Re: [eia] issues to be addressed

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:06 PM 3/30/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> I am considering changing my vote,but I have one question first.  Does the
> wording allow a violated power to declare war on the intruder even if under a
> restricted peace ?  I realize there may be other reasons why the offended 
> party
> could not declare war, such as having enemies inside the homenation, 
> etc.  But
> I do not approve of the rule if a restricted peace allows someone to tramp
> through another's territory without threat of war.  I know the PP cost 
> would be
> a deterent anyway,but the possibility of starting a war would be the 
> "clincher"
> that would make forcible access OK with me.
>
> -JJY
As far as I can tell, yes.  It refers to one of the clauses under the 
restrictions on declarations of war, but that is the one saying you cannot 
declare war on a major power when you have forces within that major power's 
borders already, 4.2.2.1.  Since it refers to that subsection specifically 
and not 4.2.2 in general, I would say that 4.2.2.4, the restriction that 
you can't declare war under enforced peace, does not apply in this case.

So this would be an exception to the enforced peace rules.

It would also be an exception to 4.2.2.2, restricting declarations of war 
on another major power when enemy forces are within your borders.  Not a 
surprising exception really, but still an exception.

Mike


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia