[IDEA] Extradite or Prosecute

[Bananaistan]

Looks good. Bananaistan will support. Perhaps something to the effect of mandating information sharing between prosecutors in different member states would help in building a criminal case in the state which decides to prosecute.

[The Dark Star Republic]

That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how that would be worded: expanding this to letters rogatory or service or process would greatly exceed the original parameters of the proposal.

[Bananaistan]

I'd think such a provision would be something like "a member state must comply with a reasonable request to provide evidence in its possession to another member state initiating a prosecution further to clause 1"; so the mandatory information sharing would only be in respect of suspects who broke international law.

Facilitating the travel of witnesses to give evidence could be another point.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I've added a clause about transmitting evidence, as requested by the Bananamen.

[Point Breeze]

II like this draft a lot.Its actually a written compliance mechanism for the WA! It might not mean much to those who already disregard our work, but it's a great idea regardless!

I'm so pleased that the proceedings that follow from this act will fit the definition of "criminal trials" in GA#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials.

[The Dark Star Republic]

II like this draft a lot.Its actually a written compliance mechanism for the WA!

That is essentially the point: though of course, it doesn't truly address, because no resolution can. People could still non-comply with this one.

I'm not interested in getting into the noncompliance debate, but this does hopefully close one of the creative compliance loopholes.

[Point Breeze]

Nonetheless, it seems like it was a long time coming. Not that compliance hasnt been a subject of debate before, but it only makes sense to have some sort of written compliance measure on the books.

We have a Read the Resolution Resolution, for crying out loud!

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz reads through the proposal. He leans over to the Director of Legislative Affairs, Johannes Keller. "I like this very much, Joe. Do you see clause 4? I love it! Yet another job for our distinguished civil service. The Foreign Office and the Department of Justice will obviously have to haggle about where that job would be established. Or maybe it would fit better with the Supreme Tribunal? Anyway I'm thinking along the lines of 'Director of Affairs of International Justice'... DAIJ... I like it!"

He then stands up and addresses the representative from the Dark Star Republic^*: "The Confederacy of Louisistan puts its support behind this proposal. We will vote very much in favor if it comes to a vote.

^* OOC: I hope that's okay. If you're still at "everything I post to the WA is OOC then Sorry

[Nolor]

I think this idea is masterfully worded. I echo Ambassador Pearson's statement and can give it my prima facie endorsement (just to belabor the Latin some more!).

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thank you for all the kind words.

I don't want to seem ungracious, but at this stage, I'd appreciate criticism more, though. I am still not happy with how Clause 3 is worded, and this is obviously the type of proposal that is only worth doing if it's watertight.

[Point Breeze]

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 in 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,
...Maybe this needs rephrased. I don't have the best grasp on the principle, but as I understand it, nations are obliged to prosecute a violation of international law, and if they are unable or unwilling to do so, they must extradite the offender to a nation that can or will. If that's an incorrect interpretation, then please educate me. Otherwise, I would suggest rewording this clause to make the actual intent of the mandate more clear. This clause, I think, is the ideological basis of the entire act.

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.
   This also sounds backwards. Can I suggest a replacement? "Nations will have the authority to prosecute violators of international law whom are within their territory, when there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, and abiding their own internal procedures and relevant international law.
2. The extraterritorial nature of the alleged crime shall not be a determining factor in assessing whether to proceed with a prosecution.
   I've already given my input on this clause.
3. Any nation having in its possession evidence or testimony shall comply in a time and manner not prejudicial to the prosecution with a good faith request from any other WA member nation conducting a prosecution in accordance with Article 1.
   "Nations possessing evidence of a violation of international law must provide that evidence to any nation that wishes to prosecute an offender based on that evidence. Nations must comply with a request from other nations for evidentiary materials in a timely and reasonable manner. "
   .
4. Every nation shall mantain 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.

Notice all my suggestions are stylistic concerns. I would also add another list item that explains the requirement to extradite if requested. Again, I'm really not sure how that works, so I'll hold back on that.

[Sciongrad]

"Obvious support for another excellent idea. I have some stylistic quibbles though. Feel free to dismiss them completely or adopt the ones you like."

