[PASSED] International Criminal Court

[Lowell Leber]

Instead of a WA-ICC, why not have ad-hoc courts made up of third party nations hold trials for any alleged war criminals? This would allow for a more flexible approach and avoid any possible back log of cases.

[Quelesh]

Instead of a WA-ICC, why not have ad-hoc courts made up of third party nations hold trials for any alleged war criminals? This would allow for a more flexible approach and avoid any possible back log of cases.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that idea if the ICC were to fail, but a centralized court is much preferable. Any court trying crimes of such magnitude must be imminently neutral, objective and unbiased. It would be difficult to describe in a proposal how the third party nations conducting the trials would be selected, and their neutrality would be questionable.

A centralized court is more effective and more efficient, and a backlog would not be a problem (due to the extreme efficiency of the WA gnomes).

I intend to pare this down some more soon.

[Mousebumples]

Instead of a WA-ICC, why not have ad-hoc courts made up of third party nations hold trials for any alleged war criminals? This would allow for a more flexible approach and avoid any possible back log of cases.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that idea if the ICC were to fail, but a centralized court is much preferable. Any court trying crimes of such magnitude must be imminently neutral, objective and unbiased. It would be difficult to describe in a proposal how the third party nations conducting the trials would be selected, and their neutrality would be questionable.

Additionally, I am concerned that specifying that courts made up of "third party nations" would be illegal, as I'd presume that the formation of such courts are similar to a committee. As such, they would be populated by WA gnomes - and specifying otherwise would create an illegal proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

Honestly, the only "court" the GA/WA requires are the ones out behind the GA building.

By the way, does anybody have any idea when the maintenance crews are going to fix those gorram tennis courts? The chips and cracks are causing my shots to go seriously awry.

[WA Building Mgmt]

Honestly, the only "court" the GA/WA requires are the ones out behind the GA building.

By the way, does anybody have any idea when the maintenance crews are going to fix those gorram tennis courts? The chips and cracks are causing my shots to go seriously awry.

They're on the list, but they're not a high priority item so it will be a while before we get to them.

Ken Scott
Vice President, Building Maintenance Department
WA Building Management

[Grays Harbor]

Honestly, the only "court" the GA/WA requires are the ones out behind the GA building.

By the way, does anybody have any idea when the maintenance crews are going to fix those gorram tennis courts? The chips and cracks are causing my shots to go seriously awry.

They're on the list, but they're not a high priority item so it will be a while before we get to them.

Ken Scott
Vice President, Building Maintenance Department
WA Building Management

Ah, so you decided to go with the "Yes, Please, remove us from your christmas bonus list." option.

[Ainocra]

N

O

[Quelesh]

Fourth draft has been posted to the OP. Among the changes:

1. Removed some additional extraneous wording, and some wording which I thought was useful but had to get rid of anyway to save characters.

2. Removed "enslavement" from the first preambulatory clause; unnecessary, and slavery really isn't covered by the proposal anyway, except the slave labor clause of the war crimes definition.

3. Removed "mass deportation" from clause 4 of the crimes against humanity definition. Mass deportation is basically a subset of forced population transfer, and as such was unnecessary.

4. Changed "DO NOT AUTHORIZE" to "PROHIBIT." Saves characters, and is more explicit.

5. Removed "upon the provision of sufficient evidence" from the final clause. It goes without saying that the WA gnomes on the court would not reverse a conviction without sufficient evidence.

Finally got down below 3,500 characters! I wish the character limit were closer to 5,500, but we have to do what we have to do. I'm not necessarily done revising this proposal, and am still not in a hurry to submit it. I'll ask for mod vetting at some point in the future.

[Quelesh]

Posting the current (fourth) draft on this page, for Your Excellencies' convenience.

(Human rights / significant)

The Assembled Nations of the World,

APPALLED that sapient creatures are still subjected to genocide, torture and other atrocities;

DETERMINED that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes face justice;

DISTRESSED that there now exists no international justice system by which to try them should their home nations refuse to do so;

DEFINING, for the purpose of this resolution:

A. "Genocide" as any act intended to destroy, in whole or in part, any group of sapient creatures sharing a common ancestry, nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, culture, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age or age range or any other identifiable real or perceived characteristic

B. "War crimes" as any of the following committed as part of armed conflict:
1. Military actions that intentionally target civilians, resulting in civilian casualties
2. Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies
3. Mass internment or use for slave labor of civilians
4. Excessive destruction of occupied areas or natural resources
5. The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population

