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?
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?