[PASSED] On Universal Jurisdiction

[Railana]

((OOC: I don't think you're properly applying the amendment rule, either. Amendments are illegal because they contradict a previous resolution. If a resolution were to add additional grounds for universal jurisdiction, that would not be an amendment, because clause 2 of this proposal explicitly allows for that possibility.))

No.
The rules page tells you why Amendments are illegal. Because it is impossible to determine the effect change on the nations stats. And your resolutions effect depends on other resolution, it has basically no fixed strength...

((OOC: The strength of this proposal is fixed at Significant, which I believe will be the overall effect of the enforcement mechanism it describes in the long run. You might be able to make an argument for Strong, but the mods usually give some leeway in this case. Significant is usually the safest strength.

That said, I suppose the precise, technical effect changes from time to time, but the same could be said of any proposal. Besides, that's not what "proposal strength" is. If it were, the Strength rule would largely prevent any proposal from passing, since a proposal's strength cannot be known in advance. To use an example from one of my own resolutions, Foreign Trademark Recognition's strength technically changes depending on how many foreign trademarks exist at any given time. It technically has no strength if no nation chooses to recognize trademarks. There's no way to know this in advance, though, so I estimated that the overall effect would be Significant.))

[Defwa]

No.
The rules page tells you why Amendments are illegal. Because it is impossible to determine the effect change on the nations stats. And your resolutions effect depends on other resolution, it has basically no fixed strength...

((OOC: The strength of this proposal is fixed at Significant, which I believe will be the overall effect of the enforcement mechanism it describes in the long run. You might be able to make an argument for Strong, but the mods usually give some leeway in this case. Significant is usually the safest strength.

That said, I suppose the precise, technical effect changes from time to time, but the same could be said of any proposal. Besides, that's not what "proposal strength" is. If it were, the Strength rule would largely prevent any proposal from passing, since a proposal's strength cannot be known in advance. To use an example from one of my own resolutions, Foreign Trademark Recognition's strength technically changes depending on how many foreign trademarks exist at any given time. It technically has no strength if no nation chooses to recognize trademarks. There's no way to know this in advance, though, so I estimated that the overall effect would be Significant.))

OOC: FTR is a bit of a different example, considering Old Hope is claiming WA actions are amending the strengths, while FTR changes based on how it reacts with individual nations. But Old Hope, please calm down, you're getting overly excited about something that is not an issue. The strength of this proposal does not at any point change. When another resolution uses this resolution, its no different than using an old committee to do something new. The Committee expands in its power by drawing from the strength of the new resolution it now belongs to, not by changing the strength of its original resolution. Actions defined under this resolution become de facto members of a pseudo committee

[Old Hope]

We still have the issue of House of Cards.... and that is what will be decided. I understand what you think, but I don't agree. Let's wait for the decision, then?

[Defwa]

We still have the issue of House of Cards.... and that is what will be decided. I understand what you think, but I don't agree. Let's wait for the decision, then?

Well just so you're aware, a delegation vehemently opposed to this proposal is trying to get you to stop embarrassing our alignment.

[Chester Pearson]

Hope,

You are making the wrong argument against this. Allow me to present mine?

From Universal Jurisdiction:

Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;

Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

From Diplomat Protection Act:

REQUIRES that any diplomat granted diplomatic immunity be free from prosecution for crimes, search and/or seizure of personal belongings and belongings of family members and personal staff, search and/or seizure of family members and personal staff, seizure of pets, and search and/or seizure of private quarters outside any extraterritorial property by the nation in which the diplomat is serving

.

c) If diplomatic immunity is revoked, the diplomat remains immune to prosecution for suspected crimes that occurred during the immunity by the nation in which they are serving

So if Universal Jurisdiction passes, and since no crimes are listed, we can declare throwing gum on the floor to be a crime against humanity, and claim universal jurisdiction over the matter, and ignore diplomatic immunity. Now I am not going to file an objection on this, but I thought I would leave it here....

[Sierra Lyricalia]

So if Universal Jurisdiction passes, and since no crimes are listed, we can declare throwing gum on the floor to be a crime against humanity, and claim universal jurisdiction over the matter, and ignore diplomatic immunity.

Ye gods, if it were that flawed it wouldn't have reached quo- wait, nevermind.

Nevertheless, I think this concern is mooted by all but the most singularly deranged interpretation of Paragraph 2 herein:

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to 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;

(emphasis added)

"Implicit" recognition is an ambiguous standard, to be sure, but it does indicate you can't make shit up from whole cloth and pretend there's some dire bastard running around loose, whose dastardly pipe smoking is going to harm billions if we don't apprehend him and put a stop to his madness.

Now I am not going to file an objection on this...

Seems wise.

Mind you, for all that, we're still opposed to this proposal. But this here |^|^|^| ain't a reason why.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Or conversely, some representatives may be encouraged to vote yours down in the hope of giving Railana's proposal a chance.

Oh I expect a campaign against mine. Anything less would not be Auralia's style....

