[PASSED] International Criminal Court

[Quelesh]

Hindopia will not stand for this legislation. If a nation's government is found guilty of breaches to WA law, then that government could very easily avoid punishment by simply leaving the WA. As the ambassador from Flibbleites put it: Another Useless Committee. I do not intend to sound harsh or rude, but I would like to voice my opinion strongly.

This proposal does not seek to punish governments, Ambassador Harrowsing; rather, it seeks to punish those individuals who commit the most heinous of crimes who will not face justice by any other means.

I feel this interpretation would compel us to arrest non-member states and hold them to a WA standard, which isn't universally accepted, or every nation would sign up. We cannot legislate over those individuals just because they step foot on our soil. We could cause may international incidents (Would you want to arrest a President on a state visit?)

If a nation's president had committed crimes so awful and egregious that they justify an ICC arrest warrant, then yes. Justice for the worst crimes is worth a few international incidents.

((OOC: Believe me, your work is very good and in RL I'd agree, but RPing my nation, I feel it would not be in the best interests of most nations to have a court. As ever though, I wish you the very best of luck.))

OOC: Thank you I enjoy these IC disagreements.

[Quelesh]

New draft has been posted to the OP.

Again, only a couple minor changes this time:

1. Changed "home nation" to "home jurisdiction" in the AUTHORIZE clause. This allows for courts not based in a defendant's home nation who would claim jurisdiction over a defendant to try them (e.g. regional courts, in particular). The ICC would not issue an arrest warrant in such a case.

2. Changed each incidence of "sapient creatures" to "sapient beings." The word "creatures" may sound insulting to some, and it implies a creation, which might make a religious or theological statement I don't intend to make here. Also it saves a few characters.

Posting the new draft on this page:

(Human rights / significant)

The Assembled Nations of the World,

APPALLED that sapient beings are still subjected to genocide, torture and other atrocities;

DETERMINED that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes face justice;

DISTRESSED that there now exists no international justice system by which to try them should their home nations refuse to do so;

DEFINING, for the purpose of this resolution:

A. "Genocide" as any act intended to destroy, in whole or in part, any group of sapient beings on the basis of a shared ancestry, nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, culture, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age or age range or any other identifiable real or perceived characteristic

B. "War crimes" as any of the following committed as part of armed conflict:
1. Military actions that intentionally target civilians, resulting in civilian casualties
2. Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies
3. Mass internment or use for slave labor of civilians
4. Excessive destruction of occupied areas or natural resources
5. The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population

C. "Crimes against humanity" as any of the following committed as part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient beings:
1. Murder
2. Torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment
3. Forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence
4. Forced population transfer;

hereby ESTABLISH the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the purpose of bringing to justice those responsible for the above crimes;

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes, in situations in which their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice;

INSIST that no warrant be issued by the ICC without probable cause;

REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;

PROHIBIT member states from using military force against any nation for the purpose of apprehending wanted persons;

STRONGLY URGE member states to pursue the extradition of wanted persons not under their jurisdictions by all legal and peaceful means; and

TASK the ICC with detaining suspects before trial, trying those accused and implementing the sentences of those convicted, subject to the following:

A. Pre-trial detainees ("defendants") have the following rights: a reasonably speedy trial, competent legal representation, to call witnesses on their behalf and examine witnesses against them, to refuse to incriminate themselves and to fully understand and participate in the proceedings

B. The ICC shall not convict a defendant without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

C. An acquitted defendant shall be immediately and unconditionally released to their nation of origin or, if that nation will not accept them, another consenting nation

D. The ICC shall not transfer any person to any nation unless reasonably certain that the person will not be subject to torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment as a result

E. Once acquitted by the ICC, no person shall be retried by the ICC or any member state for the same offense

F. The ICC shall never impose the death penalty

G. No defendant or person held after conviction ("convict") shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment

H. Convicts shall have the right to present to the ICC exculpatory evidence that was not available at trial; the ICC may reverse a conviction at any time.

Character count: 3,475

[Quelesh]

I've asked for mod vetting here.

[NERVUN]

I've asked for mod vetting here.

Here's the vetting:

1. Is this proposal illegal due to metagaming, in that it could affect individuals who are not citizens of WA member states?
My feeling is yes. WA rules demand that the WA leaves non-WA nations the hell alone. While you do your level best to restrict WA members from any actual interference in non-WA nations and creates a mere paper tiger that has no actual bite, it is still is calling on the non-WA to acknowledge a WA resolution. I know that, according to your system, you do not require non-WA to extradite their citizens and WA members cannot invade to go get them, but what happens if, say, I, as a non-WA nation RP my leader having caused the genocide of NERVUN's small minority of catgirls. Since I'm not WA, my leader doesn't have to go to the ICC. But, let's say afterwards my leader goes to a WA nation for a confrence. That nation, under this, would have to arrest and extradite him then, thus forcing me to do something according to an WA stat.

2. Does this proposal duplicate (or contradict) the Convention Against Genocide?
My take on it is no. The Convention is broadly worded enough that this proposal would become part of the authority.

3. Does this proposal, since it would necessitate security guards and so forth at the detention facility to guard defendants and convicts, create a "WA police"?
My feeling is that it would. Right now, they are just guards. But what happens if someone attempts to spring the prisoner? Or if the prisoner escapes? Those guards would end up being a paramilitary force that would be empowered to either resist an invasion or go after their convicts. This would create a WA Army or World Police.

4. Is the category/strength appropriate?
Seems to be ok

Further issues:
The forbidding of retrial to member nations conflicts with resolution 67 (Habeas Corpus) as it allows for the retrial of nationals as well runs afoul of metagaming.
Inclusion of torture as a crime against humanity conflicts with resolution 9 (Prevention of Torture) as it expressly directs all WA nations to conduct trials under their own authority for those accused of tortue.
Also, it seems that the ICC duplicates a lot of resolution 62 (For the Detained and Convicted) in the treatment of prisoners of the ICC.

However, I think that you could just reference #62 with a broad "Convicts of the ICC will be treated according to International Law as defined by the World Assembly". That lets you reference without building a house of cards because if the WA repeals those resolutions, who's to say just what those laws are then? The conflicts as well as the WA World Police could be handled along the same lines. You don't have to actually call upon the resloutions by number, and if those do get repealed, you can submit and build your own again.

[Quelesh]

Thank you very much; you've clarified the rules for me here a great deal and brought things to my attention that I hadn't considered.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to redraft this proposal so that it's legal, but I'm not entirely certain that I'm going to. It may be better to go about this a different way. I'll decide over the next few days.

Thanks again, mods.

[Bears Armed]

I've asked for mod vetting here.

Here's the vetting:

1. Is this proposal illegal due to metagaming, in that it could affect individuals who are not citizens of WA member states?
My feeling is yes. WA rules demand that the WA leaves non-WA nations the hell alone. While you do your level best to restrict WA members from any actual interference in non-WA nations and creates a mere paper tiger that has no actual bite, it is still is calling on the non-WA to acknowledge a WA resolution. I know that, according to your system, you do not require non-WA to extradite their citizens and WA members cannot invade to go get them, but what happens if, say, I, as a non-WA nation RP my leader having caused the genocide of NERVUN's small minority of catgirls. Since I'm not WA, my leader doesn't have to go to the ICC. But, let's say afterwards my leader goes to a WA nation for a confrence. That nation, under this, would have to arrest and extradite him then, thus forcing me to do something according to an WA stat.

Of course, if that president happened to be guilty of international piracy then any WA nation that he visited would -- if the fact was brought to their attention during (or before) the visit -- have to arrest & try him for the offences concerned due to GA Resolution #20...
Doesn't that set a precedent for allowing this point?
In the past the rule about not affecting non-member states has always (as far as I can recall) meant that "Resolutions can not bind (or even urge) non-member states to any actions", and not "Resolutions can not let member nations do anything to any citizens of non-member nations who enter their territories"...
EDIT:: [OOC] In the situation that you describe you wouldn't be forced "to do something because of a WA stat", your president would be affected because you chose to send him there despite the WA law...[/OOC]

3. Does this proposal, since it would necessitate security guards and so forth at the detention facility to guard defendants and convicts, create a "WA police"?
My feeling is that it would. Right now, they are just guards. But what happens if someone attempts to spring the prisoner? Or if the prisoner escapes? Those guards would end up being a paramilitary force that would be empowered to either resist an invasion or go after their convicts. This would create a WA Army or World Police.

So how about WA HQ's security guards, who would also have to resist an invasion if one were actually acknowledged IC as happening? Aren't they an adequate precedent for such a (limited-in-scope) WA agency?

[Tarrentum]

I can't see how this could be enforcable upon Rogue States, Dictatorships or Tyrannical Kingdoms (and the like). Because this document would be wholly unenforcable, the Great Council of [[Tarrentum]], along with the Supreme President Cesare Italiana have decided to condemn this document at home and abroad.

[NERVUN]

I've asked for mod vetting here.

Here's the vetting:

1. Is this proposal illegal due to metagaming, in that it could affect individuals who are not citizens of WA member states?
My feeling is yes. WA rules demand that the WA leaves non-WA nations the hell alone. While you do your level best to restrict WA members from any actual interference in non-WA nations and creates a mere paper tiger that has no actual bite, it is still is calling on the non-WA to acknowledge a WA resolution. I know that, according to your system, you do not require non-WA to extradite their citizens and WA members cannot invade to go get them, but what happens if, say, I, as a non-WA nation RP my leader having caused the genocide of NERVUN's small minority of catgirls. Since I'm not WA, my leader doesn't have to go to the ICC. But, let's say afterwards my leader goes to a WA nation for a confrence. That nation, under this, would have to arrest and extradite him then, thus forcing me to do something according to an WA stat.

Of course, if that president happened to be guilty of international piracy then any WA nation that he visited would -- if the fact was brought to their attention during (or before) the visit -- have to arrest & try him for the offences concerned due to GA Resolution #20...
Doesn't that set a precedent for allowing this point?
In the past the rule about not affecting non-member states has always (as far as I can recall) meant that "Resolutions can not bind (or even urge) non-member states to any actions", and not "Resolutions can not let member nations do anything to any citizens of non-member nations who enter their territories"...
EDIT:: [OOC] In the situation that you describe you wouldn't be forced "to do something because of a WA stat", your president would be affected because you chose to send him there despite the WA law...[/OOC]

In this case the problem is the target of this particular resolution. Normally, heads of states don't go about playing pirate (And if you bring up PotC I swear I shall beat you about the head and shoulders with a dead cod) also, normally, private citizens don't commit crimes against humanity/genocide. The actions of this resolution are aimed more at governments and the people within them than just private citizens. It would, in effect, be keeping non-WA members from interacting with WA members. While that might make for interesting RP (And certainly a real life case of it is causing General to yell at each other right now), it does go against the rules.

That said, this is my reasoning for it and Ard has agreed that it might be metagaming. She might have a different reasoning and of course any future conflict will result in a Mod fight until we get things squared away (Or the opposing Mod locked up in a closet).

3. Does this proposal, since it would necessitate security guards and so forth at the detention facility to guard defendants and convicts, create a "WA police"?
My feeling is that it would. Right now, they are just guards. But what happens if someone attempts to spring the prisoner? Or if the prisoner escapes? Those guards would end up being a paramilitary force that would be empowered to either resist an invasion or go after their convicts. This would create a WA Army or World Police.

So how about WA HQ's security guards, who would also have to resist an invasion if one were actually acknowledged IC as happening? Aren't they an adequate precedent for such a (limited-in-scope) WA agency?

You covered invasion, what about escaped convicts? The WA HQ guards are there for the security of the delegates. They do not guard prisoners. They are not responcible for their care, movements, control thereof, and so on. GIven, again, you're talking about high level prisoners whom would not be tried in their home countries, those home countries would probably disagree with the lable of genocide. They might be slightly angry, and they might even attempt to send over an army to spring their guy out of jail. The WA HQ guys are there for when people need a dunk in the pool, not to make a large part of their mission to keep a special forces unit out. Nor do they leave the WA HQ. So if the convict does escape, who gets to go after them? The minute the guards leave, being empowered to go after their prisoner, they cease to be guards and become police.

[Poree]

I have to say I am glad to see I did read the Guard/Police issue correctly. Some day I may understand enough to try my own draft.

[Ardchoille]

I'm going to have to reverse both Nerv and myself on the metagaming aspect, and my thanks to Bears Armed for clarifying that point. My first response to the query was to say, "No, it's not metagaming, because the non-WA state doesn't have to do anything," but then I fell into the totally amateur-reviewer trap of listening to the story instead of looking at the plot.

This, of course, has long been the bedrock of proposal writing in relation to non-WA members:

Resolutions can not bind (or even urge) non-member states to any actions.

And it's resolution writing we're talking about. RP can follow from them, but it doesn't have to, and players don't have to consider it while writing. Only our characters have to think of RP effects. In Nerv's example, the roleplayed WA state, under this proposal, would have to try to arrest the leader who committed genocide. But the non-WA player doesn't have to let his RPd leader be arrested. There is no WA-created obligation on the non-WA player to do anything.

Quelesh's proposal and Unibot's stateless criminals proposal have both raised the question of when is a police force not a police force, and I think the mods will have to try to hammer out a definitive post on that. Since this is obviously one we're going to have to get right, it's not going to be speedy.

[Quelesh]

The police force issue, if it does in fact create a WA police, would be the most difficult issue to fix. The others are relatively easy revisions, even more so if not specifically excluding citizens of non-member states is not metagaming. I suppose I could specify that guards cannot leave the detention facility to pursue escaped prisoners, and that their rearrest is the responsibility of the nation hosting the facility, but I think it's better if the proposal doesn't mention the facility or guards at all. Less to misinterpret that way.

[Diatraba]

I would like to interrupt the hubub of arguments on legality of resolutions to inform the assembly that this resolution has reached quorum with fifty-seven approvals. Congratulations Ms Harper.

I also ask if I may take the Speaker's chair for this session? Or has it already been taken? in which case, I will take the next available chair down from Speaker (possibly Deputy Speaker)

Good luck to all concerned, and I hope this resolution passes - this is a good resolution with a good aim

Je voudrais d'interrompre les arguments sur la légalité des résolutions d'informer l'Assemblée que cette résolution a atteint le quorum de cinquante-sept autorisations. Félicitations Mme Harper.

Je demande aussi si je peut prendre le fauteuil du président de cette session? Ou at-elle déjà été prises? Dans ce cas, je vais prendre le prochain président disponibles à partir de Président (peut-être vice-président)

Bonne chance à toutes les parties concernées, et j'espère que cette résolution est adoptée - il s'agit d'une bonne résolution avec un bon objectif

MODEDIT -- translation shove behind tags.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Umm, there's a topic for that, honoured ambassador.

The question on this draft is that where will international trials be held? Like the Olympics, I feel that there is a venue problem. Alternatively, would it be better, like the WAHQ, not to specify a location at all?

I for once applaud the author of International Criminal Court for daring to take on such a huge challenge and really hope to see the final product soon. but then it has to be devoid of illegalities.

[Kryozerkia]

I would like to interrupt the hubub of arguments on legality of resolutions to inform the assembly that this resolution has reached quorum with fifty-seven approvals. Congratulations Ms Harper.

I also ask if I may take the Speaker's chair for this session? Or has it already been taken? in which case, I will take the next available chair down from Speaker (possibly Deputy Speaker)

Good luck to all concerned, and I hope this resolution passes - this is a good resolution with a good aim

Je voudrais d'interrompre les arguments sur la légalité des résolutions d'informer l'Assemblée que cette résolution a atteint le quorum de cinquante-sept autorisations. Félicitations Mme Harper.

Je demande aussi si je peut prendre le fauteuil du président de cette session? Ou at-elle déjà été prises? Dans ce cas, je vais prendre le prochain président disponibles à partir de Président (peut-être vice-président)

Bonne chance à toutes les parties concernées, et j'espère que cette résolution est adoptée - il s'agit d'une bonne résolution avec un bon objectif

You have been previously instructed by Moderation to place your translations in spoiler tags. This rule extends to everyone, including you.

