Legality of "International Criminal Court"

[Quelesh]

I'm posting this thread because I have a few questions about the legality of my WA proposal, "International Criminal Court," that I would like to resolve before I submit it.

If any mods could please comment on the questions here, and its legality in general, I would be very appreciative.

(Human rights / significant)

The Assembled Nations of the World,

APPALLED that sapient beings 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 beings on the basis of a shared 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 beings:
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 ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes, in situations in which their home jurisdiction 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 as a result

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: 3,475

1. Is this proposal illegal due to metagaming, in that it could affect individuals who are not citizens of WA member states? I'm careful to not impose any requirements here on non-member states, but the proposal would allow the ICC to issue an arrest warrant for a citizen of a non-member state. It would not compel the non-member state to do anything in response, and it would prohibit military force by member states to apprehend the wanted person, but it would require member states to arrest and extradite wanted persons within their jurisdiction.

My argument for its legality is that non-member states would be free to refuse to hand over wanted persons, and wanted persons would be free to not travel to member states, and, since military force is prohibited by the proposal, there would be nothing that the WA or member states could do about it. I think it's close to the boundary of legality here, though.

2. Does this proposal duplicate (or contradict) the Convention Against Genocide? GAR38 already makes genocide illegal in all member states (though my definition of genocide is slightly different than that resolution's). It requires member states to "facilitate the extradition of those suspected of" genocide to the "appropriate authorities," which presumeably would be a national or regional court. If my proposal passes, the ICC would become the "appropriate authority" when it has issued a warrant.

Genocide is only one of the crimes defined in my proposal, and my proposal does not require member states to criminalize genocide (GAR38 already does that). GAR38 says that extraditions are to be "subject to... international law." This proposal would add to the body of applicable international law in this area.

3. Does this proposal, since it would necessitate security guards and so forth at the detention facility to guard defendants and convicts, create a "WA police"? I'm almost certain that it doesn't (security guards at a jail or courtroom would no more be WA police than security at WA Headquarters), but someone mentioned the possibility in the debate thread so I wanted to ask.

4. Is the category/strength appropriate? From a "common sense" perspective, this would be a human rights proposal, but I'm not entirely certain that's what it does in game terms. Sionis Prioratus submitted his "Justice for All" proposal (creating an International Court of Justice) under the political stability category. Political stability / mild may be an alternative category/strength, since it would prevent citizens of member states from prohibiting their government from extraditing wanted persons to the ICC.

5. Is there anything else that would make this proposal illegal, or any other problems with it that you see?

I am very grateful for any assistance that you can provide.

[Ardchoille]

5. Is there anything else that would make this proposal illegal, or any other problems with it that you see?

For starters, that's your job, not ours.

We've got the lawyers on it and will post a detailed reply in the thread when they cough something up. (Note that Sionis Prioratis's is at the head of the queue.)

[Quelesh]

5. Is there anything else that would make this proposal illegal, or any other problems with it that you see?

For starters, that's your job, not ours.

We've got the lawyers on it and will post a detailed reply in the thread when they cough something up. (Note that Sionis Prioratis's is at the head of the queue.)

I know; I just wanted to see if any mods happen to see anything that I've missed.

Thank you for your help.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm not Quelesh, but bumping this to bring it into the light again, in view of the ongoing reorganization of the way these requests are dealt with. And a big, huge thank you for all the Mods!

[Quelesh]

I'm not Quelesh, but bumping this to bring it into the light again, in view of the ongoing reorganization of the way these requests are dealt with. And a big, huge thank you for all the Mods!

Seconded.

(Though you just made a liar of me because I said in the other thread that this thread is at the bottom of page 21, and now it's not. )

[NERVUN]

Bear with us folks, we know it's here. We're currently trying to work out a new system to allow greater turn around time.

To that end, I am locking this (Part of the new system, not that there is something wrong with this). We will (hopefully) have an answer in a few days.

[NERVUN]

The team of legal eagles has replied.

1. Is this proposal illegal due to metagaming, in that it could affect individuals who are not citizens of WA member states?
My feeling is yes. WA rules demand that the WA leaves non-WA nations the hell alone. While the author does his level best to restrict WA members from any actual interference in non-WA nations and creates a mere paper tiger that has no actual bite, it is still is calling on the non-WA to acknowledge a WA resolution.

2. Does this proposal duplicate (or contradict) the Convention Against Genocide?
My take on it is no. The Convention is broadly worded enough that this proposal would become part of the authority.

3. Does this proposal, since it would necessitate security guards and so forth at the detention facility to guard defendants and convicts, create a "WA police"?
My feeling is that it would. Right now, they are just guards. But what happens if someone attempts to spring the prisoner? Or if the prisoner escapes? Those guards would end up being a paramilitary force that would be empowered to either resist an invasion or go after their convicts. This would create a WA Army or World Police.

4. Is the category/strength appropriate?
Seems to be ok

Further issues:
The forbidding of retrial to member nations conflicts with resolution 67 (Habeas Corpus) as it allows for the retrial of nationals as well runs afoul of metagaming.
Inclusion of torture as a crime against humanity conflicts with resolution 9 (Prevention of Torture) as it expressly directs all WA nations to conduct trials under their own athority for those accused of tortue.
Also, it seems that the ICC duplicates a lot of resolution 62 (For the Detained and Convicted) in the treatment of prisoners of the ICC.

There will be a bit more detailed post in your drafting thread. Thanks for waiting.

[Quelesh]

I posted in the draft thread too, but thanks for the detailed response. I really appreciate you guys going to this trouble for me.