[Legality Challenge] Oceanic Hazardous Waste Disposal Ban

[Gorundu]

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.

[Bears Armed]

GenSec is discussing this.

[Araraukar]

To be fair, #441 doesn't define hazardous waste and is otherwise concerned of freshwater (drinking, irrigation, etc.) pollution. So basically the at-vote proposal is expanding on a random mention in a previous resolution. Which is how all antidiscriminatory resolutions after CoCR have been legal despite technical duplication.

[Bears Armed]

To be fair, #441 doesn't define hazardous waste and is otherwise concerned of freshwater (drinking, irrigation, etc.) pollution. So basically the at-vote proposal is expanding on a random mention in a previous resolution. Which is how all antidiscriminatory resolutions after CoCR have been legal despite technical duplication.

If we presume that the definition here is meant to reply to #441 then, as #441 said nothing along the lines of "as defined in any other GA resolution" it might count effectively as amending #441...
Anyway, there's also the Contradiction that Gorundu pointed out.

[Araraukar]

If we presume that the definition here is meant to reply to #441 then, as #441 said nothing along the lines of "as defined in any other GA resolution" it might count effectively as amending #441...

As would every antidiscriminatory resolution passed since CoCR that basically removes things from CoCR's exception of practical reasons. (Also positive discrimination ones.)

Anyway, there's also the Contradiction that Gorundu pointed out.

Yeah, I was only commenting on the duplication charge.

[Grays Harbor]

On a vote of 6-0 the challenge has been upheld. The at vote proposal is illegal for duplication.

[WayNeacTia]

On a vote of 6-0 the challenge has been upheld. The at vote proposal is illegal for duplication.

Well thank goodness. Now with any luck illegalities like this won't make it to vote in the future.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Is there any way I can fix it for resubmission?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Is there any way I can fix it for resubmission?

Not really, no. I should make a slight correction that we found 6-0 for contradiction (#441 admits of no circumstances in which dumping of hazardous waste is acceptable, ever) and 5-1 for duplication - but that 5 is explicit and inescapable. Under the prevailing interpretation of #441, this cannot be made legal.

As a sober pillar of the community I would advise you to repeal #441 if you would like to legislate in this area; and as a player annoyed by Discarding resolutions at vote, I would applaud any repeal of #441 because any law so rigid and self-important that saving lives is insufficient grounds for an exception to it is just a bad law.

Good luck!

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Is there any way I can fix it for resubmission?

Not really, no. I should make a slight correction that we found 6-0 for contradiction (#441 admits of no circumstances in which dumping of hazardous waste is acceptable, ever) and 5-1 for duplication - but that 5 is explicit and inescapable. Under the prevailing interpretation of #441, this cannot be made legal.

As a sober pillar of the community I would advise you to repeal #441 if you would like to legislate in this area; and as a player annoyed by Discarding resolutions at vote, I would applaud any repeal of #441 because any law so rigid and self-important that saving lives is insufficient grounds for an exception to it is just a bad law.

Good luck!

Great! I'll draft a repeal and replace it with the revised OWDB and a new resolution to cover it's grounds.

I'll have it all up by Sunday.

[Marxist Germany]

RIP

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat *** ¹

By unanimous vote we found the proposal illegal for contradiction, with opinions on duplication varied.

Part I: Controlling Opinion - Illegal (Contradiction) (Sierra Lyricalia, joined by all):

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.

---

Part II: Concurrence - Illegal (Duplication) (Separatist Peoples, joined by Grays Harbor)²:

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.

---

Part III: Concurrence - Legal (No/minor duplication) (Sierra Lyricalia, joined by Bananaistan & Bears Armed):

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.

¹Administrative note: Imperium Anglorum did not engage substantively in discussion of this case, having not been a member of GenSec when it was heard.
²Administrative note: prior to CTE, Sciongrad expressed agreement with the view that there was enough duplication to render the proposal illegal.

Post edits: admin. note added; spelling of "Secretariat" corrected