C. "Crimes against humanity" as any of the following committed as part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient creatures:
1. Murder
2. Torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment
3. Forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence
4. Forced population transfer;

hereby ESTABLISH the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the purpose of bringing to justice those responsible for the above crimes;

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person (the "wanted person") suspected of these crimes, in situations in which their home nation refuses to bring them to justice;

INSIST that no warrant be issued by the ICC without probable cause;

REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;

PROHIBIT member states from using military force against any nation for the purpose of apprehending wanted persons;

STRONGLY URGE member states to pursue the extradition of wanted persons not under their jurisdictions by all legal and peaceful means; and

TASK the ICC with detaining suspects before trial, trying those accused and implementing the sentences of those convicted, subject to the following:

A. Pre-trial detainees ("defendants") have the following rights: a reasonably speedy trial, competent legal representation, to call witnesses on their behalf and examine witnesses against them, to refuse to incriminate themselves and to fully understand and participate in the proceedings

B. The ICC shall not convict a defendant without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

C. An acquitted defendant shall be immediately and unconditionally released to their nation of origin or, if that nation will not accept them, another consenting nation

D. The ICC shall not transfer any person to any nation unless reasonably certain that the person will not be subject to torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment in that nation

E. Once acquitted by the ICC, no person shall be retried by the ICC or any member state for the same offense

F. The ICC shall never impose the death penalty

G. No defendant or person held after conviction ("convict") shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment

H. Convicts shall have the right to present to the ICC exculpatory evidence that was not available at trial; the ICC may reverse a conviction at any time.

Character count: 3,477

[Enn]

I may have missed this in the discussion, but I wanted to know:

What is the need for an International Criminal Court? Why is there this sudden flurry of activity in this area? Is there something Enn's police are unaware of, some major international crime occurring?

Or is this being pursued simply because the Ambassador from Quelesh wishes to see their nation's name in the Passed Resolutions list?

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Quelesh]

I may have missed this in the discussion, but I wanted to know:

What is the need for an International Criminal Court? Why is there this sudden flurry of activity in this area? Is there something Enn's police are unaware of, some major international crime occurring?

Or is this being pursued simply because the Ambassador from Quelesh wishes to see their nation's name in the Passed Resolutions list?

Your Honor, if I simply wanted to pass a resolution, any resolution, I would have drafted one that is much less controversial. Rogue dictators, military commanders and militia leaders are committing these kinds of crimes frequently, and sometimes they get away with it because no one brings them to justice. I hope you would agree that this needs to change.

[Enn]

I may have missed this in the discussion, but I wanted to know:

What is the need for an International Criminal Court? Why is there this sudden flurry of activity in this area? Is there something Enn's police are unaware of, some major international crime occurring?

Or is this being pursued simply because the Ambassador from Quelesh wishes to see their nation's name in the Passed Resolutions list?

Your Honor, if I simply wanted to pass a resolution, any resolution, I would have drafted one that is much less controversial. Rogue dictators, military commanders and militia leaders are committing these kinds of crimes frequently, and sometimes they get away with it because no one brings them to justice. I hope you would agree that this needs to change.

... Are they really? Are they acting under the auspices of the WA? Or are they outside of this institution? If they're within, the gnomes will sort them out sooner or later.

Are you claiming that the WA should have jurisdiction over non-members? That is a very dangerous path to tread. My own government once took part in such an attempt, the Pretenama Panel. It did not end well.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Wallet Inspectors]

Three major problems.
1. Genocide is defined so broadly as to include an attempt to wipe out, in whole or in part, enemy soldiers! They share the common characteristics of nationality and creed - to serve their nation. Wiping out an enemy unit of soldiers would be genocide under this proposal.
2. What's the point of an ICC that can't enforce the death penalty? We're not talking about jay-walking here.
3. Operation of internment camps are pretty standard practice in any war. This includes PoW camps and compulsory relocation of foreign nationals from an enemy state. And as these people are not free to leave, and are frequently made to run much of the camp themselves (kitchens, laundry facilities, etc), they are, by definition, slaves. How can this be a war crime?

Other more minor issues:

Show me a modern weapon that isn't somehow chemical, radiological, or biological in action? Bombs are chemical. Electric weapons are radiological, whether you're talking targeted lasers, masers, bright spotlights or nukes.

Enemies are frequently not limited to enlisted soldiers. Plenty of wars rely on the services of civilian irregulars, sub-state actors, and even conventional armies are supplied by civilian ancillary staff. Additionally, civilians tend to run the factories and primary industry which funds wars. Why shouldn't you be able to bomb mines or forestry equipment or farms or factories that are staffed by civilians if this supports an enemy war effort? This could be improved by making a clear distinction between unmilitarized residential areas, and other targets. Deliberately bombing a suburb or apartment building when there's no fighters present should be a crime, but bombing a civilian factory that is turning out motor cars or assault rifles shouldn't.

