[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of..."

[Kranostav]

Apologies for the late challenge. Busy week has kept me from getting the chance. The proposal goes to vote in little over 3 horus.

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.

[Bananaistan]

There might be something in the argument regarding the word ban. I await the tedious pedantry necessary to tease this out but I can't see it being any more than two rather irreconcilable positions where one side says a ban is a ban only when it's a complete ban and the other side says a partial ban is a ban.

On point two, I think you're overlooking the word "further". The clause argues about WACC being able to freely create further regulations. There is some set of further regulations that WACC can create. Like any other committee, once it has been established and given a mandate, it does whatever it does without consulting member states unless consultation is part of its mandates. Here, WACC can create further regulations and can do so without any consultation with member states because consultation is not part of its mandate under the target. My initial inclination is that this is not an honest mistake.

On point three. How many previous resolutions allow/instruct committees to make regulations? I'm not sure this is as common as you allege.

[Kranostav]

There might be something in the argument regarding the word ban. I await the tedious pedantry necessary to tease this out but I can't see it being any more than two rather irreconcilable positions where one side says a ban is a ban only when it's a complete ban and the other side says a partial ban is a ban.

On point two, I think you're overlooking the word "further". The clause argues about WACC being able to freely create further regulations. There is some set of further regulations that WACC can create. Like any other committee, once it has been established and given a mandate, it does whatever it does without consulting member states unless consultation is part of its mandates. Here, WACC can create further regulations and can do so without any consultation with member states because consultation is not part of its mandate under the target. My initial inclination is that this is not an honest mistake.

On point three. How many previous resolutions allow/instruct committees to make regulations? I'm not sure this is as common as you allege.

The proposal claims that the target does not 'ban' sterilization of minors when it infact does under certain circumstances. Without an accompanying adverb, I'd argue that there is no reasonable way to interpret 'ban' to be an absolute/total ban.

From what I understand on the function of committees, all consultation on the regulatory aspect of committees would occur at the time of passing the resolution. Therefore any regulation the committee will enact has the stamp of approval from the delegates (and member nations) because of the passing. It also should be noted that it would not make sense to say that an entity can 'freely' do something while being constrained to a specific set of rules, as that is quite literally the opposite of 'free'.

Near every single active committee is given a level of autonomy on rule making and policy setting. In a cursory search over 10 mins, I found three resolutions that explicitly allow their committees to create 'regulations' in a very similar way:
GAR 34 - international transport safety
GAR 394 - international patent agreement
GAR 401 - stock exchanges and foreign investment
(This is list is incomplete of course, I don't currently have time to comb through every single committee and thier related legislation...Will linkify when on desktop)


But regardless of that, the presence of regulation doesn't render delegates irrelevant. Without the presence of the resolution that empowered the committee (passed by delegates), the regulations couldn't be made.

[Bears Armed]

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.

I am inclined to agree with this argument.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

I am inclined to agree with this argument.

Likewise. More to follow later.

[Sciongrad]

There might be something in the argument regarding the word ban. I await the tedious pedantry necessary to tease this out but I can't see it being any more than two rather irreconcilable positions where one side says a ban is a ban only when it's a complete ban and the other side says a partial ban is a ban.

On point two, I think you're overlooking the word "further". The clause argues about WACC being able to freely create further regulations. There is some set of further regulations that WACC can create. Like any other committee, once it has been established and given a mandate, it does whatever it does without consulting member states unless consultation is part of its mandates. Here, WACC can create further regulations and can do so without any consultation with member states because consultation is not part of its mandate under the target. My initial inclination is that this is not an honest mistake.

I think your first point is correct: it is misleading to say the resolution does not ban the sterilization of minors. Still thinking about the second point. Regarding the third, I'm not sure what rule you are alleging has been violated. Is it an honest mistake to misrepresent the World Assembly's history? I don't think that's obvious. The purpose of the honest mistake rule to prevent misrepresentations of the original resolution, but that claim doesn't seem to do that, actually. It could make the exact same argument about the dangers of allowing quasi-legislative regulatory agencies to formulate their own rules with discretion, and omit the bit about the World Assembly's legislative history, and I think that would be legal. I don't know if I'm willing to extend the honest mistake rule to cover exaggerating about World Assembly history unless the claim misrepresents the resolution. I am eager to hear more on this, though, because I'm not completely sold either way.

