[Passed] Repeal "International Criminal Court"

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: There are still enough clearly wrong arguments in the repeal that it would be worth submitting a GHR when it's submitted, though previous conduct strongly suggests the moderators protect their own in such matters so I doubt it actually would accomplish anything.

BELIEVES, additionally, that there is no need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants, as each WA member nation shall do appropriate due diligence with regards to ensuring the crimes outlawed within WA legislation will be appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory.

This is flatly incorrect. At least two of the resolutions cited in the repeal itself, The Prisoners of War Accord and Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, do not require such 'due diligence'. You can't just make stuff up - or does 'the law means what the law says' only apply to other people?

UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions.

This is also completely incorrect and seems to demonstrate an alarming lack of understanding of what ex post facto laws actually are. Any future resolution can easily invoke the ICC - indeed, the one at vote right now does so! - without violating that resolution.

OBSERVES that the extradition clause within this resolution is unnecessary, due to the existence of GAR #147, Extradition Rights.

Once again, wholly incorrect. The clause does not in any way correlate to the mandates of Extradition Rights, a resolution which if anything encourages nations not to pursue extraditions. It's also a bizarre argument to apply to a clause that isn't even mandatory anyway.

To me, it's still a clear 'Honest Mistake' violation, and whether legal or not, it's disturbing to pursue a repeal of a resolution you don't understand, while openly admitting to lying in the repeal.

Also the link to the genocide resolution in OP links to the wrong resolution.

[Ainocra]

I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.

Anyone else have anything to add?


oocly:

OOC: There are still enough clearly wrong arguments in the repeal that it would be worth submitting a GHR when it's submitted, though previous conduct strongly suggests the moderators protect their own in such matters so I doubt it actually would accomplish anything.

I think your words are ill considered and you should rethink them.

[Sciongrad]

I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.

"Very nice! I especially like the part where you rebut the core of the argument rather than merely stating 'I disagree, we're right because I think so.'" Ambassador Santos chided. "Please, don't waste the time of ambassadors who have come here to debate in good faith. At least have to decency to respond with something substantive."

[Ainocra]

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:14 am

Ainocra wrote:I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.


"Very nice! I especially like the part where you rebut the core of the argument rather than merely stating 'I disagree, we're right because I think so.'" Ambassador Santos chided. "Please, don't waste the time of ambassadors who have come here to debate in good faith. At least have to decency to respond with something substantive."

As he offered nothing but a wordier version of "I disagree" I saw no point in saying much more.

Frankly the assertions he posited amounted to little more than "I don't like this." nothing substantive in way of explanation or suggestions was offered.

Have you anything pertinent to add or just more of the same?

[Defwa]

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:14 am

Ainocra wrote:I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.


"Very nice! I especially like the part where you rebut the core of the argument rather than merely stating 'I disagree, we're right because I think so.'" Ambassador Santos chided. "Please, don't waste the time of ambassadors who have come here to debate in good faith. At least have to decency to respond with something substantive."

As he offered nothing but a wordier version of "I disagree" I saw no point in saying much more.

Frankly the assertions he posited amounted to little more than "I don't like this." nothing substantive in way of explanation or suggestions was offered.

Have you anything pertinent to add or just more of the same?

Untrue. He pointed out direct contradictions to lines in the resolution in international law.

[Sciongrad]

Postby Sciongrad » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:14 am

Ainocra wrote:I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.


"Very nice! I especially like the part where you rebut the core of the argument rather than merely stating 'I disagree, we're right because I think so.'" Ambassador Santos chided. "Please, don't waste the time of ambassadors who have come here to debate in good faith. At least have to decency to respond with something substantive."

As he offered nothing but a wordier version of "I disagree" I saw no point in saying much more.

Frankly the assertions he posited amounted to little more than "I don't like this." nothing substantive in way of explanation or suggestions was offered.

Have you anything pertinent to add or just more of the same?

OOC: We're obviously not reading the same post because he offered arguments that directly rebut the text. He argued that the text cites resolutions that require "due diligence" when no such requirement exists in the resolutions you reference in the proposal. He argued that the reference to GAR#79 is inaccurate because it does not accurately describe the impact of post ex facto laws vis a vis the ICC. And he argued that the argument regarding extradition is not correct because it conflates the effect of GAR#147 and the extradition provisions in GAR#102, when the two are actually different. Those are substantive arguments that warrant a response, not 'wordier versions of I disagree.' You don't have to respond to those, of course - as a matter of fact, I don't see how you can actually rebut solid facts anyways - but at least admit you've got not actual argument rather than dismissing your opponents entirely.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.

