[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of..."

[Araraukar]

So you are saying that there is no engagement between WA voters and the committee-to-be during the voting process? I was under the impression that there was IC interaction with filling the positions and discussing regulations that was assumed to happen.

No. Committees are filled with faceless WA employees - they're referred to as gnomes - meaning the WA nations have no say who goes on the committee or what their qualifications or lack of are. If the resolution text doesn't place restrictions on what the committee can or can't do to gets its job done, there's nothing restricting its power, and any decisions it does has WA law status that - given lack of any kind of appeals process in the resolution - the WA nations cannot refuse to enact.

Do you see the problem now?

The committee is constrained to only enact regulations that 'clarify and enforce' the target. No regulations can be made outside of that scope so I'm confused as to why you keep harping on the word 'further'.

The word I have problem with is "enforce", because I can think of MANY things that could be used to enforce a sterilization ban that would get a "WTF?" reaction from nations just getting them imposed. Remember that whatever the gnomes decide, goes, no restrictions. Mandatory jail time. Mandatory fines. Loss of right to practice medicine. Loss of job. Registration as sex offender (via calling it a criminal assault on someone's genitals). Hell, anything and everything that's allowed under WA law. And you don't see a problem here?

I was under the IC impression that WA members can discuss about the committee and potential members and potential regulation that's put forth. As this would occur in a normal legislative process.

GA resolutions are not normal legislative process.

The GA is the one who can grant and take away powers from committees via resolution.

After it goes through the vote it can't be amended. At all. Only repealed.

[Kranostav]

So you are saying that there is no engagement between WA voters and the committee-to-be during the voting process? I was under the impression that there was IC interaction with filling the positions and discussing regulations that was assumed to happen.

No. Committees are filled with faceless WA employees - they're referred to as gnomes - meaning the WA nations have no say who goes on the committee or what their qualifications or lack of are. If the resolution text doesn't place restrictions on what the committee can or can't do to gets its job done, there's nothing restricting its power, and any decisions it does has WA law status that - given lack of any kind of appeals process in the resolution - the WA nations cannot refuse to enact.

Do you see the problem now?

You miss what I meant. I was wondering if there was an IC vs OOC divide on how we view the gnomes. And that isn't a problem, committees acting within their legal bounds are right to have that applied to member nations. I don't quite see your problem.

The committee is constrained to only enact regulations that 'clarify and enforce' the target. No regulations can be made outside of that scope so I'm confused as to why you keep harping on the word 'further'.

The word I have problem with is "enforce", because I can think of MANY things that could be used to enforce a sterilization ban that would get a "WTF?" reaction from nations just getting them imposed. Remember that whatever the gnomes decide, goes, no restrictions. Mandatory jail time. Mandatory fines. Loss of right to practice medicine. Loss of job. Registration as sex offender (via calling it a criminal assault on someone's genitals). Hell, anything and everything that's allowed under WA law. And you don't see a problem here?

It's unreasonable to think the gnomes would abuse power like that. But that's an argument to repeal and not an argument on legality so I'm not going to debate that here.

I was under the IC impression that WA members can discuss about the committee and potential members and potential regulation that's put forth. As this would occur in a normal legislative process.

GA resolutions are not normal legislative process.

Again was wondering if there's an IC distinction vs how the game functions OOC.

The GA is the one who can grant and take away powers from committees via resolution.

After it goes through the vote it can't be amended. At all. Only repealed.

Yes, I never argued anything could be amended.

[Araraukar]

It's unreasonable to think the gnomes would abuse power like that. But that's an argument to repeal and not an argument on legality so I'm not going to debate that here.

It is the repeal argument you're saying is a Honest Mistake, though. (And it's hardly unreasonable given the committee is given free reign to enforce the other mandate.)

[Kranostav]

It's unreasonable to think the gnomes would abuse power like that. But that's an argument to repeal and not an argument on legality so I'm not going to debate that here.

It is the repeal argument you're saying is a Honest Mistake, though. (And it's hardly unreasonable given the committee is given free reign to enforce the other mandate.)

No I'm not. I'm arguing that the word 'freely' is incorrect. Thus HM.

In the final clause I listed....(and this is literally verbatim from like 6 posts up)

I'm saying that the argument 'WA member nations are irrelevant if committees can enact regulations' is a bogus argument that is so incorrect it could potentially be illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Congress basically has to repeal or amend the law to change how a committee operates. Or cut funding, but that's not really an option here. But that doesn't matter if the committees are staffed with incorruptible gnomes, because they won't overstep their bounds.

All I'm saying is theres a logical progression of the limits of delegated power, and the claims in the repeal suggest committees can exceed those limits. That can't be true.