[Araraukar]

re: the ban thing

If I claim to ban iceskating, but then allow iceskating as long as it's broadcast on TV, have I actually banned iceskating?

[Kranostav]

re: the ban thing

If I claim to ban iceskating, but then allow iceskating as long as it's broadcast on TV, have I actually banned iceskating?

Uhm yes? You banned it in all situations where it isn't broadcasted on TV. Therefore it is banned unless you meet a given requirement.

[Araraukar]

Uhm yes? You banned it in all situations where it isn't broadcasted on TV. Therefore it is banned unless you meet a given requirement.

No, because if it was banned, it'd be disallowed in all situations. Instead it is disallowed in certain circumstances and allowed in others.

[Kranostav]

There might be something in the argument regarding the word ban. I await the tedious pedantry necessary to tease this out but I can't see it being any more than two rather irreconcilable positions where one side says a ban is a ban only when it's a complete ban and the other side says a partial ban is a ban.

On point two, I think you're overlooking the word "further". The clause argues about WACC being able to freely create further regulations. There is some set of further regulations that WACC can create. Like any other committee, once it has been established and given a mandate, it does whatever it does without consulting member states unless consultation is part of its mandates. Here, WACC can create further regulations and can do so without any consultation with member states because consultation is not part of its mandate under the target. My initial inclination is that this is not an honest mistake.

I think your first point is correct: it is misleading to say the resolution does not ban the sterilization of minors. Still thinking about the second point. Regarding the third, I'm not sure what rule you are alleging has been violated. Is it an honest mistake to misrepresent the World Assembly's history? I don't think that's obvious. The purpose of the honest mistake rule to prevent misrepresentations of the original resolution, but that claim doesn't seem to do that, actually. It could make the exact same argument about the dangers of allowing quasi-legislative regulatory agencies to formulate their own rules with discretion, and omit the bit about the World Assembly's legislative history, and I think that would be legal. I don't know if I'm willing to extend the honest mistake rule to cover exaggerating about World Assembly history unless the claim misrepresents the resolution. I am eager to hear more on this, though, because I'm not completely sold either way.

My concerns in regards to the third point are that the assertion that secondary legislation could somehow render delegates useless is a gibberish argument with no basis in fact. It claims that this resolution sets some precedent of allowing this secondary legislation which is also false. I believe the argument is beyond that of just exaggerating or embellishing the facts, and while not intentional, it seems to attempt to convince the voters that this isn't a normal function of committees and these regulations could actually make the endorsement of your delegate worthless. I'd be happy to see what you all think about it. But to me it appears that the argument made is too incorrect to be legal.

[Kranostav]

Uhm yes? You banned it in all situations where it isn't broadcasted on TV. Therefore it is banned unless you meet a given requirement.

No, because if it was banned, it'd be disallowed in all situations. Instead it is disallowed in certain circumstances and allowed in others.

There are plenty examples of items being 'banned' except where otherwise permitted. In the case of the target resolution, the sterilization is banned in all circumstances unless you go through the proper approval process. Thus banning all activity that doesn't follow that process and therefore claiming that the proposal doesn't ban sterilization of minors is incorrect. An easy fix would be to specify that the proposal does not totally ban it.

[Bananaistan]

Regarding ban. I don't think this is an honest mistake as I'm inclined to agree with Ara: it it was banned, it'd be disallowed in all cases.

---

Regarding freely.

There are three parts to the clause in the repeal.
1) WACC can make further regulations,
2) without consulting the GA, and
3) freely.

It is a fact based on the text of the target, that the WACC can make whatever regulations it deems fit "to clarify upon and enforce [the target]". It is also a fact that WACC, like any other committee, goes about its mandate without consulting the GA. So we are left with assessing the implications of the word freely. At least one definition of freely is "not under the control of another" (see google definition). If we insert this definition, the three parts are now:
1) WACC can make further regulations,
2) without consulting the GA, and
3) not under the control of another.

This appears to be a fair assertion. WACC, like any other committee, goes about its work without control by any other body, committee, individual, group etc, unless such control is specified in the resolution establishing the mandate. The target is silent about any control of WACC in fulfilling this mandate. Therefore, WACC does in fact go about making regulations, without consulting the GA, and without external control. Therefore, the clause in the repeal is not an honest mistake.

