Sciongrad wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:OOC:
Alright, so if you argue that criminalization and outlawing are different, and the resolution merely outlaws it, then we aren't required to criminalize any animal abuse, only outlaw it? So then the resolution is totally toothless, because we can make animal on human combat illegal and not enforce it. After all, it's so widespread in Excidium Planetis that enforcing it would be unrealistic and unreasonable.
OOC: Nope, I have never said that simply refusing to enforce the law is good faith compliance.
Neither did I. I am of the opinion that the law should be enforced fully, remember?
You've taken an aspect of my argument - that refusing to criminalize a marginal aspect of a law which is itself against the spirit of the resolution in question is compatible with good faith compliance - and have applied it to compliance in general.
No. In your example, the government is refusing to criminalize insect killing, and in mine the government is refusing to criminalize animal combat. In both cases, it is only a small aspect of the resolution in question, and, as I pointed out, by your argument the resolution never requires nations to criminalize anything, only outlaw it. We are actually going beyond the mandates of the resolution by choosing to criminalize some animal abuse that we have outlawed.
Simply refusing to criminalize all forms of abuse would be a violation of GAR#2 because that is not good faith compliance.
Because you say it is? Why is it not good faith compliance?
And why is your government refusing to criminalize insect killing good faith?