Advertisement
by Greater Germany » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:42 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:45 am
by New Bremerton » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:26 am
by Marxist Germany » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:47 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 am
New Bremerton wrote:OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.
AGAINST.
by Lord Dominator » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:45 am
Marxist Germany wrote:"This resolution is getting absolutely annihilated in the WA, I hope you're happy Mr Ambassador, oh and I've already voted against if you were asking"
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:19 pm
New Bremerton wrote:OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.
by Cosmosplosion » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:33 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:New Bremerton wrote:OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.
If that's the case, then the statement that should would permit nations to do little would be untrue. Challenge the proposal for Honest mistake.
by Hijlistan Arg » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:52 pm
by Lord Dominator » Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:30 pm
Hijlistan Arg wrote:"We as representatives of Hijlistan Arg are not convinced this needs a repeal, and we have every reason to distrust proposals propped up by capitalists who enforce slavery and child labor."
by Scherzinger » Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:11 pm
Lord Dominator wrote:Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.
by Galway-Dublin » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:02 am
by Kenmoria » Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:51 am
by Lord Dominator » Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:40 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:42 pm
Lord Dominator wrote:Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.
by Lord Dominator » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:38 pm
by Gerwig Republic » Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:44 pm
by Wallenburg » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:10 pm
Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:07 am
Wallenburg wrote:Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,
What does this mean? I'm not even sure this qualifies as a complete sentence.
by Wallenburg » Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:41 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Wallenburg wrote:What does this mean? I'm not even sure this qualifies as a complete sentence.
Well, it's definitely not a sentence, because if it were, it wouldn't fit in this kind of resolution format. But it is quite clear: the resolution would have the Assembly believe that ... the interpretation of optional resolutions with "good faith" to imply mandatory requirements ... would eliminate the scope of discretion ... under WA resolutions. That's quite intuitively true, since authors consistently use recommendations to give voice to policies they would want to do, but not in fact actually do, due to political factors. And thus arises the old "It's not required, if your objection is that it encourages X, don't do it".
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:04 am
Wallenburg wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Well, it's definitely not a sentence, because if it were, it wouldn't fit in this kind of resolution format. But it is quite clear: the resolution would have the Assembly believe that ... the interpretation of optional resolutions with "good faith" to imply mandatory requirements ... would eliminate the scope of discretion ... under WA resolutions. That's quite intuitively true, since authors consistently use recommendations to give voice to policies they would want to do, but not in fact actually do, due to political factors. And thus arises the old "It's not required, if your objection is that it encourages X, don't do it".
Then this clause as written is incorrect. Such an interpretation is not actually in place, so it does not have this effect. You should have used the subjunctive rather than the indicative. Just another issue in a stunningly long list of errors and shortcomings with this resolution.
by Gerwig Republic » Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:00 pm
by Kenmoria » Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:48 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement