which invalidates that section of the proposal. The author of this repeal has stated that 389 GA was illegal before it passed, and upon passing was considered legal. Even not taking into account the fact that this alleged "legal upon passing" procedure never appears in the rules, the author has also stated that there is no OOC subtext in his proposal. Since the notion that 389 GA passed even though it was illegal is invalid in an IC world where the all-seeing WA gnomes would easily weed out such an illegality before its passing, and, as the author stated, the only arguments made in the proposal are IC, the above proposal section can only be arguing that 389 GA requires something which it cannot and does not require. This is an honest mistake violation.

The author of this repeal has also occasionally made the claim that this section refers to harmful treatments done for the greater good of the infected, i.e. killing a few infected people to prevent a greater number of infected people from dying. This is not the case, as 389 GA's definition of "treatment" solely concerns each individual infected person, not the infected people as a whole. The second section I suspect to be illegal is:

Regretting that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center's duties do not have any concrete effect on quarantines or treatment of the quarantined,

The author's reasoning for this one is that all the medical ethics board introduced in 389 GA can do is give recommendations and advice to medical personnel in quarantines, as committees have no police power. However, lack of police power does not mean lack of effect or lack of enforcement. WA resolutions are enforced without police power, so committees can simply use that same method of non-police enforcement to ensure certain moral standards are met, which they must do according to clause 6 of 389 GA. WA nations who in OOC do not comply with committees are just as non-compliant as those who do not comply with WA resolutions. Besides, as the author of this repeal has stated, this proposal is entirely IC, and in IC one must meet the standard of a committee tasked by a WA resolution to ensure a certain standard is met. Since this section argues that this plainly existing rule does not exist, this is an honest mistake violation. And finally:

Finding that GAR #389, as a replacement for its predecessor, entirely fails to resolve the issues raised in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth clauses of GAR #387, and that all of these clauses retain their full force as powerful marks against GAR #389,

The main change made in 389 GA is the addition of a medical ethics board in clause 6, so the claim here is that the medical ethics board does not in solve any of the the problems addressed in four of 387 GA's clauses. Let's analyze this claim, starting with the third clause:

Regretting that 385 GA fails to cover many issues involving medical ethics and medicine within a quarantine;

Clause 6(b) of 389 GA tasks the ethics board with ensuring issues, or "matters of necessity", are handled properly. Since there are many such issues in a quarantine, and handling them properly is always the best way to cover them, the medical ethics board covers "many issues involving medical ethics and medicine within a quarantine", and thus resolves this issue. Next, the fourth clause:

Questioning whether the resolution's four point definition of "treatment" is malleable enough to cover untested methods or procedures;

The definition by itself doesn't fix this one, but the ethics board is there to decide how to cover each individual case of possible untested methods or procedures, so this issue is resolved. Onto the fifth clause:

Concerned that 385 GA requires any appropriate treatment available to be given to infected persons regardless of whether the treatment would, as a side effect, permanently cripple the person;

This doesn't actually refer to abuse/kill treatments, only to treatments where the net gain of the patient is unclear. The ethics board is there to cover gray areas, so this issue is resolved.

Unsettled by the resolution's mandate to put infected persons in the nearest quarantine to them, causing drastic displacement if a person happened to be far away from their home at the time;

The ethics board can easily transport them to a closer quarantine if the need arises. This issue is resolved.

None of the ethics board's solutions for these issues even come close to "entirely fails to resolve". Therefore, this section states a neglect which does not exist, so this is an honest mistake violation.

If any of the above arguments are true, then this proposal is illegal for violating the honest mistake rule.

General Assembly Resolution #389 “Rights of the Quarantined” (Category: Health; Area of Effect: Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the potential benefits of international policy on quarantines,

Aware that GAR #389 was meant as an improvement upon GAR #385, "Quarantine Regulation", which was repealed for several reasons expressed in GAR #387, "Repeal 'Quarantine Regulation'",

Concerned that the definition of "treatment", identical to that in "Quarantine Regulation", continues to include various forms of violence against and abuse of patients,

Noting that nearly all of the fourth clause of GAR #389, identical to that of its predecessor, mandates that quarantines "provide every treatment to all infected persons", rather than only those treatments necessary and beneficial to the health of quarantined individuals,

Alarmed that GAR #389 therefore gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations,

Further noting that GAR #385 and #389 maintain identical mandates on the distribution of infected persons between quarantines, forcing the infected into the nearest quarantine rather than accounting for the personal needs of infected persons,

Regretting that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center's duties do not have any concrete effect on quarantines or treatment of the quarantined,

Finding that GAR #389, as a replacement for its predecessor, entirely fails to resolve the issues raised in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth clauses of GAR #387, and that all of these clauses retain their full force as powerful marks against GAR #389,

Refusing to allow a replacement resolution to remain in effect that does not address the concerns raised against its previous iteration,

Hereby repeals GAR #389, "Rights of the Quarantined".

