[IDEA] Extradite or Prosecute

[The Dark Star Republic]

Extradite or Prosecute
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: TBD

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging its role in creating international law under the assumption that violators of such law will be held accountable,

Concerned that inconsistent prosecution of internationally recognised criminal acts creates a de facto gap in the coverage of international law,

Recognising aut dedere aut judicare ("either extradite or prosecute") as a legal principle by which states must initiate a prosecution where no other state intends to initiate an extradition,

Believing that adopting this principle will effectively close any loopholes that would otherwise limit the effectiveness of international law,

Declares:

1. Every nation shall, in accordance with their own internal procedures and subject to any relevant international law, establish their jurisdiction over any person in their territory against whom there exists sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution for any crime specified as such through active General Assembly resolutions, except where a legal extradition request for that person is in the process of being effected.
2. The extraterritorial nature of the alleged crime shall not be a determining factor in assessing whether to proceed with a prosecution.
3. Any nation in possession of evidence or testimony relating to a prosecution carried out in accordance with Article 1 of this Resolution shall be compelled to turn over that evidence or testimony to the nation conducting the prosecution at their request.
4. Every nation shall maintain a single point of contact within their national justice system for processing such requests.

Clarifies:

1. Nothing in this resolution requires any nation to prosecute any person for acts not recognised as crimes in international law.
2. Nothing in this resolution affects extradition rights.

This is from a discussion that came up elsewhere. It is a very rough draft, not even a draft yet and more of an idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: elegant. I like it. Not being a lawyer, I have to profess ignorance on the subject and have some questions. This requires states to extend jurisdiction over anybody in their territory, but makes an exception for those subject to extradition request...it seems that those currently subject to said request are immune to prosecution, so states wishing to circumvent this could just indefinitely deliberate extradition. Am I way off base in seeing this loophole?

Also, just for clarity, does that protection end if a nation decides not to extradite, as mine would? If not, at what point does an individual stop being the subject for that request?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: elegant. I like it. Not being a lawyer, I have to profess ignorance on the subject and have some questions. This requires states to extend jurisdiction over anybody in their territory, but makes an exception for those subject to extradition request...it seems that those currently subject to said request are immune to prosecution, so states wishing to circumvent this could just indefinitely deliberate extradition. Am I way off base in seeing this loophole?

Also, just for clarity, does that protection end if a nation decides not to extradite, as mine would? If not, at what point does an individual stop being the subject for that request?

Yes, most loopholes cannot really be closed by just saying "also you can't exploit the loophole", so this kind of problem was inevitable.

Nonetheless, my interpretation would be that once you've decided not to pursue an extradition, there is no longer an extradition request, and so the mandate comes back into force. To avoid the limbo you've described of requesting extradition but then never effecting it, the exception could be reworded a bit: "where they intend to extradite", "where an extradition is in process", or simply, "where that person will be extradited" might all work better.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Find an English alternative to the Latin phrasing. The usage and explanation in the preamble is perfectly fine, but this isn't like Habeas corpus or ex post facto, where the common reader has at least some understanding of what the phrase means.

[Araraukar]

Find an English alternative to the Latin phrasing.

OOC: We can only hope, what with it being legal and all... I really can't see the fascination of using a half-dead language Latin Legalese for the titles, when the text supposedly isn't aimed at lawyers only.

...or, less wordily, agreeing with Kenny.

[Applebania]

Joshua wakes up after a long nap. He randomly walks into the first debate hall which looks interesting.

"I like the idea. Will probably make some contributions tomorrow."

[Moronist Decisions]

I like the concept. My main concern with this would be contradiction with diplomatic immunity - but this is something that should be worked out rather than be tossed.

FTR: Diplomat Protection Act

I'd recommend having a clause requiring nations to investigate and prosecute diplomats sent by their own government, if that can be done legally.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I like the concept. My main concern with this would be contradiction with diplomatic immunity - but this is something that should be worked out rather than be tossed.

Thank you for that attitude: I would obviously rather work out kinks in the text, which I admit is a rough draft. But, I feel obligated to point out that this proposal would completely contradict your proposal.

I'd recommend having a clause requiring nations to investigate and prosecute diplomats sent by their own government, if that can be done legally.

I think the better way would be to add an exception for any immunities recognised by international law, which obviously includes anyone afforded diplomatic immunity but doesn't cover anyone for whom diplomatic immunity would be revoked.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'd recommend having a clause requiring nations to investigate and prosecute diplomats sent by their own government, if that can be done legally.

"The DPA only applies to the nation in which the diplomat is serving; expelling them allows for the home nation to prosecute them under this potential law. However, since protection from prosecution isn't explicitly spelled out in the Diplomat Protection Act, this may not actually contradict it. It only assures diplomatic immunity for those sent to the WA, which no single nation has jurisdiction over anyways, I would think. GAR#22 is really a very poorly written law..."

[Abacathea]

I like it, criminal law is something of a topic I'd consider myself somewhat knowledged on. It's simple, straight to the point, covers the basic requirements of what extradition requires ie; mutual laws enacted in the relevant states. It's a good call. It might be premature in one aspect though but I'm not sure it's a fatal blow but still worth considering.