Anyone else have anything to add?

OOC: Stop acting like such a pampered little child. While I'm certainly not one to be handing out etiquette lessons, the way you and Mousebumples have conducted yourselves thus far really is rank discourtesy. And this kind of behaviour from someone who wields such enormous influence within the WA, who quite obviously impacts how newer players take to the game, has a crushingly negative effect on the total quality of the forum. Players who do not submit to the forums are pilloried: but what is the point if those who do submit to the forums ignore all arguments against their proposal, proceed ahead with drafts despite claiming not to have time to see the projects through, or try to pretend that a detailed, in-line critique of their proposal can simply be dimissed out of hand?

When you are prepared to engage with criticisms of your proposal, when you are prepared to debate the substance of your arguments, when you are willing to actually act in a manner commensurate with you and your co-author's position, I am quite ready to be 'happily entertained'; until then, grow up.

[Chester Pearson]

I disagree, I think the arguments laid out are fair and right. If you have some reasonable suggestions to alter them then I will happily entertain them.

Anyone else have anything to add?

OOC: Stop acting like such a pampered little child. While I'm certainly not one to be handing out etiquette lessons, the way you and Mousebumples have conducted yourselves thus far really is rank discourtesy. And this kind of behaviour from someone who wields such enormous influence within the WA, who quite obviously impacts how newer players take to the game, has a crushingly negative effect on the total quality of the forum. Players who do not submit to the forums are pilloried: but what is the point if those who do submit to the forums ignore all arguments against their proposal, proceed ahead with drafts despite claiming not to have time to see the projects through, or try to pretend that a detailed, in-line critique of their proposal can simply be dimissed out of hand?

When you are prepared to engage with criticisms of your proposal, when you are prepared to debate the substance of your arguments, when you are willing to actually act in a manner commensurate with you and your co-author's position, I am quite ready to be 'happily entertained'; until then, grow up.

Yes it really is too bad that AQ was crucified for not placing their proposals up on the forums isn't it? I for one know with a certainty that you would never do anything like that....

[Ainocra]

I looked at your reasoning and found it to be at best a misrepresentation of the facts.
If you have some actual technical improvements to offer then by all means make them.

OOC:
*shrugs* I just simply don't agree with your arguments. If you have some reasonable suggestion to change the wording to assuage your concerns then make it.

[Sciongrad]

I looked at your reasoning and found it to be at best a misrepresentation of the facts.
If you have some actual technical improvements to offer then by all means make them.

OOC:
*shrugs* I just simply don't agree with your arguments. If you have some reasonable suggestion to change the wording to assuage your concerns then make it.

OOC: That's not how debate works, but I don't think you care. If you're unwilling to afford the most basic courtesies to your opponents, then it's obviously no use arguing here. This debate is disgraceful and your behavior here is enough to make me literally fed up of posting in this thread. Unless you actually respond to direct arguments against the text of your resolution with something more then "I disagree," then I hope you realize that no one, not even those that might want this resolution repealed, will take this seriously.

[Valendia]

"Once again, we shall draw attention to what we agree is the most contentious clause in this proposal:"

BELIEVES, additionally, that there is no need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants, as each WA member nation shall do appropriate due diligence with regards to ensuring the crimes outlawed within WA legislation will be appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory.

"The fundamental problem with this clause is its ignorance of the simple fact that the law is only as effective as the means to enforce it. While there are indeed people and nations who will follow the law out of an ethical belief that the law ought to be followed, that is not universally applicable to every nation; if every nation did their 'due diligence' then there would be no need for the body of international law to compel them to do as such in the first place."

"Given that there is no real basis for this repeal either in terms of failed functionality or actual abuse, and that it hinges on a rather overly-optimistic belief in nations following the law in good faith that is not reflected by reality, we will continue to remain adamantly OPPOSED to this repeal, and given the proponents' functional inability to effectively and civilly respond to criticism of it encourage other nations to oppose its submission and passage also."

[Ainocra]

I looked at your reasoning and found it to be at best a misrepresentation of the facts.
If you have some actual technical improvements to offer then by all means make them.

OOC:
*shrugs* I just simply don't agree with your arguments. If you have some reasonable suggestion to change the wording to assuage your concerns then make it.

