[PASSED] Consular Rights

[The Otter Archipelago]

This does more to protect organized crime, espionage, and terrorism than it does to protect our civilians abroad. Ill-conceived, I'd argue, at this juncture.

[Topid]

]This resolution was submitted prematurely, and unfortunately, it's loophole ridden.

Actually, the only real loophole no one has mentioned here yet. And it was left open for drafting for days and bumped several times, had anyone showed up with concerns prior to submission I might actually care. All of the above was specifically intended.

RL arguments are generally frowned upon here, but I'll follow it none the less, an American citizen taken prisoner in China is the exact situation that every nation in the world except Afghanistan and a few nations in Africa have ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights. That is the most likely case for an innocent person to be imprisoned, and the most likely case for negotiations to be required in order to free the individual. Nations that are extremely friendly to one another, are unlikely to go around arresting a citizen from the other within their border unless they were totally sure they had their facts straight.

This does more to protect organized crime, espionage, and terrorism than it does to protect our civilians abroad. Ill-conceived, I'd argue, at this juncture.

It does nothing to protect organized crime. Organized criminal operations do not have diplomatic missions. Nor do terrorists. In fact, it doesn't protect anyone. This in no way says you cannot prosecute whoever you want for whatever you want. It simply means your government cannot lie about it or cover it up. I think you'll find yourself in violation of the Read the Resolution Act.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from
Topid
[edit: Quote tags..[/edit] x2

[Yesopalitha]

Go for it. Such a resolution should've been introduced a long time ago - I am glad it has been finally

[The Otter Archipelago]

The humble people of the Archipelago are concerned that, by bogging down a nation's legal system with layers of bureaucracy, we are leaving the door open for foreign criminals to exploit the inevitable loopholes of any established or fledgling government before the host nation's legal system can process the accused on their own terms, therefore putting the interests of the accused above the interests of the host nation.

Understanding that the need to protect civilians is of paramount importance, but further understanding that a WA member is to be be held in high regard as a peer, we would, with the most humble apologies, strongly suggest that if a nation wishes to protect criminals from our justice system, they keep them within their own own bloody borders.

Charisma Nettlebaum, national representative,
The Otter Archipelago

[Garvug]

I mean, it's already up, and looks likely to be approved as is, but there's one thing I'd like to see that isn't present. Now, part of the act is as follows:

"Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,"

But, what if the home nation doesn't have a diplomatic mission in the host nation? Can no provision be included allowing for a willing third nation to intercede, and provide a representative?

(For some OOC examples: During the First Barbary War, while American POWs were being held in Tripoli, their status and well-being were monitored by the Danish consul since the US consul had been expelled. More recently, the American hikers imprisoned in Iran have been visited by and have met with representatives from the Swiss embassy, as the US does not have an embassy in Iran.)

Personally, I'd be much more comfortable voting for this if it contained a provision allowing for an agreed-upon third party nation to provide a representative to meet with the accused should the home nation (for any reason) not have representation in the host nation.

The original draft I started out with would have dealt with this problem. But it was also a little awkward and messy.
Unfortunately I'm of the school of thought that legislation can't be created that protects everyone in every single situation, and so this is a broad resolution that hits the major problem.

Fair enough. I appreciate the response. Perhaps it's something that can be addressed later.

[Free United Commonwealths]

A few grammatical errors aside, I personally think this a positive step in the right direction for the fair treatment of non-citizens in host nations. Though the resolution could use a bit more specifics regarding those that have been brought up in this debate, I have chosen to support this resolution.

[Topid]

I received a telegram asking me to respond to this post, soo...

I'm afraid this since this doesn't allow WA nations to send thier diplomats to non-member nations yet non-member nations are allowed to send thier diplomats to WA nations,

Any nation is allowed to send a diplomat to any nation? There is nothing in this resolution that disallow WA nations to send their diplomats to non-member states, so I don't understand.

Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,

I for one would not like illegal drug cartels from the anarchy south of mine to let thier nation free him through diplomacy, yet when one of my people enter their nation and commit a crime no matter how small (They exicute for alomsot anything) I cannot do anythign about it. This seems abit one sided and for this reason and the fact that I'd rather not have my nation flooded with forgien diplomats,

1. This doesn't require you to have a diplomatic mission with the anarchy south of you.
2. Existing WA law allows you to require nations to remove diplomats from your nation if you want them to leave.
3. A prisoner meeting with a diplomat from his home nation is far from a 'check-mate'. He doesn't automatically earn his freedom this way, if you don't want him released by diplomatic negotiations... Not releasing him because of diplomatic negotiations should be an easy enough fix.