The World Assembly,

Understanding that there are many communicable diseases which spread easily if they are not treated hastily;

Noting that there are times when some communicable diseases cannot be treated hastily;

Realizing that such diseases should instead be promptly contained to prevent an international epidemic;

Recognizing that in order to efficiently contain a disease, drastic measures are sometimes necessary;

Further understanding that in those cases, individual rights are often subverted in order to efficiently contain the disease;

Further noting that there are nations that take this subversion too far, and oppress their citizens in the name of disease control;

Wishing to ensure that every victim of an epidemic, even those in nations otherwise unable to promptly contain an outbreak, is safely quarantined without any unnecessary impingement of basic rights;

Hereby

1) Tasks the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define as a "serious disease" any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease;

2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, when there are enough people with the same serious disease(as defined by the EPARC) to be clearly in excess of the normal expectancy;

an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease;

a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt the spread of the disease;

a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:

curing the infected person;

rendering the infected person non-contagious;

ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or

ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

3) Recommends that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic in their nation, screen for any infected persons in that nation not yet known to be infected;

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;

move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;

provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;

move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;

disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends; and

5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines;

6) Establishes a medical ethics board within the EPARC, tasking it to:

review matters of necessity and promulgation within quarantines;

ensure that such matters are handled with proper consideration of the infected person's well-being;

ensure that infected individuals are treated fairly with regards to individual freedom and dignity; and

7) Urges that member nations provide infected persons with comfort and security, to help them recover from their unfortunate situation.

debate thread

[Wallenburg]

Well, I knew this would happen at some point. Let's crack through this, shall we?

Rules Broken: Honest Mistake

I believe there are three sections in this proposal which each constitute an honest mistake violation. I'll start with the most important one.

Noting that nearly all of the fourth clause of GAR #389, identical to that of its predecessor, mandates that quarantines "provide every treatment to all infected persons", rather than only those treatments necessary and beneficial to the health of quarantined individuals,

Alarmed that GAR #389 therefore gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations,

The main point of concern here stems from the word "provide". The author of this repeal has insisted that the only reasonable interpretation of "provide" in 389 GA is to mean "administer", forcing nations to treat patients harmfully. His only reason for this interpretation is a clause from 387 GA, "Repeal 'Quarantine Regulation'", which states that 385 GA "requires any appropriate treatment available to be given to infected persons", which would by extension be true for 389 GA as well. However, 387 GA clearly states that only appropriate treatments will be given, and it does not say anything regarding the other treatments. Since 387 GA does not state that the "extreme abuse or even selective extermination" treatments, which are almost always not appropriate, must be given, using 387 GA to say those treatments must be given is an invalid argument. Thus, there is no reason to interpret "provide" in this clause to mean "administer", but there is reason to interpret it to mean "offer". The reason is that unless treatments which harm the patient are considered optional (and they should be an option; otherwise euthanasia would be forbidden), the resolution would run afoul of several human rights resolutions, such as GA 29 and 140.

My proposal does not say that member states are definitively required to give abusive treatment to the quarantined. It says there is an argument to be made that they are required to do so. That's why I say "arguably".

Since 389 GA passed, it cannot be illegal, so it cannot contradict other resolutions and thus cannot force harmful treatments to be given.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Eight times now. How many times must I explain to you that:
Proposals and resolutions at vote that contradict passed resolutions violate the contradiction rule. Resolutions that pass and go into effect that contradict other passed resolutions do not violate the contradiction rule. Resolutions that pass and go into effect that contradict other passed resolutions STILL CONTRADICT OTHER PASSED RESOLUTIONS.
How many times must I say this before you understand it?

The author of this repeal has also occasionally made the claim that this section refers to harmful treatments done for the greater good of the infected, i.e. killing a few infected people to prevent a greater number of infected people from dying. This is not the case, as 389 GA's definition of "treatment" solely concerns each individual infected person, not the infected people as a whole. The second section I suspect to be illegal is:

1) You're directly contradicting the argument you made in the drafting thread.
2) I'm not sure where I say this in the repeal. Care to point it out?

Regretting that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center's duties do not have any concrete effect on quarantines or treatment of the quarantined,

The author's reasoning for this one is that all the medical ethics board introduced in 389 GA can do is give recommendations and advice to medical personnel in quarantines, as committees have no police power. However, lack of police power does not mean lack of effect or lack of enforcement. WA resolutions are enforced without police power, so committees can simply use that same method of non-police enforcement to ensure certain moral standards are met, which they must do according to clause 6 of 389 GA. WA nations who in OOC do not comply with committees are just as non-compliant as those who do not comply with WA resolutions. Besides, as the author of this repeal has stated, this proposal is entirely IC, and in IC one must meet the standard of a committee tasked by a WA resolution to ensure a certain standard is met.

Never in my time here have I encountered a committee that is allowed to make up its own mandates and impose them on member states. I don't see how, especially under these circumstances, that does not give it police powers. It is well established that member states must only comply with mandates set in resolutions. Unwritten mandates are of no concern to member states.

Since this section argues that this plainly existing rule does not exist, this is an honest mistake violation.

My proposal does nothing of the sort. You should read it again.

Finding that GAR #389, as a replacement for its predecessor, entirely fails to resolve the issues raised in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth clauses of GAR #387, and that all of these clauses retain their full force as powerful marks against GAR #389,

The main change made in 389 GA is the addition of a medical ethics board in clause 6, so the claim here is that the medical ethics board does not in solve any of the the problems addressed in four of 387 GA's clauses. Let's analyze this claim, starting with the third clause:

Regretting that 385 GA fails to cover many issues involving medical ethics and medicine within a quarantine;

Clause 6(b) of 389 GA tasks the ethics board with ensuring issues, or "matters of necessity", are handled properly. Since there are many such issues in a quarantine, and handling them properly is always the best way to cover them, the medical ethics board covers "many issues involving medical ethics and medicine within a quarantine", and thus resolves this issue. Next, the fourth clause:

Questioning whether the resolution's four point definition of "treatment" is malleable enough to cover untested methods or procedures;

The definition by itself doesn't fix this one, but the ethics board is there to decide how to cover each individual case of possible untested methods or procedures, so this issue is resolved. Onto the fifth clause:

Concerned that 385 GA requires any appropriate treatment available to be given to infected persons regardless of whether the treatment would, as a side effect, permanently cripple the person;

This doesn't actually refer to abuse/kill treatments, only to treatments where the net gain of the patient is unclear. The ethics board is there to cover gray areas, so this issue is resolved.

Unsettled by the resolution's mandate to put infected persons in the nearest quarantine to them, causing drastic displacement if a person happened to be far away from their home at the time;

The ethics board can easily transport them to a closer quarantine if the need arises. This issue is resolved.

None of the ethics board's solutions for these issues even come close to "entirely fails to resolve". Therefore, this section states a neglect which does not exist, so this is an honest mistake violation.

This whole section of your challenge is, quite simply, "ethics board! Ethics board! I have an ethics board! ETHICS BOARD! Ethics board fixes any problems!" One, your ethics board cannot force nations to comply with mandates not set in your resolution. We have rules against WA police. Two, you can't leave all sorts of problems in your resolution, and then just add a clause saying "oh, also we make an ethics board that magically gets rid of any problems I forgot to address in my resolution." If we were allowed to create magical committees like this, there would be no room left for legislation, because you would need nothing more than a committee tasked to "make sure nations only do good things and never do bad things!" to completely saturate the lawbook.

If any of the above arguments are true, then this proposal is illegal for violating the honest mistake rule.

WRONG

[Umeria]

My proposal does not say that member states are definitively required to give abusive treatment to the quarantined. It says there is an argument to be made that they are required to do so. That's why I say "arguably".

You say they have the authority, which they don't, for reasons expressed above.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Eight times now. How many times must I explain to you that:
Proposals and resolutions at vote that contradict passed resolutions violate the contradiction rule. Resolutions that pass and go into effect that contradict other passed resolutions do not violate the contradiction rule. Resolutions that pass and go into effect that contradict other passed resolutions STILL CONTRADICT OTHER PASSED RESOLUTIONS.
How many times must I say this before you understand it?

Where in the rules does it say this? Even if this were true, it would not be valid in IC, for reasons expressed above.

1) You're directly contradicting the argument you made in the drafting thread.

No, that was about the morality of such a treatment. This is about whether it applies here.

2) I'm not sure where I say this in the repeal. Care to point it out?

You said it multiple times in your draft thread. I'll even quote it for you:

Quarantines easily can run low on money, medicine, food, water, sterile tools and materials, and so on. They are meant to get ready as quickly as possible and deal with the problem as quickly as possible. For some nations, this would very well mean killing off quarantined individuals based on their probability of survival or other factors, so that at least some of the patients can receive the medical attention they need.

Never in my time here have I encountered a committee that is allowed to make up its own mandates and impose them on member states. I don't see how, especially under these circumstances, that does not give it police powers. It is well established that member states must only comply with mandates set in resolutions. Unwritten mandates are of no concern to member states.

They're not making mandates they're just ensuring stuff happens. There are plenty of ways to do so besides brute force.

My proposal does nothing of the sort. You should read it again.

The rule is "the ethics board has to ensure xyz", the proposal says it doesn't exist. If it existed, then how could the ethics board not have any concrete authority?