OOC: That's not how debate works, but I don't think you care. If you're unwilling to afford the most basic courtesies to your opponents, then it's obviously no use arguing here. This debate is disgraceful and your behavior here is enough to make me literally fed up of posting in this thread. Unless you actually respond to direct arguments against the text of your resolution with something more then "I disagree," then I hope you realize that no one, not even those that might want this resolution repealed, will take this seriously.

ooc:

On the contrary I have been noting but courteous, despite repeated attempts to bait me to be otherwise.

[Mousebumples]

Since it's been a few weeks since I've last posted here, I'm not going to reply individually to each poster. (Because that would be one heck of a post - and perhaps exceed the post limits here!)

One of the largest things that I'm seeing here is a disconnect between the NatSov camps (to which I, largely, belong) and the IntFed camp (to which many of the loudest critics belong). I don't believe that anything that is repealed must be instantly replaced. This text says that the WA would be best served by passing individual, more detailed additional legislation rather than sticking with this resolution as is. I believe that to be true - but I will rephrase the specifics there to focus more on the importance of doing away with the court than the importance of the replacements. Replacements would be good - but, again, I don't find them to be essential to merit the repeal of this legislation. Heck, I've been against it from the start (I can probably hunt down posts against the ICC in the original debate thread, if anyone doesn't believe me), so I think that repealing this, straight up, will serve as a net-gain for the WA as a whole.

International Federalists will disagree with this repeal. This is a given, to me. Since we're coming at this repeal with different end goals and widely varying perspectives, I don't know that there's much merit in debating the details since I doubt either of our groups are likely to be persuaded. While some exchanges are good and can help to better the text of my repeal, if your statements are made in hope of persuading me to drop the repeal altogether, allow me to reassure you that you are fighting an uphill battle, considering my delegation's opposition to this resolution is not of recent origin.

And, for the record, I would consider a court-blocker to be an additional piece of legislation that "outlaw(s) additional international travesties that are not presently covered within existing WA resolutions." And I suspect that my more vocal IntFed opponents would strongly disagree with me on this point. "Adequate" is in the eye of the beholder - and I will acknowledge that the replacement I linked previous is not currently submission ready. However, again, I don't believe that the author of a repeal has the responsibility to provide a replacement. This is a philosophy that is long held by myself and my predecessors. In fact, this is one of the reasons why we were so strongly opposed to the R&R concept that was introduced in Tech years ago. (OOC Note: Yes, Tech is OOC, but the point is still true.)

Further, I don't think that it should be the responsibility of the author to write a replacement - even if they think a replacement would better serve the community. There are a number of authors here who seem to take an interest in writing legislation on international war crimes and the like. I think this might have been mentioned in one of my other repeal threads, but - for the record - I have been a proponent of a GA#2 Redux for ... awhile now. I've also been in favor of the Sunset Clauses strategy that the ambassador from Knootoss proposed in Tech a few years ago. (OOC: again, yes, Tech is OOC, but as above, the point is still true.) However, when it comes to persuading others to make such things a reality, I am but one voice. (OOC: My being made into a moderator does not mean that [v], Ballo, and - of course - Max suddenly accept everything I say as law and do as I suggest. To have any of you suggest that I should be able to make GA#2 happen all over again merely by my status as a moderator is, honestly, rather disingenuous.)

So far as the objections to particular clauses cited by DSR, I will review them and likely adjust some of the prose accordingly.

A few specific points however:

• Regarding the "due diligence" line - I'll have to review the exact text of the resolutions in question, but that is largely based on the fact that compliance is mandatory. Yes, loophole evasion is always a possibility, but nations can't decide (OOC: technically, per the rules) that "I don't want to outlaw slavery, so I won't." The phrasing could perhaps be firmed up a bit more, so I'll look at that and adjust accordingly.
• The second clause referenced ("UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions.") seems to be wholly misunderstood. Yes, future legislation can outlaw additional things - that could utilize the ICC. However, stuff that isn't currently outlawed, internationally, can't magically be brought before the ICC without legislation making it a crime on an international level. And, again, I personally feel that we should be focusing inwardly on ensuring that the legal systems of individual WA nations should be self-sustaining and able to properly and effectively detain and try individuals accused of such crimes. I personally do not see the merit of such an international court system, which is one reason why I am working on this repeal.
• Extradition Rights may make it more difficult for extraditions to be processed, but the ICC is required to work within the confines of that legislation. If the existence of Extradition Rights disturbs you, as appears to be the case, I encourage you to consider a repeal of that legislation.

