[PASSED] Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

[Medwedgrad]

The problem of this resolution is at the very beginning - in the definition of an animal. Namely, this definition leaves space to threat human embrio or a human in coma as animal. For that reason, we feel obliged to vote against this resolution.

There are already hundreds of resolutions specifically protecting humans.

It doesn't change the fact that this resolution might be used to redefine the term "human" under international law and dehumanize certain groups of people. This is unacceptable.
If we want to have a resolution protecting animals, then it better be more precise in defining it.

[Kenmoria]

There are already hundreds of resolutions specifically protecting humans.

It doesn't change the fact that this resolution might be used to redefine the term "human" under international law and dehumanize certain groups of people. This is unacceptable.
If we want to have a resolution protecting animals, then it better be more precise in defining it.

(OOC: The WA is composed of thousands of species, not just humans. A member state is not allowed to dehumanise groups of people arbitrarily because of GA #035 Charter of Civil Rights.)

[Tumshieland]

Thank you for your reply. We accept your explanation on our second point but wish to clarify further our problem with the first point we raised. You said:

"1) - Although we have not included the part about presenting evidence, I believe the first part of your concern is covered! Clause 2a. specifies that the harm must be "necessary" to achieve the stated aims, and so if better methods for doing so are available the resarch institute must use them."

Our concern is that the term 'necessary' is too open to interpretation. What a decent, compassionate government such as yours or ours would mean is that these experiments should not be carried out unless there is no alternative way to get the data However, a government more concerned with the profit motive than with decency might argue that such experiments are necessary, as otherwise viable alternatives are 'too expensive'!
We Tumshies are unwilling to put a price tag on our ethics and so still feel that it should be explicitly stated that no other methods are possible.
Capitalist nations have historically and continues to exploit any loopholes in pursuit of profit, so we feel it important not to allow them the opportunity. Additionally the requirement for evidence is, we feel, necessary to ensure such nations comply with this legislation and/or can be held accountable if they fail to.

Thank you again for your consideration.

[Vilverin]

I’m not sure if this is going to be a rant or a detailed essay, hopefully I don’t ramble on too much but animal welfare and ethics is a subject very close to my heart and I want to make sure I do the subject justice. Also, after like 4 years on NS; this is my first forum post so go easy on me ;-;
There's a couple of things in the WA Resolution that are iffy to me. Not awful, but just stand for improvement.

1. It does not distinctly separate lab work from field work. Therefore, all field work that is involved in experimentation (which includes things like ethology) somehow must provide a hygienic environment as stated in clause 6.

2. An animal can be defined much more simply as a non-human organism from the kingdom Animalia. Although you could argue this is way too broad for animal experimentation. In the UK, protected animals are non-human vertebrates and cephalopods.

3. A nervous system is not conducive to an animal’s ability to feel pain. Pain is a very complicated sensory and emotional experience, and the standard level of pain or trauma that is deemed unreasonable is not stated i.e anything greater than a standard needle insertion. There are various criteria that may show a potential for experiencing pain, as stated by Elwood et al (2009) including but possibly not limited to:

i) a suitable CNS and receptors
ii) avoidance learning behaviour (indicates learned behaviour in response to negative stimuli)
iii) protective motor reactions, that may include limping, rubbing, holding or autotomy (removal of a limb or part of the body, think self-amputation)
iv) physiological changes (change in heart rate or bp, incr resp rate, mydriasis
v)"trade-offs" in stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements, this means in simple terms that an animal will sacrifice a "preferred" behaviour in response to pain. Think of it like would you rather live in a mud hut, or a mansion; except in the mansion you were subject to excruciating pain every hour? This was ironically tested and proved using animal experimentation, where a very similar experiment to my hypothetical question was used for hermit crabs (Appel and Elwood, 2009).
vi) opioid receptors present, and evidence of reduced pain experience if treated with anaesthetic or analgesia.
vii) high cognitive ability and sentience

Of course, this could just be me nitpicking, but it’s important to consider when thinking about how an animal experiences pain, as not every animal will experience pain the same way and through the same pathways.

