[Draft] Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities

[Marxist Germany]

"It has no place here. None of us care about your god."

It has a place everywhere.

"Ambassador, as a Christian, I am staunchly opposed to your Islamic "law". Your laws are backwards and have no place within this chamber. Now, can we get back to our topic?"

[Youssath]

"Protecting individual liberty is not the same thing as adopting radical religious law, ambassador. And I know you know the difference. The ambassador's government is welcome to obey any religious law he wishes, subject to the limitations of international law. In that way, he is as protected as the minority groups you have cited."

"Fair enough, ambassador. Although I must add, however, that if the protection of individual liberty were to conflict with one's religion and way of life, which has been practised by others for thousands of years, then I believe that this will be an issue that will have to be addressed soon. The World Assembly promotes the betterment of democracy and human rights, but we should both be aware of the conflicts between a man's religion and individual liberty and freedoms, especially when his religion forbids it. I hope that the World Assembly will come to its senses and reach a compromise with these groups, rather than simply dismissing ambassadors out of the World Assembly if they are unable to comply with such resolutions as I have seen here previously."

"Ambassador, as a Christian, I am staunchly opposed to your Islamic "law". Your laws are backwards and have no place within this chamber. Now, can we get back to our topic?"

"May the ambassador who has just said those remarks immediately withdraw those provocative statements. It is insulting and undignified to call a nation's laws as 'backwards' if they are a WA member who are in full compliance with all GA resolutions."

"And yes, let's get back right where we were. Um, was it a declaration of war towards my country or something?"

[Marxist Germany]

"Ambassador, as a Christian, I am staunchly opposed to your Islamic "law". Your laws are backwards and have no place within this chamber. Now, can we get back to our topic?"

"May the ambassador who has just said those remarks immediately withdraw those provocative statements. It is insulting and undignified to call a nation's laws as 'backwards' if they are a WA member who are in full compliance with all GA resolutions."

"And yes, let's get back right where we were. Um, was it a declaration of war towards my country or something?"

"Apologies if you found my statements provocative, if you are currently in compliance with GA resolutions then your laws aren't backwards, I was talking to the ambassador from Ard Al Islam, which is noncompliant with many resolutions."

[Ard al Islam]

He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.

OOC: By that logic you are an attaché and I am a Postmaster-General. Will you address me as one?

Do you want me to?

[Ard al Islam]

It has a place everywhere.

"Only if everywhere has a garbage can, ambassador. Your religion represents an extreme minority in the World Assembly. It has no place dictating policy in an avowedly secular organization, least of all to secular states. If your god doesn't like it, he can snap his fingers and change the WA's mission statement to so reflect.

"Now that we can focus on relevant matters, the C.D.S.P. insists on an exception based on the United Massachusetts delegation's observation. Recognizing nonstates as states is dangerous. "

"Islam is perfect, and Muhammad was perfect. We hold these truths to be self-evident."

[Ard al Islam]

It has a place everywhere.

"While the honourable gentleman right here has the right to defend and practice his religion as it is his "way of life" and The Republic of Youssath respects all religion of all classes for the betterment of world hegemony and the World Assembly, may we ask the Ambassador to refrain from making bold statements that might infringe on the very code of law that nations found themselves upon. Islamic teaching and worship is a way of life and we agree that it should be respected and represented in the World Assembly, but any forms of violent Islamic forms or its laws constitute a direct threat to the republics of this free world."

"Only if everywhere has a garbage can, ambassador. Your religion represents an extreme minority in the World Assembly. It has no place dictating policy in an avowedly secular organization, least of all to secular states. If your god doesn't like it, he can snap his fingers and change the WA's mission statement to so reflect.

"And so is homosexuals and transgenders in the World Assembly, which represents at least 0.5% of the world's population. But we still have damning resolutions like GAR #467 and others protecting this so-called 'trending' minority. If religious groups are just as equally in the minority as transgenders, shouldn't we make a conscientious effort into at least representing these groups at best?"

