We define inhumane weaponry as weaponry that is solely designed to maim sapient targets, rather than kill them. "Solely designed" is a very important part of this definition. We recognize that sometimes a deadly weapon leaves its target alive but injured, and sometimes a "less than lethal" weapon can have unintended consequences that last longer than was meant. These categories are not affected by the limitations we seek to impose. This proposal applies only to those things which are specifically and deliberately designed only to cripple or maim their target – a cruel and unnecessary thing.

It does not! We define maiming as being a permanent injury, with loss of function in a sensory organ given as an example. Only infliction of a permanent major injury or disability is covered. Temporary incapacity is not limited.

No. This proposal very specifically states that it only applies in situations where lethal force is also prohibited. If you are engaged in a military conflict, you are using lethal force in a manner fully recognized by international law, and would not be limited by the strictures of this proposal. We do not presume to legislate your military's wartime activities.

Thankfully no. The Chemical Weapons Accord did two things. – it placed limitations on the use of "Chemical Weapons" (defined as intentionally causing death or severe injury), and it guaranteed the right to use "Riot Control Agents" (defined as having the intention to non-lethally incapacitate and subdue). With regards to the right to use Riot Control Agents, it very specifically states that this right is subject to future World Assembly legislation, such as the present proposal. With regards to Chemical Weapons, it grants no guarantee of any right to use them, providing only limitations should the tragedy of their use occur. This interpretation is fully supported by GA precedent.