Oh and here's the thread in Moderation where this was dealt with previously. Just to refresh your memory. Tags added.

[Ardchoille]

<snip>

I note that the time on this post is after the time at which you received a Voice of Mod telegram telling you to stop the non-English posting without spoilers.

You have now been told on the forums by myself, Kryozerkia and Flibbleites to stop doing that. You have received personal advice from Euroslavia not to do it. Ignoring individual moderators is, to say the least, unwise, but ignoring a Voice of Mod telegram is doomladen.

Step One: *** banned 24 hours for repeated non-English language spam ***.

[Quelesh]

The question on this draft is that where will international trials be held? Like the Olympics, I feel that there is a venue problem. Alternatively, would it be better, like the WAHQ, not to specify a location at all?

I for once applaud the author of International Criminal Court for daring to take on such a huge challenge and really hope to see the final product soon. but then it has to be devoid of illegalities.

I think it is infinitely preferable to not specify a location at all, and indeed to not mention anything about the specific logistics. Specifying that volunteer nations would host the trials, or the detention facility, or the behavior of guards, would really open the door to even more illegality, in my opinion. The WA police issue, though, may force me to specify things that I'd rather not. Like I said, I honestly have no idea how to solve that problem.

I wonder if the guards could be considered to be just committee members, since the ICC is really just a committee anyway. If the prisoners are guarded by WA gnomes, well I don't think they'd do anything illegal, would they?

Your support means a lot, though, and I appreciate it.

[NERVUN]

The question on this draft is that where will international trials be held? Like the Olympics, I feel that there is a venue problem. Alternatively, would it be better, like the WAHQ, not to specify a location at all?

I for once applaud the author of International Criminal Court for daring to take on such a huge challenge and really hope to see the final product soon. but then it has to be devoid of illegalities.

I think it is infinitely preferable to not specify a location at all, and indeed to not mention anything about the specific logistics. Specifying that volunteer nations would host the trials, or the detention facility, or the behavior of guards, would really open the door to even more illegality, in my opinion. The WA police issue, though, may force me to specify things that I'd rather not. Like I said, I honestly have no idea how to solve that problem.

I wonder if the guards could be considered to be just committee members, since the ICC is really just a committee anyway. If the prisoners are guarded by WA gnomes, well I don't think they'd do anything illegal, would they?

Your support means a lot, though, and I appreciate it.

Modly OOC: We've finally got a workaround made up that should, we hope, hold water.

IC: Honored Ambassador, if I may direct you to the opinion just released by the sec. viewtopic.php?p=1930637#p1930637 ? It may help with your conundrum.

[Grays Harbor]

It should be considered that if guards would make any specific WA prison illegal, then perhaps the prison itself may well be illegal. Just calling a prison guard a "committee member" instead of police is only semantics and a way to attempt to circumvent the rules. We do not believe that any mandated WA prison is really necessary.

Also, while we are not trribly in favour of this entire proposal, you may find this mod ruling, from another similar proposal, useful in regards to what is and what is not "WA Police"

[Quelesh]

Modly OOC: We've finally got a workaround made up that should, we hope, hold water.

IC: Honored Ambassador, if I may direct you to the opinion just released by the sec. viewtopic.php?p=1930637#p1930637 ? It may help with your conundrum.

That does indeed help a great deal. I think it provides a workable way to craft the proposal in such a way that it's legal. I'll still have to specify things that I'd rather not, but doing so in compliance with that ruling would only be a slight inconvenience, and I should have character space after I take out some specifics of detainee treatment (in favor of an "in accordance with international law" statement).

[Stash Kroh]

Gisela Hellspit flew through the defenestration window on her broomstick, cackling as she stepped into the festering snakepit. She hobbled over to approach the Quelesh table, putting a hex on the guards that tried to stop her with a simple wave of her hand.

We the peoples of Stash Kroh, propose a deal with the Quelesh delegation. Our Unibotian friends would like you to avoid any such arbitrations of stateless convicts in the situation of multilateral captures in your proposal -- if you avoid the topic, (as you have so far..? Yes?) -- then you will have the Unibotian delegation's full support for your proposal and a large deposit of uranium and weaved baskets for your government's needs.

Unibot, is of course currently drafting the "Multilateral Arbitration Act".

---

Yours

Gisela Hellspit
WA Ambassador to Stash Kroh,
Conjurer and Mistress of Vile, Toil and Cataclysm.

[Quelesh]

Gisela Hellspit flew through the defenestration window on her broomstick, cackling as she stepped into the festering snakepit. She hobbled over to approach the Quelesh table, putting a hex on the guards that tried to stop her with a simple wave of her hand.

We the peoples of Stash Kroh, propose a deal with the Quelesh delegation. Our Unibotian friends would like you to avoid any such arbitrations of stateless convicts in the situation of multilateral captures in your proposal -- if you avoid the topic, (as you have so far..? Yes?) -- then you will have the Unibotian delegation's full support for your proposal and a large deposit of uranium and weaved baskets for your government's needs.

Unibot, is of course currently drafting the "Multilateral Arbitration Act".

Leonard Roku, being the only person seated at his table, raises his eyebrows in moderate surprise as Ambassador Hellspit makes her unconventional entrance, absent-mindedly toying with his moustache as she speaks.

"Oh come now, Ambassador, surely these gentlemen here did not deserve that... um... whatever you have done to them just now."

Roku furrows his brow, then sighs and leans back in his chair.

"Regardless, as my proposal does not mention stateless convicts and does not address the issue of multilateral operations to capture wanted people, we certainly look forward to our uranium... And weaved baskets, of course. The things we could store in them, oh boy."

Roku shakes his head and smiles slightly, more to himself than to Ambassador Hellspit.

[Bears Armed]

Gisela Hellspit flew through the defenestration window on her broomstick, cackling as she stepped into the festering snakepit. She hobbled over to approach the Quelesh table, putting a hex on the guards that tried to stop her with a simple wave of her hand.

*(wonders what the Assembly Chamber's Acme Weapons Neutralisers will do to that... and to her...)*

[Stash Kroh]

Gisela Hellspit flew through the defenestration window on her broomstick, cackling as she stepped into the festering snakepit. She hobbled over to approach the Quelesh table, putting a hex on the guards that tried to stop her with a simple wave of her hand.

*(wonders what the Assembly Chamber's Acme Weapons Neutralisers will do to that... and to her...)*

Gisela Hellspit gave Mr. Bear a cold glare, and flew away on her broomstick... she decided that she would wait for another event to transform him into a human for shits and giggles.

[Quelesh]

New draft has been posted to the OP. It has been reproduced here for your convenience:

(Human rights / significant)

The Assembled Nations of the World,

APPALLED that sapient beings are still subjected to genocide, war crimes and other atrocities;

DETERMINED that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes face justice;

VEXED that there now exists no international justice system by which to try them should their home nations refuse to do so;

DEFINING, for the purpose of this resolution:

A. "Genocide" as any act intended to destroy, in whole or in part, any group of sapient beings on the basis of a shared ancestry, nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, culture, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age or age range or any other identifiable real or perceived characteristic

B. "War crimes" as any of the following committed as part of armed conflict:
1. Military actions that intentionally target civilians, resulting in civilian casualties
2. Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies
3. Mass internment or use for slave labor of civilians
4. Excessive destruction of occupied areas or natural resources
5. The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population

C. "Crimes against humanity" as any of the following committed as part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient beings:
1. Murder
2. Torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment
3. Forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence
4. Forced population transfer;

hereby ESTABLISH the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the purpose of bringing to justice those responsible for the above crimes;

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes, in situations in which their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless previously extant international law requires them to be tried in a different venue;

INSIST that no warrant be issued by the ICC without probable cause;

REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;

PROHIBIT member states from using military force against any nation for the purpose of apprehending wanted persons;

STRONGLY URGE member states to pursue the extradition of wanted persons not under their jurisdictions by all legal and peaceful means; and

TASK the ICC with trying those accused and sentencing those convicted, subject to the following:

