[blml] "not have the force of law"

[ton]

Good question Ferry,

This seems kind of a semantic problem.
Examples are an interpretation of the laws and if the drafting committee
distributes such examples you may expect those to have the force of
jurisprudence. But then the laws committee later might decide otherwise,
discovering that the drafters forgot something, interpreted something
wrongly or whatever. Don't be too afraid, practically spoken we will be
close to that famous force. 

This is less so for the Code of Practise, which originaly was written for
the WBF and its tournaments. And some of the decisions taken got the
strength of force, for example the interpretation of the footnote in law 12,
giving chief TD's the authority to adjust scores as appealcommittees can do.
And when an nbo with 'force' adopts this code it gets the status of
regulation (law) in its jurisdiction, I think. 

ton

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman
Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2007 1:35
To: blml at rtflb.org
Subject: [blml] "not have the force of law"

> 5. Mr. Kooijman recorded that the subcommittee had an intention of 
> preparing an appendix of guidance on and illustrations of some of the 
> more interesting matters in the 2007 Code. This would not have the 
> force of law but would be helpful, it was believed, to Directors 
> confronted by problematic situations.

Would someone please explain precisely what is meant by "not have the force
of law" in this context?

Related to this, do code-of-practice pronounces have the force of law?

Jerry Fusselman

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml