[PASSED!] Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes

[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.

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".)}

Domestic political actors who are not currently in charge of one member-state’s foreign policy, such as the legal political opposition or violent non-state actors. While they may very well be found guilty (or innocent) of the charges after a trial, it still weaponizes the WA as a political or military asset against rivals within the bounds of international law. For example, one could extradite opponents during elections with dubious charges pursued by states with weaker due process or call for IEC intervention against rebels with the knowledge they wouldn’t surrender their leader peacefully on faulty charges even if, in either case, the international community would be overwhelmingly against these actions which the IEC would be mandated to partake in.

To clarify, the specific problem here is that the IEC would effectively act as an unpaid mercenary group at the discretion of any two member-states, being used in unjustifiable, politically-charged interventions while shifting responsibility and expenses to all WA members. This would undermine the legitimacy of the WA as a body that respects national sovereignty and human rights.

[The Ice States]

Refuge. I'm sorry, have I not been clear enough that I no longer use that name? I have explicitly told you not to use that name in the past.[1] Frankly, I am sorry that you still refuse to acknowledge the passage of time since March last year. My earlier reply to you, as well as the proposal, has the answer to what the purpose is, and "what the protocols are for it". I will not repeat it again.

El Lazaro. In cases where a charge is frivolous, then a nation can just refuse to extradite. Even so, there is no "partisan" effect. Delivering someone to be tried is hardly "partisan". Finally, the IEC has discretion in whether or not to intervene, even where it is consensual (as indicated by "may supply", rather than "shall supply"). It seems reasonable for the IEC not to intervene if it deems that the matter is too political for the IEC to involve itself in.

[Refuge Isle]

Refuge. I'm sorry, have I not been clear enough that I no longer use that name? I have explicitly told you not to use that name in the past.[1] Frankly, I am sorry that you still refuse to acknowledge the passage of time since March last year.

You literally posted as that account ten times this month. I cannot keep up with what name you are using on a given day, but my apologies for being thirteen days out of date in this case.

My earlier reply to you, as well as the proposal, has the answer to what the purpose is, and "what the protocols are for it". I will not repeat it again.

Sorry but that's not going to work for me. I asked about two easily imaginable, specific scenarios wherein the armed forces of the World Assembly are called in, and how their weaponry will or will not be used. So let's read it again.

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.

What is the protocol for the World Assembly's military in this case? How will it ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation? And if the gnomes will somehow do the best job possible without loss of life or property and no shots fired, what is the purpose of the weaponry when they would be able to, by magic, resolve the situation without it?

[El Lazaro]

El Lazaro. In cases where a charge is frivolous, then a nation can just refuse to extradite. Even so, there is no "partisan" effect. Delivering someone to be tried is hardly "partisan". Finally, the IEC has discretion in whether or not to intervene, even where it is consensual (as indicated by "may supply", rather than "shall supply"). It seems reasonable for the IEC not to intervene if it deems that the matter is too political for the IEC to involve itself in.

This isn’t at all what I’m saying, which is unambiguously about the voluntary abuse of these extradition powers. And if the IEC has arbitrary, unspecified latitude (that is, neither bound by specific restrictions, nor the spirit of prior WA legislation, nor the vote of representatives) to chose whether it will or won’t intervene, then it can both wrongly intervene and wrongly refrain from intervening, further muddling any remaining reasons for its existence.

[The Ice States]

Refuge. I think it cannot be clearer that the identity I use just about everywhere on NS, have used to reply to all your posts here, and have written the vast majority of my WA resolutions as is my main identity. Ab initio I was fairly certain you would try to use that as a gotchya when I called you out. Although me using it in May is irrelevant, as my reasons for posting on it have absolutely nothing to do with me wanting to use it as my main identity. Your argument as to ten posts this month falls flat when you realise that I posted over 100 times on this nation in that very same time period.

When I tell you not to call me something, that is presumably because I want you not to call me that. This has been my main identity since about a year ago, and will continue to be the same for the foreseeable future. Stop making up rationalisations for behaviour you get called out on and consider that maybe you are the one at fault.

You have raised up two vague (CF: "easily imaginable" and "specific") situations. Restraining someone, eg using handcuffs, would usually be possible in the first situation you raised up, for example, making armed force not "necessary". Likewise, simple incapacitation without killing the person is usually possible for the second scenario.

El Lazaro. If I misunderstood your intial concern, I apologise for that. The authority of the IEC is bound by past resolutions, see "subject to past World Assembly law still in force"; we can presume that committees do comply with their mandates, or we would end up with a can of worms of "What if the committee decided to violate its provisions!?". Committees of course cannot be perfect; however I would find that the committee has a rational interest in not participating in a clearly controversial, politically delicate situation. It would therefore not do so.

[Gaybeans]

"I have no other points that has not already been made more eloquently elsewhere by my other representatives. I would implore other nations to vote against this." - Aoife McIndoe, representative of The Green Republic of Gaybeans.

[Cappedore]

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.)

Not exactly. Declarations are hardly concerned primarily with R/D gameplay; declarations have been used for a multitude of subjects. By the standards of declarations, no, this is not rule-breaking, but it's too primarily concerned with legislation to make it as a declaration, despite giving off "more suited as a declaration" vibes.

[REGINA LA VICTORIA]

SUPPORT THIS VOTE... TO AVOID THE WRONG DOERS RUNNING AWAY FROM PUNISHMENTS

[Juansonia]

"Strongly opposed to the enacting of any assembly-level armed force without a blocker against military action."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[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.

This issue was not addressed. We will vote against.

[Inare]

My issue with this is the definition of heinous acts. It may seem fairly obvious to most, but I take in refugees fleeing dictatorships as I once did myself. If I take in a refugee that is fleeing their home nation because they are homosexual, what's to stop their home country from considering such a thing an act against humanity? Obviously if the matter was tried in court, a homosexual person will definitely be found guilty, and my hands will be tied.

Perhaps there are already laws on the books that would prevent that exact scenario that I am not currently aware of since I have not had the time to look into every law in existence (who would?). That being said, I don't particularly like the idea of some corrupt dictator telling me that a refugee I took in committed a heinous crime, and me not having any room to decide for myself whether or not I agree with their view.

I would be open to making channels of diplomatic communication more open. Obviously I do not condone true heinous crimes against humanity, and if I were to be made aware of such a person hiding in my country, I would cooperate. I just want to retain the right to judge for myself whether or not the crime supposedly committed was truly heinous, or a corrupt government trying to overextend their power.

[Kenmoria]

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

This issue was not addressed. We will vote against.

(OOC: I have brought a legality-challenge against the proposal based on this feedback.)

[Astrobolt]

My issue with this is the definition of heinous acts. It may seem fairly obvious to most, but I take in refugees fleeing dictatorships as I once did myself. If I take in a refugee that is fleeing their home nation because they are homosexual, what's to stop their home country from considering such a thing an act against humanity?

Out of character: That wouldn’t be a problem. Heinous acts refer to actions that are war crimes crimes against humanity or a crime against peace, according to the laws and norms the WA, not an individual member state.

[Froshar]

The government of Froshar has registered its vote AGAINST this resolution because we oppose the formation of what is, effectively, a World Assembly police force. There should be a separate resolution specifically focussed on matters of extradition, which are normally negotiated between two countries independently of the World Assembly.

We are not opposed to the formation of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, as it makes sense that there should be a World Assembly sanctioned international court that tries alleged war criminals. If they cannot be tried in person because the nation in which they reside will not permit extradition, they can still be tried in absentia and either international pressure or a separate resolution related to extradition can compel them to extradite the individual if they are found guilty.

[Refuge Isle]

Your dismissal of valid criticism and refusal to answer basic questions is costing you votes, and the consequence of your ego will ultimately be the failure or repeal of this resolution that you were too prideful to admit you were wrong about. If you are unable to answer questions, specifically, as I and many others in this thread have posted, do you not know the answers? If you do not know the answers, why are you writing it into law?

You have raised up two vague (CF: "easily imaginable" and "specific") situations. Restraining someone, eg using handcuffs, would usually be possible in the first situation you raised up, for example, making armed force not "necessary". Likewise, simple incapacitation without killing the person is usually possible for the second scenario.

You are giving the World Assembly weapons to enforce the laws you're writing, vague hand-waving by saying they are necessary to ensure etc. does not mention a use beyond them being in their possession.

I asked what the conditions are in which the World Assembly military USES their weaponry. You have not answered, this is the third time I've asked.

In the situation that I stated the individual is resisting the World Assembly military. Does the World Assembly military use force on the individual? Yes or No. This is the second time I've asked.

In the situation I stated the individual is attacking the World Assembly military. Does the World Assembly military use their weaponry on the individual, allow themselves to be killed, or pass their weaponry to member nation guards who are more free to use that weaponry? Yes or no. This is the second time I've asked. Restraining someone with handcuffs is typically done before they are attacking someone. Since they are attacking someone, that option is not available to you as they are currently not restrained, docile, and compliant. I'm asking about the use of force specifically and what the protocols you have constructed (none) dictate that your people with weapons do with those weapons in a situation that may call for them.

When I tell you not to call me something, that is presumably because I want you not to call me that. This has been my main identity since about a year ago

Since you literally posted with Apatosaurus on the previous page of this thread (the same one where I called you by that name), bumping for comments, my advice would be to let that account die and stop posting with it if you don't want its name to be used in replies.

[Greater Chicago1and]

While crimes against humanity must be punished with diligence, we cannot accept the subordination of our legal system to a capitalist dominated entity.

We ardent supporters of internationalism and global unity, not a world gendarme.

[The Ice States]

Your dismissal of valid criticism and refusal to answer basic questions is costing you votes, and the consequence of your ego will ultimately be the failure or repeal of this resolution that you were too prideful to admit you were wrong about. If you are unable to answer questions, specifically, as I and many others in this thread have posted, do you not know the answers? If you do not know the answers, why are you writing it into law?

Wow. This truly rings hollow when you have cropped out relevant parts of my posts to refuse to answer them not once, not twice, but thrice; and instead of acknowledging error in calling me a name I have explicitly told you not to use, doubling tripling down on it, instead of, say, editing the original post in question. If you are going to complain about my supposed "refusal to answer basic questions" and being "too prideful to admit you were wrong", then maybe do not engage in those things yourself. And I will not repeat what I already stated and believe to be sufficient.

Since you literally posted with Apatosaurus on the previous page of this thread (the same one where I called you by that name), bumping for comments, my advice would be to let that account die and stop posting with it if you don't want its name to be used in replies.

...And frankly, this strikes me as a remarkably bad faith rationalisation. I posted on that nation exactly once in this thread. I also posted on this nation 23 times in this thread (or 21 if you do not count the times after your post in question). That I recently made a relatively small amount of posts on some old nation of mine does not make it my main identity, or void my previous explicit request for you not to call me that. But this is nonsensical. I want you to respect my explicit requests when I tell you not to do something because I take offense at it. Editing the post, or sincerely apologising for it, would be a more constructive response to being called out than rationalising and tripling down on what you were called out on.
-----
Cappedore. This has binding mandates, and therefore a declaration would not be appropriate.

Inare. Your nation maintains discretion in whether or not to extend comity; however it must make a review to determine whether or not to do so. The definition of a heinous crime additionally requires that "World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designat[e the act] as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity". A member nation cannot itself declare something to fit into one of those categories; World Assembly law has to designate it as such.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Support. We must eliminate our competing war criminals from WA member states so we can be the top dawg.

[Separatist Peoples]

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

This issue was not addressed. We will vote against.

"Your delegation's opposition was inspiring back when you identified as Old Hope, ambassadors, I see no reason for this to change with a new name."

[Chronotopica]

We ardent supporters of internationalism and global unity, not a world gendarme.

Precisely. Generally opposed to new police powers in general, but it is especially hard to see such a short resolution creating new police powers with very vague conditions on their use and deployment. Best to vote against and, if this type of power is deemed necessary, that it be established with clearer controls and more significant limitations on its use.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

In eldritch realms dark,
Where heinous acts breed horror,
Nations form accord.

Covert cooperation,
An ancient pact 'gainst vile crimes,
Unspeakable dread.

By World Assembly's writ,
Ancient laws still hold their sway,
In realms beyond time.

"Heinous crimes" defined,
Abominations 'gainst peace,
Humanity shudders.

When accursed accused,
Linger in a foreign realm,
A review takes form.

Tribunal of shadows,
Weighing past rites and sorrows,
Guilt in cosmic void.

State interests entwined,
Abyssal voices whisper,
Extend or withhold.

World Assembly's gaze,
Haunted judges bear witness,
To unearthly rites.

Comity, sinister,
Awakening dark proceedings,
In realms unhallowed.

The Ancient Ones watch,
Their emissaries may join,
In twisted tribunal.

Comity extends,
Through arcane rituals, dread rites,
Binding souls in thrall.

No entity dare,
Obstruct the travel between,
Forbidden dominions.

Enforcement, a curse,
A form of maddening ordeal,
In this unhinged realm.

The International Enforcer,
An eldritch force unleashed,
Phantoms wielding law.

Consent from the void,
Dread officers ensure safe passage,
To realms beyond grasp.

Armed force unspoken,
Unleashed when sanity wanes,
Eldritch justice reigns.

[The Ice States]

Snip

This has to be the best post this year I have seen in the GA forums.

[Logophilia Lyricalia]

<snip>

Hi, fellow trav'ler!
I sense a kindred spirit.
You should join us here!

[Kaprein]

I would like clarification on Article 3 of this resolution. What is there in this resolution to prevent another nation from launching criminal proceedings against another nation, and using Article 3 to bypass Article 2, given there does not appear to be a clause directly stating that Article 3 can only be activated if Article 2 has been satisfied?

Harry Adler, Permanent Representative of Kaprein to the World Assembly

[Semoro]

Semoro agrees with this resolution and our government thinks that the WA needs armed forces to enforce their resolutions.