NationStates Jolt Archive

Asking the following question:
I do have a question, though. If a passed resolution defines a term, then is that term applicable across the board, or does it just apply to that single resolution? For instance, the Child Protection Act defines child as "being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation". The Restrictions on Child Labor act also defines 'minor' this way. It's been a question I have always pondered, but haven't found any precedence to suggest a yes or a no.

I received the following answers:
The Theocracy of Harmonious Treefolk has not had a representative to the World Assembly for very long, but it appears to us that what is defined in one resolution is not necessarily defined in all other resolutions. Resolutions live and die independently of one another, and as such one resolution must not be used to define major terms in another resolution.

If a resolution defines a term with the rider "for the purpose of this resolution" then the definition only applies for the purpose of that specific resolution.
If a resolution defines a term without such a rider, however, that definition applies in the case of all [relevant] later resolutions too... unless & until the one containing the definition gets repealed.

The World Assembly rules don't seem to address the issue of definitions. If a definition does not include a rider, then does the definition apply to all later resolutions? Or, are definitions found in resolutions independent of any other resolutions?

My take on it is the same as Bears Armed, if it's any consolation, otherwise I'd have thought legislation can be seen as being "contradicting current resolutions" and thus illegal. I usually stick a "for the purposes of this resolution" on for such purposes, but it is reasonable for a resolution to want a definition to stick for all resolutions. Some of the old UN proposals existed just to do that

I would agree with Bears Armed's assessment.

I'm going with the learned counsel from Bears Armed, Cobdenia and Yelda, on this basis: once the WA votes in favour of a proposal, the proposal applies in its entirety unless/until the WA changes its collective mind.

Every last carefully scrutinised syllable of it, including definitions. Which is why proposals should be carefully scrutinised before they become law. Which is why a drafting thread is a Number One Good Idea.

(I can see a number of nice fat hypotheticals bounding out of the woods here; let's not chase 'em.)

I'm going with the learned counsel from Bears Armed, Cobdenia and Yelda, on this basis: once the WA votes in favour of a proposal, the proposal applies in its entirety unless/until the WA changes its collective mind.

Every last carefully scrutinised syllable of it, including definitions. Which is why proposals should be carefully scrutinised before they become law. Which is why a drafting thread is a Number One Good Idea.

(I can see a number of nice fat hypotheticals bounding out of the woods here; let's not chase 'em.)
Complicated further by this:
i asked a NS moderator about the issue. i telegrammed him immediately after my last post with the question and this was his response:

"When the World Assembly defines a term it generally only applies to that resolution; some specifically say "for purposes of this resolution," like the one at vote, but even if it doesn't specify, there's no legal way the definition can be applied to other resolutions."

Although, he doesn't seem to mention which moderator said this. Another reason why sending moderation requests through TGs isn't a good idea. :(

I'm the "moderator" he telegrammed. Obviously my opinion is not legally binding, but I am starting to understand why he was telegramming me.

In terms of practicality, however, there is no legal way a definition in one resolution could be applied to any other resolution. House of Cards. Resolutions must stand on their own, including the terms they define. If they are repealed, any resolution relying on their definitions would be compromised.

Gah, that's what I get for trying to think the morning after New Year's Eve. I think you're right, Kenny, but I'd welcome further input.

In terms of practicality, however, there is no legal way a definition in one resolution could be applied to any other resolution. House of Cards. Resolutions must stand on their own, including the terms they define. If they are repealed, any resolution relying on their definitions would be compromised.
True, you couldn't reference the earlier resolution with something like "as defined by WA Resolution so-and-so".

The way I look at it though is that if the earlier resolution has defined something like "child" or "motor vehicle", there's no need to define it again, or even mention a definition.

Now obviously if the earlier resolution uses the "for the purposes of this resolution" language it only applies to the terms of that resolution.

But if it just says "defines _____ as", without the qualifying language, then we should assume that the intent was to provide a universal definition of that term. There's no need to reference it in future resolutions, in fact as you have said, to do so would be a house of cards violation.

I'm the "moderator" he telegrammed. Obviously my opinion is not legally binding, but I am starting to understand why he was telegramming me.