4. The definition of animal experimentation expands or could expand to slaughterhouses, farms, animal tagging procedures, clinical practice etc. This means all farms are defined as research institutes and farmers will have to adhere to the same restrictions as researchers. This blurs the line between research and produce, as they can technically by this resolution be termed as the same thing. Also, all farms will have to supply a hygienic living space to their animals which is impossible when you are dealing with cows or pigs, give sufficient nutrition which can be detrimental to animals in a farming situation, etc. This turns into a question of profits and sustainability.

5. The definition of an animal research institute is barebones. By its definition, anyone could define themselves as an animal research institute without regulation. It’s way too narrow. IRL, at least in the UK, you need to have an Establishment Licence regulated through the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This basically proves that you are an established research institute/company and have minimum standards for animal housing and environment, veterinary care and health, minimised breeding of surplus animals and humane killing. All staff that are involved in the experiment, which also needs a Project Licence, need to have a Personal License that proves they have sufficient training/skills/expertise etc etc. It's a lot of hoops to jump through before experimentation even begins. Furthermore, a project licence is only granted when:

● there are no valid alternatives to testing on animals
● there is valid justification for the generation of new data
● the protocols involved cannot be further refined
● the expected benefits of the testing outweigh the possible adverse effects

So, in conclusion, the description of a research institute is teensy in regard to RL lol

6. In reference to clause 2, 'psychologically' seems like a weird word to use. It’s too vague and doesn’t make much sense. Restrict their ability to exhibit natural behaviour or prevent distress is a more accurate way to term this.

7. Establishing the AEB seems like overreach and researching alternatives to animal experimentation is something a research institute should do itself before conducting an experiment (The Three R’s). Plus, only after the fact do institutes report to the AEB. It would make more sense and be more ethically correct to submit procedure prior to the start of experimentation to get the green light, i.e a bit more like how it is handled through the A(SP)A.

8. Funding for the minimisation of harm makes no sense. What does that entail exactly? Medicine? The building of a whole lab? Needs further clarification.

9. As per clause 6, I don’t know if it was intentional but it is very similar to the RL Five Freedoms, but it misses a few marks. Even during experimentation, animals should be provided to the best extent these criteria. Plus; thirst, freedom to express normal behaviour, freedom from pain and injury, freedom from fear, and freedom from discomfort are not explicitly stated.

The final two clauses are fine, although some may argue for what defines a painless death.
However, something that deeply concerns me is in this resolution, there is no call for any veterinary expertise or influence. This is like not involving doctors in human medical trials, and also fails to cover the possible need for healthcare outwith the bounds of the experiment and definitely fails in itself as analgesia/anesthetic/medicine should be given by veterinary experts. Plus, experiments that involve breeding and gene modification should be more explicitly covered in the resolution imo.
All in all, I think the resolution is a good start but I can see reasons for it to be repealed further down the line.

[Maowi]

Thank you for your reply. We accept your explanation on our second point but wish to clarify further our problem with the first point we raised. You said:

"1) - Although we have not included the part about presenting evidence, I believe the first part of your concern is covered! Clause 2a. specifies that the harm must be "necessary" to achieve the stated aims, and so if better methods for doing so are available the resarch institute must use them."

Our concern is that the term 'necessary' is too open to interpretation. What a decent, compassionate government such as yours or ours would mean is that these experiments should not be carried out unless there is no alternative way to get the data However, a government more concerned with the profit motive than with decency might argue that such experiments are necessary, as otherwise viable alternatives are 'too expensive'!
We Tumshies are unwilling to put a price tag on our ethics and so still feel that it should be explicitly stated that no other methods are possible.
Capitalist nations have historically and continues to exploit any loopholes in pursuit of profit, so we feel it important not to allow them the opportunity. Additionally the requirement for evidence is, we feel, necessary to ensure such nations comply with this legislation and/or can be held accountable if they fail to.

