NationStates

Manticore Reborn wrote: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.

I sincerely thank Your Excellency for your interest in my proposal and for your suggestions.

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.

GAR18 does indeed prohibit the governments of WA member states from mistreating POWs. The purpose of including the above clause in my proposal is to allow the ICC to issue warrants for individuals who commit such acts, in situations where their home nation refuses to try them. This could happen, for example, if a rogue operator in a member state abuses or kills POWs, and once he is caught the nation's government refuses to prosecute. It could also happen in the case of a citizen of a non-member state mistreating POWs. Therefore, I feel that, even though governments of WA member states are prohibited from mistreating POWs, this clause is still useful.

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.

You make a valid point about tactical nuclear weapons, Ambassador. You suggest exempting accidental usage of nuclear weapons against civilians? This may allow the use of tactical nukes where the presence of civilians was unknown, resulting in collateral damage, but it might also be used to justify the use of much larger strategic nuclear bombs, ostensibly against a military facility, but one that is very near to a heavily populated area, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands or more. Those who committed this crime would say that the target was the military facility, and that the civilians were just collateral damage, and that, since the civilians were not intentionally targeted, they cannot be arrested for it. I am not inclined to allow this.

I am, however, certainly open to further discussion of tactical nukes, and may be open to revising the proposal to address them, although the character limit is a serious problem for me still.

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

I would be open to including such a clause, if at some point in future revisions the character limit will allow me to do so. There is currently a proposal, "Medical Research Ethics Act," submitted but not yet in the queue (and with only 29 minutes left, it doesn't look like it will gain the needed approvals). A separate proposal, similar to that one, may be the best vehicle to prohibit 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.

I certainly commend your nation's dedication to and pursuit of justice. However, allowing member states to use military force to apprehend wanted persons would, unfortunately, be illegal according to the rules for WA proposals. Proposals cannot directly affect non-member states. I am able to allow the ICC to issue arrest warrants for individuals that are citizens of non-member states because those non-member states are not compelled to actually do anything as a result. I would like to compel them to hand the person over, but doing so would be illegal, and my proposal must follow the rules. Allowing military force would be an illegal compulsion against non-member states. Therefore, I must specifically prohibit military force to ensure the proposal's legality.

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

After first hearing this suggestion my inclination was to make the change. The wording certainly sounds good. The problem would come when one attempts to define "neutral." Presumeably, a neutral member state would be one that does not have any citizens as defendants or convicts of the ICC. What happens, though, if the ICC then issues a warrant for a citizen of the member state with which it is contracting to house convicts? If the proposal requires that this member state be "neutral," then the ICC would have to immediately void the contract and contract instead with a different member state, arranging for the transfer of all prisoners, etc. It's also possible (though unlikely) that at some point in the future, every WA member state will have at least one citizen that is a defendant or convict of the ICC. What then?

I would say that the "neutral" wording is not necessary. The ICC would obviously only contract with a member state known for its neutrality, and even if one of that state's citizens were in the ICC's system, that state would have an international obligation to not do anything underhanded (releasing that person, for example). If it tried, the ICC would certainly void the contract and seek out another state to house the convicts. I think it would be counterproductive (and also impossible due to the character limit) to try to specify all of this in the proposal itself, so it's best to just leave it alone.

Again, I thank Your Excellency for the suggestions and am open to any further discussion of them, or further suggestions regarding the tactical nukes issue.

I am strongly in opposition of this bill and any like it. The judiciary system is one of the only things that should not be internationalized. Every single government has rules of its own, and most national debates are about those rules, and just imagine the misconceptions at the international level. Also some punishments are more strict then in other countries.
What about the death Penalty, will other countries execute my citizens?
What about torture, will other countries torture my citizens?
What about standards in jail, will other countries be set to those standards?
What about personal needs of inmates, will they be subject to obey the needs that were set out by the Republic of Maple?
What about the extradition agreements, will they be stifled?
If you want to attempt to even pass a bill like this those controversial questions need to be addressed?

American MapleStory wrote:I am strongly in opposition of this bill and any like it. The judiciary system is one of the only things that should not be internationalized. Every single government has rules of its own, and most national debates are about those rules, and just imagine the misconceptions at the international level. Also some punishments are more strict then in other countries.
What about the death Penalty, will other countries execute my citizens?
What about torture, will other countries torture my citizens?
What about standards in jail, will other countries be set to those standards?
What about personal needs of inmates, will they be subject to obey the needs that were set out by the Republic of Maple?
What about the extradition agreements, will they be stifled?
If you want to attempt to even pass a bill like this those controversial questions need to be addressed?

Whether any other nation would execute your citizens is a matter between your two countries. As far as the ICC is concerned, this proposal specifically prohibits the ICC from sentencing anyone to death. Torture is very illegal under international law, and people sentenced by the ICC absolutely cannot be tortured, or subjected to any other violations of international law (see "For the Detained and Convicted" for example).

This proposal would not affect your extradition agreements with any other nation. It would only apply in certain rare cases of individuals who have committed atrocities, and even then only if their home nation refuses to prosecute them. Anyone held as a result of this proposal must be treated in accordance with international law (no torture or abuse, etc.)

Quelesh wrote:

American MapleStory wrote:I am strongly in opposition of this bill and any like it. The judiciary system is one of the only things that should not be internationalized. Every single government has rules of its own, and most national debates are about those rules, and just imagine the misconceptions at the international level. Also some punishments are more strict then in other countries.
What about the death Penalty, will other countries execute my citizens?
What about torture, will other countries torture my citizens?
What about standards in jail, will other countries be set to those standards?
What about personal needs of inmates, will they be subject to obey the needs that were set out by the Republic of Maple?
What about the extradition agreements, will they be stifled?
If you want to attempt to even pass a bill like this those controversial questions need to be addressed?

Whether any other nation would execute your citizens is a matter between your two countries. As far as the ICC is concerned, this proposal specifically prohibits the ICC from sentencing anyone to death. Torture is very illegal under international law, and people sentenced by the ICC absolutely cannot be tortured, or subjected to any other violations of international law (see "For the Detained and Convicted" for example).

This proposal would not affect your extradition agreements with any other nation. It would only apply in certain rare cases of individuals who have committed atrocities, and even then only if their home nation refuses to prosecute them. Anyone held as a result of this proposal must be treated in accordance with international law (no torture or abuse, etc.)

If this bill will be broken up to individual rules and regulations after the ground rules are set, that will be a perfect formula for abuse, since it encourages manipulations.
Also, how will the oversight work? How will one country know what the other country is doing (VV) and how will the WA know that all agreements are being followed directed and with proper conduct?

How does it encourage manipulations? International law is very clear about the unacceptable treatment of prisoners. In addition, compliance with international law is mandatory and automatic, so this will not be a problem.

Quelesh wrote:How does it encourage manipulations? International law is very clear about the unacceptable treatment of prisoners. In addition, compliance with international law is mandatory and automatic, so this will not be a problem.

Violation of international law is not the issue. Some countries are stricter at their judiciary system than others and both are obedient of International Law, however the less regulated country might denounce the (slight)overburdened treatment of the prisoners, which could enjoy more freedom at their own prison, even if it does not classify under torture or an compromise of international law/ ethics or the advance of human liberties.

We see no need for an international court, or in any outside interferience with our judicial system. This idea keeps getting brought up and keeps getting shot down. I feel that the ambassador, while well intentioned is simply wasting the assembly's valuable time.

