[DRAFT] The International Extradition Treaty

[Malikov]

The International Extradition Treaty

Category: Political Stability (???) International Security (???)
Strength: Mild (???)
Created By: Malikov
Co-Authored By: Serbian_Soviet_Union

NOTING that many crimes are committed by people that flee the country before they can be lawfully prosecuted.

FURTHER NOTING that crimes committed inside national borders are almost un-prosecutable, once the person/s that committed the crime are on the land of a country, different from the one whom the crime was committed against.

RECOGNIZING that many crimes can be committed against another country, from the safety of your own country.

CREATES the World Assembly Extradition Agency (WAEA), an organization with the purpose of creating, and distributing, international search-and-seizure warrants, for all WA member nations.

CREATES The International Extradition Treaty, in an attempt to:

1a) Ensure that people responsible for committing a crime can be lawfully persecuted, no matter where they flee to in the world.

2a) Ensure that the nation that the crime has been committed against shall have the opportunity to prosecute the criminal themselves.

MANDATES THAT:

1b) A nation that has probable cause to suspect a person commit one, or more, un-lawful acts against them has the right to investigate such person to the fullest extent of their law, and prosecute them, if they are found guilty.

2b) If such a person should flee to another country before an investigation, or a just punishment could be brought forth, then the nation who has been the target of such a persons suspected unlawful actions has the right to apply to the WAEA for an international search-and-seizure warrant. The international search-and-seizure warrant will require the police force, in the nation where the suspected criminal has fled, to arrest said person, and return them to the nation that said person is suspected of committing a crime in.

3b) Every nation retains the right to appeal to the WAEA, against an international search-and-seizure warrant, only if the international search-and-seizure affects their nation directly.

4) Should a nation appeal against an international search-and-seizure warrant, then the nation in possession of said warrant, will not be allowed to enact upon the powers provided by the warrant, until the WAEA makes its final ruling concerning the appeal.

5) The WAEA is prevented from giving any nation an international search-and-seizure warrant, if:
a) the crime committed does not exist in the nation where the criminal has fled, only to be superseded if the crime committed is more serious than a minor infraction in the nation where such an act was committed,
b) the nation where the crime was committed imposes a death penalty for such a crime.

6) Defines:
a) a minor infraction as: any crime committed where the penalty does not include jail time, and has a fine lower then 20% of said nations GDP per capita.

7) Allows any nation to refuse the extradition of their own citizens

Both nations involved in an act of international extradition must be part of the World Assembly, for the resolution to hold power.

[Meekinos]

This is missing a clause that would give a nation a right to refuse to honour the warrant should either the penalty be too harsh in the nation where the fugative has fled to, or the crime in question does not exist in that nation's law books.

[Kaesekartoffeln]

I support this. Also, previous WA resolutions have banned torchure and ensured a fair trial, correct? If so there is no need for a clause that would allow nations to not extradite someone due to fear of an unfair trial or cruel punishment. However, it should define under what circumstances a nation appealing to the WA can refuse to extradite someone. Also, I hate to be the grammar police but you use "persecute" instead of "prosecute" several times in the resolution.

[Meekinos]

I support this. Also, previous WA resolutions have banned torchure and ensured a fair trial, correct? If so there is no need for a clause that would allow nations to not extradite someone due to fear of an unfair trial or cruel punishment. However, it should define under what circumstances a nation appealing to the WA can refuse to extradite someone. Also, I hate to be the grammar police but you use "persecute" instead of "prosecute" several times in the resolution.

Even if that is true, there is no consistecy over all in international law. Just because protesting the government is illegal in your run of the mill authoritarian dictatorship doesn't make it so in more democratic ones. What we want to know is would it be possible to have an exclusion on the grounds that the crime wouldn't exist in said nation?

[Malikov]

I support this. Also, previous WA resolutions have banned torchure and ensured a fair trial, correct? If so there is no need for a clause that would allow nations to not extradite someone due to fear of an unfair trial or cruel punishment. However, it should define under what circumstances a nation appealing to the WA can refuse to extradite someone. Also, I hate to be the grammar police but you use "persecute" instead of "prosecute" several times in the resolution.

Even if that is true, there is no consistecy over all in international law. Just because protesting the government is illegal in your run of the mill authoritarian dictatorship doesn't make it so in more democratic ones. What we want to know is would it be possible to have an exclusion on the grounds that the crime wouldn't exist in said nation?

In response to Meekinos, because the person in question commited a crime, then they have to stand trial. Just because the law they broke doesn't exist in their own country doesn't mean that you have the right to break that law anywhere else. Also, any one nation can appeal to the WAEA to revoke the international warrant. Its up to the WAEA to decide whether or not they should, on a case to case basis (taking into account what the penalty for the crime is, and such). Because torture is outlawed, and by the same token, the right to a fair trial, by different legislatuer, I see no need to include those clauses again.