[Quelesh]

I may have missed this in the discussion, but I wanted to know:

What is the need for an International Criminal Court? Why is there this sudden flurry of activity in this area? Is there something Enn's police are unaware of, some major international crime occurring?

Or is this being pursued simply because the Ambassador from Quelesh wishes to see their nation's name in the Passed Resolutions list?

Your Honor, if I simply wanted to pass a resolution, any resolution, I would have drafted one that is much less controversial. Rogue dictators, military commanders and militia leaders are committing these kinds of crimes frequently, and sometimes they get away with it because no one brings them to justice. I hope you would agree that this needs to change.

... Are they really? Are they acting under the auspices of the WA? Or are they outside of this institution? If they're within, the gnomes will sort them out sooner or later.

Are you claiming that the WA should have jurisdiction over non-members? That is a very dangerous path to tread. My own government once took part in such an attempt, the Pretenama Panel. It did not end well.

The Convention Against Genocide requires member states to criminalize genocide (with a slightly different definition) within their own borders, and it requires member states to extradite the perpetrators of genocide to the "appropriate authority," but it says nothing of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Even in the case of genocide, the "appropriate authority," meaning the person's home jurisdiction, may not be willing to prosecute if it's a non-member state which was complicit in the genocide. My proposal would require member states under these circumstances to extradite such persons to the ICC instead (assuming a valid ICC warrant), which I believe is perfectly reasonable.

Claiming WA jurisdiction over non-member states would be patently illegal, and that is not my intention here. This proposal does not require the governments of non-member states to do anything. It simply requires member states to extradite wanted persons who are within their jurisdictions to the ICC, and it specifically bans member states from using force to compel non-member states to hand over such persons. Persons extradited to the ICC by member states would already be within the member states' jurisdictions, and while non-member states may cooperate with member states to extradite wanted persons to the ICC, they are not required to do so. I think this makes the proposal legal.

1. Genocide is defined so broadly as to include an attempt to wipe out, in whole or in part, enemy soldiers! They share the common characteristics of nationality and creed - to serve their nation. Wiping out an enemy unit of soldiers would be genocide under this proposal.

You make a valid point here, Your Honor. GAR#38, the Convention Against Genocide, includes the phrase "on the basis of" in its definition of genocide. This would probably resolve your concern here, as killing enemy soldiers in war is done on the basis of their hostility, not their nationality. I will address this in my next draft.

2. What's the point of an ICC that can't enforce the death penalty? We're not talking about jay-walking here.

The death penalty clause is included for three reasons:

1. I the player, OOC, oppose the death penalty.

2. Unsurprisingly then, my nation, IC, opposes the death penalty.

3. Many other nations also oppose the death penalty, and allowing the ICC to kill convicts would cause them to question the legitimacy of the ICC and to oppose it. The ICC would come under criticism from some quarters that it is barbaric because it imposes the death penalty. Life imprisonment is adequate to ensure that convicts cannot reoffend.

(OOC: The RL ICC also cannot impose the death penalty; this was intended to ensure the ICC's international legitimacy.)

3. Operation of internment camps are pretty standard practice in any war. This includes PoW camps and compulsory relocation of foreign nationals from an enemy state. And as these people are not free to leave, and are frequently made to run much of the camp themselves (kitchens, laundry facilities, etc), they are, by definition, slaves. How can this be a war crime?

Internment camps for POWs, and slave labor of POWs, would not be prohibited by this proposal. Mass internment or slave labor of civilians, on the other hand, is rightly condemned, and has no place in legitimate warfare. "Compulsory relocation" of civilians from an enemy state is rightly classified as a crime against humanity. There is no legitimate need to inter or forcibly relocate civilians in war. If these "civilians" are engaging in active hostilities, then they're not civilians at all, but combatants, and these clauses would not apply to them.

Show me a modern weapon that isn't somehow chemical, radiological, or biological in action? Bombs are chemical. Electric weapons are radiological, whether you're talking targeted lasers, masers, bright spotlights or nukes.

"Chemical weapons" has a commonly accepted definition which excludes conventional bombs. Likewise, the commonly accepted definition of "radiological weapons" excludes targeted lasers, etc.; only weapons which intentionally disperse harmful radioactive material designed to cause radioactive contamination qualify. If the character limit would allow it, I would specifically define these in the proposal. It's not necessary though, because everyone knows what these terms mean.

