She gave five reasons in particular why the scope of the exclusion clause should not be limited to the offenses outlined in Article 1 FDCT: firstly the wording refers to acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN and is not limited to terrorist offenses; secondly, such an interpretation would be at odds with the Geneva Convention in light of which the
Qualification Directive should be interpreted; thirdly, the
Qualification Directive as an instrument of asylum and humanitarian law and the FDCT are qualitatively different and derive from different areas of law; fourthly, it would unduly restrict the application of the exclusion clause and finally, fifthly, the fact that the FDCT is an instrument of variable geometry with
varying application across the Union would lead to problems if it were used as
criteria in defining terms for the purposes of the application of the
Qualification Directive.
While all life insurance carriers will categorize a cigarette smoker with a tobacco risk class, their
qualification criteria for Preferred Tobacco versus Standard Tobacco does
vary.