Thank you again for your consideration.

"Thank you for taking the time to make a detailed consideration of the proposal. I very much understand your point, but disagree that the clause is as open to interpretation as you take it to be. The proposal specifies that the experimentation must be necessary to achieve certain (specfiied) goals - not just necessary in general. I believe that should mean that the situation you very validly point out would not become a problem."

I’m not sure if this is going to be a rant or a detailed essay, hopefully I don’t ramble on too much but animal welfare and ethics is a subject very close to my heart and I want to make sure I do the subject justice. Also, after like 4 years on NS; this is my first forum post so go easy on me ;-;
There's a couple of things in the WA Resolution that are iffy to me. Not awful, but just stand for improvement.

1. It does not distinctly separate lab work from field work. Therefore, all field work that is involved in experimentation (which includes things like ethology) somehow must provide a hygienic environment as stated in clause 6.

OOC: First of all - wow, thanks for all this input. I have to admit I am VERY far from an expert on this subject IRL so your feedback is very constructive to me.

As for this first issue you point out - I think the phrasing "animals in animal research institutes" could be reasonably interpreted to be talking about them physically being within a building or something belonging to the institute, so institutes carrying out fieldwork wouldn't be forced to provide all this stuff for animals even if they were temporarily accommodating them outdoors. That actually makes me think it could be worth writing up a proposal on research on animals taking place in their own natural habitat ...

2. An animal can be defined much more simply as a non-human organism from the kingdom Animalia. Although you could argue this is way too broad for animal experimentation. In the UK, protected animals are non-human vertebrates and cephalopods.

Unfortunately, the WA, being the weird and wonderful roleplay it is, contains many member nations whose main sapient species are not humans, and who contain many sentient creatures you could consider equivalent to animals but would not fall under the category you describe. That would indeed be a far more straightforward definition but unfortunately would not really work in the WA.

3. A nervous system is not conducive to an animal’s ability to feel pain. Pain is a very complicated sensory and emotional experience, and the standard level of pain or trauma that is deemed unreasonable is not stated i.e anything greater than a standard needle insertion. There are various criteria that may show a potential for experiencing pain, as stated by Elwood et al (2009) including but possibly not limited to:

i) a suitable CNS and receptors
ii) avoidance learning behaviour (indicates learned behaviour in response to negative stimuli)
iii) protective motor reactions, that may include limping, rubbing, holding or autotomy (removal of a limb or part of the body, think self-amputation)
iv) physiological changes (change in heart rate or bp, incr resp rate, mydriasis
v)"trade-offs" in stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements, this means in simple terms that an animal will sacrifice a "preferred" behaviour in response to pain. Think of it like would you rather live in a mud hut, or a mansion; except in the mansion you were subject to excruciating pain every hour? This was ironically tested and proved using animal experimentation, where a very similar experiment to my hypothetical question was used for hermit crabs (Appel and Elwood, 2009).
vi) opioid receptors present, and evidence of reduced pain experience if treated with anaesthetic or analgesia.
vii) high cognitive ability and sentience

Of course, this could just be me nitpicking, but it’s important to consider when thinking about how an animal experiences pain, as not every animal will experience pain the same way and through the same pathways.

Many of these specifics are things I'll own up to not having had awareness of when drafting this. I did aim to be as general as possible - hence the "equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain", which should cover most if not all of the circumstances you detail? And the intention behind 2.a. was similar, in that only the necessary harm is permitted, which may vary from situation to situation. It's a tough balancing act between using tight enough language not to allow loopholes, and being generic enough that it could translate to the many possible scenarios in the WA.