Any nation having in its possession evidence or testimony shall comply in a time and manner not prejudicial to the prosecution with a good faith request from any other WA member nation conducting a prosecution in accordance with Article 1.

"Two points here. I would recommend separating the phrase "in a time and manner not prejudicial to the prosecution" with commas to make the sentence read a bit easier. Furthermore, although it can obviously be inferred from reading, it may be worth clarifying that the request is for the previously mentioned evidence or testimony.

Regarding the listing: I prefer to stay consistent with how I mark my clauses (numbers or Roman numerals, for example). But again, it's not important."

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

"I'm certain 'in the assumption' is perfectly fine, but I think (with no evidence, so I apologize if I'm mistaken) 'under the assumption' is a more natural construct, especially considering that 'in' is used earlier in the same clause."

[Louisistan]

Johannes Keller addresses the assembly on behalf of the Deputy Ambassador: "Since the Ambassador from DSR has expressed doubts with his clause 3, we had our guys from Legislative Affairs take a swing at it"

Any nation in posession of evidence or testimony relating to a prosecution carried out in Accordance with Article 1 shall be compelled to turn over that evidence or testimony to the nation conducting the prosecution.

"There, is that better?"

[Sciongrad]

Johannes Keller addresses the assembly on behalf of the Deputy Ambassador: "Since the Ambassador from DSR has expressed doubts with his clause 3, we had our guys from Legislative Affairs take a swing at it"

Any nation in posession of evidence or testimony relating to a prosecution carried out in Accordance with Article 1 shall be compelled to turn over that evidence or testimony to the nation conducting the prosecution.

"There, is that better?"

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.

"With those minor modification, I do really like this wording."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm just going to concentrate on the operative section for now; comments on the preamble have been noted, but I won't work on it until the operative section is improved.

I would also add another list item that explains the requirement to extradite if requested. Again, I'm really not sure how that works, so I'll hold back on that.

Given there is a resolution on this subject I'd rather avoid any detail at all, in case it is repealed.

Any nation in posession of evidence or testimony relating to a prosecution carried out in Accordance with Article 1 shall be compelled to turn over that evidence or testimony to the nation conducting the prosecution.

This is my favourite suggestion of those offered, and I approve of Ambassador Santos's edit.

with commas

I've been purposely trying to reduce my use of commas, which in my guise as QoD really was excessive: the slavery resolution in particular is virtually unreadable as a result. But I'll consider it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(bump)

[The Dark Star Republic]

(bump)

[Publus]

Woah woah woah, this proposal would indirectly threaten the sovereignty of all nations in the WA. Let us remember that the WA is a peace keeping organization, not an international central government. This proposal paves the way to international law over powering local law, and robs each nation the power to determine what is legal and illegal. Under no scenario will The United States of Publus, nor it's fellow nations in the South Atlantic Treaty Organization (S.A.T.O.) turn over a citizen, who has not broken any of its laws to a "higher" power. We assure you that any citizens who break international law, or commit crimes against humanity will be justly punished within our respective nations. While I admit S.A.T.O. is so miniscule it's opposition means virtually nothing to this bill, I assure that we, and any other nation respecting it's sovereignty will appose this proposal, and leave the WA the minute it attempts to rob us of our right to make, and enforce law.

[Ra Rosulh]

Woah woah woah, this proposal would indirectly threaten the sovereignty of all nations in the WA. Let us remember that the WA is a peace keeping organization, not an international central government. This proposal paves the way to international law over powering local law, and robs each nation the power to determine what is legal and illegal. Under no scenario will The United States of Publus, nor it's fellow nations in the South Atlantic Treaty Organization (S.A.T.O.) turn over a citizen, who has not broken any of its laws to a "higher" power. We assure you that any citizens who break international law, or commit crimes against humanity will be justly punished within our respective nations. While I admit S.A.T.O. is so miniscule it's opposition means virtually nothing to this bill, I assure that we, and any other nation respecting it's sovereignty will appose this proposal, and leave the WA the minute it attempts to rob us of our right to make, and enforce law.

The ambassador tilts his head curiously, "While I can somehwat understand what you are saying, international laws do exist already. I'll admit I have not yet read through all the paperwork (posts) on this matter, the draft itself seems to only allow other nations to punish those who break existing international laws whom are not being punished in their own nations.

