NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Habeas Corpus"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Repeal "Habeas Corpus"

Postby Quelesh » Mon May 09, 2011 1:00 am

And the repeal has passed. Thank you to everyone who supported it!

I'm surprised I haven't seen more (or any, really) repeal attempts on this one. GAR67 is well-intentioned, but it really doesn't do what it sets out to do, and it has several massive flaws. I think it should be repealed and replaced by a more effective resolution.

By the way, I absolutely intend to submit a replacement once the repeal passes. Here is the draft thread for the replacement. (Edit: There are now two replacements, one with core habeas corpus protections and one on double jeopardy. Here is the double jeopardy draft.)

The Assembled Nations of the World,

CONVINCED of the right of individuals to be free from illegal or unjust detention;

APPLAUDING the intent of this body to uphold that right when it passed General Assembly Resolution #67, "Habeas Corpus;"

however, DEEPLY TROUBLED by several flaws in the aforementioned resolution that render it ineffective in several areas;

TERRIBLY VEXED that the aforementioned resolution explicitly allows double jeopardy, the practice of trying an individual more than once for the same offense;

FURTHER VEXED that the aforementioned resolution imposes minimal obstacles to the unfettered use of double jeopardy, merely requiring the approval of a person who is "duly authorised by the legal system" to grant a "full legal authorisation for a retrial," essentially allowing for indefinite retrials, continuing to detain the individual all the while, until the court hands down a verdict favorable to the state;

DISTURBED that the aforementioned resolution allows the arbitrary detention, with no suspicion of wrongdoing, of an individual for up to twenty-four hours in any week, with minimal restrictions and with nothing to prevent repeated arbitrary detention for twenty four hours during every week indefinitely as a form of harassment or extra-legal punishment;

STUNNED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after an acquittal;

FLABBERGASTED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after his or her criminal sentence has been completed;

NOTING WITH CONSTERNATION that the aforementioned resolution does not actually require member states to allow detained individuals to challenge their detention, much less set any standards for such challenges;

DESIROUS of a resolution that effectively grants the right of habeas corpus to every individual under World Assembly jurisdiction, but cognizant that such a resolution cannot be passed until GAR67 is repealed;

hereby REPEAL General Assembly Resolution #67, "Habeas Corpus."


Character count: 2,130

Comments are welcome.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador
Last edited by Quelesh on Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:09 pm, edited 9 times in total.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Otrenia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Dec 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Otrenia » Mon May 09, 2011 3:04 am

I must say at when I first saw this repeal I was incredulous. However upon reading the repeal and seeing that you do intend to make a replacement then you have our full support.

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Mon May 09, 2011 3:23 am

Otrenia wrote:I must say at when I first saw this repeal I was incredulous. However upon reading the repeal and seeing that you do intend to make a replacement then you have our full support.


I appreciate your support. Let's hope that others as well Read the Resolution before deciding!
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

I'm not convinced.

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Mon May 09, 2011 9:09 am

I'll do everyone a favor and save the bloviated version of a response I originally started drafting to this. ;)

My basic objection to the repeal is, with one exception, all of the things you raise as flaws in the resolution aren't part of the concept of habeas corpus AND could be dealt with in a separate resolution on double jeapordy.

Habeas corpus, at root, is a fairly basic concept. Someone other than the police -- someone like hopefully neutral judge -- has to approve of your being detained under legal procedures. That is both its importantance and its simplicity. To borrow another explanation:
Actually, habeas is perfectly straightforward. It is the ancient right of anyone seized by the king to cry out from the dungeon and say, "I've been wrongly jailed!" Then you get a chance to prove your claim before a neutral judge, or back to the pokey you go. Habeas puts a basic check on the most fearsome power of the state and any citizen's most primal fear—being locked away and forgotten, the civil equivalent of being buried alive.

Your "Noting With Consternation" line points out that GAR #67 (which I did study before commenting here) doesn't actually alone the detained to challenge their detention. That is a good point. GAR #67 does, however, make such a challenge unnecessary because all the safeguards such a challenge would provide must be complied with automatically.

Most importantly, I want to reiterate that you raise good points about what GAR #67 does not do. However, the solution is not to repeal GAR #67. The solution is to pass another resolution that addresses your concerns, specifically those concerned with due process.

