NationStates

Target

On Universal Jurisdiction
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Railana

Description: Recognizing the moral depravity of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Believing that such crimes are so heinous that the international community bears a collective responsibility to bring those who are guilty of such crimes to justice,

Concerned, however, about the potential lack of accountability and abuses of power associated with granting criminal jurisdiction to an international court,

Convinced, therefore, that the best means to fulfill this responsibility is to grant individual World Assembly member states the right and obligation to prosecute such individuals,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;

2. Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;

3. Requires member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2 in cases where:

1. the individual is within the territorial jurisdiction of that member state,
2. the individual has not already been given a fair trial for that crime by another state, and
3. there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;

4. Directs member states to ensure that the severity of the sentence assigned to an individual following a conviction of a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution is consistent with the severity of their crime;

5. Strongly encourages member states to volunteer any evidence relevant to the prosecution of an individual for a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution;

6. Permits member states to transfer an individual subject to prosecution under section 3 of this resolution to the jurisdiction of another member state that is able and willing to safely and fairly prosecute that individual for the same alleged crime or crimes;

7. Forbids 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, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

8. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;

9. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution precludes the World Assembly from passing further legislation on criminal jurisdiction, international police or judicial cooperation, or extradition.

Repeal

This august World Assembly,

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,

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,

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

1. there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists, due to differing interpretations of section 3(c) and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and
   
   
2. 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,

Expressing its malcontent at this state of affairs, where criminality of the worst degree is not punished and where the international rules-based order is unable to deter or bring justice to would-be tyrants from engaging in mass murder or other heinous crimes,

Saddened at the deaths caused by the Assembly’s inability to act and the incredible injustices that the Assembly is unable to take action to right, and

Calling for the creation of an compulsory, fair, and effective international tribunal to resolve these issues, hereby:

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.

Challenge

Rules broken: Honest Mistake, which as a reminder, covers "factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, and content that doesn't address the resolution."

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction claims that "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,"

However section 3(b) of On Universal Jurisdiction only applies to defendants if they had already received a fair trial. A trial in which the defendant was never at risk of facing justice in the first place, as described in (i) can hardly be described as fair. The claim that 3(b) prohibits retrial in this instance is therefore false, and by extension the claim that the resolution presents a barrier in victims seek justice is also false.

To paraphrase some ruling I can't be bothered to look up "double jeopardy requires that the defendant must have been in jeopardy in the first place."

Auralia wrote:This challenge is similar to, though not quite the same as, the point I raised in the At Vote thread.

Aclion here argues that 3(b) does not prohibit retrial if the prosecution was a sham. I would argue that 3(b) does not prohibit retrial under any circumstance, because 3(b) is just an exception to a requirement and not a prohibition in its own right. OUJ does not contain any double jeopardy protections; it merely does not force member states to violate double jeopardy prohibitions where they exist.

To be clear, this still means that the resolution at vote is factually inaccurate; there is no sense in which the resolution's claim that "section 3(b) prohibits a second trial" is true.