Chapter I Purposes definitions equality and nondiscrimination general obligations | Article 3 Definitions | Riga Revision 1.0

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear? Citations required.

2. Legal Clarity: Is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.

3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? International law sources cited.

4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Research evidence cited.

5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for repression, manipulation, or false accusations? Case studies cited.

6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this with realistic resources? Implementation data cited.

7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Policy analysis cited.

8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Comparative studies cited.

❌ Circular reasoning (-1)
Text: “gender-based violence”
Issue: Requires ‘gender’ which is contested (Art 3c)

❌ Equivocation (-1)
Text: “violence…psychological harm”
Issue: Redefines ‘violence’ beyond physical

❌ Equivocation (-1)
Text: “violence…economic harm”
Issue: Expands ‘violence’ to finances

❌ Category error (-1)
Text: “physical, sexual, psychological or economic”
Issue: Mixing different harm categories

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “economic harm”
Issue: No definition

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “psychological harm”
Issue: No threshold specified

❌ Bad actor vector (-1)
Text: “psychological harm”
Issue: Speech prosecution risk

❌ Bad actor vector (-1)
Text: “economic harm”
Issue: Weaponizable

❌ Ideological lock-in (-1)
Text: “socially constructed roles”
Issue: Specific contested framework embedded

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “partners”
Issue: Dating? Casual? Cohabitation?

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “domestic unit”
Issue: Roommates? Siblings? Extended family?

❌ Mind-reading requirement (-1)
Text: “because she is a woman”
Issue: Proving internal motive impossible

❌ Gender asymmetry (-1)
Text: “violence against women”
Issue: Male victims excluded – framework only covers violence AGAINST women

❌ Gender asymmetry (-1)
Text: “women includes girls under 18”
Issue: Boys under 18 excluded – no protection for male children

❌ Gender asymmetry (-1)
Text: “directed against a woman”
Issue: Violence against men ‘because he is a man’ not covered

Revision principles: Clarity, consistency, cultural sensitivity, sovereignty respect, victim protection, exploitability reduction

Option A: [Gender-symmetric revision with rationale and sources]

Option B: [Alternative approach with rationale and sources]

Option C: [Minimalist revision with rationale and sources]

Each option includes: Legal precedents, implementation feasibility, cultural impact assessment, stakeholder perspectives

💭 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES:
Consider views from: Victim advocacy groups, legal scholars, cultural/religious communities, implementation practitioners, state sovereignty advocates, human rights organizations, gender equality advocates, and others affected by this article.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 2 | All Articles | Article 4 →

About Riga Revision 1.0: Comprehensive article-by-article critique using the 8-Point Evaluation Framework, rigorous technical documentation standards, and multi-stakeholder perspectives. This is a FIRST DRAFT prepared with AI assistance. Version 2.0 and beyond will be prepared by human experts.

Resources: Evaluation Framework | 8 C’s of Technical Writing | All Articles

Disclaimer: This analysis represents critical examination from multiple perspectives and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and qualified legal professionals.