[Challenge] Protection of Nuclear Armaments

[Christian Democrats]

Challenge here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=399719

If this proposal doesn't reach queue by major, it will certainly reach queue by minor tomorrow.

Protection Of Nuclear Armaments
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Nilla Wayfarers

Affirming the right for member nations to possess nuclear armaments;

Understanding that some nations may intend to promote violence with such armaments;

Acknowledging the interest of some nations in peacefully exchanging nuclear armaments;

this august Assembly hereby,

Requires that member nations with nuclear armaments take every precaution within the restriction of existing legislation to protect these armaments from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments;

Further requires that no member nation engage in the distribution of nuclear armaments with any nation known to incite conflict on a large scale or use its military assets ambiguously.

The challenger claims that this proposal violates the Duplication Rule. See Resolution 10 and Resolution 330.

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

---

My initial thoughts: I think this proposal is invalid, but I don't think the Duplication Rule is the right rule to cite. This proposal, in my opinion, violates the Amendments Rule, which prohibits "clauses that either enhance or modify an active proposal's text." In particular, the first active clause of this proposal seems to be an enhancement or modification of Resolution 10, Section 3.

Resolution 10: REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

This proposal: Requires that member nations with nuclear armaments take every precaution within the restriction of existing legislation to protect these armaments from entities outside of their respective militaries or those of nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments.

At least at first glance, it appears to me that this proposal is trying to "enhance" Resolution 10 either by defining "the wrong hands" or by expanding Resolution 10 to include "entities outside of their respective militaries" and "nations with whom they engage in the peaceful exchange of nuclear armaments."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

At first blush, I'd agree with your assessment. What I'm not 100% sure about is the illegality of further WA refinement of what constitutes "the wrong hands." Consider a potential draft on so-called "peaceful nuclear explosions;" which includes some clause to the effect of "entities seeking to conduct peaceful nuclear explosions shall not be considered 'the wrong hands' provided they do x,y,z security measures..."

Would you consider that clause to undeniably amend GAR 10, or is there room for measured refinement of resolution terminology as long as it doesn't actually contradict the clear letter or spirit of an existing clause?

[Christian Democrats]

Would you consider that clause to undeniably amend GAR 10, or is there room for measured refinement of resolution terminology as long as it doesn't actually contradict the clear letter or spirit of an existing clause?

Given the author, I think the spirit of NAPA is clear . . . but should we really be considering proposals' spirits?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Would you consider that clause to undeniably amend GAR 10, or is there room for measured refinement of resolution terminology as long as it doesn't actually contradict the clear letter or spirit of an existing clause?

Given the author, I think the spirit of NAPA is clear . . . but should we really be considering proposals' spirits?

The letter alone, then. Which gives more credence to the notion that refining terms doesn't quite rise to the level of amendment, duplication, or contradiction.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would you consider that clause to undeniably amend GAR 10, or is there room for measured refinement of resolution terminology as long as it doesn't actually contradict the clear letter or spirit of an existing clause?

Given the author, I think the spirit of NAPA is clear . . . but should we really be considering proposals' spirits?

Yes. If only to give meaning to ambiguous contents, not at a greater weight than the text. The objective intent of the law is absolutely important in determining how we proceed. Look at the General Fund's controversy in the absence of objective intent: it probably doesn't do what it purports to do.

I think this falls under the exception to the Duplication rule: a limited amount of duplication with the intention of clarifying a lightly-covered topic isn't illegal Duplication. Assessing the Duplication/Contradiction assertion, I think this is attempting to clarify a vague point. It does so poorly, but I think it escapes.

I don't agree with the Amendment violation. I think the author intended not to amend, but to further tighten the legal ratchet built by NAPA. On Abortion left the opportunity for the WA to further open, but not restrict, access to abortions. Reproductive Freedoms used that ratchet option to open it up. It really just built off the existing legal landscape, which makes for a precarious law, but not an illegal one. So, too, did the author intend to ratchet up the restriction against "wrong hands".