This whole section of your challenge is, quite simply, "ethics board! Ethics board! I have an ethics board! ETHICS BOARD! Ethics board fixes any problems!" One, your ethics board cannot force nations to comply with mandates not set in your resolution. We have rules against WA police. Two, you can't leave all sorts of problems in your resolution, and then just add a clause saying "oh, also we make an ethics board that magically gets rid of any problems I forgot to address in my resolution." If we were allowed to create magical committees like this, there would be no room left for legislation, because you would need nothing more than a committee tasked to "make sure nations only do good things and never do bad things!" to completely saturate the lawbook.

Here we go again. The ethics board isn't forcing anything, it's just being the middle man so nations don't misinterpret things to their advantage. The good/bad committee proposal would be struck down just as hard as a proposal that simply mandated "good things".

WRONG

So, if one of my arguments were true, then this wouldn't violate the honest mistake rule?

[Wallenburg]

My proposal does not say that member states are definitively required to give abusive treatment to the quarantined. It says there is an argument to be made that they are required to do so. That's why I say "arguably".

You say they have the authority, which they don't, for reasons expressed above.

I find those reasons unconvincing. I believe GenSec will as well.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Eight times now. How many times must I explain to you that:
Proposals and resolutions at vote that contradict passed resolutions violate the contradiction rule. Resolutions that pass and go into effect that contradict other passed resolutions do not violate the contradiction rule. Resolutions that pass and go into effect that contradict other passed resolutions STILL CONTRADICT OTHER PASSED RESOLUTIONS.
How many times must I say this before you understand it?

Where in the rules does it say this?

It's not a matter of what the ruleset says, its a matter of basic goddamned logic, logic that a preschooler can follow. If one resolution says "do X" and another says "don't do X", then they contradict each other. It doesn't make a shred of difference whether both are passed or not.

Even if this were true, it would not be valid in IC, for reasons expressed above.

Yes, it would. It is perfectly valid to say, "hey, this resolution says things that contradict another one. We should fix that."

1) You're directly contradicting the argument you made in the drafting thread.

No, that was about the morality of such a treatment. This is about whether it applies here.

No, you repeatedly argued that your resolution permits, under certain circumstances, the killing of an unknown number of quarantined people. Don't pretend otherwise.

2) I'm not sure where I say this in the repeal. Care to point it out?

You said it multiple times in your draft thread. I'll even quote it for you:

Quarantines easily can run low on money, medicine, food, water, sterile tools and materials, and so on. They are meant to get ready as quickly as possible and deal with the problem as quickly as possible. For some nations, this would very well mean killing off quarantined individuals based on their probability of survival or other factors, so that at least some of the patients can receive the medical attention they need.

In other words, you can't point out where I say this in the repeal. Probably because I don't.

They're not making mandates they're just ensuring stuff happens. There are plenty of ways to do so besides brute force.

How do they "ensure that stuff happens"?

The rule is "the ethics board has to ensure xyz", the proposal says it doesn't exist. If it existed, then how could the ethics board not have any concrete authority?

Point me to where my proposal says any part of clause six does not exist.

Here we go again. The ethics board isn't forcing anything, it's just being the middle man so nations don't misinterpret things to their advantage.

So, by your own admission, the ethics board does nothing to change member states' behavior. So it's toothless.

The good/bad committee proposal would be struck down just as hard as a proposal that simply mandated "good things".

Yet you believe that such a committee would function perfectly, and really would make sure only "good things" happened.

[Christian Democrats]

Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined" is now under review in the GA Secretariat's forum.

[Umeria]

I find those reasons unconvincing. I believe GenSec will as well.

Only time will tell.

It's not a matter of what the ruleset says, its a matter of basic goddamned logic, logic that a preschooler can follow. If one resolution says "do X" and another says "don't do X", then they contradict each other. It doesn't make a shred of difference whether both are passed or not.

Looks like I need to be more specific. Where in the rules does it say that passed resolutions don't violate the contradiction rule? For that matter, where does it say that passed resolutions aren't at least initially assumed to have been legal even before it passed?

Yes, it would. It is perfectly valid to say, "hey, this resolution says things that contradict another one. We should fix that."

As I said before, the all-seeing WA gnomes would easily weed out such an illegality before its passing.

No, you repeatedly argued that your resolution permits, under certain circumstances, the killing of an unknown number of quarantined people. Don't pretend otherwise.

Again, yes, but only if it would save more infected than it killed. I put a reference to that argument there in case you decided to argue that those two clauses actually refer to these greater good killings, which they don't.

In other words, you can't point out where I say this in the repeal. Probably because I don't.

I never claimed you did, merely that it might be your position here.

How do they "ensure that stuff happens"?

Negotiating with quarantine heads, informing doctors, redistributing patients themselves, whichever is appropriate.

Or they could just say the WA sent them to do this and has thus given them authority.

Point me to where my proposal says any part of clause six does not exist.

Regretting that the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center's duties do not have any concrete effect on quarantines or treatment of the quarantined,

Due to clause 6, the ethics board needs to ensure certain things, and will do so through the above methods. By saying they do not have any concrete effect, you are saying they will not ensure those things, which would only be possible if clause 6 did not exist.

So, by your own admission, the ethics board does nothing to change member states' behavior. So it's toothless.

I didn't admit anything, unless you assume that brute force is the only way to get things done. Quarantines which would have otherwise acted under a nation's misinterpretation of the law instead acting under the ethics board's correct interpretation of the law is a change in behavior.

Yet you believe that such a committee would function perfectly, and really would make sure only "good things" happened.

Not perfectly, merely better than the quarantine would otherwise.

[Jarish Inyo]

Or they could just say the WA sent them to do this and has thus given them authority.

That isn't going to work. The WA only has the authority that the nation allows them. And as the WA had no way to enforce any of its resolutions, it really needs the good will of a nation. So trying to claim authority to do anything and expect the government of a nation just to do what you say is unreasonable.

Remember, the gnomes are not all seeing or all powerful. Or incorruptible. They do not have the ability to enforce anything.

[Umeria]

Or they could just say the WA sent them to do this and has thus given them authority.

That isn't going to work. The WA only has the authority that the nation allows them. And as the WA had no way to enforce any of its resolutions, it really needs the good will of a nation. So trying to claim authority to do anything and expect the government of a nation just to do what you say is unreasonable.

Remember, the gnomes are not all seeing or all powerful. Or incorruptible. They do not have the ability to enforce anything.

So if the resolution already has the nation's good will, why not apply that same will to the ethics board?

[Separatist Peoples]

Or they could just say the WA sent them to do this and has thus given them authority.

That isn't going to work. The WA only has the authority that the nation allows them. And as the WA had no way to enforce any of its resolutions, it really needs the good will of a nation. So trying to claim authority to do anything and expect the government of a nation just to do what you say is unreasonable.

Remember, the gnomes are not all seeing or all powerful. Or incorruptible. They do not have the ability to enforce anything.

The gnomes are a legal fiction by which we absolve the author of creating enforcement mechanisms in proposals. As a legal fiction, they are incorruptible and omniscient. That's the legal standard that the fiction established and it's what GenSec uses in rulings as a GA convention. We would probably consider what Umeria suggested to be effective for the purposes of rulings.

[Sciongrad]

The repeal holds that the target resolution not only allows but requires that nations "inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination o[n] quarantined populations." 1. What reasonable nation would interpret the resolution in such a way that requires them to exterminate quarantined populations and 2. even if it were reasonable to interpret that clause in isolation as a mandate for extermination, how can that argument withstand these clauses from the target resolution: "ensure that such matters are handled with proper consideration [for] the infected person's well-being" and "ensure[s] that infected individuals are treated fairly with regards to individual freedom and dignity."

Which clause do you believe mandates mass execution? Is your interpretation of the clause reasonable and can it still be interpreted as an execution order after considering the aforementioned clauses? If any one of those things can't be explained away, this looks like an honest mistake to me.

[Jarish Inyo]

That isn't going to work. The WA only has the authority that the nation allows them. And as the WA had no way to enforce any of its resolutions, it really needs the good will of a nation. So trying to claim authority to do anything and expect the government of a nation just to do what you say is unreasonable.

Remember, the gnomes are not all seeing or all powerful. Or incorruptible. They do not have the ability to enforce anything.

So if the resolution already has the nation's good will, why not apply that same will to the ethics board?

First, you're assuming that the resolution has the nation's good will. I assure you, it does not. Second, like morals, ethics very from individuals and nations. People and nations do not like having someone else morals and ethics forced upon them. And they will resist against it. What is moral and ethical for your nation may not be moral and ethical in mine.

[Wallenburg]

Now that this has been ruled illegal, when can we expect green text? I'd like to know why my proposal is illegal.

[Christian Democrats]

Now that this has been ruled illegal, when can we expect green text? I'd like to know why my proposal is illegal.

The internal vote is 5-1, and we're discussing who will write the majority opinion.

[Wallenburg]

Now that this has been ruled illegal, when can we expect green text? I'd like to know why my proposal is illegal.

The internal vote is 5-1, and we're discussing who will write the majority opinion.

So when can we expect that green text?

[Araraukar]

So when can we expect that green text?

Probably a month from now...

[Separatist Peoples]

So when can we expect that green text?

Probably a month from now...

I've submitted to the forum a draft opinion. I hope that is encouraging.