Oh, and I will be reveiwing my grammer. Thanks guys.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

This proposal is very good and it certainly gave way for the International Extradition Treaty after the right to extradition was repealed. This proposal is good because it gives each nation a right to apply for an international warrant if a person committed crimes in that nation and has fled to another nation before the court hearing. Without this proposal it would give anyone a chance to flee and go into another nation for hiding or having them apply for citizenship in another country where the person would be roaming freely. To prevent this from one of many ways of criminals getting away with the crimes they committed is for the International Extradition Treaty to come into place.

Because torture is outlawed, and by the same token, the right to a fair trial, by different legislatuer, I see no need to include those clauses again.

Exactly. Which is why nations should not worry about the person facing trial would be given a fair trial or not due to the resolution that has been passed ages ago which guarentees the person indicted that they will be guarenteed the rights to fair trial.

[Rutianas]

One question:

2b) If such a person should flee to another country before a just punishment could be brought forth, then the nation who has been the target of such a persons unlawful actions has the right to apply to the WAEA for a international search-and-seizure warrant, to arrest the person in question, and bring them back to their own nation, for a full investigation and conviction.

This is giving nation A the right to enter nation B without nation B's permission in order to get one of nation A's criminals?

Honestly, this was better when nation A could appeal to nation B for the return of their criminals.

This is severely encroaching on a nation's right to defend themselves from what they may perceive as illegal entry and thus, an act of war. This could cause far more harm than good.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Malikov]

One question:

2b) If such a person should flee to another country before a just punishment could be brought forth, then the nation who has been the target of such a persons unlawful actions has the right to apply to the WAEA for a international search-and-seizure warrant, to arrest the person in question, and bring them back to their own nation, for a full investigation and conviction.

This is giving nation A the right to enter nation B without nation B's permission in order to get one of nation A's criminals?

Honestly, this was better when nation A could appeal to nation B for the return of their criminals.

This is severely encroaching on a nation's right to defend themselves from what they may perceive as illegal entry and thus, an act of war. This could cause far more harm than good.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Sorry, My writing wasn't clear. I'll make some edtis, but what it's supposed to mean is that if nation A gets the warrant, then they can go to nation B, arrest the felon, and bring him back to nation A to stand trial.

[Meekinos]

In response to Meekinos, because the person in question commited a crime, then they have to stand trial. Just because the law they broke doesn't exist in their own country doesn't mean that you have the right to break that law anywhere else. Also, any one nation can appeal to the WAEA to revoke the international warrant. Its up to the WAEA to decide whether or not they should, on a case to case basis (taking into account what the penalty for the crime is, and such). Because torture is outlawed, and by the same token, the right to a fair trial, by different legislatuer, I see no need to include those clauses again.

Oh, and I will be reveiwing my grammer. Thanks guys.

What your suggesting is that a nation with a certain set of ideals would have to go against them because of another.

Appealing to the WAEA... bah! Pointless bureaucratic BS; endless paperwork and thumb twiddling by meddling bureaucrats who derive a sadistic pleasure out of throwing up red tape at every turn and meddling where they are welcomed.

Let us make it clear what we want: just because the crime of engaging in homosexual activity with another person who is able to consent is a crime in one nation, is not a crime in another. We want to see an exemption clause when the crime is related to civil and political rights. We don't want to have to plod through needless red tape.

[Malikov]

So, basically, what your saying is if there is a nation of cannibals, then they could have their citizens go into your country, eat a couple dozen people, and then go back to their country without any punishment? Your trying to protect criminals!? I don't understand your reasoning at all.

[Meekinos]

So, basically, what your saying is if there is a nation of cannibals, then they could have their citizens go into your country, eat a couple dozen people, and then go back to their country without any punishment? Your trying to protect criminals!? I don't understand your reasoning at all.

We refuse to extradite people for protesting their government; expressing themselves; holding certain views; their sexuality, things that are harmless. We're not condoning murder, what we're condoning is the suppression of people. This act violates the Charter of Civil Rights. It means if someone flees because they publish a book that challenges the government and that book is illegal, and thus producing and distributing is a crime, we would refuse to extradite. This extradition treaty should focus on VIOLENT crime, not victimless "crime" (i.e.: suicide, not believing in the right god).

[Malikov]

So, basically, what your saying is if there is a nation of cannibals, then they could have their citizens go into your country, eat a couple dozen people, and then go back to their country without any punishment? Your trying to protect criminals!? I don't understand your reasoning at all.

We refuse to extradite people for protesting their government; expressing themselves; holding certain views; their sexuality, things that are harmless. We're not condoning murder, what we're condoning is the suppression of people. This act violates the Charter of Civil Rights. It means if someone flees because they publish a book that challenges the government and that book is illegal, and thus producing and distributing is a crime, we would refuse to extradite. This extradition treaty should focus on VIOLENT crime, not victimless "crime" (i.e.: suicide, not believing in the right god).

