I have shown you why NSG rules will apply. I have shown you how a legal system works. You don't follow legal arguments. Then you will state I have run out of argument. The arguments presented are legal arguments which are valid in law. I know what do for a living day in and day out in the best firms in the world. I don't need your certificate on howto read legal text. So my interpretation of law is consistent with the precepts of International law which I have illustrated and listed for you in the arguments. I have been extremely patient with you. I am very good at what I do for a living. So let's not go there.
Your arguments are not legally valid I tried to show you even with simple analogy's why the argument is what it is. What the American position is why it is legally strong. So I know howto look at the document and interpret it. Take it or leave it. I have shown you why you are wrong legally. You Keep circling back to the same arguments 2008 is valid. There is no parallel agreement. It's India specific only to the extent where it different from the general agreement. It's NSG and it's rule which apply to 44 countries and anyone who trades with them. (The sabzi mandi analogies are to explain how International law works to a layman like you). They gave you special treatment only on civil nuclear materials plus ENR in 2008 and decided to go back on the plus ENR part in 2011 through legislative action. Or you can look at it as if they gave you special treatment on civil nuclear materials minus ENR in 2008. Whichever way you look at it the effect is the same. The NSG guidelines have changed and closed it behind you.
Let me try again to tell you legally why you are wrong.
The NSG text is not frozen in 2008. NSG is a body of rules, a large part of which applies to everyone including India. NSG may waive certain rules to certain countries for limited periods of time. Eg. Pakistan was allowed to import 2 nuclear reactors which the Chinese say is 4 nuclear reactors. These don't get carried over to the everyone. So there is no problem in grating an exception. The NSG can change the rules when the circumstances change. Just like GOI can change the rules if and when they want or when the situation changes. You are bound by the new rules/law. This is how a legal system works. NSG is no different.
Existence of a special waiver does not derogate from the a general legislation. If the general legislation explicitly overwrites the certain provisions of the special legislation while leaving intact some part of the special legislation. All rules of NSG apply to India except the exceptions given in 2008, subject to changes at anytime NSG feels they are appropriate. Due to a new discovery NSG finds that exporting wrist watches made of titanium, can create a proliferation risk. They can change the rules in 2040 and it will apply to all 44 NSG countries and any countries which trade with NSG countries. The legal system is a set of rules. There is a general body of rules which applies to everyone. There are certain differences for men/women. Like the Pakistan waivers, India waivers. All of these waivers are subject to changes and corrections by NSG. NSG has the authority to set it's own rules and change them.
The India NSG waiver does not state that NSG will not change the exceptions given to India. In fact it reads in the relevant portion that in case of changed circumstances the countries shall discuss what measures to take and act according to the NSG consensus. So they explicitly reserved the right to make changes to the NSG rules. You did not have any counter measures including your ability to move civil reactors into military roles if they did. Your policy failed not their rules. They are consistent with legal law making bodies and International legal principles. So to state you are frozen in time because you are not part of NSG rule making is not a valid legal argument. This is not how the NSG works or any legal system works.
Your best case interpretation: In 2008 India was granted NSG waiver with ENR. (This is not true and I have stated why the provisos prevent such transfer even in 2008.) Even assuming this is true the rest of the general rules of NSG apply to you including any subsequent rule changes. Even changes to specific rules which apply to you as your best case interpretation goes can be changed by general rule changes which apply to everyone. So the 2011 changes did not state in the text that this will not apply to you. Since you are not explicitly excluded the general principle of interpretation of law states that such a change applies to everyone including India. You can't pick which law to obey in India. Similarly you can't choose to pick which law to obey with the NSG. All laws apply to you. You may have somme reservations grated to you, some of which may survive in 2011. NSG as the supreme body can go back on it. NSG is the supreme body on rules which govern these issues. International law trumps, national and bilateral agreements. This is the principle of International law.
Any legislative body can change rules. Taxes change every year. You can't make an argument on the authority of NSG to make these changes. They are the will of 44 countries. They decide by consensus. So any member who did not want this to apply to India could have required the exception be made textually. They did not. So the legal intent of all 44 countries including France was to make this rule change apply to India. This is also a well known principle of legal interpretation. Particularly when the actions are based on consensus. The argument is even stronger for consensus actions. All 44 wanted the law to apply to India.
