(Challenge-at vote) oceanic haz waste disp

[Grays Harbor]

Rule broken: Duplication and Contradiction

GA#441 Convention on Freshwater Shortages states:

6. Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply

The proposal in question states:

Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous waste, materials containing hazardous waste, or materials known to break down into hazardous waste, by governments or corporations, into oceans or water bodies that feed into oceans

The two clauses overlap in large part, constituting duplication. While there is some difference, such as that the proposal only prohibits intentional disposal while GA#441 prohibits all disposal, or that the proposal includes "materials containing hazardous waste" and "materials known to break down into hazardous waste" in addition to simply hazardous waste, it can still be seen the two clauses do duplicate. Although the proposal in question includes a definition for "hazardous waste" in its previous clauses while GA#441 does not, it would not be reasonable to interpret that the same phrase in GA#441 would cover entirely different things to the definition in the proposal in question.

As a further note, the following clause in the proposal in question

Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation involving the potential for the immediate loss of life, massive property damage, or national security threat

would constitute Contradiction to GA#441, as GA#441 does not make provisions for any exceptions.

We have a challenge. It may have some merit, at least for what was pointedly out, as there does appear to be overlap between the two. The question is, is it too much of an overlap? Enough to make it illegal for duplication?

Maybe it is. I’m at work right now so I can’t dive deeper at the moment, but on the surface, with what is quoted, I may well be leaning towards “illegal for duplication”.

Thoughts?

[Bears Armed]

Oops! I overlooked #441 (but then, so did everybody else in the drafting thread...).
Duplication and contradiction, agreed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Agreed w BA.

Sorry, limited on keyboard typing for immediate future

[Grays Harbor]

That’s 3 of us now. 1 more and ask mods to discard?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I believe the at-vote proposal constitutes an acceptable elaboration of an existing broad or non-detailed law (of the kind we often cite as a civil rights follow-up to CoCR), and as such does not count as duplication of GAR #441 (whose main focus is not specifically on waterborne waste dumping). But the contradiction located at Clause 4 of the at-vote proposal is undeniable and unavoidable - the existing law makes no exceptions whatsoever, so no subsequent proposal may make any either.

Illegal.

[Bananaistan]

I believe the at-vote proposal constitutes an acceptable elaboration of an existing broad or non-detailed law (of the kind we often cite as a civil rights follow-up to CoCR), and as such does not count as duplication of GAR #441 (whose main focus is not specifically on waterborne waste dumping). But the contradiction located at Clause 4 of the at-vote proposal is undeniable and unavoidable - the existing law makes no exceptions whatsoever, so no subsequent proposal may make any either.

Illegal.

I not sure if there's enough elaboration but I agree regarding contradiction.

[Sciongrad]

I think it's illegal for both contradiction and duplication. I agree with SL's take on the duplication rule, I just don't think this proposal really elaborates on the original very much.

[Sciongrad]

Did we ever release an opinion on this?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Did we ever release an opinion on this?

No. Here is the challenge thread, here is the drafting thread.

I appear to have been the only one who was sure that this was only illegal for contradiction, and not duplication.

[Sciongrad]

To compensate for my delinquency over the past year, I can take this one as well, unless someone else wants it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This also appears to be lacking a promised formal opinion. At a year plus one and a half months, this might be our record...

[Separatist Peoples]

This also appears to be lacking a promised formal opinion. At a year plus one and a half months, this might be our record...

On it. See below in a few minutes. I'm putting together very brief opinions.

[Separatist Peoples]

I agree on the main opinion and respectfully submit that the duplication question is in need of further exploration. While agreement on the Contradiction rule is sufficient in its own right, I maintain the Duplication issue is significant. Clause 6 of GAR#441 states as follows:

“Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply”

The proposal that is the subject of this challenge states:
“Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous waste, materials containing hazardous waste, or materials known to break down into hazardous waste, by governments or corporations, into oceans or water bodies that feed into oceans”

Minor duplication is acceptable where it intends to expand on a topic. We generally consider whether the majority of the proposal that is itself duplicative. To do so, we both consider the overall effect of the clauses that conflict and the overall amount of proposal dedicated to duplication.

Here, only one clause of the proposal is realistically duplicative. However, the text of both clauses prevent precisely the same activity: discharge of dangerous waste into oceans. There is no expansion, and whatever policy gains by the proposal do not spare it from such clear duplication. As such, the proposal is illegal for violating the Duplication rule as well.

