The first half of the sentence is essentially "granting" the country the ability to make its own laws. It can't grant that, those powers pre-exist the agreement, and therefore it's an empty statement. The only purpose of it is to make the second half of the sentence - the one that removes powers - more palatable.
The semantically equivalent sentence without that rhetorical dance is: "A party may only make laws that are consistent with this agreement".
That's my point, though. That sentence was convoluted in such a way as to be persuasive.
They said "you can do X, but not Y", instead of saying "You can't do Y". Given that X is emotionally positive, but has no inherent meaning (the treaty is not capable of giving countries the ability to govern themselves, because they already posess it), its only purpose in the sentence is rhetorical (in the actual definition of the word).
It's the argument in this thread that doesn't make sense. In technical language, there are reasons other than persuasiveness and eloquence for the selection of specific words; in fact, those other reasons usually control.
It's the difference between the (rhetorical) Declaration of Independence and its "unalienable rights" and the (technical) Constitution.
This argument in this thread is trying to extrapolate an emotional argument from the selection of words in a technical document.
Sure. What do you believe is the purpose of saying what that clause says rather than badsock's shorter and clearer "A party may only make laws that are consistent with this agreement"?
You seem to be suggesting that somehow the lengthier version is more precise. I don't see how. Am I missing something?
All laws and treaties are forms of persuasion. They exist only to regulate people's behaviour. They are prescriptive, not descriptive. That qualifies them as rhetoric.
The first half of the sentence is essentially "granting" the country the ability to make its own laws. It can't grant that, those powers pre-exist the agreement, and therefore it's an empty statement. The only purpose of it is to make the second half of the sentence - the one that removes powers - more palatable.
The semantically equivalent sentence without that rhetorical dance is: "A party may only make laws that are consistent with this agreement".