[DEFEATED] Repeal "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes"

[Lord Dominator]

"Really, it's a shame that big gaping flaw of some optionality in here, but what can you really do aside from some good 'ol repeal and replace?"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: 459
Author: Lord Dominator

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of the target resolution to improve health by reducing smoking and related issues,

Reminding itself that passed resolutions cannot be amended to resolve errors,

Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,

Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

Observing that not all member member nations are composed of species harmed by the targeted products and believing such to be an unnecessary overreach,

Further observing that the educational requirements would cause waste of resources in nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent,

Hopefully consigning to private essays rather than General Assembly resolutions titles starting with the word "On",

Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal,

Repeals "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes".

Co-Authored by Imperium Anglorum

[Lord Dominator]

Category: Repeal
Resolution: 459
Author: Lord Dominator

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of the target resolution to improve health via reducing smoking and related issues,

Reminding itself that passed resolutions cannot be amended to resolve errors,

Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,

Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach and make unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend,

Additionally Observing that not all member member nations are composed of species harmed by the targeted products and believing such to be an unnecessary overreach,

Hopefully consigning to private essays rather than General Assembly resolutions titles starting with the word "On",

Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal with simple rewordings of the resolution,

Repeals "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes".

Co-Authored by Imperium Anglorum

[Araraukar]

OOC: There's a resolution about translating everything the WA legislates, to the various languages used in the member nations, so arguing "the label text in the resolution is in the wrong language for my nation" is... well, a lie.

I would vote "for" this just because of the use "On" in the title, though.

[Kenmoria]

“On the one hand, you have just pointed out a lovely loophole we should use in our interpretation of the resolution, which reduces the amount with which we have to trample on corporate free speech rights, and repealing this could make way for a new resolution that doesn’t have this loophole.

On the other hand, this lovely loophole doesn’t detract from the fact that three tenths of the packaging is mandated to be taken up by unattractive and non-pleasing health and safety warning as well as generally setting a bad precedent for the oppression of tobacco companies. Overall, I believe I support this repeal.”

[Araraukar]

“On the other hand, this lovely loophole doesn’t detract from the fact that three tenths of the packaging is mandated to be taken up by unattractive and non-pleasing health and safety warning”

"If you must insist on poisoning your citizens, why not make the the warning label itself pretty? I'm sure you must have some graphic designers working for your poison-marketers."

[Kenmoria]

“On the other hand, this lovely loophole doesn’t detract from the fact that three tenths of the packaging is mandated to be taken up by unattractive and non-pleasing health and safety warning”

"If you must insist on poisoning your citizens, why not make the the warning label itself pretty? I'm sure you must have some graphic designers working for your poison-marketers."

“Oh yes, I’m sure the tobacco companies have spent a lot making sure every citizen knows the benefits of usage of their product. However, these people are working graphic designers, not miracle workers, and it would take a miracle to turn ‘This product is known to cause several types of cancer and other long term, serious health problems,’ into anything that resembles positive branding. A common theme in this type of advertisement is guilt-free indulgence. I don’t know if you have a way to make cancer fit that brief.

Besides, the Kenmorian government doesn’t poison people. ‘Poison’ implies that we are forcibly stuffing cigarettes in people’s mouths. In reality, all we are doing is giving others the opportunity to make money and provide for themselves, however they want to do it.”

[Bears Armed]

OOC
GAR Resolution #2 requires that member nations follow resolutions "in good faith". Would you really call allowing tobacco companies to print the WA-required warnings in languages that their potential customers wouldn't be able to read complying in good faith?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC
GAR Resolution #2 requires that member nations follow resolutions "in good faith". Would you really call allowing tobacco companies to print the WA-required warnings in languages that their potential customers wouldn't be able to read complying in good faith?

Ooc: The resolution is silent on the matter, and enforcing the letter of the law is not bad faith. Bad faith involves more than just using a loophole.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: The resolution is silent on the matter, and enforcing the letter of the law is not bad faith. Bad faith involves more than just using a loophole.

OOC: But there is at least one resolution that requires translating all WA legislation into the languages of the nation in question. Since you have to translate it, then printing it on a foreign language on purpose would be bad faith.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: The resolution is silent on the matter, and enforcing the letter of the law is not bad faith. Bad faith involves more than just using a loophole.

OOC: But there is at least one resolution that requires translating all WA legislation into the languages of the nation in question. Since you have to translate it, then printing it on a foreign language on purpose would be bad faith.

Ooc: legislation, not labels. If there is no obligation to print those labels in domestic language, there is no bad faith by not doing so. It is not a patently unreasonable interpretation that nations may print labels in a foreign language.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: legislation, not labels. If there is no obligation to print those labels in domestic language, there is no bad faith by not doing so. It is not a patently unreasonable interpretation that nations may print labels in a foreign language.

OOC: The legislation is about labels.

EDIT: Or do you apply the same thing about labels to every single resolution in existence that legislates on labling things, and doesn't specifically say it must be in a language understood by the people you sell them to? 2nd EDIT: Because that's the level of loopholing that would let Araraukarian border patrols sink refugee boats freely without committing warcrimes, simply because of clever labeling of the situation. (And using that example because it's the most outrageous one I can think of in relation to Araraukar...)

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: legislation, not labels. If there is no obligation to print those labels in domestic language, there is no bad faith by not doing so. It is not a patently unreasonable interpretation that nations may print labels in a foreign language.

OOC: The legislation is about labels.

EDIT: Or do you apply the same thing about labels to every single resolution in existence that legislates on labling things, and doesn't specifically say it must be in a language understood by the people you sell them to?

Ooc: Uniform Labling of Hazarfous Goods makes no provisions about consumer labels on consumer packaging, but discusses vessel labling. And those lable requirements are not binding.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: Uniform Labling of Hazarfous Goods makes no provisions about consumer labels on consumer packaging, but discusses vessel labling. And those lable requirements are not binding.

OOC: There are others.
viewtopic.php?p=319#p319 (binding requirement)
viewtopic.php?p=668491#p668491 (binding requirement)
viewtopic.php?p=29087015#p29087015 (binding requirement)

I'm fairly sure there are even more others but those were the quickest to search for.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Uniform Labling of Hazarfous Goods makes no provisions about consumer labels on consumer packaging, but discusses vessel labling. And those lable requirements are not binding.

OOC: There are others.
viewtopic.php?p=319#p319 (binding requirement)
viewtopic.php?p=668491#p668491 (binding requirement)
viewtopic.php?p=29087015#p29087015 (binding requirement)

I'm fairly sure there are even more others but those were the quickest to search for.

OOC: None of those have a universal obligation that labels of all kind be translated, and even if they did, their subject material naturally limits them to the kind of label contemplated in the subject material. In order: industrial workplace labels, a quality and grade label, and labels for pesticides. Only one of those reasonably attaches to consumer goods, and it has nothing to do with health and safety.

You can't read a policy you want to see into laws when it isn't there.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: So...

Ooc: legislation, not labels. If there is no obligation to print those labels in domestic language, there is no bad faith by not doing so. It is not a patently unreasonable interpretation that nations may print labels in a foreign language.

do you apply the same thing about labels to every single resolution in existence that legislates on labling things, and doesn't specifically say it must be in a language understood by the people you sell them to?

An answer please? Yes or no works.

[Lord Dominator]

*snip*

OOC: So...

Ooc: legislation, not labels. If there is no obligation to print those labels in domestic language, there is no bad faith by not doing so. It is not a patently unreasonable interpretation that nations may print labels in a foreign language.

do you apply the same thing about labels to every single resolution in existence that legislates on labling things, and doesn't specifically say it must be in a language understood by the people you sell them to?

An answer please? Yes or no works.

OOC: Personally speaking, I would think that one could apply the same standard to at least the 3 you linked, though I can think of ways the first 2 wiggle around that (safety information be easily accessible and looking to be committee controlled respectively).

Additionally, a clause based on BA's argument suggestion in IA's draft release thread has been added. And if it wasn't obvious, this draft is based on said draft, given an earlier release for use for co-author credit on Discord.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Arguments about should and good faith are preempted in the text of the proposal itself. Also, you may want to consider adding here to that interpretation clause:

then the WA loses the ability to recommend any action and also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions.

---

Additionally, a clause based on BA's argument suggestion in IA's draft release thread has been added. And if it wasn't obvious, this draft is based on said draft, given an earlier release for use for co-author credit on Discord.

Also at the top of the OP in that thread.

nations were tobacco use is low or non-existent

Needs to be changed to: nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent

Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal with simple rewordings of the resolution,

I would also caution against something this broad, because this could imply so some readers that they would be able to plagiarise the target resolution rather than the original, which was intended as a oblique reminder to the Assembly that the original authorial delegation will probably pass a replacement.

[Lord Dominator]

nations were tobacco use is low or non-existent

Needs to be changed to: nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent

Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal with simple rewordings of the resolution,

I would also caution against something this broad, because this could imply so some readers that they would be able to plagiarise the target resolution rather than the original, which was intended as a oblique reminder to the Assembly that the original authorial delegation will probably pass a replacement.

Made the spelling fix, removed the implication of editing the actual resolution and moved towards a more neutral statement on such. Thank you

[Lord Dominator]

Submission coming soon, given lack of debate or any other forms of contribution

[Araraukar]

Submission coming soon, given lack of debate or any other forms of contribution

OOC: I still think that the lable language thing is a bad faith argument. Do you really need to include it?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Observing shouldn't be capitalised in 'Further Observing'. Via should be replaced with By. I would still add the argument I posted last regarding Should and Discretion.

[Lord Dominator]

Submission coming soon, given lack of debate or any other forms of contribution

OOC: I still think that the lable language thing is a bad faith argument. Do you really need to include it?

I agree with IA on the argument about 'should' here, otherwise I wouldn't have used IA's draft as a basis.

Got those wording quibbles there IA, thanks.

[Lord Dominator]

OOC: I have submitted this on my occupation puppet, for the record (and to avoid any possible plagiarism ding).

[Kranostav]

Yeah I really just don't agree. Purposefully posting warnings in a non native language so as to subvert the effects of the resolution is operating in bad faith.

I'll give you that this is a fairly humanist resolution and could have some issues with species that aren't harmed from aforementioned use of various products described in the original resolution.

But I really don't think the loophole argument flies with gar#2 mandating good faith.

[Lord Dominator]

I don't see how it doesn't, having people enforce resolutions by the letter of the law & not the spirit has a long-accepted history, I see no reason why this doesn't follow under the same.