NationStates

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:38 pm**

We are obviously opposed to this repeal for the same reason we have historically opposed the establishment of an international criminal court.

However, this repeal is likely to pass. Accordingly, would Imperium Anglorum be willing to accept a compromise where a hypothetical WA international criminal court refrains from requiring the extradition of suspected offenders so long as the nation where the offender is located conducts a prosecution in accordance with international standards?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:04 pm**

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

b. victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute alleged offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, which means that member states are not required to try the alleged offender again if he has already been tried. However, it is not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:06 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Believing that a lack of such a court means:

b. victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.

OOC: I don't think I see it. IA argues that the lack of a court creates that risk, not that the resolution necessarily prohibits itself. It can be construed as a criticism of the law in the context of extant law. And all you need to avoid an HM violation is a colorable argument. If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:12 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I don't think I see it. IA argues that the lack of a court creates that risk, not that the resolution necessarily prohibits itself. It can be construed as a criticism of the law in the context of extant law. And all you need to avoid an HM violation is a colorable argument. If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

It's very possible what you're describing was IA's intended meaning, but that's not what he wrote. The resolution does not say that "section 3(b) increases the risk that the offender will not receive a second trial where appropriate", which would have been fine. It simply says "section 3(b) prohibits a second trial", which simply isn't true. It implies that the resolution contains double jeopardy provisions similar to this resolution, when in fact it does not.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:21 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I don't think I see it. IA argues that the lack of a court creates that risk, not that the resolution necessarily prohibits itself. It can be construed as a criticism of the law in the context of extant law. And all you need to avoid an HM violation is a colorable argument. If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

It's very possible what you're describing was IA's intended meaning, but that's not what he wrote. The resolution does not say that "section 3(b) increases the risk that the offender will not receive a second trial where appropriate", which would have been fine. It simply says "section 3(b) prohibits a second trial", which simply isn't true. It implies that the resolution contains double jeopardy provisions similar to this resolution, when in fact it does not.

OOC: I know that I'm inclined to read this broadly, but I'm sure other members of GenSec could read it differently. If you think this constitutes an Honest Mistake, then definitely file a challenge. That is what the mechanism is for, after all.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:22 pm**

Auralia wrote:
Believing that a lack of such a court means:

b. victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute alleged offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, which means that member states are not required to try the alleged offender again if the he has already been tried. It is not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.

Stealing my thunder eh? :lol2:

Separatist Peoples wrote:If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

He does say that...

Separatist Peoples wrote:. If you think this constitutes an Honest Mistake, then definitely file a challenge. That is what the mechanism is for, after all.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449222

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:23 pm**

Aclion wrote:Stealing my thunder eh?

Not exactly. I think you and I are claiming slightly different things, as I discuss in your challenge thread.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:26 pm**

Aclion wrote:
Auralia wrote:This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute alleged offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, which means that member states are not required to try the alleged offender again if the he has already been tried. It is not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.

Stealing my thunder eh?

Separatist Peoples wrote:If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

He does say that...

Separatist Peoples wrote:. If you think this constitutes an Honest Mistake, then definitely file a challenge. That is what the mechanism is for, after all.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449222

OOC: Yes, I had posted a response to Auralia without seeing your challenge. Didn't mean to blow it off. I just hadn't scrolled down yet.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:26 pm**

I hesitate to discuss the formation of an international criminal court here rather than in a committee convened for that purpose, but since the subject has been broached a demarcation of jurisdiction is clearly needed, unless the international court is to supplant national judiciaries entirely. In the perfect case I think the WA court would function only as a court of appeals, taking on cases which involve multiple countries or involve crimes against World Assembly laws only when those cases are not dealt with appropriately by national institutions. Perhaps at the request of an involved party? It is the opinion of the Federation that a WA court should also have a defined scope of remedial actions at its disposal, and possibly limitations on the types of party which may stand before it as defendants to prevent overreach. It's also important to consider whether the WA will have a prosecutorial role in international trials or serve purely as an adjudicator, with national or sub-national agents acting as plaintiffs. The question of whom is responsible for implementing orders given by the court should also be answered: will the WA have its own police and prisons, or utilize national resources through either compulsion or cooperation? My country considers all of these to be open issues which must necessarily be addressed as a part of any attempt to form a World Assembly court.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:45 pm**

Auralia, I believe the issue is that potential perpetrators may stay indefinitely within the confines of a nation which refuses to prosecute the individual or for some other reason may not adequately prosecute the individual. Atleast from what I understand, the individual must be within the country prosecuting while the current resolution is still in place.

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:56 am**

I'm now going to critique the repeal's arguments in depth:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Concerned that the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts,

Sounds like a good idea for a resolution, but not a valid reason to repeal this one. OUJ doesn't require the exchange of evidence, but it doesn't prohibit it either.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Observing that section 7 of the target resolution “[f]orbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state’s claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution”,

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

As I note in the legality challenge thread, this isn't strictly true. OUJ does prohibit the World Assembly from establishing an international court, but only if the court preempts member state jurisdiction in cases where the member state claims universal jurisdiction. This is an important condition. If the member state does not claim universal jurisdiction, then the World Assembly can prosecute. As such, I agree "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" is too broad a claim, read on its own.

If you have to resubmit, you should probably just remove the second clause and let the first clause do all the work.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Believing that a lack of such a court means:

there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists, due to differing interpretations of section 3(c)

I don't see how prosecutorial discretion is unique to member states. A hypothetical international court will also have a particular threshold for determining guilt and will make decisions about who to prosecute on that basis. Would it therefore engage in few prosecutions as well?

Imperium Anglorum wrote: and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and

Every World Assembly member state must prosecute them. That's the whole point of the resolution.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and

These "friendly" jurisdictions will still be World Assembly member states subject to the requirements of World Assembly law, required to interpret OUJ in good faith and subject to fines and sanctions if they do not.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:(ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

No, it does not.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:26 pm**

The Reichstag has voted in favor of this repeal. I have conferred with the President, and am accepting the decision of the Reichstag-although I will not sign it. It therefore becomes the policy of the people, and not the government. Anti-World Assembly feeling is running strong in Albertstadt.

OOC: You know, perhaps it is because I am almost 50, I see this much like a blackboard or whiteboard--you erase the existing notation to write a new one. So in this case, you remove the laws before you write new ones. It then will give people a much cleaner slate to write a new version with cleaner language, and not have the "this modification reflects changes in this law/regulation/policy" kind of housekeeping.

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:08 am**

Well, looks like this one ain't gonna pass...

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:57 am**

Auralia wrote:We are obviously opposed to this repeal for the same reason we have historically opposed the establishment of an international criminal court.

However, this repeal is likely to pass. Accordingly, would Imperium Anglorum be willing to accept a compromise where a hypothetical WA international criminal court refrains from requiring the extradition of suspected offenders so long as the nation where the offender is located conducts a prosecution in accordance with international standards?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

I agree with Auralia (for once), though given recent events this point might be moot for the time being

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:45 am**

Auralia wrote:However, this repeal is likely to pass. Accordingly, would Imperium Anglorum be willing to accept a compromise where a hypothetical WA international criminal court refrains from requiring the extradition of suspected offenders so long as the nation where the offender is located conducts a prosecution in accordance with international standards?

I don't see how that has any meaningful difference from a normal ICC. If your alternatives are:

ICC and
ICC, just run in your country,

There really isn't a difference other than extradition cost? And not moving the prisoner so that the prisoner can more easily escape? I think it'd be best to discuss this more in depth though. Now that it's patently obvious that the resolution can be defeated, it likely will be (also, on that, let's all get aboard GA 2 repeal).

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:32 pm**

Will there be an alternative to universal jurisdiction?

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:33 pm**

Azadistan-land of the free wrote:Will there be an alternative to universal jurisdiction?

Yes - universal jurisdiction. This proposal will be discarded when voting ends, for violation of the Honest Mistake rule.

Posted: **Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:39 pm**

While we wait, assuming a repeal ultimately takes effect does the delegation from Imperium Anglorum intend to propose a replacement, or do you intend to leave that privilege to others?

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:07 pm**

"Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"" was discarded by the WA for rule violations after garnering 12,238 votes in favor and 2,543 votes against.

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:18 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't see how that has any meaningful difference from a normal ICC. If your alternatives are:

ICC and
ICC, just run in your country,
There really isn't a difference other than extradition cost? And not moving the prisoner so that the prisoner can more easily escape? I think it'd be best to discuss this more in depth though. Now that it's patently obvious that the resolution can be defeated, it likely will be (also, on that, let's all get aboard GA 2 repeal).

What I describe is not "ICC, just run in your country". Under the approach I suggested, the World Assembly would not be involved in any way in the prosecution of offenders in authorized states. They would merely certify that the state has the capacity to engage in fair, competent trials.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

NationStates

[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Reichstag voted in favor.