[IDEA] Extradite or Prosecute

[Louisistan]

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.

Would you care to give an example?

[Old Hope]

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

Would you care to give an example?

I can't give any example right now. I might have assumed something wrong.However, I looked at the resolutions the World Assembly has passed(quite a lot)
and I think this proposal may have legal problems with resolution 22.

[The Dark Star Republic]

However, I looked at the resolutions the World Assembly has passed(quite a lot)
and I think this proposal may have legal problems with resolution 22.

Immunity has already been discussed. The phrase "subject to any relevant international law" is meant to cover that, but if it's a particular concern I can make it clearer that it doesn't override diplomatic immunity. That said, I shouldn't really have to: the WA criminalises things all the time without adding "but you can't arrest diplomats for this...".

[Bananaistan]

As already stated, the People's Republic of Bananaistan supports this proposal and we will continue to do so. We are quite happy with the text as it currently stands and we hope to have an opportunity to vote and lobby in its favour in the near future.

[Old Hope]

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.
The extraterritorial nature of the alleged crime shall not be a determining factor in assessing whether to proceed with a prosecution.
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.
Every nation shall maintain a single point of contact within their national justice system for processing such requests.

I have read the rules regarding proposals and this might be illegal.
Please add the word member to avoid problems.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Ok, virtually all of the recent comments have been supportive, so I'm going to start thinking about moving ahead with this. This is a proposal where I will ask for a legality check, but the mods will usually ask for players to comment first, so if anyone has any thoughts, please do speak up:

• Is the category correct? (My argument: this causes an increase in police spending. Historically, IS proposals have been allowed to concentrate on one of police or military spending, especially at Mild strength.)
• Does it contradict Diplomat Protection Act? (My argument: The phrase "subject to any relevant international law" means this can't override guarantees of immunity.)
• Does it contradict or duplicate Extradition Rights? (My argument: hopefully it is smothered in enough disclaimers to make clear that if an extradition is taking place, the resolution is no longer relevant.)
• Is it duplication, because the magic invisible clauses of every resolution already ensure this happens? (I have no defence on this charge.)

I have read the rules regarding proposals and this might be illegal.
Please change it to Any member nation to avoid problems.

The WA can only legislate on member nations by definition.

[Old Hope]

OOC: Ok, virtually all of the recent comments have been supportive, so I'm going to start thinking about moving ahead with this. This is a proposal where I will ask for a legality check, but the mods will usually ask for players to comment first, so if anyone has any thoughts, please do speak up:

• Is the category correct? (My argument: this causes an increase in police spending. Historically, IS proposals have been allowed to concentrate on one of police or military spending, especially at Mild strength.)
• Does it contradict Diplomat Protection Act? (My argument: The phrase "subject to any relevant international law" means this can't override guarantees of immunity.)
• Does it contradict or duplicate Extradition Rights? (My argument: hopefully it is smothered in enough disclaimers to make clear that if an extradition is taking place, the resolution is no longer relevant.)
• Is it duplication, because the magic invisible clauses of every resolution already ensure this happens? (I have no defence on this charge.)

I have read the rules regarding proposals and this might be illegal.
Please change it to Any member nation to avoid problems.

The WA can only legislate on member nations by definition.

The words any and every suggest that you target other nations, too.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The words any and every suggest that you target other nations, too.

You're still misconstruing that ruling. Kryozerkia said:

As for the "all nations" part, it's a tricky piece of language, however, often players who don't draft on the forums tend to be those who haven't read the rules. They then craft legislation that is intended to affect literally ALL nations. The language often doesn't include mentions of the WA or member nations.

I am not a newer player (relatively speaking), I am drafting on the forums, and I have read the rules.

[Wrapper]

No legality comments, looks okay to us as far as category, contradiction, etc.

One qualm, and it may not be much of one -- that "single point of contact" requirement might be a burden to some nations, especially those with far-flung territories, or those in which most prosecutions are handled on a local or other political subdivision level (OOC: think criminal law in the US which is overwhelmingly state-based, unless certain federal laws are broken; I have to admit I don't know enough about this stuff).

I have read the rules regarding proposals and this might be illegal.
Please add the word member to avoid problems.

The WA can only legislate on member nations by definition.

We agree, but... you know how things are nowadays, so why chance it if you're nowhere near the character limit? But, whatever, it's your resolution, and something like this it won't affect our vote one way or the other.

[The Dark Star Republic]

One qualm, and it may not be much of one -- that "single point of contact" requirement might be a burden to some nations, especially those with far-flung territories, or those in which most prosecutions are handled on a local or other political subdivision level

"But that's exactly the situation that single point of contact is intended to address. This proposal doesn't require that nations centralise their law enforcement. But, where there might be multiple different agencies, or multiple different subnational levels, involved, creating one single point of contact means every nation can easily lodge a request. It's then up to each nation how that single point of contact disseminates the request to the relevant agencies. We don't maintain diplomatic contacts with every single WA nation. If we needed to contact a nation with which we were unfamiliar, we might not know what level of government or which law enforcement agency we should be addressing. With this in place, though, we don't need to: the other nation can sort that out for themselves."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

(OOC: think criminal law in the US which is overwhelmingly state-based, unless certain federal laws are broken; I have to admit I don't know enough about this stuff).

OOC: Yes, it is, but they still have a National Central Bureau at the DOJ.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(bump, again)

[The Dark Star Republic]

As this has again dropped off the front page without comment, I'm going to ask for a legality check. I know that mods don't normally do blanket legality queries, but I have put specific questions (and preemptive responses) here:

OOC: Ok, virtually all of the recent comments have been supportive, so I'm going to start thinking about moving ahead with this. This is a proposal where I will ask for a legality check, but the mods will usually ask for players to comment first, so if anyone has any thoughts, please do speak up:

• Is the category correct? (My argument: this causes an increase in police spending. Historically, IS proposals have been allowed to concentrate on one of police or military spending, especially at Mild strength.)
• Does it contradict Diplomat Protection Act? (My argument: The phrase "subject to any relevant international law" means this can't override guarantees of immunity.)
• Does it contradict or duplicate Extradition Rights? (My argument: hopefully it is smothered in enough disclaimers to make clear that if an extradition is taking place, the resolution is no longer relevant.)
• Is it duplication, because the magic invisible clauses of every resolution already ensure this happens? (I have no defence on this charge.)

Of course player comment (on legality or on the draft itself) is still welcome.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(bump)

[Separatist Peoples]

"On the category, I think you could make a case for Political Stability, but I think you've found a better fit with Intenational Security. It absolutely will boost police spending, though I think, technically, it will boost the volume of court proceedings. All the same, I think, when it comes to these categories.

"I can much more confidently say that I believe this effectively avoids issues with the DPA and Extradition Rights with the specific language. Your invisible clauses are a bit fuzzier, as I lack the authority to interpret them perfectly, but one appears to be giving me the finger...I'd suggest a quick check with the Secretariat if you cannot get a better answer from other ambassadors."

[The Dark Star Republic]

As this has again dropped off the front page without comment, I'm going to ask for a legality check. I know that mods don't normally do blanket legality queries, but I have put specific questions (and preemptive responses) here:

OOC: Ok, virtually all of the recent comments have been supportive, so I'm going to start thinking about moving ahead with this. This is a proposal where I will ask for a legality check, but the mods will usually ask for players to comment first, so if anyone has any thoughts, please do speak up:

• Is the category correct? (My argument: this causes an increase in police spending. Historically, IS proposals have been allowed to concentrate on one of police or military spending, especially at Mild strength.)
• Does it contradict Diplomat Protection Act? (My argument: The phrase "subject to any relevant international law" means this can't override guarantees of immunity.)
• Does it contradict or duplicate Extradition Rights? (My argument: hopefully it is smothered in enough disclaimers to make clear that if an extradition is taking place, the resolution is no longer relevant.)
• Is it duplication, because the magic invisible clauses of every resolution already ensure this happens? (I have no defence on this charge.)

