[PASSED] On Universal Jurisdiction

[Railana]

((OOC: I've drafted a revised version of this proposal within the International Security category.))

[Railana]

((OOC: This has been submitted once again with a few minor changes following a second legality ruling by the mods.))

[Chester Pearson]

((OOC: This has been submitted once again with a few minor changes following a second legality ruling by the mods.))

And if ours passes, yours is illegal for contradiction, and will be yanked. Would it have not been prudent to wait until voting was over on ours? There are people that don't like you, and could quite possibly pass ours, hoping to get you booted out....

[The Dark Star Republic]

hoping to get you booted out....

Just for the record, the mods don't warn players in that instance, removing proposals that become illegal for contradiction only after they're submitted. I remember because I specifically asked about that when ALC blocked Waterana's proposal, and Hack told me. Will try to dig up a link but I don't think WA ejection is a concern.

That said, why would this even become illegal for contradiction?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

((OOC: This has been submitted once again with a few minor changes following a second legality ruling by the mods.))

And if ours passes, yours is illegal for contradiction, and will be yanked.

Reading both, I'm not 100% positive that's true.

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra offers it's full support to this measure.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...
Requires member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2 in cases where:
...
there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;

Apologies for failing to catch this in earlier discussion. I'm concerned this sauce might be a little weak. An "intelligent but cautious person" might find the fingerprints of a man with no tangible alibi on the murder weapon, but still not necessarily come to believe him guilty; yet that's often enough evidence to indict. I'm worried as to whether this somewhat higher standard of doubt might allow some states to forgo prosecution.

Should Mr. Pearson's proposal pass, this concern is moot as member states shall be compelled to execute warrants issued by the body therein, but barring that, I fear this is a bigger loophole than we'd want in a war crimes jurisdiction law.

[Railana]

And if ours passes, yours is illegal for contradiction, and will be yanked.

((OOC: I'm afraid I don't see how. Care to explain?))

...
Requires member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2 in cases where:
...
there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;

Apologies for failing to catch this in earlier discussion. I'm concerned this sauce might be a little weak. An "intelligent but cautious person" might find the fingerprints of a man with no tangible alibi on the murder weapon, but still not necessarily come to believe him guilty; yet that's often enough evidence to indict. I'm worried as to whether this somewhat higher standard of doubt might allow some states to forgo prosecution.

Should Mr. Pearson's proposal pass, this concern is moot as member states shall be compelled to execute warrants issued by the body therein, but barring that, I fear this is a bigger loophole than we'd want in a war crimes jurisdiction law.

((OOC: The Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime", which is essentially the same criteria outlined in the proposal. I think reasonable nation theory safely applies here.))

[The Eternal Kawaii]

((OOC: This has been submitted once again with a few minor changes following a second legality ruling by the mods.))

And if ours passes, yours is illegal for contradiction, and will be yanked. Would it have not been prudent to wait until voting was over on ours? There are people that don't like you, and could quite possibly pass ours, hoping to get you booted out....

Or conversely, some representatives may be encouraged to vote yours down in the hope of giving Railana's proposal a chance.

[Chester Pearson]

And if ours passes, yours is illegal for contradiction, and will be yanked. Would it have not been prudent to wait until voting was over on ours? There are people that don't like you, and could quite possibly pass ours, hoping to get you booted out....

Or conversely, some representatives may be encouraged to vote yours down in the hope of giving Railana's proposal a chance.

Oh I expect a campaign against mine. Anything less would not be Auralia's style....

[Old Hope]

OOC:I asked the mods to take this down(GHR), so please don't be surprised if it is removed from queue.
(if anyone is interested in the reasons, they are self-contradiction(clauses 2 and 8 ) and, more important, HoC.)

[The Dark Star Republic]

they are self-contradiction

and, more important, HoC.)

That's not how HoC has historically worked, so it would be quite the departure if the challenge were held up on those grounds.

[Ainocra]

OOC:I asked the mods to take this down(GHR), so please don't be surprised if it is removed from queue.
(if anyone is interested in the reasons, they are self-contradiction(clauses 2 and 8 ) and, more important, HoC.)

That is clearly not HoC.

HoC is citing another resolution, as for contradiction I'm afraid you are simply incorrect.

in conclusion

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:I asked the mods to take this down(GHR), so please don't be surprised if it is removed from queue.
(if anyone is interested in the reasons, they are self-contradiction(clauses 2 and 8 ) and, more important, HoC.)

"You're really bad at this, ambassador. Universal Jurisdiction doesn't mean what you seem to think it means."

[Old Hope]

If there are no resolutions defining war crimes, crimes against humanity or mandating universal jurisdiction, this resolution has no effect but to block an International Court (which is NOT sufficient; pure blocker).
This proposal builds on existing resolutions to define the its reach(HoC, illegal) and allows further resolutions to change its scope(Amendments, illegal)
This is nothing to laugh about. Seriously, read the proposal again and then tell me if you are still sure that this isn't HoC.

[Separatist Peoples]

If there are no resolutions defining war crimes, crimes against humanity or mandating universal jurisdiction, this resolution has no effect but to block an International Court (which is NOT sufficient; pure blocker).
This proposal builds on existing resolutions to define the its reach(HoC, illegal) and allows further resolutions to change its scope(Amendments, illegal)
This is nothing to laugh about. Seriously, read the proposal again and then tell me if you are still sure that this isn't HoC.

"At least two resolutions mention war crimes specifically, ambassador. That, and it includes the language "implicitly and explicitly". Bad argument is bad."

[Old Hope]

If there are no resolutions defining war crimes, crimes against humanity or mandating universal jurisdiction, this resolution has no effect but to block an International Court (which is NOT sufficient; pure blocker).
This proposal builds on existing resolutions to define the its reach(HoC, illegal) and allows further resolutions to change its scope(Amendments, illegal)
This is nothing to laugh about. Seriously, read the proposal again and then tell me if you are still sure that this isn't HoC.

"At least two resolutions mention war crimes specifically, ambassador. That, and it includes the language "implicitly and explicitly". Bad argument is bad."

That is the problem, ambassador.
If all other resolutions get repealed, the resolution must still be valid. HoC means dependance on other resolutions. Which is exactly what we have here.

[Separatist Peoples]

"At least two resolutions mention war crimes specifically, ambassador. That, and it includes the language "implicitly and explicitly". Bad argument is bad."

That is the problem, ambassador.
If all other resolutions get repealed, the resolution must still be valid. HoC means dependance on other resolutions. Which is exactly what we have here.

"Your idea of HOC violations is wrong. This will still be legal without those resolutions as it doesn't reference them specifically. It does something without those resolutions, especially since Ambassador Fulton added the "implicit" line. Whether it has any meaningful effect is up for debate, but it is NOT a HoC violation. Actually learn the damn rules, will you?"

[Old Hope]

That is the problem, ambassador.
If all other resolutions get repealed, the resolution must still be valid. HoC means dependance on other resolutions. Which is exactly what we have here.

"Your idea of HOC violations is wrong. This will still be legal without those resolutions as it doesn't reference them specifically. It does something without those resolutions, especially since Ambassador Fulton added the "implicit" line. Whether it has any meaningful effect is up for debate, but it is NOT a HoC violation. Actually learn the damn rules, will you?"

Yes, let's look at those damn rules.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103..."

If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're amending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Now let's look at the important(because everything else besides the blocker clause depends on it) clause from this proposal.

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;

Does it mention a specific WA resolution? No. But it refers to all resolutions. It basically builds on all resolutions defining any crimes. If we now repeal all resolutions but this one, this one should continue to work as usual, right? But it fails that test, if we repeal every single other resolution, this one does nothing- except blocking. It could also fall under excessive back referencing.(it refers to existing WA legislation, and does that again and again by including clause 2 as the all- dependant clause).
If a WA resolution doing one of these things is removed by repeal, the list of warcrimes/crimes against humanity/acts under universal jurisdiction under this proposal shrinks. If we intoduce a new resolution defining new ones, this proposal gets amended, too.

[Railana]

"Your idea of HOC violations is wrong. This will still be legal without those resolutions as it doesn't reference them specifically. It does something without those resolutions, especially since Ambassador Fulton added the "implicit" line. Whether it has any meaningful effect is up for debate, but it is NOT a HoC violation. Actually learn the damn rules, will you?"

Yes, let's look at those damn rules.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103..."

If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're amending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Now let's look at the important(because everything else besides the blocker clause depends on it) clause from this proposal.