Enemies are frequently not limited to enlisted soldiers. Plenty of wars rely on the services of civilian irregulars, sub-state actors, and even conventional armies are supplied by civilian ancillary staff. Additionally, civilians tend to run the factories and primary industry which funds wars. Why shouldn't you be able to bomb mines or forestry equipment or farms or factories that are staffed by civilians if this supports an enemy war effort? This could be improved by making a clear distinction between unmilitarized residential areas, and other targets. Deliberately bombing a suburb or apartment building when there's no fighters present should be a crime, but bombing a civilian factory that is turning out motor cars or assault rifles shouldn't.

Another valid point, Ambassador. Clause 4 of the war crimes definition contains the qualifier "excessive," which allows destruction of occupied areas or natural resources where militarily necessary (not excessive) for the war effort. Clause 1 could probably use some amending, however. Or perhaps I could just define "civilian" to exclude those actively assisting the war effort, but that would probably put me well over the character limit.

An amendment may not be really necessary though. "Intentionally targeting civilians" is a war crime, but bombing a weapons factory staffed by non-combatants could be interpreted as targeting the hostile weapons production, not the civilians.

We greatly appreciate your useful contributions, Your Excellency.

[Revolutionist Britain]

Why do people keep coming up with this misguided idea that the WA needs some sort of court? We've gotten along just fine without one for all this time why do we suddenly need one now?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because there are those who cannot accept that a nation is quite capable of doing something on their own without the WA holding their hand.

The WA does not require a "court"

The Armed Republic of Lowell Leber agrees with the well spoken represenative from Grays Harbor. This resolution, if passed, could cause a mass exodous of nations from the WA. This would be counter-productive to those who really want a stronger WA. We are not one of those nations, but the point is still valid.

Agreed, the Republic of Revolutionist Britain can legislate on these crimes perfectly well itself. Besides, we feel that Truth and Reconciliation councils work better, given the often dual fault, acrimonious nature of the conflicts that lead to war crimes.

As we said the last time, Revolutionist Britain would draft a petition, for any nation to sign, should it pass, refusing to recognise the court's jurisdiction. This would show what an utter paper tiger it really is.

[Quelesh]

Fifth draft has been posted to the OP. Only a few changes this time:

1. Changed the definition of genocide to include "on the basis of," similar to the Convention Against Genocide. I feel that this adequately addresses the concern of the honored ambassador from Wallet Inspectors regarding this definition; the destruction or attempted destruction would now have to be on the basis of one of the defined characteristics, thus excluding the killing of enemy soldiers in war.

2. Removed a few unneeded characters.

3. Changed subsection D of the ICC's restrictions to read:

D. The ICC shall not transfer any person to any nation unless reasonably certain that the person will not be subject to torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment in that nationas a result

This closes a loophole whereby someone could potentially be transfered to a nation that will just further transfer them to another nation that will torture them.

As I said before, the esteemed ambassador from Wallet Inspectors makes a valid point about the killing of non-combatants that are actively aiding the enemy war effort (in weapons production factories, for example). However, I don't think an amendment is necessary (and I don't have the character space anyway). If a weapons factory is bombed and some civilians staffing the factory are killed, then the civilians are collateral damage not covered by this proposal. The strike has to intentionally target the civilians themselves to count as a war crime.

(OOC: For a RL example, take Israel bombing a rocket facility in a residential area of Gaza. If Israel is targeting rocket launchers or rocket construction, and some civilians are killed in the process (either civilians helping to build the rockets or just civilians who happen to be in the area), then the civilians are collateral damage and Israel isn't committing a war crime. However, if Israel intentionally targets civilians and the airstrike is for the purpose of killing civilians, then it's a war crime.)

This proposal is getting pretty close to completion. In the absence of further suggestions, I'll probably be requesting vetting in moderation in a few days.

Does anyone have any comments about the category/strength?

[Poree]

>>TASK the ICC with detaining suspects before trial, trying those accused and implementing the sentences of those convicted, subject to the following:

I thought the WA did nto have its own police forces. How will the ICC hold persons if the WA is not allowed to have its own police force? Or am I mis-informed regarding a WA police force.

[Revolutionist Britain]

Your legislation seems redundant in talking about nations as a whole and knowing full well most will not be signatories, so most will avoid justice.

I cannot support a two-tier justice system. Or a WA judiciary, with compelling powers who may override my right to try possible war criminals in my own state (RL: such as Saddam being tried in Iraq) but it may be superceded by some upper power I cannot call to account.