"Regardless, I digress from my original speech. I would advise on everyone to focus on the agenda in question today and not concern ourselves with these 'peppy talk'. Youssath will gladly support this resolution requiring a declaration of hostilities in order to conduct wars against other states but like what the other ambassadors have raised, we would like to see to it that terrorist organizations recognized by national governments (not international, since these terrorist organizations can be illegally funded by other states and can diplomatically block any proceedings to label them as 'terrorists') are excluded from recognition as 'states' in order to promote national security."

Huzzah! May God guide you! And don't worry, Islamic laws and Islam are not violent nor threats to non-Muslim nations. Rather, they are a benefit to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

[Ard al Islam]

"And so is homosexuals and transgenders in the World Assembly, which represents at least 0.5% of the world's population. But we still have damning resolutions like GAR #467 and others protecting this so-called 'trending' minority. If religious groups are just as equally in the minority as transgenders, shouldn't we make a conscientious effort into at least representing these groups at best?"

"Protecting individual liberty is not the same thing as adopting radical religious law, ambassador. And I know you know the difference. The ambassador's government is welcome to obey any religious law he wishes, subject to the limitations of international law. In that way, he is as protected as the minority groups you have cited."

Right, because Islam is "radical."

[Drystar]

Ahem... while I’m sure you would all like to continue in this vein, what does any of this have to do with the draft under discussion?

[Ard al Islam]

It has a place everywhere.

"Ambassador, as a Christian, I am staunchly opposed to your Islamic "law". Your laws are backwards and have no place within this chamber. Now, can we get back to our topic?"

That is were you are wrong. Remember;

"Islam is perfect, and Muhammad was perfect. We hold these truths to be self-evident."

[Youssath]

"I'm going to denounce you if you keep derailing this General Assembly resolution thread that we are having here, ambassador."

[Ard al Islam]

"I'm going to denounce you if you keep derailing this General Assembly resolution thread that we are having here, ambassador."

Then let this side discussion end the way it started: This resolution is similar to Islamic Law, therefore I support it. Now let's all get back to the matter at hand.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Can you learn to edit your posts? Quadruple posting is frowned upon and is considered spam.

[Ard al Islam]

OOC:Can you learn to edit your posts? Quadruple posting is frowned upon and is considered spam. >:(

What do you mean? I'm not quadruple posting.

[Kenmoria]

“As you have ‘member nations’ in clause five, but solely ‘nations’ in your other active clauses, it makes it appear that you are trying to affect non-members as well. I suggest, therefore, that you change the ‘nations’ to ‘member nations’ in all your clauses.”

[Youssath]

The Youssathian Ambassador sighs. The endless debate and shouting between the moderate and Islamic ambassadors continue to intensify further. "Jesus, and I thought my speech would be able to calm things down at least in this wretched chamber!", the ambassador thought to himself, knowing that it would be moments before chairs go flying and all facts cease to exist momentarily.

He drafts a short speech, hoping to divert the attention back to the resolution at hand or at the very least, to plot his escape from this assembly before someone throws a chair at him.

After mindless arguing and shouting from both sides of the spectrum, the ambassador walks to the podium and makes his speech:

"While I have the attention of this audience, for the time being, I would like to make the following address to the Losthavenite Ambassador who has proposed this resolution."

"To start, I feel that the finding statements, 'convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a nation so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions', is not too well articulated in its intentions. While I do understand the noble intentions of this statement, it creates a legality issue that can be abused by delinquent nations if both nations at war claim to be the defendant from the aggressor. As a result, may we suggest a re-wording towards the statement of something like, ("Convinced that the international community must decisively determine the aggressor of the war so as to ensure its legality and compliance of the war towards other resolutions") to help improve on the clarity of the statement?"

"Also, with regards to clause 2, if there is clear evidence that a nation is going to launch a pre-emptive strike moments after sending the declaration of war, wouldn't it be almost as identical as declaring an unjustified war? I fear that if we are to solve this issue, we will need to address this imminent problem immediately. May I, therefore, suggest a revision for Clause 2 such that the defender must have the capacity and be given reasonable time to receive and read such declarations, where should the defender have received and read the declaration of war - the aggressor can commence full hostilities and military action against the defender." (OOC: This is an actual law regarding business contracts, where notices can only be agreed upon if the recipient receives and read them.)

