NationStates

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:22 am**

NOTE: This proposal is at vote.

This is the next item on our agenda, and this will be the new home of discussion on this topic (there have been some small changes made). For your reference, the prior debate can be found here.

Banning Extrajudicial Transfer
Human Rights, Significant

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the loophole in international law regarding human rights, a loophole which allows for human rights to be violated by member nations by the simple transfer of individuals outside of WA territory.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the treaties, alliances, and other associations made between WA and non-WA nations that could provide the means and opportunity for such violations to occur.

HEREBY bans in all member nations the willful, knowledgeable transfer of any individual from a member nation to another jurisdiction by an individual, organization, or member state for the purposes of denying or violating any of the political or civil rights that are guaranteed to that individual in the jurisdiction of the member state by law.

URGES member nations to take action to, in a way compatible with national security interests, the interests of the individual(s) involved, applicable law, and practicality, restore those rights that were denied due to the transfer with the consent of the individual in cases in which such a transfer has taken place prior to the enactment of this resolution.

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:29 am**

Quadrimmina wrote:REVERSES any such transfers that have already occurred.

Lord Raekevik raised an eyebrow. "So if Examplalandia has transferred a person to Queer Caribbean Examplalandian Protectorate in a way that this proposal would ban, would the cited clause mean that the person is transferred back to Examplalandia? Is that necessarily a good thing?"

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:31 am**

Alqania wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:REVERSES any such transfers that have already occurred.

Lord Raekevik raised an eyebrow. "So if Examplalandia has transferred a person to Queer Caribbean Examplalandian Protectorate in a way that this proposal would ban, would the cited clause mean that the person is transferred back to Examplalandia? Is that necessarily a good thing?"

If the transfer was illegal, then would it not be necessary to correct this?

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:32 am**

Quadrimmina wrote:REVERSES any such transfers that have already occurred.

We would question the legality of this clause, if the person has been transferred to a non-WA state then one could not reverse the decision without forcing a non-WA member to follow a WA resolution? (Edit: Unless of course one reads the resolution so as to "reverse" the decision, but not to let that reversal actually have any effect.)

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:33 am**

Paper Flowers wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:REVERSES any such transfers that have already occurred.

We would question the legality of this clause, if the person has been transferred to a non-WA state then one could not reverse the decision without forcing a non-WA member to follow a WA resolution?

Then how about a clause such as "URGES member nations to take action to, in a way compatible with national security interests and practicality, restore those rights that were not granted due to the transfer."

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:34 am**

Quadrimmina wrote:
Alqania wrote:
Lord Raekevik raised an eyebrow. "So if Examplalandia has transferred a person to Queer Caribbean Examplalandian Protectorate in a way that this proposal would ban, would the cited clause mean that the person is transferred back to Examplalandia? Is that necessarily a good thing?"

If the transfer was illegal, then would it not be necessary to correct this?

"Even if the person was extrajudicially transferred twenty years ago and has made a new life for themselves and started a family and a career within their new home?"

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:36 am**

Alqania wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:If the transfer was illegal, then would it not be necessary to correct this?

"Even if the person was extrajudicially transferred twenty years ago and has made a new life for themselves and started a family and a career within their new home?"

Would adding consent be a possible solution to this? To make our new clause "URGES member nations to take action to, in a way compatible with national security interests and practicality, restore those rights that were not granted due to the transfer, given consent of the individual in question."

Posted: **Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:06 pm**

Quadrimmina wrote:
Paper Flowers wrote:We would question the legality of this clause, if the person has been transferred to a non-WA state then one could not reverse the decision without forcing a non-WA member to follow a WA resolution?

Then how about a clause such as "URGES member nations to take action to, in a way compatible with national security interests and practicality, restore those rights that were not granted due to the transfer."

Something along these lines would be preferable to the existing clause, which is unenforceable (and quite possibly illegal).

Regardless, I support this proposal, and I think that something like this is very much needed.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Posted: **Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:22 pm**

Category and Strength? We generally support this, however.

Posted: **Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:21 pm**

A new draft has been posted with the changes requested made. Thank you honored delegates for your input thus far.

Posted: **Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:29 pm**

With the current wording, it's not entirely clear that the URGES clause is addressing cases in which transfers have already taken place. Perhaps a phrase like "in cases in which such a transfer has taken place prior to the enactment of this resolution" would clear that up.

