[Passed] Repeal "International Criminal Court"

[Sciongrad]

"Still waiting on those replacements. Given your own argument says the WA will be 'most effectively served' by passing them, there's no point considering the repeal until they are ready."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

The Imperial Chiefdom finds the situation of arguing repeals based on replacement proposals to be untenable. If a given nation does not believe that a repeal is merited, its representative should say as much. If said nation instead believes that the repeal has merit, but that replacement legislation is needed, its representative should consider drafting a replacement or aiding in its drafting. Otherwise, opposition to a repeal based on the nonexistence of a replacement is intellectually bankrupt - it shifts the attention away from the legislation at hand while hoping that the focus on a potential replacement will lead to a collapse of the repeal effort. Krioval has found that many demands for replacement legislation have led to near-constant criticism of the replacement language, with the primary objective being the slow death of the repeal by neglect.

Shorter version: one should articulate one's position on the repeal (for/against/neutral) based on no immediate effort for a replacement, or that replacement efforts may fall short of one's ideals.

Tau Kriov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

"If I may interrupt the most noble gentleman of the Imperial Chiefdom: every single assertion you have made is fundamentally wrong. A repeal is more complicated than 'is the original resolution flawed?' and an ambassador of your experience should not need to be reminded of this. Perhaps in Krioval, legislators address issues in isolation without any regard for the greater context, but in the World Assembly, we use a more sensible policy making procedure - that is, analyzing the issue and then crafting policy around it. Simply saying 'resolution A is flawed but any discussion of addressing the flaws of resolution A or even wondering whether or not it is the author's actual intention to address policy issue A is strictly prohibited' is so silly that I can't even properly articulate it. If Krioval would like to repeal a resolution on genocide, I am not intellectually bankrupt for making my support contingent on an improved effort to ban genocide. Why? Because I don't like genocide and I would rather have a faulty resolution that bans genocide than no resolution at all. Just like I don't like the idea of criminals responsible for war crimes escaping prosecution. The fact of the matter is that making one's desire for a replacement known in a repeal discussion is not only germane but inherently connected to the process. The goal of the World Assembly is to address important policy issues and if an ambassador feels that a faulty resolution is better than no resolution at all, then it is entirely reasonable, assuming that the World Assembly addresses issues rationally and not single resolutions in isolation, to make one's vote contingent on the existence of a suitable replacement. Feel free to call voting based on the existence of a repeal 'intellectually bankrupt' but I hope you don't mind me saying that voting on repeals without any regard for the broader context is 'childish and sophomoric.' So please, either drop the ideological veil and simply state that you don't like the resolution and couldn't give a hoot as to whether or not it's replaced or at least make your argument more convincing than 'stop talking about addressing issue A in a thread that deals with issue A guys!!!'"

"Of course, if you still disagree, her Excellency of Mousebumples did herself say that a replacement would be available."

(OOC: Furthermore, it has already been suggested that a replacement would be posted days ago. )

Yes?

"That is many things, but an adequate replacement is not one of them."

[Ainocra]

"Gentlemen, The topic at hand in this instance is the Repeal of the ICC."
"If you do not care for the offered replacement then perhaps you should craft your own."


oocly:

To be frank we have both said repeatedly that due to time constraints we would not be drafting a replacement. So if you want one then start drafting.
I know that I lack the time, and Mouse is just as swamped as I am if not more. The topic at hand here is the REPEAL, please remain on topic.

Many thanks

[Bears Armed]

oocly:

To be frank we have both said repeatedly that due to time constraints we would not be drafting a replacement. So if you want one then start drafting.

OOCly: or make sure that the repeal fails to pass...

[The Dark Star Republic]

To be frank we have both said repeatedly that due to time constraints we would not be drafting a replacement. So if you want one then start drafting.
I know that I lack the time, and Mouse is just as swamped as I am if not more. The topic at hand here is the REPEAL, please remain on topic.

OOC: The repeal argues that a replacement should be passed. We are discussing the repeal by discussing the lack of a replacement. This is not some theoretical debate: it is a direct textual response. It is completely intellectually disingenuous to try to pass a resolution arguing the WA should pass additional legislation and then express no interest in that additional legislation itself.

I also wonder why someone so strapped for time is taking on three repeals concurrently. Surely if the other two were dropped, there would then be time to work on a replacement.

Problem solved!

or make sure that the repeal fails to pass...

Pffft. It's practically already passed.