But on the positive side it's well written, so I applaude you for that.

Thank you.

A few grammatical errors aside, I personally think this a positive step in the right direction for the fair treatment of non-citizens in host nations. Though the resolution could use a bit more specifics regarding those that have been brought up in this debate, I have chosen to support this resolution.

Oh yes, I did get my M upside down in one clause, I forgot to mention that here.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[Quelesh]

If we've convicted and imprisoned a foreign terrorist, we do not believe such a person, who may continue to pose a danger to public safety, should be allowed to meet privately with anyone.

Not even her lawyer?

(INSISTS, by the way, is definitely mandatory.)

[Flibbleites]

A few grammatical errors aside, I personally think this a positive step in the right direction for the fair treatment of non-citizens in host nations. Though the resolution could use a bit more specifics regarding those that have been brought up in this debate, I have chosen to support this resolution.

Oh yes, I did get my M upside down in one clause, I forgot to mention that here.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

Didn't we just repeal a resolution because of a glorified typo? Why, yes we did. That clinches it, we must vote this down lest we find ourselves once again having to repeal a resolution due to a typo.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Glen-Rhodes]

Clearly, we need a resolution directing member states to be reasonable and ignore typos. I can't even find it, though.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

(INSISTS, by the way, is definitely mandatory.)

Only if this is a mafia movie and the gnomes are pulling a gun on you as they "insist" you join them for "a chat."

[Dukopolious]

I received a telegram asking me to respond to this post, soo...

I'm afraid this since this doesn't allow WA nations to send thier diplomats to non-member nations yet non-member nations are allowed to send thier diplomats to WA nations,

Any nation is allowed to send a diplomat to any nation? There is nothing in this resolution that disallow WA nations to send their diplomats to non-member states, so I don't understand.Yes But member nations can have thier diplomats denied acess to non-member nations, yet non-member nations must be alloud to sned thier diplomat to member nations

I for one would not like illegal drug cartels from the anarchy south of mine to let thier nation free him through diplomacy, yet when one of my people enter their nation and commit a crime no matter how small (They exicute for alomsot anything) I cannot do anythign about it. This seems abit one sided and for this reason and the fact that I'd rather not have my nation flooded with forgien diplomats,

1. This doesn't require you to have a diplomatic mission with the anarchy south of you.
It was an example, and although it doesn't require me to, I must in order to liberate my citizen.
2. Existing WA law allows you to require nations to remove diplomats from your nation if you want them to leave.
Yes but this would repeal that, due to the fact that An I quote "Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation"

3. A prisoner meeting with a diplomat from his home nation is far from a 'check-mate'. He doesn't automatically earn his freedom this way, if you don't want him released by diplomatic negotiations... Not releasing him because of diplomatic negotiations should be an easy enough fix.
Well by that logic this legislation might as well not exist. I could just deny all of my forgien prisoners premission to leave.

But on the positive side it's well written, so I applaude you for that.

Thank you.My Pleasure

[Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

Once again, nice counter argument. I hope this will help you fix the few loopholes you've left in here.

[Topid]

Yes But member nations can have thier diplomats denied acess to non-member nations, yet non-member nations must be alloud to sned thier diplomat to member nations

According to what? Member nations may deny non-member nations, as I said, that issue is not addressed at all here.

1. This doesn't require you to have a diplomatic mission with the anarchy south of you.

It was an example, and although it doesn't require me to, I must in order to liberate my citizen.

Huh? Does not make sense. Are you saying that this resolution should give you another way to free your citizens from the nation south of you? You can submit another proposal if you'd like there to be something more, this doesn't block future legislation. If that isn't what you meant I don't understand you.

Yes but this would repeal that, due to the fact that An I quote "Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation"

First off, it can't repeal existing legislation. It is not a repeal. Secondly, you left out the following words from that clause... should such a diplomatic mission exist. If your country has no diplomatic missions with the home nation of the foreigner you've arrested, this does not make you establish one, and it gives him no rights whatsoever. Plain as that.

Well by that logic this legislation might as well not exist. I could just deny all of my forgien prisoners premission to leave.

Just looking at this resolution, yes you may. There is nothing in this resolution that makes you release a prisoner in any case unless you choose so. Plain as that.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[edit: Tags are getting confusing..]

[Glen-Rhodes]

[edit: Tags are getting confusing..]

More and more newbies keep doing this. It's very annoying. If you're new here: please do not respond using color tags. Break up posts into quotes. It's not difficult and makes threads leagues easier to read.

[Flibbleites]

[edit: Tags are getting confusing..]

More and more newbies keep doing this. It's very annoying. If you're new here: please do not respond using color tags. Break up posts into quotes. It's not difficult and makes threads leagues easier to read.

Agreed.

[Dukopolious]

Yes But member nations can have thier diplomats denied acess to non-member nations, yet non-member nations must be alloud to sned thier diplomat to member nations

According to what? Member nations may deny non-member nations, as I said, that issue is not addressed at all here.

As I said in a previous example, you give them the RIGHT to consult with diplomats from thier nation, not privillage. Nations can't legally strip WA made rights away if the nation is a member of the WA. Perhaps changing it to 'privilege'

It was an example, and although it doesn't require me to, I must in order to liberate my citizen.

Huh? Does not make sense. Are you saying that this resolution should give you another way to free your citizens from the nation south of you? You can submit another proposal if you'd like there to be something more, this doesn't block future legislation. If that isn't what you meant I don't understand you.

No. I'm saying that this resolution doesn't provide me with any alternate means BECAUSE it is based on this diplomatic meeting which is option for both sides, therefore it has absolutly no porpose as it changes nothing.

Yes but this would repeal that, due to the fact that An I quote "Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation"

First off, it can't repeal existing legislation. It is not a repeal. Secondly, you left out the following words from that clause... should such a diplomatic mission exist. If your country has no diplomatic missions with the home nation of the foreigner you've arrested, this does not make you establish one, and it gives him no rights whatsoever. Plain as that.

Firstly; I'm sorry worded wrongly. not repealing that law, but rather contridicting it. And secondly I'm afriad Esteembed ambassador that member nations can't give and strip rights as they please. As I said before that would be a privilege.

Well by that logic this legislation might as well not exist. I could just deny all of my forgien prisoners premission to leave.

Just looking at this resolution, yes you may. There is nothing in this resolution that makes you release a prisoner in any case unless you choose so. Plain as that.

Noting that I could already deny and allow forgien criminals a meeting with diplomats, and that I could be allowed or denied premission to send my diplomats to any other nation it changes litterally nothing. This is merely a suggestion for all member states and enforces nothing. Frankly it would be more effective if you sent a telegram to every WA member nation asking nicly if they could give thier forgien criminals premission to speak with diplomats of thier nations.

Again, well written (Other than the fact it's not a proposal), and thank you for your time

OOC: There. I put it in boxes.

[Topid]

As I said in a previous example, you give them the RIGHT to consult with diplomats from thier nation, not privillage. Nations can't legally strip WA made rights away if the nation is a member of the WA. Perhaps changing it to 'privilege'

Firstly; I'm sorry worded wrongly. not repealing that law, but rather contridicting it. And secondly I'm afriad Esteembed ambassador that member nations can't give and strip rights as they please. As I said before that would be a privilege.

Contradicting
Afraid
Esteemed
Privilege
Their

Okay.

"Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,"
"Further declares that foreigners convicted of crimes and imprisoned within member states have the right to meet with a representative of their home nation's diplomatic mission privately, within the prison, once per year, should such a diplomatic mission exist."

If two nations do not have diplomatic missions together, it does not give any rights or privileges to the citizens of ones arrested in the other. It also does not take any away. No giving or taking of rights in that situation.

If you arrest a citizen from my nation in your borders, and our nations do not have diplomatic missions, you do not have to grant him a meeting with a representative from my diplomatic mission in your nation, because there is no diplomatic mission from my nation in your nation.

No. I'm saying that this resolution doesn't provide me with any alternate means BECAUSE it is based on this diplomatic meeting which is option for both sides, therefore it has absolutly no porpose as it changes nothing.

Absolutely
Purpose

So, the argument is that this resolution doesn't solve your problems, and therefore is wrong because a resolution should solve every problem that every nation has? Won't work, no resolution can fix every situation. I'm sorry this doesn't protect your citizens in the anarchy south of you, perhaps if it is a worry you should stop allowing your citizens to go there, or come up with a proposal to submit in addition to this that would help. My proposal shouldn't be required to be of benefit to every single nation.

Noting that I could already deny and allow forgien criminals a meeting with diplomats, and that I could be allowed or denied premission to send my diplomats to any other nation it changes litterally nothing. This is merely a suggestion for all member states and enforces nothing. Frankly it would be more effective if you sent a telegram to every WA member nation asking nicly if they could give thier forgien criminals premission to speak with diplomats of thier nations.

Foreign
Permission
Literally
nicely
their

It is not a suggestion. It is a mandate. If my nation does already have diplomatic mission in your nation, you do have to let my citizens speak to a representative with my diplomatic mission. But only if my government and yours has worked out an agreement that such a mission should exist.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

EDIT: Fixing the tags again.

[Dukopolious]

As I said in a previous example, you give them the RIGHT to consult with diplomats from thier nation, not privillage. Nations can't legally strip WA made rights away if the nation is a member of the WA. Perhaps changing it to 'privilege'

Firstly; I'm sorry worded wrongly. not repealing that law, but rather contridicting it. And secondly I'm afriad Esteembed ambassador that member nations can't give and strip rights as they please. As I said before that would be a privilege.

"Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,"
"Further declares that foreigners convicted of crimes and imprisoned within member states have the right to meet with a representative of their home nation's diplomatic mission privately, within the prison, once per year, should such a diplomatic mission exist."

If two nations do not have diplomatic missions together, it does not give any rights or privileges to the citizens of ones arrested in the other. It also does not take any away. No giving or taking of rights in that situation.

If you arrest a citizen from my nation in your borders, and our nations do not have diplomatic missions, you do not have to grant him a meeting with a representative from my diplomatic mission in your nation, because there is no diplomatic mission from my nation in your nation.

No. I'm saying that this resolution doesn't provide me with any alternate means BECAUSE it is based on this diplomatic meeting which is option for both sides, therefore it has absolutly no porpose as it changes nothing.

So, the argument is that this resolution doesn't solve your problems, and therefore is wrong because a resolution should solve every problem that every nation has? Won't work, no resolution can fix every situation. I'm sorry this doesn't protect your citizens in the anarchy south of you, perhaps if it is a worry you should stop allowing your citizens to go there, or come up with a proposal to submit in addition to this that would help. My proposal shouldn't be required to be of benefit to every single nation.

Noting that I could already deny and allow forgien criminals a meeting with diplomats, and that I could be allowed or denied premission to send my diplomats to any other nation it changes litterally nothing. This is merely a suggestion for all member states and enforces nothing. Frankly it would be more effective if you sent a telegram to every WA member nation asking nicly if they could give thier forgien criminals premission to speak with diplomats of thier nations.

It is not a suggestion. It is a mandate. If my nation does already have diplomatic mission in your nation, you do have to let my citizens speak to a representative with my diplomatic mission. But only if my government and yours has worked out an agreement that such a mission should exist.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

Thanks for clearing this all up, but the simple fact is that if nations do not have relations they can ignore it, but say a non-member nation and mine do have relations, I would HAVE to allow them access to my prisoner under their citizenship, and they do NOT have to allow my nation's diplomats permission to access a prisoner under my Citizenship.

Is this correct?

And if so this is very Biased to non-member nations. And nations without many forgien relations.

[Topid]

Oh actually, I see your point now. That's how all resolutions work, though, you are required to give everyone you arrest representation and assume them innocent till guilty and many many other things by previous resolutions, but they governments can treat your citizens however they want. You're right, not totally fair but just comes with being a WA member, if it is a major concern the only real thing to do is resign.

[Dukopolious]

Oh actually, I see your point now. That's how all resolutions work, though, you are required to give everyone you arrest representation and assume them innocent till guilty and many many other things by previous resolutions, but they governments can treat your citizens however they want. You're right, not totally fair but just comes with being a WA member, if it is a major concern the only real thing to do is resign.

That, or vote against it.

Honestly, I'd like to know what BENIFIT this provides. Mind Explaining?

[Topid]

Corruption is only part of the reason. The consulate may or may not be able to offer advice on what to do/say to get the accused in better standing when it comes to the law, but they will often be able to give advice as to what things to avoid saying in order to preform better in the court of public opinion (which is relevant in many nations). But also if a prisoner is being held and has no explanation his home nation may want to know about it, and maybe will reach a solution by negotiating. And the final advantage is that if a culture (the host nation) is fairly isolationist or does not communicate much with the home nation of the prisoner, the prisoners family may have no idea what has happened to him/her while abroad. Allowing him to meet with his consulate allows home nations to inform the family, if that is something the home nation is interested in devoting resources to do.