But, to re-state my question, what of Truth and Reconciliation councils, as sue to the dual fault nature and animosity of these crimes it may be better than a court?

[Quelesh]

>>TASK the ICC with detaining suspects before trial, trying those accused and implementing the sentences of those convicted, subject to the following:

I thought the WA did nto have its own police forces. How will the ICC hold persons if the WA is not allowed to have its own police force? Or am I mis-informed regarding a WA police force.

The WA would not have a police force, Ambassador, any more than the warden and guards at a local jail are "police" (or for that matter, any more than security at WA Headquarters is "police"). The job of the security guards at the detention facility would be to prevent prisoners from escaping and to protect them and others from harm. They're not police.

If I had the character space, I would specify that the security forces at the detention facility be staffed by professionals from member states, and not as part of a "WA police," but honestly I don't see how I can remove anything else.

Your legislation seems redundant in talking about nations as a whole and knowing full well most will not be signatories, so most will avoid justice.

It is true that most nations of the world are not WA member states, and that there's nothing the WA can do (within the rules) to force them to comply with any resolution or to prevent them from committing genocide, etc. If I could compel non member states to comply, I would, but I can't. The proposal is already probably close to the boundary of legality.

This proposal would provide justice in situations in which it would otherwise be lacking. Governments of non member states may not be compelled to hand over a wanted person, but when that person travels to any member state, they're arrested and extradited. Member states that don't subscribe to the doctrine of universal jurisdiction will have an internationally legitimate alternative for the worst offenders.

I cannot support a two-tier justice system. Or a WA judiciary, with compelling powers who may override my right to try possible war criminals in my own state (RL: such as Saddam being tried in Iraq) but it may be superceded by some upper power I cannot call to account.

The ICC would only be authorized to issue arrest warrants for individuals whose home jurisdictions refuse to try them. If your nation were willing to try someone who committed crimes against humanity in your jurisdiction, then there would be no ICC arrest warrant in the first place.

Nations that claim universal jurisdiction may be affected - if they arrest a wanted person for war crimes committed in another jurisdiction, they may be compelled to extradite that person to the ICC if there's a warrant for him instead of trying him themselves. However, an International Criminal Court is likely to have more international legitimacy than a single nation claiming universal jurisdiction to prosecute another nation's citizen accused of crimes against another nation's citizens anyway.

(OOC: How much international legitimacy do you think it would have if the UK arrested Tzipi Livni and tried her for war crimes?)

But, to re-state my question, what of Truth and Reconciliation councils, as sue to the dual fault nature and animosity of these crimes it may be better than a court?

Genocide has a dual fault nature? A war in which both sides committed crimes may be a little different, but such councils can be left to RP, in my opinion.

[Shazbotdom]

"Ambassador, the idea of an 'International Criminal Court' has been thrown around for such a long time, since the 'Organization that Predated the World Assembly', I honestly don't remember it's name. And every single time the person who proposed it was shot down with the same reasoning. This is giving TOO MUCH power to the World Assembly over matters of Judicial Power. If warcrimes occure, it is up to the two nations involved to bring up charges to the individual or individuals who have caused the problems, not up to the World Assembly. That is how it's been for as long as I can remember in my more than 40 years in Diplomacy and even longer than that for my Predicessor's."
[float=Left][/float]

Mr. Antuan D. Flaberghast
10th Level Diplomat
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA

[Satyrstone]

Why do people keep coming up with this misguided idea that the WA needs some sort of court? We've gotten along just fine without one for all this time why do we suddenly need one now?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because there are those who cannot accept that a nation is quite capable of doing something on their own without the WA holding their hand.

The WA does not require a "court"

The Armed Republic of Lowell Leber agrees with the well spoken represenative from Grays Harbor. This resolution, if passed, could cause a mass exodous of nations from the WA. This would be counter-productive to those who really want a stronger WA. We are not one of those nations, but the point is still valid.

Agreed, the Republic of Revolutionist Britain can legislate on these crimes perfectly well itself. Besides, we feel that Truth and Reconciliation councils work better, given the often dual fault, acrimonious nature of the conflicts that lead to war crimes.

As we said the last time, Revolutionist Britain would draft a petition, for any nation to sign, should it pass, refusing to recognise the court's jurisdiction. This would show what an utter paper tiger it really is.

The Confederacy of Satyrstone can appreciate the spirit of this proposal, in the past being victims of genocide ourselves. There are many nations that carry out heinous and unspeakable atrocities against their fellow Beings, and they must find justice.

