[Legality Challenge] AT VOTE - Repeal Pesticide Regulations

[Araraukar]

Repeal 'Pesticide Regulations'
Category: Repeal

---

The World Assembly,

Agreeing with the co-author of the original resolution, that rational nations take reasonable precautions, and therefore, without World Assembly mandate, will:

1. monitor pesticide use and environmental effects,
2. provide information and enforce regulations to prevent environmental contamination that could kill thousands of people if exposed to toxic levels,
3. establish effective product controls which provide enough information to pesticide buyers,
4. inform other nations of possible pesticide contamination of their territories, and
5. encourage the use of non-pesticide pest controls;

Perplexed that the co-author would support legislation which does nothing more than codify what nations have long already done, meaning it is not an international issue,

Pleased that the self-resolution of this issue means that there is no real need for this legislation to stay on the books and that any flaw is therefore justification for repeal, and

Concerned that the requirement in clause four to prevent pesticide runoff with such things as buffer zones, selective application, and avoidance of irrigation is fundamentally flawed, as:

1. sapient lives are better saved and protected through the eradication of disease-bearing pests which serve as a vector for person-to-person transmission,
2. eradication campaigns of insects will necessarily require large-scale and large-area administration of pesticides or run the risk of leaving a reservoir population,
3. making it harder for poor nations to cheaply pursue eradication campaigns is principally unjust, since the people affected on the cost margins are the most disadvantaged and those which the world community has the foremost obligation to protect, and
4. these restrictions greatly increases the difficulty of pest eradication, thereby preventing nations from reducing the incidence of pest-borne diseases like malaria, costing lives, implicitly killing people, and violating the principles upon which this Assembly was founded, while
5. it massively increases the chance of disease-bearing pests developing resistance to common pesticides, allowing surviving generations to adapt to exposure, making future eradication campaigns ever more difficult and costly, costing yet more lives; and

Believing that the multitude of different nations in the World Assembly means that the only fair way to balance between the lives saved from pesticide usage and its inherent chemical dangers is to allow nations to make that decision themselves, hereby

Repeals 376 GA Pesticide Regulations.

Link to the repeal's target resolution.

Rules broken: Honest Mistake. And partially outright lie, but I don't think there's a separate rule for that.

This...

Agreeing with the co-author of the original resolution, that rational nations take reasonable precautions, and therefore, without World Assembly mandate, will:
*snipped for brevity*

Perplexed that the co-author would support legislation which does nothing more than codify what nations have long already done, meaning it is not an international issue,

Pleased that the self-resolution of this issue means that there is no real need for this legislation to stay on the books and that any flaw is therefore justification for repeal, and

...is a lie. I never said regulating pesticides wasn't an international issue. It is what IA himself said. Evidence below.

From the drafting thread of the resolution targeted by the repeal:

"Sounds like a domestic issue."

Like human rights when applied only to each nation's own citizens? Or discrimination? Or food and drug standards? Healthcare standards and availability? Basic welfare of your own citizens? Or legal rights? The micromanagement in those resolutions goes well into the "domestic issue" level.

Also ND and I ended up using what SP said here in the FAQ for the proposal (in the first post of the thread), because he said it better than either of us could.

They're so blatantly straightforward, only dysfunctional nations wouldn't have them already in place.

It's funny that when I use this argument on various other resolution proposals, like the recently passed Rule of Law, I get told that while such things may look like only idiots wouldn't already have them in place, the WA should codify them anyway, just in case such idiots are around.

And yes, I would hope most nations already have something like this in place, but now at least if your neighbouring nations are also in the WA, you'll know they have to abide by similar (or same) rules as well.

Also, nothing fordbids a nation from putting in stricter limits or even forbidding the use of pesticides entirely, if they so choose.

An additional mistake seems to be the issue with clause four, which is about pesticide run-off avoidance, as none of it restricts eradication campaigns when carried off systematically rather than just spraying pesticides randomly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Firstly, the fact claim at the top of the repeal text is that the co-author of the target resolution believes 'rational nations take reasonable precautions', not that something was not an international issue. The rest are normative conclusions emerging from that premise. That the co-author believes that rational nations will take reasonable precautions is not up for debate.

Second, nor does the second section of the repeal claim that it is impossible, but rather, that people are affected on the margins. Both statements are wild misrepresentations of the repeal.

[Araraukar]

Saved in case it's needed for evidence:

There are two outcomes. Either this repeal is discarded, in which case, it is extremely likely that inevitability arguments are rejected on Sierra Lyricalia's basis, leading to the conclusion that rational nations will not always pursue 'good' policies. This is a win. Or, the repeal is not discarded. Then, that is a win too.

Certainly makes it look like the repeal wasn't written in good faith but rather as a way to further drive any future drafting debate towards the nitpickery that I keep getting blamed for.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Evidence of what? The horrors of politics? When did repeals need to be written to abide by your concept of 'good faith'? Who died and made you king? Submission of a repeal doesn't depend on good faith, and even if it did, it would depend on whether or not someone actually wanted something repealed. I can tell you I actually want it repealed, which is exactly what it says above. My statement here is that I consider most outcomes here a win. You're perhaps reading too much into it.

[Separatist Peoples]

In going to weigh in and say any time a player purports to reference an author or coauthors expressed statement intent and that player protests at their inclusion, the proposal is worth removing. True or not, if a player doesn't want to be singled out in the body of a repeal, that ought to kill it. Otherwise, proposals become a vehicle for mudslinging.

[Bakhton]

I know my opinion doesn't matter as much as certain GenSec members that apparently don't find this forum as the correct place to discuss legislation, but I believe this is an honest mistake rule violation that would've been smoothed over given proper drafting. It's almost like these two topics are related.

[Sciongrad]

I know my opinion doesn't matter as much as certain GenSec members that apparently don't find this forum as the correct place to discuss legislation, but I believe this is an honest mistake rule violation that would've been smoothed over given proper drafting. It's almost like these two topics are related.

This is possibly illegal -- still thinking -- but am confident that the only reason drafting on the forum would resolve the issue is because of how hyperlegalistic it is. If the question was a matter of substance rather than a matter of the rules, this forum would probably do nothing for it.

[Aclion]

In going to weigh in and say any time a player purports to reference an author or coauthors expressed statement intent and that player protests at their inclusion, the proposal is worth removing. True or not, if a player doesn't want to be singled out in the body of a repeal, that ought to kill it. Otherwise, proposals become a vehicle for mudslinging.

It sounds like you're suggesting gensec make a ruling based on what you feel the rules should be, rather then what they are. I hope this is not the case.

[Separatist Peoples]

In going to weigh in and say any time a player purports to reference an author or coauthors expressed statement intent and that player protests at their inclusion, the proposal is worth removing. True or not, if a player doesn't want to be singled out in the body of a repeal, that ought to kill it. Otherwise, proposals become a vehicle for mudslinging.

It sounds like you're suggesting gensec make a ruling based on what you feel the rules should be, rather then what they are. I hope this is not the case.

GenSec was put in place to benefit the community by clarifying the ruleset and responding to new problems. This is a new problem. I am responding to it. No player should have their opinion mischaracterized or utilized, and then referenced through their coauthorship, without a form of recourse. Consider it equity if not law.

[Araraukar]

No player should have their opinion mischaracterized or utilized, and then referenced through their coauthorship, without a form of recourse.

Thank you. Even if GenSec as a whole decided against this legality challenge, I very much appreciate knowing that at least one of you sees it from my point of view.

[Araraukar]

*bump* Under 24 hours left of the vote.

[Sciongrad]

*bump* Under 24 hours left of the vote.

Opinion incoming.