[PASSED] International Criminal Court

[Glen-Rhodes]

The liberty of criminals may be at stake, but their lives? Not at all. Of course, we are bracing ourselves for surrealistic forms of interpretation.

You try sitting in a prison for the rest of your 'life' and see how much you consider yourself alive.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sionis Prioratus]

The liberty of criminals may be at stake, but their lives? Not at all. Of course, we are bracing ourselves for surrealistic forms of interpretation.

You try sitting in a prison for the rest of your 'life' and see how much you consider yourself alive.

- Dr. B. Castro

Of course, we are bracing ourselves for surrealistic forms of interpretation.

We knew it. Later than expected, though.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

We knew it. Later than expected, though.

I hope you don't consider this string of conversation as a serious debate, because I've been sarcastic ever since talking to Mongkha.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sionis Prioratus]

We knew it. Later than expected, though.

I hope you don't consider this string of conversation as a serious debate, because I've been sarcastic ever since talking to Mongkha.

- Dr. B. Castro

Sheesh! May Your Excellency have some of this:

Yours,

[Quelesh]

Congratulations on attaining quorum. The only deciding factor of whether or not I would vote for this is if the ICC, by 'contracting' the incarceration of individuals, is providing any funds to the nations housing the criminals.

In regards to potential opposition: a major force is the automatic assumption that nations lose their judicial sovereignty. No matter how voluntary or sovereignty-friendly you write it, there will always be that assumption. Also, I would expect certain ambassadors to question the 'partiality' of his court. Most of all, I advise you contact the large voting delegates before this heads to vote. Especially try and convince them to not vote until a regional consensus is clear.

Thank you, Dr. Castro. I did not specify any terms of the contract in the proposal itself; that would be up to the ICC and the nation it contracts with. I imagine the ICC would try to get the best deal possible while still contracting with a reliable nation. There may be nations that volunteer to do it for free, but probably not. Either way, that's a matter for the ICC and the nation with which it contracts to decide.

I'm sure some opposition will come from those that oppose any kind of international judicial body under any circumstances, and I don't hold out much hope of persuading them to support this proposal.

So far as I can see this proposal simply outlaws the byproducts of war, such as civilian causalities . Which makes it a general attempt to outlaw war altogether in my view.
Not that I am in favor of targeting them mind you, but sometimes it is simply unavoidable.

Opposed

Civilian casualties are sometimes unavoidable in war, and this proposal does not attempt to outlaw them entirely. It outlaws targeting civilians. In order for an action to be considered a war crime under clause (B)(1), it has to "intentionally target" civilians. An attack against a military target, resulting in civilian "collateral damage," would not qualify.

For example, let us say that Nation A launches an attack (with conventional weapons) against a military production facility in Nation B that is manufacturing rockets that will be used against Nation A. The facility is located close to some civilians, and there are civilian casualties in the attack. Unless it could be shown that the attack "intentionally targeted" the civilians, instead of simply resulting in civilian casualties as a side effect, it would not qualify as a war crime under this proposal.

Weapons of mass destruction are a different category though. In order for an attack with WMDs to qualify as a war crime under clause (B)(5), all that is necessary is that (1) it resulted in civilian casualties and (2) the users of the WMDs knew in advance that civilian casualties are likely, regardless of whether civilians were "intentionally targeted" by the WMDs. WMDs tend to cause much greater damage and destruction than conventional weapons, so the threshold is lower for them.

Alexandria Yadoru
Interim Ambassador to the World Assembly
Empire of Quelesh

[Glen-Rhodes]

Thank you, Dr. Castro. I did not specify any terms of the contract in the proposal itself; that would be up to the ICC and the nation it contracts with. I imagine the ICC would try to get the best deal possible while still contracting with a reliable nation. There may be nations that volunteer to do it for free, but probably not. Either way, that's a matter for the ICC and the nation with which it contracts to decide.

Hm.. Well, as long as the ICC isn't explicitly given the authority to use World Assembly funds, I don't think it ever would use them. If that holds true, I'm reasonably comfortable with this court. Glen-Rhodes would likely lend its resources.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Guy0307]

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;

Mass murderers/rapists?

It does not define 'sapient beings' as an ethnic/religious/whatever group. And if you do go by the earlier definition, which includes sex, gender, and age, I can see how that may be a problem.
Any mass-rapist could be trailed by the ICC.

[Quelesh]

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;

Mass murderers/rapists?

It does not define 'sapient beings' as an ethnic/religious/whatever group. And if you do go by the earlier definition, which includes sex, gender, and age, I can see how that may be a problem.
Any mass-rapist could be trailed by the ICC.

The run-of-the-mill mass murderer or mass rapist probably wouldn't really qualify here. A single serial killer or mass rapist could theoretically meet the definition, if his actions were part of a "systematic attack on a population of sapient beings." That phrase doesn't specify categories of people like the genocide definition does, but as long as it's a "population" that's being systematically targetted, it could qualify.

However, such cases of single serial killers/rapists would probably not come to the attention of the ICC, and the ICC will probably have even more important caseload. Besides, the ICC would only be able to issue a warrant in such a case anyway if the home nation refused to bring the serial killer/rapist in question to justice.

[Ainocra]

Congratulations on attaining quorum. The only deciding factor of whether or not I would vote for this is if the ICC, by 'contracting' the incarceration of individuals, is providing any funds to the nations housing the criminals.

In regards to potential opposition: a major force is the automatic assumption that nations lose their judicial sovereignty. No matter how voluntary or sovereignty-friendly you write it, there will always be that assumption. Also, I would expect certain ambassadors to question the 'partiality' of his court. Most of all, I advise you contact the large voting delegates before this heads to vote. Especially try and convince them to not vote until a regional consensus is clear.

Thank you, Dr. Castro. I did not specify any terms of the contract in the proposal itself; that would be up to the ICC and the nation it contracts with. I imagine the ICC would try to get the best deal possible while still contracting with a reliable nation. There may be nations that volunteer to do it for free, but probably not. Either way, that's a matter for the ICC and the nation with which it contracts to decide.

I'm sure some opposition will come from those that oppose any kind of international judicial body under any circumstances, and I don't hold out much hope of persuading them to support this proposal.

So far as I can see this proposal simply outlaws the byproducts of war, such as civilian causalities . Which makes it a general attempt to outlaw war altogether in my view.
Not that I am in favor of targeting them mind you, but sometimes it is simply unavoidable.

Opposed

Civilian casualties are sometimes unavoidable in war, and this proposal does not attempt to outlaw them entirely. It outlaws targeting civilians. In order for an action to be considered a war crime under clause (B)(1), it has to "intentionally target" civilians. An attack against a military target, resulting in civilian "collateral damage," would not qualify.

For example, let us say that Nation A launches an attack (with conventional weapons) against a military production facility in Nation B that is manufacturing rockets that will be used against Nation A. The facility is located close to some civilians, and there are civilian casualties in the attack. Unless it could be shown that the attack "intentionally targeted" the civilians, instead of simply resulting in civilian casualties as a side effect, it would not qualify as a war crime under this proposal.

Weapons of mass destruction are a different category though. In order for an attack with WMDs to qualify as a war crime under clause (B)(5), all that is necessary is that (1) it resulted in civilian casualties and (2) the users of the WMDs knew in advance that civilian casualties are likely, regardless of whether civilians were "intentionally targeted" by the WMDs. WMDs tend to cause much greater damage and destruction than conventional weapons, so the threshold is lower for them.

Alexandria Yadoru
Interim Ambassador to the World Assembly
Empire of Quelesh

military installations are quite often near population centers.
And in many cases hardened against all but the most heavy assault.
Forcing the use of a weapon such as a nuclear or antimatter bomb.

The destruction of such a facility during a time of war would cause civilian casualties.
Regrettable, but necessary.

[Manticore Reborn]

military installations are quite often near population centers.
And in many cases hardened against all but the most heavy assault.
Forcing the use of a weapon such as a nuclear or antimatter bomb.

The destruction of such a facility during a time of war would cause civilian casualties.
Regrettable, but necessary.

We understand your concerns with this piece of legislation and Manticore Reborn is on record as supporting this view. However, after consultations with the author we feel that legitimate military operations would be protected. My government is of the opinion that only wanton disregard for civilian casualties or the intentional targeting of civilians would be grounds for indictment. Manticore Reborn understand that the representative from Ainocra does not care for legislation with grey areas, however, when dealing with so many different cultural beliefs as those that make up the world assembly, no legislation would be black and white for all parties. We must therefore grant that some laws must be open for interpretation.

[Ainocra]

oocly

Two words

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

Massive civilian casualties. Major population centers.
Tough Call?
yes
Saved millions more lives than it cost in the long run.

This proposal would make that a war crime.

I cannot support it, during war you need the freedom to make the tough calls from time to time.

Hence the phrase
"War is hell."

[Manticore Reborn]

oocly

Two words

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

Massive civilian casualties. Major population centers.
Tough Call?
yes
Saved millions more lives than it cost in the long run.

OOC: Debatable. Quickest way to end the war: Certainly.

IC: We understand Ainocra's point of view and will make no further efforts to dissuade the honored ambassador.
We simple disagree.

