CODE vs authors

[STEPHEN MANNING]

Sirs,

For what it is worth, in the field of law generally, when one is trying to
interpret a statute (law) or regulation, if the meaning of the wording is
at all ambiguous (as it almost always is when lawyers get their hands on
something), it is permissible to attempt to determine the "legislative
intent" to resolve the ambiguity.  In other words, one is not limited
completely to the words of the rule (statute) itself.

Although consulting the individuals who wrote the law is one way to attempt
this, another, probably better avenue is to consult written records of
legislative sessions, including debates of those writing the law, prior to
its enactment.  Such records, if any, are more objectively verifiable than
what even the sponsor or writer of a law says happened at the meetings or
was the intent.  In other words, the "legislative intent" is more than the
intent of any one person, unless it is done by fiat without any input from
more than one person.

So, are there minutes of meetings, emails, or other discussions at the time
the provisions at issue were being produced?  I would think these could
validly be consulted in order to help interpret the ICZN, ICBN, or other
nomenclatural provisions.  Of course some things just aren't anticipated by
writers of provisions and in this case later interpreters are back where
they started until the next Botanical or Zoological Congress etc. (whose
minutes by the way could also be consulted for guidance if these decisions
are made at one of those conferences).

Steve Manning

At 09:23 PM 8/20/01 -0400, Ron Gatrelle wrote:
>Someone emailed me privately to point out that "Chris Thompson wrote the
>4th edition of the ICZN code".  My response was - no he did not. A
>committee wrote it.
>
>I was not sure but thought the F. C. Thompson on the list of committee
>members was Dr. Thompson. I also thought this was likely from the way he
>very assuredly finalized his answers to questions here.
>
>I have been on many committees - some have been some pretty important
>denominationally wide religious ones. One thing is for sure, on heavy duty
>committees everyone is always disappointed in what the final position is on
>some aspect. In other words, the final document rules over its composers
>not the other way around. If the committee members did not, or were unable
>to, communicate in writing their intent on a particular matter, too bad.
>They will have to live with it - like everyone else. Rules have to stand
>above all. There is no point in a set of rules if one has to run to its
>authorS at every turn to find what they meant. The value of the past and
>future editions of the Codes rests not with their unit composers over time
>but with the intricately related systems they put forth and carry forth.
>
>I don't really care who wrote it. It only matters what is written.
>Especially since the vast majority of it was written in past editions and
>simply carried forth into the new edition with just a little better
>wording.  It would be a mighty big ego that would want to take credit as
>Author of The Code.  If a code is not self-evident and self-explanatory
>then it has no reliability or enforceability - at all. If a code does not
>mean what it says and say what it means then those who follow it are
>wasting their time.
>Ron