Edit: also, I think significant may be a more appropriate strength.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Posted: **Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:40 pm**

Quelesh wrote:With the current wording, it's not entirely clear that the URGES clause is addressing cases in which transfers have already taken place. Perhaps a phrase like "in cases in which such a transfer has taken place prior to the enactment of this resolution" would clear that up.

Edit: also, I think significant may be a more appropriate strength.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Strength changed to significant, and the urges clause has been changed.

Posted: **Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:35 pm**

I think that this is a very good idea. (thumbs up)

-- Ms. S. Harper.

Posted: **Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:00 am**

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I think that this is a very good idea. (thumbs up)

-- Ms. S. Harper.

We thank Ms. Harper for her support of this draft and its numerous prior incarnations.

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:09 am**

Please note that this proposal has been submitted.

Please Note: There was a mix-up in the lists for campaigning, so some delegates ended up with two campaign telegrams. I would like to issue a public apology regarding this, it was an unfortunate oversight that was realized after one third of the list was exhausted. Roughly 25 delegates received duplicate campaign telegrams. I would like to profusely apologize for this mix-up and for wasting the delegates' time. If there is anything that I can do to rectify this situation, please let me know. There will be better oversight provisions in check for the future. I am very sorry, again, for the confusion and for the waste of time.

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:00 pm**

Approved. This has my support.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 9:06 am**

This seems a well-reasoned measure to close an obvious loophole. Neo Arcem supports.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 9:11 am**

"The Queendom proudly announces its stance with the following stamp", Lord Raekevik proclaimed.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 9:27 am**

My delegation stands with the Quadrimminans in closing this Guantanamo.... erm, loophole.

I do wonder why we are only "urging" nations to restore the rights they've deprived with this practice. I would have made that provision mandatory. But on the whole this proposal does good.

FOR

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 9:45 am**

I rise to cast our support for this as it seems relatively harmless enough, as the USP has no extradition for purposes of violating rights agreements in place.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 10:39 am**

I have happily cast me vote FOR this resolution.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 1:10 pm**

TECHNOCRATIC STANDING COUNCIL of PARLIAMENT
of
LAW & GOVERNANCE
-
THE REPUBLIC of ATHRETVARI

-----OFFICIAL COMMUNIQUÉ-----

Dear Sirs and Madams:

The Technocratic Standing Council of Law and Governance of the Republic of Athretvari is charged with the responsibilities of interpreting WA Resolutions, coordinating their integration into Republic Law, and overseeing their proper execution within the Republic.

That we may properly see to these duties, we respectfully request clarification of the following questions concerning this resolution:

1: Does this resolution, as currently written, ban, even when deemed otherwise legally appropriate, the extradition of any individual, including foreign fugitives, to a territory prosecuting alledged criminal offenses, if

2: Does this resolution, as currently written, ban the transfer of prisoners, including prisoners-of-war, within an empire from a low security facility to a medium- or high-security facility located in a territory not guaranteeing all the rights that are guaranteed in the territory in which they are currently imprisoned, regardless of the security implications of such a ban?

3: Does this resolution, as currently written, ban the exchange of prisoners-of-war between nations if those prisoners would suffer less political freedom as a result of such an exchange? (OOC: Prisoners-of-war from a dictatorship would have greater civil and human rights in the legal systems of their democratic captors than they would even as free citizens in their homeland dictatorship.) -- Individual consent is not applicable with respect to this question, as it pertains solely to individuals remaining in a state of reduced civil/human rights after being transfered from a state of greater civil/human rights, and not to individuals being returned to such a state.

4: Does this resolution as currently written, empower WA nations to engage in any act ”compatible with national security interests, the interests of the individual(s) involved, applicable law, and practicality,” including war, in order to execute the spirit of the last paragraph?

-Sincerely,
Djaahdj Lants Hito, High Minister of TSC Law & Governance
Republic of Athretvari

-----END OF MESSAGE-----

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 2:05 pm**

Datavia's gladly surprised to find (and vote FOR) a proposal that's both relevant and well written. Good for a change: we hate to be one of the Jiminy Crickets of the WA, constantly pointing at procedural bugs and questions of principle. Congratulations, Ambassador Kerrigan!

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 2:47 pm**

We support this resolution.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2012 2:50 pm**

Support.

(OOC: Guantanamo Bay, anyone?)

NationStates

[PASSED] Banning Extrajudicial Transfer

[PASSED] Banning Extrajudicial Transfer

Questions Concerning this Resolution