4. The definition of animal experimentation expands or could expand to slaughterhouses, farms, animal tagging procedures, clinical practice etc. This means all farms are defined as research institutes and farmers will have to adhere to the same restrictions as researchers. This blurs the line between research and produce, as they can technically by this resolution be termed as the same thing. Also, all farms will have to supply a hygienic living space to their animals which is impossible when you are dealing with cows or pigs, give sufficient nutrition which can be detrimental to animals in a farming situation, etc. This turns into a question of profits and sustainability.

Maybe it didn't translate properly from my brain to the draft, but "product development" to me was supposed to mean the research and initial creation of a new type of product/the enhancement of an existing one, rather than its routine mass production. The WA has to allow all reasonable, good-faith interpretations of its resolutions, which I believe encompasses what I've described, and so slaughterhouses, farms, etc. would not have to fall under this proposal, I think.

5. The definition of an animal research institute is barebones. By its definition, anyone could define themselves as an animal research institute without regulation. It’s way too narrow. IRL, at least in the UK, you need to have an Establishment Licence regulated through the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This basically proves that you are an established research institute/company and have minimum standards for animal housing and environment, veterinary care and health, minimised breeding of surplus animals and humane killing. All staff that are involved in the experiment, which also needs a Project Licence, need to have a Personal License that proves they have sufficient training/skills/expertise etc etc. It's a lot of hoops to jump through before experimentation even begins. Furthermore, a project licence is only granted when:

● there are no valid alternatives to testing on animals
● there is valid justification for the generation of new data
● the protocols involved cannot be further refined
● the expected benefits of the testing outweigh the possible adverse effects

So, in conclusion, the description of a research institute is teensy in regard to RL lol

So, regarding the first part of this point - definitions in WA resolutions do not carry over beyond the scope of the resolution (especially as I've put "For the purposes of this resolution" in the defintion clause). That is to say, that the WA defining x as y does not mean that it is telling member nations "anything that meets the criteria y shall now be considered an x under all your laws and regulations", but it is instead telling member nations "when in this proposal I say x, I really mean anything that meets the criteria y". So if something is carrying out research testing animals, it falls under this proposal, but that does not mean that member nations have to, for any other purposes of theirs, consider anything that tests animals as an animal research institute. I hope that attempted explanation makes some sort of sense. The proposal also does not say that anyone can just officially start testing animals; member nations can still set any sort of licensing requirements etc. in order for a research institute to be able to carry out animal testing - the proposal does nothing to prevent more stringent regulations than its own from being imposed.

6. In reference to clause 2, 'psychologically' seems like a weird word to use. It’s too vague and doesn’t make much sense. Restrict their ability to exhibit natural behaviour or prevent distress is a more accurate way to term this.

I'll take that on board in case this fails or gets repealed, thank you. I agree this particular choice of word could have been improved as you suggest.

7. Establishing the AEB seems like overreach and researching alternatives to animal experimentation is something a research institute should do itself before conducting an experiment (The Three R’s). Plus, only after the fact do institutes report to the AEB. It would make more sense and be more ethically correct to submit procedure prior to the start of experimentation to get the green light, i.e a bit more like how it is handled through the A(SP)A.

You're right, researching alternatives is definitely something the research institutes should do - I'd argue that it's kinda necessary for them to do that to some extent in order for them to comply with the necessity requirement in clause 2. The intention behind making the AEB do that was as a sort of "no excuse" thing - if the AEB finds a far better method, research institutes have no choice but to use it in order to be in compliance with the proposal.

Your idea about submitting the procedure prior to the experimentation is definitely a good one, and I now wish I'd included something along those lines. However, submitting the records afterwards has its own use - I intended for that to be a way of enforcing the proposal properly, so that the absolute facts of what actually took place are reviewed and evaluated.

8. Funding for the minimisation of harm makes no sense. What does that entail exactly? Medicine? The building of a whole lab? Needs further clarification.

The idea behind this clause was to include any instances where better/different equipment or apparatus was needed to reduce the animals' distress throughout the experimentation. It's possible that I could have been more specific, but equally, research institutes have to demonstrate a "genuine need" for the funding, so I think only requests for funding for properly effective measures would be approved.