That said, we cannot allow such a breach of our nation's sovereignty, and our right to administer justice ourselves. Our security forces are extremely capable of prosecuting such individuals within our own borders, and the Foreign Ministry is perfectly happy to hand off these individuals off to the offended party or government.

The only such case we could see such a proposal being necessary would be if the offended party no longer exists, or is not capable of delivering justice. In which case we would assist them in gathering evidence and presenting it to the court with our prosecutors within our own justice system.

We will not support any such resolution, in any form.

Sincerely,
Her Excellecy Adria Martinez, Ambassador to the WA from The Confederacy of Satyrstone

[Revolutionist Britain]

>>TASK the ICC with detaining suspects before trial, trying those accused and implementing the sentences of those convicted, subject to the following:

I thought the WA did nto have its own police forces. How will the ICC hold persons if the WA is not allowed to have its own police force? Or am I mis-informed regarding a WA police force.

The WA would not have a police force, Ambassador, any more than the warden and guards at a local jail are "police" (or for that matter, any more than security at WA Headquarters is "police"). The job of the security guards at the detention facility would be to prevent prisoners from escaping and to protect them and others from harm. They're not police.

If I had the character space, I would specify that the security forces at the detention facility be staffed by professionals from member states, and not as part of a "WA police," but honestly I don't see how I can remove anything else.

Your legislation seems redundant in talking about nations as a whole and knowing full well most will not be signatories, so most will avoid justice.

It is true that most nations of the world are not WA member states, and that there's nothing the WA can do (within the rules) to force them to comply with any resolution or to prevent them from committing genocide, etc. If I could compel non member states to comply, I would, but I can't. The proposal is already probably close to the boundary of legality.

This proposal would provide justice in situations in which it would otherwise be lacking. Governments of non member states may not be compelled to hand over a wanted person, but when that person travels to any member state, they're arrested and extradited. Member states that don't subscribe to the doctrine of universal jurisdiction will have an internationally legitimate alternative for the worst offenders.

I cannot support a two-tier justice system. Or a WA judiciary, with compelling powers who may override my right to try possible war criminals in my own state (RL: such as Saddam being tried in Iraq) but it may be superceded by some upper power I cannot call to account.

The ICC would only be authorized to issue arrest warrants for individuals whose home jurisdictions refuse to try them. If your nation were willing to try someone who committed crimes against humanity in your jurisdiction, then there would be no ICC arrest warrant in the first place.

Nations that claim universal jurisdiction may be affected - if they arrest a wanted person for war crimes committed in another jurisdiction, they may be compelled to extradite that person to the ICC if there's a warrant for him instead of trying him themselves. However, an International Criminal Court is likely to have more international legitimacy than a single nation claiming universal jurisdiction to prosecute another nation's citizen accused of crimes against another nation's citizens anyway.

(OOC: How much international legitimacy do you think it would have if the UK arrested Tzipi Livni and tried her for war crimes?)

But, to re-state my question, what of Truth and Reconciliation councils, as sue to the dual fault nature and animosity of these crimes it may be better than a court?

Genocide has a dual fault nature? A war in which both sides committed crimes may be a little different, but such councils can be left to RP, in my opinion.

If a Non-Member citizen travels to a Member state, we can arrest them? That sounds like another way of saying the WA can exercise law on non-members. This is totally against the principle of the WA, in that it only binds us. Non-members may not even recognise genocide as a crime. (OOC: For my point, imagine the EU condemning Croatia for limiting free trade, as per EU principles. Since Croatia isn't an EU member, you cannot hold it to the same principles.)

An International Criminal Court takes away the rights of nations to try their own criminals, supercedes regional courts and extradition treaties that may exist between nations. This could undo a lot of valuable diplomacy and create an unwieldy seemingly top-heavy commanding WA judiciary, which has been unnecessary till now and defeated once before. Revolutionist Britain continues to defy this proposal and will defy any such court, should it be formed.

(OOC: For T&R Councils, I was thinking of the Former Yugoslavia, or South Africa. Now I am well aware the Serbs were the principal agressors, but Croatia was fairly brutal too and the Bosnian government may well have acted out of line. That is how I mean dual (or in this case, tri-faulted) as no-one state can be blamed. It might be best to leave these war crimes to individual RP, instead of creating a well-intentioned, but unpopular, court.