I don't know where you, former Ambassador Fungschlammer, think that I'm "lying" in the repeal. By not drafting a replacement myself? Again, I didn't say in the repeal text that I would pursue a replacement myself. There is nothing in the rules that requires a repeal author to replace said legislation should a repeal be successful. Players are welcome to require that, as their own standard of voting, of course; however, by failing to author a replacement - or multiple replacements - myself ... that does not equate with "lying in the repeal." Such a statement makes me question your understanding of the GA's rules and the application therein ... questionable.

Yours,

[Sciongrad]

Regarding the "due diligence" line - I'll have to review the exact text of the resolutions in question, but that is largely based on the fact that compliance is mandatory. Yes, loophole evasion is always a possibility, but nations can't decide (OOC: technically, per the rules) that "I don't want to outlaw slavery, so I won't." The phrasing could perhaps be firmed up a bit more, so I'll look at that and adjust accordingly.

Compliance is mandatory, this is correct. What this means is that member nations must implement and enforce General Assembly resolutions. Of course, that does not mean individuals will not break the law. Prohibiting genocide does not mean individuals will not commit genocide, it merely means that genocide must not be legal in member nations. I'm a firm believer in the principle that World Assembly resolutions are binding - I always have been - but I don't think they're magical. I'm sure you don't believe that World Assembly member nations do not experience rape, fraud, or other actions outlawed by the World Assembly? So why should we rely solely on scraps of paper? Furthermore, the rule of law does not exist in the World Assembly. This means any two-bit dictator can pardon himself or herself or simply act outside of the law.

The second clause referenced ("UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions.") seems to be wholly misunderstood. Yes, future legislation can outlaw additional things - that could utilize the ICC. However, stuff that isn't currently outlawed, internationally, can't magically be brought before the ICC without legislation making it a crime on an international level. And, again, I personally feel that we should be focusing inwardly on ensuring that the legal systems of individual WA nations should be self-sustaining and able to properly and effectively detain and try individuals accused of such crimes. I personally do not see the merit of such an international court system, which is one reason why I am working on this repeal.

This argument is clearly illegal. It assumes that GAR#102 has illegally granted the ICC more jurisdiction than is permitted by previous legislation. That would mean, of course, that GAR#102 contradicts GAR#79. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant because arguments pertaining to the legality of a resolution are not kosher.

Extradition Rights may make it more difficult for extraditions to be processed, but the ICC is required to work within the confines of that legislation. If the existence of Extradition Rights disturbs you, as appears to be the case, I encourage you to consider a repeal of that legislation.

"I don't mean to sound rude, but I honestly don't know what you mean here. The clause in question is not even binding, and the only mandatory clause that includes any other reference to extradition grants that power to the ICC, which is not unnecessary because that power is obviously not included in 'Extradition Rights.' So while I don't like frivolous legislation, repealing a resolution because a non-binding clauses may be unnecessary is simply out of the question.

[Glen-Rhodes]

And, again, I personally feel that we should be focusing inwardly on ensuring that the legal systems of individual WA nations should be self-sustaining and able to properly and effectively detain and try individuals accused of such crimes.

The funny thing about the crimes the ICC is tasked with trying, is that they're committed in nations with little to no internal infrastructure or capacity to address them. Genocide does not typically happen in advanced developed countries with great police forces and the rule of law. Judicial systems are not typically functional in a country just ravaged by wars, especially wars that are so bad that war crimes are committed. And in countries where things like systemic rape occur, it's usually the state itself perpetrating the crimes against humanity, and if it's not, then the state lacks the capacity to stop it, let alone try those responsible.

If it was so easy to ensure all countries had competent security forces and the capacity to stop these crimes and try the perpetrators, nobody would be thinking that an international court is necessary. Yeah, the World Assembly should be helping countries build security and judicial capacity. But in the meantime, why can't it also help exact justice for those who commit atrocities?

[Elke and Elba]

While I denounce ICC (partly because it was written by Quelesh), Mousey I do somewhat agree with the points Gruen have stated here. While a repeal of ICC may be beneficial (I do agree with repealing it too), the grounds of which the repeal is formed upon - the preamble, is questionable or even dishonest at best.

