[Draft] Repeal Nuclear Arms Possession Act

[Old Hope]

Link to NAPA(Nuclear Arms Possession Act):https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=10/council=1
This is draft 5. Earlier drafts can be found here.

Saddened of the necessity for some member nations to possess nuclear weapons due to highly agressive neighboring non-member nations or other otherwise unsurmountable threats,

Lauding the goal of the resolution, to allow member nations to possess nuclear weapons due to these facts,

Alarmed that this resolution contains the very rigid and thus catastrophic phrase "every available precaution to ensure",

Agreeing with the notion that member nations should go to great lengths to secure their nuclear weapons,

Saddened, however, that the phrase mentioned above sets no limit in regard to resource spending at all,

Convinced that member nations possessing nuclear weapons should not be forced to take even precautions(that are legal per WA law) that increase security of nuclear arms against falling into the wrong hands by an almost negligible amount in return for an absolutely unreasonable amount of spending, something that General Assembly Resolution 10 unfortunately mandates,

Reassured that General Assembly Resolution 418 allows the possession of nuclear weapons whilst containing a more nuanced protection requirement,

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

[Jedinsto]

cringe

[Tinhampton]

cringe

Is there anything in this proposal - apart from the name of the author - that makes you "cringe" in particular?

[Outer Sparta]

Ambassador Tav: Are you really going along with another repeal of NAPA? It'll get repealed when pigs fly, or if the Old Hope delegation can create flying pigs.

[Jedinsto]

cringe

Is there anything in this proposal - apart from the name of the author - that makes you "cringe" in particular?

The excessive spending stuff

[Old Hope]

Is there anything in this proposal - apart from the name of the author - that makes you "cringe" in particular?

The excessive spending stuff

This is an absolutely insufficient argument. Please explain your reasoning.
Remember:

Agreeing with the notion that member nations should go to great lengths to secure their nuclear weapons,

Ambassador Tav: Are you really going along with another repeal of NAPA? It'll get repealed when pigs fly, or if the Old Hope delegation can create flying pigs.

We are, however, not trying to repeal NAPA for the usual reason "Nuclear arms are bad, they must be banned", which has extremely low probability of success.

[Trellania]

Ambassador Tav: Are you really going along with another repeal of NAPA? It'll get repealed when pigs fly, or if the Old Hope delegation can create flying pigs.

"Please be realistic, ambassador. Even if Old Hope could produce flying pigs this very second, the heat death of the universe will still preceed that resolution being repealed."

[Old Hope]

Not one credible argument against this draft has been made.
All we see are unexplained dislikes and faulty logic that has been disproved.

[Jedinsto]

[Separatist Peoples]

"This proposal operates on the premise of an absurd interpretation. Taking every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands implies that, when the risk is satisfied, no further precautions are required. The alternative invites an unnecessarily absurd interpretation that no rational nation or committee would take even taken in an unfavorable interpretive light. This is another example of the authoring delegation understanding just enough law to make an argument and not enough to make a good one."

[Old Hope]

Taking every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands implies that, when the risk is satisfied, no further precautions are required.

I am afraid that the interpretation of your delegation has absolutely no basis in the proposal text. The risk cannot be fully satisfied. If you have to ensure something the target risk is exactly zero.

[Separatist Peoples]

Taking every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands implies that, when the risk is satisfied, no further precautions are required.

I am afraid that the interpretation of your delegation has absolutely no basis in the proposal text. The risk cannot be fully satisfied. If you have to ensure something the target risk is exactly zero.

"Nothing requires WA law to be read in a literalist fashion when reasonable nations can use reasonable interpretive approaches. Arguing the contrary suggests that your delegation is entirely unfamiliar with statutory construction, which is entirely unsurprising. NEXT!"

[Outer Sparta]

Not one credible argument against this draft has been made.
All we see are unexplained dislikes and faulty logic that has been disproved.

Yet you can't seem to have any good reason or argument for repealing this.

[Old Hope]

I am afraid that the interpretation of your delegation has absolutely no basis in the proposal text. The risk cannot be fully satisfied. If you have to ensure something the target risk is exactly zero.

"Nothing requires WA law to be read in a literalist fashion when reasonable nations can use reasonable interpretive approaches. Arguing the contrary suggests that your delegation is entirely unfamiliar with statutory construction, which is entirely unsurprising. NEXT!"

OOC:The law does what the law says. Sounds familiar?
IC:You have it backwards. With clauses like "fall in the wrong hands" you can obviously interpret them differently(within limits).
You might have a point if you'd say that "avaliable precautions to ensure" does not necessarily mean all precautions, because the other interpretation would lead to very likely unintended consequences.
It is the word "every" that destroys such arguments, though. Every is every. Without qualifiers such as "reasonable" nations have to undertake even measures they find unreasonable. There is a reason why many resolutions talk about reasonable measures:
to prevent nations to have take unreasonable measures.
The first approach for World Assembly Resolutions is textualism. If that leaves you with different outcomes, then you can interpret amongst them according to context. To say that "every" means "not every" is definitely not one of them.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:The law does what the law says. Sounds familiar?

OOC: That is neither a rule nor a cogent legal theory. Which is, again, about what I'd expect out of this fiasco. Literalism is endorsed by exactly nobody.

RNT applies firmly in this case. It isn't illegal, which is a low bar, but I'd still expect a better legal theory from a teenager with 5 minutes on wikipedia.

IC:You have it backwards.

"I do not."

With clauses like "fall in the wrong hands" you can obviously interpret them differently(within limits).
You might have a point if you'd say that "avaliable precautions to ensure" does not necessarily mean all precautions, because the other interpretation would lead to very likely unintended consequences.
It is the word "every" that destroys such arguments, though. Every is every. Without qualifiers such as "reasonable" nations have to undertake even measures they find unreasonable. There is a reason why many resolutions talk about reasonable measures:
to prevent nations to have take unreasonable measures.

The first approach for World Assembly Resolutions is textualism. If that leaves you with different outcomes, then you can interpret amongst them according to context. To say that "every" means "not every" is definitely not one of them.

"You have assumed textualism is a homogeneous interpretative took. There are several schools none of which take special precedence. That said, plain meaning of a text tends to be more convincing than literalism. Plain meaning ascribes to the belief that exigent interpretation is not necessary. That does not obviate a good faith interpretation of sufficiency, given that the text ascribes a discrete goal of safety.

Your interpretation remains a literalist interpretation, at odds with the plain meaning of the text, which is not, to those with a modicum of legal education, the same as literalism. Good faith interpretations include the interpretation that adequate precautions negate the need for further precautions to address security concerns. It remains a poor argument regardless of how much you insist to the contrary.

Finally, your interpretation itself ensures an absurd outcome, in violation of the textualist convention against absurdity. If you want to ascribe to textualism as a theory, ambassador, you may want to learn the interpretive canons inherent in the theory."

OOC: If you're gonna try to throw legal theory around, try to understand it before you use it, eh?

[Araraukar]

OOC:The law does what the law says. Sounds familiar?

OOC: That is neither a rule nor a cogent legal theory. Which is, again, about what I'd expect out of this fiasco. Literalism is endorsed by exactly nobody.

OOC: Correction: literalism is endorsed by everyone doing creative compliance on resolutions they don't much care about. That said, I don't think Old Hope's reading of how a creatively compliant nation would take NAPA is correct.

[Xeroa]

this sounds like my first security council submission
which was terrible and got me burned by BBD