[IDEA] Extradite or Prosecute

[Old Hope]

You all forgot that WA proposals can affect nonmember nations... submitting those is illegal, but there is at least one resolution like that in effect- the second WA resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

You all forgot that WA proposals can affect nonmember nations... submitting those is illegal, but there is at least one resolution like that in effect- the second WA resolution.

"Neither this nor GAR#2 attempts to legislate for nonmembers. This focuses only on Member's jurisdiction. Try again."

[The Dark Star Republic]

There is only one proposal that has hit the floor on the topic of WA Enforcment: Extradite or Prosecute."

If the Dark Star draft on this general topic were to be submitted, we would support it, for the fact that it takes concrete steps to address war crimes and other atrocities, while leaving open future systemic refinements in how such crimes are handled.

OOC: Responding to this, and a few other comments on this proposal.

The question with referring to this proposal in terms of "enforcement" is: enforcement of what? There is, as written, no general obligation that member states prosecute those who commit war crimes. Some resolutions create such an obligation specifically, such as Prevention of Torture and the Convention on Genocide; others, such as Ban on Slavery and Trafficking and The Prisoners of War Accord, do not. If a member state does not prosecute someone who violates POW rights, they are not failing in their duty of enforcement because they have nothing to enforce.

That's as written.

But as ruled in the previous ruling and this one, such an obligation does exist. Now, we can read these resolutions and see nothing of the sort in their text, so it must be that there are magic invisible clauses spelling all this out. And as completely contrary as that runs to a decade of game conventions and the basic premise that the law means what the law says, it really does seem to be firming up as the official position.

What doesn't make sense is then ruling this proposal legal. If, indeed, these magic invisible clauses exist: then this proposal is illegal, duplication/category violation/does nothing/take your pick. They've delivered a ruling which tries to claim both that magic invisible clauses exist and that this proposal is legal.

Johnnie Cochrane voice: Now Chewbacca is a Wookkiee from the planet Kashhyyk...

My point is, your concern may actually be moot. The situation this proposal is trying to address may already have been resolved.

Magically, and invisibly.

That's separate to the "all nations" crap, which remains obviously specious, but hopefully there will be a response soon-ish - although given the time of year, maybe not until after the typical holiday break is over.

[Greater Louisistan]

OOC: I disagree, DSR. Let's assume for the moment that the invisible clause which says "Thou shalt prosecute those who do not follow WA law" exists. That does not make the mechanism of "extradite or prosecute" superfluous. While it may not have been your primary motivation, it would still serve as laying down a protocol for cases, where multiple WA members compete for jurisdiction over a WA law infringement. Wouldn't it?
Maybe it's that German Christmas Beer I had just then, but to me, it still makes sense to implement this proposal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Hmm. Now I think I'm finally beginning to see the reasons for some previously inexplicable behavior or at least odd-seeming statements from multiple players. Thanks for that rundown.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I disagree, DSR. Let's assume for the moment that the invisible clause which says "Thou shalt prosecute those who do not follow WA law" exists. That does not make the mechanism of "extradite or prosecute" superfluous. While it may not have been your primary motivation, it would still serve as laying down a protocol for cases, where multiple WA members compete for jurisdiction over a WA law infringement. Wouldn't it?

OOC: No. This proposal would not stop more than one nation claiming jurisdiction, and WA law on jurisdiction is extremely shaky; the text of Repeal MPA strongly suggests there is a basic lack of understanding of the very concept of jurisdiction.

That said, this point has made me rethink the phrasing of Article 1, though it's nothing that can be fully be resolved until we get an actual decent proposal on jurisdiction down - something that is beyond the scope of this proposal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I am of the opinion that a lot of language should just be assumed legal. Like if a resolution said all nations, it would obviously mean all relevant nations or an expectation that's not enforceable on non members.

Exactly how I see it. The WA can by definition only legislate on member states: it cannot "compel" anything from non-member nations.

But the secretariat disagrees, i assume

To be honest, I thought that was what Ardchoille was saying last time. And, presumably, how they saw it when they allowed numerous other resolutions in the past with similar language.

Packed up my Christmas decorations today, so it's time for a post-holiday bump. I'm not arguing the ruling on the main question about this proposal. Although I disagree with it, I accept it.