Paragraph 6 and 7 has changed for everyone including India. No one gets to trade with the old rules including India. How difficult is it to understand for your. Just because you have a and b and only b is changed in 2011 does not change a as well. NSG can change b and leave a alone. It's their right as a legislative body of which you are not a member. They can regulate trade however they choose to according to their wishes. They are there you are not. I have told you time and again they did not change anything between 2008 and 2009. So refer to the tax examples of GST, vat, income tax and women for a layman's analogy.
. If you read the coominique from NSG to IAEA , it includes reference to enr as per paragraph 6)and paragraph 7). , you put those paragraphs in place of the reference ,you will get the complete text. If that paragraph is changed in 2011
It won't apply to India, as the indian text has used the 2008 paragraph seven. That NSG text specifically apply to India.
You are just getting confused , paragraph seven of 2011
will nor supersede paragraph seven of 7) of 2008 in case of India, but will supersede
For all others. Even before 2008 there were guidelines for nuclear trade, along with full scope safe guards. Those terms do not apply to India because of waiver. But that does not mean they are not applicable. The full scope safeguard is still applicable to all others.
I am not confused. I am very clear. Full scope safeguards don't apply to India. However this has nothing to do with ENR. ENR is not available to countries who have not signed NPT. The new rule change prevents you from accessing ENR. There is nothing inconstant with this interpretation. You get knocked out in rule 1 itself on NPT. So it does not matter if rule 2 says you need to allow full scope safeguards for ENR. You don't meet the eligibility criteria.
Layman's analogy:
To get a license you should be 18 years or older and have 40/20 vision (Better than normal vision).
You are less than 18 years. It does not matter if you can't have 40/20 vision. It's unfair. You get knocked out in the first step itself. The rest of the clause does not matter. You become 18 years then you apply for a license. Then 40/20 applies. So There is nothing inconsistant here. Lack of primary eligibility is all that matters. NPT. Knocked out. ENR in 2011 require intrusive inspections. So what you got knocked out in the NPT stage itself. Even if you clear the NPT hurdle I still don't want to give you ENR if you have bombs. NSG rules.
You are not a nuclear weapons state. This rule change is to facilitate civil nuclear trade not military trade or recognition.
Logical fallacy you are making here. They have merely chosen not to enforce your previous transgressions. They have chosen to ignore it and trade with you only on civil side. They don't care if you will not accept full scope for ENR. For all they care they will want to do that to inspect your weapons if you are desperate to get ENR. Just because they allowed civil trade does not require then to allow ENR without inspections. The NSG legislature make the rules not India. If you don't like it and think it's unfair. Don't trade with them.
Layman's analogy:
Earlier rule in 2008: To get a license you need to be over 18 years of age.
Special rule: Teenagers can get a license if they are 16 years or more and have legal guardians sign off on it and they have 20/40 vision.
Rule in 2012: To get a license you need to have normal 20/20 vision and be over the age of 18.
The rule in 2012 applies to teenagers as well. The "special legislation" applicable to teenagers is amended by the rule in 2012. This is your best case scenario.
Layman's analogy of American argument:
Earlier rule in 2008: To get a license you need to be over 18 years of age.
Special rule: Teenagers can get a license if they are 16 years or more and have legal guardians sign off on it and they meet all other requirements set forth elsewhere in this legislation.
Rule in 2012: To get a license you need to have normal 20/20 vision and be over the age of 18.
The rule change in 2012 applies to teenagers as well. This is the American interpretation. They just made a common rule which they anyways applied 20/20 vision into codified law in 2012. This applied to India from day one in 2008. They have maintained ENR prohibitions apply consistently from day one. Your government misguided you. You don't have a right to what you think when a party goes on record to state ENR is not part of the Indo-US deal. They don't see the ENR as part of the NSG waiver. This was made clear before their congress. You still went ahead and signed a deal. It's your fault. There is no freezing in 2008. Everything applies to India except the full scope. This will apply as long as NSG does not change it's rules again. You can't prevent that as well. They will change it if you are weak. If you are broken down into 50 states. They will change it in 2050.
You can't argue that they can't change it.You don't have remedies for NSG actions. Your only remedy is not to trade with the NSG. You are free to not trade with them.
There is nothing wrong with this argument. This is the American argument. It's a very strong argument. India don't have such a strong legal basis for a counter argument.