"Furthermore, I question the necessity for clause 4 since it states that 'a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests' before the declaration of war. I am fairly puzzled upon reading this statement because isn't it the responsibility of the nation to protect her interests at all times in peacetime and war? Furthermore, as what the Morovian Ambassador has said, wouldn't this affect non-WA nations as well since a declaration of war is an instrument which all sovereign nations can use? His thoughts resonate with me in clause 5, as well."

"All in all, I hope that you can make the following adjustments to your proposed resolution carefully and clarify on the terms meant in the resolution. I have full confidence that you will be able to do it, given how you have decided to appropriately address this topic!"

The Youssathian Ambassador hurried back to his seat quickly after that speech. It seems like the Assembly is going to disregard everything he just said and continue bickering about Islamic law between the moderates and the Islamist ambassadors. The ambassador just hoped that he could leave this god-forsaken assembly in one piece, if he's lucky.

[Ard al Islam]

The Youssathian Ambassador sighs. The endless debate and shouting between the moderate and Islamic ambassadors continue to intensify further. "Jesus, and I thought my speech would be able to calm things down at least in this wretched chamber!", the ambassador thought to himself, knowing that it would be moments before chairs go flying and all facts cease to exist momentarily.

He drafts a short speech, hoping to divert the attention back to the resolution at hand or at the very least, to plot his escape from this assembly before someone throws a chair at him.

After mindless arguing and shouting from both sides of the spectrum, the ambassador walks to the podium and makes his speech:

"While I have the attention of this audience, for the time being, I would like to make the following address to the Losthavenite Ambassador who has proposed this resolution."

"To start, I feel that the finding statements, 'convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a nation so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions', is not too well articulated in its intentions. While I do understand the noble intentions of this statement, it creates a legality issue that can be abused by delinquent nations if both nations at war claim to be the defendant from the aggressor. As a result, may we suggest a re-wording towards the statement of something like, ("Convinced that the international community must decisively determine the aggressor of the war so as to ensure its legality and compliance of the war towards other resolutions") to help improve on the clarity of the statement?"

"Also, with regards to clause 2, if there is clear evidence that a nation is going to launch a pre-emptive strike moments after sending the declaration of war, wouldn't it be almost as identical as declaring an unjustified war? I fear that if we are to solve this issue, we will need to address this imminent problem immediately. May I, therefore, suggest a revision for Clause 2 such that the defender must have the capacity and be given reasonable time to receive and read such declarations, where should the defender have received and read the declaration of war - the aggressor can commence full hostilities and military action against the defender." (OOC: This is an actual law regarding business contracts, where notices can only be agreed upon if the recipient receives and read them.)

"Furthermore, I question the necessity for clause 4 since it states that 'a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests' before the declaration of war. I am fairly puzzled upon reading this statement because isn't it the responsibility of the nation to protect her interests at all times in peacetime and war? Furthermore, as what the Morovian Ambassador has said, wouldn't this affect non-WA nations as well since a declaration of war is an instrument which all sovereign nations can use? His thoughts resonate with me in clause 5, as well."

"All in all, I hope that you can make the following adjustments to your proposed resolution carefully and clarify on the terms meant in the resolution. I have full confidence that you will be able to do it, given how you have decided to appropriately address this topic!"

The Youssathian Ambassador hurried back to his seat quickly after that speech. It seems like the Assembly is going to disregard everything he just said and continue bickering about Islamic law between the moderates and the Islamist ambassadors. The ambassador just hoped that he could leave this god-forsaken assembly in one piece, if he's lucky.

OOC: Dude, shut up. We already resolved our conflict.

IC: And I would hardly describe our debate as "trivial" or "bickering."

[Araraukar]

OOC: By that logic you are an attaché and I am a Postmaster-General. Will you address me as one?

Do you want me to?

OOC: Calling me OOCly "sir" will do. ;P

[Youssath]

OOC: Dude, shut up. We already resolved our conflict.

IC: And I would hardly describe our debate as "trivial" or "bickering."

IC: "It sure doesn't look like it, ambassador. If a few nations jumped into the 'debate' and derailed the entire conversation, I would hardly call that as 'trivial'."

OOC: And no, you need to stop commenting on everything in this thread if you don't want angered responses in here. The people here are extremely liberal here in this assembly and won't hesitate to devour anything that opposes them.

[Ard al Islam]

You need to stop commenting on everything in this thread if you don't want angered responses in here. The people here are extremely liberal here in this assembly and won't hesitate to devour anything that opposes them.

Then they shall choke on my bones.

[Losthaven]

"Now that we can focus on relevant matters, the C.D.S.P. insists on an exception based on the United Massachusetts delegation's observation. Recognizing nonstates as states is dangerous. "

The proposal language will be amended as follows:

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action

will be changed to

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary nation before commencing hostilities or military action against that adversary nation

That change should make clear the resolution applies to actions against nations and not para-national or criminal organizations. I hope this addresses the concerns of the Separatist Peoples and United Massachusetts. If not, please propose the language you'd like to see added.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“As you have ‘member nations’ in clause five, but solely ‘nations’ in your other active clauses, it makes it appear that you are trying to affect non-members as well. I suggest, therefore, that you change the ‘nations’ to ‘member nations’ in all your clauses.”

We are trying something different here. The law is written broadly so that it also captures activities by any nation, which conceptually includes non-member states. Of course, non-members cannot be compelled to follow international law, and this proposal does not purport to do so. Rather, by wording the law broadly, there is merely an incentive for non-members to also comply willingly, as the final clause prohibits member nations from providing them with aid or assistance in their wars if they go to war without following the declaration requirements.

This is part of a new(ish) philosophy we would like to introduce to the WA; the idea that while we cannot legislate in non-member states directly, we can legislate in a way that will incentivize non-members to engage in better practices by making our cooperation with them contingent on them doing so.

It is not a radical concept; most international sanctions work exactly this way: you cannot force another to play nice without, well, force; but you can incentivize another to play nice by making your nice behavior contingent on their nice behavior.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I have the attention of this audience, for the time being, I would like to make the following address to the Losthavenite Ambassador who has proposed this resolution."

"To start, I feel that the finding statements, 'convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a nation so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions', is not too well articulated in its intentions. While I do understand the noble intentions of this statement, it creates a legality issue that can be abused by delinquent nations if both nations at war claim to be the defendant from the aggressor. As a result, may we suggest a re-wording towards the statement of something like, ("Convinced that the international community must decisively determine the aggressor of the war so as to ensure its legality and compliance of the war towards other resolutions") to help improve on the clarity of the statement?"

Totally agree the preamble needs some work as it's too wordy and not to-the-point-y enough. Now that you mention it, we are not sure that particular section is needed at all. We will considering just removing it outright.

"Also, with regards to clause 2, if there is clear evidence that a nation is going to launch a pre-emptive strike moments after sending the declaration of war, wouldn't it be almost as identical as declaring an unjustified war? I fear that if we are to solve this issue, we will need to address this imminent problem immediately. May I, therefore, suggest a revision for Clause 2 such that the defender must have the capacity and be given reasonable time to receive and read such declarations, where should the defender have received and read the declaration of war - the aggressor can commence full hostilities and military action against the defender." (OOC: This is an actual law regarding business contracts, where notices can only be agreed upon if the recipient receives and read them.)

I am reluctant to do this because of the national security concerns. The proposal presently allows nations to take defensive action first and declare war only when it is safe to do so (i.e. there won't be a strategic advantage critically impaired). The point is not to give the adversary a chance to respond and possibly counterstrike. The point is to allow the international community to weigh the merits of the war, based on the justification offered, so they can decide who (if anyone) to support.

"Furthermore, I question the necessity for clause 4 since it states that 'a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests' before the declaration of war. I am fairly puzzled upon reading this statement because isn't it the responsibility of the nation to protect her interests at all times in peacetime and war? Furthermore, as what the Morovian Ambassador has said, wouldn't this affect non-WA nations as well since a declaration of war is an instrument which all sovereign nations can use? His thoughts resonate with me in clause 5, as well."