We suspect the best option would be to vote against both proposals.

[Imperium Anglorum]

this ruling killed international tribunals as well, not just universal jurisdiction

Fantastic! How can we get the current one discarded on some other technicality?

[Railana]

We suspect the best option would be to vote against both proposals.

((OOC: I'd suggest voting for mine if you want to block an ICC-like proposal from passing in the future.))

this ruling killed international tribunals as well, not just universal jurisdiction

Fantastic! How can we get the current one discarded on some other technicality?

((OOC: The resolution at vote is an International Security proposal, so that ruling doesn't apply.))

[Old Hope]

So if Universal Jurisdiction passes, and since no crimes are listed, we can declare throwing gum on the floor to be a crime against humanity, and claim universal jurisdiction over the matter, and ignore diplomatic immunity.

Ye gods, if it were that flawed it wouldn't have reached quo- wait, nevermind.

Nevertheless, I think this concern is mooted by all but the most singularly deranged interpretation of Paragraph 2 herein:

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to 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;

(emphasis added)

"Implicit" recognition is an ambiguous standard, to be sure, but it does indicate you can't make shit up from whole cloth and pretend there's some dire bastard running around loose, whose dastardly pipe smoking is going to harm billions if we don't apprehend him and put a stop to his madness.

Now I am not going to file an objection on this...

Seems wise.

Mind you, for all that, we're still opposed to this proposal. But this here |^|^|^| ain't a reason why.

But it really contradicts it. Diplomat Protection Act protects against any crime enforcement even if that crime is a crime against Humanity, and this resolution mandates crime enforcement. The example was bad. Did someone make a GHR on these grounds?
Here is why:
Situation: A diplomat with diplomatic immunity from B(not a WA member) in A(WA member) commits a crime against humanity in A. A has to put the diplomat on trial, but cannot because of diplomatic immunity. No nation is willing to prosecute the diplomat. Contradiction!

[Railana]

Ye gods, if it were that flawed it wouldn't have reached quo- wait, nevermind.

Nevertheless, I think this concern is mooted by all but the most singularly deranged interpretation of Paragraph 2 herein:

(emphasis added)

"Implicit" recognition is an ambiguous standard, to be sure, but it does indicate you can't make shit up from whole cloth and pretend there's some dire bastard running around loose, whose dastardly pipe smoking is going to harm billions if we don't apprehend him and put a stop to his madness.



Seems wise.

Mind you, for all that, we're still opposed to this proposal. But this here |^|^|^| ain't a reason why.

But it really contradicts it. Diplomat Protection Act protects against any crime enforcement even if that crime is a crime against Humanity, and this resolution mandates crime enforcement. The example was bad. Did someone make a GHR on these grounds?

((OOC: Diplomat Protection Act preempts claims to universal jurisdiction in that case, which is why clause 7 "forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction...to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions." No universal jurisdiction means no criminal jurisdiction, which means no right to prosecute or detain.

Even if I hadn't included the necessary boilerplate, virtually all resolutions have minor points of contradiction with other resolutions, and would definitely be minor point of contradiction. It's easiest to assume that in such cases, the previous resolution takes precedence over the later resolution. As such, I don't think it's justification to remove a proposal from the queue.))

[The Eternal Kawaii]

We suspect the best option would be to vote against both proposals.

((OOC: I'd suggest voting for mine if you want to block an ICC-like proposal from passing in the future.))

And replace one form of international mischief with another? Sounds suspiciously like a Morton's Fork to us.

[Koussath]

Kalarina Yelash, the representative from Koussath, stood.

"This resolution could be used for all manner of mischief. A nation could use a mere accusation to require lengthy trials and bring another country's government to a halt by charging key figures in said government. Moreover, as different nations may have different legal traditions, it seems more than a little unfair to try someone used to say, a jury trial to say, trial by ordeal, given that any nation in the WA may claim this 'unversial jurisdiction'."

[Ainocra]

Kalarina Yelash, the representative from Koussath, stood.

"This resolution could be used for all manner of mischief. A nation could use a mere accusation to require lengthy trials and bring another country's government to a halt by charging key figures in said government. Moreover, as different nations may have different legal traditions, it seems more than a little unfair to try someone used to say, a jury trial to say, trial by ordeal, given that any nation in the WA may claim this 'unversial jurisdiction'."

Ambassador they may not claim said jurisdiction over persons not in their territory.

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;

And as it only applies to War crimes, or crimes against hoomanity as spelled out under International law I fail to see how the scenario you describe would be plausible.

[Koussath]

"An accusation doesn't have to be true to be an accusation. Hence the term."

[Ainocra]

So for example I accuse you of (insert crimes against kittens here)


You investigate, find it to be baseless as you are a known lover of all things kitteh. Life goes on

the individual is within the territorial jurisdiction of that member state,
the individual has not already been given a fair trial for that crime by another state, and
there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire is proud to cast the very first vote FOR this proposal

[Omigodtheyclonedkenny]

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to 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;

Still leaves out genocide, biological warfare, abuse of POWs, and nuking civilians. Though torture is covered, as is harming surrendering soldiers. Still not enough to win our support.