[Hirota]

OOC:
To be frank we have both said repeatedly that due to time constraints we would not be drafting a replacement. So if you want one then start drafting.
I know that I lack the time, and Mouse is just as swamped as I am if not more. The topic at hand here is the REPEAL, please remain on topic.

OOC: I understand being busy, but it seems disingenuous to make an assertion, and then fail to back up that assertion.

Perhaps soften the offending clause to urging the world assembly to pass additional legislation, or get rid of it altogether?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why do you repeal authors always say they don't have time to write a replacement? They took the time to write the repeal. They spend so much time telling others they have no time to write a replacement. They have enough time to participate in other drafting debates, too. Everybody here is just wasting their time on an internet forum. Waste a little less time telling everybody how little time you have, and instead waste that time writing a repeal you argue should be written.

[Araraukar]

Why do you repeal authors always say they don't have time to write a replacement? They took the time to write the repeal. They spend so much time telling others they have no time to write a replacement. They have enough time to participate in other drafting debates, too. Everybody here is just wasting their time on an internet forum. Waste a little less time telling everybody how little time you have, and instead waste that time writing a repeal you argue should be written.

Or delete the bit from the repeal where they say there should be a replacement, as that's clearly a lie of some sort.

OOC: G-R, there are times when your ability to say something so succintly that I can't think of any way to improve it, kind of make me sit and stare in awe. This particular statement is one of those times.

[Krioval]

"If I may interrupt the most noble gentleman of the Imperial Chiefdom: every single assertion you have made is fundamentally wrong.

To be fair, it wouldn't be my first time having done so. That said, I do not believe my position to be completely without merit.

A repeal is more complicated than 'is the original resolution flawed?' and an ambassador of your experience should not need to be reminded of this. Perhaps in Krioval, legislators address issues in isolation without any regard for the greater context, but in the World Assembly, we use a more sensible policy making procedure - that is, analyzing the issue and then crafting policy around it. Simply saying 'resolution A is flawed but any discussion of addressing the flaws of resolution A or even wondering whether or not it is the author's actual intention to address policy issue A is strictly prohibited' is so silly that I can't even properly articulate it.

While I would hardly call the legislative process in Krioval to be the pinnacle of efficiency and propriety, arguments over context can spiral out of control. Frequently, "Is the original resolution flawed?" is sufficient for a repeal. It helps that the legislature in Krioval can make amendments to proposed law during its debate and after its passage. Sometimes, though, we do need to use a blunt instrument when extant law is causing larger problems than it solves. Under no circumstances does the Imperial Chiefdom suggest that discussion on policy is forbidden when discussing a repeal effort, but given the constraints of the Assembly, we do believe that discussion of replacement legislation should not be conducted in the same debate as a repeal.

The fact of the matter is that making one's desire for a replacement known in a repeal discussion is not only germane but inherently connected to the process. The goal of the World Assembly is to address important policy issues and if an ambassador feels that a faulty resolution is better than no resolution at all, then it is entirely reasonable, assuming that the World Assembly addresses issues rationally and not single resolutions in isolation, to make one's vote contingent on the existence of a suitable replacement. Feel free to call voting based on the existence of a repeal 'intellectually bankrupt' but I hope you don't mind me saying that voting on repeals without any regard for the broader context is 'childish and sophomoric.' So please, either drop the ideological veil and simply state that you don't like the resolution and couldn't give a hoot as to whether or not it's replaced or at least make your argument more convincing than 'stop talking about addressing issue A in a thread that deals with issue A guys!!!'"

Perhaps the issue is of phrasing. I suppose that I would prefer delegations state, up front, that they do not believe the flaws of a resolution targeted by a repeal to be sufficient for the the repeal. Then the author can determine whether to offer replacement legislation, attempt to convince the other delegation that the flaws are significant enough to warrant immediate repeal, or to continue ahead without that delegation's support. Given that Your Excellency has already noted that any offered replacements are insufficient to date, I believe that your position is sufficiently clear without having to continue debate on a specific replacement in this location. We do support the ideals in the ICC resolution; however, the Imperial Chiefdom has not reached a decision as to where our further energies are best directed on this matter.

Tau Kriov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Rolvic]

Is it possible to just make a proposal that edits the original resolution instead of repealing one then writing a new one?

Wouldn't that be much faster and more helpful?

The Delegation of Rolvic, WA Delegate of Lacrentia

[District XIV]

Is it possible to just make a proposal that edits the original resolution instead of repealing one then writing a new one?

Wouldn't that be much faster and more helpful?

The Delegation of Rolvic, WA Delegate of Lacrentia

No, violates WA rules:

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

[Rolvic]

Is it possible to just make a proposal that edits the original resolution instead of repealing one then writing a new one?

Wouldn't that be much faster and more helpful?

The Delegation of Rolvic, WA Delegate of Lacrentia

No, violates WA rules:

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

Thanks. I did not know about that rule. Seems kind of time wasting but I guess there are benefits to it as well.

[Araraukar]

Thanks. I did not know about that rule. Seems kind of time wasting but I guess there are benefits to it as well.

The proposal rules are here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

If you're new to the GA forum, it's suggested you read through those to have a clearer idea of how things work here.

Amendments are illegal because there is no way to apply amendments into the game. Every resolution passed affects your nation's stats. Repealing a resolution removes those effects. An amendment would alter just one resolution's effects, and that mechanism doesn't exist.

[Rolvic]

Thanks. I did not know about that rule. Seems kind of time wasting but I guess there are benefits to it as well.

The proposal rules are here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

If you're new to the GA forum, it's suggested you read through those to have a clearer idea of how things work here.

Amendments are illegal because there is no way to apply amendments into the game. Every resolution passed affects your nation's stats. Repealing a resolution removes those effects. An amendment would alter just one resolution's effects, and that mechanism doesn't exist.

Thank-you.

Now the only issue I have with this is that it seems that the author of the Repeal does not have a plan to replace it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Thank-you.

Now the only issue I have with this is that it seems that the author of the Repeal does not have a plan to replace it.

"I'm not sure why your courts are unable to handle cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity/sapience. Certainly, ours are capable of handling those violations that occur under our jurisdiction. A replacement is unnecessary."

[Sciongrad]

Thank-you.

Now the only issue I have with this is that it seems that the author of the Repeal does not have a plan to replace it.

"I'm not sure why your courts are unable to handle cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity/sapience. Certainly, ours are capable of handling those violations that occur under our jurisdiction. A replacement is unnecessary."

"That line of reasoning is intellectually disingenuous. The issue is not whether member nations have competent court systems, it's preventing nations from harboring war criminals. Examplistan can have the most efficient and judicious court system in the world, but it's all for naught if they consciously choose to pardon or simply not prosecute a war criminal."

[Defwa]

Thank-you.

Now the only issue I have with this is that it seems that the author of the Repeal does not have a plan to replace it.

"I'm not sure why your courts are unable to handle cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity/sapience. Certainly, ours are capable of handling those violations that occur under our jurisdiction. A replacement is unnecessary."

Its never one's own country that's the problem. Its always everyone else.
That is to say we're concerned that other people's courts are going to be unable to handle the situation or are going to handle it inconsistently.
A court system friendly to the criminal can let them go with less than a slap on the wrist and other resolutions prevent any other court from retrying them and nobody else has rights to extradition.

I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I'm not sure why your courts are unable to handle cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity/sapience. Certainly, ours are capable of handling those violations that occur under our jurisdiction. A replacement is unnecessary."

Its never one's own country that's the problem. Its always everyone else.
That is to say we're concerned that other people's courts are going to be unable to handle the situation or are going to handle it inconsistently.
A court system friendly to the criminal can let them go with less than a slap on the wrist and other resolutions prevent any other court from retrying them and nobody else has rights to extradition.

I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise.

OOC: I honestly can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not - but yes, that is the case; and the "replacement" would (try to) formalise this process by banning any country from trying another country's cases (meaning if someone is simply never brought to justice for crimes against humanity, the WA is powerless to prevent them walking free).

[Separatist Peoples]

Its never one's own country that's the problem. Its always everyone else.
That is to say we're concerned that other people's courts are going to be unable to handle the situation or are going to handle it inconsistently.
A court system friendly to the criminal can let them go with less than a slap on the wrist and other resolutions prevent any other court from retrying them and nobody else has rights to extradition.

I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise.

"Short of mandating specific punishments, that is an issue you cannot avoid. Regardless of the leniency with which one is punished, it is horrific miscarriage of justice to try them for a crime twice simply because you don't approve of the end result the first time around. Between perverting an institution of justice to match your particular morals and allowing perpetrators of horrific crimes walk free, I find the threat of the occasional war criminal going unpunished the lesser of two evils."

[Sciongrad]

Its never one's own country that's the problem. Its always everyone else.
That is to say we're concerned that other people's courts are going to be unable to handle the situation or are going to handle it inconsistently.
A court system friendly to the criminal can let them go with less than a slap on the wrist and other resolutions prevent any other court from retrying them and nobody else has rights to extradition.

I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise.

"Short of mandating specific punishments, that is an issue you cannot avoid. Regardless of the leniency with which one is punished, it is horrific miscarriage of justice to try them for a crime twice simply because you don't approve of the end result the first time around. Between perverting an institution of justice to match your particular morals and allowing perpetrators of horrific crimes walk free, I find the threat of the occasional war criminal going unpunished the lesser of two evils."

"Yes, what a horrible miscarriage of justice it is for the World Assembly to try a perpetrator of genocide in its own jurisdiction because his home nation's punishment consisted of a $50 fine. Forcing member nations to recognize war crimes as legitimate crimes is not 'perverting an institution of justice,' and trying those that commit such crimes in lieu of their home nation's more lenient justice system is not a 'horrific miscarriage of justice.' Please, drop the hyperbole and NatSov fearmongering, you're embarrassing yourself."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yes, what a horrible miscarriage of justice it is for the World Assembly to try a perpetrator of genocide in its own jurisdiction because his home nation's punishment consisted of a $50 fine."

"Double jeopardy is wrong, no matter how you justify it. What you are insinuating is a barbaric perversion of WA standards of justice."

[Sciongrad]

"Yes, what a horrible miscarriage of justice it is for the World Assembly to try a perpetrator of genocide in its own jurisdiction because his home nation's punishment consisted of a $50 fine."

"Double jeopardy is wrong, no matter how you justify it. What you are insinuating is a barbaric perversion of WA standards of justice."

"That is not what double jeopardy is. Double jeopardy is trying an individual more than once for the same crime in the same jurisdiction. Trying an individual once in their home nation and then again in the ICC does not qualify as double jeopardy, so you're already wrong. But even if that was double jeopardy, you've completely misinterpreted its purpose. Double jeopardy is meant to protect defendants from government tyranny, not to protect known war criminals from facing justice. To argue that war criminals and perpetrators of genocide are the victims in this situation is so appalling and offensive that I'm not sure what else to say."

[Rolvic]

Thank-you.

Now the only issue I have with this is that it seems that the author of the Repeal does not have a plan to replace it.

"I'm not sure why your courts are unable to handle cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity/sapience. Certainly, ours are capable of handling those violations that occur under our jurisdiction. A replacement is unnecessary."

My courts can handle war criminals just fine (although they have not had to do so very often, except in the case of some high ranking cult leaders long ago). My issue is that if this is repealed without a replacement, then other nations can harbor war criminals without even a possibility of them being charged for their horrible crimes.

I do not see why you are so against a replacement bill. As a democratic nation, I would assume that you would be more in favor or trying people who have committed awful crimes in a court of law.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Yes, what a horrible miscarriage of justice it is for the World Assembly to try a perpetrator of genocide in its own jurisdiction because his home nation's punishment consisted of a $50 fine."

"Double jeopardy is wrong, no matter how you justify it. What you are insinuating is a barbaric perversion of WA standards of justice."

"I'm sorry: are you seriously suggesting that attempting to bring a war criminal to justice because their home nation refuses to try them or hold a thorough trial or levy an appropriate penalty is a 'barbaric perversion'? Your arguments are even more beneath contempt than usual. Maybe the ICC headquarters has a different law of gravity than WA member nations, too."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Araraukar]

"Maybe the ICC headquarters has a different law of gravity than WA member nations, too."

"One should certainly hope it has more sensibility than the opinions of some people around here."

[Ainocra]

"Double jeopardy is wrong, no matter how you justify it. What you are insinuating is a barbaric perversion of WA standards of justice."

"I'm sorry: are you seriously suggesting that attempting to bring a war criminal to justice because their home nation refuses to try them or hold a thorough trial or levy an appropriate penalty is a 'barbaric perversion'? Your arguments are even more beneath contempt than usual. Maybe the ICC headquarters has a different law of gravity than WA member nations, too."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

There are people out there that would claim I have been "let off" as you would put it.

Are you suggesting that I be tried again for allegations I have already been found innocent of once?