Bears Armed wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I'm honored that you would try to withhold something about this proposal until after its submission. Even so, clause 3 quite clearly would not impose any limitations on military engagements, as enemy military forces are not a group defined by their economic status or employment status.
OOC
Re me "withholding" my comment: I didn't notice that detail earlier, and you submitting this after a gap of about six weeks since the most recent previous comment didn't help... If you'd given us a couple of days warning that submission was imminent then I'd have given it another look-over during that period.
Re clause 3; the members of those forces are being targeted because they're employed in those forces. That is an "employment status", isn't it? If you intend the cause to say that governments can't specifically target the unemployed then maybe this could have been worded more clearly... and in any case that still seems to leave clause 1 as applicable.
OOC: I thought it quite clear from the text that "basis of employment" refers to a distinction between the employed and unemployed. Perhaps the terminology could have used further clarification, but any member state with concerns that your interpretation would limit their ability to effectively wage war would simply adopt the intended interpretation. I really see no problem here.