AGAINST.

[Aerangal]

I fear a loophole in this piece. Would it not be easy to, if you committed a crime against humanity one one country, to escape to another known to be more lenient on the issue and thus escape severe punishment that would've been handed out by the state you committed the crime in if an extradition were to happen instead?

[Mundiferrum]

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to 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;

(emphasis added)

"Implicit" recognition is an ambiguous standard, to be sure, but it does indicate you can't make shit up from whole cloth and pretend there's some dire bastard running around loose, whose dastardly pipe smoking is going to harm billions if we don't apprehend him and put a stop to his madness.

Implicit here is what scares us. Some resolutions seem to us to be fairly murky in the force of their definitions of whatever they're restricting, so that they could be interpreted as implicitly defining the violations against them as "crimes against humanity". Our general position is still being codified, but the consensus here for now is AGAINST.

By consensus, I meant consensus between me and our king. That's pretty much it.

[Railana]

((OOC: I'd suggest voting for mine if you want to block an ICC-like proposal from passing in the future.))

And replace one form of international mischief with another? Sounds suspiciously like a Morton's Fork to us.

I'm not sure how this proposal causes any sort of mischief.

"This resolution could be used for all manner of mischief. A nation could use a mere accusation to require lengthy trials and bring another country's government to a halt by charging key figures in said government. Moreover, as different nations may have different legal traditions, it seems more than a little unfair to try someone used to say, a jury trial to say, trial by ordeal, given that any nation in the WA may claim this 'unversial jurisdiction'."

To clarify, you are arguing that if one nation accuses an individual in another nation of committing a war crime or crime against humanity, that the nation in which that individual is currently located is obliged to prosecute that individual? If so, that's not true at all. The resolution employs a probable cause standard for prosecution, not baseless accusations.

The World Assembly has, to some extent, already harmonized legal traditions between member states. As for the remaining differences, all I can say is that by entering a state, an individual implicitly consents to be subject to the jurisdiction of that state. If that person did not want to be potentially tried under different legal traditions, they should not have entered that state.

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to 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;

Still leaves out genocide, biological warfare, abuse of POWs, and nuking civilians. Though torture is covered, as is harming surrendering soldiers. Still not enough to win our support.

AGAINST.

I'm not sure what you want is possible. There is no way to retroactively establish an enforcement mechanism for resolutions without some common element that this resolution can point to; say, defining crimes as "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". Without that common element, you would need to specifically reference those resolutions, which would be illegal under the House of Cards rule. ((OOC: It might also be illegal for straying into Human Rights territory, per the ruling I received on this resolution's first draft.))

The best I could do is require prosecutions in cases of "implicit universal jurisdiction", which should cover crimes that are obviously crimes against humanity, like genocide, even if they're not explicitly defined as such.

I fear a loophole in this piece. Would it not be easy to, if you committed a crime against humanity one one country, to escape to another known to be more lenient on the issue and thus escape severe punishment that would've been handed out by the state you committed the crime in if an extradition were to happen instead?

Section 4 of this resolution, combined with existing World Assembly resolutions on criminal justice and sentencing, should be sufficient to prevent such abuse.

That said, even without those protections, section 3 requires that suspects receive a "fair trial"; if a suspect is acquitted after a show trial in one member state, then travels to another member state, that second member state can try that suspect again, on the grounds that he did not receive a "fair trial" the first time.

Implicit here is what scares us. Some resolutions seem to us to be fairly murky in the force of their definitions of whatever they're restricting, so that they could be interpreted as implicitly defining the violations against them as "crimes against humanity".

That's ultimately up to you, though. You're responsible for prosecuting suspects within your territorial jurisdiction.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Socialist Assembly Marxists]

Against.
This resolution only touches the surface and treats the symptoms of war, it doesn't address the causes, it certainly will not prevent the cruelties in the heat of war.
Against

[Karolingia]

Against.
This resolution only touches the surface and treats the symptoms of war, it doesn't address the causes, it certainly will not prevent the cruelties in the heat of war.
Against

This proposal is interested in seeing justice done in the aftermath of war. War cannot be prevented by this body; the most we as delegates can do is attempt to right those wrongs that have already been committed.

The Karolingian delegation is pleased to cast a vote in favor of this resolution, citing Clause 2 (specifically the deliberate pointer to previous and future World Assembly legislation as the defining documents for the terms "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity") and Clause 8 (the absence of such a guarantee of domestic law enforcement being another cause for our opposition to "War Crimes Tribunal"). We are encouraged by the current level of support for this resolution, and we look forward to the day in which we can put it into practice.

[Drewlantis]

[*]Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;

[*]Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to 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;

[*]Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;

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...

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

It is with great pleasure to support this resolution. I point out this support is currently unanimous among my region, voting is currently 5-0 (100% For). I also point out that my Regional WA Delegate, Christian Democrats, has voted FOR this resolution.