The point of that clause is to preserve a nations ability to immediately respond to emergent threats. Without it, nations would (rightly) complain that the proposal prevents them from, say immediately defending themselves with military force because they have not yet made a formal declaration of war.

It's important to note that the declaration is not for the adversary; the military might directed to them is declaration enough to "put them on notice," to the degree we believe belligerents deserve notice in a war! The purpose of the declaration is so the international community may weigh the actions in light of their justifications. A war conducted in self defense will likely be seen favorably by member nations, and aid will flow to a defender nations valiantly struggling against an usurper. By contrast, a war conducted for breathing space will likely be met with skepticism, limited aid, and perhaps even resistance by the more noble militaries of our Assemby.

[Separatist Peoples]

That change should make clear the resolution applies to actions against nations and not para-national or criminal organizations. I hope this addresses the concerns of the Separatist Peoples and United Massachusetts. If not, please propose the language you'd like to see added.

"Perfect. No further issues at this time."

Then they shall choke on my bones.

"I doubt it."

[Kenmoria]

We are trying something different here. The law is written broadly so that it also captures activities by any nation, which conceptually includes non-member states. Of course, non-members cannot be compelled to follow international law, and this proposal does not purport to do so. Rather, by wording the law broadly, there is merely an incentive for non-members to also comply willingly, as the final clause prohibits member nations from providing them with aid or assistance in their wars if they go to war without following the declaration requirements.

This is part of a new(ish) philosophy we would like to introduce to the WA; the idea that while we cannot legislate in non-member states directly, we can legislate in a way that will incentivize non-members to engage in better practices by making our cooperation with them contingent on them doing so.

It is not a radical concept; most international sanctions work exactly this way: you cannot force another to play nice without, well, force; but you can incentivize another to play nice by making your nice behavior contingent on their nice behavior.

(OOC: The reason I mentioned this is because it is illegal to attempt to legislate on non-member nations, even though it is logically impossible to affect them. Referring to ‘nations’ in some clauses and ‘member nations’ in others has historically made proposals illegal for metagaming.)

[Youssath]

While I have the attention of this audience, for the time being, I would like to make the following address to the Losthavenite Ambassador who has proposed this resolution."

"To start, I feel that the finding statements, 'convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a nation so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions', is not too well articulated in its intentions. While I do understand the noble intentions of this statement, it creates a legality issue that can be abused by delinquent nations if both nations at war claim to be the defendant from the aggressor. As a result, may we suggest a re-wording towards the statement of something like, ("Convinced that the international community must decisively determine the aggressor of the war so as to ensure its legality and compliance of the war towards other resolutions") to help improve on the clarity of the statement?"

Totally agree the preamble needs some work as it's too wordy and not to-the-point-y enough. Now that you mention it, we are not sure that particular section is needed at all. We will considering just removing it outright.

"Also, with regards to clause 2, if there is clear evidence that a nation is going to launch a pre-emptive strike moments after sending the declaration of war, wouldn't it be almost as identical as declaring an unjustified war? I fear that if we are to solve this issue, we will need to address this imminent problem immediately. May I, therefore, suggest a revision for Clause 2 such that the defender must have the capacity and be given reasonable time to receive and read such declarations, where should the defender have received and read the declaration of war - the aggressor can commence full hostilities and military action against the defender." (OOC: This is an actual law regarding business contracts, where notices can only be agreed upon if the recipient receives and read them.)

I am reluctant to do this because of the national security concerns. The proposal presently allows nations to take defensive action first and declare war only when it is safe to do so (i.e. there won't be a strategic advantage critically impaired). The point is not to give the adversary a chance to respond and possibly counterstrike. The point is to allow the international community to weigh the merits of the war, based on the justification offered, so they can decide who (if anyone) to support.

"Furthermore, I question the necessity for clause 4 since it states that 'a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests' before the declaration of war. I am fairly puzzled upon reading this statement because isn't it the responsibility of the nation to protect her interests at all times in peacetime and war? Furthermore, as what the Morovian Ambassador has said, wouldn't this affect non-WA nations as well since a declaration of war is an instrument which all sovereign nations can use? His thoughts resonate with me in clause 5, as well."