I hope this is helpful. Your concerns are in the right place, but I'm not convinced they are correctly aimed.

The source for my quote is this article.

On a substantive note, this makes for turgid reading, but you should read the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. It still stands as the root of the idea of what habeas corpus requires and you will see that it is closely followed (whether by design or not) by GAR #67.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Monikian WA Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 927
Founded: Nov 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Monikian WA Mission » Mon May 09, 2011 9:38 am

We'd support this if the resolution only contained ABBA lyrics.
All posts should be assumed to be IC unless I am using an OOC indicator.

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

(An asterisk [*] {or exclamation point [!] at the beginning of a word} in Monikian Words indicates a clicking sound which is not easily translatable in the Latin alphabet)

some cool stuff

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Mon May 09, 2011 9:26 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:My basic objection to the repeal is, with one exception, all of the things you raise as flaws in the resolution aren't part of the concept of habeas corpus AND could be dealt with in a separate resolution on double jeapordy.


It's probably true that it would be possible to write another resolution prohibiting the continued detention of individuals after an acquittal or after their sentence has been completed. However, as GAR67 explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy, any resolution prohibiting double jeopardy would be illegal for contradiction. That was an issue when I was drafting the ICC resolution. In the final version, I have a clause saying that no person acquitted by the ICC can be tried again by the ICC for the same offense. In the original draft, it was "by the ICC or by any member state" for the same offense, but I was told by a mod that that would be illegal for contradicting GAR67, since that resolution explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy.

In order to ban double jeopardy, I don't see an alternative but to repeal GAR67.

I also don't see any other way of addressing the 24-hours-every-week issue.

Also, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 that you linked to was stuffy reading, and I'll admit I skimmed over parts of it, but I noticed that it did prohibit the continued detention of individuals after acquittal or the completion of sentence.

You do make a good point, though, that since compliance is assumed to be automatic, no legal challenges would be necessary, since there presumeably would be no illegal detention going on anyway. Nations could still detain people in contradiction of national law, though. A good habeas resolution could simply prohibit that, or there could be some mechanism for legal challenge.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Navarelin
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Nov 04, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Navarelin » Tue May 10, 2011 3:56 am

Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Tue May 10, 2011 8:46 am

Navarelin wrote:Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.

User avatar
Wartom
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Apr 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Wartom » Tue May 10, 2011 12:25 pm

Flibbleites wrote:
Navarelin wrote:Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.


Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?
How do I make signatures?
I am not good with computers. Testing testing.
The Constitutional Aristocracy of Wartom
How did this get here, oh dear.

User avatar
Defendingg
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jan 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Defendingg » Tue May 10, 2011 12:32 pm

Flibbleites wrote:
Navarelin wrote:Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.


This why we shouldn't try to repeal resolutions based on the text, because only the effect matters.

This proves that if you attempt to repeal Habeas Corpus, then you must have something against it.

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Tue May 10, 2011 1:46 pm

Wartom wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.


Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

No, only resolutions that pass while you're a member affect you, leading to the old tactic of temporarily dropping WA membership in order to avoid the effects of a resolution that you don't like.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue May 10, 2011 6:10 pm

Flibbleites wrote:
Wartom wrote:Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

No, only resolutions that pass while you're a member affect you, leading to the old tactic of temporarily dropping WA membership in order to avoid the effects of a resolution that you don't like.

However, if you try to RP that your nation isn't affected by Resolution X that was passed before you joined, you'll likely get a number of Ignore Cannons fired in your direction.

(However, Flib is absolutely correct when it comes to statistical effects of resolutions. :))
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Tut, tut. And correction.

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Tue May 10, 2011 6:12 pm

Flibbleites wrote:
Navarelin wrote:Do these "Resolutions" even affect the actual game at all? Or are they just for show...

Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.


I am disappointed that someone in a position of authority such as yourself would take what is an incredibly cynical view, a clearly biased one, and a highly arguable one and pass it off to a new nation as "truth."

Apparently, we waste our time writing resolutions. The Secretariat wastes its time promulgating rules for resolutions and enforcing said rules regarding content of resolutions. The "Read the Resolution Act" is a moot joke. Etc, etc, etc.