This should not be generally construed to be a NatSov vs IntFed kind of argument, because it is not. (Hey, I'm NatSov okay!) ICC has its uses, you can choose not to replace it and leave to the authors to form a new special tribunal every time - not that I am nitpicky or pedantic enough to give a flying flute over it - but it would be much better for you to read Gruen's comments in greater detail because that basis of repeal is really very weak. It is not helping that your co-author has exactly no idea what debate is and asserting his "I'm right, you're wrong" statement everytime.

It'll probably be better for you to drop your co-author whilst working this at a far more leisurely pace so as to keep up with the debate rather than get your repeal kicked and covered in sand, crashing and burning because of your co-author's disingenious habits. While I'm not sure what the "IntFed camp" wants, for myself I would just want a honest rebuttal to those points, or accepting so and changing parts of the resolution (no harm at all, the entire point of repeal is to get the resolution repealed - use any means to that end), rather than standing firm (and perhaps even bickering) over parts of the proposal which has no practical benefit or loss to any party or to the proposed resolution over here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

One of the largest things that I'm seeing here is a disconnect between the NatSov camps (to which I, largely, belong) and the IntFed camp (to which many of the loudest critics belong).

"One glance at our respective votes on Reproductive Freedoms demonstrates what complete bullshit this is.

I don't believe that anything that is repealed must be instantly replaced.

"Then don't write a resolution saying the WA would be best served by passing replacements, Einstein.

International Federalists will disagree with this repeal. This is a given, to me. Since we're coming at this repeal with different end goals and widely varying perspectives, I don't know that there's much merit in debating the details since I doubt either of our groups are likely to be persuaded. While some exchanges are good and can help to better the text of my repeal, if your statements are made in hope of persuading me to drop the repeal altogether, allow me to reassure you that you are fighting an uphill battle, considering my delegation's opposition to this resolution is not of recent origin.

"So, this is the point the WA has reached. From being a forum for debate between competing ideologies, we have now slid all the way down into the mire of people not even being prepared to engage in a discussion with anyone they disagree with. How utterly contemptible. But then, I suppose an actual debate would take away valuable time from more important arguments like how abortion laws are racial discrimination against sapient macropods or the concept of time is culturally inappropriate for the WA to consider.

Regarding the "due diligence" line - I'll have to review the exact text of the resolutions in question, but that is largely based on the fact that compliance is mandatory. Yes, loophole evasion is always a possibility, but nations can't decide (OOC: technically, per the rules) that "I don't want to outlaw slavery, so I won't." The phrasing could perhaps be firmed up a bit more, so I'll look at that and adjust accordingly.

"Compliance with what? One of the things the ICC ensures is prosecution of persons who engage in "Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies". There is no language in The Prisoners of Wars Accord requiring that nations prosecute or punish those who engage in such actions. Whether or not a nation is technically in compliance with the law's mandates isn't particularly relevant. Indeed, this whole point seems to cut to the core of how you are misrepresenting the resolution - deliberately, because you feel that an honest argument won't pass, or innocently, because you don't understand it; I couldn't say which. Even if the WA did pass laws against every single thing in the ICC resolution as your repeal says it should (yet you seem unwilling to deliver on), it would make no difference if nations didn't bring those persons to justice. A nation can be 100% in compliance with The Prisoners of War Accord and yet fail to prosecute its officers who have abused POWs.

The second clause referenced ("UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions.") seems to be wholly misunderstood. Yes, future legislation can outlaw additional things - that could utilize the ICC. However, stuff that isn't currently outlawed, internationally, can't magically be brought before the ICC without legislation making it a crime on an international level.

"None of this has anything to do with ex post facto laws. The limits of WA power would work like this even without that resolution. Your argument boils down to: the ICC can only do what the WA says it can. Yeah, and? The WHA can only do what the WA says it can, too. No reason to tear it down. And it doesn't have any bearing on Resolution #79.

And, again, I personally feel that we should be focusing inwardly on ensuring that the legal systems of individual WA nations should be self-sustaining and able to properly and effectively detain and try individuals accused of such crimes. I personally do not see the merit of such an international court system, which is one reason why I am working on this repeal.

"There are at least two situations where such a system is obviously preferable.

"The first would be states that can't 'properly and effectively detain and try individuals'. Post-conflict states whose infrastructure has been destroyed, probably by the exact war they are now prosecuting crimes resulting from, may not be able to maintain a functioning legal system. It is not unknown for wars to bring to an end the very existence of nations altogether: if their jurisdiction dies with them, you've created a legal vacuum in which atrocities can prosper.

