[DRAFT] Extrajudicial Transfer Act

[Quadrimmina]

Yes, our delegation has proposed similar legislation before under the Lewis Ambassadorship, but we wish to give it another try!

Extrajudicial Transfer Act
Human Rights, Strong

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the loophole in international law regarding human rights, a loophole which allows for human rights to be violated by member nations by the simple transfer of individuals outside of WA territory.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the treaties, alliances, and other associations made between WA and non-WA nations that could provide the means and opportunity for such violations to occur.

HEREBY bans in all member nations the willful, knowledgeable transfer of any individual from a member nation to another jurisdiction by an individual, organization, or member state for the purposes of denying or violating any of the rights that are guaranteed to that individual in the jurisdiction of the member state by national or international law.

Co-authored by [nation=short]Alqania[/nation].

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper will still support this with interest, pending further analysis by our colleagues.

[Quadrimmina]

Ms. Harper will still support this with interest, pending further analysis by our colleagues.

Thank you Ms. Harper. I am hoping this resolution will have much more luck than the prior draft, which was redrafted 7 times to no avail.

[Dizyntk]

Why would said recipient nation even agree to accept such a person if they were not wanted in their nation for a crime?

[Quadrimmina]

Why would said recipient nation even agree to accept such a person if they were not wanted in their nation for a crime?

It's not even a recipient nation, but just a non-WA jurisdiction. I should make that more clear.

OOC: Think Guantanamo, things where people are sent outside of the jurisdiction of law that would protect them from human rights abuses.

[Dizyntk]

Why would said recipient nation even agree to accept such a person if they were not wanted in their nation for a crime?

It's not even a recipient nation, but just a non-WA jurisdiction. I should make that more clear.

OOC: Think Guantanamo, things where people are sent outside of the jurisdiction of law that would protect them from human rights abuses.

I was under the impression that we cannot legislate how nations interact with non-WA nations since our regulations do apply to non-WA nations.

[Quadrimmina]

It's not even a recipient nation, but just a non-WA jurisdiction. I should make that more clear.

OOC: Think Guantanamo, things where people are sent outside of the jurisdiction of law that would protect them from human rights abuses.

I was under the impression that we cannot legislate how nations interact with non-WA nations since our regulations do apply to non-WA nations.

We can't legislate non-WA nations' jurisdictions, but we can legislate what WA nations do with them!

[Dizyntk]

Ah, my mistake. Well since the Dizyntk do not think it appropriate to ship our citizens out of our country for any reason, we do not object to this proposal.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom shall strongly support the intention demonstrated in this proposal. We do however feel that this could be better worded:

RECOGNIZING the obvious loophole regarding human rights that allows for human rights to be violated outside of WA territory.

First, strike 'obvious'. The obvious needs not be recognised.

Second, make it 'loophole in international law' or something like that. Many member states have themselves closed this loophole on the national level.

Third, it is syntactically ambiguous to what 'that' refers. The sentence would need some restructuring to take care of that.

Fourth, make it 'violated by member states outside WA territory' or something like that to make it clearer this is not aimed at non-member states."

Lord Raekevik added a smile after he was done, hoping his nitpick would be deemed constructive and appropriate.

[Quadrimmina]

"The Queendom shall strongly support the intention demonstrated in this proposal. We do however feel that this could be better worded:

RECOGNIZING the obvious loophole regarding human rights that allows for human rights to be violated outside of WA territory.

First, strike 'obvious'. The obvious needs not be recognised.

Second, make it 'loophole in international law' or something like that. Many member states have themselves closed this loophole on the national level.

Third, it is syntactically ambiguous to what 'that' refers. The sentence would need some restructuring to take care of that.

Fourth, make it 'violated by member states outside WA territory' or something like that to make it clearer this is not aimed at non-member states."

Lord Raekevik added a smile after he was done, hoping his nitpick would be deemed constructive and appropriate.

We hope Lord Raekevik is pleased with the changes, and thank you for your contribution to this draft. If you have any other changes you wish to note, please feel free to do so.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom shall strongly support the intention demonstrated in this proposal. We do however feel that this could be better worded:



First, strike 'obvious'. The obvious needs not be recognised.

Second, make it 'loophole in international law' or something like that. Many member states have themselves closed this loophole on the national level.

Third, it is syntactically ambiguous to what 'that' refers. The sentence would need some restructuring to take care of that.

Fourth, make it 'violated by member states outside WA territory' or something like that to make it clearer this is not aimed at non-member states."

Lord Raekevik added a smile after he was done, hoping his nitpick would be deemed constructive and appropriate.

We hope Lord Raekevik is pleased with the changes, and thank you for your contribution to this draft. If you have any other changes you wish to note, please feel free to do so.

"The current wording is simply divine, Your Excellency. I shall have my grammarian examine the other clauses to see if they can be improved upon."

[Quadrimmina]

We hope Lord Raekevik is pleased with the changes, and thank you for your contribution to this draft. If you have any other changes you wish to note, please feel free to do so.

"The current wording is simply divine, Your Excellency. I shall have my grammarian examine the other clauses to see if they can be improved upon."

Thank you kindly.

(...I wish our delegation had a grammarian.)

[Connopolis]

"The current wording is simply divine, Your Excellency. I shall have my grammarian examine the other clauses to see if they can be improved upon."

Thank you kindly.

(...I wish our delegation had a grammarian.)

You have the support of my delegation, as well as my regional delegate's delegation. (That's a tounge twister. )

[Darenjo]

Full support, of course.