For me to vote that this is an honest mistake, someone needs to convince me that this not a valid interpretation, IE that freely in this context can only mean one of the other definitions, such as def (c) here: "without restraint or reservation". I remind posters that the practice and precedent is that where there are two valid interpretations, one legal and one illegal, the proposal/repeal will not be ruled illegal.

---

... Regarding the third, I'm not sure what rule you are alleging has been violated. Is it an honest mistake to misrepresent the World Assembly's history? I don't think that's obvious. The purpose of the honest mistake rule to prevent misrepresentations of the original resolution, but that claim doesn't seem to do that, actually. It could make the exact same argument about the dangers of allowing quasi-legislative regulatory agencies to formulate their own rules with discretion, and omit the bit about the World Assembly's legislative history, and I think that would be legal. I don't know if I'm willing to extend the honest mistake rule to cover exaggerating about World Assembly history unless the claim misrepresents the resolution. I am eager to hear more on this, though, because I'm not completely sold either way.

My concerns in regards to the third point are that the assertion that secondary legislation could somehow render delegates useless is a gibberish argument with no basis in fact. It claims that this resolution sets some precedent of allowing this secondary legislation which is also false. I believe the argument is beyond that of just exaggerating or embellishing the facts, and while not intentional, it seems to attempt to convince the voters that this isn't a normal function of committees and these regulations could actually make the endorsement of your delegate worthless. I'd be happy to see what you all think about it. But to me it appears that the argument made is too incorrect to be legal.

I note the three resolutions you referred to above but I still think it's not a normal function of committees to be allowed to make general regulations as it sees fit. Those three resolutions have committees making specific regulations within a quite narrow scope based on the mandate. And one of the three, GAR#401, has the committee making non-binding regulations (members states may follow).

But even so, if passed the repeal will mean that the GA "[fears] the precedent". It doesn't really matter if the precedent is established by this resolution or not. We have ruled in the past that content not directly addressing the target is not an honest mistake so long as there's something else in the repeal which addresses the target.

Atm I'm leaning legal on all counts.

[Araraukar]

re: precedent

As it turns out, that fear at least is completely valid, with IA having another proposal in the works with exact same kind of unrestricted regulation creating committee...

And while I'm not the repeal's proper author, when I helped rewrite the draft, my idea of "freely" was exactly the "under no-one's control" thing (doesn't even require anyone asking for more regulations, it can just randomly decide to add more). To interprete it to mean the attempt was to claim the committee can write unrelated laws or whatever, sounds just weird.

EDIT: Although the wording "(create) regulations to enforce (this resolution)" in the target strongly suggests that it can create regulations with the force of WA law outside the basic mandates, given how vague "enforce" is. Hell, it could easily create regulations requiring a doctor violating the other mandate to be stripped of their right to practice medicine legally or for them to be labelled a sexual offender or something like that - most nations I would imagine would like to have at least the chance to vote on such a thing.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

In regards to ban, I am inclined to agree with the challenger and not Ara. A ban is the imposition of an obligation not to do something, but the definition nowhere requires there be no qualification or exception. In common speech, one regularly speaks of something being "banned" without it actually being a complete blanket interdiction. To employ an absurd reduction, it seems perfectly natural to me to say "Weapons are banned in schools" despite the fact that the police, gendarmes, and huissiers to name a few, are actually permitted on school grounds, armed with their standard weapons (and sometimes invited with considerably more/worse for presentations or 'educational' purposes). Or in another sense, "hitting people is banned" but I am allowed to do so to defend myself or others against someone else. Pretty much any "ban" I can think of in the real world contains some sort of exception or qualifier that actually permits one to do the thing in certain circumstances.

The question, I contend, is really whether or not the exception is large enough to swallow the generalized rule. In this case, I personally interpret the target resolution's exception EXTREMELY narrowly, as in the number of people qualifying for the exception in any given nation may well be in the single digits per year. I would call it narrow enough that claiming it bans the sterilization of minors is an accurate statement, well within the standard meaning of the phrase "x is banned", and well within the limits of acceptable "hyperbole" from a political institution.

[Kranostav]

Regarding ban. I don't think this is an honest mistake as I'm inclined to agree with Ara: it it was banned, it'd be disallowed in all cases.

---

Regarding freely.

There are three parts to the clause in the repeal.
1) WACC can make further regulations,
2) without consulting the GA, and
3) freely.