It's just this minor "all nations" sticking point. It's such an obviously silly idea that every resolution needs to contain "by the way this only applies to member nations", because the WA can by definition only affect member nations, and as Ardchoille previously sort-of explained:

OK, a nos moutons: in general, if a proposal says "The WA instructs nations to do x and y", it's taken as referring to member nations only, and the proposal survives. But if the whole phrasing of the proposal suggests the player is trying to force WA laws on non-member nations, it's killed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

a superior proposal that has almost universal support on the forums,

Oh please. My proposal will be crushed at vote.

You elected to pit yourself against the mods on a stupid technicality.

It's not just the "all nations" thing: that's just the obstacle to my submitting it. There's also, as I've explained, that their ruling simply doesn't make sense. This proposal was meant to clarify the magical invisible clauses issue, not further muddy it.

[Separatist Peoples]

a superior proposal that has almost universal support on the forums,

Oh please. My proposal will be crushed at vote.

I don't think so. It's the least invasive of the alternatives, doesn't restrict further legislation, and solves the problem of not trying war crimes. I don't doubt you could campaign very effectively for this with the NatSov angle, which the voters seem to appreciate.

You elected to pit yourself against the mods on a stupid technicality.

It's not just the "all nations" thing: that's just the obstacle to my submitting it. There's also, as I've explained, that their ruling simply doesn't make sense. This proposal was meant to clarify the magical invisible clauses issue, not further muddy it.

I think, should it pass, it would clear it up. If nothing else, GAR306 mentioned enforcement, and the mods had no issues with it. I think you have a very strong case for it, and that this would pass muster.

That said, the mods haven't gotten back to you. They just aren't going to; they've made that abundantly clear for reasons I just can't fathom. Submitting this anyways will likely give you more of an answer then anything else will.

As for the "all nations" crap? Fuck it, it's not like it changes anything but the flow. It's still a pointless hill to die on. Kiss the ring and let 'em have that one.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Oh please. My proposal will be crushed at vote.

I don't think so. It's the least invasive of the alternatives, doesn't restrict further legislation, and solves the problem of not trying war crimes. I don't doubt you could campaign very effectively for this with the NatSov angle, which the voters seem to appreciate.

I think I have more respect for the stacking power of Mouse and her acolytes than you. But, I guess it's pointless to speculate. If your proposal fails to pass I will give this a run.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I filed a GHR on this a month ago: is there any news on its progress?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I filed a GHR on this a month ago: is there any news on its progress?

You are not going to get an answer. It does not take them over a month to make a decision, and if you do get an answer they are going to tell you to try and get a consensus on the forums which will be next to impossible. I feel your frustration on this one, and have dealt with it myself.

[Araraukar]

I filed a GHR on this a month ago: is there any news on its progress?

OOC: Has this actually ever been submitted in current form? And if you're still stuck on not wanting to replace "all" with "member", just change the damn word and go submit. You can have your legality battle elsewhere.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Huh? The GHR doesn't have anything to do with that issue.

[Ardchoille]

I have been trying to get up to speed with this GHR since Euro pointed it out in his recent trawl of unresolved GHRs.
Unfortunately, you wrote,

Does The Pirisoners of War Accord contain any requirement that people who violate POW rights be prosecuted? No, not as written. Yet two separate rulings seem to have claimed that it does.

I understand the underlined phrase would have been clear at the time, and you did not feel the need to link to what were, presumably, recent rulings. Coming to it later, without the background of being present during an ongoing discussion, I was uncertain which rulings you referred to. After considerable time spent trying to find them, I may have narrowed it down, but need your further input.

Logically, one would be the ruling given in this very thread by my then-active colleagues and posted on their collective behalf by Mousebumples. In relation to your "magic invisible clause" query, it said,

While it is presumably the case that nations prosecute those who violate the law putting it down in writing does not violate any GA rules.

The other seems to refer to a ruling on a proposal by Railana, who was working on On Universal Jurisdiction at the time. You said an answer would be more appropriate in this thread than in Railana's, and in the OUJ thread you referred another player back to this one. However, the ruling on that proposal wasn't given until after you had submitted your GHR, so that seems unlikely. Further, that ruling was about the category, and was a standard "this is more X category than Y category". Are you perhaps referring to the subject of Railana's proposal, rather than the ruling about its category?

(I have understood that your reference to PoW Accord is an example, and you are not referring to a previous ruling about that particular Resolution.)

[The Dark Star Republic]

I have been trying to get up to speed with this GHR since Euro pointed it out in his recent trawl of unresolved GHRs.

