[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined"

[Sciongrad]

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

It's not. It is illegal to base a repeal argument in any supposed illegality of the original resolution.

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:

Reasonable Nation Theory holds that nations will interpret resolutions in such a way that is reasonable given both the language of the resolution and that nation's interests. No reasonable nation would believe that the resolution in question actually requires them to exterminate people. That's as absurd an argument as it is unconvincing, and you should be thankful that your name isn't attached to the argument for all eternity in the annals of WA law.

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

Nations that want to exterminate people will exterminate people. Nations that don't won't. The argument here that is unconvincing is that any nation would feel as if they're being compelled to exterminate quarantined populations, which is the argument you're making.

[Wallenburg]

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

It's not. It is illegal to base a repeal argument in any supposed illegality of the original resolution.

Please tell me where my proposal says the original resolution is or was illegal. That will be the first of my edits to the new version.

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:

Reasonable Nation Theory holds that nations will interpret resolutions in such a way that is reasonable given both the language of the resolution and that nation's interests. No reasonable nation would believe that the resolution in question actually requires them to exterminate people. That's as absurd an argument as it is unconvincing, and you should be thankful that your name isn't attached to the argument for all eternity in the annals of WA law.

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

Nations that want to exterminate people will exterminate people. Nations that don't won't. The argument here that is unconvincing is that any nation would feel as if they're being compelled to exterminate quarantined populations, which is the argument you're making.

You assume that member states would never use what they interpret as mandates to justify controversial or plain immoral actions. That is not the case. Your assumption that no reasonable nation whose interests align with one possible interpretation of WA law would claim that they only pursue a terrible policy because the WA mandates that they do, is unconvincing.

EDIT: Also, since apparently this did not post earlier:

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.

I am glad to see that GenSec's attitude about its delays is changing. After all, look at this, we got a ruling in just a week and a half for this. Perhaps there is hope for significant improvement in the future.

[Sciongrad]

I am glad to see that GenSec's attitude about its delays is changing. After all, look at this, we got a ruling in just a week and a half for this. Perhaps there is hope for significant improvement in the future.

I mean, delays are not really choices. We try to spend as much time as we can getting rulings out but we do have other things that we need to balance. We'll always try our best but don't expect two day express rulings any time soon.

[Wallenburg]

I am glad to see that GenSec's attitude about its delays is changing. After all, look at this, we got a ruling in just a week and a half for this. Perhaps there is hope for significant improvement in the future.

I mean, delays are not really choices.

One week, two week delays are not choices. Two month, three month delays are choices.

We try to spend as much time as we can getting rulings out but we do have other things that we need to balance. We'll always try our best but don't expect two day express rulings any time soon.

I understand that. There will always be a limit to GenSec's abilities, and even if all six of your lives revolved around NS, we still couldn't expect you all to churn out a written ruling faster than many other regulars log in.

[Christian Democrats]

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

You might want to fix this header.

It's a proposed repeal of Resolution 389, and the vote is 5-1.

[Umeria]

Is any of this a verdict on whether passed resolutions can contradict other resolutions but still be legal?

[Christian Democrats]

Is any of this a verdict on whether passed resolutions can contradict other resolutions but still be legal?

All passed resolutions are legal by virtue of the fact that they've been passed.

[Umeria]

Is any of this a verdict on whether passed resolutions can contradict other resolutions but still be legal?

All passed resolutions are legal by virtue of the fact that they've been passed.

So are they considered to not contradict other resolutions, or does the fact that it passed override any contradictions?

[Christian Democrats]

All passed resolutions are legal by virtue of the fact that they've been passed.

So are they considered to not contradict other resolutions, or does the fact that it passed override any contradictions?

According to Resolution 2, nations have a duty to comply in good faith with the mandates of international law.

[Araraukar]

So are they considered to not contradict other resolutions, or does the fact that it passed override any contradictions?

You're not allowed to use "it's illegal and should never have passed" as a repeal clause, if that's what you mean.