[DRAFT] Person-Sourced Meat Prohibition Act

[Chipoli]

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild

Person-Sourced Meat Prohibition Act

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all sapient beings, as well as the significance of respecting their rights to life, liberty, and security,

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals without their consent, which constitutes a severe violation of sapient rights and dignity,

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease and infection transmission,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. “Person-sourced meat” is defined as any meat, flesh, or tissue obtained from a person.
2. The following activities are outlawed in all member states:
   
   1. The manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession of any food or product which is sourced from or contains person-sourced meat.
   2. The trade or transportation of any person-sourced meat for consumption or use in any product.
   3. The participation in any form of cannibalism or harvesting of human flesh or tissue from anyone without their consent.
   4. The importation of person-sourced meats.
3. Member states that allow the violation of clause 2 within their jurisdiction shall be subject to fines to encourage compliance.
4. No clause may be implemented that would violate this resolution except for any subordinating or excluding clause, including any other similar clause with such effect, or a clause that would postpone the commencement of such a violating clause until a later date or occurrence.
5. This resolution does not ban any forms of organ donation on a voluntary basis, nor prohibits scientific uses of person-sourced flesh or any religious practice that claims to use human-sourced meat while not doing so.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

This was inspired by IA's draft. He has been credited as the co-author.

[Chipoli]

Reserved for future drafts.

[Maricela Gutierrez]

Ms. Gutierrez: "Oh! Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. You seemed to pop up out of nowhere! Nice to meet you, Misssssttt—?" (Ms. Gutierrez squints.)

Ms. Gutierrez: (brightly) "Very nice to meet you, Ambassador—goodness, I am in need of an optometrist, because if you have a nameplate I can't make it out. But it is good to meet you anyway! I am Maricela Gutierrez, leader of Maricela Gutierrez, representing Maricela Gutierrez!"

Ms. Gutierrez: "As for the draft: at least as its written, I must object! Your decision to use the term "cannibalism" in clause 2d makes this document implicitly, if not overwhelmingly, Protestant, or at least at risk of abuse by Protestant-dominated governments. Throughout certain worlds of the multiverse, Catholics have for centuries had to deal with Protestants' accusations of cannibalism for consuming the Host as the real presence and body of Christ."

Ms. Gutierrez: "The theology doesn't matter as much as the power of that accusation and the potential for abusing the phrase 'any form of cannibalism.' What is a Catholic citizen to say to a Protestant government which determines that the Catholic host is a 'form of cannibalism' (language from clause 2D) and violation of 'human... dignity' (language from the second prefatory clause) and therefore applies this resolution as a prohibition on consuming the Catholic host? And since this will be enshrined in World Assembly law, our hypothetical Protestant-dominated government might determine that eliminating cannibalism is 'vital for the furtherment of a secular interest' and outweighs interest in the religious rights otherwise provided for in GAR#635."

Ms. Gutierrez: "I understand Ambassador... the Ambassador's concerns about person-sourced meat, so I hope a solution to this issue might be possible."

(Ms. Gutierrez sets the draft down and takes a few deep breaths, seemingly winded.)

[Therimenjas]

Speaking on behalf of the Solar Riot Consortium, we would like to note that the draft speaks consistently of "person" but then uses the word "human" in clause 2.d, which seems erroneous.

A larger albeit more subjective error seems to arise in clause 1, where the definition of a person is determined by the jurisdiction from which the meat was obtained. While this legislation would substantially undermine the trade in person-sourced meat, some jurisdictions may resort to declaring anyone whose meat is harvested "not a person" in order to remain as legal origin points of person-sourced meat. Allowing local determination permits this particular act of malicious compliance.

Furthermore, we would note that clause 2.d prohibits "harvesting of human flesh or tissue," which could be read to ban organ transplants.

[Kenmoria]

“On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I would like to submit the following comments on this draft.”

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild

Person-Sourced Meat Prohibition Act

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all human beings, as well as the significance of respecting their right to life, liberty, and security, Why is it only human beings whose dignity the General Assembly is protecting? It seems to me that all sapient beings, of which humans are but one example, ought to have a degree of moral weight recognised by this institution. Furthermore, the “right to life, liberty, and security” is three rights, rather than one, so I suggest substituting “rights” for “right” here.

