by Bananaistan » Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:27 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:26 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:48 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Public challenge thread.
At the least the first argument regarding the merely clause looks like it holds water.
I move that we hear the challenge.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:19 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:22 pm
by Bananaistan » Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:49 am
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:46 am
by Bears Armed » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:55 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:2 for illegal...anybody else?
by Grays Harbor » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:21 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:58 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:08 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:04 pm
We are asked to determine if this repeal is illegal on four different counts:
- Honest Mistake as to the word "merely" (as, per challenger, target actually mandates multiple actions by member states);
- Honest Mistake as to the claim that the target utilizes obfuscatorily lengthy text to confuse or hoodwink voters;
- Honest Mistake as to the claim that the target places "arbitrary" restrictions on member nations; and
- Honest Mistake as to an alleged prohibition on secret negotiations.
We find that the repeal misrepresents its target resolution in two aspects [Honest Mistakes], and not in the other two.
On the first count, we find without difficulty that the repeal is mistaken. "Merely" denotes simplicity or solitude, in this case an allegation that the only thing the target does is create a committee. Leaving aside the fact that explicit argumentation that a target has broken the committee-only rule would be illegal as all passed resolutions are presumed legal, this is factually incorrect: there are several mandates specifically and explicitly placed on member states, and the creation of a committee may not be taken as ["merely"] the only thing the target does. The repeal therefore commits an Honest Mistake violation.
The second count requires quoting at length from the repeal to make sense of the allegation:Aware that any nation may intentionally lengthen their treaties to include limitless volumes of text in order to obfuscate the agreement's true purpose during publication, or establish absurd quantities of treaties by this process in order to conceal which of the reported treaties are meaningful to parties with a vested interest,
Whereas such an alarming technique has already been used within the fourth clause of the resolution to establish an extraordinary redefinition of the words "secret treaty" to reference various felines and military weaponry,
In short, the repeal alleges that the target utilizes large (if not strictly speaking "limitless") "...volumes of text in order to obfuscate" its true intent. But this is prima facie untenable, as the target resolution is at most average in length, and contains neither absurdly lengthy sentences nor jargon/technical phrasing beyond that present in any other given resolution. Even counting Clause 4, the target does not utilize confusing language or large swaths of fine print. This is therefore the second Honest Mistake the repeal commits.
The third count goes to a characterization of opinion. The repeal opines that the target "plac[es] unfair and arbitrary restrictions on nations[.]" This is no different than repeal language claiming that a given resolution's flaws are so glaring that repeal is the only option open to the General Assembly. This is a matter of opinion, not a quantifiable measurement of fact, and a repeal cannot commit an Honest Mistake merely for alleging its target to place "arbitrary restrictions" on member nations. While a repeal that only alleged this might well be illegal for NatSov-only, this repeal makes other substantive allegations and thus escapes this pitfall. In short, the use of the word "arbitrary" has no effect on this repeal's legality.
The fourth count is by the challenger's own admission not clearly a violation of GA rules. We agree. Where a repeal clause can be reasonably read to be legal, GenSec does so as a matter of policy; and where a repeal clause makes hopes for the future instead of making a specific allegation against its target, no implication (legal or illegal) can reasonably be inferred from it. Therefore there is no Honest Mistake arising from such wispy and ephemeral sources here.
In total, we find the first two Honest Mistake allegations in the challenge to be correct, and the other two incorrect. The repeal is illegal as written.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:10 pm
by Sciongrad » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:35 am
I concur with the majority. I write separately with respect to the fourth count only to emphasize that the relevant test we use for the honest mistake rule is whether the challenged assertion is 1. one that a reasonable member nation would adopt and 2. a reasonable interpretation of the resolution in question. Although GenSec has, as a matter of policy, embraced the rule that, as between two reasonable interpretations of a challenged proposal, we will select the one that does not invalidate the resolution, this policy will not save a resolution that fails the above test.
by Grays Harbor » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:46 am
by Bananaistan » Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:18 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:33 am
Advertisement
Return to Secretariat Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement