[IDEA] Perpetuity of Heinous Crimes

[Sanctaria]

Ugh, Moral Decency. Which is a pity because I suppose in principle I agree with the aim.

[Ainocra]

I suggest changing

murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,

to
mass murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,

[The Dark Star Republic]

I suggest changing

murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,

to
mass murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,

"We'd argue that's already implicit from the definition of "crime against humanity":

crimes against humanity, perpetrated against a people

"A single murder isn't perpetrated "against a people". The same is true of the other crimes; we don't really want to have to insert "mass" before every single crime in the list. So if the current definition of crime against humanity isn't clear enough, we'd rather reword that than the individual crimes."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Ainocra]

works for me

[Petejackson1996]

I disagree with the following

No forced sterilisation, forced abortion: I disagree with the former as some nations may with to deal with some criminals in that way, and the latter because some countries, mine included, would force abortion in the case of incest or some other equally heinous things.

No forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement: so I'm not allowed to expel all the evil people in the country i just took over, but i cant kill them either? I'd rather not have a bunch of SS officers and ex-war criminals walking around my cities.

No forced disappearance: Well, i'd rather not announce to the whole terrorist group that i've just captured their leader and am going to execute him. I'd rather just silently get it done.


And these, I'm confused about:

No deliberate targeting of civilians: Does this include factories/plants in warfare, or just schools and such?

No summary execution: Well, my country executes terrorists, traitors, and killers on the spot, no questions asked. Am i REQUIRED to give a trial when its a known?

No perfidy: So, no spying?

Dont get me wrong, i may have misread it and am just being an idiot, but i honestly am asking why these things were chosen.
I personally would be a fan of most of these things, but perhaps it would be acceptable to do some of these with permission from the WA or SC? If there's a terrorist cell in my capital, I will shoot every single one, pistol to head execution and public hangings. If i conquer a country, and there are people who did things that were not war crimes, but really hurt my people, i'd rather not jail them. Id like to just kill them. And if someone invokes my wrath, can i really not exile them?

[Imperializt Russia]

This would essentially state that the WA does not see it as reasonable conduct to sterilise criminals for their crimes.
Additionally, one does not need to force an abortion in the case of rape or incest - On Abortion (unless it was repealed while I hadn't noticed) affirms that all willing doctors in all member states shall provide abortion as wished under rather broad criteria, or the gist.

With regards to forced deportation and disappearances, you seem to be unaware of this new thing the civilised world is trying out, it's called "the judicial system".
An effective one works on rehabilitation and the righting of wrongs, so maybe you could try that. Then ex-SS officers should become much less problematic.

Many low-ranking members of the Nazi state who were not directly complicit in the Holocaust or other human rights atrocities (and indeed, some who were) became productive members of both the East and West German states.

Perfidy is not espionage.

[The Dark Star Republic]

No forced sterilisation, forced abortion: I disagree with the former as some nations may with to deal with some criminals in that way,

"Bear in mind the context of these specific crimes. They are considered "crimes against humanity" when they are "perpetrated against a people with the aim of extermination, dispossession, collective punishment, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, or elimination of their culture". Sterilising a criminal would not constitute such an act because it is aimed at specifically that person, not committing genocide against an entire people.

and the latter because some countries, mine included, would force abortion in the case of incest or some other equally heinous things.

"Every WA nation is required to legalise consensual adult incest, so there's no grounds for such; forced abortion has already been banned anyway.

No forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement: so I'm not allowed to expel all the evil people in the country i just took over, but i cant kill them either? I'd rather not have a bunch of SS officers and ex-war criminals walking around my cities.

"If you think they are actually criminals, give them a fair trial and take appropriate punishment against them. Exile could be one such punishment against specific individuals; the only thing this is referencing is collective dispossession.

No forced disappearance: Well, i'd rather not announce to the whole terrorist group that i've just captured their leader and am going to execute him. I'd rather just silently get it done.

"Forced disappearances have already been banned.

No deliberate targeting of civilians: Does this include factories/plants in warfare, or just schools and such?

"It only refers to civilians themselves, not to civilian infrastructure. A ban on deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure would be too complex for exactly the reason you describe.

No summary execution: Well, my country executes terrorists, traitors, and killers on the spot, no questions asked. Am i REQUIRED to give a trial when its a known?

"Summary execution is already illegal, and the WA already requires fairness in criminal trials.

No perfidy: So, no spying?

"No, espionage is not a war crime. WA law on the rules of surrender lays out a narrow and specific definition of perfidious acts, none of which are required to conduct espionage.

Dont get me wrong, i may have misread it and am just being an idiot, but i honestly am asking why these things were chosen.

"Because they form the set of commonly accepted crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I personally would be a fan of most of these things, but perhaps it would be acceptable to do some of these with permission from the WA or SC?

"There is no mechanism for the WA to grant approval for specific actions, and the World Assembly doesn't have a Security Council.

If there's a terrorist cell in my capital, I will shoot every single one, pistol to head execution and public hangings. If i conquer a country, and there are people who did things that were not war crimes, but really hurt my people, i'd rather not jail them. Id like to just kill them.

"Doing so would be in violation of existing WA law, regardless of what this proposal says.

And if someone invokes my wrath, can i really not exile them?

"Again, exile as a specific legal punishment is not banned by this proposal (and the WA has no extant law on statelessness); the ban on dispossession solely refers to collective punishment, such as forced resettlement."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[The Two Jerseys]

Why is violation of neutrality even on this list?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why is violation of neutrality even on this list?

"Respecting neutrality is one of the more basic laws of war. Why wouldn't violating neutrality be considered a war crime?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[The Two Jerseys]

Why is violation of neutrality even on this list?

"Respecting neutrality is one of the more basic laws of war. Why wouldn't violating neutrality be considered a war crime?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic

Are you seriously expecting us to accept that a belligerent warship staying in a neutral harbor for 24 hours and one minute is a war crime?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Are you seriously expecting us to accept that a belligerent warship staying in a neutral harbor for 24 hours and one minute is a war crime?

"I'm not sure what '24 hours' is supposed to be referencing?

"That said, Rights of Neutral States outlines some specific conditions under which providing safe harbour to belligerents is permitted. Otherwise, it's a violation of neutrality. You seem to have avoided answering the question. Respecting neutrality is a law of war. Violating neutrality is a crime against that law. Violations of neutrality are considered to be war crimes. Why would they not be considered war crimes?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[The Two Jerseys]

Are you seriously expecting us to accept that a belligerent warship staying in a neutral harbor for 24 hours and one minute is a war crime?

"I'm not sure what '24 hours' is supposed to be referencing?

"That said, Rights of Neutral States outlines some specific conditions under which providing safe harbour to belligerents is permitted. Otherwise, it's a violation of neutrality. You seem to have avoided answering the question. Respecting neutrality is a law of war. Violating neutrality is a crime against that law. Violations of neutrality are considered to be war crimes. Why would they not be considered war crimes?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic

Shooting Belgian civilians and destroying Belgian property is not a violation of neutrality. Invading Belgium in the first place is a violation of neutrality.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Invading Belgium in the first place is a violation of neutrality.

"Which was a war crime.

"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Every WA nation is required to legalise consensual adult incest, so there's no grounds for such; forced abortion has already been banned anyway."

Well, if you want to get technical, only forced abortions under the circumstances specifically cited by On Abortion are banned. Perhaps OA should have gone further and required nations to require informed consent from patients seeking any abortion legal under national law -- because RF certainly doesn't stipulate the same conditions in legalizing all abortion -- but I guess the author didn't think of it.

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion in circumstances under Section 1;

3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

[The Two Jerseys]

Invading Belgium in the first place is a violation of neutrality.

"Which was a war crime.

"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope

So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Which was a war crime.

"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope

So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.

"And yet, no proposed improvement. Yes, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, and crossing a border, even by accident, is a logical one. You'll notice that many nations consider violation of their borders to be an act of war, or at least a crime. Just because it's considered a war crime, however, doesn't mean a court cannot consider the scale of a violation in it's intent to indict or sentence."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"

So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.

"So, that'd be a 'no'.

"Fair enough."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Do you think we should include forced religious conversion as a crime against humanity?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Imperializt Russia]

"Which was a war crime.

"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope

So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.

Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling into neutral Ruritania obviously isn't a war crime, until Putin@@LEADERNAME@@ sends the 4th Guards Tank Division and the 8th Motor Rifle Division to "look for him" in Ruritania's military bases and bomb craters.

[Bananaistan]

"Do you think we should include forced religious conversion as a crime against humanity?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

We would not be opposed in principle but we would suggest that the wording would need to be very carefully drafted (IE we wouldn't want to see our mandatory scientific education for all children, provided by the state, regarding the nature of life and the universe to suddenly become a crime against humanity. And just to be clear, we are in full compliance with all WA resolutions regarding religious freedom, but we have had a policy of unofficial state atheism for many decades now and we have found that the education referred to has seen the numbers of people claiming to be religious drop in every census since its inception and is much more effective in reducing the influence of religion than our pre-WA membership policies which were rather more forceful under some of our more hardline communist governments..)

[The Dark Star Republic]

We would not be opposed in principle but we would suggest that the wording would need to be very carefully drafted (IE we wouldn't want to see our mandatory scientific education for all children, provided by the state, regarding the nature of life and the universe to suddenly become a crime against humanity. And just to be clear, we are in full compliance with all WA resolutions regarding religious freedom, but we have had a policy of unofficial state atheism for many decades now and we have found that the education referred to has seen the numbers of people claiming to be religious drop in every census since its inception and is much more effective in reducing the influence of religion than our pre-WA membership policies which were rather more forceful under some of our more hardline communist governments..)

"Well, the aim of this proposal is to simply create a list of "heinous crimes". Detailing what exactly constitutes each such crime is up to other dedicated pieces of legislation. But, to take your example, requiring people complete scientific education is not conducted "with the aim of extermination, dispossession, collective punishment, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, or elimination of their culture", because as you've just stated you do respect religious freedom, freedom to worship, etc.."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Ugh, Moral Decency. Which is a pity because I suppose in principle I agree with the aim.

Sorry, but this is like the third proposal where I've seen someone gripe that it is under Moral Decency. Is it just because you don't like the concept of upholding morality, or is it more of a statwank thing? You don't like the hit to your personal freedoms? I mean, you suppose you like prosecuting war crimes; you just can't get over the slight (temporary) dip on one of the freedoms scales?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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.

Now that I think about it, would Political Stability be a better choice? Broadening a state's authority to prosecute could be seen as a limitation of political freedoms, and it is definitely being undertaken "in the interest of law and order."

[Bears Armed Mission]

So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.

No, because GA Resolution #255: Rights of Neutral States specifically allows for "Accidental strays who intend on leaving immediately;".

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC follows:

I tried to build the argument in the preamble:

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.

Now that I think about it, would Political Stability be a better choice? Broadening a state's authority to prosecute could be seen as a limitation of political freedoms, and it is definitely being undertaken "in the interest of law and order."

That argument does make sense. Diplomat Protection Act gives immunity, i.e. it limits a state's right to prosecute, and it's Furtherment of Democracy, so the opposite of that, expanding (or at least not limiting) a state's right to prosecute, would be Political Stability. (Not International Security, because actually effecting the prosecution - and hence requiring that police funding - is the responsibility of other resolutions.)

I think I could rewrite the preamble to justify Political Stability. Anyone else have a thought?