A. The ICC shall contract with a member state to hold pre-trial detainees ("defendants") and to house, for the duration of their sentences, those convicted by the ICC ("convicts") and sentenced to incarceration

B. All persons held under this resolution shall be treated in accordance with international law

C. Defendants have the following rights: a reasonably speedy trial, competent legal representation, to call witnesses on their behalf and examine witnesses against them, to refuse to incriminate themselves and to fully understand and participate in the proceedings

D. The ICC shall not convict a defendant without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

E. An acquitted defendant shall be immediately and unconditionally released to their nation of origin or, if that nation will not accept them, another consenting nation

F. Once acquitted by the ICC, no person shall be retried by the ICC for the same offense

G. The ICC shall never impose the death penalty

H. Convicts shall have the right to present to the ICC exculpatory evidence that was not available at trial; the ICC may reverse a conviction at any time.

Character count: 3,477

Changes this time around:

1. I've added a clause specifying that the ICC shall contract with a member state to house detainees/convicts. This is not ideal, in my view, but according to the mods it resolves the "WA police" legality issues of having the detention facility be WA-run. See this thread for a detailed discussion.

2. I've removed the specific instructions on how prisoners are to be treated and replaced them with a catch-all clause stating that they must be treated "in accordance with international law." This prevents any possible duplication of GAR62 "For the Detained and Convicted" or other resolutions regarding prisoner treatment. Note that this also removed the language preventing the ICC from transfering individuals to nations where they may be tortured. This is not really a problem though, even in the case of a person who is acquitted and must be released, because GAR9 "Prevention of Torture" already prohibits people from being transfered to nations that may torture them.

3. I've removed the phrase "or any member state" from the retrial prohibition. It still prohibits double jeopardy within the ICC itself, but no longer prevents member states from retrying those acquitted by the ICC because, as has been pointed out to me by moderation, GAR67 "Habeas Corpus" unfortunately explicitly allows double jeopardy within member states.

4. I've included a phrase preventing the ICC from issuing an arrest warrant for a crime if "previously extant international law" requires that the crime be tried in a different venue. "Previously extant international law" is, in this case, a non-House-of-Cardish reference to GAR9 "Prevention of Torture." It was pointed out to me by Nervun that allowing the ICC to issue an arrest warrant for torture as a crime against humanity, and thus requiring the extradition of the person wanted for torture to the ICC, would contradict GAR9 because that resolution specifically requires member states to try torturers themselves. I didn't want to completely remove torture from the resolution, though, because if GAR9 is somehow repealed torture would then not be covered at all. The added phrasing here is a way around this problem. At this time, with GAR9 in effect, the ICC would be prohibited from issuing arrest warrants for torture, since GAR9 already requires torturers to be tried in a different venue. But if GAR9 is repealed, the ICC would then be able to start issuing warrants for torture as a crime against humanity.

5. A few minor word alterations to fiddle with character count.

I'm still definitely seeking input from all interested parties; I'm not going to submit this tomorrow or anything.

[Manticore Reborn]

The government of The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn has reviewed this proposal with great interest. We have several comments we would like to put before this assembly.

2. Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies

Our understanding is that Prisoners of War are already protected under World Assembly Resolution #18 and therefore this clause does not appear to be needed.

5. The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population

My government cannot support this proposal with the current wording and would like to suggest the following change to this clause:

5. The intentional targeting of civilian populations with nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn arsenal contains nuclear weapons of a tactical nature. Our military leaders will not be held responsible for civilian casualties when those civilians are too close to a valid tactical target.

My government also feels the "Crimes Against Humanity" section needs to include a clause criminalizing forced medical experimentation.

Additionally, my government strongly opposes the clause forbidding WA members from using military force to compel extradition of wanted war criminals. Our very kingdom has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of an attempted genocide and reserves the right to pursue those responsible with whatever means necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Lastly, we suggested the following change to section A of the ICC's tasks towards the accuesed:

A. The ICC shall contract with a neutral member state to hold pre-trial detainees ("defendants") and to house, for the duration of their sentences, those convicted by the ICC ("convicts") and sentenced to incarceration

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.