Personally, I like the sound of “fate” in that bit, because this resolution wouldn’t want to leave those inhabitants to their fate (if you’ll allow the idiom). From my perspective, it is the fate of those people that the WA is concerned about, if they are subjected to a territorial transition. I will however keep this suggestion in mind, and reconsider at a later point whether I’d change the phrasing, or keep it as it is.
Clause 1 applies to both, as of course the “receiving” state may not be aware of all the laws and jurisdiction of the “sending” nation. I feel that with this phrasing, both states need too cooperate to give a clear and detailed overview to inhabitants. Clause 3 I would prefer to leave to individual member states to regulate upon, as there is always the threat that WA legislation would over-regulate. The current phrasing allows a level of autonomy to member nations, yet ensures that - in cases assistance needs to be given - the basic needs of inhabitants will be secured. I am not sure I get what you mean with the explicit link between Clause 2 and 4. Clause 4 states “ the latter’s rights as granted by Clauses 2 and 3”, which should be a fairly explicit link, no? Or did you mean something else?
I admit the title is a problem area in this proposal draft, as I simply can’t come up with something that I really like, haha. “Protecting Citizens During Territorial Transitions” is indeed a fairly solid one, yet because I changed “citizen” to “inhabitant” everywhere in the proposal, I feel “citizen” doesn’t fit in that well anymore in the title. I could change it to “Protecting Inhabitants During Territorial Transitions”, yet I am afraid that’ll be too long 😛 the title field in the NS forums says it’s too long, anyway, haha.