[IDEA] Perpetuity of Heinous Crimes

[The Dark Star Republic]

Perpetuity of Heinous Crimes
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Political Stability | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Noting that international law has given states certain obligations with respect to "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes" without necessarily defining what such crimes actually are,

Believing it would be useful to maintain a list clearly outlining the general scope of such crimes, while leaving the specific definition of each to individual dedicated resolutions,

Further understanding that states have historically employed "statutory limitations", whereby a prosecution can no longer be brought for certain crimes after a period of time has elapsed, so as to secure their justice systems against frivolous or unfair trials,

Asserting that crimes of such a heinous nature as to be considered crimes against humanity or war crimes deserve no such limitation given the imperative of securing justice for their victims and punishment for those responsible,

Has determined:

1. The World Assembly shall recognise the following as heinous crimes:
   crimes against humanity, perpetrated against a people with the aim of extermination, dispossession, collective punishment, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, or elimination of their culture:
   • murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,
   • suppression, destruction or denial of intrinsic culture,
   • slavery, forced labour, or human trafficking,
   • forced sterilisation, forced abortion, organ trafficking, or other forced or illegitimate medical procedures,
   • torture,
   • rape, forced pregnancy, forced prostitution, or other forms of sexual violence,
   • forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement,
   • forced disappearance or child theft,
   • any other crime recognised as an act of genocide by international law,
   • institutionalised segregation or stratification of rights based on any general characteristic such as race or religion,
   • state-sponsored terrorism,
   • any other crime recognised as a crime against humanity by international law,
   war crimes, perpetrated during an internal or international armed conflict:
   • deliberate targeting of civilians,
   • use of biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological weaponry in violation of international law,
   • mistreatment of prisoners of war, military internees, or civilian internees,
   • reprisals against civilian population as a means of collective punishment,
   • deliberate targeting of surrendered parties or parties injured or incapacitated beyond the means of defending themselves,
   • pillage or looting,
   • excessive destruction not justified by military necessity,
   • summary execution,
   • deliberate targeting of humanitarian cargo or medical personnel, where identified by a recognised humanitarian emblem,
   • perfidy,
   • unrestricted submarine warfare,
   • violation of neutrality,
   • wartime sexual violence,
   • taking of hostages,
   • use of civilians or other protected persons to render areas immune from military operations,
   • any other crime recognised as a war crime by international law;
2. No state shall recognise any statute of limitation on the commission, attempted commission, conspiracy to commit or assistance towards commission of any such heinous crime.
3. Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as limiting further international law clarifying or defining the scope of national obligations with respect to heinous crimes.

"The idea behind this proposal is more straightforward than its unbelievably pretentious title might suggest: to pass a resolution officially listing everything the WA does or should consider to be a "war crime" or "crime against humanity", such that Universal Jurisdiction can then be invoked, while at the same time avoiding any legal problems coming from the rules of procedure against explicitly "building on" previously passed legislation.

"Therefore, the idea is to name all the war crimes and crimes against humanity, but not to go into the specifics of each: those are left to the dedicated resolutions on each, such as Prevention of Torture or Ban on Slavery and Trafficking."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

I like it

although I am a little concerned by "or population transfer"

I know it's intended to prevent malicious transfer, but it could be used to prevent mandatory evacuations in the event of a disaster of some type.

Perhaps add a bit about cause just to clear it up.

[Dooom35796821595]

And what if one of the crimes listed is repealed in the GA, wouldn't that nullify this whole resolution?

Also it's not April yet, just in case.

[Karolingia]

[*]institutionalised segregation or stratification of rights based on any general characteristic such as race or religion

OOC: Just to be clear, are you declaring anything on the order of Jim Crow to be a crime against humanity? While I like the idea, I find it difficult to imagine the politicians responsible for instituting and perpetuating Jim Crow being put in front of the ICC (especially when considering that many continued to serve in government well after general integration had begun). I don't say that it's a bad thing to treat that kind of segregation as a crime against humanity, but I would like confirmation that I'm not blowing this statement out of proportion.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I wouldn't have thought this would fall under Moral Decency at first. I see that revoking the legal statute of limitations (if any) for these crimes would be a reduction of civil liberties in the narrowest, most technical possible sense; but might the lengthy list of godawful things that are now officially crimes (again) fall more squarely under International Security? To keep it MD I might consider another nod or two in that direction; if changed to IS I don't foresee a need for more than cosmetic or minor wording changes.