[Quelesh]

The use of low-yield tactical nukes against a hardened military facility would generally be acceptable, unless you intended to cause civilian casualties. Dropping a 20 megaton hydrogen bomb on a military facility in the middle of a populated city would not be acceptable.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki would definitely be war crimes, rightly so.

[Ainocra]

still oocly

I disagree, allied casualty estimates for an invasion of the japanese home islands exceeded 1 million troops.

Thats a cool million dead, and thats only allied soldiers, not japanese soldiers, not civilians.

The official death toll at the time was 118,000 though japan later changed it to around 140,000

kill 140k to save over a million?

hard choice, glad it's not one I have to make.

War crime?

No.

[Neutonica]

still oocly

I disagree, allied casualty estimates for an invasion of the japanese home islands exceeded 1 million troops.

Thats a cool million dead, and thats only allied soldiers, not japanese soldiers, not civilians.

The official death toll at the time was 118,000 though japan later changed it to around 140,000

kill 140k to save over a million?

hard choice, glad it's not one I have to make.

War crime?

No.

ooc,

the thing bout hiroshima and nagasaki is tt the bomb did not just kill jap civilians, but it affected the generations which survived as well. there were kids born with physical abnormalities and such. plus, the land was basically uninhabitable for years after the dropping of the bomb.

furthermore, the question of whether the bomb really did save a million lives has not really been answered yet. thing is, japan was already prepared to surrender, or on the brink rather, coz it was about tt point in time tt russia entered the war against japan. it cld be argued tt the americans dropped the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki, partly to prevent the russians from getting hold of part of japan's territory. coz as i think u guys very well know, cold war tensions were formenting at this time, and the us was alr suspicious of russia.

so, war crime? no idea.
history is written by the winners. at tt point in time, the war crime which overshadowed all belonged to the nazis.

[Airport Motor Lodge]

I sincerely apologize for not speaking up sooner, but my government is going to have to oppose this proposal. Of particular concern is the following clause:

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

(emphasis added)

Mere suspicion is an insufficient standard for the issuance of an arrest warrant. No person should be subject to arrest without probable cause.

-Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the General Assembly
Federal Republic of New Rockport

[Sionis Prioratus]

I sincerely apologize for not speaking up sooner,

IC: Same old, same old...

Yours,

[Quelesh]

I sincerely apologize for not speaking up sooner, but my government is going to have to oppose this proposal. Of particular concern is the following clause:

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

(emphasis added)

Mere suspicion is an insufficient standard for the issuance of an arrest warrant. No person should be subject to arrest without probable cause.

I direct Your Honor's attention to the clause immediately following the one you referenced:

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

[Airport Motor Lodge]

I sincerely apologize for not speaking up sooner, but my government is going to have to oppose this proposal. Of particular concern is the following clause:

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

(emphasis added)

Mere suspicion is an insufficient standard for the issuance of an arrest warrant. No person should be subject to arrest without probable cause.

I direct Your Honor's attention to the clause immediately following the one you referenced:

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

Well then, nevermind. The Federal Republic has no problem with this proposal. I apologize for not reading it more carefully.

[Quelesh]

The proposal is now at vote! I ask all WA members to vote in favor of this vital proposal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Even though I have no clue what "The Assembled Nations of the World" is, I'll cast my vote for. But, really, this is the World Assembly, not the Assembled Nations of the World, the World Assembled, the People of the World Assembled, the Assembled People of the World, or any other bastardization.

- Dr. B. Castro

[West Newmanistan]

B. "War crimes" as any of the following committed as part of armed conflict:

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


This clause is the only reason I am considering a vote against this resolution, and it's more for my personal ideals that killing an enemy during a war, surrendered or not, should not be considered a war crime.

Still may vote for it regardless. Will be a last minute decision probably.

[Quelesh]

Even though I have no clue what "The Assembled Nations of the World" is, I'll cast my vote for. But, really, this is the World Assembly, not the Assembled Nations of the World, the World Assembled, the People of the World Assembled, the Assembled People of the World, or any other bastardization.

- Dr. B. Castro

Hm, but the World Assembly is composed of nations from all over the world, that are assembled, no?

But thank you for your support!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Hm, but the World Assembly is composed of nations from all over the world, that are assembled, no?

Yes, but we pass resolutions under the aegis of the World Assembly. We don't have any power as a collective without being organized as the World Assembly. If my government ever wanted to, it could probably shoo the Compliance Commission away by saying Glen-Rhodes isn't bound by any laws created by "The Assembled Nations of the World". It's just a little pet peeve of mine... I'm sure a few other delegations could share stories about it.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sionis Prioratus]

It is my firm hope this World Assembly will finally receive a magnum opus! Instead of a cloaca maxima, as it has been recently attempted. Godspeed!

Always yours,