We will not now nor ever support any type of international court system.

My government would like to thank the Ambassador from the Quelesian Empire for their detailed rebuttal and explanation. The aforementioned explanation has alleviated our concerns for most of the proposed legislation.
However my government is still greatly concerned by clause B sub-clause 5. My government suggests that the sub-clause may be entirely redundant with clause B sub-clause 1. What does it matter what weapon was used if the intentional targets were civilian in nature. Therefore, The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn suggests the entire clause be struck from the resolution. If this is not acceptable, then perhaps the following change would be suitable:

The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population where such use can be proven to be part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes

Lastly, as long as the clause prohibiting sovereign nations from pursuing criminals as they see fit is included in this legislation, my government will actively campaign for it's defeat.

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

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

Are they? A number of WA laws expressly forbid such acts, and why the need to stress sapience? Surely it is enough to indicate "inhabitants of WA member states" in whatever this phrase ends up becoming?

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

Surely if this statute intends to create a court capable of enforcing WA law it should not redefine Genocide, but rather respect the definitions of Genocide in extant WA law? Or is this statute now trying to amend past WA laws?

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

Presumably the same applies to these definitions as above no?

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;

Again, what is the purpose of defining these things if this statute intends to create an international criminal court? Or is this statute intending to add a whole raft of new crimes to the books? If so then these crimes need to be properly regulated by their own resolutions not casually thrown in to the foundational constitution of a WA court.

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:

Half of this is nonsense, what exactly is "probably cause" ? Why should member states be charged with seeking the extradition of miscreants from other member states? How is it their responsibility to bring such persons in other member states to justice? And what crimes are these persons to be charged with, the absurdly thin shopping list of definitions above? Some of which are crimes under WA law some of which are not and are not made crimes by this statute.

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

Which member state? Under what circumstances will such a "contract" be made? What are the prerequisites of such a contract?

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

Which 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

This is either a duplication of extant WA law or an amendment, both are illegal.

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

As is this.

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

This is nonsense and probably also some form of duplication or amendment, it also has nothing to do with the constitution of a court, this in common with much of the rest of this statute has nothing to do with founding a court and much to do with amending or duplicating a variety of WA laws.

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

Duplication and/or amendment.

G. The ICC shall never impose the death penalty

This is pointless since this statute does not create any court capable of handing down any kind of sentence at all.

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.

Amendment and/duplication, and once again nothing to do with the constitution of a court.



Frankly this proposal is a mess. It pretends to create a court, and does no such thing, it defines a set of activities already defined by WA law or not mentioned in WA at all and then does nothing with these definitions. What follows is a set of garbled reiterations or contradictions of other WA laws with no mention of the functioning, or actual constitution of a court, there is no mention of what kinds of crimes this court will try, what situations will provoke this court to act, who will refer cases to this court, what would count as a case within this court's purview, how appeals will be made to it or of it, the list of omissions of totally vital stipulations regarding how this court will function is enormous. The entire resolution will need to be totally rewritten before it does anything at all and can even be considered to be legal.


Yours,

Quelesh wrote:However, allowing member states to use military force to apprehend wanted persons would, unfortunately, be illegal according to the rules for WA proposals. Proposals cannot directly affect non-member states. I am able to allow the ICC to issue arrest warrants for individuals that are citizens of non-member states because those non-member states are not compelled to actually do anything as a result. I would like to compel them to hand the person over, but doing so would be illegal, and my proposal must follow the rules. Allowing military force would be an illegal compulsion against non-member states. Therefore, I must specifically prohibit military force to ensure the proposal's legality.

"Ummm... No? Resolutions can't be legally binding on non-member nations, it's true, but they can tell members how to act towards non-members: For example, consider resolution #20 in which the WA "Urges and Authorises" its member nations to attack international pirates' bases no matter where those are located... which, obviously, could include ones that are located within non-member nations..."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission.

American MapleStory wrote:

Quelesh wrote:How does it encourage manipulations? International law is very clear about the unacceptable treatment of prisoners. In addition, compliance with international law is mandatory and automatic, so this will not be a problem.

Violation of international law is not the issue. Some countries are stricter at their judiciary system than others and both are obedient of International Law, however the less regulated country might denounce the (slight)overburdened treatment of the prisoners, which could enjoy more freedom at their own prison, even if it does not classify under torture or an compromise of international law/ ethics or the advance of human liberties.

The less regulated country could have avoided this situation by prosecuting the defendant themselves. Remember, this only applies in cases of people who have committed genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity and whose home nations refuse to try them. If a nation refuses to even try a military commander who ordered the indiscriminate killing of 400 civilians, for example, I would not be particularly concerned with what they think of the prisoner's treatment, as long as that treatment complies with international law.

Manticore Reborn wrote:However my government is still greatly concerned by clause B sub-clause 5. My government suggests that the sub-clause may be entirely redundant with clause B sub-clause 1. What does it matter what weapon was used if the intentional targets were civilian in nature. Therefore, The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn suggests the entire clause be struck from the resolution. If this is not acceptable, then perhaps the following change would be suitable:

The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population where such use can be proven to be part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes

If clause 5 were stricken entirely, it would still allow the use of nuclear weapons with civilian casualties, as long as the civilians were not targeted, and targeted intentionally. One could argue that in the case of using a strategic thermonuclear bomb against a large military facility on the outskirts of a civilian city, with certain knowledge of widespread civilian casualties, the civilians were still not targeted, that it was the military facility that was targeted. This is why I don't want to remove that clause entirely. I would be open to adding something like "with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties" to the end of clause 5, but that's 48 more characters, and the proposal can't be above about 3,500 characters to be submitted. I'll try to find a way to add it, but I can't make a guarantee.

Manticore Reborn wrote:Lastly, as long as the clause prohibiting sovereign nations from pursuing criminals as they see fit is included in this legislation, my government will actively campaign for it's defeat.

OOC: If I removed that clause and submitted the proposal, based on my interpretation of a mod ruling, it would be yanked from the list by the moderators for metagaming (affecting non-WA nations). My understanding is that it has to be there. As I said, I would very much like to remove it myself, but I can't.

Urgench wrote:

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

Are they? A number of WA laws expressly forbid such acts

Yes, they are. It is true that the Convention Against Genocide outlaws genocide in all WA member states, and therefore the laws of all WA member states prohibit it. It is still possible for an individual within a WA member state to commit genocidal acts anyway. According to the Convention Against Genocide, member states must "take action against" groups that commit genocide within that nation, but the nation's courts could still refuse to prosecute the individual for a variety of reasons. In addition, genocide is still committed outside WA member nations by citizens of non-member states. This proposal allows arrest warrants to be issued for those individuals and for them to be arrested if they are ever within the jurisdiction of any WA member state. Similar reasoning applies to other crimes listed by this proposal.

Urgench wrote:and why the need to stress sapience? Surely it is enough to indicate "inhabitants of WA member states" in whatever this phrase ends up becoming?

I use the word "sapient" here and in other areas of the proposal as well to limit the kinds of things that can fall under the purview of the ICC. For example, some nations have programs in which stray cats are rounded up and euthanized. Whatever one may think of such programs, they are not genocide, and my usage of the word "sapient" is meant to draw a distinction here.

Urgench wrote:

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

Surely if this statute intends to create a court capable of enforcing WA law it should not redefine Genocide, but rather respect the definitions of Genocide in extant WA law? Or is this statute now trying to amend past WA laws?

I cannot define genocide as "as defined by General Assembly Resolution #38, 'Convention Against Genocide'," because that would be a House of Cards violation. I am not amending the Convention Against Genocide here. That resolution remains in force within all WA member states, and all member states are required to abide by all of its provisions. As I said above, ICC jurisdiction may still apply even when all member states comply with all provisions of GAR38. A nation's courts may refuse to prosecute an individual, for example, or the genocide may be committed by an individual in a non-WA member state. It is acceptable for my definition of genocide to be slightly different than that in the Convention Against Genocide because the circumstances in which that definition applies and the circumstances in which this definition would apply do not overlap.

Urgench wrote:

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

Presumably the same applies to these definitions as above no?

No. Many of these are not covered by previous international law, and for the ones that are, this proposal would only cover them in circumstances in which previous international law is inapplicable.

Urgench wrote:

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;

Again, what is the purpose of defining these things if this statute intends to create an international criminal court? Or is this statute intending to add a whole raft of new crimes to the books? If so then these crimes need to be properly regulated by their own resolutions not casually thrown in to the foundational constitution of a WA court.

The purpose of defining these crimes is to limit ICC jurisdiction to only these crimes. I do not intend the ICC to be a catch-all court trying petty crimes. The purpose of the ICC is to try individuals accused of particularly heinous crimes that fall under one of three categories (genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity), and then only in circumstances in which their home jurisdiction refuses to try them. I am saying here, "The ICC may issue arrest warrants and try individuals for these particular crimes, and only these particular crimes." Defining these crimes in their own separate resolutions, then saying in the ICC resolution, "The ICC may issue arrest warrants and prosecute individuals for the following crimes: genocide as defined by General Assembly Resolution #xx, war crimes as defined by General Assembly Resolution #yy, and crimes against humanity as defined by General Assembly Resolution #zz," would be a House of Cards violation. This proposal must be able to completely stand on its own.

Urgench wrote:

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:

Half of this is nonsense, what exactly is "probably cause" ?

"Probable cause" is as it is defined in a dictionary. For example, dictionary.reference.com defines it as "reasonable ground for a belief, as, in a criminal case, that the accused was guilty of the crime, or, in a civil case, that grounds for the action existed: used esp. as a defense to an action for malicious prosecution." It is generally accepted that member states have access to dictionaries, and that we, therefore, when drafting proposals, do not need to define every term within the proposal (allowing us to better stay below the 3,500 character limit). In this case, though, the entity that would be responsible for interpreting the meaning of "probable cause" here is the ICC itself. The International Criminal Court would be a committee. Since committees are staffed by the all-wise WA gnomes, one would surmise that they are aware of the legal definition of probable cause.

Urgench wrote:Why should member states be charged with seeking the extradition of miscreants from other member states? How is it their responsibility to bring such persons in other member states to justice?

Member states would not be required to seek the extradition of individuals from other member states to their own state so that they may then extradite the individual to the ICC. In that case, the other member state would itself be obliged to extradite the individual to the ICC directly (again, remember, only in cases in which the ICC has issued a warrant for the individual, which it can only do under a very limited set of circumstances outlined by this proposal). The purpose of this clause:

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

is to encourage member states to do everything they can, short of military force, to get non-member states to extradite wanted persons to the ICC (since this proposal of course cannot oblige non-member states to do so) and to encourage member states to attempt (again, short of using military force or any other illegal action) to bring wanted persons from non-member states to their own nations so that they can then extradite the wanted persons to the ICC.

Urgench wrote:And what crimes are these persons to be charged with, the absurdly thin shopping list of definitions above? Some of which are crimes under WA law some of which are not and are not made crimes by this statute.

Yes, these persons are to be charged with genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in this proposal, and only these crimes.

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;

"The above crimes" and "these crimes" in these clauses refer to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, defined immediately above these clauses. Again, the purpose of the ICC is to try those who are accused of the most heinous crimes, and then only when their home jurisdiction refuses to try them.

Urgench wrote:

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

Which member state? Under what circumstances will such a "contract" be made? What are the prerequisites of such a contract?

The answers to those questions are to be determined by the WA gnomes staffing the committee called the International Criminal Court. In fact, I would not be able to specify a particular member state within the proposal, as that would be metagaming and branding. As I have stated before, I would prefer to not include this clause at all, but a mod ruling has required me to. Otherwise, the proposal would be illegal. Refer to this thread for a detailed discussion.

Urgench wrote:

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

Which international law?

Any of the 91 (at this writing) previous General Assembly Resolutions that are in force, as well as any subsequent resolutions passed by this Assembly. Any resolution in force that applies to the treatment of prisoners must be abided by. They would, of course, be treated in accordance with international law because they're being held in a member state upon which international law is binding. This is basically a confidence clause, assuring people that no one held because of this resolution is going to be tortured, etc.

Now that I think about it, though, this confidence clause isn't absolutely necessary. I'd like to keep it if possible, but I could eliminate it to save characters that can be used for something else (the "foreknowledge of civilian casualties" language discussed above, for example).

Urgench wrote:

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

This is either a duplication of extant WA law or an amendment, both are illegal.

How exactly does this duplicate or amend existing international law? This clause applies to the ICC and only to the ICC. It does not apply to any member state. Member states are still bound by any existing WA resolutions concerning the rights of defendants in their domestic criminal trials, as though this resolution had never passed. This proposal has no affect whatsoever in that regard.

Urgench wrote:

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

As is this.

No it's not. As I said above, this clause applies only to the ICC and not to any member state. The standard of proof used in domestic criminal trials in member states is entirely unaffected by this proposal.

Urgench wrote:

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

This is nonsense and probably also some form of duplication or amendment, it also has nothing to do with the constitution of a court, this in common with much of the rest of this statute has nothing to do with founding a court and much to do with amending or duplicating a variety of WA laws.

This does indeed have to do with the constitution of a court. It is one of the rules that the court (i.e. the committee called the International Criminal Court) must abide by. In this case, it says that if a person is acquitted of all charges, then the ICC (or rather, the member state with which the ICC contracts to house defendants) must release them. This does not conflict with any WA resolution.

Urgench wrote:

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

Duplication and/or amendment.

Again, this clause does not affect member states at all. It affects only the committee called the International Criminal Court. The status of double jeopardy in member states is not changed. (In fact, the Habeas Corpus resolution specifically allows double jeopardy within member states, much to my displeasure. This clause does not change that. It simply sets a rule that the committee created by this proposal must follow.)

Urgench wrote:

G. The ICC shall never impose the death penalty

This is pointless since this statute does not create any court capable of handing down any kind of sentence at all.

How do these clauses:

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;

[...]

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

not create a court capable of sentencing people?

Urgench wrote:

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.

Amendment and/duplication, and once again nothing to do with the constitution of a court.

Again, what exactly does this clause amend and/or duplicate? How does it do so when it does not affect member states in any way? Like many of the above clauses, it is simply a rule that the committee created by this proposal must abide by. It does not affect the rights of defendants in domestic criminal trials in member states to appeal their convictions or present additional exculpatory evidence.

You've mentioned duplication several times. The rules regarding duplication state:

Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the WA has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the WA has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

I think I have articulated pretty well why I think this proposal does not duplicate any previous resolution, but even if one or two clauses of it did say something that, fundamentally, a previous resolution also says, according to the official rules thread, that would not necessarily make the entire proposal illegal.

Urgench wrote:Frankly this proposal is a mess. It pretends to create a court, and does no such thing

I do believe that the clause:

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

does indeed create a court.

Urgench wrote:it defines a set of activities already defined by WA law or not mentioned in WA at all and then does nothing with these definitions.

It does indeed do something with the definitions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

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;

The crimes defined immediately above these clauses are the crimes that the ICC may have jurisdiction over, under limited circumstances.

Urgench wrote:What follows is a set of garbled reiterations or contradictions of other WA laws

I've already explained why this proposal does not duplicate or contradict existing WA law. I also don't see how any portion of my proposal is "garbled."

Urgench wrote:with no mention of the functioning, or actual constitution of a court

This proposal does lay out the basic groundrules upon which the court will function. Beyond that, there is no need to specify further. In my understanding, the mods have said that there is no need to go into detail in proposals about the exact constitution of a committee, how committee members will be determined, etc., because WA committees are staffed by WA gnomes that are always just perfect for their assigned positions.

Urgench wrote:there is no mention of what kinds of crimes this court will try

There certainly is:

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;

"The above crimes" means, as I have said before, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, all of which are defined immediately above these clauses. This should be very intuitive.

Urgench wrote:what situations will provoke this court to act

The situations that would provoke the court to act are specified in this clause:

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;

If the ICC suspects (having probable cause, as required by the next clause) that a person has committed any of "these crimes" (again, this means the three crimes that are defined immediately above), it may ("may" not "will;" it is "authorized" to do so, not "required" - basically, it has prosecutorial discretion) issue an arrest warrant for the person. A later clause:

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

requires (due to the word "task") the ICC to try said individuals (those who have been "accused" by the ICC - i.e. those for whom the ICC has issued warrants in accordance with the AUTHORIZE clause).

Urgench wrote:who will refer cases to this court

OOC (sorry for replying OOC, but it's the best way I can think of to make the point): Who would refer the war crimes in Sudan to the real-life International Criminal Court? Certainly not the Sudanese government.

IC: Since I do not specify who will refer cases to the ICC, that means that anyone may do so - member states, non-member states, private entities, individuals, etc. Of course, the ICC cannot issue a warrant regardless without probable cause to believe the guilt of the accused. I think it best to avoid getting bogged down in specifying this, and I wouldn't be able to do so anyway due to the character limit.

Urgench wrote:what would count as a case within this court's purview

What do you mean by "what would count as a case"? I would say that a "case" within the ICC's purview would be a trial required by the TASK clause.

Urgench wrote:how appeals will be made to it or of it

The ICC is not an appellate court; it is a criminal court. It is the final arbiter of its cases; there is no higher authority. An appeals process, however, is covered by this clause:

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.

A convict may appeal his conviction by presenting additional exculpatory evidence to the ICC. If the additional evidence is enough to cast enough doubt on his guilt that it is no longer proven beyond reasonable doubt, the ICC can reverse his convicion. The committee called the International Criminal Court is staffed by WA gnomes. Though the gnomes are considered perfect for their positions, it is still, of course, possible for them to convict an innocent person, if insufficient exculpatory evidence is available to them. The purpose of this clause is to address that possibility. There is no need for an authority above the ICC to which an appeal can be made.

Urgench wrote:the list of omissions of totally vital stipulations regarding how this court will function is enormous.

The ICC is like any other committee: its composition is best left up to the WA gnomes, not myself. What stipulations should I include in the proposal beyond what I have included already? The basic groundrules ensuring fairness and basic rights for defendants are already specified. Should I specify exactly how individual jurists are to be selected? The minutae of the procedural rules of the court beyond the basic groundrules already addressed? The number of jurists on the court? How many jurists will hear each case? The location at which the court will meet? How could I possibly do so while staying within the 3,500 character limit? As I stated above, the mods have said that it is unnecessary to specify in proposals things like the compositions of committees or their procedural rules; it's assumed that the gnomes will handle such things.

A mod could, of course, clarify the convention if I've missed something.

Urgench wrote:The entire resolution will need to be totally rewritten before it does anything at all and can even be considered to be legal.

I think it already does a great deal. It defines a list of crimes, creates a court, authorizes the court to issue arrest warrants (again, under certain limited circumstances) for individuals suspected of committing those crimes, specifies the obligations of member states regarding getting persons for whom arrest warrants have been issued to the ICC to be tried, authorizes the court to try the defendants and sentence those found guilty, and lays out various groundrules for how the court will operate, how defendants will be treated, etc. That's quite a lot for 3,500 characters.

Also, I've elucidated, in a good amount of detail, why I believe the current draft of this proposal is not illegal. I had asked for mod vetting on a previous draft, and certain issues of legality were brought to my attention that I have addressed. See the previous posts in this thread, and the "WA police" discussion thread that I linked to above, for details.

Bears Armed wrote:

Quelesh wrote:However, allowing member states to use military force to apprehend wanted persons would, unfortunately, be illegal according to the rules for WA proposals. Proposals cannot directly affect non-member states. I am able to allow the ICC to issue arrest warrants for individuals that are citizens of non-member states because those non-member states are not compelled to actually do anything as a result. I would like to compel them to hand the person over, but doing so would be illegal, and my proposal must follow the rules. Allowing military force would be an illegal compulsion against non-member states. Therefore, I must specifically prohibit military force to ensure the proposal's legality.

"Ummm... No? Resolutions can't be legally binding on non-member nations, it's true, but they can tell members how to act towards non-members: For example, consider resolution #20 in which the WA "Urges and Authorises" its member nations to attack international pirates' bases no matter where those are located... which, obviously, could include ones that are located within non-member nations..."

Are you referring to this clause of that resolution?

5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

I'm actually confused by the meaning of "and its bases wherever those are" here. What does "its" refer to? International piracy? WA member nations? When I first read this, I interpreted that to mean that WA member nations should suppress international piracy on or around that member nation's "bases," wherever those bases may be. I wouldn't interpret that clause as authorizing member states to attack pirates' bases that are located within the territory of non-member states and would require a military engagement with that non-member state to do so.

My statement that the proposal would be illegal without the prohibition on military force is based mainly on this post by Nervun earlier in this thread:

NERVUN wrote: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.

That ruling was partially overruled by Ard in this post, also in this thread:

Ardchoille wrote: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:

Bears Armed wrote: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.

Ard was saying that the proposal, as it was written, was not illegal due to metagaming for affecting non-member states, since non-member states would not be under any actual obligation to do anything. But Nervun earlier had pointed out that I had done my best to craft a resolution that did not create an obligation for non-member states, even specifically mentioning that I had prohibited member states from invading them. If I allowed military force, then I would be allowing a very real, concrete compulsion on non-member states to do something (i.e. handing over the wanted person) - that compulsion coming at the end of a gun. I think that would completely undermine the basis of Ard's ruling above and make the proposal illegal.

If Ard or another mod tells me that I'm misinterpreting this, and that in fact allowing military force against non-member states to enforce this proposal on them is perfectly fine, I will be very happy to remove the clause in question; I'd rather it not be there myself. But I still don't think I can do that, even with the GAR20 comparison.

