[PASSED!] Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes

[The Ice States]

"With the passing of GA#654, the IEC is obviously an attempt to establish a WA-wide law enforcement body for use in future resolutions. I'd rather not be codifying the establishment of jackbooted thugs who in future resolutions will be granted the authority to traipse through the Associated Communities and do Bægþrýnðmængr knows what. Against."

"How do you know that a law enforcement body will be granted such authority? A vague hypothetical scenario which may arise from future resolutions is not a compelling objection to the current text of the draft itself."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Tinhampton]

"With the passing of GA#654, the IEC is obviously an attempt to establish a WA-wide law enforcement body for use in future resolutions. I'd rather not be codifying the establishment of jackbooted thugs who in future resolutions will be granted the authority to traipse through the Associated Communities and do Bægþrýnðmængr knows what. Against."

"How do you know that a law enforcement body will be granted such authority? A vague hypothetical scenario which may arise from future resolutions is not a compelling objection to the current text of the draft itself."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: You explicitly ascribe to the Commission those tasks future resolutions might grant it. Coincidentally, you are also one of the biggest peddlers of the idea that the World Assembly should have its own military - a task that can only be granted to it by a future resolution, outside the scope of this draft. My good friend, Mister Trelstad, can join the dots. So can I. And so, presumably, can you.

[Kenmoria]

"How do you know that a law enforcement body will be granted such authority? A vague hypothetical scenario which may arise from future resolutions is not a compelling objection to the current text of the draft itself."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: You explicitly ascribe to the Commission those tasks future resolutions might grant it. Coincidentally, you are also one of the biggest peddlers of the idea that the World Assembly should have its own military - a task that can only be granted to it by a future resolution, outside the scope of this draft. My good friend, Mister Trelstad, can join the dots. So can I. And so, presumably, can you.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The possibility granting of more tasks to the Commission does not necessarily entail that the Commission shall be granted more tasks. It merely leaves that possibility open. Although his Excellency Ambassador Saverchenko-Colleti might be in favour of the increasing militarisation of the General Assembly, it is not the sole decision of one ambassador whether to pass future resolutions, but rather of the entire Assembly. Before any militarisation occur, there must be a separate proposal and a separate vote. This, of course, is on top of the vote on this proposal.”

“Your Excellency is perfectly entitled to join the dots. However, I feel as though this is a less a dot-to-dot book, and more a series of random points on a scatter-graph. Let us not prevent good policy for the fear of a mere potentiality of, in your opinion, bad future mandates.”

[Apatosaurus]

Bumping this for any new comments, as it has fallen off the first page. This will be submitted next, after Public Endangered Species Table.

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: You explicitly ascribe to the Commission those tasks future resolutions might grant it. Coincidentally, you are also one of the biggest peddlers of the idea that the World Assembly should have its own military - a task that can only be granted to it by a future resolution, outside the scope of this draft. My good friend, Mister Trelstad, can join the dots. So can I. And so, presumably, can you.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The possibility granting of more tasks to the Commission does not necessarily entail that the Commission shall be granted more tasks. It merely leaves that possibility open. Although his Excellency Ambassador Saverchenko-Colleti might be in favour of the increasing militarisation of the General Assembly, it is not the sole decision of one ambassador whether to pass future resolutions, but rather of the entire Assembly. Before any militarisation occur, there must be a separate proposal and a separate vote. This, of course, is on top of the vote on this proposal.”

“Your Excellency is perfectly entitled to join the dots. However, I feel as though this is a less a dot-to-dot book, and more a series of random points on a scatter-graph. Let us not prevent good policy for the fear of a mere potentiality of, in your opinion, bad future mandates.”

Smith: Interesting. It appears as though the mask has slipped, in both the Venetian sense and the... COVID-19 sense. My views about Saverchenko-Colleti's proposal has been clear for some time now: it is largely pointless to the extent it either creates, or seeks to create, unnecessary bureaucracy. I reaffirm them here now that we know the true purpose of the IEC.

[The Ice States]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The possibility granting of more tasks to the Commission does not necessarily entail that the Commission shall be granted more tasks. It merely leaves that possibility open. Although his Excellency Ambassador Saverchenko-Colleti might be in favour of the increasing militarisation of the General Assembly, it is not the sole decision of one ambassador whether to pass future resolutions, but rather of the entire Assembly. Before any militarisation occur, there must be a separate proposal and a separate vote. This, of course, is on top of the vote on this proposal.”

“Your Excellency is perfectly entitled to join the dots. However, I feel as though this is a less a dot-to-dot book, and more a series of random points on a scatter-graph. Let us not prevent good policy for the fear of a mere potentiality of, in your opinion, bad future mandates.”

Smith: Interesting. It appears as though the mask has slipped, in both the Venetian sense and the... COVID-19 sense. My views about Saverchenko-Colleti's proposal has been clear for some time now: it is largely pointless to the extent it either creates, or seeks to create, unnecessary bureaucracy. I reaffirm them here now that we know the true purpose of the IEC.

"How exactly are the mandates of this proposal 'pointless'? There is an explicit explanation for the point of this proposal in the preamble; I find said reasons to be rather compelling."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[The Ice States]

As Namwenia's proposal comes to vote in a few hours, I am submitting depending on the outcome of that vote.

[The Ice States]

Forgot to mention this, but Category and Strength will be Int'l Security / Significant.

[The Ice States]

Submitted

[Namwenia]

"As the drafter of the now failed Protecting World Assembly Neutrality, we are opposed to this measure on the grounds of Section 4. Any attempt at crafting a World Assembly backed police force, we will fight against in earnest. It should fall to our member states to police themselves and, as necessary, assist in extradition. Comity between nations regarding extradition is entirely reasonable; however, an armed enforcement agency of the World Assembly which, with no formal requirement of neutrality, is not.

We stand opposed."
-Pat McDonald
World Assembly Ambassador
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

[Parti Ouvrier]

"snip

We stand opposed."
-Pat McDonald
World Assembly Ambassador
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

No support for this delusion that heinous crimes can be prevented from an outside force, its also delusional that this force will be benevolent. "What supporters of this proposal seem not to understand is the uses for an international military force actually becomes tyrannical and imperious. Our government are not pacifists, we have no illusions in diplomacy, but nor do we have any illusions in a world military and police force, no, those nations need revolutions from within, the people themselves need to rise up against their own governments state tyranny, which is the only way to resolve the crimes sust not stir up resentment and a pro-military arms race. Opposed!

[Cappedore]

Feel like this would be better suited as a declaration. Also, I feel like this establishes some form of 'WA Police' ...

[Kenmoria]

Feel like this would be better suited as a declaration. Also, I feel like this establishes some form of 'WA Police' ...

(OOC: This would break the rules of the SC, if it were to be submitted there as a declaration. The SC is not concerned with the world of roleplay that the GA inhabits, in which an international police is a meaningful construct in-character. The SC is more concerned with the equivalency in Gameplay, which is Defenderdom, entirely unconnected to this proposal.)

[Refuge Isle]

"As the drafter of the now failed Protecting World Assembly Neutrality, we are opposed to this measure on the grounds of Section 4. Any attempt at crafting a World Assembly backed police force, we will fight against in earnest. It should fall to our member states to police themselves and, as necessary, assist in extradition. Comity between nations regarding extradition is entirely reasonable; however, an armed enforcement agency of the World Assembly which, with no formal requirement of neutrality, is not.

We stand opposed."
-Pat McDonald
World Assembly Ambassador
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

My thoughts represented in entirety.

[Namwenia]

Feel like this would be better suited as a declaration. Also, I feel like this establishes some form of 'WA Police' ...

"This proposal will, based on a reading of Section 4, most assuredly allow the World Assembly to raise up an armed police force, which we continue to oppose."

My thoughts represented in entirety.

"We thank the ambassador for their kind words on our previous ambassador's passionate remarks on this proposal. We hope to see you and your delegation's support in opposing this proposal."
-Arvo Halberg
GA Chief for World Assembly Ambassador Kaori Castro
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Totally against anything that resembles creating a police force for the WA. This resolution also leaves the door open for the future expansion of military enforcement of WA actions. Especially when it was brought to my attention by Luca/Refuge Isle that extradition is already provided for in past GA resolutions, what else does this resolution do except provide a backdoor for a WA police force?

[The Ice States]

Totally against anything that resembles creating a police force for the WA. This resolution also leaves the door open for the future expansion of military enforcement of WA actions. Especially when it was brought to my attention by Luca/Refuge Isle that extradition is already provided for in past GA resolutions, what else does this resolution do except provide a backdoor for a WA police force?

What resolution is there which I am not aware of making the comity causes redundant? I see GA #38, which does address extradition for genocide in particular, and GA #655 for piracy. There are lots of heinous crimes (as defined in Section 1) which are not genocide or piracy. I cannot find anything which facilitates extradition for all or even most Section 1 heinous crimes. _{(NB: Extradition is not the only means of comity member nations can grant, as per Section 3.)}

Why is having a WA police force necessarily problematic? Obviously irresponsible usage of a WA police or military force is, but I fail to see how a WA police force in and of itself is objectionable. The final sentence of Section 4 is deliberately worded as to require a separate resolution to invoke the provision.

[Refuge Isle]

Why is having a WA police force necessarily problematic? Obviously irresponsible usage of a WA police or military force is, but I fail to see how a WA police force in and of itself is objectionable. The final sentence of Section 4 is deliberately worded as to require a separate resolution to invoke the provision.

The General Assembly is a organisation that deals with nations, who are not typically arrested. The burden of responsibility for enforcing laws pertaining to individuals are taken up by the nations wherein they reside. That is the burden of enforcement that nations bear when they agree to laws by way of membership within the World Assembly. If they do not carry out that enforcement, it is an administrative issue that is met with sanctions and punishments, as appropriate, for the non-compliance. It is beyond the scope of the World Assembly to, personally, carry out enforcement by way of a militarised force, especially when one has never been wanted or needed up to this point.

Laws can be enforced in more ways than threatening to shoot someone for not doing something, and when you are intent on creating an agency who will be carrying weaponry to their destination to enforce their will, that is exactly what you're doing. If you don't understand why that is "necessarily problematic", you cannot be helped.

[The Ice States]

Why is having a WA police force necessarily problematic? Obviously irresponsible usage of a WA police or military force is, but I fail to see how a WA police force in and of itself is objectionable. The final sentence of Section 4 is deliberately worded as to require a separate resolution to invoke the provision.

The General Assembly is a organisation that deals with nations, who are not typically arrested. The burden of responsibility for enforcing laws pertaining to individuals are taken up by the nations wherein they reside. That is the burden of enforcement that nations bear when they agree to laws by way of membership within the World Assembly. If they do not carry out that enforcement, it is an administrative issue that is met with sanctions and punishments, as appropriate, for the non-compliance. It is beyond the scope of the World Assembly to, personally, carry out enforcement by way of a militarised force, especially when one has never been wanted or needed up to this point.

There has been no WA police or military force until now because it was blocked by a plagiarised resolution (and before that, by the GA/UN rules). This is not the first draft pursued in earnest to create a WA military or police force, eg [1][2].

Laws can be enforced in more ways than threatening to shoot someone for not doing something, and when you are intent on creating an agency who will be carrying weaponry to their destination to enforce their will, that is exactly what you're doing. If you don't understand why that is "necessarily problematic", you cannot be helped.

Somehow, that is not what this resolution would mandate. There is no mandate that IEC officers can shoot extraditees; and in fact that would probably violate the mandate to "ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation". If IEC officers "threaten[ed] to shoot" the extraditees, that would be a laughably empty threat and the gnomes are probably more competent than to make empty threats they are forbidden from following through on.

_{Edited to fix a typo and add this disclaimer.}

[Refuge Isle]

There has been no WA police or military force until now because it was blocked by a plagiarised resolution (and before that, by the GA/UN rules). This is not the first draft pursued in earnest to create a WA military or police force, eg [1][2].

I'm well aware? Why would you think that's a useful response to what I said? I'll just repeat my statement to clear it up for you: There has been no want or need or a WA militarised force up to this point. Any draft or resolution that wants to militarise the World Assembly should receive pushback against the effort. I have no idea what you're think you're accomplishing by linking to drafts I would also oppose.

The responsibility of the World Assembly is administration. The responsibility of the member state is enforcement. If the member state is not enforcing the laws that have been enacted or that they are compelled to enact, that is when the World Assembly breaks out sanctions. It is not within the scope of the World Assembly to personally start sending armed guards to do that enforcement itself. Not only is it authoritarian overreach, but it's also entirely untenable. If a member nation isn't doing their paperwork, are you going to deploy administrators to their nation to do it for them? Then why are we sending guards for prison transfers? Will we start doing routine traffic patrols as well? Let's save the enforcement of laws for the nations who are supposed to be enforcing those laws. It's worked fine the last decade or two.

Somehow, that is not what this resolution would mandate. There is no mandate that IEC officers can shoot extraditees; and in fact that would probably violate the mandate to "ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation". If IEC officers "threaten[ed] to shoot" the extraditees, that would a laughably empty threat and the gnomes are probably more competent than to make empty threats they are forbidden from following through on.

Why do they need to be armed, then? What do they intend to do with those arms? Are they decorative arms? Do they shoot decorative bullets? You obviously thought that it was necessary for them to have weaponry such that you require it, you obviously feel like it will have some sort of use, be in intimidation, or actually just killing people. Since this resolution is meant to be a foray into giving the World Assembly guns to do a job, it is an extremely pertinent time to ask why they need those guns and why they need the job. And you don't have a good reason for either.

But you do know that you want to leave the door open to expanding their scope in the future.

[First Nightmare]

No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nation jurisdictions for the purposes of such extradition.

There might be very good reasons to obstruct the transport; e.g. a transport that needs to be stopped due to a quarantine.

[El Lazaro]

If I am reading this correctly, it’s meant to compel a member-state, neglecting obvious responsibilities in bad faith, to, in good faith, consider these responsibilities to satisfy vague guidelines, and outlines a procedure which member-states already considering cooperation with other member-states and/or the WA can and likely do follow without traipsing through a different section of WA bureaucracy. So, essentially, this is pointless red tape to cut through that is followed up with the sucker-punch of providing “law enforcement officers” authorized to use “armed defensive force” against those merely charged with an “implied crime” under prior WA legislation. I am not unconditionally opposed to the creation of any WA security forces, but this is an incredibly low standard for deploying international paramilitary units to intervene as a partisan force in internal political disputes, potentially creating or escalating civil conflict.

[The Ice States]

There has been no WA police or military force until now because it was blocked by a plagiarised resolution (and before that, by the GA/UN rules). This is not the first draft pursued in earnest to create a WA military or police force, eg [1][2].

I'm well aware? Why would you think that's a useful response to what I said? I'll just repeat my statement to clear it up for you: There has been no want or need or a WA militarised force up to this point. Any draft or resolution that wants to militarise the World Assembly should receive pushback against the effort. I have no idea what you're think you're accomplishing by linking to drafts I would also oppose.

There evidently has been "want or need [f]or a WA militarised force" before this proposal, as indicated by multiple drafts having been pursued in earnest in the past to create such a body.

As to the main point of your argument, slippery-slope arguments (implicit in your arguments as to prison transfers, paperwork and traffic patrols) remain unconvincing. It is hardly "authoritarian" to arrest and extradite charged and convicted war criminals and genociders. The purpose of arming the police force is explicitly stated in the resolution: "to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation". The resolution requires that the armed force be necessary (and thus a sine qua non) for that purpose.

If I am reading this correctly, it’s meant to compel a member-state, neglecting obvious responsibilities in bad faith, to, in good faith, consider these responsibilities to satisfy vague guidelines, and outlines a procedure which member-states already considering cooperation with other member-states and/or the WA can and likely do follow without traipsing through a different section of WA bureaucracy. So, essentially, this is pointless red tape to cut through that is followed up with the sucker-punch of providing “law enforcement officers” authorized to use “armed defensive force” against those merely charged with an “implied crime” under prior WA legislation. I am not unconditionally opposed to the creation of any WA security forces, but this is an incredibly low standard for deploying international paramilitary units to intervene as a partisan force in internal political disputes, potentially creating or escalating civil conflict.

What internal political disputes would the IEC engage in under this mandate? _{(NB: This resolution would only authorise or direct the IEC to participate in an extradition "with the consent of the extraditing member nation", and only for Section 3 extradition.)}

[Refuge Isle]

It is hardly "authoritarian" to arrest

I'm sorry are you saying that it's not authoritarian for an international organisation to bring armed guards into a member nation to force someone somewhere else?

The purpose of arming the police force is explicitly stated in the resolution: "to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation". The resolution requires that the armed force be necessary (and thus a sine qua non) for that purpose.

Me: Why is it necessary
Apato: Because it is necessary

I understand that the resolution requires them to be armed, I said that. I'm asking what the PURPOSE of it is. You are GIVING THEM WEAPONS and I'm asking WHAT THEY'RE FOR.

Situation: The World Assembly is asked to deploy it's military force for the purposes of a transport. The individual resists the World Assembly military forces.
Question: Does the World Assembly use its weaponry to force the prisoner into transport and, if so, how?

Situation: The World Assembly is asked to deploy it's military force for the purposes of a transport. The individual resists the World Assembly military forces and attacks them.
Question: Does the World Assembly military:

1. Do nothing because they are paralysed from doing anything and get killed by the individual
2. Kill or injure the individual with the weaponry they have been provided with in self-defence
3. Supply arms to the member nation in question by throwing their provided weaponry at the nearest local guard in the hopes that they will be more legally liberated in dispensing the violence desired

You are creating a military with zero oversight on how it's used or what the protocols are for it beyond that they must have guns and they will use those guns for more things in the future. So I'm asking you what they're going to be used for, specifically, right now.

[Tinhampton]

Office of the President of Sophia
WORLD ASSEMBLY VOTING RECOMMENDATION

---

General Assembly: Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes (International Security; Significant), by Magecastle Embassy Building A5

Recommendation: AGAINST

Rationale: As obvious goes, the purpose of this proposal is somewhat less obvious than you'd expect. The first thing that pops out when you read the Convention is that it doesn't appear to be about the World Assembly's powers at all. Where someone charged by a member state with a heinous crime - namely "a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity" - resides elsewhere in the WA, so the resolution goes, their state of residence must look into whether it is appropriate for them to them to be tried or deported, with regard to previous trials they have faced, how guilty they are seen to be, what they have been charged with, and "any state or public interests" either for or against further action.

If the study concludes that the member state is justified in trying them there or deporting them to the other member state where they were charged with the heinous crime, it may do either of those things. There is nothing wrong in itself with requiring those who harbour suspected war criminals (and those of their ilk) to look into how they should be further dealt with, especially not with due process being taken into consideration. If that was all this proposal contained, we would be comfortable supporting it. Instead, the major issue here is the sheer degree to which the WA could directly involve itself in the process, beyond simply passing regulations for member states.

Firstly, it authorises the World Assembly Judiciary Committee - whose only judicial staff are judges on trial and appellate courts, according to GA#466 "World Assembly Justice Accord" and GA#513 "Sovereign Justice Accord" - to "supply judicial officials" where those running the studies described earlier need help with them. We can either assume that the WAJC will be plucking judges out of thin air (or other member states) to help out, or that it will be sending its own judges. A potentially harmful backlog in the relevant courts will likely result in either case and there is no good reason why this provision should have been included.

But, more provocatively, it establishes an International Enforcement Commission - which, at this stage, is only being given the power to supply armed police with the deporting state's permission in order to facilitate the suspect's safe deportation to their home state. Importantly, this proposal allows the WA to grant the Commission extra law enforcement powers, which is of particular importance when considering that the author of the proposal is a major supporter of a WA police force; doubly so when they denied that was the purpose of including the expansion clause until days before submission.

We may not know yet why such a police force would exist in an expanded state, nor what kind of powers it would have, although it is clear that it would eventually pose the single greatest threat to national sovereignty and law enforcement in the WA's history. The details are a conversation for another day; what matters here is stopping it from being enacted in the first place. Defeating this Convention is the most obvious way to stop the IEC and similar instances of WA overreach. We invite the author to submit a streamlined, potentially less controversial version of this proposal; we would support that, but we cannot support this.

~~~~~~~~~~

This recommendation was written by Tinhampton, the President of Sophia. If you liked this, please upvote our recommendation dispatch here!

This resolution will be at vote between the major updates of June 1st 2023 and June 5th 2023.