9. As per clause 6, I don’t know if it was intentional but it is very similar to the RL Five Freedoms, but it misses a few marks. Even during experimentation, animals should be provided to the best extent these criteria. Plus; thirst, freedom to express normal behaviour, freedom from pain and injury, freedom from fear, and freedom from discomfort are not explicitly stated.

It was not intentional. I think clause 2 deals with freedom from pain and injury, as it doesn't only apply to experimentation, but the rest are good points. Again, I'll definitely be putting these in if this gets defeated or repealed.

The final two clauses are fine, although some may argue for what defines a painless death.
However, something that deeply concerns me is in this resolution, there is no call for any veterinary expertise or influence. This is like not involving doctors in human medical trials, and also fails to cover the possible need for healthcare outwith the bounds of the experiment and definitely fails in itself as analgesia/anesthetic/medicine should be given by veterinary experts. Plus, experiments that involve breeding and gene modification should be more explicitly covered in the resolution imo.

The absence of a mention of veterinary experts is for sure an oversight on my part. I would argue that this imposes certain measures without specifying the method for implementing them, and to do so properly would probably require input from veterinary experts in some way or another.

[Heavens Reach]

It doesn't change the fact that this resolution might be used to redefine the term "human" under international law and dehumanize certain groups of people.

The active clause doesn't prescribe any especial privilege to experiment where it didn't already exist. Humans cannot simply be experimented on because a resolution failed to specifically forbid it unless it specifically granted those powers, and, even then, only if all of the resolutions that forbid it are repealed, of which there would have to be many.

[Vilverin]

Hey Maowi, thank you so much for replying!!
You have great points that I didn't consider (like the wacky world of RP) and I agree with much of what you said in regards to my points 3, 4 and 5.
I'll admit I'm not the greatest expert in WA affairs but I just wanted to give some rl input so hopefully that came across <3
As I said, I am being incredibly nitpicky lol and I actually really do love the resolution and I am really happy to see animal welfare issues finally take the centre stage in the WA!!

[Maowi]

Hey Maowi, thank you so much for replying!!
You have great points that I didn't consider (like the wacky world of RP) and I agree with much of what you said in regards to my points 3, 4 and 5.
I'll admit I'm not the greatest expert in WA affairs but I just wanted to give some rl input so hopefully that came across <3
As I said, I am being incredibly nitpicky lol and I actually really do love the resolution and I am really happy to see animal welfare issues finally take the centre stage in the WA!!

OOC: I mean, thanks again for all the input, it was actually incredibly interesting stuff to read about!!!

[Medwedgrad]

It doesn't change the fact that this resolution might be used to redefine the term "human" under international law and dehumanize certain groups of people.

The active clause doesn't prescribe any especial privilege to experiment where it didn't already exist. Humans cannot simply be experimented on because a resolution failed to specifically forbid it unless it specifically granted those powers, and, even then, only if all of the resolutions that forbid it are repealed, of which there would have to be many.

However, the unprecise definition of animal can become a basis for redefinition of human in some of future resolutions. There is no reason to overlook a problematic and unclear definition of animal, as it is essential (therefore also first) part of this resolution. Our vote stays the same.

[Ardiveds]

The active clause doesn't prescribe any especial privilege to experiment where it didn't already exist. Humans cannot simply be experimented on because a resolution failed to specifically forbid it unless it specifically granted those powers, and, even then, only if all of the resolutions that forbid it are repealed, of which there would have to be many.

However, the unprecise definition of animal can become a basis for redefinition of human in some of future resolutions. There is no reason to overlook a problematic and unclear definition of animal, as it is essential (therefore also first) part of this resolution. Our vote stays the same.

OOC: Afaik definitions in a resolution do not extend beyond the the resolution in which a particular definition is present. So this resolution's defintion cannot become a basis for redefinition of human in a future resolution.