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals, which constitutes a severe violation of human rights and dignity, I would appreciate seeing some elaboration here. How is the use of parts from an individual a violation of that person’s dignity. If Alice chooses to donate an organ to Bob and is allowed to do so, that hardly violates Alice’s dignity, but rather exemplifies it, by granting Alice that choice. My prior point about the anthropocentrism latent in mentioning only “human rights” also stands.

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease transmission and infection transmission, It would be simpler to write “disease and infection transmission here”.

Recognizing member states' responsibility to regulate and prohibit activities that endanger the health and well-being of their citizens, as well as to uphold the standards for moral and sustainable meat sourcing, This clause is a very strange one. The entire purpose of this proposal is that the General Assembly is imposing regulations, rather than individual member-nations. It is thus a non sequitur to be mentioning the responsibility of individual states.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. “Person-sourced meat” is defined as any meat, flesh, or tissue obtained from a person. The definition of a "person" shall be determined by the jurisdiction from which the meat was obtained. Given that determination by jurisdictions is the default, I cannot see any reason for the second sentence of this clause to exist.
2. The following activities are outlawed in all member states when dealing with person-sourced meat(s): “Meat” is a collective noun, so the “(s)” here is unnecessary. It is also slightly illogical to be mentioning that these regulations apply only where dealing with person-sourced meat, seeing as each clause necessarily applies to person-sourced meat. I encourage your Excellency to simply rewrite this to the following: “The following activities are outlawed in all member states:”.
   
   1. The manufacturing, sale, and distribution of any food or product which is sourced from or contains person-sourced meat. Quite correctly, “selling” and “distributing” are not used here, so “manufacturing” ought likewise not to be. A substitution of “manufacture” would make this flow more easily. I also disagree entirely with this clause, on the basis that there is not sufficient reasoning in the preamble to justify such a mandate. I would like to see some analysis of why person-sourced meat, specifically the consumption thereof, is inherently negative. There are risks of health, but these are far less than some substances that are entirely allowed by the General Assembly, such as alcohol and tobacco. Therefore, the argument about dignity is the only viable argument. However, as the preamble currently stands, the argument is incorrect, and it serves to diminish rather than uplift dignity. Resultantly, this clause cannot be supported. A far more persuasive preamble is required, for this clause to be acceptable.
   2. The trade, or transportation of any person-sourced meat for consumption or use in any product. There should not be a comma in this clause.
   3. The possession of person-sourced meat. This could be combined into clause 2a with very little difficulty.
   4. The participation in any form of cannibalism or harvesting of human flesh or tissue. This bans the donation of organs. I would very, very, very strongly suggest that your Excellency does not ban the donation of organs, which is a vital practice that helps to save countless lives throughout the General Assembly, particularly the most vulnerable in its assembled nations. The People’s Republic of Kenmoria would stand opposed to any such measure.
3. Each member state must prohibit the importation of person-sourced meats into its jurisdiction, according to its definition of a person. This should be combined into clause 2, for the sake of clarity. I further suggest that concision is achieved by removing “according to its definition of a person” from this clause. Not only is that unnecessary anyway, it is also already present in clause 1.
4. Member states that allow the violation of clause 2 within their jurisdiction shall be subject to fines to encourage compliance. This has been achieved by GA #440, Administrative Compliance Act, so mention here is not required, and is indeed surplus to requirements.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

[Simone Republic]

“On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I would like to submit the following comments on this draft.”

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild

Person-Sourced Meat Prohibition Act

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all human beings, as well as the significance of respecting their right to life, liberty, and security, Why is it only human beings whose dignity the General Assembly is protecting? It seems to me that all sapient beings, of which humans are but one example, ought to have a degree of moral weight recognised by this institution. Furthermore, the “right to life, liberty, and security” is three rights, rather than one, so I suggest substituting “rights” for “right” here.

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals, which constitutes a severe violation of human rights and dignity, I would appreciate seeing some elaboration here. How is the use of parts from an individual a violation of that person’s dignity. If Alice chooses to donate an organ to Bob and is allowed to do so, that hardly violates Alice’s dignity, but rather exemplifies it, by granting Alice that choice. My prior point about the anthropocentrism latent in mentioning only “human rights” also stands.

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease transmission and infection transmission, It would be simpler to write “disease and infection transmission here”.

Recognizing member states' responsibility to regulate and prohibit activities that endanger the health and well-being of their citizens, as well as to uphold the standards for moral and sustainable meat sourcing, This clause is a very strange one. The entire purpose of this proposal is that the General Assembly is imposing regulations, rather than individual member-nations. It is thus a non sequitur to be mentioning the responsibility of individual states.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. “Person-sourced meat” is defined as any meat, flesh, or tissue obtained from a person. The definition of a "person" shall be determined by the jurisdiction from which the meat was obtained. Given that determination by jurisdictions is the default, I cannot see any reason for the second sentence of this clause to exist.
2. The following activities are outlawed in all member states when dealing with person-sourced meat(s): “Meat” is a collective noun, so the “(s)” here is unnecessary. It is also slightly illogical to be mentioning that these regulations apply only where dealing with person-sourced meat, seeing as each clause necessarily applies to person-sourced meat. I encourage your Excellency to simply rewrite this to the following: “The following activities are outlawed in all member states:”.
   
   1. The manufacturing, sale, and distribution of any food or product which is sourced from or contains person-sourced meat. Quite correctly, “selling” and “distributing” are not used here, so “manufacturing” ought likewise not to be. A substitution of “manufacture” would make this flow more easily. I also disagree entirely with this clause, on the basis that there is not sufficient reasoning in the preamble to justify such a mandate. I would like to see some analysis of why person-sourced meat, specifically the consumption thereof, is inherently negative. There are risks of health, but these are far less than some substances that are entirely allowed by the General Assembly, such as alcohol and tobacco. Therefore, the argument about dignity is the only viable argument. However, as the preamble currently stands, the argument is incorrect, and it serves to diminish rather than uplift dignity. Resultantly, this clause cannot be supported. A far more persuasive preamble is required, for this clause to be acceptable.
   2. The trade, or transportation of any person-sourced meat for consumption or use in any product. There should not be a comma in this clause.
   3. The possession of person-sourced meat. This could be combined into clause 2a with very little difficulty.
   4. The participation in any form of cannibalism or harvesting of human flesh or tissue. This bans the donation of organs. I would very, very, very strongly suggest that your Excellency does not ban the donation of organs, which is a vital practice that helps to save countless lives throughout the General Assembly, particularly the most vulnerable in its assembled nations. The People’s Republic of Kenmoria would stand opposed to any such measure.
3. Each member state must prohibit the importation of person-sourced meats into its jurisdiction, according to its definition of a person. This should be combined into clause 2, for the sake of clarity. I further suggest that concision is achieved by removing “according to its definition of a person” from this clause. Not only is that unnecessary anyway, it is also already present in clause 1.
4. Member states that allow the violation of clause 2 within their jurisdiction shall be subject to fines to encourage compliance. This has been achieved by GA #440, Administrative Compliance Act, so mention here is not required, and is indeed surplus to requirements.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

Concur with clause 4 not being necessary due to GA#440.

I hate this topic and I just want it over and done with. I don't want yet more coverage from tabloids about grisly murders that involve cannibalism.

[Chipoli]

The draft has been updated, I'll work on adding a preamble in the future.

[The Ice States]

"Section 2a lacks a comma between sale and distribution."

"While we support the principle, we are opposed due to Sections 2c and 2a including the consumption and simple possession of person-sourced meats. We do not find the mere possession or consumption of person-sourced meats to be sufficiently problematic to merit prohibiting; and placing oneself in danger by choosing to participate in cannibalism is hardly an offence which merits being universally proscribed."

"If the draft is amended to only address the trading and production of person-sourced meats, we would support this."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Maricela Gutierrez]

Ms. Gutierrez takes a copy of the new draft.