So ordered by Ye Pink Rangers.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This challenge is based on the Duplication rule. Clause 6. Of GAR#441 states as follows:

“Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply”

The proposal that is the subject of this challenge states:
“Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous waste, materials containing hazardous waste, or materials known to break down into hazardous waste, by governments or corporations, into oceans or water bodies that feed into oceans”

Minor duplication is acceptable where it intends to expand on a topic. We generally consider whether the majority of the proposal that is itself duplicative. To do so, we both consider the overall effect of the clauses that conflict and the overall amount of proposal dedicated to duplication.

Here, only one clause of the proposal is realistically duplicative. However, the text of both clauses prevent precisely the same activity: discharge of dangerous waste into oceans. There is no expansion, and whatever policy gains by the proposal do not spare it from such clear duplication. As such, the proposal is illegal for violating the Duplication rule.

So ordered by Ye Pink Rangers.

I didn't actually think it was that cut and dry of a duplication issue. The problem was that the existing resolution prohibits intentional disposal of hazardous waste in all possible circumstances, full stop; while the proposal "Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation," which directly contradicts the existing prohibition on all waste disposal. As seen in this very thread, everyone agrees as to the contradiction, so that should be the controlling factor.

[Bananaistan]

I didn't actually think it was that cut and dry of a duplication issue. The problem was that the existing resolution prohibits intentional disposal of hazardous waste in all possible circumstances, full stop; while the proposal "Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation," which directly contradicts the existing prohibition on all waste disposal. As seen in this very thread, everyone agrees as to the contradiction, so that should be the controlling factor.

Agreed regarding contradiction being the main factor.

[Bears Armed]

I didn't actually think it was that cut and dry of a duplication issue. The problem was that the existing resolution prohibits intentional disposal of hazardous waste in all possible circumstances, full stop; while the proposal "Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation," which directly contradicts the existing prohibition on all waste disposal. As seen in this very thread, everyone agrees as to the contradiction, so that should be the controlling factor.

Agreed regarding contradiction being the main factor.

That does make sense, yes, agreed.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Bump.

Sep, if you're swamped I can write up something to explicate the contradiction issue sometime this week...

[Imperium Anglorum]

This post is custodial only.

It appears there is a draft opinion by Sep at viewtopic.php?p=38943579#p38943579. But it doesn't appear that SL, Banana, and BA signed on to Sep's opinion. Both SL and Scion mooted drafting an opinion, but Scion is gone now.

Votes appear as follows:

Re duplication
IL: GH, Sep, Scion
L: SL, Banana, BA (per change)?

Re contradiction
IL: BA, Sep, SL, Scion, Banana
No response: GH?

If an Op could be written on the contradiction question – given that Scion is gone, that vote can't be meaningfully processed, imo – this could finally get settled.

[Separatist Peoples]

Edited and added the bit on duplication.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Edited and added the bit on duplication.

Votes appear as follows:

Re duplication
IL: GH, Sep, Scion
L: SL, Banana, BA (per change)?

Re contradiction
IL: BA, Sep, SL, Scion, Banana
No response: GH?

...I can write up something to explicate the contradiction issue sometime this week...

Proposed majority (controlling) opinion:

We are asked to determine the legality of the proposal "Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban." Specifically, does the proposal duplicate or contradict the existing GAR #441?

We reach no agreement on the duplication question; see concurrences for more information. Meanwhile, the contradiction is plain. The existing resolution prohibits intentional disposal of hazardous waste in all possible circumstances, full stop; while the proposal "Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation," which directly contradicts the existing prohibition on all waste disposal. While it may be unwise for the existing resolution to be so rigid (e.g. if the dumping and replacement of radioactive coolant might prevent a nuclear meltdown), or legislators IRL would immediately amend the relevant language to permit such emergency dumping, the law here is quite clear: no dumping shall take place, at all. The proposal's attempt to carve out a situation where emergency dumping is legal, while perhaps wise and forward-thinking, is nevertheless an inescapable contradiction, and we therefore find the proposal illegal.