"The second would be states that won't 'properly and effectively detain and try individuals', which again, not every article of international law relevant to this resolution requires of them. There is no legal obligation anywhere in WA law even for nations that are 100% in compliance that they arrest, prosecute, or punish, people accused of abusing prisoners of war, of launching chemical attacks on civilians, of engaging in forced population transfer, of deliberately targeting civilians. There is no WA law requiring nations prosecute those accused of murder. And if those people represent senior government or military officials, then it's obviously in those states' interest not to bring them to justice.

"But you seem to be indicating that you're not actually interested in discussing this core argument at all, which is distressing.

Extradition Rights may make it more difficult for extraditions to be processed, but the ICC is required to work within the confines of that legislation.

"Firstly, that is not the argument represented in your repeal. The argument in your repeal concerns a non-mandatory clause in the ICC resolution being 'unnecessary': if anything, your repeal is arguing duplication, not contradiction. So it's quite an alarming about-face.

"Anyway, the difficulty with citing Extradition Rights is that it clearly refers to extradition between nations; the ICC isn't a nation (and I've always assumed it is based in non-sovereign territory at the WA Headquarters).

I don't know where you, former Ambassador Fungschlammer, think that I'm "lying" in the repeal.

"The compliance issue. Arguing that mandatory compliance takes care of everything simply isn't true: a nation perfectly compliant with The Prisoners of War Accord could never bring violators to justice.

"If it's not that you're lying, but simply that you don't understand, though, then I'm sorry."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Mousebumples]

First off all, my lack of a NatSov stance on the recent resolution, Reproductive Freedoms, is - I believe - well known. As well as my usual more IntFed stance when it comes to health care resolutions. Those are exceptions, for me - while others obviously had it be an exception for them in the opposite direction.

Furthermore, the rule of law does not exist in the World Assembly. This means any two-bit dictator can pardon himself or herself or simply act outside of the law.

Which is why you're seeking to correct such an oversight, yes? Again, I would much prefer for the WA to address these shortcomings in that way than with a hand-wavey "this magically fixes everything!" farce of an international court.

This argument is clearly illegal. It assumes that GAR#102 has illegally granted the ICC more jurisdiction than is permitted by previous legislation. That would mean, of course, that GAR#102 contradicts GAR#79. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant because arguments pertaining to the legality of a resolution are not kosher.

Which is why it's worded the way it is. Nowhere in that clause does it say that there is a contradiction that makes GA#102 illegal. It just states that the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited by the previously passed resolution - which is true, if we assume (as we must within the rules) that all GA resolutions are legal by their nature of being passed resolutions. As such, I think that this argument, as phrased, is legal. If I said "BELIEVES that the ICC is illegally granted a greater scope of practice than allowed under previous legislation" <-- that would be grounds for GHRing and deletion from the proposal queue. Which ... is why I didn't word the clause that way.

"I don't mean to sound rude, but I honestly don't know what you mean here. The clause in question is not even binding, and the only mandatory clause that includes any other reference to extradition grants that power to the ICC, which is not unnecessary because that power is obviously not included in 'Extradition Rights.' So while I don't like frivolous legislation, repealing a resolution because a non-binding clauses may be unnecessary is simply out of the question.

Which is why that's not the only clause in the repeal. On it's own, it's not enough to bring it down, sure. But as playing a role in painting a picture as to why this resolution should be repealed? I fail to see how it doesn't have a valid place in such a repeal text.

It'll probably be better for you to drop your co-author whilst working this at a far more leisurely pace so as to keep up with the debate rather than get your repeal kicked and covered in sand, crashing and burning because of your co-author's disingenious habits. While I'm not sure what the "IntFed camp" wants, for myself I would just want a honest rebuttal to those points, or accepting so and changing parts of the resolution (no harm at all, the entire point of repeal is to get the resolution repealed - use any means to that end), rather than standing firm (and perhaps even bickering) over parts of the proposal which has no practical benefit or loss to any party or to the proposed resolution over here.

A few problems with "dropping my co-author" : For starters, Aioncra and I have been working on this collaboratively, on our regional forum for a number of years. So, to drop him as a co-author, that means I'd have to scrap the vast majority of the arguments contained within this repeal. While I understand the concerns that some of you have over this repeal, there are plenty of experienced authors and ambassadors who do support this current draft. (or, well, the previous draft that was largely the same, as I have made a few minor changes) While I regret that your support is likely not forthcoming, I'm not inclined to put a hold on this and "start over" just because a few vocal opponents don't feel that this text is appropriate/etc.

