[PASSED] International Criminal Court

[Kulaloe]

My dear delegates: Would it not be a better idea to just invade nations that irrefutably engage in or harbour who have engaged in these atrosities? Annexation of these nations would allow them to come under your own laws. If these atrosities occur in another nation, it is out of your nations' jurisdiction, invasion is the only option!

Another method of dealing with governments that conduct genocide would be to assassinate the perpetrators. Kulaloe's airforce has many good assassins at its disposal for the elimination of genocidal maniacs. Just give us sufficient legitimate evidence of genocidal wrongdoing and we'll gladly deal with your enemies!

[Neutonica]

My dear delegates: Would it not be a better idea to just invade nations that irrefutably engage in or harbour who have engaged in these atrosities? Annexation of these nations would allow them to come under your own laws. If these atrosities occur in another nation, it is out of your nations' jurisdiction, invasion is the only option!

Another method of dealing with governments that conduct genocide would be to assassinate the perpetrators. Kulaloe's airforce has many good assassins at its disposal for the elimination of genocidal maniacs. Just give us sufficient legitimate evidence of genocidal wrongdoing and we'll gladly deal with your enemies!

So, representative from Kulaloe, you suggest we kill more people to stop these people from killing people? It's a little hypocritical, no?

[343 Guilty Sparks]

Just been reading books with the actual ICC in them and just wondering, what if a war-crime happens in a non-WA member state, but the action to do said war-crime happened in a WA member state. So would the ICC be able to pertain authority over this war-crime and does the ICC have the power to take authority in non-WA member states.

[Quelesh]

Just been reading books with the actual ICC in them and just wondering, what if a war-crime happens in a non-WA member state, but the action to do said war-crime happened in a WA member state. So would the ICC be able to pertain authority over this war-crime and does the ICC have the power to take authority in non-WA member states.

If a citizen of a non-member state commits a war crime as defined by this proposal, the ICC could issue an arrest warrant for him. It would not be able to force the non-member state to hand him over for trial, because the WA has no authority whatsoever over non-member states. The proposal does, however, require any member state to extradite this person to the ICC, if he happens to be within the jurisdiction of a member state.

[Enn]

Some arbitrary manner which will immediately be abused by nations seeking to further their own political ideals at the cost of trampling all those who disagree with them into the dirt... Just like all other WA committee members are chosen.

Until a satisfactory answer has been given by the author, I have been instructed to withhold our nation's vote or to vote against. I am withholding our vote.

OOC: Committees are filled by the World Assembly, without any political or ideological bias. Nations play no part in their choosing.

*rubs hands together evily*

So much roleplaying potential... so much... so much...

OOC: Back before it was clearly stated in the rules that committees were not filled by nations, there was an attempt to RP one such committee, the Pretenama Panel (which was to investigate, and possibly prevent through military force, acts of genocide). It, er, didn't go down well.

[MI Social Engineering]

Our scientists are hesitant to accept this vote. Various factions strongly believe that while these crimes are indeed horrible, and it is most tragic that that happen, but if they do not happen outside of the borders of the nation committing them, that it is not the jurisdiction of the WA. If a small group of psychotic despots were making their own citizens battle in a gladiatorial arena, it is that country's problem to deal with, as well as individuals who are personally morally outraged by this action.

3. Forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence
4. Forced population transfer;

We also strongly object to these clauses. Our nation is a small, dangerous and resource poor place. We can not afford to have children who will only die themselves, our cause the death of those around them.

Say we have a blind child, the child is already alive, and is already very blind. It would be cruel, and a violation of previous clauses not quoted, if we were summarily execute the child. Is it any less cruel when the child wanders into one of our many traps due to her problem and kills not only herself but those she cares for?

I am not saying we should kill the girl outright, though her condition makes her a danger to those around her. We can't fix the blindness, and it would be morally wrong to punish the child in such a way for something that is not her fault.

We can, however, prevent more blind children who will die cruelly by sterilizing her and her parents. It may sound cruel to you, but for us we are simply preventing the probable deaths of many people by removing this one trait from our breeding population.

And if the mass relocation clause passes as is, we will force every person in our country with blond hair to move 5 feet to their left exactly 24 hours after the passing of the bill, thus qualifying for a war crime.

[Nova Mykenae]

Not only do I vote against this resolution, but good luck enforcing it in my nation. This is an affront to sovereignty.

[The Firestones]

This is just a resolution to make powerful nations feel like they're "doing something" about the wrongs of less-powerful nations. The poorer the nation, the more likely the court would get air-time and make wonderful speeches. When corporations taint the food and destroy the natural environment, this world court will not do anything.

[Bhuddekistan]

Not only do I vote against this resolution, but good luck enforcing it in my nation. This is an affront to sovereignty.

Another conservative. You do realise that the policies of conservatism (which are to stay out of world organisations) and the World Assembly (which represents the liberalist policy of becoming involved in world affiars) do not match. I strongly suggest that conservative nations thoroughly consider before joining this organisation.

You do realize that a person can be conservative on issues while still having a World View at the same time? I did not support this god awful piece of legislation because by the definition of genocide, no group of anything can ever be targeted because of who they are. If they are, then I would be tried for genocide.

What happens if a group of rebels create a faction within my country? Am I to simply roll over for them? Because by this law, as it stands, they would be a protected group and by killing them (treason is still treason after all) I could be brought up on "War Crimes". I echo the idea of good luck enforcing that. Once your national sovereignty has been challenged, I think a motion will over turn this.

Llama of Bhuddekistan

[Nullarni]

Not only do I vote against this resolution, but good luck enforcing it in my nation. This is an affront to sovereignty.

Another conservative. You do realise that the policies of conservatism (which are to stay out of world organisations) and the World Assembly (which represents the liberalist policy of becoming involved in world affiars) do not match. I strongly suggest that conservative nations thoroughly consider before joining this organisation.

No. It has nothing to do with conservatism, but I suppose its difficult to demonize peoples opinions without calling them conservatives, huh?

[Cbngggfv]

I think this bill is great but in it said something abou anboby using slave labor shall be under arrest.So in that part you were trying to end slavery is that correct.

[Southrons United]

National Sovereignty comes first.

[Nullarni]

National Sovereignty comes first.

Unfortunately, the WA is the wrong place for that. Thats why there are so few of us NatSovers here. There are only a few of us holding the line here.

[Southrons United]

The WA is to guide not control.

[Nullarni]

The WA is to guide not control.

Perhaps in theory, but not in practice.

[Southrons United]

Well if this passes then I will defendantly leave the WA

[Cbngggfv]

I thought that this bill was to help people not hurt us and your saying instaed of jusu trial them in the court you want to trail yhem in the world assembly building.

[Southrons United]

It is the Nation's responsibilty not the WA.

[Nullarni]

Well if this passes then I will defendantly leave the WA

No, don't do that. I have seen this countless times. Someone opposes a resolution, and it wins, so they leave. Do none of you see that if you keep leaving you are making the situation worse. You are quitting precisely because other people who agree with you quit and are no longer here to support your veiws. Its not the leftist nations making you quit, its the nations who agree with you but left. And if you quit it will be your fault too when the next guy quits.

[Southrons United]

Well if this passes then I will defendantly leave the WA

No, don't do that. I have seen this countless times. Someone opposes a resolution, and it wins, so they leave. Do none of you see that if you keep leaving you are making the situation worse. You are quitting precisely because other people who agree with you quit and are no longer here to support your veiws. Its not the leftist nations making you quit, its the nations who agree with you but left. And if you quit it will be your fault too when the next guy quits.

Yes, but are imposing laws that threaten my nation's sovereignty. OK so I may not leave but I will fight it hard.

[Nullarni]

Well if this passes then I will defendantly leave the WA

No, don't do that. I have seen this countless times. Someone opposes a resolution, and it wins, so they leave. Do none of you see that if you keep leaving you are making the situation worse. You are quitting precisely because other people who agree with you quit and are no longer here to support your veiws. Its not the leftist nations making you quit, its the nations who agree with you but left. And if you quit it will be your fault too when the next guy quits.

Yes, but are imposing laws that threaten my nation's sovereignty. OK so I may not leave but I will fight it hard.

Yes, stay. And we will fight it together.

For the record, NatSov is a valid arguement against a proposal. It just won't hold up once it has been passed and that is your only arguement for repeal.

[Southrons United]

Well if this passes then I will defendantly leave the WA

No, don't do that. I have seen this countless times. Someone opposes a resolution, and it wins, so they leave. Do none of you see that if you keep leaving you are making the situation worse. You are quitting precisely because other people who agree with you quit and are no longer here to support your veiws. Its not the leftist nations making you quit, its the nations who agree with you but left. And if you quit it will be your fault too when the next guy quits.

Yes, but are imposing laws that threaten my nation's sovereignty. OK so I may not leave but I will fight it hard.

Yes, stay. And we will fight it together.

For the record, NatSov is a valid arguement against a proposal. It just won't hold up once it has been passed and that is your arguement for repeal.

Well together we might get support for a repealment but only if this is a close call.

[Nullarni]

Well together we might get support for a repealment but only if this is a close call.

I am sure you will be in good company when you make the move. I would be surprized if others don't beat you to it.

[Southrons United]

Well together we might get support for a repealment but only if this is a close call.

I am sure you will be in good company when you make the move. I would be surprized if others don't beat you to it.

yeah hopefully we don't need to repeal it.

[Cbngggfv]

I want to know how much of it is going to cost,where are yougiong to get the money,and how will the judges be picked.