Maowi wrote:"It's a little better in my opinion but my main concern remains that it is an extremely semantic complaint to make of the target. You think one individual would go to the effort of forming their own religion in order to gain these protections on their property, when member states could impose a plethora of bureaucratic steps for getting it officially recognised as a religion? I do not believe that is realistic."
The target resolution does not include the actual nation in the identification of religions or religious sites - national authorities are specifically skipped over. The designation is strictly at the discretion of religious leaders only, who declare themselves directly with the international committee in order to garner protections regardless of the nation's interest.
This is one of several major things about the target resolution that are problematic. The "reasonable interpretation" argument does not work, because if one uses "reasonable interpretation" that makes the entire thing a duplication of GAR 287. We challenged its legality on the basis of being that duplication, and were told that because it skips over national authority, and does not allow for reasonable interpretation, it is therefore sufficiently different to stand alone. The specific statement from the Secretariat member is:
"[GAR 287] designates sites in consultation with member nations, here [GAR 522] designates sites in consultation with faith leaders, and mandates member nations accept such sites as designated sites."
The target resolution is utterly stomping on national laws and judgements of what is relevant.