[PASSED] On Universal Jurisdiction

[Imperium Anglorum]

This appears to be just as broken as the last time you tried it, Auralia.

The ICC creates consistency that local courts do not. It remains the best option to adequately punish crimes against humanity.

'While this delegation bears objection to the fact that the delegation from Defwa does not address the correct delegation, no matter its status as a successor state or whatever status is possessed by this change in Assembly representation, the honourable representative from Defwa calls a very good point. The ICC is the best way to punish crimes against humanity'

Taking a drink, Ambassador Parsons then continued, 'Furthermore, this delegation bears objection towards clause 6, which

Forbids the World Assembly from itself exercising criminal jurisdiction of any kind, including but not limited to through an International Criminal Court or a substantially similar institution.

This delegation believes that due to the status of the World Assembly, there does not exist a process by which the World Assembly can forbid itself from doing anything via legislation and not charter, rule, or constitution'

OOC: And if we passed something which forbids the World Assembly from doing something, who is going to know later. It'll just be a mess with legislation which allows and prevents and nobody will keep track of it. It might as well be a proactive repeal of all future legislation which mandates the opposite.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Taking a drink, Ambassador Parsons then continued, 'Furthermore, this delegation bears objection towards clause 6, which

Forbids the World Assembly from itself exercising criminal jurisdiction of any kind, including but not limited to through an International Criminal Court or a substantially similar institution.

This delegation believes that due to the status of the World Assembly, there does not exist a process by which the World Assembly can forbid itself from doing anything via legislation and not charter, rule, or constitution'

OOC: And if we passed something which forbids the World Assembly from doing something, who is going to know later. It'll just be a mess with legislation which allows and prevents and nobody will keep track of it. It might as well be a proactive repeal of all future legislation which mandates the opposite.

Unfortunately (in this case; less so in others) per the WA Charter, any resolution is binding until fully repealed; including so-called "blockers." Not only can the General Assembly prohibit itself from carrying out certain acts, it takes a positive delight in doing so. This is used often for good and virtuous ends, as well as greedy and selfish ones, and I'm not giving you a list of which is which right now .

We are in complete agreement with the Defwaen and English Imperial delegations: Clause 6 must be removed or we cannot support this, full stop. The only truly legitimate wielder of "universal" jurisdiction is a universal body; all others are acting merely in its name.

[Greater Louisistan]

Unfortunately (in this case; less so in others) per the WA Charter, any resolution is binding until fully repealed; including so-called "blockers."

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz: "Right... Like we did with National Economic Freedoms? Oh wait...

There is only one proposal that has hit the floor on the topic of WA Enforcment: Extradite or Prosecute."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

There is only one proposal that has hit the floor on the topic of WA Enforcment: Extradite or Prosecute."

If the Dark Star draft on this general topic were to be submitted, we would support it, for the fact that it takes concrete steps to address war crimes and other atrocities, while leaving open future systemic refinements in how such crimes are handled. The Railanan version prohibits any such development. Thus, in the absence of an International Criminal Court, national enforcement mechanisms for international laws are preferable to absolute dick; but later on, an ICC will be preferable to piecemeal and potentially uneven national mechanisms (even if such a court must establish jurisdiction by filing an extradition request, which it seems it would probably have to do under the "Extradite or Prosecute" regime as currently drafted).

In any case, we categorically will not support any bill which blocks the recreation of a WA war crimes court.

[The Dark Star Republic]

There is only one proposal that has hit the floor on the topic of WA Enforcment: Extradite or Prosecute."

If the Dark Star draft on this general topic were to be submitted, we would support it, for the fact that it takes concrete steps to address war crimes and other atrocities, while leaving open future systemic refinements in how such crimes are handled.

To avoid a threadjack and allow Railana to draft their proposal I'm going to respond to this in my own thread.

[Railana]

I'm afraid that we have a bit of a stalemate, then. As we are categorically opposed to the formation of an international criminal court, we have no intention of removing clause 6.

In the absence of any further constructive criticism, we will likely submit very soon.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm afraid that we have a bit of a stalemate, then. As we are categorically opposed to the formation of an international criminal court, we have no intention of removing clause 6.

"Why not? I realize we will likely not be able to convince you otherwise. But your proposal as written doesn't really explain your position. It leaps immediately to being 'convinced'."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: The vote on this one promises to be fascinating. IC opposition, OOC delight.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We have never approved of the International Criminal Court, and are disturbed that some representatives here are considering reviving it. If this resolution is what it takes to drive a stake through its heart, then we look favorably upon it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm afraid that we have a bit of a stalemate, then. As we are categorically opposed to the formation of an international criminal court, we have no intention of removing clause 6.