It's been a month now, so I'm going to bump again.

[Louisistan]

OOC: Well let's have a look at your questions then.

Is the category correct? It does increase police spending (or at least law enforcement spending). The Compendium Thread however claims that "Both resolutions [i.e. IS and GD] affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.". This would raise the questions where the hell we should put law enforcement proposals which do not cover the military? It may be a bit of a stretch to say it's Political Stability (" Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? "). I would say, you're fine with IS, but I do not have as much experience when it comes to category rules as you have, so my advice is generally useless here. All I can say: If it's shot down as IS, try Political Stability

Does it contradict Diplomat Protection Act? I agree with you that the provision "subject to any relevant international law" would cover GAR #22.

Does it contradict or duplicate Extradition Rights? I'm hitting a language barrier here. I'm genuinely unsure, but leaning towards "no". Two clauses in GAR #147 would be relevant.
The first one forbids extradition to a WA member state if no extradition treaty exists and no national law concerning extradition into countries, with whom no extradition treaty exist, exist. This should not really be a problem. If such a member state were to ask for extradition based on violation of international law, the extradition would have to be denied, but the state receiving the extradition request would have to prosecute itself.
The second one deals with the case where an extradition is appealed on the grounds that the host state is already prosecuting. This doesn't violate extradite or prosecute, because a prosecution is under way. The appeal would have to be granted and the hosts nation's prosecution would go ahead. This might be duplication, but 147 deals only with the very specific situation, that the extradition is appealed, meaning there's already an extradition process under way, which shouldn't happen under your proposal. I'd say, no duplication, no contradiction.

Is it duplication, because the magic invisible clauses of every resolution already ensure this happens? No. But I can't tell you why other than me believing these clauses don't exist. A position also held IC by my nations senate.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thanks for the in-depth response.

The Compendium Thread however claims that "Both resolutions [i.e. IS and GD] affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.". This would raise the questions where the hell we should put law enforcement proposals which do not cover the military?

Looking at the category overall, I think it's clear that proposals more about policing have been generally passed in this category, such as Identity Theft Protection Act and Missing Individuals Act. So I'm going to take the strict category description with a pinch of salt and go more for what general precedent has shown to be the case.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(bump)

[The Dark Star Republic]

Nothing to be done.

[The new unitary state]

So we have to extradite or can we lock em up or give them the death penalty

[Separatist Peoples]

So we have to extradite or can we lock em up or give them the death penalty

"You can either extradite them or prosecute and, hopefully, sentence them."

[Louisistan]

Nothing to be done.

Sooo... Maybe we vote on it?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Nothing to be done.

Sooo... Maybe we vote on it? ;)

I'm beginning to come round to that opinion.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sooo... Maybe we vote on it?

Barring the sudden triumphant deus ex machina return of the Court Which Must Not Be Named, this seems to be the best option to serve as mortar in the great edifice of international law the WA is currently, slowly, rebuilding piecemeal.

Support.

We concur there's no better category fit for it. Even if it were technically ruled that "subject to any relevant international law" were insufficient to avoid contradicting GAR #22, the "PROHIBITS" clause in the latter makes plain that it doesn't extend to protect the types of crimes we're targeting here. And finally, all this is doing is mandating either/or - if no other nation succeeds in extraditing the suspect, the nation holding him must prosecute. In order to mess with GAR #147 we'd have to mess around with how an extradition takes place, which we're not doing - only that it must take place for the arresting nation to avoid the burden of prosecuting. That's not overriding it, that's giving it work.

While we appreciate the need for caution and deliberation, and we understand that this is one of three or four worthy proposals nearing the completion of the draft stage, it's also true that there's a nice window now where one might get something passed before the Assembly's delegates start coming in even drunker than usual, or recess entirely (as happens). I defer to the Dark Star delegation's expertise on that, but with an eye to hopefully restoring some fucking teeth soon to our august snakepit's pompous displays of conspicuous morality.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well, shall we go?