[REPORT] Legality of 'War Crimes Tribunal'?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is the proposal 'War Crimes Tribunal' a category violation? http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=chester_pearson_1421530135

By the author's own admission, here:

What are "war crimes"? I can't find anything in the present text indicating which "heinous" crimes this "War Crimes Tribunal" is qualified to prosecute.

That's because this tribunal doesn't prosecute anything. It simply investigates complaints of war crimes, and if necessary issues arrest warrants that member nations are compelled to execute. The actual prosecution is handled by individual nations that were wronged.

As for your continual disingenuous misinterpretations? They are now becoming mildly annoying....

The War Crimes Tribunal proposed only investigates crimes, which does not fall under the description: 'increase military and police spending', as it makes no mention of military spending and regarding police spending, police arrest people. This tribunal only issues arrest warrants, which makes it effectively the same as a court of law in a civil law country and the same as a judge in a common law country.

Note: if this is the wrong forum, please direct me to the correct one/the correct way to ask for a legality ruling.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(Not tagged [Report] so I assume I'm allowed to post.)

The fad for asking for legality rulings in the Moderation forum is a relatively new one, and is likely a product of the severe inattentiveness of the moderators to the WA forum. There are positive developments in that regard that give much cause for hope, but still, it's generally better to put a legality query in the WA forum, because moderators prefer WA players comment first (for example). I would encourage you to post this concern to the WCT thread, even if the moderators end up commenting here.

As to the query you raise, it's true that the WTC doesn't arrest people, but the resolution still requires that nations execute warrants and pursue extradition, both of which it's reasonable to assume would require police spending. Significant seems a severe stretch, but is admittedly consistent with Universal Jurisdiction's recent ruling.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(Not tagged [Report] so I assume I'm allowed to post.)

The fad for asking for legality rulings in the Moderation forum is a relatively new one, and is likely a product of the severe inattentiveness of the moderators to the WA forum. There are positive developments in that regard that give much cause for hope, but still, it's generally better to put a legality query in the WA forum, because moderators prefer WA players comment first (for example). I would encourage you to post this concern to the WCT thread, even if the moderators end up commenting here.

As to the query you raise, it's true that the WTC doesn't arrest people, but the resolution still requires that nations execute warrants and pursue extradition, both of which it's reasonable to assume would require police spending. Significant seems a severe stretch, but is admittedly consistent with Universal Jurisdiction's recent ruling.

Yes, but that would be raising the budget of the courts of inquiry, as the only thing this proposed WCT does is say, 'okay. looks like he's done some crimes. go bag him. here's the paperwork. NEXT!'. That doesn't raise police or military budgets. Raising police or military budgets deals with either defence or actually apprehending the suspects.

[Chester Pearson]

(Not tagged [Report] so I assume I'm allowed to post.)

The fad for asking for legality rulings in the Moderation forum is a relatively new one, and is likely a product of the severe inattentiveness of the moderators to the WA forum. There are positive developments in that regard that give much cause for hope, but still, it's generally better to put a legality query in the WA forum, because moderators prefer WA players comment first (for example). I would encourage you to post this concern to the WCT thread, even if the moderators end up commenting here.

As to the query you raise, it's true that the WTC doesn't arrest people, but the resolution still requires that nations execute warrants and pursue extradition, both of which it's reasonable to assume would require police spending. Significant seems a severe stretch, but is admittedly consistent with Universal Jurisdiction's recent ruling.

Yes, but that would be raising the budget of the courts of inquiry, as the only thing this proposed WCT does is say, 'okay. looks like he's done some crimes. go bag him. here's the paperwork. NEXT!'. That doesn't raise police or military budgets. Raising police or military budgets deals with either defence or actually apprehending the suspects.

Members are required to apprehend war criminal outside their jurisdictions, quite possibly necessitating the invasions of other nations, which increase military spending. Nations are also required to try and INCARCERATE war criminals, increasing police budgets. Nations that are incapable of doing so, are required to extradite to nations that are, increasing police budgets.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes, but that would be raising the budget of the courts of inquiry, as the only thing this proposed WCT does is say, 'okay. looks like he's done some crimes. go bag him. here's the paperwork. NEXT!'. That doesn't raise police or military budgets. Raising police or military budgets deals with either defence or actually apprehending the suspects.

Members are required to apprehend war criminal outside their jurisdictions, quite possibly necessitating the invasions of other nations, which increase military spending. Nations are also required to try and INCARCERATE war criminals, increasing police budgets. Nations that are incapable of doing so, are required to extradite to nations that are, increasing police budgets.

That's because this tribunal doesn't prosecute anything. It simply investigates complaints of war crimes, and if necessary issues arrest warrants that member nations are compelled to execute. The actual prosecution is handled by individual nations that were wronged.

As for your continual disingenuous misinterpretations? They are now becoming mildly annoying....

[Chester Pearson]

Members are required to apprehend war criminal outside their jurisdictions, quite possibly necessitating the invasions of other nations, which increase military spending. Nations are also required to try and INCARCERATE war criminals, increasing police budgets. Nations that are incapable of doing so, are required to extradite to nations that are, increasing police budgets.

That's because this tribunal doesn't prosecute anything. It simply investigates complaints of war crimes, and if necessary issues arrest warrants that member nations are compelled to execute. The actual prosecution is handled by individual nations that were wronged.

As for your continual disingenuous misinterpretations? They are now becoming mildly annoying....

The law does not do what I interpret it to do, it does what it says.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The law does not do what I interpret it to do, it does what it says.

That's a very outdated view. The moderators have subsequently ruled that this is not the case, so I don't think it's a very valid defence.