It is a fact based on the text of the target, that the WACC can make whatever regulations it deems fit "to clarify upon and enforce [the target]". It is also a fact that WACC, like any other committee, goes about its mandate without consulting the GA. So we are left with assessing the implications of the word freely. At least one definition of freely is "not under the control of another" (see google definition). If we insert this definition, the three parts are now:
1) WACC can make further regulations,
2) without consulting the GA, and
3) not under the control of another.

This appears to be a fair assertion. WACC, like any other committee, goes about its work without control by any other body, committee, individual, group etc, unless such control is specified in the resolution establishing the mandate. The target is silent about any control of WACC in fulfilling this mandate. Therefore, WACC does in fact go about making regulations, without consulting the GA, and without external control. Therefore, the clause in the repeal is not an honest mistake.

For me to vote that this is an honest mistake, someone needs to convince me that this not a valid interpretation, IE that freely in this context can only mean one of the other definitions, such as def (c) here: "without restraint or reservation". I remind posters that the practice and precedent is that where there are two valid interpretations, one legal and one illegal, the proposal/repeal will not be ruled illegal.

---

My concerns in regards to the third point are that the assertion that secondary legislation could somehow render delegates useless is a gibberish argument with no basis in fact. It claims that this resolution sets some precedent of allowing this secondary legislation which is also false. I believe the argument is beyond that of just exaggerating or embellishing the facts, and while not intentional, it seems to attempt to convince the voters that this isn't a normal function of committees and these regulations could actually make the endorsement of your delegate worthless. I'd be happy to see what you all think about it. But to me it appears that the argument made is too incorrect to be legal.

I note the three resolutions you referred to above but I still think it's not a normal function of committees to be allowed to make general regulations as it sees fit. Those three resolutions have committees making specific regulations within a quite narrow scope based on the mandate. And one of the three, GAR#401, has the committee making non-binding regulations (members states may follow).

But even so, if passed the repeal will mean that the GA "[fears] the precedent". It doesn't really matter if the precedent is established by this resolution or not. We have ruled in the past that content not directly addressing the target is not an honest mistake so long as there's something else in the repeal which addresses the target.

Atm I'm leaning legal on all counts.

For ban, the target does ban the sterilisation with an added hoop to jump through. Per its own definition it legally prohibits the act except where now legally allowed. I don't really see where that no longer constitutes as a ban as they can have exceptions.
(Edit: An example of this would be weapons liscensing or drivers licenses. Unless you possess the legal approval to own those weapons or drive a car, you are banned from doing such. Near all bans in real life have qualifiers such as this.)

From what I understand with committees, there is a consultation at the time of passage to set things like regulations. Surely the WA would know about the general plan the committee possesses.

In regards to the word 'freely', to say they are not 'under the control of another' would be incorrect in my view because the 'controlling body' here is the General Assembly, and that power is derived from the target legislation. If there was no scope defined for their regulations, your first definition could be more problematic, but because the committee must specifically "clarify and enforce" the functions of the target proposal (which is fairly limited scope given what the target does), it is infact controlled by the General Assembly to only enact regulations within that scope.

Edit: couldn't get to the last point before I had to go. Addressed below.

I see your issue, however I'd argue the possible regulations the target resolutions's committee could enact would be limited. Regardless, if they were broadly overreaching, (which I don't believe is the case) such secondary legislation still would not render delegates irrelevant. And any argument implying that WADs, who approve and consult with committees regarding their regulating ability, would be rendered irrelevant is absurd.

[Bananaistan]

For ban, the target does ban the sterilisation with an added hoop to jump through. Per its own definition it legally prohibits the act except where now legally allowed. I don't really see where that no longer constitutes as a ban as they can have exceptions.
(Edit: An example of this would be weapons liscensing or drivers licenses. Unless you possess the legal approval to own those weapons or drive a car, you are banned from doing such. Near all bans in real life have qualifiers such as this.)

General RL driving restrictions are not colloquially referred to as bans. But even where actual concepts such as somebody having had their licence suspended/withdrawn are colloquially referred to as bans, the word ban does not typically appear in law (EG in Ireland driving bans are disqualifications). The word itself is problematic in a legal context. And that we are having this conversation at all, suggests that it is enough of a grey area that the voters should decide. Tbh, it still seems to be as I forecast it would be in my first post in this thread: one side says a ban is a ban only when it's a complete ban and the other side says a partial ban is a ban.

From what I understand with committees, there is a consultation at the time of passage to set things like regulations. Surely the WA would know about the general plan the committee possesses.

The only plan is whatever the resolution establishing the committee's mandate says. No more, no less.

In regards to the word 'freely', to say they are not 'under the control of another' would be incorrect in my view because the 'controlling body' here is the General Assembly, and that power is derived from the target legislation. If there was no scope defined for their regulations, your first definition could be more problematic, but because the committee must specifically "clarify and enforce" the functions of the target proposal (which is fairly limited scope given what the target does), it is infact controlled by the General Assembly to only enact regulations within that scope.

Yet the GA has no say whatsoever on whatever regulations the committee might come up with to "clarify and enforce" the target. The repeal does not say the GA is not a controlling body, it says the GA has no control of the "further regulations" that the committee draws up.

Edit: couldn't get to the last point before I had to go. Addressed below.

I see your issue, however I'd argue the possible regulations the target resolutions's committee could enact would be limited. Regardless, if they were broadly overreaching, (which I don't believe is the case) such secondary legislation still would not render delegates irrelevant. And any argument implying that WADs, who approve and consult with committees regarding their regulating ability, would be rendered irrelevant is absurd.

Just to be clear, the repeal does not refer to WADs. It uses the more general sense of delegates to the WA being representatives of member states. And as per the above, they are generally irrelevant to the committee's work once the target was passed.

[Kranostav]

For ban, the target does ban the sterilisation with an added hoop to jump through. Per its own definition it legally prohibits the act except where now legally allowed. I don't really see where that no longer constitutes as a ban as they can have exceptions.
(Edit: An example of this would be weapons liscensing or drivers licenses. Unless you possess the legal approval to own those weapons or drive a car, you are banned from doing such. Near all bans in real life have qualifiers such as this.)

General RL driving restrictions are not colloquially referred to as bans. But even where actual concepts such as somebody having had their licence suspended/withdrawn are colloquially referred to as bans, the word ban does not typically appear in law (EG in Ireland driving bans are disqualifications). The word itself is problematic in a legal context. And that we are having this conversation at all, suggests that it is enough of a grey area that the voters should decide. Tbh, it still seems to be as I forecast it would be in my first post in this thread: one side says a ban is a ban only when it's a complete ban and the other side says a partial ban is a ban.

Ftr I agree with what what Desmlsthenes and Burke said regarding this

From what I understand with committees, there is a consultation at the time of passage to set things like regulations. Surely the WA would know about the general plan the committee possesses.

The only plan is whatever the resolution establishing the committee's mandate says. No more, no less.

So you are saying that there is no engagement between WA voters and the committee-to-be during the voting process? I was under the impression that there was IC interaction with filling the positions and discussing regulations that was assumed to happen.

In regards to the word 'freely', to say they are not 'under the control of another' would be incorrect in my view because the 'controlling body' here is the General Assembly, and that power is derived from the target legislation. If there was no scope defined for their regulations, your first definition could be more problematic, but because the committee must specifically "clarify and enforce" the functions of the target proposal (which is fairly limited scope given what the target does), it is infact controlled by the General Assembly to only enact regulations within that scope.

Yet the GA has no say whatsoever on whatever regulations the committee might come up with to "clarify and enforce" the target. The repeal does not say the GA is not a controlling body, it says the GA has no control of the "further regulations" that the committee draws up.

The committee is constrained to only enact regulations that 'clarify and enforce' the target. No regulations can be made outside of that scope so I'm confused as to why you keep harping on the word 'further'. The GA is the controlling body because it possesses the rules that constrain this committee. I would assume that IC if a committee were to do something non-compliant it would be punished for doing so, but in practice this is uneeded given all GA committees are perfect.

Edit: couldn't get to the last point before I had to go. Addressed below.

I see your issue, however I'd argue the possible regulations the target resolutions's committee could enact would be limited. Regardless, if they were broadly overreaching, (which I don't believe is the case) such secondary legislation still would not render delegates irrelevant. And any argument implying that WADs, who approve and consult with committees regarding their regulating ability, would be rendered irrelevant is absurd.

Just to be clear, the repeal does not refer to WADs. It uses the more general sense of delegates to the WA being representatives of member states. And as per the above, they are generally irrelevant to the committee's work once the target was passed.