[Kenmoria]

However, the unprecise definition of animal can become a basis for redefinition of human in some of future resolutions. There is no reason to overlook a problematic and unclear definition of animal, as it is essential (therefore also first) part of this resolution. Our vote stays the same.

OOC: Afaik definitions in a resolution do not extend beyond the the resolution in which a particular definition is present. So this resolution's defintion cannot become a basis for redefinition of human in a future resolution.

(OOC: This is correct. There can even be terms defined differently in different resolutions, depending on the context of each piece of legislation.)

[Bigoted Libertarians]

Opposed.

My eyes glaze over every time the nanny statists want to keep infringing on my nation’s people. Who is even going to read the truckloads of paperwork this will require as my scientists develop new formulations for Kid Beer, the best-selling beverage in my nation?

All this resolution will do is make it so scientists stop bothering to test for side effects — and then you whiny foreigners will complain that “my 6-year-olds’ pee turned black and his belly button is bleeding out” or “a teaspoon is a lethal dose for anyone weighing under 900 Freedom Weight Units” or some other whiny garbage.

Now get off my damn lawn.

[Kenmoria]

Opposed.

My eyes glaze over every time the nanny statists want to keep infringing on my nation’s people. Who is even going to read the truckloads of paperwork this will require as my scientists develop new formulations for Kid Beer, the best-selling beverage in my nation?

All this resolution will do is make it so scientists stop bothering to test for side effects — and then you whiny foreigners will complain that “my 6-year-olds’ pee turned black and his belly button is bleeding out” or “a teaspoon is a lethal dose for anyone weighing under 900 Freedom Weight Units” or some other whiny garbage.

Now get off my damn lawn.

“If you don’t like regulation, then you’re in the wrong international organisation. I’m fairly certain that domestic regulations can handle inadequate testing by corporations for side effects, though there might be some WA legislation on the issue; I haven’t checked.”

[Medwedgrad]

However, the unprecise definition of animal can become a basis for redefinition of human in some of future resolutions. There is no reason to overlook a problematic and unclear definition of animal, as it is essential (therefore also first) part of this resolution. Our vote stays the same.

OOC: Afaik definitions in a resolution do not extend beyond the the resolution in which a particular definition is present. So this resolution's defintion cannot become a basis for redefinition of human in a future resolution.

That is even more problematic. The same reality shouldn't be defined differently based on political needs.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Afaik definitions in a resolution do not extend beyond the the resolution in which a particular definition is present. So this resolution's defintion cannot become a basis for redefinition of human in a future resolution.

That is even more problematic. The same reality shouldn't be defined differently based on political needs.

OOC: You do not define reality, you define words. And 'bank' in a resolution about financial transactions might need another definition than 'bank' in a resolution about safety of waterways.

[Heavens Reach]

That is even more problematic. The same reality shouldn't be defined differently based on political needs.

The words are being defined in context． ”For the purposes of this resolution， x should be taken to mean y”

[Medwedgrad]

That is even more problematic. The same reality shouldn't be defined differently based on political needs.

OOC: You do not define reality, you define words. And 'bank' in a resolution about financial transactions might need another definition than 'bank' in a resolution about safety of waterways.

And words represent realities, they don't float in the air.
Bank is not a good example as this is the word that has two meanings in English language and this meaning is further established from the context.
However, word "animal" has only one meaning, and because bad definition of it may lead to the confusion when it comes to important ethical issues, the clarity is very important here.

[Medwedgrad]

That is even more problematic. The same reality shouldn't be defined differently based on political needs.

The words are being defined in context． ”For the purposes of this resolution， x should be taken to mean y”

And "the purpose of this resolution" is always political. The purpose of resolution (read: a political need) must not be based on anything else than ontological truth. We can't give new meanings to different realities based on the political goals that we want to achieve.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: You do not define reality, you define words. And 'bank' in a resolution about financial transactions might need another definition than 'bank' in a resolution about safety of waterways.