Thats where the WAEA comes in. I will and clauses that prevent the extradition of citizens for victimless crimes though.

[Tanaara]

"Actually Lord Malikov, they are very correct to be concerned. Your proposition says that if oh say... Tanaara gets permission from this WAEA, they can enter lets say, for the sake of example ... Tarlachia, without specific permission from Tarlachia, to arrest and remove a criminal. One of Tanaara's officers of the law could cross a nations border without that nations permission.

That's cause for war in the eyes of many nations, and takes away a nations sovereignty- aka the WA has just granted Tanaara the right to ignore Tarlachia's borders. I don't care if it's in pursuit of the most henious serial killer about or the Eostarae hare! It's not going to be taken well."

[Rutianas]

"Actually Lord Malikov, they are very correct to be concerned. Your proposition says that if oh say... Tanaara gets permission from this WAEA, they can enter lets say, for the sake of example ... Tarlachia, without specific permission from Tarlachia, to arrest and remove a criminal. One of Tanaara's officers of the law could cross a nations border without that nations permission.

That's cause for war in the eyes of many nations, and takes away a nations sovereignty- aka the WA has just granted Tanaara the right to ignore Tarlachia's borders. I don't care if it's in pursuit of the most henious serial killer about or the Eostarae hare! It's not going to be taken well."

This is precisely my point. Should any nation enter the borders of the Imperial Republic without permission, and we do have a WA member within the Imperial Republic even though Rutianas herself is not a member anymore, we would declare war on said nation. We'd be well within our rights to do so. Our WA member would also be well within their rights to declare war.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

"Actually Lord Malikov, they are very correct to be concerned. Your proposition says that if oh say... Tanaara gets permission from this WAEA, they can enter lets say, for the sake of example ... Tarlachia, without specific permission from Tarlachia, to arrest and remove a criminal. One of Tanaara's officers of the law could cross a nations border without that nations permission.

That's cause for war in the eyes of many nations, and takes away a nations sovereignty- aka the WA has just granted Tanaara the right to ignore Tarlachia's borders. I don't care if it's in pursuit of the most henious serial killer about or the Eostarae hare! It's not going to be taken well."

This resolution does not limit a nations sovereignty but actually adds to more of the rights. Allowing a nation to apply for a international warrant if the convicted criminal of that nation has fled the nation before the court hearing, thus preventing that person from entering into another nation or from applying for citizenship in another nation. Also allowing police to cooperate with other nation's law and order and police by providing efficient security in the international world.

Also your nation cannot harbour criminals that are not citizens of your nation and do not contain a citizenship in your nation, by harbouring criminals from another nation would be seen as an act of hostility and an act of violating another nations national security. Also any of your officers were to cross the border into another nation, that would be violating a nations border and their sovereignty, this world is not a borderless world but a world with borders.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

What your suggesting is that a nation with a certain set of ideals would have to go against them because of another.

Where does it state in the International Extradition Treaty Proposal??

Appealing to the WAEA... bah! Pointless bureaucratic BS; endless paperwork and thumb twiddling by meddling bureaucrats who derive a sadistic pleasure out of throwing up red tape at every turn and meddling where they are welcomed.

There will always be some form of bureaucratism, isn't the World Assembly a bureaucrat organization itself?? List me one resolution that is not bureaucratic. List any nation that is not bureaucratic and that doesn't have to follow the correct guidelines and procedures and the steps it needs to undertake while establishing something, approving or documenting something. Laws are full of bureaucratism, only nations that are not bureaucratic are anarchist nations without any law and order, nothing or no one to implement and enforce anything.

Let us make it clear what we want: just because the crime of engaging in homosexual activity with another person who is able to consent is a crime in one nation, is not a crime in another. We want to see an exemption clause when the crime is related to civil and political rights. We don't want to have to plod through needless red tape.

Why is sexuality baught up in this??

[Kelssek]

This resolution does not limit a nations sovereignty but actually adds to more of the rights.

It permits a foreign nation to demand extradition of people within our jurisdiction as if it were their right to enforce their laws in our country. That is an infringement of sovereignty.

Allowing a nation to apply for a international warrant if the convicted criminal of that nation has fled the nation before the court hearing, thus preventing that person from entering into another nation or from applying for citizenship in another nation. Also allowing police to cooperate with other nation's law and order and police by providing efficient security in the international world.

And allowing dictatorial governments to reach their grubby hands for their dissidents abroad, too?

Also your nation cannot harbour criminals that are not citizens of your nation and do not contain a citizenship in your nation,

Yes we can. Any person in our territory is under our jurisdiction and subject to our laws, not those of other nations, and we expect that is the case in most other countries. If we want to grant them asylum we damn well can. Your citizenship is immaterial.

Just because selling heroin is legal in Kelssek doesn't mean you can do it while abroad, and just because nude sunbathing is illegal in another country doesn't mean you can't do it if you travel to Kelssek, where there are no laws on public nudity.

by harbouring criminals from another nation would be seen as an act of hostility and an act of violating another nations national security.

I see, so if we don't want to extradite people accused of insulting religion, criticising their government, chewing gum, or sodomy, for examples of things that are legal here but may not be abroad, that's "violating another nation's national security"? Well too flippin' bad.

The ideal addition to this resolution, not that we would support it in any case, would be to allow governments to deny extradition if the act the person is accused of is not an offence in the nation. We're not going to extradite people to be whipped for being gay, or for smoking marijuana, for instance.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

It permits a foreign nation to demand extradition of people within our jurisdiction as if it were their right to enforce their laws in our country. That is an infringement of sovereignty.

The people are within your jurisdiction once entering your borders and they are nationals of FSSU that committed crimes in FSSU and then later fled to another nation like yours before the court hearing, that person then becomes a fugitive and therefore an international warrant is applied and issued. Due to the jurisdiction of that nation that the fugitive of another nation has entered, it is therefore the duty of that nation to arrest and extradite the person back to their nation and where the crimes have been committed. By not complying with the extradition arrest, that nation then is violating the sovereignty of the nation that issued the international warrant and the extradition in the first place. Also by not complying with the arrest warrant and the extradition request, your nation would be harbouring criminals from another nation.

And allowing dictatorial governments to reach their grubby hands for their dissidents abroad, too?

Please explain??

and how?

Yes we can. Any person in our territory is under our jurisdiction and subject to our laws, not those of other nations, and we expect that is the case in most other countries. If we want to grant them asylum we damn well can. Your citizenship is immaterial.

That would be harbouring criminals. So according to your logic, if the people in your nation committed crimes inside your nation for example assassinated a diplomat or the president of your nation as an example, and they later fled to FSSU, would you demand the extradition of these assassinators that assassinated the president of your nation and what if we granted them assylym and citizenship to FSSU??

Just because selling heroin is legal in Kelssek doesn't mean you can do it while abroad, and just because nude sunbathing is illegal in another country doesn't mean you can't do it if you travel to Kelssek, where there are no laws on public nudity.

I see, so if we don't want to extradite people accused of insulting religion, criticising their government, chewing gum, or sodomy, for examples of things that are legal here but may not be abroad, that's "violating another nation's national security"? Well too flippin' bad.

These crimes are very mild and not all nations have these kind of laws. The worst scenario that would happen is slap in the bum or a fine. I don't think you can even classify these things as crimes as they come under the freedom of speech and through human rights.

The ideal addition to this resolution, not that we would support it in any case, would be to allow governments to deny extradition if the act the person is accused of is not an offence in the nation. We're not going to extradite people to be whipped for being gay, or for smoking marijuana, for instance.

If that person is not the citizen of your nation then i am afraid your nation would not be allowed to do that by harbouring criminals from another nation. Just aswell as your nation would not like it that other nations started harbouring criminals from your nation.

I must add more to this by yelling out,

[i]"GOD BLESS INTERNATIONAL LAWS!!!!!!"[/i]

[Kelssek]

The people are within your jurisdiction once entering your borders and they are nationals of FSSU that committed crimes in FSSU and then later fled to another nation like yours before the court hearing, that person then becomes a fugitive and therefore an international warrant is applied and issued.

They committed crimes under your laws and under your jurisdiction. Not under ours.

Due to the jurisdiction of that nation that the fugitive of another nation has entered, it is therefore the duty of that nation to arrest and extradite the person back to their nation and where the crimes have been committed.

No, it is not. As it stands, your nation may request extradition and it is up to the nation concerned to agree to that request. Certainly other considerations will be involved in whether the person will indeed be extradited, but we have no "duty" to arrest or extradite people who have not violated our laws, or whose crimes are outside our jurisdiction.

By not complying with the extradition arrest, that nation then is violating the sovereignty of the nation that issued the international warrant and the extradition in the first place.

No. It is a nation's sovereign right to accept or reject an extradition request. It is not our, or anyone else's sovereign right to demand other nations arrest people for us.

Also by not complying with the arrest warrant and the extradition request, your nation would be harbouring criminals from another nation.

Too bad. That a nation may consider certain persons criminals carries absolutely no weight outside that nation except by agreement. Perhaps we may want to harbour "criminals" who we feel are at risk of having their rights compromised if they were to be sent back to their home country? Perhaps the charges are politically motivated? You're entirely justified in feeling that we'd be harbouring criminals, to us, we may be protecting their legal rights.

