The new version
submitted claims that "Seeing that international courts cannot be established with this resolution in effect,".
Obviously IA is going to claim that this parallels Auralia's use of "criminals cannot be extradited" sufficiently for those of us who recognized
that as legal -- on the basis that "criminals" could reasonably be read as "some criminals" rather than just as "all criminals" -- to have to accept
this as legal too.
In my opinion, there's enough difference between those two cases in context/emphasis -- especially as he goes on to talk specifically about the type of international law courts that OUJ
does block -- for that comparison
not to be valid, and so for this version of IA's proposal to be considered just as illegal as the
first submitted one.
What do the rest of you think?