Quelesh wrote: snip

Your Excellency may continue to lecture us as though we had no idea about how to write a resolution, that for instance we were unaware that it is deemed unnecessary or illegal to specify certain kinds of detail regarding the minutiae, as your Excellency describes them, of the formation of a WA committee, or that this resolution may not directly reference other resolutions etc. Or your Excellency can presume that we are aware of these restrictions and yet still find this proposal as written incapable of forming the constitution of a court and still contains amendments to previous WA laws.

Now to the issue of the crimes this court should try, the definitions of contained within this statute do not by themselves create crimes, they are merely definitions of certain activities. In some cases these definitions are so thin and lacking that no charge could ever be brought siting them. In most cases the definitions are so lacking that a first year legal student could exculpate a client of them and in all cases these definitions are totally incapable of being used as the basis of trial. It would be better to simply charge this court with the enforcement of WA law on Genocide, War Crimes, etc. meaning that the definitions as used in those resolutions dealing with these crimes, which are more comprehensive, could be used instead.

As to this "probable cause" your Excellency speaks of we find no mention of it in our dictionaries or databases except as referenced in the arcane ramblings of some fictional literature regarding the comings and goings of the fantastical "Real World". (OOC because it's a real world reference, and a phrase besides) Perhaps it would be better to use an alternative phrase.

Naturally your Excellency should feel free to discount every single thing we have said, the history of bad resolution writing is littered with examples of authors who for whatever reason decided that they had no interest in addressing even the most unpalatable of input from other delegations.


Yours,

I would suggest that we stop bickering. Whether the World Assembly community wants an international criminal court can only be ascertained if we submit this proposal to the relevant subcomittee. Whether delegates approve this resolution or not will help us to ascertain whether the WA is ready for an International criminal court yet.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we won't know how successful this resolution is until we submit it to the Assembly for consideration

yours;

Dr. Dimitri MacCarinson (phd, modern world history)







OOC: you might want to see this - it was the resolution that set up the real-world International Criminal Court - just for ideas:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court
Borrow some ideas from it for the resolution, but be warned, it's long!

Diatraba wrote:I would suggest that we stop bickering. Whether the World Assembly community wants an international criminal court can only be ascertained if we submit this proposal to the relevant subcomittee. Whether delegates approve this resolution or not will help us to ascertain whether the WA is ready for an International criminal court yet.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we won't know how successful this resolution is until we submit it to the Assembly for consideration

yours;

Dr. Dimitri MacCarinson (phd, modern world history)

We suggest that honoured Ambassador MacCarinson PhD look carefully at what has been written above and reevaluate his discription of it as "bickering", legitimate discussion of the legalities and effects of a resolution is exactly what a drafting debate is intended for. If honoured Ambassador MacCarinson PhD is under the mistaken impression that we are opposed to the notion of an international criminal court under WA auspices then he is sorrily mistaken and nor is that the basis of our contention with the honoured Ambassador for Quelesh.

Besides that a resolution achieves quorum or not is in no way an indication of its worth as a law, and honoured Ambassador MacCarinson PhD's somewhat superficial understanding of the workings of this organisation form no basis for him to offer anything which purports to be useful advice.


Yours,

Quelesh wrote:If clause 5 were stricken entirely, it would still allow the use of nuclear weapons with civilian casualties, as long as the civilians were not targeted, and targeted intentionally. One could argue that in the case of using a strategic thermonuclear bomb against a large military facility on the outskirts of a civilian city, with certain knowledge of widespread civilian casualties, the civilians were still not targeted, that it was the military facility that was targeted. This is why I don't want to remove that clause entirely. I would be open to adding something like "with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties" to the end of clause 5, but that's 48 more characters, and the proposal can't be above about 3,500 characters to be submitted. I'll try to find a way to add it, but I can't make a guarantee.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn approves of the intent of the change suggested by the esteemed Ambassador from the Quelesian Empire however we are still unsatisfied with how that would be enforced. My government believes that perhaps section B subsection 5 should be split into two seperate sections. The first outlawing the use of chemical, biological and neurological weapons and then second dealing with the use of nuclear weapons against Legitimate tactical targets. My government sees no way to support this proposal without some protection for our military when using weapons legalized by this body against legitimate targets.

OOC: If I removed that clause and submitted the proposal, based on my interpretation of a mod ruling, it would be yanked from the list by the moderators for metagaming (affecting non-WA nations). My understanding is that it has to be there. As I said, I would very much like to remove it myself, but I can't.

OOC: I'm going to play this as if it was said in character.

As the Chairbear from the Bears Armed Mission has pointed out that although the resolutions of this august body cannot be applied to non-WA nation states, they can tell members how to act towards non-members. Therefore, any clause that prohibts our government from pursuing war criminals by whatever means our King deems necessary would be rejected outright.

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

Urgench wrote:

Diatraba wrote:I would suggest that we stop bickering. Whether the World Assembly community wants an international criminal court can only be ascertained if we submit this proposal to the relevant subcomittee. Whether delegates approve this resolution or not will help us to ascertain whether the WA is ready for an International criminal court yet.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we won't know how successful this resolution is until we submit it to the Assembly for consideration

yours;

Dr. Dimitri MacCarinson (phd, modern world history)

We suggest that honoured Ambassador MacCarinson PhD look carefully at what has been written above and reevaluate her discription of it as "bickering", legitimate discussion of the legalities and effects of a resolution is exactly what a drafting debate is intended for. If honoured Ambassador MacCarinson PhD is under the mistaken impression that we are opposed to the notion of an international criminal court under WA auspices then she is sorrily mistaken and nor is that the basis of our contention with the honoured Ambassador for Quelesh.

Besides that a resolution achieves quorum or not is in no way an indication of its worth as a law, and honoured Ambassador MacCarinson PhD's somewhat superficial understanding of the workings of this organisation form no basis for her to offer anything which purports to be useful advice.


Yours,

I'm male

Diatraba wrote:
I'm male

OOC. Fixed, deal. Oh and what? No translation?

Quelesh wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:

Quelesh wrote:However, allowing member states to use military force to apprehend wanted persons would, unfortunately, be illegal according to the rules for WA proposals. Proposals cannot directly affect non-member states. I am able to allow the ICC to issue arrest warrants for individuals that are citizens of non-member states because those non-member states are not compelled to actually do anything as a result. I would like to compel them to hand the person over, but doing so would be illegal, and my proposal must follow the rules. Allowing military force would be an illegal compulsion against non-member states. Therefore, I must specifically prohibit military force to ensure the proposal's legality.

"Ummm... No? Resolutions can't be legally binding on non-member nations, it's true, but they can tell members how to act towards non-members: For example, consider resolution #20 in which the WA "Urges and Authorises" its member nations to attack international pirates' bases no matter where those are located... which, obviously, could include ones that are located within non-member nations..."

Are you referring to this clause of that resolution?

5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

Yes.

Quelesh wrote:I'm actually confused by the meaning of "and its bases wherever those are" here. What does "its" refer to? International piracy? WA member nations? When I first read this, I interpreted that to mean that WA member nations should suppress international piracy on or around that member nation's "bases," wherever those bases may be. I wouldn't interpret that clause as authorizing member states to attack pirates' bases that are located within the territory of non-member states and would require a military engagement with that non-member state to do so.

"to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effetive control, and its bases wherever those are"
Yes, that does mean international piracy's bases.. and it was read as meaning that by everybody who commented on it during the relevant debate.