Ms. Gutierrez: "The, uh, strong and silent type, I see? Well, as nice as concision is, the new clause 2c has the same anti-Catholic possibilities as the old clause 2d which I pointed out earlier. It also retains the same problem the— (Ms. Gutierrez squints) —errrr, the same problem that the Kenmorian delegation pointed out, where prohibiting people in member states from harvesting human tissue would prohibit retrieving organs from donors and donor bodies."

[Imperium Anglorum]

“On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I would like to submit the following comments on this draft.”

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild

Person-Sourced Meat Prohibition Act

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all human beings, as well as the significance of respecting their right to life, liberty, and security, Why is it only human beings whose dignity the General Assembly is protecting? It seems to me that all sapient beings, of which humans are but one example, ought to have a degree of moral weight recognised by this institution. Furthermore, the “right to life, liberty, and security” is three rights, rather than one, so I suggest substituting “rights” for “right” here.

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals, which constitutes a severe violation of human rights and dignity, I would appreciate seeing some elaboration here. How is the use of parts from an individual a violation of that person’s dignity. If Alice chooses to donate an organ to Bob and is allowed to do so, that hardly violates Alice’s dignity, but rather exemplifies it, by granting Alice that choice. My prior point about the anthropocentrism latent in mentioning only “human rights” also stands.

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease transmission and infection transmission, It would be simpler to write “disease and infection transmission here”.

Recognizing member states' responsibility to regulate and prohibit activities that endanger the health and well-being of their citizens, as well as to uphold the standards for moral and sustainable meat sourcing, This clause is a very strange one. The entire purpose of this proposal is that the General Assembly is imposing regulations, rather than individual member-nations. It is thus a non sequitur to be mentioning the responsibility of individual states.

Hereby enacts the following:

1. “Person-sourced meat” is defined as any meat, flesh, or tissue obtained from a person. The definition of a "person" shall be determined by the jurisdiction from which the meat was obtained. Given that determination by jurisdictions is the default, I cannot see any reason for the second sentence of this clause to exist.
2. The following activities are outlawed in all member states when dealing with person-sourced meat(s): “Meat” is a collective noun, so the “(s)” here is unnecessary. It is also slightly illogical to be mentioning that these regulations apply only where dealing with person-sourced meat, seeing as each clause necessarily applies to person-sourced meat. I encourage your Excellency to simply rewrite this to the following: “The following activities are outlawed in all member states:”.
   
   1. The manufacturing, sale, and distribution of any food or product which is sourced from or contains person-sourced meat. Quite correctly, “selling” and “distributing” are not used here, so “manufacturing” ought likewise not to be. A substitution of “manufacture” would make this flow more easily. I also disagree entirely with this clause, on the basis that there is not sufficient reasoning in the preamble to justify such a mandate. I would like to see some analysis of why person-sourced meat, specifically the consumption thereof, is inherently negative. There are risks of health, but these are far less than some substances that are entirely allowed by the General Assembly, such as alcohol and tobacco. Therefore, the argument about dignity is the only viable argument. However, as the preamble currently stands, the argument is incorrect, and it serves to diminish rather than uplift dignity. Resultantly, this clause cannot be supported. A far more persuasive preamble is required, for this clause to be acceptable.
   2. The trade, or transportation of any person-sourced meat for consumption or use in any product. There should not be a comma in this clause.
   3. The possession of person-sourced meat. This could be combined into clause 2a with very little difficulty.
   4. The participation in any form of cannibalism or harvesting of human flesh or tissue. This bans the donation of organs. I would very, very, very strongly suggest that your Excellency does not ban the donation of organs, which is a vital practice that helps to save countless lives throughout the General Assembly, particularly the most vulnerable in its assembled nations. The People’s Republic of Kenmoria would stand opposed to any such measure.
3. Each member state must prohibit the importation of person-sourced meats into its jurisdiction, according to its definition of a person. This should be combined into clause 2, for the sake of clarity. I further suggest that concision is achieved by removing “according to its definition of a person” from this clause. Not only is that unnecessary anyway, it is also already present in clause 1.
4. Member states that allow the violation of clause 2 within their jurisdiction shall be subject to fines to encourage compliance. This has been achieved by GA #440, Administrative Compliance Act, so mention here is not required, and is indeed surplus to requirements.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

Some of the issues here have been asked answered and resolved already.

