I shall comment on this proposal as a private citizen. Do not take this as an opinion of the government as a whole.
First off, Article 2's amendments have this specific wording for a reason: the word "possessions" was written there due to the Islamic Republics of Iran, an illegally-occupied Osiran possession. I do not believe that we could raid Osiran claims, nor viceversa. To utilize sovereign territory as practice grounds would be disrespectful in my opinion, even if we agree on that exercise, but perhaps it is just me and this is not an issue.
In 3.3, the option to only stay neutral or aid Osiris was written so, even if we are not helping a war enemy of the other, we do not give them any moral support whatsoever. The same with Osiris: even if they cannot aid our war adversaries, not even a statement of support shall be permitted by opportunists.
In 4.3, your amendment potentially removes the option for a trial. I initially interpreted this "seeking punishment" wording as just punishing any such citizens, and that may be a cause for confusion in my opinion (Or perhaps my mind is stupid and I am wrong, who knows? If so, I must offer my most sincere apologies for my ignorance).
Also, even if we seek a trial and the defendant in question results to be non-guilty, I would forsee that any lack of punishment would break our treaty (for example, could you imagine that Osiris sheltered someone who was plotting Lazarene Civil War 2.0? We would be beyond furious, would we not? Same with Osiris: if we had, for instance, Feux as a Lazarene citizen, Osiris would be enraged).
4.6 was added to offer an official apology (and these, in a way, have diplomatic force), as well as to provide a failsafe: a last chance to save the treaty and make up for wrongdoing, or apologize for the inefficiency of a signatory to relay intelligence vital to the other's security. It might be "redundant" or "unnecessary" for some, but I would prefer to keep it (also, I find it a tad funny that, technically by 4.4, if, for example, we spied on Osiris, we would be obligated to condemn the espionage, but not issue an apology, which would be...odd, to say the least. It is virtually impossible for this to happen, as we would rather deny or add an apology than to just condemn ourselves, but it is theoretically possible).
Please, pardon me that we do not see the same on the wording of the treaty. I hope that I have constructively criticized your proposal, and if I seem harsh or hostile in my tone, I plea for your forgiveness in advance. And if I have misinterpreted you, been ignorant or just stupid in my reasoning, do tell and point it out.
First off, Article 2's amendments have this specific wording for a reason: the word "possessions" was written there due to the Islamic Republics of Iran, an illegally-occupied Osiran possession. I do not believe that we could raid Osiran claims, nor viceversa. To utilize sovereign territory as practice grounds would be disrespectful in my opinion, even if we agree on that exercise, but perhaps it is just me and this is not an issue.
In 3.3, the option to only stay neutral or aid Osiris was written so, even if we are not helping a war enemy of the other, we do not give them any moral support whatsoever. The same with Osiris: even if they cannot aid our war adversaries, not even a statement of support shall be permitted by opportunists.
In 4.3, your amendment potentially removes the option for a trial. I initially interpreted this "seeking punishment" wording as just punishing any such citizens, and that may be a cause for confusion in my opinion (Or perhaps my mind is stupid and I am wrong, who knows? If so, I must offer my most sincere apologies for my ignorance).
Also, even if we seek a trial and the defendant in question results to be non-guilty, I would forsee that any lack of punishment would break our treaty (for example, could you imagine that Osiris sheltered someone who was plotting Lazarene Civil War 2.0? We would be beyond furious, would we not? Same with Osiris: if we had, for instance, Feux as a Lazarene citizen, Osiris would be enraged).
4.6 was added to offer an official apology (and these, in a way, have diplomatic force), as well as to provide a failsafe: a last chance to save the treaty and make up for wrongdoing, or apologize for the inefficiency of a signatory to relay intelligence vital to the other's security. It might be "redundant" or "unnecessary" for some, but I would prefer to keep it (also, I find it a tad funny that, technically by 4.4, if, for example, we spied on Osiris, we would be obligated to condemn the espionage, but not issue an apology, which would be...odd, to say the least. It is virtually impossible for this to happen, as we would rather deny or add an apology than to just condemn ourselves, but it is theoretically possible).
Please, pardon me that we do not see the same on the wording of the treaty. I hope that I have constructively criticized your proposal, and if I seem harsh or hostile in my tone, I plea for your forgiveness in advance. And if I have misinterpreted you, been ignorant or just stupid in my reasoning, do tell and point it out.