Typo on my end. But my point remains. Just because a committee can create a regulation, does not mean the rest of the WA member nations are somehow irrelevant. Committees have nowhere near the legislating power of the member nations and the member nations can repeal the powers of any committee assuming the passing of a repeal.

[Bananaistan]

So you are saying that there is no engagement between WA voters and the committee-to-be during the voting process? I was under the impression that there was IC interaction with filling the positions and discussing regulations that was assumed to happen.

Yes. There's no interaction.

Committees are staffed by the incorruptible WA gnomes who dutifully carry out the duties assigned to a committee in a resolution. There's no discussion of regulations beyond what's written in the resolution.

The committee is constrained to only enact regulations that 'clarify and enforce' the target. No regulations can be made outside of that scope so I'm confused as to why you keep harping on the word 'further'. The GA is the controlling body because it possesses the rules that constrain this committee. I would assume that IC if a committee were to do something non-compliant it would be punished for doing so, but in practice this is uneeded given all GA committees are perfect.

The GA possess no rules constraining a committee beyond what it writes into a resolution. And it is correct that the committee in this case is restrained to only enact regulations which "clarify and enforce" the target. It is also correct that the GA is this notional controlling body: it can strip mandates away from committees. But that's it. The GA has no ongoing oversight of a committee's work. It can only start or stop the work. Thus, I feel that the repeal's arguments are valid. The committee, just like any other committee, goes about its work faithfully, in this case issuing regulations as it sees fit, without control or direction by member states or the GA, to "clarify and enforce" the target.

Typo on my end. But my point remains. Just because a committee can create a regulation, does not mean the rest of the WA member nations are somehow irrelevant. Committees have nowhere near the legislating power of the member nations and the member nations can repeal the powers of any committee assuming the passing of a repeal.

It's not much good the GA being able to repeal powers of a committee if arguing for it in a repeal is an honest mistake.

[Kranostav]

So you are saying that there is no engagement between WA voters and the committee-to-be during the voting process? I was under the impression that there was IC interaction with filling the positions and discussing regulations that was assumed to happen.

Yes. There's no interaction.

Committees are staffed by the incorruptible WA gnomes who dutifully carry out the duties assigned to a committee in a resolution. There's no discussion of regulations beyond what's written in the resolution.

I was under the IC impression that WA members can discuss about the committee and potential members and potential regulation that's put forth. As this would occur in a normal legislative process.

The committee is constrained to only enact regulations that 'clarify and enforce' the target. No regulations can be made outside of that scope so I'm confused as to why you keep harping on the word 'further'. The GA is the controlling body because it possesses the rules that constrain this committee. I would assume that IC if a committee were to do something non-compliant it would be punished for doing so, but in practice this is uneeded given all GA committees are perfect.

The GA possess no rules constraining a committee beyond what it writes into a resolution. And it is correct that the committee in this case is restrained to only enact regulations which "clarify and enforce" the target. It is also correct that the GA is this notional controlling body: it can strip mandates away from committees. But that's it. The GA has no ongoing oversight of a committee's work. It can only start or stop the work. Thus, I feel that the repeal's arguments are valid. The committee, just like any other committee, goes about its work faithfully, in this case issuing regulations as it sees fit, without control or direction by member states or the GA, to "clarify and enforce" the target.

The GA is the one who can grant and take away powers from committees via resolution. How does this not satisfy your definition of 'freely' given that the GA is infact a controlling body by passing resolutions that directly set the rules for what the committee can and cannot do. Sure, the GA cannot directly micromanage their everyday affairs, but that doesn't stop the GA from being that controlling power as required by your first definition of 'freely'.

Typo on my end. But my point remains. Just because a committee can create a regulation, does not mean the rest of the WA member nations are somehow irrelevant. Committees have nowhere near the legislating power of the member nations and the member nations can repeal the powers of any committee assuming the passing of a repeal.

It's not much good the GA being able to repeal powers of a committee if arguing for it in a repeal is an honest mistake.

Not what I am arguing but okay. I'm saying that the argument 'WA member nations are irrelevant if committees can enact regulations' is a bogus argument that is so incorrect it could potentially be illegal.

[Bananaistan]

I was under the IC impression that WA members can discuss about the committee and potential members and potential regulation that's put forth. As this would occur in a normal legislative process.

