04-11-2007, 10:03 PM
When the original resolution was being considered, I spent a good bit of time trying to decide whether it really did anything worthwhile. My conclusion was that it did not. Nations that want to resolve border disputes peacefully will do so. Nations that want to resort to force will do that. This resolution does nothing whatever to change that.
So it's useless (in my opinion). Is it harmless? In its effect -- or rather, lack thereof -- it is. But now I consider its potential effect on the future. Poor, ineffectual resolutions on the books do have an effect: they discourage people from trying to tackle the subject. Some are actual blockers, which means they have to be repealed before other legislation can be submitted. Whether that's the case depends on the specific provisions of the existing and proposed resolutions. But even if they aren't technical blockers, they put people off from trying to tackle an issue that's "already been done". Or they may misunderstand the nature of the duplication and contradiction rules. That's why I believe that ineffective legislation -- even if harmless in its content -- should be repealed.
So it's useless (in my opinion). Is it harmless? In its effect -- or rather, lack thereof -- it is. But now I consider its potential effect on the future. Poor, ineffectual resolutions on the books do have an effect: they discourage people from trying to tackle the subject. Some are actual blockers, which means they have to be repealed before other legislation can be submitted. Whether that's the case depends on the specific provisions of the existing and proposed resolutions. But even if they aren't technical blockers, they put people off from trying to tackle an issue that's "already been done". Or they may misunderstand the nature of the duplication and contradiction rules. That's why I believe that ineffective legislation -- even if harmless in its content -- should be repealed.