Well, I can't be bothered finding historic rulings on RNT, but "strictly necessary" seems like very restrictive language by nature. It's intended to bind the sovereign. I'm still against.
What's the interpretation of "strictly necessary"? My interpretation is that it has to be the only reasonable way of mitigating the harm that has been done. It seems like a very high bar to clear for me, and I think Comfed's example is one that seems like reasonable government policy but doesn't...
I suppose Sanctaria and Comfed have already largely expressed what I wanted to say. Given the Security Council's statement, it appears the majority of the Council believes my actions last July and August meant that I can no longer be trusted by the community, even several months later.
Was it...
Funny thing is it seems to have been in the drafts but it was replaced with 678, which was the resolution that repealed 342. So the preamble now erroneously refers to 678 as a repealed resolution.