Quelesh wrote:My statement that the proposal would be illegal without the prohibition on military force is based mainly on this post by Nervun earlier in this thread:

NERVUN wrote: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.

That ruling was partially overruled by Ard in this post, also in this thread:

Ardchoille wrote: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:

Bears Armed wrote: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.

Ard was saying that the proposal, as it was written, was not illegal due to metagaming for affecting non-member states, since non-member states would not be under any actual obligation to do anything. But Nervun earlier had pointed out that I had done my best to craft a resolution that did not create an obligation for non-member states, even specifically mentioning that I had prohibited member states from invading them. If I allowed military force, then I would be allowing a very real, concrete compulsion on non-member states to do something (i.e. handing over the wanted person) - that compulsion coming at the end of a gun. I think that would completely undermine the basis of Ard's ruling above and make the proposal illegal.

If Ard or another mod tells me that I'm misinterpreting this, and that in fact allowing military force against non-member states to enforce this proposal on them is perfectly fine, I will be very happy to remove the clause in question; I'd rather it not be there myself. But I still don't think I can do that, even with the GAR20 comparison.

OOC: Reading Ard's ruling again, I think that it's okay. The relevant point is that in practice any such military operations would only be able to go ahead if the relevant non-member nation's player agreed to that RP, because otherwise they would be as free to ignore those attacks as they are to ignore any other attacks: The resolution itself couldn't force them to RP, so it doesn't break the rule...

Urgench wrote:

Quelesh wrote:snip

Your Excellency may continue to lecture us as though we had no idea about how to write a resolution, that for instance we were unaware that it is deemed unnecessary or illegal to specify certain kinds of detail regarding the minutiae, as your Excellency describes them, of the formation of a WA committee, or that this resolution may not directly reference other resolutions etc. Or your Excellency can presume that we are aware of these restrictions and yet still find this proposal as written incapable of forming the constitution of a court and still contains amendments to previous WA laws.

Now to the issue of the crimes this court should try, the definitions of contained within this statute do not by themselves create crimes, they are merely definitions of certain activities. In some cases these definitions are so thin and lacking that no charge could ever be brought siting them. In most cases the definitions are so lacking that a first year legal student could exculpate a client of them and in all cases these definitions are totally incapable of being used as the basis of trial. It would be better to simply charge this court with the enforcement of WA law on Genocide, War Crimes, etc. meaning that the definitions as used in those resolutions dealing with these crimes, which are more comprehensive, could be used instead.

As to this "probable cause" your Excellency speaks of we find no mention of it in our dictionaries or databases except as referenced in the arcane ramblings of some fictional literature regarding the comings and goings of the fantastical "Real World". (OOC because it's a real world reference, and a phrase besides) Perhaps it would be better to use an alternative phrase.

Naturally your Excellency should feel free to discount every single thing we have said, the history of bad resolution writing is littered with examples of authors who for whatever reason decided that they had no interest in addressing even the most unpalatable of input from other delegations.

I understand that you have experience writing resolutions, being the author of the CoCR, and I did not intend to imply otherwise. However, several of my questions remain unanswered.

For example, how exactly does this:

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;

[...]

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

not establish a court capable of sentencing people?

How exactly do these clauses:

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

[...]

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.

duplicate or amend existing international law, since none of these clauses affect member states in any way? (They affect only the committee created by this proposal.)

Regarding your assertion that this proposal does not define any crimes, I think that these clauses:

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;

adequately define the "activities" defined above them as crimes. However, if I have character space later, I could always make this change:

DEFINING the following crimes, for the purpose of this resolution:

That should be more than enough to define them as crimes.

Are you saying that my definition of genocide is more "thin and lacking" than that in the Convention Against Genocide?

My definition:

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

GAR38's definition:

any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation

These definitions seem remarkably similar, and I would not say that one is particularly "thin and lacking" compared to the other.

And how, exactly, could charges not be brought based upon these definitions? How could they not be used as the basis of a trial? Which clauses of the definitions, in particular, are untenable? For example:

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;

Let's say that someone is accused of the above. At trial before the ICC, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, two things: (1) that the defendant did in fact commit "forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence" and (2) that said acts were in fact "part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient beings." Surely the ICC would know full well the definitions of all of these words. Which of these words needs to be more explicitly defined in the proposal, so that the ICC will know what they mean? Violence? Sexual? Forced? Beings? Systematic? I think the definitions of all of these words are quite clear.

OOC: I also object to the categorization of "probable cause" as a real world reference. "The Geneva Conventions" would be a RL reference, because it refers to a particular thing in the real world. "Probable cause" is a general legal principle, no more of a real world reference than "habeas corpus" (which is the actual title of a previous resolution!). And, in fact, "probable cause" is no more of a real world reference than is "Martial law" in your own CoCR.

IC: As to discounting everything you have said, I have actually done quite the opposite. I have addressed, in a good amount of detail, every single thing that you said in your original critique of my proposal, and I have asked numerous questions for clarification of your points.

Manticore Reborn wrote:

Quelesh wrote:If clause 5 were stricken entirely, it would still allow the use of nuclear weapons with civilian casualties, as long as the civilians were not targeted, and targeted intentionally. One could argue that in the case of using a strategic thermonuclear bomb against a large military facility on the outskirts of a civilian city, with certain knowledge of widespread civilian casualties, the civilians were still not targeted, that it was the military facility that was targeted. This is why I don't want to remove that clause entirely. I would be open to adding something like "with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties" to the end of clause 5, but that's 48 more characters, and the proposal can't be above about 3,500 characters to be submitted. I'll try to find a way to add it, but I can't make a guarantee.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn approves of the intent of the change suggested by the esteemed Ambassador from the Quelesian Empire however we are still unsatisfied with how that would be enforced. My government believes that perhaps section B subsection 5 should be split into two seperate sections. The first outlawing the use of chemical, biological and neurological weapons and then second dealing with the use of nuclear weapons against Legitimate tactical targets. My government sees no way to support this proposal without some protection for our military when using weapons legalized by this body against legitimate targets.

I once again appreciate your specific suggestions. I wouldn't want to split B(5) into two separate clauses primarily because I want to treat all weapons of mass destruction the same, and, since nuclear weapons are generally more destructive than chemical, biological or radiological ones, I wouldn't want to treat them less stringently.

I am quite willing to exempt the use of tactical nuclear weapons against a legitimate military target, in a situation in which civilian casualties are reasonably not foreseen (i.e. intelligence indicates that a military target is isolated from civilian areas and a tactical nuke would thus not cause civilian casualties, but, unbeknownst to you at the time, there were civilians present and they were killed). I'm OK with that. However, the use of a nuclear weapon against a military facility that is in close proximity to civilian areas, and therefore the users of the weapon know that civilians will be killed, is rightly called a war crime and I don't want to exclude that. I think that "with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties" would allow the former while disallowing the latter, though I'm open to tweaking that wording as long as it doesn't allow the use of nuclear weapons when the user knows that civilians will be killed as a result.

Also, I'm pretty certain now that I'll be removing one of the other clauses of the proposal, so I'll have room for this wording, and possibly a little more as well.

Manticore Reborn wrote:

OOC: If I removed that clause and submitted the proposal, based on my interpretation of a mod ruling, it would be yanked from the list by the moderators for metagaming (affecting non-WA nations). My understanding is that it has to be there. As I said, I would very much like to remove it myself, but I can't.

OOC: I'm going to play this as if it was said in character.

As the Chairbear from the Bears Armed Mission has pointed out that although the resolutions of this august body cannot be applied to non-WA nation states, they can tell members how to act towards non-members. Therefore, any clause that prohibts our government from pursuing war criminals by whatever means our King deems necessary would be rejected outright.

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

See my discussion with Bears Armed below for my response to this. (OOC: I intend to ask the mods for clarification of their ruling.)

Bears Armed wrote:

Quelesh wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:

Quelesh wrote:However, allowing member states to use military force to apprehend wanted persons would, unfortunately, be illegal according to the rules for WA proposals. Proposals cannot directly affect non-member states. I am able to allow the ICC to issue arrest warrants for individuals that are citizens of non-member states because those non-member states are not compelled to actually do anything as a result. I would like to compel them to hand the person over, but doing so would be illegal, and my proposal must follow the rules. Allowing military force would be an illegal compulsion against non-member states. Therefore, I must specifically prohibit military force to ensure the proposal's legality.

"Ummm... No? Resolutions can't be legally binding on non-member nations, it's true, but they can tell members how to act towards non-members: For example, consider resolution #20 in which the WA "Urges and Authorises" its member nations to attack international pirates' bases no matter where those are located... which, obviously, could include ones that are located within non-member nations..."

Are you referring to this clause of that resolution?

5. Urges and authorises all WA member nations to do as much as they reasonably can to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effective control, and its bases wherever those are;

Yes.

Quelesh wrote:I'm actually confused by the meaning of "and its bases wherever those are" here. What does "its" refer to? International piracy? WA member nations? When I first read this, I interpreted that to mean that WA member nations should suppress international piracy on or around that member nation's "bases," wherever those bases may be. I wouldn't interpret that clause as authorizing member states to attack pirates' bases that are located within the territory of non-member states and would require a military engagement with that non-member state to do so.

"to suppress international piracy within any areas (such as ‘international waters’) that are not under any nation’s effetive control, and its bases wherever those are"
Yes, that does mean international piracy's bases.. and it was read as meaning that by everybody who commented on it during the relevant debate.

Now that I re-read it and think about it some more, I can see that interpretation now. Since it doesn't specify, the "bases" could be in the territory of non-member states. That could be a precedent.

Bears Armed wrote:

Quelesh wrote:My statement that the proposal would be illegal without the prohibition on military force is based mainly on this post by Nervun earlier in this thread:

NERVUN wrote: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.

That ruling was partially overruled by Ard in this post, also in this thread:

Ardchoille wrote: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:

Bears Armed wrote: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.

Ard was saying that the proposal, as it was written, was not illegal due to metagaming for affecting non-member states, since non-member states would not be under any actual obligation to do anything. But Nervun earlier had pointed out that I had done my best to craft a resolution that did not create an obligation for non-member states, even specifically mentioning that I had prohibited member states from invading them. If I allowed military force, then I would be allowing a very real, concrete compulsion on non-member states to do something (i.e. handing over the wanted person) - that compulsion coming at the end of a gun. I think that would completely undermine the basis of Ard's ruling above and make the proposal illegal.

If Ard or another mod tells me that I'm misinterpreting this, and that in fact allowing military force against non-member states to enforce this proposal on them is perfectly fine, I will be very happy to remove the clause in question; I'd rather it not be there myself. But I still don't think I can do that, even with the GAR20 comparison.

OOC: Reading Ard's ruling again, I think that it's okay. The relevant point is that in practice any such military operations would only be able to go ahead if the relevant non-member nation's player agreed to that RP, because otherwise they would be as free to ignore those attacks as they are to ignore any other attacks: The resolution itself couldn't force them to RP, so it doesn't break the rule...

OOC: Again, now that I think about this more, the more sense this makes. I still wouldn't want to remove the clause without the mods' OK though. I'll ask for clarification.

Here is the current draft of the proposal, for reference (note that there are a couple of changes unrelated to this post that I intend to make later):



I have a question for the mods for a clarification of a previous ruling. This is based upon the discussion between Manticore Reborn, Bears Armed and myself above. Ard said earlier in this thread:

Ardchoille wrote: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:

Bears Armed wrote: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.

So, the proposal, as written, is not illegal due to metagaming because it does not actually compel non-member states to do anything. My question is, what if I removed this clause from the proposal:

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

Member states would no longer be outright prohibited from militarily attacking non-member states in order to arrest a wanted person. This clause:

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

would still be there, so member states would be "strongly urged" to use "all legal and peaceful means" to pursue extradition from non-member states, but military force would not be prohibited.

Would the lack of a prohibition on military force amount to an illegal compulsion upon non-member states to do something? Or is Bears Armed correct:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Reading Ard's ruling again, I think that it's okay. The relevant point is that in practice any such military operations would only be able to go ahead if the relevant non-member nation's player agreed to that RP, because otherwise they would be as free to ignore those attacks as they are to ignore any other attacks: The resolution itself couldn't force them to RP, so it doesn't break the rule...

and it wouldn't be illegal because the compulsion would only happen in RP, and players of non-member states wouldn't be forced to RP it?

As I've said, I'd personally like to remove the clause myself, but I obviously won't if it's illegal.

Thanks a lot for your help!

Quelesh wrote:
I understand that you have experience writing resolutions, being the author of the CoCR, and I did not intend to imply otherwise. However, several of my questions remain unanswered.

The CoCR is not the limit of our experience with resolution writing your Excellency.

Quelesh wrote:For example, how exactly does this:

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;

[...]

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

not establish a court capable of sentencing people?

If your Excellency cannot see that these few sentences contain too little detail regarding the functioning of the court, and the parameters of its powers, its procedures and competences then we suggest your Excellency follow the link sent to you by the honoured Ambassador for Diatraba regarding the formation of other similar courts.

Quelesh wrote:How exactly do these clauses:

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

[...]

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.

duplicate or amend existing international law, since none of these clauses affect member states in any way? (They affect only the committee created by this proposal.)

They duplicate extant WA laws regarding fair trial etc, laws which in some cases cannot be seen as applying simply to national Judiciaries but to all judicial processes, including the operations of this court.

Quelesh wrote:Regarding your assertion that this proposal does not define any crimes, I think that these clauses:

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;

adequately define the "activities" defined above them as crimes. However, if I have character space later, I could always make this change:

DEFINING the following crimes, for the purpose of this resolution:

That should be more than enough to define them as crimes.

Are you saying that my definition of genocide is more "thin and lacking" than that in the Convention Against Genocide?

My definition:

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

GAR38's definition:

any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation

These definitions seem remarkably similar, and I would not say that one is particularly "thin and lacking" compared to the other.

Simply calling something a crime does not make it a crime, an activity must be fully prohibited after having defined it, and it must also be explained how and when a person is culpable of it. The comparison between the two definitions, is specious, resolution #38 does not simply use its definition to create and prohibit the crime of genocide it uses the entire body of the rest of its text to do so.

Quelesh wrote:And how, exactly, could charges not be brought based upon these definitions? How could they not be used as the basis of a trial? Which clauses of the definitions, in particular, are untenable? For example:

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;

Let's say that someone is accused of the above. At trial before the ICC, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, two things: (1) that the defendant did in fact commit "forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence" and (2) that said acts were in fact "part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient beings." Surely the ICC would know full well the definitions of all of these words. Which of these words needs to be more explicitly defined in the proposal, so that the ICC will know what they mean? Violence? Sexual? Forced? Beings? Systematic? I think the definitions of all of these words are quite clear.

Your Excellency is clearly not a lawyer. For instance, the use of the term "sapient" allows a loophole since it will have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew that those they attempted to exterminate or otherwise afflict were capable of wisdom. In many cases this will provide the accused with a means to evade punishment. Population transfer is even more troublesome. What counts as population transfer? A few hundred people shipped from one village to another to put them out of the way of fighting during the prosecution of a war would count as "tranfering the population of Village X to Village Z" would Village X be able to rightfully claim that a crime against humanity had been committed against them? The inclusion of the word Murder is curious too, in this context it has a specific meaning, being a verdict handed down by a court upon a person accused of killing another person or persons intentionally and maliciously. As such a person can only be a Murderer if a court has handed down the verdict that they are. So will this court now try common cases of murder as crimes against humanity? Or will it retry those already found guilty of murder? Under what circumstances will this court try such cases? Acts of torture or other cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment also offers problems, let us say the population of a street objects to someone's characterisation of them in the press as "ignorant, dirty, animals" would this count as the degrading treatment of a population? We could go on.

The point is this, the law says what the law does, and if a law is too scant on detail then it it will have trouble in being implemented or used and will face constant challenge and evasion due to its lack of comprehensive and detailed provisions. It is not enough to rely on dictionary definitions in all circumstances since many words and phrases are capable of multiple interpretations and leaving too many lacunae and omissions regarding procedure and implementation will make a law unworkable.

Quelesh wrote:OOC: I also object to the categorization of "probable cause" as a real world reference. "The Geneva Conventions" would be a RL reference, because it refers to a particular thing in the real world. "Probable cause" is a general legal principle, no more of a real world reference than "habeas corpus" (which is the actual title of a previous resolution!). And, in fact, "probable cause" is no more of a real world reference than is "Martial law" in your own CoCR.

OOC I'm sorry but "probable cause" may be a common legal concept in some RL jurisdictions, but it's simply not as common as Habeas Corpus or Martial Law is for that matter for it to count IMHO as a general legal principle. Include this phrase if you want, I just don't think it's as general as you think. Habeas Corpus is a universal concept in all common law jurisdictions, Martial Law is a common concept to almost all legal systems, probable cause is not and therefore looks like a specific reference to the US. legal system making it a RL reference rather more similar in kind to "The Geneva Conventions" than I think you realise.

Quelesh wrote:IC: As to discounting everything you have said, I have actually done quite the opposite. I have addressed, in a good amount of detail, every single thing that you said in your original critique of my proposal, and I have asked numerous questions for clarification of your points.

And your Excellency has ignored such clarifications, presumably because you Excellency believes this statute is incapable of error or improvement.


Yours,

A few notes in response to the esteemed Ambassador Mongkga (my apologies for my brevity here):

1. The document linked to by the honored ambassador from Diatraba is indeed an excellent example of a founding document for an international court. However, according to my word processor, that document is 181,738 characters (not including line breaks), which is about fifty times longer than what I am able to submit. Were the character limit for WA proposals increased drastically, I would be more than happy to more substantially base my proposal on that document. In fact, that document specifies a great many things (rules regarding the jurisdiction of the court, admissability of cases, referral of cases, applicable sentences, much more detailed and precise definitions of the crimes over which the court has jurisdiction, explications of the legal principles that bind the court, etc.) that I would like to include in my proposal if I could. It is not possible for me to include in my proposal even a tiny fraction of this, though, due to the 3,500 character limit.

The jurists/gnomes are quite reasonable, and I don't think it's necessary to specify all of these things in the proposal (thankfully, since it's also not possible). They'll work that out themselves, and the court's precedents would apply regarding the definitions of the crimes, etc. (hm, if I have the character space later I might add a clause about precedent).

2. Regarding the definitions of the crimes: I would like to define them with much more specificity and precision, like in the document linked to above, but, again, the character limit prevents this. I also cannot just remove the definitions entirely and say that the ICC has jurisdiction over "international law" (i.e. violations of any other WA resolutions), because I only want the ICC to have jurisdiction over the most heinous crimes listed here. Since I can't say "genocide as defined in GAR38," I see no other choice but to define the crimes from scratch, as completely as I can while having everything else in there that needs to be too, within the character limit.

You make some valid points though regarding the crimes against humanity definitions, and I'll consider making some changes. I won't be able to add too many characters, though.

3. I understand what you're saying about probable cause. If I have character space after removing a clause or two, I'll define it within the proposal. I suspect that I won't have the room, though ("probable cause" is only 14 characters).

4. You said that the clause specifying the rights of defendants may duplicate or amend previous WA resolutions. Reading GAR37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" I don't think this is the case. That resolution says in part:

MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence;

DEFINES "criminal offences" as those prosecuted by the state or a state-appointed actor;

This indicates to me that this resolution is applying to member states, not to some future committee created by some future proposal. In the case of the ICC, persons would not be charged in the jurisdictions of member nations, but in the jurisdiction of the ICC, and they would not be prosecuted by a state (I suppose you could define the ICC a state-appointed actor, since it is created by a WA resolution which was voted on by member states, but I think that would be a stretch). Basically, I don't see how that resolution applies to the committee created by this proposal.

5. Basically, in principle I agree with a lot of what you're saying. A founding document of an international court should, ideally, contain a lot of things that are not in my proposal, and if I had room for them, I'd put them in. I don't see how I can do that though within the character limit.

New draft has been posted to the OP. Reproducing on this page for your convenience:


Only two changes in this draft:

1. Removed one of the subclauses of the TASK clause ("All persons held under this resolution shall be treated in accordance with international law"). If I had plenty of character space, I would keep it, but this clause is not necessary and completely expendable. Now that the holding of prisoners is being contracted out to a member state, there's no need to say anything about how they'll be treated, even that they must be treated in accordance with international law (they obviously will be, because they're being held in a member state). This clause functioned basically as a confidence clause, but I need room for more important things.

2. Added the "with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties" wording to the subclause of the war crimes definition dealing with weapons of mass destruction. This is an attempt to resolve the concerns of the esteemed ambassador from Manticore Reborn concerning the use of tactical nuclear weapons against military targets. This wording is certainly not final; I am open to suggestions from the ambassador or from anyone else concerning this. It's not perfect. The important thing is that we allow the legitimate use of small-yield tactical nukes against legitimate military targets while disallowing the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or strategic, against civilians.

I haven't removed the clause prohibiting military force at this point because I haven't heard back from the mods about it. I also haven't made any other adjustments at this point to the definitions of the other crimes, though there's a good chance that I will in a future draft, character count permitting.

Also, I noticed that the character count for my previous draft was wrong. This one is correct, at least according to Word (i.e. line breaks not counted).

The government of the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn approves of the current language of the Clause B Sub-Clause 5.

My fellow ambassadors

I have been instructed by the Supreme Marshal of Ainocra to denounce with the strongest possible language this blatant attempt to hold our
legal system hostage under the threat of military force. We feel and rightly so that this is simply an attempt to superimpose a legal system
not of our making over our own judiciary for the sole purpose of circumventing our laws.

The resolution should it come to pass would literally embody the phrase "Tyranny of the majority."
I encourage all of you to step back and see the lessons that history teaches us whenever such things are attempted. The end result is never good.