And allowing dictatorial governments to reach their grubby hands for their dissidents abroad, too?

Please explain??

and how?

We probably won't want to extradite people facing politically motivated charges.

So according to your logic, if the people in your nation committed crimes inside your nation for example assassinated a diplomat or the president of your nation as an example, and they later fled to FSSU, would you demand the extradition of these assassinators that assassinated the president of your nation and what if we granted them assylym and citizenship to FSSU??

We would not be happy with you, but we would accept that it is your nation's sovereign right to do so.

These crimes are very mild and not all nations have these kind of laws. The worst scenario that would happen is slap in the bum or a fine. I don't think you can even classify these things as crimes as they come under the freedom of speech and through human rights.

Really? Drug use is a very serious crime in many countries, as is blasphemy, sodomy, or homosexuality, which in some places can result in long jail terms, flogging, hard labour, and other cruel punishments, even execution. According to you, however, they have a sovereign right to demand that people in our country be arrested and sent there for punishment.

If that person is not the citizen of your nation then i am afraid your nation would not be allowed to do that by harbouring criminals from another nation. Just aswell as your nation would not like it that other nations started harbouring criminals from your nation.

It is not an ideal situation but we feel that the alternative, i.e. this proposal, is worse.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

They committed crimes under your laws and under your jurisdiction. Not under ours

No, it is not. As it stands, your nation may request extradition and it is up to the nation concerned to agree to that request. Certainly other considerations will be involved in whether the person will indeed be extradited, but we have no "duty" to arrest or extradite people who have not violated our laws, or whose crimes are outside our jurisdiction.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the harbouring of criminals. If that person is not the citizen of your nation that committed crimes, then your nation has no rights to harbour the criminal but to extradite the criminal or deport the criminal from your nation which is the duty of your nation to respect the national laws of other nations even if these laws do not exist in your nation but elsewere. Jurisdiction has a whole range of wording, it is in your nations jurisdiction to extradite the criminal rather then harbouring the criminal. Unless that criminal has a dual citizenship or it is a foreigner that committed the crime in a foreign nation and that person holds citizenship in your nation and has left FSSU back to your nation then your nation has a say and a decision to make whether to extradite the criminal or not to extradite the criminal as it is also a nations sovereign rights to protect it's citizens even if they are not in the nation that they hold the citizenship.

No. It is a nation's sovereign right to accept or reject an extradition request. It is not our, or anyone else's sovereign right to demand other nations arrest people for us.

That is not a sovereign rights but only harbouring and protecting criminals and disrespecting laws of other nations and international law. Which is the whole point of this proposal being put to vote and put into force so as to protect each and every nation from criminals.

Too bad. That a nation may consider certain persons criminals carries absolutely no weight outside that nation except by agreement. Perhaps we may want to harbour "criminals" who we feel are at risk of having their rights compromised if they were to be sent back to their home country? Perhaps the charges are politically motivated? You're entirely justified in feeling that we'd be harbouring criminals, to us, we may be protecting their legal rights.

Which is why the rights to fair trial is put to force and another resolution put to force that bans torture. Therefore these risks you speak of are non existent amoung WA nation states.

Also may i ask by what you mean protecting their legal rights?? And what may these legal rights be that protects criminals from being prosecuted??

We probably won't want to extradite people facing politically motivated charges.

Not all crimes are politically motivated charges and even if they were, your nation has no rights to harbour them either which the crime would come under treason.

We would not be happy with you, but we would accept that it is your nation's sovereign right to do so.

So that means if we harbour criminals from your nation. Your nation will not send a extradition request to have these criminals extradited back into your nation for facing charges such as murder charges of first degree by murdering your nations president??

Really? Drug use is a very serious crime in many countries, as is blasphemy, sodomy, or homosexuality, which in some places can result in long jail terms, flogging, hard labour, and other cruel punishments, even execution. According to you, however, they have a sovereign right to demand that people in our country be arrested and sent there for punishment.

Two resolutions in force which protects people from these things which is why the rights to fair trial and a resolution banning torture was put to force which is the whole purpose of preventing this from happening.

Just because some nations have banned homosexuality does not mean everysingle nation in the world has banned it.

It is not an ideal situation but we feel that the alternative, i.e. this proposal, is worse.

What is the alternative to this?

[The Emmerian Unions]

I oppose this proposal whole heartedly. And should any criminal flee to the Royal Republic of the Emmrian Unions and asked for asylum, we would give them temporary asylum while we review their case. And should any WA warrent come from the orginization that this proposal creates, we would tell them to piss off as we are no longer WA members. This proposal does take away some aspects of a nation's sovern rights. And if a criminal is granted full asylum after their case review, they would be legal residents of the RREU and subject to OUR laws, not someone else's!

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

I oppose this proposal whole heartedly. And should any criminal flee to the Royal Republic of the Emmrian Unions and asked for asylum, we would give them temporary asylum while we review their case. And should any WA warrent come from the orginization that this proposal creates, we would tell them to piss off as we are no longer WA members. This proposal does take away some aspects of a nation's sovern rights. And if a criminal is granted full asylum after their case review, they would be legal residents of the RREU and subject to OUR laws, not someone else's!

Which is why the good thing about the WA is not having jurisdiction over non WA members therefore it will give those a big adventage and allows them to protect their own nations interests.

This proposal is quite good especially now that the rights to emmigration has been repealed and allows for this proposal to go through if it is approved by the majority and if it gains majority votes from the WA member states. Those that are concerned, i would propose that it allows those nations to temporally grant the criminal or those indicted to have assylm or for the court hearing to be either be moved to that nation that the indicted person is residing or a court hearing to be trialed which would allow the person that has been indicted to have it's case heard and then a decision be made whether to extradite the person to face charges or for the person to be set free and granted permanent assylym or there would be no need for that because they can easily then apply for citizenship in that nation and have his or her citizenship revoked from his or her original country if they are targetted and or are facing false charges and the crime hasn't been committed by that person or not. But then again that is the whole purpose the resolution the rights to fair trial has passed the WA as a resolution.

[Kelssek]

It doesn't matter. What matters is the harbouring of criminals.

So what? A sovereign nation has the right to harbour whomever it so wishes. Forcing us to deport any person within our territory and jurisdiction is a major infringement of our sovereignty, because it asserts another nation's laws over our own in a place of our jurisdiction. And what if they are not "criminals" to our legal system and under our laws?

If that person is not the citizen of your nation that committed crimes, then your nation has no rights to harbour the criminal but to extradite the criminal or deport the criminal from your nation which is the duty of your nation to respect the national laws of other nations even if these laws do not exist in your nation but elsewere.

You really aren't getting it, are you, Ambassador? You are now suggesting that national laws should apply in the jurisdictions of foreign countries, which is as egregious a violation of sovereignty as can be imagined. Regardless of their citizenship status - which is in any case irrelevant to this point - we are not going to extradite people if the act they committed or are accused of committing is not an offence under our laws and we are certain that every sensible nation will agree.

Unless that criminal has a dual citizenship or it is a foreigner that committed the crime in a foreign nation and that person holds citizenship in your nation and has left FSSU back to your nation then your nation has a say and a decision to make whether to extradite the criminal or not to extradite the criminal as it is also a nations sovereign rights to protect it's citizens even if they are not in the nation that they hold the citizenship.

Correct... somewhat... but this is the opposite situation to what we're actually discussing. If we are to plead for clemency or for one of our own citizens to be extradited to our own nation, it is a request to the nation under whose jurisdiction that person is. It is up to that nation to decide whether to grant or to deny that request. We have no right to demand that person's extradition as if the other nation had some sort of obligation to do so, bilateral agreements and treaties notwithstanding, of course, in the same way that we have no obligation to grant such requests when it's us who are prosecuting a foreign citizen for alleged offences and that person's home nation is asking us to be nice.

disrespecting laws of other nations and international law.

You know what's disrespect of the laws of other nations? Asserting that yours have priority and expecting, as if it were something owed to you, other nations to extradite people for you at your demand.

Which is the whole point of this proposal being put to vote and put into force so as to protect each and every nation from criminals.

So what if we don't consider the person a criminal?

Which is why the rights to fair trial is put to force and another resolution put to force that bans torture. Therefore these risks you speak of are non existent amoung WA nation states.

Two resolutions in force which protects people from these things which is why the rights to fair trial and a resolution banning torture was put to force which is the whole purpose of preventing this from happening.

And what would happen, please, should this actually become a resolution, and those resolutions you refer to be repealed in the future?

Also may i ask by what you mean protecting their legal rights?? And what may these legal rights be that protects criminals from being prosecuted??

For one example, our laws protect a person's rights to freedom of thought, belief and expression. They may be fleeing a religious theocracy that wishes to prosecute them for the "crime" of, say, blasphemy. Not only is blasphemy completely legal in our nation, it's probably a rather routine thing. I personally blaspheme at least a dozen times a day. Anyway, that person may not have rights to freedom of belief and expression in their home nation, but they certainly do in ours, and by denying extradition, we would be protecting those rights.

Not all crimes are politically motivated charges and even if they were, your nation has no rights to harbour them either which the crime would come under treason.

Well, some are, and that's enough.

Here's a hypothetical for you to consider, since you bring up treason. Country A is at war with country B. A general from country A, upset about the atrocities and massacres his nation is committing, defects to country B and in doing so, allows country B to win the war. Country B considers him a noble hero who put his loyalties aside to stop war crimes from taking place, and showers him with honours for bringing them victory. Country A considers him a vicious and evil traitor and wants to extradite him so they can put him to death for high treason.

What you seem to be saying is that country B should extradite their war hero to country A so he can be killed. If you're country B, are you sure you'd want that?

So that means if we harbour criminals from your nation. Your nation will not send a extradition request to have these criminals extradited back into your nation for facing charges such as murder charges of first degree by murdering your nations president??

We probably would request extradition, and get upset and condemn you and launch every sanction we can muster if it were to be denied. Bilateral relations would get very bad. Things may be burnt in the streets and glass windows broken. If it were a more aggressive or militaristic nation perhaps threats of war might be involved. But we would not expect it as if you had a legal obligation to, because you don't. Your nation would have the right to deny or grant extradition and in the end short of actually toppling your government there is nothing we can do if you decide not to extradite them. The same would apply if the situation were reversed. It's simple as that.

Just because some nations have banned homosexuality does not mean everysingle nation in the world has banned it.

That's completely irrelevant. Being forced to accomodate one country wanting to extradite a person for being gay is bad enough.

It is not an ideal situation but we feel that the alternative, i.e. this proposal, is worse.

What is the alternative to this?

Nations being forced to extradite people for things not illegal in their nation, to nations with poor legal rights standards, in cases where a fair trial isn't likely, or to face the death penalty? Foreign police forces being allowed to arrest people in your country, as the resolution currently states? A committee deciding between which nations' laws take precedence, and trampling our rights to enforce our laws on our territory? This is a horrible, horrible attempt at a resolution and we simply cannot support such provisions.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

So what? A sovereign nation has the right to harbour whomever it so wishes. Forcing us to deport any person within our territory and jurisdiction is a major infringement of our sovereignty,

It is also a major infringement of our sovereignty by harbouring criminals which are nationals of another nation, for example nationals of FSSU. That is a major infringement of our sovereignty which is why for the reason of pushing the International Extradition Treaty to go through so as to protect each and individual nation's rights to extradite the criminal as per requested by the nation which the criminal holds the citizenship of.

because it asserts another nation's laws over our own in a place of our jurisdiction. And what if they are not "criminals" to our legal system and under our laws?

It does not because those people not the citizens and nationals of your nation does not concern your nation but your nation has a moral obligation to follow and a obligation to comply with the request of that nation regarding their own nationals if they are escaped criminals or escaped convicts that fled the nation or had help from an accomplice or from a person involved in human trafficing by assisting criminals by sneaking them out of the country and entering them into another country for example sneaking them into your country which would make your nation liable and an accomplice for assisting in human trafficing and harbouring of criminals.

You really aren't getting it, are you, Ambassador? You are now suggesting that national laws should apply in the jurisdictions of foreign countries,

If the crime has been committed in another nation then yes. Especially if these are escaped criminals that sneaked inside your national borders illegally then yes or had help from an accomplice or from a person involved in human trafficing.

which is as egregious a violation of sovereignty as can be imagined. Regardless of their citizenship status

How?? and please explain??....

which is in any case irrelevant to this point - we are not going to extradite people if the act they committed or are accused of committing is not an offence under our laws and we are certain that every sensible nation will agree.

You forgot to mention that the NS world or the world itself does not revolve around your nation and around you Mr Ambassador.

You know what's disrespect of the laws of other nations? Asserting that yours have priority and expecting, as if it were something owed to you, other nations to extradite people for you at your demand.

If they are of Serbian nationals for example then yes, if they are not the citizens of FSSU and have been passing through and committed crimes and sneaked out of FSSU borders, we can apply for the criminal to be extradited and returned back to us if the crime has been committed in the FSSU territory, because that criminal does not hold citizenship of FSSU, your nation has an obligation to protect these people especially if they hold citizenship of your nation and therefore your nation can decide whether to extradite the criminal or let it roam freely or have it be charged inside your nations territory.

Also which is why we need such legislation to pass the WA so as to protect nations from foreign criminals and to ensure that each and every person will be prosecuted whether they are in their home nation or in a foreign nation, regardless of location, laws apply everywhere except in the case of international waters.

So what if we don't consider the person a criminal?

So if the person has been involved in terrorism or have been involved in murder, that person according to your nation and the national laws of your nation not a criminal?

And what would happen, please, should this actually become a resolution, and those resolutions you refer to be repealed in the future?

Who mentioned anything about repealing resolutions??

For one example, our laws protect a person's rights to freedom of thought, belief and expression. They may be fleeing a religious theocracy that wishes to prosecute them for the "crime" of, say, blasphemy. Not only is blasphemy completely legal in our nation, it's probably a rather routine thing. I personally blaspheme at least a dozen times a day. Anyway, that person may not have rights to freedom of belief and expression in their home nation, but they certainly do in ours, and by denying extradition, we would be protecting those rights.

You have been using the word Blasphemy and Homosexuality alot lately and using these two words as a justification why this proposal should not go through the WA. Blasphemy and Homosexuality are not crimes. You seem to be generalising everything and have been assuming that everysingle nation is a theocratic nation with a theocracy government.

Here's a hypothetical for you to consider, since you bring up treason. Country A is at war with country B. A general from country A, upset about the atrocities and massacres his nation is committing, defects to country B and in doing so, allows country B to win the war. Country B considers him a noble hero who put his loyalties aside to stop war crimes from taking place, and showers him with honours for bringing them victory. Country A considers him a vicious and evil traitor and wants to extradite him so they can put him to death for high treason.

What you seem to be saying is that country B should extradite their war hero to country A so he can be killed. If you're country B, are you sure you'd want that?

This can go both either ways. Depending on the terms of the surrounder, the general can be charged with treason but not only treason, but also for disobeying the chief of command and for putting his troops and units lives at risk. This is more of breaking the rule of law in terms of military and the oath the people in the Army, Navy or Airforce personnels have took before being officially admitted into the defense force.

Also you seem to be forgetting that 1 man hero is another persons viggliant, a mans viggiliant is another persons hero. Depending on the crimes committed while serving on duty and prior to undertaking military service, regardless of what the crime is, that general should and will be prosecutted accordingly to the crime committed whether it's war crimes, attrocities, genocide, ethnic cleansing or treason and etc.....

We probably would request extradition, and get upset and condemn you and launch every sanction we can muster if it were to be denied. Bilateral relations would get very bad. Things may be burnt in the streets and glass windows broken. If it were a more aggressive or militaristic nation perhaps threats of war might be involved.

Exactly. Which is why for the more reason for this proposal to be submitted, hopefully get it approved and put to vote.

But we would not expect it as if you had a legal obligation to, because you don't. Your nation would have the right to deny or grant extradition and in the end short of actually toppling your government there is nothing we can do if you decide not to extradite them. The same would apply if the situation were reversed. It's simple as that.

I am sure you as the ambassador would not sit back if a criminal assassinated the president and has escaped from your nation and is roaming around freely in FSSU and FSSU authorities provided protection of that criminal by harbouring the assassinator and granting assylum.

That's completely irrelevant. Being forced to accomodate one country wanting to extradite a person for being gay is bad enough.

This is very irrelevent and a very poor argument regarding the International Extradition Treaty, Mr Ambassador sir, homosexuality or blaspemy is not a argument at all and provides no input but irrelevencies to the discussion.

Nations being forced to extradite people for things not illegal in their nation, to nations with poor legal rights standards, in cases where a fair trial isn't likely, or to face the death penalty?

Please explain and how??

Foreign police forces being allowed to arrest people in your country, as the resolution currently states? A committee deciding between which nations' laws take precedence, and trampling our rights to enforce our laws on our territory? This is a horrible, horrible attempt at a resolution and we simply cannot support such provisions.

Who said anything about foreign police forces?? Where in the proposal does it state that Foreign Police Forces are established and they can enter another nations at their own will?? Where does it state anywhere in the clause or provision sections?? Mr Ambassador Sir, if such a thing was proposed, it would make this proposal illegal as creating an international police or a force is illegal.

[Meekinos]

What your suggesting is that a nation with a certain set of ideals would have to go against them because of another.

Where does it state in the International Extradition Treaty Proposal??

I suggest you read between the lines and understand what it is saying as well as what it isn't saying because language is two-pronged, it's not just what is said but what is unsaid; that which is implied. This implies a certain disregard for the Civil Rights Charter for starters as well as the right of a nation to not enforce laws it wouldn't enforce against its own people.

There will always be some form of bureaucratism, isn't the World Assembly a bureaucrat organization itself?? List me one resolution that is not bureaucratic. List any nation that is not bureaucratic and that doesn't have to follow the correct guidelines and procedures and the steps it needs to undertake while establishing something, approving or documenting something. Laws are full of bureaucratism, only nations that are not bureaucratic are anarchist nations without any law and order, nothing or no one to implement and enforce anything.

There is the potential for that, but it could be avoided for the most part if there was no bloody committee. Seems like pointless busy work for unqualified and incompetent people who know someone in the right place.

Bureaucracy could be avoided with a discretionary clause being granted. Or even a clause that states that the state where the fugitive has fled to can decide based on its own legislation if the fugitive should be extradited based on the crimes listed in the other nation's warrant. Simple enough. That way, no nation is forced to go against its ideals.

Why is sexuality baught up in this??

Because there are nations which sodomy laws which make all types of sexuality, except hetero, a form of crime.

It seems we're not the only one concern about just that or issues like the right to freedom of religion, freedom to protest the government. The list goes on. Kelssek is on the same page as us and understands that this treaty is disregarding human rights in some form.