[Southern Patriots]

Doesn't resolution 9 already cover this?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes agrees that extrajudicial transfer is fundamentally wrong. However, the proposal would be better if it is clearly about criminal actions. While I can't say for certain what negative side effects the current wording has, my delegation is uncomfortable with the broad language in this proposal that does have potentially unintended consequences.

On the technical side, the organization of the proposal is awkward. Separating the definitions for the proscriptions doesn't seem necessary.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

Thank you kindly.

(...I wish our delegation had a grammarian.)

You have the support of my delegation, as well as my regional delegate's delegation. (That's a tounge twister. )

Full support, of course.

Thank you both very kindly. Any comments you have, please feel free to let me know.

Doesn't resolution 9 already cover this?

For torture, yes. For habeas corpus, other "human rights" resolutions, no.

Glen-Rhodes agrees that extrajudicial transfer is fundamentally wrong. However, the proposal would be better if it is clearly about criminal actions. While I can't say for certain what negative side effects the current wording has, my delegation is uncomfortable with the broad language in this proposal that does have potentially unintended consequences.

On the technical side, the organization of the proposal is awkward. Separating the definitions for the proscriptions doesn't seem necessary.

- Dr. B. Castro

Could Dr. Castro be more clear as to what he means by "unintended consequences" and "negative side effects"? I know you said you can't say for certain, I don't know how I can limit it to criminal actions. The whole point of this resolution is to make the transfer a criminal action to violate someone's human rights with extrajudicial transfer.

Also, on the technical side, we do feel both definitions are necessary as is the operative clause. Would a 1), 2), 3) format be more amenable to your delegation than a 2-section format, as I have updated it?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Could Dr. Castro be more clear as to what he means by "unintended consequences" and "negative side effects"? I know you said you can't say for certain, I don't know how I can limit it to criminal actions. The whole point of this resolution is to make the transfer a criminal action to violate someone's human rights with extrajudicial transfer.

Well, what is extrajudicial transfer really used for? Flouting somebody's contract rights? Or torture, execution, indefinite detention, sham trials, etc.? Glen-Rhodes would be more comfortable if the proposal didn't open itself up to application of civil law unrelated to what extrajudicial transfer is usually used for.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

Could Dr. Castro be more clear as to what he means by "unintended consequences" and "negative side effects"? I know you said you can't say for certain, I don't know how I can limit it to criminal actions. The whole point of this resolution is to make the transfer a criminal action to violate someone's human rights with extrajudicial transfer.

Well, what is extrajudicial transfer really used for? Flouting somebody's contract rights? Or torture, execution, indefinite detention, sham trials, etc.? Glen-Rhodes would be more comfortable if the proposal didn't open itself up to application of civil law unrelated to what extrajudicial transfer is usually used for.

- Dr. B. Castro

Well, and this is just postulation before we decide exactly how we want to go about changing this, if someone's rights are violated by unwilled transfer in a non-criminal capacity, is that not worth protecting the person from too?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well, and this is just postulation before we decide exactly how we want to go about changing this, if someone's rights are violated by unwilled transfer in a non-criminal capacity, is that not worth protecting the person from too?

I wouldn't say so. Glen-Rhodes is simply maintaining that extrajudicial transfer is related to criminal law, not civil law, and that the two should not be conflated in international law.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

Well, and this is just postulation before we decide exactly how we want to go about changing this, if someone's rights are violated by unwilled transfer in a non-criminal capacity, is that not worth protecting the person from too?

I wouldn't say so. Glen-Rhodes is simply maintaining that extrajudicial transfer is related to criminal law, not civil law, and that the two should not be conflated in international law.

- Dr. B. Castro

Would just limiting it to rights and not "all actions" be more amenable? As below:

For the purposes of international law, "malicious extrajudicial transfer" is defined as the extrajudicial transfer of an individual to enable the transferring individual, organization, or member state to deny or violate any of the rights of the individual that are guaranteed to that individual in the jurisdiction of the member state by national or international law.

[Alqania]

"If giving this proposal a simpler disposition would be desirable, I suggest the following alternative to the text from the 'HEREBY' point on:

HEREBY bans in all member nations the willful, knowledgeable transfer of any individual from a member nation to another jurisdiction by an individual, organization, or member state for the purposes of denying or violating any of the rights that are guaranteed to that individual in the jurisdiction of the member state by national or international law

Although that is a mouthful of a sentence, it does make the disposition simpler and have the same effect."

[Quadrimmina]

"If giving this proposal a simpler disposition would be desirable, I suggest the following alternative to the text from the 'HEREBY' point on:

HEREBY bans in all member nations the willful, knowledgeable transfer of any individual from a member nation to another jurisdiction by an individual, organization, or member state for the purposes of denying or violating any of the rights that are guaranteed to that individual in the jurisdiction of the member state by national or international law

Although that is a mouthful of a sentence, it does make the disposition simpler and have the same effect."

That may actually be doable. I will incorporate the clause as it has been proposed.

[Quelesh]

I've approved this proposal.

I would not like to explicitly limit the proposal only to "criminal" cases, as a nation may decide that, for example, terrorism cases are military rather than criminal, and therefore that the resolution did not apply to them.

Also, another possible way of handling this is to simply explicitly require that all member states grant all human rights required by international law to all persons under their control, whether those persons are or are not within their territory. This would prevent a nation from exploiting an extraterritorial gulag (OOC: like Guantanamo) to violate people's human rights.

I do think, though, that the transfer of people from one nation to another for the purpose of violating their human rights should also be prohibited.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I would not like to explicitly limit the proposal only to "criminal" cases, as a nation may decide that, for example, terrorism cases are military rather than criminal, and therefore that the resolution did not apply to them.

Criminal is being used as the opposite of civil, in the arguments I've given. Not as something solely related to penal law.