[Araraukar]

I've submitted to the forum a draft opinion. I hope that is encouraging.

To your private forum, I take it?

[Wallenburg]

So when can we expect that green text?

Probably a month from now...

Ever the optimist.

BTW, I'm going to get back to you on that TG soon. Finals/reports had me bogged down a bit.

[Christian Democrats]

Probably a month from now...

I've submitted to the forum a draft opinion. I hope that is encouraging.

Three GenSec members have signed on. Waiting on that fourth vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: "Repeal: Resolution 389"
Date of Decision: 21June 2017
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 4-1
Rules Applied: Honest Mistake

Separatist Peoples writes the opinion, joined by Sciongrad, Christian Democrats, Glen-Rhodes, and Sierra Lyricalia by concurrence.

We are asked to determine the legality of Repeal: Rights of the Quarantined as challenged under the Honest Mistakes rule. The repeal argues the target resolution approves otherwise illegal abuse in the name of preserving a quarantine, and that, but for the rule that repeals cannot asserts that passed resolutions violate the rules, the target resolution would be illegal. The first two arguments of the challenge asserts that the repeal contains a misrepresentation or factual inaccuracy by making its claim, arguing that such abuse wouldn’t be consistent with extant law in the first place, and thus has no merits of the argument. The third argument we consider asserts that the repeal’s criticism of the efficacy of the committee in Rights of the Quarantined is in error, as committee obligations are law in themselves. We agree with the challenge’s reasoning in part.

Honest Mistake and Approval of Otherwise Illegal Abuse
The Honest Mistakes rule provides that: “Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.”

When considering language for a resolution, authors are not constrained to accommodate every absurd interpretation, merely those interpretations that a reasonable nation might apply. This theory is referred to as the Reasonable Nation Theory, which provides, in relevant part, that “most nations in the WA are sensible and fair-minded (i.e., are "reasonable nations") and will exercise good faith in implementing the legislation, should it pass.” While the Reasonable Nation Theory is not itself a rule, it is a convention that authors, moderators, and now GenSec will rely upon in interpreting law.

Here, the repeal asserts, generally, that the powers Rights of the Quarantined grants to states extends into approving action currently barred by WA Law, specifically regarding medical treatment, extermination, or other abuses of individual autonomy. Such an interpretation fails the Reasonable Nation Theory, as no sensible and fair-minded nation exercising good faith in implementing WA law would violate existing law to follow a new law where there is ample opportunity to comply with both. While we don’t doubt that there are nations that would prefer to ignore WA law given the choice, it does not follow the interpretive convention we apply in assessing resolutions.
As such, the repeal contains either a factual inaccuracy, if unintentional, or a misrepresentation, if deliberate, as to the actual effect of the resolution. Which is irrelevant; we will not stoop to suspicion or accusation.

Mandates of a Committee as Law
The challenge asserts that the repeal misconstrues the powers of the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center as nonbinding. It essentially argues that committees, as empowered agents of the World Assembly, may enforce their mandates as law. Conversely, the repeal argues that the efforts of EPARC do not have the “concrete effects” the target resolution intended. While we agree that EPARC’s mandates as a committee bear the power of law, the assertion that a committee fails to effect its mandate for lack of sufficiently assertive mandates, rather than inapplicability of administrative law, is a legitimate interpretation, and not an Honest Mistake.

The rest of the challenge deals with the subjective efficacy of the target resolution, Rights of the Quarantined, which we will not consider.

Sierra Lyricalia concurs with the Honest Mistakes violation but disagrees with the interpretation.

I join the majority opinion, except as to paragraphs 3 and 4 ("When considering language...in assessing resolutions."). The Majority's over-expansive interpretation of Reasonable Nation Theory is directly at odds with GenSec's previous ruling in "Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations.'" However, the proposed repeal of 'Rights of the Quarantined' is in fact illegal for an Honest Mistake, and I join the Majority in striking it down.

'Rights of the Quarantined' provides, in part, that nations shall "provide every treatment to all infected persons." The proposed repeal claims that this "gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations."

This interpretation cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. The allegation rests on an extremely spurious reading of the target's definition of "treatment;" a definition which by necessity allows nations a certain amount of flexibility.

...any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:

curing the infected person;

rendering the infected person non-contagious;

ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or

ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

By the simple pitfalls of life (i.e. "shit happens") it is very often impossible to accomplish all four of these goals on a single patient, or on many patients. That does not mean nations have carte blanche to carry out one at the intentional expense of the others.

The inclusion of all of these actions (encompassing as they do every stage of medical practice, from diagnosis to hospice); plus the conspicuous omission of any text to the effect of "...by any means necessary..." or "...even if that means a mass culling..." - makes clear that the target's purpose is actually treatment, as medical professionals and ordinary lay persons understand the term.