In terms of practicality, however, there is no legal way a definition in one resolution could be applied to any other resolution. House of Cards. Resolutions must stand on their own, including the terms they define. If they are repealed, any resolution relying on their definitions would be compromised.

I wouldn't say that that's the only outcome. If a resolution specifically mentioned the Child Protection Act's definition of child, then it would constitute a House of Cards violation. However, isn't it usually custom for nations to decide the definition of words, when the World Assembly hasn't done so?

For instance, if a resolution mandated childhood education, but didn't define childhood, then it would fall on to each nation to decide what 'childhood' actually is, if no other resolution had defined it (or, in this case, if an old resolution was repealed).

For instance, if a resolution mandated childhood education, but didn't define childhood, then it would fall on to each nation to decide what 'childhood' actually is, if no other resolution had defined it (or, in this case, if an old resolution was repealed).


It varies from circumstance to circumstance, really depending on the leeway for distinct meaning. If there is no specific defintion, the dictionary definition takes hold (in my opinion), and thus, if there are different meanings, it is up to the country in question.

In this case, yes. If the resolution was repealed, it would be up to the nation to decide (as the meaing of childhood can vary) - I'd add as long as it's a reasonable, dictionary, definition.

I think really that definitions should only be used in case of a non-standard usage of a term, or necessarilly specific meaning.

This is only my humble opinion. Perhaps there should be something in the rules about it?

True, you couldn't reference the earlier resolution with something like "as defined by WA Resolution so-and-so".

The way I look at it though is that if the earlier resolution has defined something like "child" or "motor vehicle", there's no need to define it again, or even mention a definition.

Now obviously if the earlier resolution uses the "for the purposes of this resolution" language it only applies to the terms of that resolution.

But if it just says "defines _____ as", without the qualifying language, then we should assume that the intent was to provide a universal definition of that term. There's no need to reference it in future resolutions, in fact as you have said, to do so would be a house of cards violation.Even if the the author of Resolution Y decided the definition in Resolution X was satisfactory, and so decided not to define a key term, Resolution X's repeal would leave the validity of Resolution Y in serious doubt. For example Resolution X bans the sale or trade of chemical weapons, and includes a definition of "chemical weapons" (which we can both agree is pretty important when legislating on the subject). Then a resolution introduced months later purports to ban chemical weapons entirely, but the author decides the term need not be defined, by virtue of the definition in the previous proposal.

Then the first resolution is repealed.

Do we really want to create a situation where we could have a chemical weapons ban that doesn't even define chemical weapons?

I'm the "moderator" he telegrammed. Obviously my opinion is not legally binding, but I am starting to understand why he was telegramming me.

In terms of practicality, however, there is no legal way a definition in one resolution could be applied to any other resolution. House of Cards. Resolutions must stand on their own, including the terms they define. If they are repealed, any resolution relying on their definitions would be compromised.



Really ? well that rather puts the dampers on defining personhood in a single resolution no ?

It's kind of what I thought, but I'm guessing certain members of the w.a. will be very disappointed to learn that a bill re-defining "person" to allow for its more heterogeneous races is illegal.

Seems to me like a practical solution would be to allow future resolutions to redefine only "for the purposes of the resolution" if the old resolution simply "DEFINES". If the future resolution waives the ability to redefine, it is subject to the previous resolution's definition.

i agree. My partner and I can simply say for the purposes of the resolution (as the original definition stated). therefore that definition would be limited to the resolution (for the purpose of the resolution) however, couldn't we just say, something like "We recognize other definitions already defined in previous and future resolutions?" that way we don't completely dismiss the old definition?

Wachichi

The less you say, the less chance of tripping over some unknown factor.

Not only is "definitions already defined" redundant, you're tying yourself to recognise definitions that haven't even been thrashed out yet. A bit risky, given the inventiveness of WA proposal writers, and a bit difficult, if you're not psychic.

If you're happy with the "for the purposes of this resolution" line, I'll close this thread, but I think there's a more general principle that needs to be looked at for such things as "sapients' rights" resolutions.

However, I'll gladly leave that one alone until the experts are back on deck. Thanks to all for the clarifications, which won't go to waste.