Ultimately, it can't solve every problem that could pop up. Most resolutions that try to do that fail anyway. But it is one step that can help in many situations, at little cost in my opinion, so an obvious one.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[Dukopolious]

Corruption is only part of the reason. The consulate may or may not be able to offer advice on what to do/say to get the accused in better standing when it comes to the law, but they will often be able to give advice as to what things to avoid saying in order to preform better in the court of public opinion (which is relevant in many nations). But also if a prisoner is being held and has no explanation his home nation may want to know about it, and maybe will reach a solution by negotiating. And the final advantage is that if a culture (the host nation) is fairly isolationist or does not communicate much with the home nation of the prisoner, the prisoners family may have no idea what has happened to him/her while abroad. Allowing him to meet with his consulate allows home nations to inform the family, if that is something the home nation is interested in devoting resources to do.

Ultimately, it can't solve every problem that could pop up. Most resolutions that try to do that fail anyway. But it is one step that can help in many situations, at little cost in my opinion, so an obvious one.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

So basically it only benefits the criminal* sorry 'Alleged' Criminal. And by far extents it helps their family. Yet the host nation gets nothing out of it, but a few law enforcers wasting time capturing a foreigner who will ultimately just waste the time of a court by giving them time to speak with their diplomats, plus the cost of getting the diplomats from home nation to host nation, and yet it wouldn't benefit the home nation, as all it does is bring a Lawbreaker* sorry Alleged Lawbreaker back into the home nation?

[Topid]

So basically it only benefits the criminal* sorry 'Alleged' Criminal.

Yes.

it helps their family.

Yes.

Yet the host nation gets nothing out of it,

In that situation, until they become a home nation in another situation.

but a few law enforcers wasting time capturing a foreigner who will ultimately just waste the time of a court by giving them time to speak with their diplomats,

This wastes the time of the court how? The court doesn't have to be in session when this meeting happens, and can hear other cases while one accused meets with the representative from his home nation.

plus the cost of getting the diplomats from home nation to host nation,

A diplomatic mission is a consulate or embassy in the host nation. The diplomat or representative is already in the host nation. Also, this does not say the host nation has to pay for such a meeting, that would be something worked out between the two nations when the embassy/consulate is first established most likely.

and yet it wouldn't benefit the home nation, as all it does is bring a Lawbreaker* sorry Alleged Lawbreaker back into the home nation?

It releases no one from prison. If the alleged rule breaker makes it back to the home nation it is because the accuser dropped the charges or the accused was found not guilty, that sort of thing.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[Desperia Heim]

In spirit this proposal shows concern on a very important matter, and I do believe it attempts to adress imporant matters...

... but the text is mostly vague and only defines a few parties within the situation. It also asumes that most nations will act with prejudice towards the accused.

There are no guarantees given, other than the posibility of a meeting with an entity that MAY or MAY NOT be of help towards the person in trial. On the other hand, passing this could allow international criminals to act as long as their home government supports them...

Desperia Heim stands for the given right of a 'fair trial' towards everyone who is accused of a crime within its territory, foreign or not... but one cannot suppose that all nations are to follow that very same principle. That itself is a very large loophole... an assumption that cannot be ignored, specially when the WA has reppelled TWO TIMES resolutions regarding 'fair trial'... Diplomatic missions are not there just to be the link between the alleged criminal and the host country law... it must also provide BOTH the person in trial AND the host country with the means for the trial to proceed within the host country's legislation AND give the support required to the individual in investigation.

What about the rights of the Host nation to investigate properly the crime? these are not addressed, and while it was pointed that there's an assumption that the host nation may act with prejudice towards the alleged criminal, there should be also a BASIC SET OF RIGHTS FOR A CRIME TO BE INVESTIGATED PROPERLY. For that matter, there is no resolution regarding the basis of a fair investigation, wich is another matter that should be addressed in the meanwhile.

Current WA resolution regarding Diplomatic Missions should be taken more into account on this matter, as the main resolutions on this matter are regarding diplomats...

For this matter, just defining the parties results insuficient.

... Desperia Heim is sad to inform that even if already approved because of quorum, cannot directly support this resolution, and shall not vote, to express the need to review this text.

[Opaloka]

The Workers' & Soldiers' Government is delighted to be able to support this resolution on behalf of democratic socialist alliance. We note that arguements against consist of the usual tedious 'fleacracking'.

We urge all genuine democratic nations & regions to back this resolution.