[CHALLENGE] Repeal "Death Penalty Ban"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Honest mistake

Proposal site-side https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611854548
Archived at https://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/dal ... 611854548/

The repeal proposal states:

Perplexed by the inconsistency of permitting the death penalty under military law...

However, the target actually says that 'the death penalty is abolished except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war'.

'Gloss[ing] over a clear nuance in the meaning of its target' is not permitted under the honest mistake rule. Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" [2018] GAS 9. Mere statement of something false is grounds for removal. Repeal "Ban on Secret Treaties" [2018] GAS 6. There are two problems here.

First, the target does not permit the death penalty in any way. The word permit does not exist in the proposal, or anything similar to it. Permitting something would be to condone or allow it; GA 535 does nothing of the sort. To claim that the target permits the death penalty is not a colourable interpretation thereof.

Second, for the sake of argument, if we pretend that the exception clause in section 1 actually gives permission, it still does not escape the honest mistake rule. The exception applies to 'crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war'. Crimes merely under military law are not subject to the death penalty. Only when such crimes are committed during time of war are they so subject. Claiming that the death penalty is permitted under military law is patently untrue: deserting during peace time (a crime under military law) cannot be punished by the death penalty under section 1.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Oh, this is absurd.

[Bananaistan]

I don't buy the permits things. It bans all X except for Y, therefore it permits Y.

A "crime under a military penal code committed during time of war" is a crime under military law. The allegation in the repeal is true - these crimes are a subset of crimes under military law. Therefore it permits the death penalty under military law even if it's not a complete permission for all possible circumstances "under military law". I think this is fair enough.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't buy the permits things. It bans all X except for Y, therefore it permits Y.

That means it doesn't ban Y. If it permitted Y, it would preclude a future ban on Y, which – in the original thread – we discussed and clarified.

A "crime under a military penal code committed during time of war" is a crime under military law. The allegation in the repeal is true - these crimes are a subset of crimes under military law. Therefore it permits the death penalty under military law even if it's not a complete permission for all possible circumstances "under military law". I think this is fair enough.

First, there's no disagreement as to the scope of military law. In my original post I viewed 'crimes under a military penal code' and 'crimes under military law' to mean the same thing. Instead, what the repeal proposal does the same thing my repeal for On Universal Jurisdiction did. It glosses over the nuance:

But technically the target does not prohibit the creation of an international court (and it may not even prohibit such a court from prosecuting a war crime, assuming that of the 20,000+ member nations, not a single one would claim jurisdiction over the crime or its suspect) . . . While the exaggeration is relatively small, it still glosses over a clear nuance in the meaning of its target. The nuance may go indefinitely without ever being applied, but it does exist. Indeed, the same author's Administrative Compliance Act (co-author credit) establishes a body that is an international court in all but name, albeit one that does not criminally prosecute individuals for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity.

SL's logic is basically 'Oh so you say it stops and international court? Well here's one right here, how did that happen?' And the logic here is exactly the same: Oh so you say it allows capital prosecutions under military law? Well it doesn't allow capital prosecutions of desertion in peace time, which is under military law, how did that happen? If it were true that the death penalty were permitted under military law, then it also would be true that death for desertion in peace time would be permitted. It is not.

[San Finn]

The nation of San Finn takes great pleasure in watching these worthless repealists get obliderated in the vote.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't buy the permits things. It bans all X except for Y, therefore it permits Y.

That means it doesn't ban Y. If it permitted Y, it would preclude a future ban on Y, which – in the original thread – we discussed and clarified.

A "crime under a military penal code committed during time of war" is a crime under military law. The allegation in the repeal is true - these crimes are a subset of crimes under military law. Therefore it permits the death penalty under military law even if it's not a complete permission for all possible circumstances "under military law". I think this is fair enough.

First, there's no disagreement as to the scope of military law. In my original post I viewed 'crimes under a military penal code' and 'crimes under military law' to mean the same thing. Instead, what the repeal proposal does the same thing my repeal for On Universal Jurisdiction did. It glosses over the nuance:

But technically the target does not prohibit the creation of an international court (and it may not even prohibit such a court from prosecuting a war crime, assuming that of the 20,000+ member nations, not a single one would claim jurisdiction over the crime or its suspect) . . . While the exaggeration is relatively small, it still glosses over a clear nuance in the meaning of its target. The nuance may go indefinitely without ever being applied, but it does exist. Indeed, the same author's Administrative Compliance Act (co-author credit) establishes a body that is an international court in all but name, albeit one that does not criminally prosecute individuals for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity.

SL's logic is basically 'Oh so you say it stops and international court? Well here's one right here, how did that happen?' And the logic here is exactly the same: Oh so you say it allows capital prosecutions under military law? Well it doesn't allow capital prosecutions of desertion in peace time, which is under military law, how did that happen? If it were true that the death penalty were permitted under military law, then it also would be true that death for desertion in peace time would be permitted. It is not.

(emphasis omitted )

The logic is not, in fact, identical. In the precedential repeal, the repeal explicitly alleged that all possible roles of an international court are foreclosed. In the instant repeal, there is no such universal claim (in fact it is this challenge that alleges the repeal, by using a general term, must mean the universal).

In other words:

Repeal OUJ: All international court proceedings are prohibited! (Check: are all such proceedings banned? If any proceedings are permitted, the statement is false.)
1. All C are prohibited (there exists no C).
2. C. (there's a C right there)
3. Therefore (1) is false.

Repeal DPB: Executions under military law are permitted. (Check: Are executions under military law permitted? If any such executions are permitted, the statement is true.)
1. E is permitted (there exist examples of E)
2. E. (there's an E right there)
3. Therefore (1) is true.

The differences between the first and second case are that the first case makes a universal claim which is easily falsified. The second case makes a simple existential claim (executions are permitted under military law). In the first case, one example is sufficient to falsify the claim. In the second case, one example is sufficient to uphold the claim. A general existential statement does not contradict the denial of a universal claim (i.e. you can deny that all trees are pine trees without claiming that pine trees do not exist). The repeal made an existential statement; in response you are denying the universal claim, but that universal claim does not appear in the repeal. The death penalty can be permitted under military law without nations claiming they will execute all soldiers found guilty of drawing bullet hole penises on gunnery targets.

[Imperium Anglorum]

the repeal explicitly alleged that all possible roles of an international court are foreclosed ... [it claimed] All international court proceedings are prohibited!

No, it didn't. It didn't say that the roles of an international court are foreclosed. It didn't say that all possible such courts are precluded. What rOUJ said was—

Seeing... that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court, (See Wally's copy of rOUJ, currently without edits)

The fantasy that that rOUJ 'explicitly alleged that all possible roles of an international court are foreclosed' is easily disproven just by reading it. Insofar as it didn't actually say 'All international courts are prohibited' or (in your new even-more-anti-textual formulation) 'All possible roles of an international court are prohibited', it made this kind of general claim that an international court is prohibited: 'The repeal [of oUJ] made an existential statement [that there exists a prohibition]; in response you are denying the universal claim, but that universal claim does not appear in [repeal oUJ]'. What kind of court is prohibited? One kind of court. You now say that this should be analysed under a 'any case supports' test. Did oUJ prohibit international courts with exclusive original jurisdiction? Yes. In other terms,

Repeal DPB OUJ: Executions under military law are permitted An international court is prohibited. (Check: Are executions under military law permitted? international courts prohibited? If any such executions courts are permitted prohibited, the statement is true.)
1. E is permitted prohibited (there exist examples of E's prohibition, eg ICC with exclusive original jurisdiction)
2. E stopped. (there's an E stopped right there)
3. Therefore (1) is true.

And before someone tries to advance a distinction between claims of prohibition and claims of action: a claim of prohibition is a claim of action... just that the action is prohibition.

The second case makes a simple existential claim (executions are permitted under military law).

This statement doesn't grapple with the nuance at all, which is that such executions are only legal if for crimes committed during time of war. You asserted previously is an honest mistake: 'While the exaggeration is relatively small, it still glosses over a clear nuance in the meaning of its target'. Even ignoring the test from rOUJ, it still has a second test: exaggeration. There is such an exaggeration. If you want to overrule the (bad) previous precedent go ahead; it'll rid us of this HM interpretation.

The death penalty can be permitted under military law without nations claiming they will execute all soldiers found guilty of drawing bullet hole penises on gunnery targets.

This response is a non sequitur. Instead, what is being claimed is that the target permits death sentences under military law. Nb permit means officially allow (someone) to do something. There are two questions, one of which you ignored:

1. Does the target permit the death penalty? If it did, further bans would be foreclosed. They are not, so it does not permit the death penalty.
   
   
2. Does the target allow death sentences under military law? Your claim now is that a statement needs only one case where it is true. But you rejected that earlier, because otherwise you would have applied a test of trying to find one kind of international court prohibited (eg one with exclusive original jurisdiction). So I would think that a test should be applied to distinguish these cases (which is impossible because a claim that something is stopped is the same as a claim that something, ie the stopping, occurs) or the same standard should be used previously. If using the same standard previously, then glossing over that nuance is prohibited.

Ugh so many typing mistakes.

[Bananaistan]

Seeing as we're doing it this way:

Repeal OUJ: Can the Assembly establish an international court?
1. Yes.
2. It did.
3. Claim is false.

Repeal Death Penalty Ban: Are executions allowed under military law?
1. Yes.
2. Claim is true.

[Separatist Peoples]

Nuance matters but this strikes me as close enough as makes no difference. There's a way to understand it to mean something legal. It's not the most precise wording but to my mind it squeaks past.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Seeing as we're doing it this way:

Repeal OUJ: Can the Assembly establish an international court?
1. Yes.
2. It did.
3. Claim is false.

Repeal Death Penalty Ban: Are executions allowed under military law?
1. Yes.
2. Claim is true.

Can the Bananamen Army in time of peace punish deserters with death?
No.
Claim is false.

EDIT. I'm not sure whether you can't see this or refuse to see it, but these are two different standards for the exact same kind of statement. Missing the point of the claim in favour of reproducing formatting employed to make it doesn't grapple with the argument. A claim made that a certain thing is true can both be disproven with a single counter-example and supported with a single counter-example. My problem with the jurisprudence you have established is that sometimes the former standard is used and sometimes the latter one is used. It is entirely unpredictable which standard is going to be applied. I'd say pick one, but apparently GenSec has decided not to do any of the mental scaffolding except to say in the case of Repeal oUJ, illegal, and for everything else on this count (seemingly including Repeal P Innocents) legal.

Nuance matters but this strikes me as close enough as makes no difference. There's a way to understand it to mean something legal. It's not the most precise wording but to my mind it squeaks past.

Sep's position, however, I can understand. He's been consistent this entire time, voting against illegality on Repeal oUJ and indicating an against vote on this as well. The rule previously established about eliding nuance seems literally to apply only to my repeals and nobody else's. That said, I don't think this position is consistent with how the Secretariat has previously interpreted this question.

While when 'a repeal clause can be reasonably read to be legal, GenSec does so as a matter of policy', Repeal "Ban on Secret Treaties" [2019] GAS 3 (Sierra Lyricalia), to do so here would require contorting the definition of 'permit' into meaning a grant of permission or authorisation. The usage of verbs and adverbs are reviewable under the Honest Mistake rule. Ibid. A permit to put in a swimming pool is very different from a law not prohibiting swimming pools.

Adverbs, not adverts.