Thanks.

(I have understood that your reference to PoW Accord is an example, and you are not referring to a previous ruling about that particular Resolution.)

Yes and no. Repeal "International Criminal Court" quite explicitly invoked The Prisoners of War Accord and stated:

BELIEVES that each WA member nation ensures that crimes outlawed within WA legislation are appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory, removing the need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants.

Given the ruling upholding that argument as legal was not exactly a model of clarity, the purpose has been to work out what the law actually means.

The clearest statement of the problem was given by Bears Armed here, though I don't know that he's commented on this proposal.

On the other hand, this is all really just a worked example (to avoid you saying "we don't deal in hypotheticals") to understand how it is that every nation has to prosecute violators of international law, even where there's no requirement to do so written anywhere in the text of international law.

Logically, one would be the ruling given in this very thread by my then-active colleagues and posted on their collective behalf by Mousebumples.

Now, I know that we are not allowed to appeal rulings. But can you at least see how that ruling might create confusion given it states that the proposal "presumably" does nothing more than duplicate game mechanics yet at the same time is legal? You won't grant an appeal, I know that, but if at any point you found yourself feeling charitable and were so inclined to offer a little illumination, it would be very gratefully received.

Edit: Lest I seem too pushy, there is no hurry here. I don't mind you taking time on this: I would simply appreciate the occasional progress report. This post arrived after 2 months without a word!

[The Dark Star Republic]

Regarding your query on "the law means what the law says" and how it relates to prosecution in member states: GAR #2 clearly requires the following: "Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty." As such, nation's laws must change to fit those of the World Assembly. Should WA law be violated, reasonable nations would have established protocols in place to ensure some form of prosecution or punishment follows. As such yes, the law means what the law says, but one must consider all of the relevant laws in question.

This was the conclusion reached by the Secretariat. If you have any concerns with it, or have additional questions, please feel free to let us know and we'd be happy to hear you out.

This is just another circular ruling that misses the point. "Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations" - but The Prisoners of War Accord, for example, doesn't mention any such obligation!

But, no appeals are allowed, so whatever. This proposal has to be illegal. There is no way that a proposal to require prosecution of crimes cannot be duplication if Rights & Duties establishes that every resolution contains a magic invisible clause requiring prosecution of crimes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Hold on. Wouldn't that imply that any enforcement mechanisms are duplications of R.2? Would that also not imply the if the ICC were proposed today, it would be illegal?

Furthermore, I don't understand how the response to the GHR could possibly mean that there is an enforcement mechanism in place. There is nothing which states that enforcement mechanisms must be in place within countries. Can someone clear that up?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Regarding your query on "the law means what the law says" and how it relates to prosecution in member states: GAR #2 clearly requires the following: "Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty." As such, nation's laws must change to fit those of the World Assembly. Should WA law be violated, reasonable nations would have established protocols in place to ensure some form of prosecution or punishment follows. As such yes, the law means what the law says, but one must consider all of the relevant laws in question.

This was the conclusion reached by the Secretariat. If you have any concerns with it, or have additional questions, please feel free to let us know and we'd be happy to hear you out.

This is just another circular ruling that misses the point. "Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations" - but The Prisoners of War Accord, for example, doesn't mention any such obligation!

But, no appeals are allowed, so whatever. This proposal has to be illegal. There is no way that a proposal to require prosecution of crimes cannot be duplication if Rights & Duties establishes that every resolution contains a magic invisible clause requiring prosecution of crimes.

I'm not sure what part of "one must consider all of the relevant laws in question" you're failing to grasp that is leading you to assume the existence of magical invisible clauses. We quoted the relevant clause to you, it is found in GAR 2.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm not sure what part of "one must consider all of the relevant laws in question" you're failing to grasp that is leading you to assume the existence of magical invisible clauses. We quoted the relevant clause to you, it is found in GAR 2.

Rights & Duties doesn't even contain the word prosecute. It's entirely possible to criminalise something without prosecuting people who violate that law, and it's absolutely possible to inconsistently prosecute violators.

But, to repeat, I know I'm not allowed to appeal the ruling. All that I am trying to do now is understand how the proposal could possibly be legal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm not sure what part of "one must consider all of the relevant laws in question" you're failing to grasp that is leading you to assume the existence of magical invisible clauses. We quoted the relevant clause to you, it is found in GAR 2.