During a pause in the discussion, Parsons takes an aside to Fulton, asking 'Ambassador Fulton, I am curious to know why you do not support the formation of an International Criminal Court', hastily adding, 'I could understand if you did not want adequate enforcement of bills, but that seems to be untrue in this case. I know my predecessor, Ambassador Roberts, opposed any enforcement mechanisms unless directly written into the bill, but with our recent electoral victory, that Foreign Office reservation has been dropped'.

[EDIT: Added information]
[EDIT2: Fixed errors]

[Normlpeople]

Clover sighed "My opposition to the ICC was the fact that member nations were expected to hand over anyone they demanded, without an appeals process, and without a published threshold of evidence required. I read it as very useful to harass a foreign leader one does not like. I still take great offense to the WA and its members somehow believing that they are morally superior and therefore it is the WAs right to try OUR citizens above our own courts. That said, as intrusive as this whole area of thought will be, this replacement is acceptable, and will have my support"

[Railana]

Why not?

During a pause in the discussion, Parsons takes an aside to Fulton, asking 'Ambassador Fulton, I am curious to know why you do not support the formation of an International Criminal Court'

Many of the arguments we made in our ICC repeal draft are equally applicable to any international court.

In essence, we believe that Railana must have the right to try criminals within our jurisdiction in accordance with our own legal rules, principles and traditions; it is the only way we can ensure the proper administration of justice. With an international court, we cannot be certain that criminal defendants will receive the same legal protections that a defendant would receive within our legal system. We cannot subject an international court to external oversight sufficient to avoid politicized prosecutions, collusion between judges and prosecutors, concealment of evidence, and other violations of legal ethics.

I realize we will likely not be able to convince you otherwise. But your proposal as written doesn't really explain your position. It leaps immediately to being 'convinced'.

This is a fair point. We will make an appropriate change.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In essence, we believe that Railana must have the right to try criminals within our jurisdiction in accordance with our own legal rules, principles and traditions; it is the only way we can ensure the proper administration of justice. With an international court, we cannot be certain that criminal defendants will receive the same legal protections that a defendant would receive within our legal system. We cannot subject an international court to external oversight sufficient to avoid politicized prosecutions, collusion between judges and prosecutors, concealment of evidence, and other violations of legal ethics.

Thank you for explicating your thinking, sir. I won't waste my energy or your time with further attempts to convince you otherwise, nor with additional blustering declarations of opposition. However, it's worth pointing out the absurd level of irony at play here: precisely the same concerns drive our support for a broadly-justified and long-term-consistent international court over the possibly erratic swath of different national prosecution systems. You could swap all instances of national and international courts in your statement and it would suddenly become our very argument (if differently worded) for the exact opposite view. Food for thought.

Good day.

[Railana]

Thank you for explicating your thinking, sir. I won't waste my energy or your time with further attempts to convince you otherwise, nor with additional blustering declarations of opposition. However, it's worth pointing out the absurd level of irony at play here: precisely the same concerns drive our support for a broadly-justified and long-term-consistent international court over the possibly erratic swath of different national prosecution systems. You could swap all instances of national and international courts in your statement and it would suddenly become our very argument (if differently worded) for the exact opposite view. Food for thought.

I wouldn't call it irony; it's only natural that we should be more concerned about the integrity of our own legal system than those of other nations.

It's also worth noting that concerns about flawed justice systems in particular World Assembly nations can be remedied through targeted World Assembly resolutions like Habeas Corpus; there's no need to establish an international court as a workaround. ((OOC: This is even more true if you subscribe to the theory of mandatory compliance.))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Dark Star Republic]

In essence, we believe that Railana must have the right to try criminals within our jurisdiction in accordance with our own legal rules, principles and traditions; it is the only way we can ensure the proper administration of justice. With an international court, we cannot be certain that criminal defendants will receive the same legal protections that a defendant would receive within our legal system. We cannot subject an international court to external oversight sufficient to avoid politicized prosecutions, collusion between judges and prosecutors, concealment of evidence, and other violations of legal ethics.

"Reasonable answer, thank you.

"To be clear, we wouldn't advocate for a first resort criminal court, as the Defwaen delegation appears to favour. Our concern is your blocker is so broad it would rule out even a last resort criminal court, such as one for stateless individuals or in cases of failed/ceased states or where a state actually wants to grant extraterritorial jurisdiction. It's written broadly that it's definitely possible to anticipate the Secretariat - especially in light of their recent hiring practices - using it as a means to void even an International Court of Justice despite the idea being completely removed from that of an ICC-like institution.

