[PASSED] Multilateral Prosecution Act

[Ainocra]

Honored Ambassadors I will endeavour to be brief

If someone commits a crime in Ainocra, they will be tried in Ainocra, by our courts regardless of where they came from. should the be a citizen of another country they will be returned to thier homeland upon completion of thier sentence.

Should they have no homeland they will be escorted to the nearest neutral nation and released.

We see no need at all for outside interference in our legal matters.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

We fail to see any legitimate purpose behind this. A special court for nationless people? Why? Should any person of any nationality, or lack thereof, commit a crime within the Kingdom, the trials shall be held by Crown Courts, not by some outside court which has dubious jurisdiction. We also view the "no capital punishment" clause to be a dangerous "first step" in outlawing all capital punishment.

Err.. no. This proposal is only concerning multilateral captures of criminals, for example, if Grays Harbor captures a criminal in particpation with several nations (at least in the newest draft), than the ICA is the courthouse and the proper authority for justice. If the effort to catch the criminal is by your nation's own exclusive will, than you have rightful jurisdiction over the accused.

The ICA is banned from sentencing nationless people to capital punishment.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Err.. no. This proposal is only concerning multilateral captures of criminals, for example, if Grays Harbor captures a criminal in particpation with several nations (at least in the newest draft), than the ICA is the courthouse and the proper authority for justice. If the effort to catch the criminal is by your nation's own exclusive will, than you have rightful jurisdiction over the accused.

The text should probably be updated, then. There's no explicit statement about ICA jurisdiction applying only to criminals captured under coordinated police efforts between two or more nations.


Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Unibot]

Err.. no. This proposal is only concerning multilateral captures of criminals, for example, if Grays Harbor captures a criminal in particpation with several nations (at least in the newest draft), than the ICA is the courthouse and the proper authority for justice. If the effort to catch the criminal is by your nation's own exclusive will, than you have rightful jurisdiction over the accused.

The text should probably be updated, then. There's no explicit statement about ICA jurisdiction applying only to criminals captured under coordinated police efforts between two or more nations.


Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

OOC: Okay, the first post has been edited to include it.

[Unibot]

bump!

[NERVUN]

Sorry this took us so long to get back to, but given the WA police thing, we ended up pounding our heads together for some time trying to get the right angle.

In terms of legality for the WA Police: At this point in time, kinda. The legal eagles had a nice stealcage match and came up with the following. Your court, acting as a court (i.e. ruling on the crime of a stateless person) is not forming the WA Police. The court is, after all, a WA committee acting judicial and passing judgement. This is a right and proper function of the WA and its committiees. We could see it being acceptable if the court is assumed to meet in the WA HQ. There's already "security" there. If you leave it with some vague phrase suggesting the use of 'such security as is provided by the relevant authorities', you'd be covered even if some cataclysm overtakes the WA HQ resolution. This tosses the mess into the laps of our hard working gnomes who guard the WA as is. No police force is created. In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

In terms of conflict with resolution #20 (International Piracy): No, I do not think that the no death penality conflicts with it as it is written.

Catagory wise: Human rights would be the best 'fit' for this.

Further issues:
Clause 2 however (Clarifies that all previous and future WA legislation that establishes criminal charges, are directing those duties of judiciary and enforcement of the law to member nations, unless explicitly stated otherwise;) comes very close to dictating future legislation, which is forbidden.

Also, your treatment of the prisoners seems to duplicate resolution 62 (For the Detained and Convicted).

[Unibot]

Thank You! Thank You! Thaaank You! Hark the angels sing!

I've made some adjustments to the language. I don't know if I'm entirely legal at the moment according to your words.. but your ruling will be instrumental in the progress of this proposal. At last! We can get back to improving the legislation, instead of arguring its legality.

[Bears Armed]

In terms of conflict with resolution #20 (International Piracy): No, I do not think that the no death penality conflicts with it as it is written.

OOC: Really? So how much difference is a WA member nation allowed to introduce between the penalty that it imposes on anybody whom its legal system convicts on a charge of having committed a serious crime within its own territories and the penalty that it imposes on anybody whom its legal system convicts on a charge of having committed an equivalent comparable crime to that during an act of international piracy somewhere else without breaching Resolution #20's requirement that it must treat those two offences as equally serious?

[Unibot]

OOC:

From Moderation...

In terms of conflict with resolution #20 (International Piracy): No, I do not think that the no death penality conflicts with it as it is written.

OOC: Really? So how much difference is a WA member nation allowed to introduce between the penalty that it imposes on anybody whom its legal system convicts on a charge of having committed a serious crime within their own territorires and the penalty that it imposes on anybody whom its legal system convicts on charges of having committed an equivalent comparable crime to that during an act of international piracy somewhere else without breaching Resolution #20's requirement that it must treat those two offences as equally serious?

If it was a member nation, none. We're talking about a coalition. #20 didn't specify just what happens when two nations make the arrest. Since you cannot split the pirate down the middle and kill one half while giving 5 to 20 to the other and since this deals with multinational efforts, there was juuuuuuuuuuuuuust enough wiggle room.

[Glen-Rhodes]

.... Eh, transferred over to moderation.
Probably should have posted it here, and not in the topic.

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

It tells the nation to detain the person; I don't know how that isn't "telling the member nation's guards to do something".The WA sending prisoners to other nations, and funding the operation of those prisons, is the same thing as the WA having prisons itself and detaining persons itself. It's like extraordinary rendition, to draw a real-world parallel.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

[NERVUN]

.... Eh, transferred over to moderation.
Probably should have posted it here, and not in the topic.

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

It tells the nation to detain the person; I don't know how that isn't "telling the member nation's guards to do something".The WA sending prisoners to other nations, and funding the operation of those prisons, is the same thing as the WA having prisons itself and detaining persons itself. It's like extraordinary rendition, to draw a real-world parallel.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

Given the complexity of this issue, please wait.

[Bears Armed]

.... Eh, transferred over to moderation.
Probably should have posted it here, and not in the topic.

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

"Ahem!"

Rights and Duties of WA States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: *(snip)*

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

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.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

*(snip)*

[Glen-Rhodes]

"Ahem!"

OOC: I argued that the detention of individuals was a violation of Rights and Duties banning the WA from carrying out 'policing actions'. Nervun's ruling seems to support that, and says that we can get around that by having the WA states themselves manage it. But in no way, according to the ruling so far, is the WA banned from funding the operations. So, if that kind of indirect policing is allowed, it logically follows that the WA may fund the operation of militias, but it just can't have a militia itself.

Since, with the current ruling, the WA is maintaining neutrality in policing/detaining/whatever criminals by sending them to WA states (i.e indirectly policing the world), the WA would be equally maintaining neutrality in wars by only funding like-minded WA state militias. It's doubly indirect because the WA isn't even giving out any orders, unlike it is when having nations detain criminals. We can't say that the WA is allowed to indirectly police, but it's not allowed to indirectly engage in war, when the policing and war regulations are both (a) covered the same clause in Rights and Duties and (b) covered by the same 'Official Rule'.

[NERVUN]

In regards to convicts, the way to avoid a WA Police would be to have the prisoners guarded in WA member states (As you stated) with the WA paying for the facilities rental and a "cost of guarding" charge. The WA in this case would be JUST renting space and spending some extra money for the priviledge of housing a prisoner there, nothing more. We could see a "Treatment of prisoners shall be according to WA resolutions" being added as this forbids the WA from giving orders to the guards.

I will now submit the resolution I have been waiting to submit for months: the WA funding militias with the directive that those militias take down authoritarian regimes. (Or, to make it even more indirect: the WA funding militias who voluntarily choose to fight authoritarian regimes.) I mean, they're only renting the militias! ... Absolutely ridiculous there, so why not here?

Big difference between the WA renting militas to go after authoritarian regimes as ID'd by the WA, with WA patches on the uniforms, and the WA paying for (a) member nation(s) to contain prisoners judged by the WA.

In effect, the WA rents space. It does not tell the member nation how to guard. It does not tell the member nation's guards to do something. And if the prisoner escapes, that's the fault of the member nation and they get to go after him, just not on WA authority.

It tells the nation to detain the person; I don't know how that isn't "telling the member nation's guards to do something".The WA sending prisoners to other nations, and funding the operation of those prisons, is the same thing as the WA having prisons itself and detaining persons itself. It's like extraordinary rendition, to draw a real-world parallel.

The way I read it, this ruling opens the floodgates to the WA becoming a World Police, albeit indirectly. Anything the rules prevents us from doing in regards to the "no police" thing, we can just do by using nations as proxies for our own ends. Where is the limit? What explicitly is the WA not allowed to do, when using other nations to carry out its operations?

Er, no. Look at it this way, I want to build a house. I hire a construction company. I tell them what I want (House) and where I want it (There). THEY decide how to build it. I cannot tell them how to pound the nails. If they want to use a hammer, a rock, the Force, it's up to them. I do not own the construction company in the meantime, nor do I own the workers. I am only contracting. If something goes wrong with the house, THEY have to fix it, not me. In other words I am paying them to provide a service. What the contractor does with the actual money while providing that service is his affair. He may use it to pay his workers' wages; he may use it to buy them bikkies for their teabreak; he may blow it all on ruby-studded corset piercings for the lissom back of his inventive young mistress, and win the actual building funds in a wild session of high-stakes gambling. I neither know nor care. All I care about is that he and his company provide the service they contracted to provide, ie, House. There.

The service here is that the WA nation agrees to receive the prisoner. The WA cannot tell the host nation HOW to keep the prisoner (Beyond treatment as already prescribed by WA resolutions). So if it's a jail, a force field, suspended animation, sent into the Phantom Zone, it's not the WA's business. They cannot do anything beyond providing money for the custodial service.

The above is the "line" as it were. The WA has no authority, there are no WA uniform patches, and the WA isn't telling the member nation to go after anyone or do anything.

So to answer your question, the line that will be looked at is "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?" If so, you've crossed it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Big difference between the WA renting militas to go after authoritarian regimes as ID'd by the WA, with WA patches on the uniforms, and the WA paying for (a) member nation(s) to contain prisoners judged by the WA.

Boil it down to the core of what the World Assembly would be doing. In my proposition, it would be funding operations to inhibit persons/entities/what-have-you that take actions the World Assembly disagrees with. What this proposal does is fund operations that detain criminals, i.e it funds operations that inhibit persons/entities/what-have-you that take actions the World Assembly disagrees with. (Also, I should note that I've never said the WA could have a military itself. My argument centers around the WA utilizing member states' militias.)

Er, no. Look at it this way, I want to build a house. I hire a construction company. I tell them what I want (House) and where I want it (There). THEY decide how to build it. I cannot tell them how to pound the nails. If they want to use a hammer, a rock, the Force, it's up to them. I do not own the construction company in the meantime, nor do I own the workers. I am only contracting. etc ...

I want to get rid of X. So, I hire a militia. I tell them what I want to get rid of. They decide how to do it. I am only contracting... There really is no fundamental difference that I can see between what is being done here, which mods say is OK, and what I proposed could be done based on this ruling, which I think you are saying is a no-no.

The service here is that the WA nation agrees to receive the prisoner. The WA cannot tell the host nation HOW to keep the prisoner (Beyond treatment as already prescribed by WA resolutions). So if it's a jail, a force field, suspended animation, sent into the Phantom Zone, it's not the WA's business. They cannot do anything beyond providing money for the custodial service.

In summary, I understand completely what you are saying is legal and how it is legal. However, the mods cannot say that this ruling only applies to this scenario, without being completely unfair. The prohibition of WA police and militias is found in the same exact clause of Rights and Duties and the same exact official rule. The interpretation of those two things that the mods have provided is that the WA can indirectly police, so long as a single condition is met: the WA cannot directly manage what outside entities are doing. And because policing and militias fall under the exact same rules/legislative clauses, that interpretation applies to militias as well.

So, just tell me if I'm wrong and why: the WA can fund militias that fight against X***, so long as it isn't telling those militias how to go through with that mission. When asked the question, "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?", the proposer answers: "No. The WA is only providing funds to militias that fight against X. The WA is not ever telling militias to fight against X." Or it could even be a proposal funding police forces that do X, without the WA actually telling the police to do X. If there's a problem with that, then there's a serious problem with the ruling.

***Note the difference between this statement and "the WA can fund militias to fight against X". By the way, sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive. I just want to get this straight. This is pretty significant ruling, in my eyes.

[Unibot]

So, just tell me if I'm wrong and why: the WA can fund militias that fight against X***, so long as it isn't telling those militias how to go through with that mission. When asked the question, "Is the WA telling someone to go do something militarily or in a law enforcement effort?", the proposer answers: "No. The WA is only providing funds to militias that fight against X. The WA is not ever telling militias to fight against X." Or it could even be a proposal funding police forces that do X, without the WA actually telling the police to do X. If there's a problem with that, then there's a serious problem with the ruling.

First of all, I'd say if it's a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because it's otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

Secondly, if you're planning to fund to send militia to fight a non-national entity -- like stateless people, terrorists or pirates -- the WA already does that, or atleast endorses it. We just do not define how the fighting is done specifically.

[/not a mod]

[Glen-Rhodes]

First of all, I'd say if its a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because its otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

The key point is that the World Assembly isn't telling militias what to do at all. It's not saying, "Go to war." It's saying, "If your group does happen to fight against X, you will receive funding." That does affect all nations equally; all nations have the same opportunity to choose to fight against X. It's not an issue of the WA declaring war, but rather an issue of the WA funding militias that choose to do something the WA views as worthy of funds. And I don't want to pigeon-hole the effects of the ruling to the WA funding militias. My point is that the WA can do anything its otherwise restricted from doing by providing funds to member nations who will take up the mantle. The militia issue is simply the best example of the negative impacts of such a ruling.

On a side-note, I don't think we can call that metagaming, unless we call a lot of other things metagaming as well. The WA is providing funds to militias; what they do with those funds is out of our hands. Yes, those funds may go towards affecting non-WA nations. But the WA isn't directly doing anything to non-WA nations, nor is it ever advocating the attacking of non-WA nations. Nearly everything the WA does affects non-WA nations this way. That is, through choices WA nations make that are facilitated, as a byproduct and not a direct edict, by WA resolutions.

[Unibot]

First of all, I'd say if its a nation you plan on sending militia to fight.. you're out of luck, because it contradicts war by definition in GA #2. Because its otherwise metagaming to suggest that the WA will fight a nation through any means, because it will either interfere with the sovereignty of a non-WA nation or not effect all WA nations evenly (some will be 'attacked' and some will not -- and we have no means of showing the effect of war, in-game, at the moment).

The key point is that the World Assembly isn't telling militias what to do at all. It's not saying, "Go to war." It's saying, "If your group does happen to fight against X, you will receive funding." That does affect all nations equally; all nations have the same opportunity to choose to fight against X. It's not an issue of the WA declaring war, but rather an issue of the WA funding militias that choose to do something the WA views as worthy of funds. And I don't want to pigeon-hole the effects of the ruling to the WA funding militias. My point is that the WA can do anything its otherwise restricted from doing by providing funds to member nations who will take up the mantle. The militia issue is simply the best example of the negative impacts of such a ruling.

On a side-note, I don't think we can call that metagaming, unless we call a lot of other things metagaming as well. The WA is providing funds to militias; what they do with those funds is out of our hands. Yes, those funds may go towards affecting non-WA nations. But the WA isn't directly doing anything to non-WA nations, nor is it ever advocating the attacking of non-WA nations. Nearly everything the WA does affects non-WA nations this way. That is, through choices WA nations make that are facilitated, as a byproduct and not a direct edict, by WA resolutions.

OOC: I'm really starting to get bored, arguing the same thing over again with you, and having you argue the same thing back. Einstein would call that insanity.

I'm looking to actually improve this draft, and if you don't want to do that, please take this rules-lawyering stalemate elsewhere... it doesn't concern this resolution, it concerns a tangent you've created off of a ruling pertaining to it.

I see problems currently with the resolution, I think it can definitely be reduced in length for example, and I'm sure there is someone out there who has problems with the judicial sector of this resolution -- I mean, what was Habeas Corpus, eight months in the making? So please, if you have comments, concerns, suggestions or additions to voice, pertaining to the resolution, instead of its legality, please voice them!
Mod edit: Further debate on this sidetrack should be done in the new thread created for that purpose.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Edit: Saw NERVUN's topic.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to voice its concern about allowing an international court jurisdiction over stateless individuals that are present in a nation that has laws that the stateless individual must abide by, much like an immigrant, tourist, or citizen. By this logic, the court of law responsible for that jurisdiction should be responsible for most arbitration. This should be more a protection of stateless individuals from unfair persecution than a creation of a new court system for the purpose of handling stateless individuals.

[NERVUN]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to voice its concern about allowing an international court jurisdiction over stateless individuals that are present in a nation that has laws that the stateless individual must abide by, much like an immigrant, tourist, or citizen. By this logic, the court of law responsible for that jurisdiction should be responsible for most arbitration. This should be more a protection of stateless individuals from unfair persecution than a creation of a new court system for the purpose of handling stateless individuals.

IC (Yeah, I know, wrong nation, but got a lot of pots boiling right now):
Honored ambassador, I wish to point out something that seems to have escaped your attention, the current resolution calls for stateless individuals who have commited crimes and were arrested due to a multi-national effort. In such a case, honored ambassador, the jurisdiction would not be clear.

Regards,
Katsuyama Masashiro, Capt.
Ambassador

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would like to voice its concern about allowing an international court jurisdiction over stateless individuals that are present in a nation that has laws that the stateless individual must abide by, much like an immigrant, tourist, or citizen. By this logic, the court of law responsible for that jurisdiction should be responsible for most arbitration. This should be more a protection of stateless individuals from unfair persecution than a creation of a new court system for the purpose of handling stateless individuals.

IC (Yeah, I know, wrong nation, but got a lot of pots boiling right now):
Honored ambassador, I wish to point out something that seems to have escaped your attention, the current resolution calls for stateless individuals who have commited crimes and were arrested due to a multi-national effort. In such a case, honored ambassador, the jurisdiction would not be clear.

Regards,
Katsuyama Masashiro, Capt.
Ambassador

The Republic of Quadrimmina appreciates the clarification and withdraws its concern. At the same time, we consider the legality of this proposal a gray area, but will forward this proposal to our Parliament for further analysis.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Aside from the funding issue, there is something else that I think should be addressed, which I believe has not been covered by existing legislation (and thus which falls under the last clause). The language offers no venue or mechanism for appeals, whether on the basis of misconduct, trial errors, new evidence, or a writ of habeas corpus. This is inconsistent with the court system in Glen-Rhodes and I assume many other nations in the World Assembly. Without the right of an appeal, the ICA would in fact be a step down in civil rights for stateless persons captured by 'multilateral efforts' of which Glen-Rhodes is part.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Unibot]

Aside from the funding issue, there is something else that I think should be addressed, which I believe has not been covered by existing legislation (and thus which falls under the last clause). The language offers no venue or mechanism for appeals, whether on the basis of misconduct, trial errors, new evidence, or a writ of habeas corpus. This is inconsistent with the court system in Glen-Rhodes and I assume many other nations in the World Assembly. Without the right of an appeal, the ICA would in fact be a step down in civil rights for stateless persons captured by 'multilateral efforts' of which Glen-Rhodes is part.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

OOC: Right, on it. I thought "Habeas Corpus" covered that, but apparently not.

[Unibot]

A huge update to Clause Five which addresses Dr. Castro's most recent qualm with the lack of an appeal system. Now, the resolution utilizes the same technique as my delegation used in GA#88.