82,890
edits
Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption: Difference between revisions
Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption (view source)
Revision as of 11:23, 17 January 2023
, 17 January 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Settlement Disruption - Emissions Annex Provision|Oft]] mentioned in a similar breath to a {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} and a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}}, a Settlement Disruption Event is one of the external events which leads to a suspension of obligations, pending the lifting of the disruption, that are set out in the {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}} provisions of Paragraph {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{emissionsannex}}. | [[Settlement Disruption - Emissions Annex Provision|Oft]] mentioned in a similar breath to a {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} and a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}}, a Settlement Disruption Event is one of the external events which leads to a suspension of obligations, pending the lifting of the disruption, that are set out in the {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}} provisions of Paragraph {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{emissionsannex}}. | ||
===For the avoidance of doubt, this is intended to avoid doubt=== | ===For the avoidance of doubt, this is intended to avoid doubt=== | ||
There is a wonderful [[nested uncertainty avoidance device]] buried in the redundant second paragraph, which effectively says, for the avoidance of doubt, this avoidance of doubt paragraph is intended to avoid doubt, and not actually change anything. Here [[Ourobos]] reaches around and eats its own tail: a clause which appears to do something — for why else in a competently-composed passage would it be there? — appears to be there simply to deny its own ''raison d’etre''. | There is a wonderful [[nested uncertainty avoidance device]] buried in the redundant second paragraph, which effectively says, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], this [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]] paragraph is intended to avoid doubt, and not actually change anything. Here [[Ourobos]] reaches around and eats its own tail: a clause which appears to do something — for why else in a competently-composed passage would it be there? — appears to be there simply to deny its own ''raison d’etre''. | ||
The odd thing is, however that | The odd thing is, however that the passage does not ''avoid'' doubt so much as create it, for what ''is'' | ||
:“... the low or non-allocation of {{euaprov|Allowances}} by a {{euaprov|Member State}} or ... the delay or failure of a Member State or Central Administrator to replace Allowances of the {{euaprov|Third Compliance Period}} with {{euaprov|Allowances}} for the {{euaprov|Fourth Compliance Period}}...” | :“... the low or non-allocation of {{euaprov|Allowances}} by a {{euaprov|Member State}} or ... the delay or failure of a Member State or Central Administrator to replace Allowances of the {{euaprov|Third Compliance Period}} with {{euaprov|Allowances}} for the {{euaprov|Fourth Compliance Period}}...” | ||
if | if not “an event or circumstance beyond the control of the party affected that cannot, after the use of [[all reasonable efforts]], be overcome and which makes it impossible for that party to perform its obligations”? | ||
Why should that not be a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}}? | Why should that not be a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}}? | ||