So uh...just wondering...has anyone noticed that TP rez 3 happens to like have no actor?
Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.
There is definitely good intent backing the idea of the resolution. However, the way it is worded, it would be completely topical to act as a different country and ratify an international treaty that also happens to be pending in the US Senate.
Like seriously a plan with Iran as the actor and the mandate being "ratify the CTBT" would be completely topical under this rez so long as the treaty being ratified was pending in the US Senate. The immense breath/unpredictability would be horrible for 90% of the debaters in the league. Instead of prepping for different treaties, everyone would have to prep for different countries/organizations ratifying the treaties. TP would become Parli (which isn't necessarily bad...but they are two different styles for a reason
Interesting thought, I didn't realize that. Usually I would agree that a res needs an actor but in this case not really. Any treaty pension in the us senate would have language specific to the US such that no other country could logically pass it.
What do you mean by that? For example, when the LOST Treaty or the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were pending in the US Senate, nothing stopped other countries from ratifying that very same treaty.
I actually would really like rez 3 if people couldn't mess around with the actors...but I don't quite see how no actor will have no impact on super crazy cases with random actors.
I can't wait for the day that the people who write resolutions for both NCFCA and Stoa figure out that resolutions need an agent of action. Two years in a row for the NCFCA, now probably next year for Stoa. You will notice A doesn't have an agent of action either.
It depends on what you consider to be part of the treaty. Quickly glancing at a couple of these
treaties, the text itself is admittedly non-specific to any country. However, the document that is pending before the Senate includes a few pages written from the Secretary of State or President to the Senate in addition to the treaty itself. This includes language that is specific to the US and would be nonsensical if passed by other countries. I would argue that the entire packet of papers makes up the treaty, not just the treaty text itself.
Also, I don't think it would be a big problem for a few other reasons:
1) Debaters are lazy and usually won't go to all the effort.
2) The majority of the neg cards will be why the treaty itself is bad, which would apply no matter what country is passing it. Going with your example of ratifying CTBT, way back in India year that was a fairly popular aff. About half of our cards were about how the US specifically shouldn't pass it, but the much stronger part of the brief (and what won us every round against CTBT) was why the treaty itself is a horrible idea and not specific to the US.
3) Many of the treaties can't be passed by many countries, because the topic of the treaties don't apply to a lot of countries
4) There won't be a whole lot of literature for non-US countries passing most of these treaties, so it would be really hard to write an aff
5) Even if there is literature for "random" countries passing treaties, most of it won't be in English (does any English-speaking country care if Azerbaijan passes The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels?) and therefore not accessible/usable by debaters. I will grant there may be a couple articles about small Western countries passing treaties in English, but honestly I don't think that would be a huge deal. Also, I think most judges would be willing to listen to that T.