Concurrence as to sufficiently minor duplication (legal but for contradiction):

I find there is not enough duplication to render the challenged proposal illegal for duplication. #441's focus is on freshwater resources in a broad sense, while this proposal deals with oceanic and ocean-adjacent dumping of hazardous wastes. Both resolutions, given their particular foci, have good reason to issue their own prohibitions on dumping waste; so I am inclined to rule simply on principle that an overlapping plank apiece in otherwise non-overlapping resolutions should be legal. But even in the absence of that general principle I would still see not enough overlap in the particular case. GAR #441 states:

6. Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply

...while the challenged proposal states:

Prohibits the intentional disposal of hazardous waste, materials containing hazardous waste, or materials known to break down into hazardous waste, by governments or corporations, into oceans or water bodies that feed into oceans

The common elements there are 1) dumping, 2) oceans, and 3) governments and businesses. #441 also mentions international waters and the public drinking supply, which the challenged proposal does not. Meanwhile the challenged proposal rules on not just the wastes themselves, but also materials that break down into such waste, and adds "all water bodies that feed into oceans," a class of water on which #441 is silent. The two particular clauses at issue are therefore themselves focused differently enough that any duplication must be classed as minor. I and my co-signers therefore believe the challenged proposal legal on the duplication question.

We are asked to determine the legality of the proposal "Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban." Specifically, does the proposal duplicate or contradict the existing GAR #441?

We have insufficient agreement to reach a conclusion on the duplication question. While minor duplication has always been acceptable as a means of elaborating - in a specific niche - on existing broad-scope laws, the question of whether this proposal's duplication counts as "minor" cannot be reached at this time. On the one hand, #441's focus is on freshwater resources, while this proposal deals with oceanic and ocean-adjacent dumping of hazardous wastes. On the other hand, they are both environmental laws dealing with water. One of the arguers that the duplication is not minor was Sciongrad, who has long since CTE'd; other arguments for this position were unfocused, desultory, and lackluster. We therefore reach no conclusion on Duplication here.

Meanwhile, the contradiction is plain. The existing resolution prohibits intentional disposal of hazardous waste in all possible circumstances, full stop; while the proposal "Provides an exception to waste disposed of in an effort to mitigate an acute unforeseen situation," which directly contradicts the existing prohibition on all waste disposal. While it may be unwise for the existing resolution to be so rigid (e.g. if the dumping and replacement of radioactive coolant might prevent a nuclear meltdown), or legislators IRL would immediately amend the relevant language to permit such emergency dumping, the law here is quite clear: no dumping shall take place, at all. The proposal's attempt to carve out a situation where emergency dumping is legal, while perhaps wise and forward-thinking, is nevertheless an inescapable contradiction, and we therefore find the proposal illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay now there are two duelling opinion drafts, I think, one from Sep and one from SL. Could you workshop or synthesis them?

We therefore ignore the question here.

I think a better way to phrase this would probably be to say that GenSec did not reach agreement on it. That's more accurate – there was a tie on the matter – and no meaningful discussion was had.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Okay now there are two duelling opinion drafts, I think, one from Sep and one from SL. Could you workshop or synthesis them?

We therefore ignore the question here.

I think a better way to phrase this would probably be to say that GenSec did not reach agreement on it. That's more accurate – there was a tie on the matter – and no meaningful discussion was had.

Language altered. I should have been explicit instead of using the eyeroll emoji - my apologies. Sep's draft is unacceptable to me because it focuses primarily on duplication, which I still contend is minor to the point of near irrelevance in this case, and which nobody argued for with more vigor than "I'm not sure this is enough elaboration"; and it relegates the contradiction - which we all agree on, and which three of us explicitly stated is the "main" or "controlling factor" - to three miniscule sentences at the very end. If the remaining four (SP/BA/Ban/GH) have now discovered a strong conviction that the duplication is actually substantial, fine - replace Sep's last paragraph with my last paragraph and I'll sign it "as to the contradiction issue only."

If they have not, then my draft should be used in its entirety.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If there's no majority on the duplication one, then I propose a framework like this:

– The main opinion on contradiction
– Concurring on duplication (minor duplication legal)
– Concurring on duplication (duplication too minor → illegal)

The concurrings shouldn't require full votes, which would expedite this process. At the same time, this would give a clear answer on the contradiction question and making it also clear where different members lie on the duplication question.

[Separatist Peoples]

If there's no majority on the duplication one, then I propose a framework like this:

– The main opinion on contradiction
– Concurring on duplication (minor duplication legal)
– Concurring on duplication (duplication too minor → illegal)

The concurrings shouldn't require full votes, which would expedite this process. At the same time, this would give a clear answer on the contradiction question and making it also clear where different members lie on the duplication question.

This works for me.