Challenged proposal: Repeal: “On Scientific Cooperation”
Thread: here
Rule: Honest Mistake
Clauses in question:
Clause 3 of the challenged resolution:
That this resolution fails to take into account the censorship of materials given clause 1(c)’s notation that materials may not be disseminated if they are “illegal under extant national or sub national law”. States could make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus. Thus, the failure to consider malicious states misrepresenting scientific data undermines the goals of this resolution.
Clause 1(c) of the repeal target:
Hereby tasks the WASP with the following mandate; [...] To disseminate to any citizen of any member nation of this assembly any of this literature upon request excepting only that which is illegal under extant national or sub national law.
Clauses 1(a) and 3 of resolution 436 "Protecting Free Expression":
Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:
"free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
[...]
Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation,
Argument:
I contend that there is no way for member states to "make parts of scientific study illegal and thus prevent the dissemination of materials from the WASP regarding the scientific consensus" that would not contradict resolution 436. This would be a restriction on the freedom of expression of the author of such a study, that would not be covered under clause 2 of resolution 436, and hence illegal under clause 3 of the same resolution. Resolution 436 does not cover freedom of expression for non-individuals, but this is (I argue) irrelevant here as the WASP is only disseminating studies and not authoring them.