[*]institutionalised segregation or stratification of rights based on any general characteristic such as race or religion

OOC: Just to be clear, are you declaring anything on the order of Jim Crow to be a crime against humanity? While I like the idea, I find it difficult to imagine the politicians responsible for instituting and perpetuating Jim Crow being put in front of the ICC (especially when considering that many continued to serve in government well after general integration had begun). I don't say that it's a bad thing to treat that kind of segregation as a crime against humanity, but I would like confirmation that I'm not blowing this statement out of proportion.

OOC: seems reasonable to me. Of course, the US has never really thought itself to be under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to begin with...

[Chester Pearson]

And what if one of the crimes listed is repealed in the GA, wouldn't that nullify this whole resolution?

Also it's not April yet, just in case.

No, because this resolution would still make the act illegal.

I am not a huge fan of the Moral Decency category, but seeing as how this is probably the best we can hope to achieve, I am willing to support it. At least we will still have something in place, when UJ is eventually repealed.....

Warmest regards,

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC:

OOC: Just to be clear, are you declaring anything on the order of Jim Crow to be a crime against humanity? While I like the idea, I find it difficult to imagine the politicians responsible for instituting and perpetuating Jim Crow being put in front of the ICC (especially when considering that many continued to serve in government well after general integration had begun). I don't say that it's a bad thing to treat that kind of segregation as a crime against humanity, but I would like confirmation that I'm not blowing this statement out of proportion.

Yes, it's what's called the crime of apartheid. However, I thought "apartheid" would count as a RL violation so I had to spell out what it meant.

I wouldn't have thought this would fall under Moral Decency at first. I see that revoking the legal statute of limitations (if any) for these crimes would be a reduction of civil liberties in the narrowest, most technical possible sense; but might the lengthy list of godawful things that are now officially crimes (again) fall more squarely under International Security? To keep it MD I might consider another nod or two in that direction; if changed to IS I don't foresee a need for more than cosmetic or minor wording changes.

I don't know. Honestly, that ruling that On Universal Jurisdiction didn't fall into Human Rights threw me for a bit of a loop. It's very hard to predict now what rulings will be. Nonetheless, my logic is:

• the only mandate in this proposal requires that states not recognise statutes of limitation on certain crimes;
• statutes of limitation are employed to protect defendants' civil rights;
• therefore, a proposal limiting statutes of limitation restricts defendants' civil rights and belongs in Moral Decency;
• this only applies to a very few crimes and so Mild is appropriate.

IC comments follow:

although I am a little concerned by "or population transfer"

"Fair objection, although the point of this resolution isn't really to get into the nitty-gritty of defining each crime. That one is arguably more important because it's one of the crimes that Repeal ICC legalised. I've rewritten to emphasise the malicious nature, as you suggested.

And what if one of the crimes listed is repealed in the GA, wouldn't that nullify this whole resolution?

"It wouldn't nullify it, no: it would just mean that for that particular crime, while states can't recognise a statute of limitations, they wouldn't even have to criminalise it. That's not a problem. The point of this resolution isn't to outlaw those specific acts."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Greater Louisistan]

"It wouldn't nullify it, no: it would just mean that for that particular crime, while states can't recognise a statute of limitations, they wouldn't even have to criminalise it. That's not a problem. The point of this resolution isn't to outlaw those specific acts."

"Almost overlooked that. Carry on then, glad to see someone has taken on this project."

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Are you certain this would not be considered amending the previous legislation? Not a Mod, but i'd love to see how this would be legal...

IC: "You make the same mistake many others have.... you classify the use of weapons of destruction on civilians as a war crime, ignoring the fact that many governments use them to shield military assets, either by chance or by force. Such a thing is not a war crime."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Are you certain this would not be considered amending the previous legislation? Not a Mod, but i'd love to see how this would be legal...

OOC: I am sure of literally nothing when it comes to mod rulings. But I can't see how it's an amendment. It's simply saying what war crimes and crimes against humanity are. The previous resolution stated what you had to do about war crimes and crimes against humanity.

IC comments follow:

"You make the same mistake many others have.... you classify the use of weapons of destruction on civilians as a war crime, ignoring the fact that many governments use them to shield military assets, either by chance or by force. Such a thing is not a war crime."

"The Nuclear Arms Protocol:

unless a hostile nation deliberately shields key strategic military assets within civilian populations,

Permits the usage of nuclear weapons in a reciprocal role should another hostile nation deliberately target civilian populations in defiance of this accord,

"The Chemical Weapons Accord:

The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,

"So I don't see the issue. International law already allows for the use of nuclear weapons under the circumstances you've put forth, and already bans the use of chemical weapons against civilians anyway."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Imperializt Russia]

I like it

although I am a little concerned by "or population transfer"

I know it's intended to prevent malicious transfer, but it could be used to prevent mandatory evacuations in the event of a disaster of some type.

Perhaps add a bit about cause just to clear it up.

Well, since an evacuation isn't "with the aim of extermination, dispossession, collectively punishment, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, or elimination of their culture", then it's probably fine.
It's a matter for the courts to judge after the fact, and the state should probably come out favourably.

[Bears Armed Mission]

The World Assembly shall recognise the following as heinous crimes:[list]crimes against humanity,

*<usual, and probably expected, semi-IC grumbling reminder that humans aren't the only sapient species potentilly needing protection here>*

suppression, destruction or denial of culture

OOC: Even any cultural practices with which many people here would disagree, such as [e.g.] the non-consensual sacrifice of sapient beings? And what about those cases where specific cultural prctices are are actually forbidden already under WA law [e.g. female genital mutilation] or are defined as 'heinous crimes' further on in this proposal?

organ trafficking, or other forced or illegitimate medical procedures

OOC: Is this defining organ trafficking, even when not coerced, as inherently 'illegitimate'?

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC: Even any cultural practices with which many people here would disagree, such as [e.g.] the non-consensual sacrifice of sapient beings? And what about those cases where specific cultural prctices are are actually forbidden already under WA law [e.g. female genital mutilation] or are defined as 'heinous crimes' further on in this proposal?

Does banning FGM legitimately suppress a society that believes it a part of their culture?
It suppresses that part of its culture and nothing else, unless those are also banned articles.

I feel wholly confident in saying that even in NS, there is no culture that thrives solely on FGM that would in fact be "suppressed, destroyed or denied of culture" by this resolution.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Does banning FGM legitimately suppress a society that believes it a part of their culture?
It suppresses that part of its culture and nothing else, unless those are also banned articles.

I feel wholly confident in saying that even in NS, there is no culture that thrives solely on FGM that would in fact be "suppressed, destroyed or denied of culture" by this resolution.

If "denial of culture" doesn't mean barring people from practicing their traditional culture in its complete form, then how much of a culture's practices does it allow the suppression of?

[Imperializt Russia]

Because, as the resolution does actually state, there's an intent required.
Are you banning FGM as part of a campaign to marginalise/genocide the people who consider it "cultural", or are you doing it because you think FGM is abhorrent and undeserving of the "protections" of "culture"?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Because, as the resolution does actually state, there's an intent required.

OOC: This is exactly my interpretation, yes. The intent of a campaign to eliminate FGM is not to destroy North African Islamic culture: it's to protect women.

That said, at this stage there's really no need for your usual "but what about...?" dance. We can just change the language. Any suggestions welcome.

organ trafficking, or other forced or illegitimate medical procedures

OOC: Is this defining organ trafficking, even when not coerced, as inherently 'illegitimate'?

Well, it's assuming coercion. If it's not a coerced organ donation, then it's not really organ trafficking: it's organ trading. No more than not all migration constitutes human trafficking.

[Separatist Peoples]

“I wasn’t a supporter of this idea of this before, and I’m still not very big on it, but, with Universal Jurisdiction passed, and a repeal and replace effort massively more effort than its worth, I’m not about to try to scuttle this.

“That said, I think the attempted scope of this is too great. This lists a number of crimes that aren’t even legislated on yet, such as looting and pillage, denial of culture, state sponsored terrorism, targeting humanitarian cargo, etc. I understand why you’re doing it, but I think that attempting to cover that which isn’t yet legislated on is going to cause exactly the kind of “But what if…” squabbles you’re trying to avoid. At least if this focuses on the resolutions currently in place that aren’t specifically termed a war crime or crime against humanity, you can always take those ambassadors that start out “But what if…” and respond with “Fuck you, it’s already covered, and here’s the document that covers it.”

“I think that, for the instances of legislation not covered yet, there’s enough of an awareness of the idea of UD not covering war crimes/crimes against humanity that aren’t specifically labeled as such to avoid serious issues in future writing. None of the veteran legislators are going to forget this anytime soon, and the battle is so uphill, it’s unlikely that a new ambassador is going to succeed before somebody flags them down and says “BUT WAIT! THERE BE DRAGONS AHEAD!”"

[The Dark Star Republic]

None of the veteran legislators are going to forget this anytime soon, and the battle is so uphill, it’s unlikely that a new ambassador is going to succeed before somebody flags them down and says “BUT WAIT! THERE BE DRAGONS AHEAD!”"

"Tell that to Wilorin. This idea that only "veteran" legislators can get anything passed is complete nonsense. Furthermore, these are exactly the sort of crimes where a proposal that hasn't been drafted by a WA regular is more likely to succeed.