There have been a number of false starts on this repeal attempt, and I am determined to see this repeal through - hopefully to its successful passage, and hopefully before I step down as WAD for Monkey Island.

Further, regarding former Ambassador Fungschlammer's concerns about two specific resolutions and "due diligence" -
POWs - there is no "due diligence" with regards to putting nations on trial that don't follow these protocols. However, given that this is a governmental thing (and not something that an individual would personally be able to violate), I have no qualms about considering "due diligence" to be appropriate, insofar as requiring nations to comply with its rules and standards.
Slavery & Trafficking - again, I fail to see how "due diligence" isn't required here. Yes, those words aren't in the resolution, but there's not really much wiggle room that I can see. The use of the verb "shall" (which is used frequently within that resolution) is pretty binding, legally speaking. If the resolution say "may" (instead of "shall"), I might consider such an opinion to be worth humoring. However, having reviewed those resolutions - and the other two I have cited in the opening - I have no qualms about moving forward with the "due diligence" wording as is. I expect my opponents to argue the point further - including whenever this proposal, hopefully, gets to a vote - but I believe it is debatable and not in any way subject to an Honest Mistakes violation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Which is why you're seeking to correct such an oversight, yes? Again, I would much prefer for the WA to address these shortcomings in that way than with a hand-wavey "this magically fixes everything!" farce of an international court.

What is your suggestion? Because if I had to guess, I would guess that you'd suggest writing resolutions to ban everything addressed currently by the ICC, maybe even including mandatory clauses that member states hunt down and prosecute the perpetrators to address Gruen's concern. What would make those resolutions more effective than the ICC?

[Sciongrad]

Which is why you're seeking to correct such an oversight, yes? Again, I would much prefer for the WA to address these shortcomings in that way than with a hand-wavey "this magically fixes everything!" farce of an international court.

"What? You just completely misinterpreted my point. I'm saying that simply passing resolutions is not effective because crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the like can all still be committed with resolutions in place. An individual can commit genocide and escape punishment in his home nation without violating the principle of mandatory compliance because all a resolution does is implement the law, it does not prevent the issue from happening. Even with a resolution on genocide, genocide can still occur within member nations. My point is that your solution relies on the 'hand-wavey this magically fixes everything' argument and that only a court with a vested interest in preventing war criminals from escaping prosecution can resolve this. You literally took my argument, ignored it, and then used the same line, almost verbatim, against me without explaining your actual point. If you don't think the ICC - a quasi-judicial body with the sole purpose of prosecuting criminals that we both agree should be brought to justice - can resolve the issue, what makes you think worthless scraps of paper will do a better job?"

Which is why it's worded the way it is. Nowhere in that clause does it say that there is a contradiction that makes GA#102 illegal. It just states that the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited by the previously passed resolution - which is true, if we assume (as we must within the rules) that all GA resolutions are legal by their nature of being passed resolutions. As such, I think that this argument, as phrased, is legal. If I said "BELIEVES that the ICC is illegally granted a greater scope of practice than allowed under previous legislation" <-- that would be grounds for GHRing and deletion from the proposal queue. Which ... is why I didn't word the clause that way.

"No matter how you phrase it, the argument is illegal. You cannot argue that the ICC's explicitly stated jurisdiction is limited by a previous resolution (therefore preventing it from acting exactly as the text requires it to) because even if you don't explicitly state it, the very core of that argument is that GAR#102 contradicts GAR#79. You don't actually need to come out and say 'THIS RESOLUTION CONTRADICTS ANOTHER ONE SO WE MUST REPEAL IT' to get caught up in a nasty argument of legality. Unless you can explain how your argument makes any sense without relying on the fact that GAR#79 limits GAR#102's jurisdiction despite the text of GAR#102, then it's pretty clearly illegal."

Which is why that's not the only clause in the repeal. On it's own, it's not enough to bring it down, sure. But as playing a role in painting a picture as to why this resolution should be repealed? I fail to see how it doesn't have a valid place in such a repeal text.