The point of that clause is to preserve a nations ability to immediately respond to emergent threats. Without it, nations would (rightly) complain that the proposal prevents them from, say immediately defending themselves with military force because they have not yet made a formal declaration of war.

It's important to note that the declaration is not for the adversary; the military might directed to them is declaration enough to "put them on notice," to the degree we believe belligerents deserve notice in a war! The purpose of the declaration is so the international community may weigh the actions in light of their justifications. A war conducted in self defense will likely be seen favorably by member nations, and aid will flow to a defender nations valiantly struggling against an usurper. By contrast, a war conducted for breathing space will likely be met with skepticism, limited aid, and perhaps even resistance by the more noble militaries of our Assemby.

"With regards to your response towards Clause 2, if this clause is to prevent the adversary a chance to respond and possibly counterstrike upon declaration by the defenders, the same can hold true if the sides are switched. Wars come along with extensive propaganda and half-truths which would require at least a few months for an international tribunal to review and assess the merits of war; time that is more than enough to wage considerable economic damage towards another nation. If you are looking for 'nations to take defensive action first and declare war only when it is safe to do so' under international approval whilst retaining the element of surprise on your adversary, you are looking at an international coalition with the backing of supranational legislative bodies. "

"For the betterment of humanity and to prevent casualties from all sides of war, we suggest that the defenders must at least have the capacity to receive the declaration of war through appropriate channels. I understand your point that you want to retain "the element of surprise" here, but the rules of war do apply to us as well and we must make concessions if we want nations to play fair in a war that is full of cheating."

"On the subject of Clause 4 and 5, I do agree fully that nations must have the right to 'preserve a nation's ability to immediately respond to emergent threats'. While that remains undisputed and that I will drop that inquiry regarding that, I am, however, curious as to how this will affect non-WA nations based on the wording of Clause 5 ("any nation" that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution). As non-WA nations are non-compliant towards any GA resolutions and that the ambiguity of this word can lead to accidental violation of this resolution (since non-WA nations don't have to follow this, and any WA nations helping these nations are in breach of this resolution) or foreign interventionism (WA nations can indirectly assist with non-WA nations if they play by the rules of this resolution, which it is not legally binding to non-WA nations), shouldn't there be more clarity towards the relationship between WA nations and non-WA nations on the subject of declaration of hostilities? Does this resolution only go binding with member nations only, or does it have implications for nations who have not joined the WA at this point in time?"

"Again, thank you for your time ambassador. I sincerely hope that you can take this constructive feedback well!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

We are trying something different here. The law is written broadly so that it also captures activities by any nation, which conceptually includes non-member states. Of course, non-members cannot be compelled to follow international law, and this proposal does not purport to do so. Rather, by wording the law broadly, there is merely an incentive for non-members to also comply willingly, as the final clause prohibits member nations from providing them with aid or assistance in their wars if they go to war without following the declaration requirements.

This is part of a new(ish) philosophy we would like to introduce to the WA; the idea that while we cannot legislate in non-member states directly, we can legislate in a way that will incentivize non-members to engage in better practices by making our cooperation with them contingent on them doing so.

It is not a radical concept; most international sanctions work exactly this way: you cannot force another to play nice without, well, force; but you can incentivize another to play nice by making your nice behavior contingent on their nice behavior.

(OOC: The reason I mentioned this is because it is illegal to attempt to legislate on non-member nations, even though it is logically impossible to affect them. Referring to ‘nations’ in some clauses and ‘member nations’ in others has historically made proposals illegal for metagaming.)

Legislation with non-binding incentives-based effects on non-members is not new. It was done in Meteorological Cooperation. Ransium and I did it in Greenhouse Cap and Trade.

[Losthaven]

Legislation with non-binding incentives-based effects on non-members is not new. It was done in Meteorological Cooperation. Ransium and I did it in Greenhouse Cap and Trade.

Bears Armed and some nobody nation also did a similar thing to appease Knootian concerns back in the Sustainable Fishing Act. I suppose calling it "new(ish)" was a bit bold. I really should have said we are trying to popularize something Ancient.