And for the record, we may have got a lot of kudos if we'd arrested Tzipi Livni. Israel did after all bomb the UN and use WP rounds in civilian zones. Not that that excuses the Palestinian campaign of murder against civialian targets but two wrongs don't make a right. Your point on it being illegitimate however, is conceded )

[Quelesh]

"Ambassador, the idea of an 'International Criminal Court' has been thrown around for such a long time, since the 'Organization that Predated the World Assembly', I honestly don't remember it's name. And every single time the person who proposed it was shot down with the same reasoning. This is giving TOO MUCH power to the World Assembly over matters of Judicial Power. If warcrimes occure, it is up to the two nations involved to bring up charges to the individual or individuals who have caused the problems, not up to the World Assembly. That is how it's been for as long as I can remember in my more than 40 years in Diplomacy and even longer than that for my Predicessor's."

I certainly respect your diplomatic experience, Ambassador, and I honestly respect the view that an International Criminal Court would give the WA too much power. However, the actual impact on any member state's judiciary would be minimal. The ICC would exist solely for the purpose of prosecuting a very limited range of crimes, and then solely under certain circumstances in which the perpetrators' home jurisdictions refuse to bring them to justice. The ICC would actually have a very limited role on the world stage. I do think, though, that it is the duty of the World Assembly to further international justice, and few things would further that goal more than bringing the perpetrators of these heinous crimes to justice.

The Confederacy of Satyrstone can appreciate the spirit of this proposal, in the past being victims of genocide ourselves. There are many nations that carry out heinous and unspeakable atrocities against their fellow Beings, and they must find justice.

That said, we cannot allow such a breach of our nation's sovereignty, and our right to administer justice ourselves. Our security forces are extremely capable of prosecuting such individuals within our own borders, and the Foreign Ministry is perfectly happy to hand off these individuals off to the offended party or government.

The only such case we could see such a proposal being necessary would be if the offended party no longer exists, or is not capable of delivering justice. In which case we would assist them in gathering evidence and presenting it to the court with our prosecutors within our own justice system.

We will not support any such resolution, in any form.

We appreciate your comments and your forthrightness, Your Excellency. Each nation does certainly have the right, and the duty, to administer justice. The role of the ICC would be to step in when nations abrogate that duty.

You seem to be asserting that individual nations claiming universal jurisdiction is preferable to a central, internationally recognized criminal court. I would support the use of universal jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes in the lack of a good alternative, but I seek to provide that alternative with this proposal.

If a Non-Member citizen travels to a Member state, we can arrest them? That sounds like another way of saying the WA can exercise law on non-members. This is totally against the principle of the WA, in that it only binds us. Non-members may not even recognise genocide as a crime. (OOC: For my point, imagine the EU condemning Croatia for limiting free trade, as per EU principles. Since Croatia isn't an EU member, you cannot hold it to the same principles.)

(OOC: I'll partially respond to your OOC point IC.) IC: Yes, if a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant travels to a member state, that state could, and indeed would be compelled to, arrest that person. Altering that would take away a great deal of the influence of the proposal. I cannot compel non-member states to do anything, and I do not try to do so here. I merely seek to compel member states to arrest certain individuals, only when those individuals are already within the member state's jurisdiction. Non-member states are free to keep genocide legal, and their citizens who commit genocide are free to remain outside of WA member states. Your example is of a supranational collective condemning a non-member state for not living up to the ideals of the collective, an entirely different scenario.

An International Criminal Court takes away the rights of nations to try their own criminals, supercedes regional courts and extradition treaties that may exist between nations. This could undo a lot of valuable diplomacy and create an unwieldy seemingly top-heavy commanding WA judiciary, which has been unnecessary till now and defeated once before. Revolutionist Britain continues to defy this proposal and will defy any such court, should it be formed.

My proposal does not take away the right of individual nations to try their own criminals, Your Honor. It would specifically only authorize the ICC to issue a warrant when the person's home jurisdiction refuses to try them. If someone commits genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity within your jurisdiction, your nation has every right to try them, and, in my view, a solemn duty to do so. The ICC would not be able to issue a warrant if you were willing to bring the person to justice, even if your nation's rules of trial and rules of evidence were more favorable for the defendant than the ICC's, and even if the penalties for these crimes are less in your nation than what the ICC would impose. (This might be considered a loophole if nations simply made the penalty a small fine; however, I think the ICC could use the wording "bring them to justice" to claim jurisdiction if a nation imposes such an absurdly light penalty for such a horrific crime. However, if your nation would only sentence a war criminal to five years in prison and the ICC would sentence them to fifty, the ICC would have no right to step in.)