Do they also call in staff to explain their actions? I mean like isn't there an element of the oversight which goes beyond merely funding or examining misapplication of the law? This is where it differs significantly IMO. IE RL committees are answerable to all three branches of government. WA committees, notwithstanding that they do exactly what they're told to by the GA in the resolution granting them some responsibility, are answerable to nobody. The GA doesn't control the committee's work once it's established. And the committee in this case can implement whatever regulations it sees fit to enforce the target without answering to the GA. Particularly in this case given the general nature of the mandate versus, say, the specific nature of the mandate in GAR#34.

Not really. There's oversight insofar as congress can fire some of the agency chairpeople, but not much else in direct form. Its actually unconstitutional in the US for Congress to take intermediary action to regulate these agencies. INS v. Chadha if anybody cares.

Committee authority cannot exceed resolution parameters, and the gnomes are, for interpretation's sake, not going to violate those parameters. Thus, the only oversight is the GA voters, who can repeal resolutions with agency authority. Therefore, an agency cannot freely do anything without GA input other than the tasks with which they were directly tasked. Any regulation made has had GA oversight or will need future oversight in the form of a new resolution. If we assume gnomes aren't corruptible, then there isn't any other interpretation that follows from the theory of delegated authority.

Honest Mistake.

[Araraukar]

Committee authority cannot exceed resolution parameters

...if only the resolution had set any parametres...

[Separatist Peoples]

Committee authority cannot exceed resolution parameters

...if only the resolution had set any parametres...

By virtue of creating a committee and tasking it, parameters have been set.

[Araraukar]

By virtue of creating a committee and tasking it, parameters have been set.

It has been tasked to do X. Given no additional parametres, it has been tasked to do X by any means necessary. The "any means necessary" part is the problematic bit. Where are these invisible parametres that limit it while it's doing X?

[Separatist Peoples]

By virtue of creating a committee and tasking it, parameters have been set.

It has been tasked to do X. Given no additional parametres, it has been tasked to do X by any means necessary. The "any means necessary" part is the problematic bit. Where are these invisible parametres that limit it while it's doing X?

It can only accomplish X, not Y. Thus, the committee is not free to make additional regulations without consultation with the GA.

[Araraukar]

It can only accomplish X, not Y. Thus, the committee is not free to make additional regulations without consultation with the GA.

Except the target resolution literally says "The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution." Doesn't say anything about needing the GA's permission to made additional regulations.

[Separatist Peoples]

It can only accomplish X, not Y. Thus, the committee is not free to make additional regulations without consultation with the GA.

Except the target resolution literally says "The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution." Doesn't say anything about needing the GA's permission to made additional regulations.

Irrelevant. The claim the target made is, essentially, claim X. The proposal in question suggests the WACC can also do Y without GA approval.

Honest Mistake. Final answer, Mr. Trebek.

[Wallenburg]

...if only the resolution had set any parametres...

By virtue of creating a committee and tasking it, parameters have been set.

What parameters are those?

[Araraukar]

Honest Mistake. Final answer, Mr. Trebek.

What happened to "if one reading says illegal and one legal, we must find it legal"?

EDIT: Given this and this, I don't see how claiming the WACC having the ability to apply fines and whatnot on people/nations violating the other mandate can count as erroneous. You (SP) and IA have been going on about the WACC having the power to force compliance out of nations, yet now when that's referred to, it's somehow unrealistic?

[Sciongrad]

By virtue of creating a committee and tasking it, parameters have been set.

What parameters are those?

Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?

Honest Mistake. Final answer, Mr. Trebek.

What happened to "if one reading says illegal and one legal, we must find it legal"?

EDIT: Given this and this, I don't see how claiming the WACC having the ability to apply fines and whatnot on people/nations violating the other mandate can count as erroneous. You (SP) and IA have been going on about the WACC having the power to force compliance out of nations, yet now when that's referred to, it's somehow unrealistic?

You are right that we will not generally select the most reasonable interpretation of a resolution when there are several that reasonable nations could adopt. But you're conflating a general rule of thumb with the honest mistake test. Part of the reasonable interpretation inquiry involves not just whether the interpretation is reasonable and would be adopted by a reasonable nation, but whether the repeal's representation of the original resolution is unduly prejudicial or misleading. It is possible that a repeal points to a reasonable interpretation of a provision in the target resolution which at least some reasonable nations would adopt, yet still has the effect of misleading an uninformed voter. We will not generally select the best interpretation among several reasonable ones, but that principle cannot be used to salvage misleading representations.