So all NSG rules apply to India except the rules which have been waived for you. Any such waivers are also subject to amendments. Just like your government can remove special tax rates for women anytime they choose. This is legislative prerogative. NSG is not a democracy. They don't have to be fair. It's your fault you did not have counter measures to prevent them from changing the rules afterwards. So there is nothing wrong with the rule changes legally.The specific rules can change in part and remain in part. There is nothing special about a special rule. It's subject to change. This is how law works. This is unfair, unethical. So what? NSG isn't there to promote fairness. It's there to cater to the interests of the NSG members. I have even shown you valid legal examples in the analogy above.
All present and future NSG rules apply to India. Your confusion on legal principles.
a) General legislation applies to all. (Pre 2008)
b) Special legislation trumps General legislation. (2008)
c) General legislation at a later date trumps special legislation to the extent changes are made to Special legislation. General legislation at a later date can trump only parts of the Special legislation and leave the rest of the special legislation intact. (2011).
A as changed by B and C applies to you.
NSG has the sovereign right to decide it's rules not India. It's not fair, but it's the way law works. This happens in law all the time. This is very common. I have given you examples of real situations where in the teenager example.
After all this arguments which I have to make to point out problems in your argument from a legal perspective. I will just state for the record the american interpretation is the one pasted below. It's a strong argument. India doesn't have such a strong argument. We should walk away from this form a legal perspective.
Dude you are running out of arguments,
India NSG text is frozen in 2008 . If you read the coominique from NSG to IAEA , it includes reference to enr as per paragraph 6)and paragraph 7). , you put those paragraphs in place of the reference ,you will get the complete text. If that paragraph is changed in 2011
It won't apply to India, as the indian text has used the 2008 paragraph seven. That NSG text specifically apply to India.
You are just getting confused , paragraph seven of 2011
will nor supersede paragraph seven of 7) of 2008 in case of India, but will supersede
For all others. Even before 2008 there were guidelines for nuclear trade, along with full scope safe guards. Those terms do not apply to India because of waiver. But that does not mean they are not applicable. The full scope safeguard is still applicable to all others.
NSG has set a separate guidelines for India compared to rest others. All the reference you are giving is for general guidelines, not for India waiver applies. Just because paragraph 7 has been changed after the NSG waiver, does not mean it applies automatically to India. For that to happen it has to nullify the Indian specific paragraph 7) of 2008. The NSG statement of 2011 did not nullify 2008 paragraph seven of India. It upheld it. It means both these paragraph seven of 2008 and 2011 are valid. But in Indian context paragraph. 7) of 2008 applies., since it was already included in 2008 waiver , and it explicitly mentioned India.
The standard NSG guidelines are guidelines applicable to all the countries. But the guidelines which are included for India in 2008 will remain in parallel to guidelines made prior to 2008 and after 2008. The full scope safe guard is still valid , but not applicable to India. Similarly 2011 paragraph 7) is still valid to everybody ( nnws ) , but not to India . So full scope safe guard and enr ban are valid and are applicable to all the countries. They had to go out of the way to create special conditions for India in 2008. Just because the enr ban is incorporated in 2011 does not automatically make it nullify the India specific agreement. India specific agreement is a parallel agreement for India. India still would abide by all the general guidelines of NSG which are not part of the 2008 waiver. But those things which are outlined in 2008 waiver, stand in parallel to other general guidelines, even though they touch the same subject.
Full scope safe guard, enr restrictions are still valid , but in parallel to these 2008 India specific agreement is also valid for India only case. Since Indian waiver already talks about enr subject, a future amendment simply cannot nullify India 2008 waiver. For India a parallel agreement was created, so that other countries can use that for nuclear trade with India. 2011 and pre 2008 NSG guidelines are still valid along with the 2008 Indian waiver, which clearly states what India can do and what it can't. If the NSG guidelines changes something which are not included in the 2008 agreement , then those will be applicable to India . But if NSG amends the same things, which are also outlined in India specific 2008 agreement, then those guidelines will still apply for everyone, but not to India. What you are getting is the fact that it is some kind of a parallel agreement for india. Both guidelines are valid. They had to do this parallel arrangement because India was not part of not All the general guidelines talk only about the nws and nnws states.
It's not date of the amendment which matters ( pre 2008 or 2011 ) , but rather the context of the amendment.
But for India 2008 guidelines are only applicable .