Proposal Thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=473616
Target Resolution for context: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
Rule(s) broken: Honest Mistake - False claims about target’s function and powers delegated to committees
Clause(s) in question:
However dismayed that the resolution bears a misleading title, as it does not actually ban the sterilisation of minors;
The assertion that the target resolution does not ban the sterilisation of minors is false. The sterilization of minors is explicitly banned when it is not approved by an IRB as specified by the target resolution. Therefore, the clause makes a factually inaccurate claim about the target resolution’s function which could very easily have been fixed by claiming it does not ‘totally ban sterilization’ or some derivative of such. Previous ruling (linked below) has indicated that making a false claim very similar to this is worthy of HM.
Relevant precedent:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=453874&start=25#p35366069
Alarmed that clause two freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;
It is factually incorrect to claim that the committee (WACC) can ‘freely’ create regulations. It is limited to the scope of regulation permitted by the targeted legislation, specifically: “regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution.”
Relevant precedent:
viewtopic.php?p=34338285#p34338285 viewtopic.php?p=34583513#p34583513
Further, the claim clause 2 permits the creation of regulations without consultation is factually incorrect as well. Consultation between the committee and member nations has already occured. The committee is only authorized to create regulations because delegates were consulted in passing the target resolution.
Fearing the precedent could in the future cause the approval of delegates from the World Assembly member nations to become irrelevant to new legislation created directly by the multitudous[sic] committees;
This clause possesses two mutually exclusive interpretations which depend on the meaning of the word ‘legislation’.
Interpreting ‘legislation’ as a reference to World Assembly Resolutions is a patently obvious Honest Mistake as the target resolution would be in violation of metagaming rules because resolutions cannot be created by committees.
Interpreting ‘legislation’ as secondary legislation (regulation), would create the absurdist argument that regulations enacted by committees, which were consulted and approved by delegates, somehow render delegates irrelevant.
The act of permitting committees to create regulations is an extremely common practice in the GA that has been employed in a plethora of proposals prior to the passing of the target resolution. To claim that the target resolution set a precedence of committees being able to enact regulations is not only factually inaccurate, but it inadvertently fabricates the premise to claim that these regulations would “cause the approval of delegates from the World Assembly member nations to become irrelevant”.
Such an absurd argument is not befitting of a repeal as it totally misrepresents the history of regulations in WA law, how committees enact them, and their powers in creating them.