That is not relevant here, though, because the interpretation in question is not a reasonable one. That the committee can freely create regulations is not a valid interpretation of the original resolution, and so that clause fails not just the misleading inquiry, but also the reasonableness one.

EDIT: Big typo.

[Kuriko]

Has GenSec ruled yet on whether it's an Honest Mistake illegality?

[Bananaistan]

Obv I fully accept the argument that committees can only do what they're mandated to do. I do not feel that this is mutually exclusive with the claim in the repeal. The committee's mandate in the target is uncommonly broad and unspecific so there is undoubtedly a set of wide ranging regulations (such as those examples given by Ara) which nobody disputes the committee could implement to enforce the target. The committee is free, IE without any oversight or control from the GA, to implement any such regulations (or none) in furtherance of its mandate to enforce the target. This is substantially greater freedom to act than committees are usually granted in resolutions.

In this context, in addition to the above discussion where I refer to one definition of the word freely being merely not under the control of another, I feel that the repeal's claims are not unreasonable. At worst, the clause at issue falls within the allowable exaggerations and embellishments, indeed given the great scope of possible further regulations WACC can make, one could argue that the word freely in this case is a "deceptive/weaselly-word" which is specifically stated in the honest mistake rule to be allowable.

Also obv I fully agree with Scion's general comments regarding more than one reasonable interpretation. In this case, I maintain that the repeal's alleged scenario is a colourable interpretation.

Has GenSec ruled yet on whether it's an Honest Mistake illegality?

Not yet. We'll let the community know as soon as we vote. Right now there's still 1 day and 20 hours of voting to go, we will have a decision before the end of voting.

[Kuriko]

Thank you Bananaistan

[Sierra Lyricalia]

There may be something to the "ban" question. Is it useful to describe "You may under no circumstances do X unless you jump through hoops P, Q, and R" as a "ban" on X? As Banana said, this semantic issue is bound to get awfully pedantic. The real question is can we take it that barring the casual or unreviewed act of X is a ban on X, such that claiming there is no ban is unreasonable despite the target giving (strenuous, but clear and attainable) conditions under which X may take place?

The repeal says a strict regulation is not a ban, per se. Generally speaking I would tend to agree with that. Yet it's reasonable to say that something like "Nobody may ever do X - with this one exception" is, in fact, basically a ban.

If any repeal has ever perfectly straddled the line between reasonable embellishment and unreasonable mischaracterization, it's this. Does anyone have any unraised arguments on this question? I would like to hear some pure uncut pedantry to help make up my mind on this.

[Kenmoria]

There may be something to the "ban" question. Is it useful to describe "You may under no circumstances do X unless you jump through hoops P, Q, and R" as a "ban" on X? As Banana said, this semantic issue is bound to get awfully pedantic. The real question is can we take it that barring the casual or unreviewed act of X is a ban on X, such that claiming there is no ban is unreasonable despite the target giving (strenuous, but clear and attainable) conditions under which X may take place?

The repeal says a strict regulation is not a ban, per se. Generally speaking I would tend to agree with that. Yet it's reasonable to say that something like "Nobody may ever do X - with this one exception" is, in fact, basically a ban.

If any repeal has ever perfectly straddled the line between reasonable embellishment and unreasonable mischaracterization, it's this. Does anyone have any unraised arguments on this question? I would like to hear some pure uncut pedantry to help make up my mind on this.

If something is banned, then a person isn’t allowed to do that thing. Banning sterilisation except for very narrow circumstances means that one can still do sterilisation in some circumstances, so it is not truly a ban. What has been banned in the example of the resolution in question was sterilisation that didn’t fall into those exceptions, not sterilisation as a whole. There wasn’t a ban on sterilisation, there was specifically a ban on child sterilisation and some other situations. To call it a ban on sterilisation would be disingenuous, when it was really a partial ban or regulation.

[Sciongrad]

If something is banned, then a person isn’t allowed to do that thing. Banning sterilisation except for very narrow circumstances means that one can still do sterilisation in some circumstances, so it is not truly a ban. What has been banned in the example of the resolution in question was sterilisation that didn’t fall into those exceptions, not sterilisation as a whole. There wasn’t a ban on sterilisation, there was specifically a ban on child sterilisation and some other situations. To call it a ban on sterilisation would be disingenuous, when it was really a partial ban or regulation.

That just plainly is not how the term "ban" is used. There are few instances where something we generally refer to as a ban is truly categorical, and for the purpose of honest mistake analysis, the relevant inquiry is not what the technical definition is, but what a reasonable reader would understand. To D&G's point, if I say the town has banned guns in school, but armed police officers were allowed in during an emergency, a reasonable and well-adjusted person would not be struck by any contradiction. The fact that phrases like "absolute ban," "categorical ban" and "full ban" exist indicates that as a practical matter, the word ban by itself does not convey completeness. This is a tortured and needlessly pedantic interpretation of the word "ban," and one which in my opinion finds no home in the honest mistake rule.

