Lamenting that the resolution... merely establishes a bureaucratic arm of the World Assembly by creating a committee to receive and publish documents indiscriminately, as submitted by member states in compliance with the resolution,
The use of the word "merely" is factually incorrect. Three counter-examples: (a) the resolution also requires that treaties and international agreements not registered not be invoked, (b) the resolution also requires that nations themselves publish treaties and international agreements, and (c) the resolution also makes "Provisions relating to mandates for secrecy or non-disclosure of the text or existence of past treaties and international agreements" cease to have effect.
Second. Be aware of art.
intentional[] lengthen[ing of] their treaties to include limitless volumes of text [...] or establish[ing of] absurd quantities of treaties
A claim is made below that the target resolution uses the technique described with text above.
Whereas such an alarming technique has already been used within the fourth clause of the resolution[...]
This is factually incorrect, as the length of the target resolution is not limitless nor is the technique employed in absurd quantity. If any quantity is to be ascribed, it would have to be one.
Third. Arbitrary and capricious, Tiberius writes from Capri.
Below is the definition of arbitrary. The third definition on mathematics can be safely set aside.
arbitrary | ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri |
adjective
1 based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system: an arbitrary decision.
2 (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority: a country under arbitrary government.
3 Mathematics (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
adjective
1 based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system: an arbitrary decision.
2 (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority: a country under arbitrary government.
3 Mathematics (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
A claim is made that a body created by the target "plac[es] unfair and arbitrary restrictions on nations" (penultimate clause, by paragraph numbering). The restrictions are not based on random choice. They are not based on personal whim: the whim of the World Assembly is anything but personal. And the restrictions are not unrestrained and autocratic: the specified requirement is highly controlled and specific nor is the power exercised in relation to a ruler holding absolute power.
Fourth. To the sequitur, ask "Quo vadis?"
I don't actually agree with the following claim. I present it merely so it can be decided upon. This clause:
Believing the doors should remain open to world leaders and their diplomats who would only be willing to work toward a cessation of hostilities in a private forum, achieving steady progress through secret agreements, without fear of retaliation from their own citizenry or members of their own government,
Can be read to imply that the target resolution prevents secret negotiations. The target resolution does not.
Drafting thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=475359
Text of submission: