Believing that WASP acting exactly as it is told to act would be forced to note every "relatively dense" metal as potentially toxic, and as such every "relatively dense" metal shall be a toxic heavy metal as defined by GA#371,
I argued in a short essay that WA committees should be taken to interpret their duties and also to take actions under the same framework we apply to nations. This was for three reasons (of course, explored at more length in the essay):
- Using a different test in this case over-legalises the game;
- the determination of the specific "canonical" interpretation that a World Assembly organisation would in fact take is unclear and likely impossible;
- the convention that there exists some kind of executive in the World Assembly implies multiple interpreters across multiple times that provide the variation needed to permit multiple plausible interpretations.
No reasonable nation would interpret "potentially toxic" to mean "literally anything that is relatively dense" because doing so would be self-detrimental to almost all nations. Applying the same standard means that no committee would do so. That no committee would do so means this argument bears no relation to international or national practice and is an honest mistake under Repeal "Responsibility in Transferring Arms" [2017] GAS 8.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=505487
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1