Re "specifying jurisdiction is 'pointless' or something". viewtopic.php?p=40072440#p40072440.

Re ACA fines and the complaint of duplication. viewtopic.php?p=39953857#p39953857 , viewtopic.php?f=9&t=523816 , and viewtopic.php?p=39954709#p39954709.

I would advise the author to retain the (quickly and shoddily carefully crafted) language on fines and interpretation – §§ 3 and 5 in the original proposal – and that some commentators familiarise themselves with the subtle wording of some of our resolutions. As to organ donations, I would not support a ban on it and encourage the author to make sure that the proposal is well-tailored.

[Kenmoria]

“On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I would like to submit the following comments on this draft.”

Some of the issues here have been asked answered and resolved already.

Re "specifying jurisdiction is 'pointless' or something". viewtopic.php?p=40072440#p40072440.

Re ACA fines and the complaint of duplication. viewtopic.php?p=39953857#p39953857 , viewtopic.php?f=9&t=523816 , and viewtopic.php?p=39954709#p39954709.

I would advise the author to retain the (quickly and shoddily carefully crafted) language on fines and interpretation – §§ 3 and 5 in the original proposal – and that some commentators familiarise themselves with the subtle wording of some of our resolutions. As to organ donations, I would not support a ban on it and encourage the author to make sure that the proposal is well-tailored.

(OOC: With respect to the specification of jurisdictions, I can see now the utility in that. With regards to duplication of the ACA, however, although I can see that the two do have different effects, I am not sure why they do. Cannibalism is not a particularly egregious or widespread issue, so why should it be treated with a different and potentially more punitive method of enforcement than other comparable instances of noncompliance?)

[Tinhampton]

I'd say "as threatened" but apparently I didn't leave an earlier post offering future comments. So, as is my usual form:

Eating Away at Cannibalism

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that all persons enjoy the rights to life, liberty and security, and that these rights manifest themselves in bodily sovereignty,

Horrified that some member states nevertheless condone the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from persons, which not only violates these rights but also opens consumers up to the risk of fatal or life-changing infections,

Convinced that, in order to curtail these abuses, sweeping measures must be taken to challenge the scourge of cannibalism,

Hereby:

1. defines “person-sourced meat” as any meat, flesh, or tissue obtained from a person,
2. requires all member states to outlaw the manufacture, sale, distribution, transportation (including importation), possession, and consumption of any food or product which is sourced from or contains person-sourced meat, subject to Article c, and
3. clarifies that this resolution neither forbids voluntary organ donation (including opt-out donation schemes), nor restricts any religious practice which purports to use, but does not actually use, person-sourced meat.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

(You may additionally cite Tinhampton as a co-author if you believe this to be of great utility.)

[Simone Republic]

Re ACA fines and the complaint of duplication. viewtopic.php?p=39953857#p39953857 , viewtopic.php?f=9&t=523816 , and viewtopic.php?p=39954709#p39954709.[/blocktext]
I would advise the author to retain the (quickly and shoddily carefully crafted) language on fines and interpretation – §§ 3 and 5 in the original proposal – and that some commentators familiarise themselves with the subtle wording of some of our resolutions. As to organ donations, I would not support a ban on it and encourage the author to make sure that the proposal is well-tailored.

This was originally your resolution, Chipoli can't submit without your approval anyway. Why don't you go back and edit and submit your original draft?

[Chipoli]

Re ACA fines and the complaint of duplication. viewtopic.php?p=39953857#p39953857 , viewtopic.php?f=9&t=523816 , and viewtopic.php?p=39954709#p39954709.[/blocktext]
I would advise the author to retain the (quickly and shoddily carefully crafted) language on fines and interpretation – §§ 3 and 5 in the original proposal – and that some commentators familiarise themselves with the subtle wording of some of our resolutions. As to organ donations, I would not support a ban on it and encourage the author to make sure that the proposal is well-tailored.

This was originally your resolution, Chipoli can't submit without your approval anyway. Why don't you go back and edit and submit your original draft?

IA previously stated that he will: "...release this draft for general use, provided that I am credited as co-author." I could be misinterpreting things but that surely counts as giving approval.

