Wallenburg wrote: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.