There is a reason that Amendment violations are separate from Contradiction violations. An amendment contradicts the existing terms, but breaks the game specifically because previous legislation can't be modified. If it wasn't for this underlying difference, I'd say Amendment violations could otherwise fall under Contradiction violations. So there must be something substantively different between the two, and I believe it is that Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation.

This doesn't try to modify NAPA, merely tighten the ratchet for how nations view those parties that can't own nuclear weapons. Since it falls in the penumbra of allowed Duplication, and since it isn't trying to change the text of NAPA, I think it's legal.


EDIT: Also, can I just say how much I hate it when these things make quorum so fast? I was online last night and saw nothing amiss. This got posted about an hour after I powered down for the evening. >.<

[Glen-Rhodes]

Even if the first "requires" clause is just restating NAPA's "into the wrong hands" in more artful language, the second "requires" clause is a new mandate.

As for this Amendments Rule... it seems to violate years upon years of well-reasoned precedent. Taking an ambiguous area of law and going into detail has been a hallmark of the GA's ability to... not devolve into a total standstill when people write overly broad resolutions. I remember this, because I was the one who argued for it w/r/t the Charter on Civil Rights. :\

I sincerely doubt the rewording of the rule intended to overturn that. And it did, that was a horrendous decision that needs to be reversed ASAP.

[Separatist Peoples]

Even if the first "requires" clause is just restating NAPA's "into the wrong hands" in more artful language, the second "requires" clause is a new mandate.

As for this Amendments Rule... it seems to violate years upon years of well-reasoned precedent. Taking an ambiguous area of law and going into detail has been a hallmark of the GA's ability to... not devolve into a total standstill when people write overly broad resolutions. I remember this, because I was the one who argued for it w/r/t the Charter on Civil Rights. :\

I sincerely doubt the rewording of the rule intended to overturn that. And it did, that was a horrendous decision that needs to be reversed ASAP.

Is that in reply to me or the original post?

[Sedgistan]

I'm not real clear on where and whether this council is authorized to request removal of a proposal in or near queue. For the moment, I'll assume you are.

They are, assuming the rule violation is one of the ones we handed over to them (I think that is everything except Games Mechanics, Plagiarism and OSRS violations).

I think I see two in favour of removing, two against, so I won't do anything unless told otherwise.

[Bears Armed]

With the boilerplate about existing legislation included, I wouldn't call it an amendment: It's simply being a bit more specific about examples of what can count as "the wrong hands" under NAPA... and in my opinion that increased specificity takes the clause out of mere 'Duplication' as well.
I'd say that there's enough new material there for legality.
Also, I'd accept that there's enough new material there to justify the Category/Strength if anybody now tries a challenge on that basis.

[Glen-Rhodes]

@ SP: That was a response to the whole thread

[Christian Democrats]

I don't agree with the Amendment violation. I think the author intended not to amend, but to further tighten the legal ratchet built by NAPA.

That's a textbook violation of the Amendments Rule; it's an attempt to "enhance" the original resolution.

On Abortion left the opportunity for the WA to further open, but not restrict, access to abortions.

NAPA does not include such a clause.

I believe it is that Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation.

What we believe the rules should say doesn't matter. The rule says "enhance or modify." This proposal attempts to "enhance."

Since it falls in the penumbra of allowed Duplication

Really, we're going to start using penumbral reasoning now?

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't agree with the Amendment violation. I think the author intended not to amend, but to further tighten the legal ratchet built by NAPA.

That's a textbook violation of the Amendments Rule; it's an attempt to "enhance" the original resolution.

It doesn't try to change NAPA. It tries to legislate on the issue with a separate proposal. That would be Duplication/Contradiction if anything. If that's the case, we should take a long hard look at Protected Status in Wartime, because it extended the effectiveness of Wartime Looting and Pillage, Rules of Surrender, and Access to Humanitarian Aid by granting a number of additional protections to the parties listed in the original resolutions.

On Abortion left the opportunity for the WA to further open, but not restrict, access to abortions.

NAPA does not include such a clause.