On another note, I'll wait for more feedback as the commentators here appear to have conflicting opinions with one another.

[Chipoli]

“On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I would like to submit the following comments on this draft.”

Some of the issues here have been asked answered and resolved already.

Re "specifying jurisdiction is 'pointless' or something". viewtopic.php?p=40072440#p40072440.

Re ACA fines and the complaint of duplication. viewtopic.php?p=39953857#p39953857 , viewtopic.php?f=9&t=523816 , and viewtopic.php?p=39954709#p39954709.

I would advise the author to retain the (quickly and shoddily carefully crafted) language on fines and interpretation – §§ 3 and 5 in the original proposal – and that some commentators familiarise themselves with the subtle wording of some of our resolutions. As to organ donations, I would not support a ban on it and encourage the author to make sure that the proposal is well-tailored.

Upon consideration, I have decided to follow your advice. I've also removed the anti-catholic intent and organ donation ban.

[Chipoli]

Bump.

[Kenmoria]

“Your preamble successfully identifies that harvesting of flesh from a person, without that person’s consent, is an affront of the dignity of that person. However, the second active clauses which is the most important mandate of the proposal, has no exception for where a person has consented. This contradiction is unsatisfying, and I suggest that it is resolved by redefining the clause to focus on cannibalism without consent.”

[Chipoli]

“Your preamble successfully identifies that harvesting of flesh from a person, without that person’s consent, is an affront of the dignity of that person. However, the second active clauses which is the most important mandate of the proposal, has no exception for where a person has consented. This contradiction is unsatisfying, and I suggest that it is resolved by redefining the clause to focus on cannibalism without consent.”

I have taken on this advice. Barring any major flaws, I intend to submit this on May 4th.

[Juansonia]

OOC: Clause 2(subclauses a,b, and d) ban organ donation and scientific uses of person-sourced flesh.
2.a bans the manufacture, distribution, and possession of all products which contain or are sourced from person-sourced flesh
2.b bans the trade and transportation of person-sourced flesh for use in any product ("consumption" could also refer to non-eating uses)
2.d importation of person-sourced flesh

While Juansonia, Maria-Fernanda Novo, and I are all opposed to this, I felt like pointing something out.

[Chipoli]

OOC: Clause 2(subclauses a,b, and d) ban organ donation and scientific uses of person-sourced flesh.
2.a bans the manufacture, distribution, and possession of all products which contain or are sourced from person-sourced flesh
2.b bans the trade and transportation of person-sourced flesh for use in any product ("consumption" could also refer to non-eating uses)
2.d importation of person-sourced flesh

While Juansonia, Maria-Fernanda Novo, and I are all opposed to this, I felt like pointing something out.

Should be fixed. The submission date is no longer May 4th and will be based on future feedback.

[The Serendipitous]

"This is a nonsensical resolution." An odd take, coming from an odd being. "The consumption of any person is no moral travesty, as this resolution would suggest. The only genuine criticism of this sort of consumption comes through the sourcing, but there are plenty of legitimate and moral means to achieve the proper sourcing. The cultural norms of your nation are not a sound basis for the rest of this Assembly."

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I'm going to assume that the whole cannibal ban is meant to apply on intentional consumption of people's flesh. And not apply all the way down to single cells being transmitted by air or water or kisses involving tongues, or more adult actions that I can't remember if the forum age limit allows me to mention.

EDIT: But what the heck is clause 4 about? I'm tired and about to head to bed but I doubt it'd make sense even if I wasn't tired.

EDIT 2: Is it trying to say that future resolutions can contradict this one?

EDIT 3: It's the "can't contradict except for" kind of wording that makes me think so.

[The Ice States]

I would suggest changing "except for" to "but for" (the original wording in IA's draft) in Section 4 for clarity. But otherwise, the clause does the exact opposite of what Araraukar asserts thinks it does.

[Potted Plants United]

I would suggest changing "except for" to "but for" (the original wording in IA's draft) in Section 4 for clarity. But otherwise, the clause does the exact opposite of what Araraukar asserts it does.

OOC: I don't assert anything. I was asking.

[Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries]

What is the definition of a person?