Module illocution 

Illocutionary force + binding-weight conflict resolution (modal-junctures.n3, in code).

Answers: when norms conflict on the same (party, action), how does a SOFT directive (Recommends/Urges) resolve against a HARD commissive (Undertakes) or prohibitive (Forbids)? By binding-weight precedence, with two refinements drawn from the taxonomy:

• a directive’s weight is first scaled by the SPEAKER’S AUTHORITY (a UN treaty body’s “calls upon” outweighs an NGO’s — the authority variable);
• an EXEMPTIVE (derogation / waiver — the q42:unless defeater) OVERRIDES an otherwise-active obligation/prohibition regardless of weight;
• equal effective weight is a GENUINE conflict, held PARACONSISTENTLY (both norms retained for adjudication — the engine does not crash or silently pick one).

Structs

Norm

A norm participating in a conflict: effective binding weight, whether it is an Exemptive (derogation/waiver), and whether it is IMMUNE — non-derogable, a Hohfeldian immunity (e.g. ICCPR Art. 4(2): no derogation from the right to life, freedom from torture, etc.).

Enums

EngineState

The engine state a juncture triggers (see modal-junctures.n3 mj:EngineState).

Resolution

Constants

W_DIRECTIVE_HARD

W_EXEMPT

W_GUARANTEE

W_NONE

Deontic binding weight (0 = no binding .. 255 = hardest). Mirrors mj:bindingWeight.

W_OBLIGATE

W_PERMIT

W_RECOMMEND

W_REQUEST

Functions

effective_weight

A directive’s EFFECTIVE weight scales with the speaker’s structural authority (0..255); non-authority-scaled junctures keep their base weight. So an NGO (low authority) that “demands” carries far less force than a treaty body that does.

is_exemptive

True if this engine state is an Exemptive defeater (derogation / waiver / q42:unless).

resolve_conflict

Resolve two CONFLICTING norms (same party + action): the Exemptive override (BOUNDED by immunity), then effective binding weight.