It didn't have to, its implied. You can get more specific than Wrong Hands, but you pretty clearly can't get less specific than that. The language didn't restrict us to the Wrong Hands and the Wrong Hands Only.

I believe it is that Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation.

What we believe the rules should say doesn't matter. The rule says "enhance or modify." This proposal attempts to "enhance."

The way I see it is if there is any kind of distinction between the Amendment and Duplication/Contradiction rule, it has to be that the resolution has to actually try to change the text of a resolution to be an amendment. Anything else is just a D/C issue, which is when a resolution treads on another resolution without trying to alter the original. So it isn't an amendment issue.

Since it falls in the penumbra of allowed Duplication

Really, we're going to start using penumbral reasoning now?

[/quote]
It was a fun word, but really, its within the exceptions allowed by the Duplication rule.

[Glen-Rhodes]

@CD: I don't think there was any discussion on overturning years of precedent when it comes to expanding upon ambiguous wording of previously passed resolutions. The discussion on the Amendments rule during the Consortium was all about Repeal+Replace, not getting rid of the "CoCR exemption."

[Christian Democrats]

The Duplication Rule says that: "Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal."

The "COCR exemption," therefore, exists when later authors pass specific legislation in areas where earlier authors have passed broad legislation. NAPA isn't broad legislation. It's a mild resolution on a specific topic: the possession of nuclear weapons.

According to the Amendments Rule, proposals may not "enhance" existing legislation. In my opinion, a specific proposal that attempts to expand on the wording of previously passed specific legislation is an amendment to that legislation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"The wrong hands" is 110% broad...

I remember when the CoCR rule was created (since I was the one who suggested it...) At the time, we wanted to write proposals that expanded on what it meant to be "discriminated against" or what an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" was. How is that any different than this proposal saying what "the wrong hands" means?

Again, I'm going to flat-out say that the Amendments rule's wording is wrong. That change in wording was never discussed. You may not be saying so, but what you're pointing out is a direct contradiction between the two rules.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm going to flat-out say that the Amendments rule's wording is wrong.

We're not here to judge whether the Rules are right or wrong. We're here to apply the Rules.

[Frisbeeteria]

We're not here to judge whether the Rules are right or wrong. We're here to apply the Rules.

It's not that simple. You're here to interpret the rules and then apply them. You may be setting new precedent - we did it a lot, and it wasn't always good precedent.

If the wording is confusing, then perhaps that can also be addressed.

[Christian Democrats]

Apart from adjudicating specific proposals, there are Rules whose wording I'd like to see changed. But that's a different conversation.

[Sciongrad]

Sorry guys, I've been busy lately. On my phone so I can't go into great detail (I'll expand upon my thoughts here later), but I do not believe the proposal violates the duplication or the amendment rules. To interpret them so strictly is to severely restrict how players can legislate.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm going to flat-out say that the Amendments rule's wording is wrong.

We're not here to judge whether the Rules are right or wrong. We're here to apply the Rules.

How do we apply these two rules simulatenously?

1. You're allowed to elaborate specific areas in broad legislation.

2. You're not allowed to "enhance" a resolution.

I can't see a way those don't obviously contradict each other.

I think what happened is that when the rewording happened, there wasn't an intention to change the meaning of the rule. The person who rewrote it was probably thinking about directly manipulating a resolution's text. As in, "NAPA's 'strong arms' phrase is struck out and replace with..."

[Separatist Peoples]

I think what happened is that when the rewording happened, there wasn't an intention to change the meaning of the rule. The person who rewrote it was probably thinking about directly manipulating a resolution's text. As in, "NAPA's 'strong arms' phrase is struck out and replace with..."

That's how I've been reading the Amendment rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

Right, in the interest of speeding things along, lets call the ball and vote. Motion to vote (and vote Legal if seconded).

[Sciongrad]

Right, in the interest of speeding things along, lets call the ball and vote. Motion to vote (and vote Legal if seconded).

I vote it's legal.

[Bears Armed]

Legal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Also, who wants to write the opinion? I'm willing to use my initial post.