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;

Does it mention a specific WA resolution? No. But it refers to all resolutions. It basically builds on all resolutions defining any crimes. If we now repeal all resolutions but this one, this one should continue to work as usual, right? But it fails that test, if we repeal every single other resolution, this one does nothing- except blocking. It could also fall under excessive back referencing.(it refers to existing WA legislation, and does that again and again by including clause 2 as the all- dependant clause).
If a WA resolution doing one of these things is removed by repeal, the list of warcrimes/crimes against humanity/acts under universal jurisdiction under this proposal shrinks. If we intoduce a new resolution defining new ones, this proposal gets amended, too.

((OOC: I don't think you're applying the House of Cards rule correctly, and you need to ask yourself why that rule exists in order to understand why it doesn't apply here. The whole point of that rule is to ensure that a resolution will not suddenly become invalid as a result of the repeal of a separate resolution. The rule requires that a resolution not be dependent on specific past resolutions, because if those resolutions are repealed than the dependent resolution irrevocably loses part of its meaning.

That's not the case here, though. This proposal does not rely on any specific past resolutions. Even if all other resolutions were repealed, it could still stand on its own because, in addition to being a blocker, it would continue to provide a working mechanism for enforcement that can be used by future resolutions. Even if all resolutions that presently create grounds for universal jurisdiction were repealed, it will always possible for another resolution to be passed that creates new ones.))

[Old Hope]

Yes, let's look at those damn rules.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Now let's look at the important(because everything else besides the blocker clause depends on it) clause from this proposal.

Does it mention a specific WA resolution? No. But it refers to all resolutions. It basically builds on all resolutions defining any crimes. If we now repeal all resolutions but this one, this one should continue to work as usual, right? But it fails that test, if we repeal every single other resolution, this one does nothing- except blocking. It could also fall under excessive back referencing.(it refers to existing WA legislation, and does that again and again by including clause 2 as the all- dependant clause).
If a WA resolution doing one of these things is removed by repeal, the list of warcrimes/crimes against humanity/acts under universal jurisdiction under this proposal shrinks. If we intoduce a new resolution defining new ones, this proposal gets amended, too.

((OOC: I don't think you're applying the House of Cards rule correctly, and you need to ask yourself why that rule exists in order to understand why it doesn't apply here. The whole point of that rule is to ensure that a resolution will not suddenly become invalid as a result of the repeal of a separate resolution. The rule requires that a resolution not be dependent on specific past resolutions, because if those resolutions are repealed than the dependent resolution irrevocably loses part of its meaning.

That's not the case here, though. This proposal does not rely on any specific past resolutions. Even if all other resolutions were repealed, it could still stand on its own because, in addition to being a blocker, it would continue to provide a working mechanism for enforcement that can be used by future resolutions. Even if all resolutions that presently create grounds for universal jurisdiction were repealed, it will always possible for another resolution to be passed that creates new ones.))

But your proposal still relies on other WA resolutions to have any meaningful effect(HoC),and its strength is entirely dependant on other WA legislation(if we get a resolution defining all crimes against crimes against humanity, the effect of universal jurisdiction is much stronger); this basically either alters the effect of other resolutions or is altered by them, and that is an amendment either way, and those are illegal.
My understanding of HoC is this:Don't make a resolution dependant on other resolutions. Even if my understanding should be incorrect- it could be-, this would be still illegal as amendment resolution.

[Railana]

But your proposal still relies on other WA resolutions to have any meaningful effect(HoC)

((OOC: I don't think that's what the House of Cards rule means, though. I think it's about proposals relying on specific resolutions that, if repealed, renders them irrevocably meaningless.))

this basically either alters the effect of other resolutions or is altered by them, and that is an amendment either way, and those are illegal.

((OOC: I don't think you're properly applying the amendment rule, either. Amendments are illegal because they contradict a previous resolution. If a resolution were to add additional grounds for universal jurisdiction, that would not be an amendment, because clause 2 of this proposal explicitly allows for that possibility.))

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Railana just covered my response intended succinctly and more politely then I could have been. Way to take the fun out if it!

[Old Hope]

((OOC: I don't think you're properly applying the amendment rule, either. Amendments are illegal because they contradict a previous resolution. If a resolution were to add additional grounds for universal jurisdiction, that would not be an amendment, because clause 2 of this proposal explicitly allows for that possibility.))

No.
The rules page tells you why Amendments are illegal. Because it is impossible to determine the effect change on the nations stats. And your resolutions effect depends on other resolution, it has basically no fixed strength...

[Ainocra]

ooc

As Railana has already pointed out, your interpretation is wrong. I suggest you review some past rulings for clarification.

This is not a Hoc violation and at this point you are only wasting everyone's time.