"The method you're proposing would be for every resolution to explicitly say it is about a war crime or a crime against humanity, and if even one of those resolutions doesn't, then Universal Jurisdiction wouldn't apply. The method I'm proposing here circumvents that."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

None of the veteran legislators are going to forget this anytime soon, and the battle is so uphill, it’s unlikely that a new ambassador is going to succeed before somebody flags them down and says “BUT WAIT! THERE BE DRAGONS AHEAD!”"

"Tell that to Wilorin. This idea that only "veteran" legislators can get anything passed is complete nonsense. Furthermore, these are exactly the sort of crimes where a proposal that hasn't been drafted by a WA regular is more likely to succeed.

"The method you're proposing would be for every resolution to explicitly say it is about a war crime or a crime against humanity, and if even one of those resolutions doesn't, then Universal Jurisdiction wouldn't apply. The method I'm proposing here circumvents that."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"But how often does that happen? Ambassador Pearson admits he campaigned for it, which is why it got to vote. It was a fluke event. That's exactly what I'm suggesting, because otherwise, you're going to run into a very stiff resistance of voters not being fully aware of your strategy. You're going to get a lot of Nay votes because "X doesn't go into detail about what X is blah blah drivel". It's not a matter of your strategy being flawed, it's a matter of mass ignorance on the part of the voters."

[Bananaistan]

Full support. We like the changes made so far, particularly regarding population transfer as we had a concern regarding CPOs. No particular comment at the moment. The draft as currently presented seems acceptable to us.

[Railana]

Full support. A few suggestions, though:

1. Clarify what "deprivation" means - deprived of what?;
2. Replace the biological weaponry clause and the chemical, nuclear or radiological weaponry clause with the following: "use of biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological weaponry in violation of international law";
3. Remove the word "illegal" from the mistreatment of POWs clause; and
4. Add a clause clarifying that nothing in the resolution prohibits future resolutions from further clarifying the scope of some of the listed crimes. We don't want to block future resolutions on specific war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Mousebumples]

Totally-not-a-ruling-in-any-way-shape-or-form, buuuuuut ... Why Moral Decency? It seems to me that removing any possible statute of limitations would boost police budgets (i.e. International Security) more than it would restrict civil freedoms. From all appearances, this is the early stages of drafting, so things may be changed in the text itself, or I may have overlooked something here in my quick read-through on the text. However, genuine question: why Moral Decency?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Changes made:

• Changed "culture" to "intrinsic culture". Hopefully that assuages the concern that this only refers not to cultural genocide, and not to curtailing specific practices.
• Clarified "deprivation" to "deprivation of basic necessities", and added "deliberate" to "starvation".
• Removed "illegal" from "mistreatment of POWs".
• Changed the NBCR clauses to "use of biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological weaponry in violation of international law", though we do have a reservation about this being misinterpreted so it may yet be reworded.
• Added a final thingy clause.

"Thank you very much for your assistance Ambassador Fulton. At this stage we'd be inclined to offer a co-author credit should you wish.

"Also some minor edits, I really cannot type for shit sometimes."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC follows:

Totally-not-a-ruling-in-any-way-shape-or-form, buuuuuut ... Why Moral Decency? It seems to me that removing any possible statute of limitations would boost police budgets (i.e. International Security) more than it would restrict civil freedoms. From all appearances, this is the early stages of drafting, so things may be changed in the text itself, or I may have overlooked something here in my quick read-through on the text. However, genuine question: why Moral Decency?

I tried to build the argument in the preamble:

Understanding that states have historically employed statutory limitations on the prosecution of crimes so as to prevent unjust persecution of defendants long after a reasonable period has elapsed for bringing a prosecution,

The purpose of statutes of limitation is to protect defendants from frivolous or unjust persecution against which they would be unable to defend themselves. WA law protecting defendants - the various Fair Trial resolutions, the many, many Habeas Corpus proposals, Preventing Multiple Trials, and others - have always gone in Human Rights. Protecting defendants is clearly something the WA considers to be a civil freedom. So the opposite of that - removing a protection for defendants, opening them up to charges even if their crime is decades old - is restricting a civil freedom, and hence Moral Decency. Mild because (one would hope) this would only apply to a very narrow class of criminals.

[Railana]

At this stage we'd be inclined to offer a co-author credit should you wish.

That would be a very kind gesture; that said, we're not certain our contribution is sufficient to merit such a credit.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

((OOC: We would suggest a better title, but we can't think of anything that will fall under the character limit. ))

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I just read my prior arguments.... I really need to stop doing this so damn late... wow. Just curious though, is it really 'mild', or is there enough to bump it up?

IC: "My concerns were addressed, I shall support should it get to the floor."