I have a question concerning resolutions. I've noticed over the years that local, provincial, and federal governments rarely make use of resolutions; I'm guessing it's probably because they have no legal force.

It would seem to me though that just because a resolution has no legal force, it still can serve a purpose. For one thing, in spiote of its lack of legal force, a resolution is still an official document expressing the will of the government and so a well-drafted resolution passed with unanimous support or at least with a majority and no opposition can still have a certain degree of moral force. For example, even a simple, well-drafted and eloquent resolution recommending that people quit smoking and passed by a unanimity in Parliament could be used as a teaching tool by people.

The fact that a resolution has no legal force also increases the likelyhood of a unanimous vote in favour.

Another advantage of a resolution is that it need not worry about jurisdictional issues. In principle, a local city council could pass a resolution making a recommendation pertaining to federal jurisdiction or even recommend that Iran stop persecuting its miinorities. A province can pass a resolution making a recommendation to the Federal Parliament and vice versa.

Though the value of a resolution is indeed laregly symbolic, symbolism itself can be a powerful force in society, and that's where I think resolutions can have a certain value in exercizing a certain degree of moral force. What's your idea on this? Do governments tend to underestimate the value of resolutions just because of their lack of legal force?