And words represent realities, they don't float in the air.
Bank is not a good example as this is the word that has two meanings in English language and this meaning is further established from the context.
However, word "animal" has only one meaning, and because bad definition of it may lead to the confusion when it comes to important ethical issues, the clarity is very important here.

OOC: animal (noun)
noun: animal; plural noun: animals
1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
2. an animal as opposed to a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect.
4. a person without human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive.
5. a particular type of person or thing.
The word 'Animal' definitely has more than one meaning in english language.... and this is not taking into account even more intricate context sensitive meanings like the one in this resolution.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: You do not define reality, you define words. And 'bank' in a resolution about financial transactions might need another definition than 'bank' in a resolution about safety of waterways.

And words represent realities, they don't float in the air.
Bank is not a good example as this is the word that has two meanings in English language and this meaning is further established from the context.
However, word "animal" has only one meaning, and because bad definition of it may lead to the confusion when it comes to important ethical issues, the clarity is very important here.

OOC:No, it does not. Some resolutions (disregarding the multi-species reality of the WA for the sake of the argument) might be concerned only with non-human animals, while others might need to include humans. Since there might be ambiguity - legislation does not need to be scientific - it is better for the resolution to define the words it uses. This actually serves the exact purpose you require: Avoiding confusion and providing clarity.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: You do not define reality, you define words. And 'bank' in a resolution about financial transactions might need another definition than 'bank' in a resolution about safety of waterways.

And words represent realities, they don't float in the air.
Bank is not a good example as this is the word that has two meanings in English language and this meaning is further established from the context.
However, word "animal" has only one meaning, and because bad definition of it may lead to the confusion when it comes to important ethical issues, the clarity is very important here.

(OOC: That simply isn’t how the World Assembly works. Why would a national government making a piece of legislation care about a definition established for the purposes of a completely different piece of legislation? I cannot imagine a situation in which a nation collectively decides to enact a definition clearly intended for something else for absolutely no purpose.)

[Heavens Reach]

The words are being defined in context． ”For the purposes of this resolution， x should be taken to mean y”

And "the purpose of this resolution" is always political. The purpose of resolution (read: a political need) must not be based on anything else than ontological truth. We can't give new meanings to different realities based on the political goals that we want to achieve.

We believe your mistake is to believe that words represent some kind of objective reality, rather than that they convey subjective meaning that needs to be pinned down to avoid ambiguity about the reality being represented by the words. The reality isn't being changed -- what reality the proposal deals with is being defined and contextualized for the purpose of clarifying the mandate of the active clause.

[Medwedgrad]

And words represent realities, they don't float in the air.
Bank is not a good example as this is the word that has two meanings in English language and this meaning is further established from the context.
However, word "animal" has only one meaning, and because bad definition of it may lead to the confusion when it comes to important ethical issues, the clarity is very important here.

OOC: animal (noun)
noun: animal; plural noun: animals
1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
2. an animal as opposed to a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect.
4. a person without human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive.
5. a particular type of person or thing.
The word 'Animal' definitely has more than one meaning in english language.... and this is not taking into account even more intricate context sensitive meanings like the one in this resolution.

Well, we can play the linguistics to the point of absurd. Yes, animal has one meaning, but of course that depending on a context, this meaning can be literal, metaphorical, etc. In different cultural contexts or literary forms it can mean something slightly different, while keeping roots in the basic meaning of the word. "Bank", on the other hand, is a word with two totally different meanings and different roots - one came to English from Old Norse, another from Latin.
Therefore it is logical that we will not have the same definition of word "bank" in the context of economy and in the context of waterways regulations.
However, the word "animal" is easy to define, and it doesn't mean giving official national definition of a word, but when we talk about animals in the context of legislation (any legislation), we obviously don't mean about "person without human attributes" as it is not literal meaning of the word and something like this shouldn't appear in legislative text what so ever. We also don't care about biological nuances according to which human is also an animal.
From the legislation perspective, it is important to define animal as an entity separate from humans, so that there can be no confusion of animal from one side, and from the other side a human in the fetal phase of development, a human in state of coma, a human that is sleeping, etc.
These are important issues, and what I am saying is not that there should be one official definition for every word, but that there should be a consistent use of the word to avoid chaos and misinterpretations. Of course that we can't always achieve perfect consistency among legislative texts, but we should insist on it where it is important. In questions that touch topics around bioethics, we must be especially careful how we define terms and there is no excuse for sloppiness in this field.

[Ardiveds]

...

Well, we can play the linguistics to the point of absurd. Yes, animal has one meaning, but of course that depending on a context, this meaning can be literal, metaphorical, etc. In different cultural contexts or literary forms it can mean something slightly different, while keeping roots in the basic meaning of the word. "Bank", on the other hand, is a word with two totally different meanings and different roots - one came to English from Old Norse, another from Latin.
Therefore it is logical that we will not have the same definition of word "bank" in the context of economy and in the context of waterways regulations.
However, the word "animal" is easy to define, and it doesn't mean giving official national definition of a word, but when we talk about animals in the context of legislation (any legislation), we obviously don't mean about "person without human attributes" as it is not literal meaning of the word and something like this shouldn't appear in legislative text what so ever. We also don't care about biological nuances according to which human is also an animal.
From the legislation perspective, it is important to define animal as an entity separate from humans, so that there can be no confusion of animal from one side, and from the other side a human in the fetal phase of development, a human in state of coma, a human that is sleeping, etc.
These are important issues, and what I am saying is not that there should be one official definition for every word, but that there should be a consistent use of the word to avoid chaos and misinterpretations. Of course that we can't always achieve perfect consistency among legislative texts, but we should insist on it where it is important. In questions that touch topics around bioethics, we must be especially careful how we define terms and there is no excuse for sloppiness in this field.

OOC: I'd also like to point out that the NS multiverse has sapient creatures other than humans. There are nations whose citizens are non humans which is a reason defining 'animals' in relation to humans doesn't work in a WA resolution.

[Medwedgrad]

Well, we can play the linguistics to the point of absurd. Yes, animal has one meaning, but of course that depending on a context, this meaning can be literal, metaphorical, etc. In different cultural contexts or literary forms it can mean something slightly different, while keeping roots in the basic meaning of the word. "Bank", on the other hand, is a word with two totally different meanings and different roots - one came to English from Old Norse, another from Latin.
Therefore it is logical that we will not have the same definition of word "bank" in the context of economy and in the context of waterways regulations.
However, the word "animal" is easy to define, and it doesn't mean giving official national definition of a word, but when we talk about animals in the context of legislation (any legislation), we obviously don't mean about "person without human attributes" as it is not literal meaning of the word and something like this shouldn't appear in legislative text what so ever. We also don't care about biological nuances according to which human is also an animal.
From the legislation perspective, it is important to define animal as an entity separate from humans, so that there can be no confusion of animal from one side, and from the other side a human in the fetal phase of development, a human in state of coma, a human that is sleeping, etc.
These are important issues, and what I am saying is not that there should be one official definition for every word, but that there should be a consistent use of the word to avoid chaos and misinterpretations. Of course that we can't always achieve perfect consistency among legislative texts, but we should insist on it where it is important. In questions that touch topics around bioethics, we must be especially careful how we define terms and there is no excuse for sloppiness in this field.

OOC: I'd also like to point out that the NS multiverse has sapient creatures other than humans. There are nations whose citizens are non humans which is a reason defining 'animals' in relation to humans doesn't work in a WA resolution.

Medwedgrad doesn't acknowledge the existence of sapient non-humans, but even if we would acknowledge it, it would not change the main argument for my disagreement with this resolution.