In order to justify interpreting this definition as including some perverted acceptance of "clean it with fire," the target would have to have more textual clues than the single word "or" which the repeal argument appears to rely on. Therefore the argument is a textbook Honest Mistake and the repeal is illegal.

Another crippling blow (if a slightly more obscure one) comes from the text of GA Res. #140, "Institutional Psychiatry Act." That resolution uses the term "patient" without apparently limiting its requirements to psychiatric patients only; nor "for purposes of this resolution" only. It provides, in part:
[box]2. No patient shall be subject to medication or punishment that is not in their best medical interests or lacks a therapeutic or diagnostic purpose (e.g., as a method of punishment, for the convenience of staff, misuses of seclusion or electroconvulsive therapy, lobotomization, embarrassment via group therapy);

While the given examples pertain to psychiatric practice, there is no text actually limiting the mandate to mental hospitals only. "The law does what the law says." Therefore there is no reason to think this mandate applies to anything less than the entire class of medical patients, across all member states, in all circumstances. Therefore the argument of this repeal would require the target to be in contradiction of GAR #140, an impossible result; and the repeal is therefore illegal on that score as well.

Bears Armed dissents. Opinion pending.

[Thyerata]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: "Resolution 389"
Date of Decision: 21June 2017
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 4-1
Rules Applied: Honest Mistake

Separatist Peoples writes the opinion, joined by Sciongrad, Christian Democrats, Glen-Rhodes, and Sierra Lyricalia by concurrence.

We are asked to determine the legality of Repeal: Rights of the Quarantined as challenged under the Honest Mistakes rule. The repeal argues the target resolution approves otherwise illegal abuse in the name of preserving a quarantine, and that, but for the rule that repeals cannot asserts that passed resolutions violate the rules, the target resolution would be illegal. The first two arguments of the challenge asserts that the repeal contains a misrepresentation or factual inaccuracy by making its claim, arguing that such abuse wouldn’t be consistent with extant law in the first place, and thus has no merits of the argument. The third argument we consider asserts that the repeal’s criticism of the efficacy of the committee in Rights of the Quarantined is in error, as committee obligations are law in themselves. We agree with the challenge’s reasoning in part.

Honest Mistake and Approval of Otherwise Illegal Abuse
The Honest Mistakes rule provides that: “Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.”

When considering language for a resolution, authors are not constrained to accommodate every absurd interpretation, merely those interpretations that a reasonable nation might apply. This theory is referred to as the Reasonable Nation Theory, which provides, in relevant part, that “most nations in the WA are sensible and fair-minded (i.e., are "reasonable nations") and will exercise good faith in implementing the legislation, should it pass.” While the Reasonable Nation Theory is not itself a rule, it is a convention that authors, moderators, and now GenSec will rely upon in interpreting law.

Here, the repeal asserts, generally, that the powers Rights of the Quarantined grants to states extends into approving action currently barred by WA Law, specifically regarding medical treatment, extermination, or other abuses of individual autonomy. Such an interpretation fails the Reasonable Nation Theory, as no sensible and fair-minded nation exercising good faith in implementing WA law would violate existing law to follow a new law where there is ample opportunity to comply with both. While we don’t doubt that there are nations that would prefer to ignore WA law given the choice, it does not follow the interpretive convention we apply in assessing resolutions.
As such, the repeal contains either a factual inaccuracy, if unintentional, or a misrepresentation, if deliberate, as to the actual effect of the resolution. Which is irrelevant; we will not stoop to suspicion or accusation.

Mandates of a Committee as Law
The challenge asserts that the repeal misconstrues the powers of the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center as nonbinding. It essentially argues that committees, as empowered agents of the World Assembly, may enforce their mandates as law. Conversely, the repeal argues that the efforts of EPARC do not have the “concrete effects” the target resolution intended. While we agree that EPARC’s mandates as a committee bear the power of law, the assertion that a committee fails to effect its mandate for lack of sufficiently assertive mandates, rather than inapplicability of administrative law, is a legitimate interpretation, and not an Honest Mistake.

The rest of the challenge deals with the subjective efficacy of the target resolution, Rights of the Quarantined, which we will not consider.

Sierra Lyricalia concurs with the Honest Mistakes violation but disagrees with the interpretation.

I join the majority opinion, except as to paragraphs 3 and 4 ("When considering language...in assessing resolutions."). The Majority's over-expansive interpretation of Reasonable Nation Theory is directly at odds with GenSec's previous ruling in "Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations.'" However, the proposed repeal of 'Rights of the Quarantined' is in fact illegal for an Honest Mistake, and I join the Majority in striking it down.

'Rights of the Quarantined' provides, in part, that nations shall "provide every treatment to all infected persons." The proposed repeal claims that this "gives member states the authority or, arguably, the mandate, to violate common standards of medical ethics and to inflict extreme abuse or even selective extermination of quarantined populations."

This interpretation cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. The allegation rests on an extremely spurious reading of the target's definition of "treatment;" a definition which by necessity allows nations a certain amount of flexibility.

...any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:

curing the infected person;

rendering the infected person non-contagious;

ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or

ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

By the simple pitfalls of life (i.e. "shit happens") it is very often impossible to accomplish all four of these goals on a single patient, or on many patients. That does not mean nations have carte blanche to carry out one at the intentional expense of the others.

The inclusion of all of these actions (encompassing as they do every stage of medical practice, from diagnosis to hospice); plus the conspicuous omission of any text to the effect of "...by any means necessary..." or "...even if that means a mass culling..." - makes clear that the target's purpose is actually treatment, as medical professionals and ordinary lay persons understand the term.

In order to justify interpreting this definition as including some perverted acceptance of "clean it with fire," the target would have to have more textual clues than the single word "or" which the repeal argument appears to rely on. Therefore the argument is a textbook Honest Mistake and the repeal is illegal.

Another crippling blow (if a slightly more obscure one) comes from the text of GA Res. #140, "Institutional Psychiatry Act." That resolution uses the term "patient" without apparently limiting its requirements to psychiatric patients only; nor "for purposes of this resolution" only. It provides, in part:
[box]2. No patient shall be subject to medication or punishment that is not in their best medical interests or lacks a therapeutic or diagnostic purpose (e.g., as a method of punishment, for the convenience of staff, misuses of seclusion or electroconvulsive therapy, lobotomization, embarrassment via group therapy);

While the given examples pertain to psychiatric practice, there is no text actually limiting the mandate to mental hospitals only. "The law does what the law says." Therefore there is no reason to think this mandate applies to anything less than the entire class of medical patients, across all member states, in all circumstances. Therefore the argument of this repeal would require the target to be in contradiction of GAR #140, an impossible result; and the repeal is therefore illegal on that score as well.

Bears Armed dissents. Opinion pending.

Excellent. Can the deliberations be moved into the public archive please?

[Separatist Peoples]

Deliberations are released according to a predetermined delay period beginning after release of the ruling. Not before. So, yes. Eventually.

[Thyerata]

Deliberations are released according to a predetermined delay period beginning after release of the ruling. Not before. So, yes. Eventually.

I ask because there has been a backlog recently. Also, what is this delay period? The GenSec procedure envisages no such delay

[Sciongrad]

Deliberations are released according to a predetermined delay period beginning after release of the ruling. Not before. So, yes. Eventually.

I ask because there has been a backlog recently. Also, what is this delay period? The GenSec procedure envisages no such delay

Yeah, we do admit the delays in getting ruling out lately is pretty inexcusable. We're doing our best to get things out in a timely manner. As for publicly archiving discussion threads: private discussion threads are publicly archived one month after their corresponding ruling is made public. While there is a backlog in publicizing previous threads, that has no bearings on recent rulings like this one.

[Wallenburg]

Thank you for the ruling. A couple things to point out:

The repeal argues the target resolution approves otherwise illegal abuse in the name of preserving a quarantine, and that, but for the rule that repeals cannot asserts that passed resolutions violate the rules, the target resolution would be illegal.

The second half of this sentence is false. You may want to correct that, if you can.

Here, the repeal asserts, generally, that the powers Rights of the Quarantined grants to states extends into approving action currently barred by WA Law, specifically regarding medical treatment, extermination, or other abuses of individual autonomy. Such an interpretation fails the Reasonable Nation Theory, as no sensible and fair-minded nation exercising good faith in implementing WA law would violate existing law to follow a new law where there is ample opportunity to comply with both.

This is a bastardization of RNT. The theory asserts that nations will do that what is in their own best interest, not that they will interpret resolutions as they were meant to be written, or as provides for the most harmony between resolutions. You even recognize this:

While we don’t doubt that there are nations that would prefer to ignore WA law given the choice, it does not follow the interpretive convention we apply in assessing resolutions.

Yet implicitly dismiss these perfectly selfish nations as "unreasonable".

The challenge asserts that the repeal misconstrues the powers of the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center as nonbinding. It essentially argues that committees, as empowered agents of the World Assembly, may enforce their mandates as law. Conversely, the repeal argues that the efforts of EPARC do not have the “concrete effects” the target resolution intended. While we agree that EPARC’s mandates as a committee bear the power of law, the assertion that a committee fails to effect its mandate for lack of sufficiently assertive mandates, rather than inapplicability of administrative law, is a legitimate interpretation, and not an Honest Mistake.

Fascinating. Well, if this is to be the new precedent, I'll have to seriously consider how I use committees in the future. With enough work, I could easily make a very good proposal or two with no potential for flaws.