NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that a large number of proposals use the word 'mandate' at the beginning of clauses in the sense of 'to make mandatory', for example 'MANDATES that all nations should...'.

While this is perfectly acceptable, it may cause some confusion because 'to mandate' can also mean 'to give someone the authority to so something', without necessarily implying any compulsion, for example 'MANDATES all nations to...'. In some cases the word is relatively unambiguous, but I have also seen cases where it is not clear which is meant.

I would recommend avoiding it and using 'urges' or 'calls upon' instead, or changing the structure of the clause and using a word such as 'proclaims', 'declares', etc., e.g. 'DECLARES that all nations should...'

You might say 'Ah, but doesn't 'urges' or 'calls upon' similarly lack any kind of compulsion?'. Well, in the real world yes, but in our community, the NSUN, no. Unlike 'mandates', there is no ambiguity over what the resolution means because 'to urge' and 'to call upon' clearly display the intention that nations should do something, whereas 'to mandate' can either mean they should do something or they are authorised to do something.

Chief Linguist Dr A. Pedant
Senior Advisor to the Government
The Free Land of Enlightened Aardvarks

You might say 'Ah, but doesn't 'urges' or 'calls upon' similarly lack any kind of compulsion?'. Well, in the real world yes, but in our community, the NSUN, no.

Wrong. Like in the real world, the definitions of a word are the most important aspect. A word like "urges" itself is a compulsionless word, meaning that a resolution that simply urges is one that has no action. Watch how we argue on here about those sometime.

Unlike 'mandates', there is no ambiguity over what the resolution means because 'to urge' and 'to call upon' clearly display the intention that nations should do something, whereas 'to mandate' can either mean they should do something or they are authorised to do something.

Should != will. "Urge" indicates that you should do something, but that it's not mandatory that you do it.

[The following public service announcement is brought to you by The Eternal Kawaii's Conclave of Wisdom.]

Technically, Enlightened Aardvarks is correct here. "Mandate" is normally a noun, meaning roughly the limits of someone's authority. "To mandate", the verb, means to assign a measure of authority to an individual, group, or thing. A UN proposal which mandates that a state do this or that is saying the state has the authority to do it. It doesn't say whether the state has to exercise that authority. For that, a stronger verb is needed, such as "orders" or "requires".

Regarding "should != will". There is a proper legal/contractural distinction between the verbs "shall" and "will":

"John will do x" gives a future prediction of John's behavior, but makes no claim on whether he is expected to do x or not. In contracts, it's used for cases where John is not legally required to act.

"John shall do x" is not just a prediction, but indicates the speaker expects John to do x. In contracts, it's used for cases where John is legally required to act.

UN resolutions should use "shall" when ordering or requiring states to act on something. If it's only a mandate to act, and not a legal requirement to, then the resolution should use "will".

[We now return you to your regularly scheduled UN debate.]

The difference between "shall" and "should" is something that must also be noted in order to fully comprehend the complexities of the language involved.

"Should" indicates an expectation without a prediction, indicating the speaker would like the event to happen but that it is not a requirement.

"Shall" is both an expectation and a requirement, leaving no doubt about whether or not said event will happen.

Technically, Enlightened Aardvarks is correct here. "Mandate" is normally a noun, meaning roughly the limits of someone's authority. "To mandate", the verb, means to assign a measure of authority to an individual, group, or thing. A UN proposal which mandates that a state do this or that is saying the state has the authority to do it. It doesn't say whether the state has to exercise that authority. For that, a stronger verb is needed, such as "orders" or "requires".
'Mandate' is most commonly used as a noun with the meaning above, but when it used as a verb it still has the two meanings I described earlier:

To mandate that someone will/should/shall x = 'To make it mandatory that that someone will/should/shall do x' (and I agree there is some debate about the illocutionary force of will, should or shall, in other words what the words 'do' - also the precise legal definition of these words varies from country to country, or even from judge to judge in some cases)

To mandate someone to do x = 'To give someone the authority to do x'

So although most nations use the former meaning, and hence they are technically compelling nations to do x, I would advise them not to in case either they accidentally choose words which imply the second meaning, or in case someone interprets the clause as having the second meaning. 'Orders' and 'requires' are much clearer, although you might argue that a resolution shouldn't 'order' someone to do something.... In any case if some members interpret 'urge' and 'call upon' as not carrying complusion these words should be avoided, although I suspect clauses beginning with these verbs might still have an effect on nations' stats, irrespective of what the nations think they mean.

Regarding 'shall' and 'will', compare the following two sentences:
'Nobody will help me, I shall drown!!!'
'Nobody shall help me, I will drown!!!'
In which case does the person want someone to rescue them?

The problem with making absolute statements about semantics (the meaning of words) is that semantic values are highly context-dependent. The same word may have a very different meaning depending on which words precede and follow it and even who is using it.

Chief Linguist Dr A. Pedant
Senior Advisor to the Government
The Free Land of Enlightened Aardvarks

"Shall" is both an expectation and a requirement, leaving no doubt about whether or not said event will happen.
But only in the second and third persons. In the first person, it means something that is expected to happen. Much like 'will' in the second and third persons.
However, many people mistakenly use 'will' in the first person, which implies both an expectation and requirement.

However, many people mistakenly use 'will' in the first person, which implies both an expectation and requirement.
However, if many people use it, it is probably not a mistake but rather a changing usage. Unlike certain other languages, English doesn't have a central authority which decides when words and meanings become acceptable. Even the mighty Oxford English Dictionary is descriptive (reflecting changes which have already happened) rather than prescriptive (ruling on which changes are acceptable and which are not).

Chief Linguist Dr A. Pedant
Senior Advisor to the Government
The Free Land of Enlightened Aardvarks

However, if many people use it, it is probably not a mistake but rather a changing usage. Unlike certain other languages, English doesn't have a central authority which decides when words and meanings become acceptable. Even the mighty Oxford English Dictionary is descriptive (reflecting changes which have already happened) rather than prescriptive (ruling on which changes are acceptable and which are not).

Chief Linguist Dr A. Pedant
Senior Advisor to the Government
The Free Land of Enlightened Aardvarks
While I acknowledge that, I should point out that I used to be a grammar nazi, and am still going through the recovery process. Sometimes you just slip into old ways.

But only in the second and third persons. In the first person, it means something that is expected to happen. Much like 'will' in the second and third persons.
However, many people mistakenly use 'will' in the first person, which implies both an expectation and requirement.

Not true. Common modern proper English dictates that "shall" will be used in first person to indicate both the expectation and the action. "Will" simply indicates the action is going to occur. In this case, "shall" and "will" are pretty much used interchangibly.

Yes, even the teaching of how the language works is changing.

Upon reading Dr Pedant's argument, Ecopoeian legislators were seen staring at each other in a sheepish fashion before hunting for thesaurii...

ooc: Bugger the OED - it spells realise, organise, etc with a 'z', not an 's'. Outrageous.