As far as I am concerned, even if we suppose for the sake of argument that the ban-as-categorical formulation is a reasonable interpretation of the term, it still fails the honest mistake test because it is clearly unduly prejudicial to an ordinary voter, who likely does not understand the term as implying absoluteness or would take the repeal's argument to mean that the original resolution substantially fails to prevent the sterilization of minors. If the author intends to make the latter argument, let them making it explicitly rather than by relying on pedantry.

[Wallenburg]

What parameters are those?

Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?

Does the challenged resolution argue it can? No. Very cool. Resolution is legal.

[East Meranopirus]

That just plainly is not how the term "ban" is used. There are few instances where something we generally refer to as a ban is truly categorical, and for the purpose of honest mistake analysis, the relevant inquiry is not what the technical definition is, but what a reasonable reader would understand. To D&G's point, if I say the town has banned guns in school, but armed police officers were allowed in during an emergency, a reasonable and well-adjusted person would not be struck by any contradiction. The fact that phrases like "absolute ban," "categorical ban" and "full ban" exist indicates that as a practical matter, the word ban by itself does not convey completeness. This is a tortured and needlessly pedantic interpretation of the word "ban," and one which in my opinion finds no home in the honest mistake rule.

As far as I am concerned, even if we suppose for the sake of argument that the ban-as-categorical formulation is a reasonable interpretation of the term, it still fails the honest mistake test because it is clearly unduly prejudicial to an ordinary voter, would likely does not understand the term as implying absoluteness or would take the repeal's argument to mean that the original resolution substantially fails to prevent the sterilization of minors. If the author intends to make the latter argument, let them making it explicitly rather than by relying on pedantry.

On the contrary, when the word "ban" is used singularly, in a resolution title like that, I believe the most common and reasonable interpretation would be a full ban (perhaps with very limited exceptions). If we go through passed resolutions that include the word "ban" in its title, it's clear that all of them are intended to be full bans.

[Sciongrad]

Can the committee in question set standards on international commerce concerning the sale of dairy products?

Does the challenged resolution argue it can? No. Very cool. Resolution is legal.

I'm sorry, you must be using the Wallenberger definition of parameter. I'm using the English one ("a limit or boundary that defines the scope of a particular process or activity"). If the question is whether there are parameters limiting the agency's rule-making discretion, the answer is categorically yes. If there are parameters on the subject-matter which the agency is able to regulate, then the claim that the target resolution "freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly" is false.

On the contrary, when the word "ban" is used singularly, in a resolution title like that, I believe the most common and reasonable interpretation would be a full ban (perhaps with very limited exceptions). If we go through passed resolutions that include the word "ban" in its title, it's clear that all of them are intended to be full bans.

I simply disagree. I do not think that the word "ban" conveys absoluteness. Again, as I noted in my previous response, it doesn't even matter if it did at least sometimes. As a practical matter, it is misleading to say the resolution does not ban (if not categorically) the sterilization of minors.

I believe this is an honest mistake violation on the first two counts. I have not reached a determination on the third point.

[East Meranopirus]

I simply disagree. I do not think that the word "ban" conveys absoluteness. Again, as I noted in my previous response, it doesn't even matter if it did at least sometimes. As a practical matter, it is misleading to say the resolution does not ban (if not categorically) the sterilization of minors.

I believe this is an honest mistake violation on the first two counts. I have not reached a determination on the third point.

When it's used in a title, that's exactly what it conveys. Every passed resolution with the word "ban" in the title conveys that meaning.

[Sciongrad]

I simply disagree. I do not think that the word "ban" conveys absoluteness. Again, as I noted in my previous response, it doesn't even matter if it did at least sometimes. As a practical matter, it is misleading to say the resolution does not ban (if not categorically) the sterilization of minors.

I believe this is an honest mistake violation on the first two counts. I have not reached a determination on the third point.

When it's used in a title, that's exactly what it conveys. Every passed resolution with the word "ban" in the title conveys that meaning.

That is an interesting point, but again, the determinative question here is what a reasonable reader would gather from the word. Most players do not form their understanding of probably any term by careful analysis of past usage in resolution titles. I do not, that's for certain, and I guarantee you I am probably much more familiar with past resolutions than most players. So I doubt past usage in resolutions is really very useful for honest mistake analysis, at least in general.