[DEFEATED] Repeal Resolution #83: International Road Safety

[Ransium]

(Please note these comments are made by the player Ransium, not the mod.)
I like GAR 83, it was one of the resolutions that influenced the style I use. A resolution that mapped out specific safety standards would be a mess, and every nation would be RPing how specific standard number 43 doesn’t apply to their nation/tech level/life form type. The only point I find compelling is 3 and is that even true? Where in the resolution does it say higher safety standards are not allowed. I want to encourage this new author to continue drafting new resolutions, but I’m firmly against this one.

[Maowi]

OOC:

(Please note these comments are made by the player Ransium, not the mod.)
I like GAR 83, it was one of the resolutions that influenced the style I use. A resolution that mapped out specific safety standards would be a mess, and every nation would be RPing how specific standard number 43 doesn’t apply to their nation/tech level/life form type.

I don't think the resolution failing to specify exact standards is its main downfall. It's that it only "authorises" the WA committee to make regulations, rather than commanding it to do so - and I think the incorruptible gnomes staffing the committee would not go beyond what they are explicitly told to do. Moreover, the way the resolution is phrased, it says that whatever regulations that may or may not be set out must be to do with road safety standards or whatever, but doesn't say that they must be made with the aim of increasing safety. They just have to increase safety to some reasonable extent, as though safety isn't the whole focus of this thing, which it should be. Reading over the repeal draft again, I can see how that's unclear so that probably needs some editing.

The only point I find compelling is 3 and is that even true? Where in the resolution does it say higher safety standards are not allowed. I want to encourage this new author to continue drafting new resolutions, but I’m firmly against this one.

From the target:
"PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I don’t see the logic behind the second and third clauses. The second clause doesn’t work from an IC standpoint because those regulations must conceivably exist somewhere, so where the regulations come from doesn’t affect member nations. The third clause doesn’t work from an OOC standpoint, since committees are staffed by infallible gnomes.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Again: GAR 83 does not instruct the committee to promulgate standards. It just authorises it to do so, and as far as I can work out - although I'd be glad for someone to confirm or conclusively invalidate this - a committee staffed by infallible gnomes will not go beyond what it is told to do.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Again: GAR 83 does not instruct the committee to promulgate standards. It just authorises it to do so, and as far as I can work out - although I'd be glad for someone to confirm or conclusively invalidate this - a committee staffed by infallible gnomes will not go beyond what it is told to do.

(OOC:

REQUIRES the International Transport Safety Committee to assure that compliance with regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution is feasible and that the costs of compliance with said regulations are justified by the benefits that result from them;

This seems to imply that the committee must promulgate some regulations, otherwise there would be nothing to enforce. However, you are correct in that the committee is never explicitly told to make regulations, which is a fairly large oversight if this means that the ITSC wouldn’t.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Again: GAR 83 does not instruct the committee to promulgate standards. It just authorises it to do so, and as far as I can work out - although I'd be glad for someone to confirm or conclusively invalidate this - a committee staffed by infallible gnomes will not go beyond what it is told to do.

(OOC:

REQUIRES the International Transport Safety Committee to assure that compliance with regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution is feasible and that the costs of compliance with said regulations are justified by the benefits that result from them;

This seems to imply that the committee must promulgate some regulations, otherwise there would be nothing to enforce. However, you are correct in that the committee is never explicitly told to make regulations, which is a fairly large oversight if this means that the ITSC wouldn’t.)

OOC: Yeah - the difficulty is that you can't say that every reasonable interpretation is valid because the committee isn't a Schrödinger's cat, simultaneously doing something and not doing it. So there has to be one universal interpretation of that part of the target at least, but I can't really find any information in any of the official stickied threads on how a committee would be affected by this sort of thing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Again: GAR 83 does not instruct the committee to promulgate standards. It just authorises it to do so, and as far as I can work out - although I'd be glad for someone to confirm or conclusively invalidate this - a committee staffed by infallible gnomes will not go beyond what it is told to do.

I don't view it this way: a GA bureaucracy would take probably a similar approach to an EU one, and therefore, be inclined towards maximalist interpretations of its own laws. Thus, they would be regulating the EuroSausage by next week if you gave them regulation authority over meat products.

[Ransium]

OOC:

(Please note these comments are made by the player Ransium, not the mod.)
I like GAR 83, it was one of the resolutions that influenced the style I use. A resolution that mapped out specific safety standards would be a mess, and every nation would be RPing how specific standard number 43 doesn’t apply to their nation/tech level/life form type.

I don't think the resolution failing to specify exact standards is its main downfall. It's that it only "authorises" the WA committee to make regulations, rather than commanding it to do so - and I think the incorruptible gnomes staffing the committee would not go beyond what they are explicitly told to do. Moreover, the way the resolution is phrased, it says that whatever regulations that may or may not be set out must be to do with road safety standards or whatever, but doesn't say that they must be made with the aim of increasing safety. They just have to increase safety to some reasonable extent, as though safety isn't the whole focus of this thing, which it should be. Reading over the repeal draft again, I can see how that's unclear so that probably needs some editing.

The only point I find compelling is 3 and is that even true? Where in the resolution does it say higher safety standards are not allowed. I want to encourage this new author to continue drafting new resolutions, but I’m firmly against this one.

From the target:
"PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers."

Okay but the repeal says:

Convinced that prohibiting nations from enforcing higher standards than those of ITSC, where such standards are not applied to domestic vehicles, hampers member nations from ensuring that foreign vehicles entering in which do not exist or have no equivalent in the member nation are safe to travel through the nation, given the vagueness regarding the ITSC's regulations themselves;

I don't think these quite follow from each other. The why I interpret the clause is that even if I have no flying trucks and you do, I can regulate flying trucks, so long as if I do have Ransiumian flying trucks in the future it would be regulated in the same way as your flying trucks.

[Maowi]

OOC: Again: GAR 83 does not instruct the committee to promulgate standards. It just authorises it to do so, and as far as I can work out - although I'd be glad for someone to confirm or conclusively invalidate this - a committee staffed by infallible gnomes will not go beyond what it is told to do.

I don't view it this way: a GA bureaucracy would take probably a similar approach to an EU one, and therefore, be inclined towards maximalist interpretations of its own laws. Thus, they would be regulating the EuroSausage by next week if you gave them regulation authority over meat products.

OOC: I see what you mean (although it would be interesting whether that would have any implications for the incorruptible/infallible gnomes idea? Is that just an OOC/IC distinction?). That then leads to the problem with the target that it offers far too little guidance/restrictions on what the committee can do; so that instead of doing too little, it actually does too much, and too much of the wrong thing.

From the target:
"PROHIBITS governments in member states from requiring international commercial road vehicles and operators from other member states to meet higher safety standards than those required by the ITSC, unless those higher safety standards also apply to domestic motor carriers."

Okay but the repeal says:

Convinced that prohibiting nations from enforcing higher standards than those of ITSC, where such standards are not applied to domestic vehicles, hampers member nations from ensuring that foreign vehicles entering in which do not exist or have no equivalent in the member nation are safe to travel through the nation, given the vagueness regarding the ITSC's regulations themselves;

I don't think these quite follow from each other. The why I interpret the clause is that even if I have no flying trucks and you do, I can regulate flying trucks, so long as if I do have Ransiumian flying trucks in the future it would be regulated in the same way as your flying trucks.

Okay, to me at least I guess that seems a simple enough way to avoid having to sit and fume as makeshift vehicles pour in from abroad.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I want flying trucks now...

EDIT: I swear I came to this thread with some point to make, but reading the last few posts and imagining flying trucks erased it.

[Free Azell]

The 4th draft has been posted with some suggested edits.

We will also be working on a replacement for GA #83 this week as well.

[Excidium Planetis]

Cornelia Schultz enters the chamber through one of the ventilation shafts in the ceiling. This may be noted as unusual if this were any place other than the WA Headquarters, which is an unusual place in and of itself.

Unable to contain her urge to examine the matter being addressed in this room, she looks over the draft. "Very good, looks good. If I were a representative of my nation for the World Assembly in any official capacity, which I'm not, for the record, I would give it my full support. I hope you move forward with this."

She quickly leaves the room before her location can be reported to the authorities.

[Free Azell]

Everyone its been a while but we have taken back up this repeal and replacement. Please review and let me know if any changes are needed? We are also working on a replacement resolution for this that is stronger worded.

[Kenmoria]

Everyone its been a while but we have taken back up this repeal and replacement. Please review and let me know if any changes are needed? We are also working on a replacement resolution for this that is stronger worded.

(OOC: I feel as though this is a fairly good piece of legislation, but perhaps you need to come up with a possible repeal argument that goes beyond vagueness. Although vagueness is a flaw, it doesn’t necessarily justify a repeal.)

[Maowi]

Everyone its been a while but we have taken back up this repeal and replacement. Please review and let me know if any changes are needed? We are also working on a replacement resolution for this that is stronger worded.

(OOC: I feel as though this is a fairly good piece of legislation, but perhaps you need to come up with a possible repeal argument that goes beyond vagueness. Although vagueness is a flaw, it doesn’t necessarily justify a repeal.)

OOC: I understand your point, but I do believe the issues with the target pointed out in the repeal go beyond general vagueness. The fact that the target resolution is written from the approach that whatever regulations the committee promulgates, they must result in some sort of improvement to safety - as opposed to ensuring these regulations are designed to proactively tackle road safety and bring it to a strict benchmark level - is decidedly unsatisfactory.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Inherited precedent suggests that "it's not defined" is covered under the NatSov only rule. The entirety of this repeal appears to be a long "it's not defined" argument. IMO it also borders on an honest mistake where talking about the scope. The scope is clear from each of the authorizes clauses and the qualifications in the first requires and the further requires clause.

Outraged that under the target resolution, the regulations promulgated by the committee must not necessarily be limited to improving road safety and may cause a whole plethora of negative effects on other aspects of the member nation, given the resolution's extraordinary vagueness;

This outraged clause is a slamdunk honest mistake. The target states: "FURTHER REQUIRES the International Transport Safety Committee to assure that regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution result in reasonable improvements to traffic safety;"

That appears to be limiting the regulations to improving road safety.

IC: "Completely and utterly opposed. Technical regulations are best left to committees to decide. We have no interest in passing a resolution specifying, for example, the width of the white line in the middle of the road, the number of hours of CPD professional drivers must complete in a year, etc."

Edit: Also it's good form to link to the target, either gameside or the relevant post in the passed resolutions, or quote and spoiler it in the OP.

[Free Azell]

New revision has been posted.

[Ardiveds]

"Can the author present the intended replacement? We would like to take a look at the 'clear, unambiguous' safety regulations."

[Free Azell]

"Can the author present the intended replacement? We would like to take a look at the 'clear, unambiguous' safety regulations."

I will be starting a new thread with the replacement resolution in it today.

[Tinhampton]

The International Transport Safety Committee is tasked with making regulations in GA#83. You assert in the text of your repeal that "the scope of these regulations is not clearly laid out in" GA#83; that "given the absence of an upper limit on the stringency of the committee’s regulations, said regulations could have unnecessary adverse effects" on the environment; and that "a replacement resolution actively instructing a committee to create clear, unambiguous safety regulations would be far preferable to this attempt at enacting a "one-size-fits-all" policy that, in its vagueness, achieves very little of substance."

For the avoidance of doubt, here are the regulations that must be provided under GA#83 "International Road Safety":

AUTHORIZES the International Transport Safety Committee to promulgate regulations related to the safety of international commercial road vehicles;

FURTHER AUTHORIZES the [ITSC] to promulgate training and competency standards for individuals who operate or maintain international commercial road vehicles;

FURTHER AUTHORIZES the [ITSC] to promulgate regulations related to the safety of roads and related infrastructure at points where roads cross international borders at which one or more member states operate customs, immigration, or other border checkpoints;

FURTHER AUTHORIZES the [ITSC] to recommend safety standards for domestic roads and related infrastructure;

REQUIRES the [ITSC] to assure that compliance with regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution is feasible and that the costs of compliance with said regulations are justified by the benefits that result from them... [and] that regulations promulgated pursuant to this resolution result in reasonable improvements to traffic safety

And in your replacement, also entitled International Road Safety:

2. Mandates that the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) publish minimum standards for each of the following:

1. the safety of commercial vehicles, by which conducting said vehicles correctly over safe roads would minimise to safe levels risk of injury to their operators, their passengers, or people in their immediate vicinity;
2. the aptitude of people conducting commercial vehicles, by which said people would be capable of conducting commercial vehicles correctly and safely; and
3. the safety of roads, by which conducting commercial vehicles correctly over such roads would minimise to safe levels risk of injury to their operators, their passengers, or people in their immediate vicinity

In both proposals, the ITSC must publish regulations relating to the safety of commercial vehicles. In both proposals, the ITSC must publish regulations relating to the competence of drivers of commercial vehicles. In both proposals, the ITSC must publish regulations relating to road safety. Yet in neither proposal is there an "upper limit on the stringency of the committee’s regulations," nor anything requiring these regulations to be "clear" or "unambiguous" - and, assuming that Incorruptible Gnome Theory is true, "the scope of these regulations" are effectively the same in both proposals. Incredible!

The road safety regulations that the ITSC is tasked with creating in GA#83 and your replacement are, for all intents and purposes, the same. How it is the case that the ITSC is forced to formulate "a "one-size-fits-all policy" on road safety standards that have no "upper limit on the[ir] stringency" under the former, while it is somehow tasked with creating "clear, unambiguous safety regulations" in the latter - particularly when there is almost nothing separating your proposal and the resolution you are trying to repeal (apart from, perhaps, a clause allowing member states to claim as much funding as they want from the WA General Fund to meet "the ITSC's minimum standards?")

TL;DR: EXTREMELY OPPOSED

[Maowi]

OOC: The phrasing in the replacement instructs the committee to create "minimum standards" - i.e. the least restrictive regulations that achieve the aims stated in each subclause. These aims are given unambiguous qualifiers ("by which conducting said vehicles correctly over safe roads would minimise to safe levels risk of injury to their operators, their passengers, or people in their immediate vicinity", "by which said people would be capable of conducting commercial vehicles correctly and safely", and "by which conducting commercial vehicles correctly over such roads would minimise to safe levels risk of injury to their operators, their passengers, or people in their immediate vicinity" respectively) to ensure that the standards created by the committee are directly targeting the right areas. By contrast, the target resolution authorises the committee to promulgate regulations "related to the safety of" roads/vehicles etc., which are solely given the aim of resulting in "reasonable improvements to traffic safety". This is entirely different.

[Free Azell]

Updated Version posted.

[Free Azell]

Any other comments or recommendations on this repeal?

[Free Azell]

It has reached Quorum.

[Island Girl Herby]

Aaaaaand it’s at vote. Waste of time really. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with the current legislation. Now if only we can do something about the parking around here.......