The text states that a nation must either extradite or prosecute, prosecuting where no extraiditon request has been made, or no intention declared. But lets consider a nation playing the long game. They've a case for a certain charge to be made, but are either invesitgating it more thoroughly or investigating other things in relation to the individual in tandem with their absconding. This delay between an extradition request, may actually be intentional. Would this lead to premature prosecutions where stronger cases may/could have been made to all run concurrent?

[Chester Pearson]

I believe this is something I can get behind....

Conditional support at this time.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The text states that a nation must either extradite or prosecute, prosecuting where no extraiditon request has been made, or no intention declared. But lets consider a nation playing the long game. They've a case for a certain charge to be made, but are either invesitgating it more thoroughly or investigating other things in relation to the individual in tandem with their absconding. This delay between an extradition request, may actually be intentional. Would this lead to premature prosecutions where stronger cases may/could have been made to all run concurrent?

This is something I was considering, not specifically relating to extradition, but also to avoiding double jeopardy. As I interpret this, the mandate only applies where there exists "sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution", so in that sense, it doesn't really matter: if a nation genuinely doesn't have enough evidence yet but is pursuing an extradition, then there is no requirement to initiate such a prosecution anyway. But, I would like to make sure the wording doesn't force premature prosecutions, so I will look into rewording this.

[Artainias]

What if someone violates a law before it became a law. Will they get punished for doing something before it became illegal? Besides that i could really get behind an idea like that.

[Applebania]

What if someone violates a law before it became a law. Will they get punished for doing something before it became illegal? Besides that i could really get behind an idea like that.

Nope. See "Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws"

[Krioval]

Just to make it clear for me, this only applies to international (WA) law? I assume that Krioval would not be required to prosecute/extradite an individual who has not committed an act that is a crime in Krioval. Can the WA, collectively, make a prosecute/extradite request? Also, how does this interact with members and representatives of sovereign governments? Can nations be required to turn over their leaders for violating WA resolutions through intentional noncompliance? If so, who can make the request?

All in all, this is an interesting topic for legislation. The Imperial Chiefdom will continue to monitor its development carefully.

Tau Kriov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[The Dark Star Republic]

Just to make it clear for me, this only applies to international (WA) law?

Yes.

Can the WA, collectively, make a prosecute/extradite request?

I have no idea. However, this resolution doesn't create or abolish any such mechanism.

Also, how does this interact with members and representatives of sovereign governments? Can nations be required to turn over their leaders for violating WA resolutions through intentional noncompliance? If so, who can make the request?

From the use of "turn over", all of this seems to be about extradition, which is already covered by Extradition Rights (and which exempts crimes of a political nature). Other than that, any immunities recognised by the WA are exempted from this resolution, and any immunities not recognised by the WA are not.

[Casternon]

I appreciate the concept, however I do have a question. Suppose a nation in X region committed a crime in X region according to the Charter, Constitution, etc of X region, could this law be expanded so that X region has jurisdiction to extradite said nation from Y region if said nation fled knowing they were in violation/under criminal investigation? It seems the spectrum of the proposal is highly subjective.

Aside from that, your proposal seems acceptable. Conditional support at this point.

[Separatist Peoples]

I appreciate the concept, however I do have a question. Suppose a nation in X region committed a crime in X region according to the Charter, Constitution, etc of X region, could this law be expanded so that X region has jurisdiction to extradite said nation from Y region if said nation fled knowing they were in violation/under criminal investigation? It seems the spectrum of the proposal is highly subjective.

Aside from that, your proposal seems acceptable. Conditional support at this point.

"It could, but it would lose support. Not everybody is willing to extradite. Like us."

[Mousebumples]

I appreciate the concept, however I do have a question. Suppose a nation in X region committed a crime in X region according to the Charter, Constitution, etc of X region, could this law be expanded so that X region has jurisdiction to extradite said nation from Y region if said nation fled knowing they were in violation/under criminal investigation? It seems the spectrum of the proposal is highly subjective.

Aside from that, your proposal seems acceptable. Conditional support at this point.

"It could, but it would lose support. Not everybody is willing to extradite. Like us."

Depending on wording, it's likely to also be an illegal contradiction of previously legislation. DSR has mentioned it above, but Extradition Rights may be worth a read-through for those players who are unfamiliar with it's existence.

[Casternon]

I appreciate the concept, however I do have a question. Suppose a nation in X region committed a crime in X region according to the Charter, Constitution, etc of X region, could this law be expanded so that X region has jurisdiction to extradite said nation from Y region if said nation fled knowing they were in violation/under criminal investigation? It seems the spectrum of the proposal is highly subjective.

Aside from that, your proposal seems acceptable. Conditional support at this point.

"It could, but it would lose support. Not everybody is willing to extradite. Like us."

"I'm not implying that it would mandate extradition. It would merely grant extradition rights should a nation choose to go through with charges."

"It could, but it would lose support. Not everybody is willing to extradite. Like us."

Depending on wording, it's likely to also be an illegal contradiction of previously legislation. DSR has mentioned it above, but Extradition Rights may be worth a read-through for those players who are unfamiliar with it's existence.

"Thank you, I'll be sure to review this in order to make a more informed decision."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I've reworked the operative section.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just a question, is there a reason why the thread title and the draft title in the first post do not match? One is in English and one in Latin.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Just a question, is there a reason why the thread title and the draft title in the first post do not match? One is in English and one in Latin.

I forgot to change it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I've worded the extradition clause a bit differently to try to close up the loophole.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Bump.