"Because you're arguing that a non-binding clause is unnecessary. The clause literally does nothing. At best, it reinforces a policy which you evidently agree with, and at worst, it's fluff that doesn't contribute or detract from the quality of the resolution in question. Unless the clause is bad policy or advocates for goals that the World Assembly should not follow, a non-binding clause really shouldn't be the object of a repeal. Targeting non-binding clauses simply because they vaguely overlap with previous legislation is just such a weak argument that I'd remove it for your sake rather than my own."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Further, regarding former Ambassador Fungschlammer's concerns about two specific resolutions and "due diligence" -
POWs - there is no "due diligence" with regards to putting nations on trial that don't follow these protocols. However, given that this is a governmental thing (and not something that an individual would personally be able to violate), I have no qualms about considering "due diligence" to be appropriate, insofar as requiring nations to comply with its rules and standards.
Slavery & Trafficking - again, I fail to see how "due diligence" isn't required here. Yes, those words aren't in the resolution, but there's not really much wiggle room that I can see. The use of the verb "shall" (which is used frequently within that resolution) is pretty binding, legally speaking. If the resolution say "may" (instead of "shall"), I might consider such an opinion to be worth humoring. However, having reviewed those resolutions - and the other two I have cited in the opening - I have no qualms about moving forward with the "due diligence" wording as is. I expect my opponents to argue the point further - including whenever this proposal, hopefully, gets to a vote - but I believe it is debatable and not in any way subject to an Honest Mistakes violation.

"Weren't you the one recently lecturing us that 'the law means what the law says'? It really is perfectly straightforward:

"Your resolution claims that existing laws require people prosecute and punish those guilty of certain crimes.
"They don't.
("You even seem to have introduced a new mistake along these lines. The WA Counterterrorism Act does not address 'state terrorist actions': it specifically defined terrorism as something conducted by 'non-state actors'.)
"Your resolution is making an 'Honest Mistake'.

"It's also a little hard to take seriously your claim that what you want to do is ensure that all WA nations have fair systems of justice to a universal standard - given you are currently pursuing a repeal of the WA's resolution on fair trials."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: Regarding legality issues, I'm going to assume that all of these comments are only unofficial opinions, as they seem to be vaguely in-character (although your replying in-character to out-of-character posts really does signal the final straw of any pretence of roleplay in the WA), but you are still posting with your moderator account. Every post you make is marked with your title as an official moderator. It creates the uneasy appearance of you deciding legality issues on your own proposal, and in this case you are substantially overruling the precedent of Dresophila Prime's "Repeal Gay Rights". Bear in mind that other moderators have avoided this problem by splitting their duties between puppets (see the difference between posts by Ardchoille and Ardchoilleans, Kryozerkia and Three Weasels).

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Text of GHR:

As discussed on the forum, I believe Mousebumples's ICC repeal to be illegal as an "Honest Mistake" violation. Well established precedent in the WA is that repeals cannot make factually inaccurate arguments.

1. "BELIEVES that each WA member nation ensures that crimes outlawed within WA legislation are appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory, removing the need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants."

> This is incorrect. There is no requirement, anywhere in WA law, that nations prosecute most of the crimes mentioned in the ICC resolution.

2. "UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions, which would require additional legislation to outlaw international travesties that are not currently covered under existing WA resolutions."

> This is incorrect. Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws has no impact on the operation of the ICC, and indeed many of the crimes the ICC resolution itself considers had not previously been outlawed by the WA. An ex post facto law concerns when the crime was committed, not what the crime is.

3. "GAR#25, WA Counterterrorism Act, worked to prevent terrorism by helping to coordinate counterterrorism activities and requiring WA member states to cease any state terrorist actions."

> This is incorrect. In fact the resolution explicitly states that it does not consider state actions, defining terrorism as conducted by "non-state actors". The author appears to be confusing "state terrorism" with "state-sponsored terrorism".

Given all three of these incorrect claims, the level of misunderstanding or misrepresentation clearly seems to meet the level of an Honest Mistake of the kind that has seen repeals deleted in the past ("Repeal Sexual Freedom", "Repeal Gay Rights", etc.) and it should be removed.

Thank you.

[Elke and Elba]

Would there be even the need to replace if we didn't go ahead with the repeal in the first place?

[Valendia]

Would there be even the need to replace if we didn't go ahead with the repeal in the first place?

"This is a fairly good question."

[Mousebumples]

OOC: Why is this a better solution than an international criminal court? A better question might be, why can't the World Assembly do both? If a nation can't prosecute its war criminals, why can't the World Assembly help it create a solid judicial infrastructure and prosecute its war criminals (who obviously could not be brought to justice in their home nation) for them?

And for those nations who can do both? Why have an overreaching International Court when a more directed application would be both more effective and less distasteful for those who have effective judicial systems?