"Everything passed in the WA is a international law of some form, and is automatically enforced by each member nation's government. You may not have thought of it as such, but it is."
The ambassador lowers his head and leans back against the wall he was resting upon prior.
(I could be horribly wrong, but that is what I make of the draft/idea)

[Publus]

Woah woah woah, this proposal would indirectly threaten the sovereignty of all nations in the WA. Let us remember that the WA is a peace keeping organization, not an international central government. This proposal paves the way to international law over powering local law, and robs each nation the power to determine what is legal and illegal. Under no scenario will The United States of Publus, nor it's fellow nations in the South Atlantic Treaty Organization (S.A.T.O.) turn over a citizen, who has not broken any of its laws to a "higher" power. We assure you that any citizens who break international law, or commit crimes against humanity will be justly punished within our respective nations. While I admit S.A.T.O. is so miniscule it's opposition means virtually nothing to this bill, I assure that we, and any other nation respecting it's sovereignty will appose this proposal, and leave the WA the minute it attempts to rob us of our right to make, and enforce law.

The ambassador tilts his head curiously, "While I can somehwat understand what you are saying, international laws do exist already. I'll admit I have not yet read through all the paperwork (posts) on this matter, the draft itself seems to only allow other nations to punish those who break existing international laws whom are not being punished in their own nations.

"Everything passed in the WA is a international law of some form, and is automatically enforced by each member nation's government. You may not have thought of it as such, but it is."
The ambassador lowers his head and leans back against the wall he was resting upon prior.
(I could be horribly wrong, but that is what I make of the draft/idea)

The way I have read this, it gives the WA the right to decide who has broken a law, not the Nation, which we do not agree with. More then what this proposal directly does, it paves a way for a massive expansion in power from the WA and that would mean Nations giving up their power.

[Ra Rosulh]

The ambassador tilts his head curiously, "While I can somehwat understand what you are saying, international laws do exist already. I'll admit I have not yet read through all the paperwork (posts) on this matter, the draft itself seems to only allow other nations to punish those who break existing international laws whom are not being punished in their own nations.

"Everything passed in the WA is a international law of some form, and is automatically enforced by each member nation's government. You may not have thought of it as such, but it is."
The ambassador lowers his head and leans back against the wall he was resting upon prior.
(I could be horribly wrong, but that is what I make of the draft/idea)

The way I have read this, it gives the WA the right to decide who has broken a law, not the Nation, which we do not agree with. More then what this proposal directly does, it paves a way for a massive expansion in power from the WA and that would mean Nations giving up their power.

The ambassador sighs slightly and mutters; "The WA is the Law. Everything passed in these chambers is the law for member nations, you can not simply not abide by it. If the WA declares human trafficking illegal, then you are not permitted to traffic persons in your nation while you are part of the WA. What this does, is allow other nations to step in and enforce the rules already put in place. It Solidifies the position the WA already has, not expand it. You don't get to pick and chose which legislation you follow and which you don't."
Further muttering could be heard, but the ambassador falls asleep before anyone could ask for clarity.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'll admit I have not yet read through all the paperwork (posts) on this matter, the draft itself seems to only allow other nations to punish those who break existing international laws whom are not being punished in their own nations.

"Your synopsis is basically correct, although strictly this is about prosecution rather than punishment.

"The WA already passes international laws. That is a basic part of its function, and compliance with those laws is mandatory upon all member nations. What this aims to do is make enforcement of those extraterritorial: that is, if someone breaks an international law, every nation has an obligation to prosecute that person if they enter their jurisdiction. This way, people cannot evade prosecution for international crimes such as genocide or human trafficking by fleeing to a different nation. This is different from extradition: it applies even where nations do not have extradition treaties, but equally, it only applies to WA laws, rather than the national laws around which extradition treaties are typically organized."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

--snip--

OOC: It's not clear to me that you understand what the WA is, because this proposal really doesn't change anything. The WA is avowedly not "a peace keeping organization", and international law already has supremacy over local law.

[Louisistan]

The Confederacy's position has not changed. Full support.

[Honor and Glory]

I see nothing here that would cause Honor and Glory to vote against it. You have our support.

[Old Hope]

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..

... even if that threatens the security of said member state? I somehow dislike this result.