"So we agree states should have the first opportunity to try crimes where possible but we're concerned your blocker will be too sweeping."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Railana]

"To be clear, we wouldn't advocate for a first resort criminal court, as the Defwaen delegation appears to favour. Our concern is your blocker is so broad it would rule out even a last resort criminal court, such as one for stateless individuals or in cases of failed/ceased states or where a state actually wants to grant extraterritorial jurisdiction. It's written broadly that it's definitely possible to anticipate the Secretariat - especially in light of their recent hiring practices - using it as a means to void even an International Court of Justice despite the idea being completely removed from that of an ICC-like institution.

"So we agree states should have the first opportunity to try crimes where possible but we're concerned your blocker will be too sweeping."

I understand your concerns. Do you have any suggestions for how we might reword the blocker?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I just wouldn't bother. I don't believe ICC 2.0 will ever be politically or legally feasible again. It's also unclear why it's necessary, given 3 (a): it would seem that if that person is in Railana, you have not just a right but a requirement to prosecute them. It could say something like the right of universal jurisdiction cannot be overriden (there may be a better word than that) by the WA or any agency thereof.

"What happens when more than one state claims universal jurisdiction? How is that resolved?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: With respect to my Extradite & Prosecute proposal, I don't think you were, but don't wait on me: until I get a reply about the all nations horseshit (unlikely) and an explanation of how the magical invisible clauses, which now definitely exist, don't render the proposal illegal, as they should (very very unlikely), I can't proceed on it, so this will likely trump it anyway.

[Losthaven]

OOC: With respect to my Extradite & Prosecute proposal, I don't think you were, but don't wait on me: until I get a reply about the all nations horseshit (unlikely) and an explanation of how the magical invisible clauses, which now definitely exist, don't render the proposal illegal, as they should (very very unlikely), I can't proceed on it, so this will likely trump it anyway.

OOC: What? I have no idea what these "magical invisible clauses " are or why they matter. I know I've been gone for a few months but it doesn't seem like WA law should have changed that much.

[Railana]

"I just wouldn't bother. I don't believe ICC 2.0 will ever be politically or legally feasible again. It's also unclear why it's necessary, given 3 (a): it would seem that if that person is in Railana, you have not just a right but a requirement to prosecute them. It could say something like the right of universal jurisdiction cannot be overriden (there may be a better word than that) by the WA or any agency thereof.

I've rewritten the clause as follows:

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;

((OOC: Do you think it is illegal to explicitly forbid the World Assembly from doing something? Is one obliged to use more careful wording, along the lines of "reserves to member nations the power to..."?))

"What happens when more than one state claims universal jurisdiction? How is that resolved?"

Member nations should not have the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within their territorial jurisdiction. I'll add a clause making that clear.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Dark Star Republic]

Member nations should not have the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within their territorial jurisdiction. I'll add a clause making that clear.

"That was not at all clear to me. Thanks for the clarification."

OOC: Losthaven, I'll stick to my thread for such questions; as to prohibiting future actions Rights & Duties kind of fuzzed that, so I really couldn't say.

[Railana]

((OOC: This has now been submitted.))

[Separatist Peoples]

"Cannot support. As currently written, it would make my own draft, which deals with Wartime Looting and Pillaging, illegal. It manages to cover the topic in a single sentence which really requires its own resolution."

[Railana]

"Cannot support. As currently written, it would make my own draft, which deals with Wartime Looting and Pillaging, illegal. It manages to cover the topic in a single sentence which really requires its own resolution."

Could you clarify how this proposal makes your draft illegal? I'm afraid I don't see it.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

"Cannot support. As currently written, it would make my own draft, which deals with Wartime Looting and Pillaging, illegal. It manages to cover the topic in a single sentence which really requires its own resolution."

Could you clarify how this proposal makes your draft illegal? I'm afraid I don't see it.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"It compels prosecution for unnecessary violence towards civilians Which is, in essence, what Looting and Pillaging does. It just does so with much less finesse, which you' expect, as that isn't the penultimate goal of the resolution. Which is exactly what I was in opposition to in regards to every other quasi-replacement of the ICC. It causes a Duplication issue that, I'm afraid, is far too great for the Secretariat to allow."

[Christian Democrats]

Despite my opposition to universal jurisdiction, I've approved this proposal because it is better than other proposals, which seek to establish an international tribunal with jurisdiction over all acts that are crimes under international law.

[Chester Pearson]

I do not understand how this can possibly be civil rights. It covers multiple categories, and as such an in depth GHR on the matter will be filed on illegalities....