[PASSED] On Universal Jurisdiction

[Separatist Peoples]

The centralised body of the ICC (repealed, I know) offered oversight and consistency. The gnomes are, as we know, infallible.

Individual states on a topic where one is claimed to have wronged the other were able to bring their case before an impartial body.
Giving states the ability to demand jurisdiction and try another nation's citizens has huge and worrying implications for sovereignty, and is akin to one person in a civil suit trying the other person themselves.

"The implications of this passing are grave, indeed. We can expect a lot less justice handed out by our less-principled members, that's for sure."

[Normlpeople]

As they can only "claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;", I'd imagine that cases where it is used will be minimal, and should it be used, it will have been deserved. Its not as if one nation can arrest another's citizens for 'common' crime.

My personal belief is if someone has committed crimes against a nation or its citizens on a grand scale that violates international law, then they must face the consequences in the nation they wronged. This allows such a thing.

[Imperializt Russia]

I fundamentally disagree. IRL, I'm still pretty undecided whether Saddam should have been charged, tried and sentenced by the Iraqi courts rather than the international courts.

[Separatist Peoples]

As they can only "claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;", I'd imagine that cases where it is used will be minimal, and should it be used, it will have been deserved. Its not as if one nation can arrest another's citizens for 'common' crime.

My personal belief is if someone has committed crimes against a nation or its citizens on a grand scale that violates international law, then they must face the consequences in the nation they wronged. This allows such a thing.

"That approach just begs for drumhead courts and Cardassian justice by the wronged parties. At least the WA gnomes are perfectly neutral."

[Bananaistan]

As they can only "claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;", I'd imagine that cases where it is used will be minimal, and should it be used, it will have been deserved. Its not as if one nation can arrest another's citizens for 'common' crime.

My personal belief is if someone has committed crimes against a nation or its citizens on a grand scale that violates international law, then they must face the consequences in the nation they wronged. This allows such a thing.

It allows such a thing but there is no mandate requiring it. And given that member states in possession of evidence are not required to hand it over, we view this resolution as weak. There's also the issue with what seems to be, in the author's opinion at least, one of these magic invisible clauses (or part of a clause in this case) which clarifies the evidence clause, IE rather than evidence just being in existence, it must also be in the possession of the member state prosecuting, despite that being mentioned nowhere in the resolution.

[Normlpeople]

As they can only "claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;", I'd imagine that cases where it is used will be minimal, and should it be used, it will have been deserved. Its not as if one nation can arrest another's citizens for 'common' crime.

My personal belief is if someone has committed crimes against a nation or its citizens on a grand scale that violates international law, then they must face the consequences in the nation they wronged. This allows such a thing.

"That approach just begs for drumhead courts and Cardassian justice by the wronged parties. At least the WA gnomes are perfectly neutral."

"The WA mandates a fair trial, and this act provides for transfer to a neutral site if such a trial is impossible in an environment such as a drumhead court or Cardassia Prime. I suppose its a fundamental disagreement then..."

[Separatist Peoples]

"In a situation wherein the jurors have a shared nationality or even cause with the victims or even the accused themselves, even a legally fair trial isn't going to be truly fair. Even in situations where the bias isn't quiet, the authorities may not call attention to it. Without direct WA oversight into these, the scales of justice cannot be truly balanced where a crime of such horrific magnitude occurs, or when the context is so encompassing."

[Railana]

Considering the above three excerpts I now have a question. Since Universal Jurisdiction is defined as such, allowing nation's to claim jurisdiction over a crime regardless of where the crime was committed as well as the other territorial inclusions, and since it is allowed for any act that constitutes as crime against humanity, then would not this resolution grant member states the right to claim jurisdiction over individuals that are not within territorial jurisdiction? It has been defined so that it will grant this jurisdiction, and yet it "clarifies" that it has not? Also, does this grant a nation the ability to try a citizen of another country who has committed a crime against humanity (or rather alleged crime) against a still different nation? Such as Nation A decides to try Nation B's citizen (or leader even) for an alleged crime committed against Nation C, all within Nation A's court system? I find that as very exploitable...

I think you misunderstand the concept of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction allows a member state to try an individual for a crime that took place anywhere, not just in that member state. However, that individual must be in that member state for universal jurisdiction to be invoked; that is the purpose of clause 8.

Let's say our nation has evidence for and against someone who is in your country.
If we want that one to be jailed, we release all evidence supportive for that.
If we don't, we initially present a piece of evidence that can be made worthless with other pieces of evidence, and then we release all evidence against the case.
Sounds quite bad for me...repeal?

I'm not sure I understand your argument, but couldn't you say the same for any prosecution? The withholding of evidence has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction...

The centralised body of the ICC (repealed, I know) offered oversight and consistency. The gnomes are, as we know, infallible.

((OOC: Why not transfer all the rights and duties of governance over all member states to the gnomes, then? They're infallible, so won't they do a better job than you or I? The reality is that "rule" is silly and not conducive to good World Assembly roleplay; as such, I intend to ignore it. The mods seem to ignore it too, since repeals that criticize the lack of accountability of committees aren't considered illegal.))

Individual states on a topic where one is claimed to have wronged the other were able to bring their case before an impartial body.

The ICC definitely had its share of flaws.

Giving states the ability to demand jurisdiction and try another nation's citizens has huge and worrying implications for sovereignty, and is akin to one person in a civil suit trying the other person themselves.

You're forgetting that this resolution only grants member states the right and obligation to try individuals within their territorial jurisdiction.

It allows such a thing but there is no mandate requiring it. And given that member states in possession of evidence are not required to hand it over, we view this resolution as weak.

There's nothing preventing you from passing a resolution with such a requirement.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Bears Armed Mission]

((OOC: Why not transfer all the rights and duties of governance over all member states to the gnomes, then? They're infallible, so won't they do a better job than you or I? The reality is that "rule" is silly and not conducive to good World Assembly roleplay; as such, I intend to ignore it. The mods seem to ignore it too, since repeals that criticize the lack of accountability of committees aren't considered illegal.))

OOC: Maybeso not if that's only one [and not the most important] of several arguments presented, but I can certainly remember seeing repeal attempts which relied on that argument getting deleted -- or, at least, Mods posting in the relevant drafting threads to say that if the proposals were submitted in their present forms then they would be deleted -- because of the rule in question.