Rights & Duties doesn't even contain the word prosecute. It's entirely possible to criminalise something without prosecuting people who violate that law, and it's absolutely possible to inconsistently prosecute violators.

But, to repeat, I know I'm not allowed to appeal the ruling. All that I am trying to do now is understand how the proposal could possibly be legal.

You can argue this with me if you'd like, I know that was one of the points that everyone was clamoring for in the other thread. As far as how to go forward with this proposal, let me mull it over a bit. I feel like there is still potential here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Seeing as I don't seem to be able to get through, I'll chalk it up to a deficiency of argument on my part. Would you consider looking over this post from another player, who I feel has expressed the problem more clearly than I've been able to?

One of the main principles on which this forum and its predecessors have operated for years, and that has been stated by various Mods (on plural occasions during that period) as applicable, is that “The Law Is What The Law Says” meaning that ‘Mandatory Compliance’ applies only to the actual wording of passed resolutions rather than to the authors’ presumed intentions as well.
Going by that principle, although a resolution banning some type of action within all member nations would automatically require all member nations both to refrain from authorising such actions and [presumably] to try preventing such actions — although the extent to which some of the more anarchic nations, (such as [owned-by-a-sometimes-Mod] Hotroddia, for example) actually could carry out preventative action was sometimes disputed — it would not also automatically require member nations to prosecute anybody caught performing such actions (and to impose “proper” sentences, rather than just “a slap on the hand”, in the event of conviction) unless its actual wording said so.

However, by their recent rejection of TDSR’s legality challenge against Mousebumple’s repeal of the ICC, the Mods have apparently accepted as ‘legally’ valid her argument that any resolution banning some type of action within all member nations does actively require the member nations to prosecute anybody caught performing such actions (and to impose “proper” sentences, rather than just “a slap on the hand”, in the event of conviction) even when that resolution’s actual wording doesn’t say that they must.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Seeing as I don't seem to be able to get through, I'll chalk it up to a deficiency of argument on my part. Would you consider looking over this post from another player, who I feel has expressed the problem more clearly than I've been able to?

One of the main principles on which this forum and its predecessors have operated for years, and that has been stated by various Mods (on plural occasions during that period) as applicable, is that “The Law Is What The Law Says” meaning that ‘Mandatory Compliance’ applies only to the actual wording of passed resolutions rather than to the authors’ presumed intentions as well.
Going by that principle, although a resolution banning some type of action within all member nations would automatically require all member nations both to refrain from authorising such actions and [presumably] to try preventing such actions — although the extent to which some of the more anarchic nations, (such as [owned-by-a-sometimes-Mod] Hotroddia, for example) actually could carry out preventative action was sometimes disputed — it would not also automatically require member nations to prosecute anybody caught performing such actions (and to impose “proper” sentences, rather than just “a slap on the hand”, in the event of conviction) unless its actual wording said so.

However, by their recent rejection of TDSR’s legality challenge against Mousebumple’s repeal of the ICC, the Mods have apparently accepted as ‘legally’ valid her argument that any resolution banning some type of action within all member nations does actively require the member nations to prosecute anybody caught performing such actions (and to impose “proper” sentences, rather than just “a slap on the hand”, in the event of conviction) even when that resolution’s actual wording doesn’t say that they must.

Certainly. I'm at work now so it'll have to wait a bit, I promise a more timely response than your last inquiry however.

[Losthaven]

For what our small opinion is worth on the matter, we do think that the "carry out in good faith" clause of Rights and Duties captures the requirement to enforce WA laws. Member nations may have different ways of doing that: we can think of very few resolutions that "CRIMINALIZE" such and such, few more that "OUTLAWS" this or that. However, we would laugh in the face of anyone claiming they are carrying out their obligation to prohibit slavery in good faith merely by passing a law against slavery and then not enforcing it in some way.

That said, we don't think that the concept of "prosecution" is necessarily what is captured by the "good faith" clause. After all, not every culture deals with criminal conduct in a way we would call "prosecution." Heck, some cultures might not even recognize "criminal" behavior, per se. Accordingly, we're not sure a resolution requiring prosecution would be duplicative or otherwise already covered by the good faith clause. By passing a law requiring prosecution, the WA would be doing more than telling nations to "carry out in good faith" their obligations. We'd be telling them how, specifically, to carry those obligations out.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Certainly. I'm at work now so it'll have to wait a bit, I promise a more timely response than your last inquiry however.

Has there been any progress on this in the last four months?