The European Union (EU) is implementing unilateral trade restrictions on imports that contain residues of pesticides banned for use within its borders. Several Latin American (LA) countries, among other EU trading partners, have criticized these measures, leading to a contentious debate that could escalate into a trade dispute before the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article aims to unpack this seemingly polarized debate by re-evaluating the trade concerns raised by LA WTO delegates through a human rights lens. It highlights the disconnect between trade policy positions and human rights commitments concerning pesticides, revealing a bias among WTO delegates in favour of commercial interests, often at the expense of broader societal and ecological concerns raised by human rights-holders in both LA and the EU. The article suggests procedural innovations at both the national and WTO levels that could broaden the trade policy discussion on pesticides, aligning it with human rights standards and urgent collective action for biodiversity stewardship.

This paper offers a unified analysis of the postmodal meanings of should and would. It proposes a semantic-pragmatic account based on how these modals function in contexts that yield mirative interpretations. The analysis begins with their use in content clauses under factive predicates and then examines a parallel use in why-interrogatives. It also explains why only would can produce a mirative reading in the assertive equative construction ‘That Would Be X’. The paper argues that these mirative extensions arise from the speaker’s knowledge state and their assumptions about the addressee’s expectations. The postmodal domain is therefore shaped by pragmatic strengthening within patterns that still preserve aspects of the modals’ core semantics. The shift from modality to postmodality marks a move toward the illocutionary level. However, this domain is not uniform: postmodal meanings may represent either the endpoint of grammaticalisation or the emergence of new discourse functions through constructionalisation, as in the TWBX construction.

The concept of mercy is often proposed as an antidote to the punitive excesses of our current criminal justice system. But this concept is typically presented in generalized, abstract terms that seem unworkable as a pragmatic decision strategy. Its religious origins and associations only add to this impression. In fact, however, if the biblical accounts of mercy are interpreted using the narrative strategy that is featured in current scholarship, an eminently practical decision protocol emerges from these accounts. This protocol diverges from the common or popular view of mercy. It omits the demand for contrition or gratitude on the part of the wrongdoer, viewing this as an effort to exercise domination rather than extending mercy, and minimizes compassion on the part of the decision maker due to its tendency to merge into favoritism. Instead, the protocol recommends that the decision maker deal with the wrongdoer on a direct personal level, suppress any emotional responses such as anger or indignation, and consider the collateral consequences of the proposed punishment. The author describes the way the protocol can be derived from leading biblical narratives about mercy, including the expulsion from the garden, the mark of Cain, Christ and the adulteress, and the prodigal son. He expands on this derivation by analyzing the book of Jonah, rejecting the common view that this work is a satire and treating it instead as a profound inquiry into the nature of mercy. He concludes by applying the protocol he has derived to policy level decisions in the criminal justice system, specifically judicial sentencing, administrative parole and the use of restorative justice.