[CHALLENGE] Repeal "World Assembly Central Library Compact"

[Wallenburg]

Proposal Challenged: Repeal "World Assembly Central Library Compact"

Rule Violated: Honest Mistake

---

This repeal suffers from two separate misunderstandings of the targeted resolution. First, the repeal proposal argues that the Universal Library Coalition

creates a “library” accepting “submissions from individual nations” and promoting “cultural awareness by permitting the creation of [a exchange network] to house a rotating collection of literary works provided by other … nations”

and that "World Assembly Central Library Compact"

does these exact same things, except with a single physical location that people may visit to store documents

It cannot be mistaken that this repeal argues that the resolutions are similar in this regard. It explicitly argues that both resolutions share these exact same properties. However, at no point does the World Assembly Central Library Compact set up an exchange network to house a rotating collection of literature. Donations to the WACLC are stored solely on WACLC sites for the purpose of preservation, restoration, and exhibition. The target makes no provision for the regular rotation of different pieces of literature in and out of its care.

Second, the repeal states that the WACLC exists at "a single physical location". This contradicts the mandate to the OBM to "locate suitable land(s) and/or a planet, in international territory on which to build the WACLC", as expressed in the seventh active clause of the target resolution. Attention should be paid to the plural "lands", implying that separate areas of land may be designated as simultaneous locations for the WACLC.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

While I believe that the resolution in question may defeated on the merits. However, as the challenge exists, I wish to, at this time, provide a further context and analysis of the arguements being made for consideration by GenSec.

Honest Mistake: 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.

In my reading of the repeal in question, there are three separate references to the resolution being a duplication/redundancy of existing law.
First in the opening paragraph, which is added to AI’s standard clause describing the need to repeal legislation first should substainal issues arise, making it a unique argument for consideration

and (ii) there are no real good reasons to keep redundant legislation around,

Secondly the main body arguement, as was quoted above by Wallenburg, in their initial challenge, with all of the flaws expounded upon.
And lastly as the repeal concludes,

Seeking to reduce redundancy and risk, hereby:

Firstly, these three arguements form the core base of logic within the repeal to justify the repeal itself. They also mirror language within the General assembly ruleset regarding duplication and originality, which state,

Ideally, proposals will present unique ideas.

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to repeat a specific action or concept. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy where broad legislation exists, but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

and thus imply on behalf of the targeted resolution violations of those rules.

I would ask GenSec to consider that these statements constitute misrepresentation of the targeted resolution on the following grounds: In the course of the debate on WACLC, several members of GenSec, as well as forum members provided insight throughout the debate into legality issues present in earlier drafts. As duplication, or failure to be orginal would itself be a violation of the ruleset, it would be fair and reasonable to conclude that should the WACLC have run afoul of these rules in that manner, it would have been noted and mentioned at the time, alongside the issues regarding house of cards and comittee only which were present in the first drafts, and/or later, ruled illegal prior to being voted on. The repeal misrepresents, in its omissions, that there are unique elements separate and apart from other resolutions, which render it it compliance with the rules on duplication and originality.

Secondly, even granting the repeal author the benefit of the doubt, that they are not misrepresenting an argument of redundancy as violations of the ruleset. The remainder substantially misrepresents the length and complexity of WACLC, and as well as fails to address the orginal argumententation put forth by the WA to justify the existence of the WACLC in the first place. To begin with:

Concerned, however, by a lack of protections for preserving physical written works, and thus, that the mission of digitizing and distributing literary works may be hindered by not having a central repository from which to conduct this import work;

While repeals must not, in the words of the ruleset, “just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.”; it is the prior half of that same clause: that “Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting” which holds that the a repeal author should make reasonable effort to justify why the position of the WA as a whole has changed its mind on the issues in question. In this case, they failed to address the issue of preservation, have not subtainally rebutted the conclusion that a central responsitory is the corrective to this issue, and proclaimed concerns for the safety of the materials stored within WACLC, (which is addressed in the target resolution itself).

No resolution can be comprehensive, or unlimited in its text, else we would have people attempting to submit the Rome Statutes into WA law, or something equally obnoxiously long and running afoul did many rules. However, within the constraints afforded, the target resolution addresses may aspects of the operations, and issues posited by the repeal, as well as others not considered or addressed by the repeal. An honest and fair repeal, if presented should address these considerations and explain why the thinking of the WA has changed.