You do make a good point about regional courts. If the home nation of the perpetrator of one of these crimes refuses to try him, but the nations of that region are subject to a regional court which would step in, the ICC should not issue a warrant. What would you think of, in the AUTHORIZE clause, changing "home nation" to "home jurisdiction"? This would allow for regional courts to claim jurisdiction over the perpetrators and eliminate the need for ICC warrants in those circumstances. I don't think it's necessary to specify that the ICC has can rescind a warrant if a national or regional court claims jurisdiction; I think it should be obvious that they can do so since the proposal doesn't prevent it.

(OOC: For T&R Councils, I was thinking of the Former Yugoslavia, or South Africa. Now I am well aware the Serbs were the principal agressors, but Croatia was fairly brutal too and the Bosnian government may well have acted out of line. That is how I mean dual (or in this case, tri-faulted) as no-one state can be blamed. It might be best to leave these war crimes to individual RP, instead of creating a well-intentioned, but unpopular, court.

And for the record, we may have got a lot of kudos if we'd arrested Tzipi Livni. Israel did after all bomb the UN and use WP rounds in civilian zones. Not that that excuses the Palestinian campaign of murder against civialian targets but two wrongs don't make a right. Your point on it being illegitimate however, is conceded )

OOC: I actually agree that it's best handled in RP. A proposal can't create new game mechanics, and, if this proposal actually passes, the only way such trials would play out would be in RP anyway. I concede your point that many situations in which war crimes are committed are not nearly clear cut as this proposal assumes. However, the principal aggressors (i.e. principal criminals) should receive the principal penalties. A T&R council may work for Yugoslavia; it would not be enough for Pol Pot.

And I'm not saying that Israeli officials shouldn't be held accountable, but I think any kudos you'd receive would be drowned out by the unrelenting barrage of criticism. I've been thinking about it, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose universal jurisdiction in the absence of a better alternative. But if Livni (and Khaled Mashal) is going to be tried, I'd rather it be by an international judicial body.

[Hindopia]

Three major problems.
1. Genocide is defined so broadly as to include an attempt to wipe out, in whole or in part, enemy soldiers! They share the common characteristics of nationality and creed - to serve their nation. Wiping out an enemy unit of soldiers would be genocide under this proposal.
2. What's the point of an ICC that can't enforce the death penalty? We're not talking about jay-walking here.
3. Operation of internment camps are pretty standard practice in any war. This includes PoW camps and compulsory relocation of foreign nationals from an enemy state. And as these people are not free to leave, and are frequently made to run much of the camp themselves (kitchens, laundry facilities, etc), they are, by definition, slaves. How can this be a war crime?

Other more minor issues:

Show me a modern weapon that isn't somehow chemical, radiological, or biological in action? Bombs are chemical. Electric weapons are radiological, whether you're talking targeted lasers, masers, bright spotlights or nukes.

Enemies are frequently not limited to enlisted soldiers. Plenty of wars rely on the services of civilian irregulars, sub-state actors, and even conventional armies are supplied by civilian ancillary staff. Additionally, civilians tend to run the factories and primary industry which funds wars. Why shouldn't you be able to bomb mines or forestry equipment or farms or factories that are staffed by civilians if this supports an enemy war effort? This could be improved by making a clear distinction between unmilitarized residential areas, and other targets. Deliberately bombing a suburb or apartment building when there's no fighters present should be a crime, but bombing a civilian factory that is turning out motor cars or assault rifles shouldn't.

You are free to submit a repeal proposal to address the majority of the issues that concern you. These actions you describe are not made illegal by this proposal but rather actual resolutions of the General Assembly. The only thing this proposal sets forth to accomplish is the establishment of an international court that would try those accused of such breaches of WA law.

---

Hindopia will not stand for this legislation. If a nation's government is found guilty of breaches to WA law, then that government could very easily avoid punishment by simply leaving the WA. As the ambassador from Flibbleites put it: Another Useless Committee. I do not intend to sound harsh or rude, but I would like to voice my opinion strongly.

Vargas Harrowsing, WA Ambassador for Hindopia

[Revolutionist Britain]

*Previous conversation not quoted for time*

I believe that my examples hold water, for what is the WA but a collective of nations, striving for common compromises/goals?

I feel this interpretation would compel us to arrest non-member states and hold them to a WA standard, which isn't universally accepted, or every nation would sign up. We cannot legislate over those individuals just because they step foot on our soil. We could cause may international incidents (Would you want to arrest a President on a state visit?)

Your wording is more palatable, but we still fail to recognise the need for a court that would have little legitimacy with member states who oppose its inception (this nation included)

((OOC: Believe me, your work is very good and in RL I'd agree, but RPing my nation, I feel it would not be in the best interests of most nations to have a court. As ever though, I wish you the very best of luck.))