Heh. The GA is not normal. It can only act through resolutions and committees established in resolutions. From a player's POV in the GA forum, it can only act through resolutions.

The GA is the one who can grant and take away powers from committees via resolution. How does this not satisfy your definition of 'freely' given that the GA is infact a controlling body by passing resolutions that directly set the rules for what the committee can and cannot do. Sure, the GA cannot directly micromanage their everyday affairs, but that doesn't stop the GA from being that controlling power as required by your first definition of 'freely'.

It's not so much that it's not micromanagement so much as "here's a big broad mandate, now go off and do what you like". Do you accept that the committee can set whatever regulations it thinks are best to implement the target? Do you accept that the GA can and will have no input into these regulations? Therefore, do you accept that the committee is working outside the GA's control?

If not, you've yet to convince me that the word freely in this context can only mean without restraint or reservation, as opposed to merely operating outside anyone's control.

Not what I am arguing but okay. I'm saying that the argument 'WA member nations are irrelevant if committees can enact regulations' is a bogus argument that is so incorrect it could potentially be illegal.

In the context of the challenge and the repeal given that there is much content addressing the target in the text of the repeal, to be illegal, it must be a misrepresentation of the target.

[Kranostav]

The GA is the one who can grant and take away powers from committees via resolution. How does this not satisfy your definition of 'freely' given that the GA is infact a controlling body by passing resolutions that directly set the rules for what the committee can and cannot do. Sure, the GA cannot directly micromanage their everyday affairs, but that doesn't stop the GA from being that controlling power as required by your first definition of 'freely'.

It's not so much that it's not micromanagement so much as "here's a big broad mandate, now go off and do what you like". Do you accept that the committee can set whatever regulations it thinks are best to implement the target? Do you accept that the GA can and will have no input into these regulations? Therefore, do you accept that the committee is working outside the GA's control?

If not, you've yet to convince me that the word freely in this context can only mean without restraint or reservation, as opposed to merely operating outside anyone's control.

I'm not arguing that it can only mean "without restraint or reservation." I am arguing that the fact that the committee acts within the control of the GA satisfies your first definition of 'freely' as well. Meaning either definition of freely would result in HM.

Committees are fundamentally controlled by the GA via the legislation that defines their existence and functions. That control is enough to satisfy the definition of freely - "not under the control of another'". In adopting your stance, it doesn't matter if the GA doesn't have specific input, it has broad power to control the committees which satisfies the first definition of 'freely' ('not under the contrsol of another") since nowhere in that definition does it specify the level of control required.

The GA controls the committees via legislation to give and take away powers which satisfies your first definition. And the target resolution specifically sets out the scope of the regulations to satisfy your second definition. I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that either definition of 'freely' would result in an Honest Mistake.

Not what I am arguing but okay. I'm saying that the argument 'WA member nations are irrelevant if committees can enact regulations' is a bogus argument that is so incorrect it could potentially be illegal.

In the context of the challenge and the repeal given that there is much content addressing the target in the text of the repeal, to be illegal, it must be a misrepresentation of the target.

So in theory someone could make crazy arguments not based in fact as long as the other parts of the repeal generally address the target resolution? Because that seems dangerous.

[Separatist Peoples]

Now that I have some time:

Per Banana's breakdown of the clause, he is correct that the clause has 3 operative parts.
1) WACC can make further regulations,
2) without consulting the GA, and
3) freely.

But committees are created by delegated powers, and lack the authority to act beyond their own resolution-based mandate. That it can make regulations to meet that end does not change that they cannot alter that mandate. To my mind, that obviates "freely".

Further, though regulations can, theoretically, be made internally to address the legislative mandate, the mandate cannot be expanded without a new resolution, which requires action by the GA. To do so would be to exceed delegated authority. To that extent, this obviates "without consulting the GA".

Thus, Honest Mistake. You see this in U.S. Administrative Law all the time, and there's no reason to conceptualize committees as any different than a real world administrative body, even if we can ignore a great deal of detail otherwise irrelevant. The underlying principle is that the WA has authority to act to the extent that the members cede that authority. So, anything legal under the rules is fair purview of WA delegated authority. Thus, the WA can further delegate that authority to a non-legislative entity, a committee. But only the authority granted to the WA. So, a committee could only have the authority the WA granted to it. Claiming otherwise is at odds with the logical formation of a committee.

[Bananaistan]

I'm not arguing that it can only mean "without restraint or reservation." I am arguing that the fact that the committee acts within the control of the GA satisfies your first definition of 'freely' as well. Meaning either definition of freely would result in HM.

Committees are fundamentally controlled by the GA via the legislation that defines their existence and functions. That control is enough to satisfy the definition of freely - "not under the control of another'". In adopting your stance, it doesn't matter if the GA doesn't have specific input, it has broad power to control the committees which satisfies the first definition of 'freely' ('not under the contrsol of another") since nowhere in that definition does it specify the level of control required.

The GA controls the committees via legislation to give and take away powers which satisfies your first definition. And the target resolution specifically sets out the scope of the regulations to satisfy your second definition. I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that either definition of 'freely' would result in an Honest Mistake.

Fair enough. I still disagree though.

So in theory someone could make crazy arguments not based in fact as long as the other parts of the repeal generally address the target resolution? Because that seems dangerous.

Well there was the Orange Julius incident.

Now that I have some time:

Per Banana's breakdown of the clause, he is correct that the clause has 3 operative parts.
1) WACC can make further regulations,
2) without consulting the GA, and
3) freely.

But committees are created by delegated powers, and lack the authority to act beyond their own resolution-based mandate. That it can make regulations to meet that end does not change that they cannot alter that mandate. To my mind, that obviates "freely".

Further, though regulations can, theoretically, be made internally to address the legislative mandate, the mandate cannot be expanded without a new resolution, which requires action by the GA. To do so would be to exceed delegated authority. To that extent, this obviates "without consulting the GA".

Thus, Honest Mistake. You see this in U.S. Administrative Law all the time, and there's no reason to conceptualize committees as any different than a real world administrative body, even if we can ignore a great deal of detail otherwise irrelevant. The underlying principle is that the WA has authority to act to the extent that the members cede that authority. So, anything legal under the rules is fair purview of WA delegated authority. Thus, the WA can further delegate that authority to a non-legislative entity, a committee. But only the authority granted to the WA. So, a committee could only have the authority the WA granted to it. Claiming otherwise is at odds with the logical formation of a committee.

I'm not familiar with US Administrative Law but I know that these real world administrative bodies in Ireland, at least, are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight which does not exist in the GA. If the process is that such agencies are established by law and thereafter parliament never again deals with them unless it repeals the law, they would be analogous to WA committees. Otherwise, the establishing legislature exerts far more control than the GA does over committees.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not familiar with US Administrative Law but I know that these real world administrative bodies in Ireland, at least, are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight which does not exist in the GA. If the process is that such agencies are established by law and thereafter parliament never again deals with them unless it repeals the law, they would be analogous to WA committees. Otherwise, the establishing legislature exerts far more control than the GA does over committees.

Congress basically has to repeal or amend the law to change how a committee operates. Or cut funding, but that's not really an option here. But that doesn't matter if the committees are staffed with incorruptible gnomes, because they won't overstep their bounds.

All I'm saying is theres a logical progression of the limits of delegated power, and the claims in the repeal suggest committees can exceed those limits. That can't be true.

[Bananaistan]

I'm not familiar with US Administrative Law but I know that these real world administrative bodies in Ireland, at least, are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight which does not exist in the GA. If the process is that such agencies are established by law and thereafter parliament never again deals with them unless it repeals the law, they would be analogous to WA committees. Otherwise, the establishing legislature exerts far more control than the GA does over committees.

Congress basically has to repeal or amend the law to change how a committee operates. Or cut funding, but that's not really an option here. But that doesn't matter if the committees are staffed with incorruptible gnomes, because they won't overstep their bounds.

All I'm saying is theres a logical progression of the limits of delegated power, and the claims in the repeal suggest committees can exceed those limits. That can't be true.

Do they also call in staff to explain their actions? I mean like isn't there an element of the oversight which goes beyond merely funding or examining misapplication of the law? This is where it differs significantly IMO. IE RL committees are answerable to all three branches of government. WA committees, notwithstanding that they do exactly what they're told to by the GA in the resolution granting them some responsibility, are answerable to nobody. The GA doesn't control the committee's work once it's established. And the committee in this case can implement whatever regulations it sees fit to enforce the target without answering to the GA. Particularly in this case given the general nature of the mandate versus, say, the specific nature of the mandate in GAR#34.