For some reason, I expected better.

Navarelin, resolutions have an undeniable effect on all WA member nation's statistics. What effect they have on "the game" beyond that depends a lot on what you mean by "the game" and is subject to differing opinions. Flibbleites is giving an opinion, not stating a fact.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Tue May 10, 2011 6:16 pm

Quelesh wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:My basic objection to the repeal is, with one exception, all of the things you raise as flaws in the resolution aren't part of the concept of habeas corpus AND could be dealt with in a separate resolution on double jeapordy.


It's probably true that it would be possible to write another resolution prohibiting the continued detention of individuals after an acquittal or after their sentence has been completed. However, as GAR67 explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy, any resolution prohibiting double jeopardy would be illegal for contradiction. That was an issue when I was drafting the ICC resolution. In the final version, I have a clause saying that no person acquitted by the ICC can be tried again by the ICC for the same offense. In the original draft, it was "by the ICC or by any member state" for the same offense, but I was told by a mod that that would be illegal for contradicting GAR67, since that resolution explicitly allows member states to use double jeopardy.

In order to ban double jeopardy, I don't see an alternative but to repeal GAR67.

I also don't see any other way of addressing the 24-hours-every-week issue.

Also, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 that you linked to was stuffy reading, and I'll admit I skimmed over parts of it, but I noticed that it did prohibit the continued detention of individuals after acquittal or the completion of sentence.

You do make a good point, though, that since compliance is assumed to be automatic, no legal challenges would be necessary, since there presumeably would be no illegal detention going on anyway. Nations could still detain people in contradiction of national law, though. A good habeas resolution could simply prohibit that, or there could be some mechanism for legal challenge.


GAR#67 allows for double jeapordy to occur. It doesn't prevent it. It does not protect it either. If a Mod said it did and that no anti-double jeapordy resolution could be written because of GAR #67, I'd like to see that comment or ruling, because it was wrong.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Tue May 10, 2011 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Tue May 10, 2011 7:06 pm

Defendingg wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.


This why we shouldn't try to repeal resolutions based on the text, because only the effect matters.

This proves that if you attempt to repeal Habeas Corpus, then you must have something against it.


That's not the case. I draft proposals and base my support or opposition to proposals on the IC effects of the proposal text, not on the gameplay stat effects (with the exception of Moral Decency proposals, which I generally despise). My desire to repeal GAR67 is not evidence of any opposition on my part to the gameplay stat effects of the Human Rights category (especially since I plan to replace it with another resolution, likely in the same category, not to mention the fact that the two resolutions I have so far passed have both been in the Human Rights category).

The Cat-Tribe wrote:GAR#67 allows for double jeapordy to occur. It doesn't prevent it. It does not protect it either. If a Mod said it did and that no anti-double jeapordy resolution could be written because of GAR #67, I'd like to see that comment or ruling, because it was wrong.


Here is the post by Nerv in my ICC drafting thread that mentions the double jeopardy issue. If a clause in the ICC resolution prohibiting double jeopardy only in certain circumstances (for people acquitted by the ICC) is illegal for contradiction, then a broader resolution banning double jeopardy entirely would certainly also be illegal.

NERVUN wrote:The forbidding of retrial to member nations conflicts with resolution 67 (Habeas Corpus) as it allows for the retrial of nationals


I would like it to be wrong, and if the mods tell me it is, I would be happy to draft a new resolution banning double jeopardy and filling the holes in GAR67 without bothering with a repeal, but if Nerv's post stands, a repeal would be necessary.
Last edited by Quelesh on Tue May 10, 2011 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Tue May 10, 2011 7:21 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Both, when a resolution passes all WA member nation's stats are altered based on the category and strength of the resolution, the actual text of the resolution on the other hand is basically just for show.


I am disappointed that someone in a position of authority such as yourself would take what is an incredibly cynical view, a clearly biased one, and a highly arguable one and pass it off to a new nation as "truth."
Oh please, I was speaking that as far as the game code is concerned that's all that matters, something that from what I can see everyone, except for you perhaps, was able to understand.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Tue May 10, 2011 7:41 pm

Flibbleites wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
I am disappointed that someone in a position of authority such as yourself would take what is an incredibly cynical view, a clearly biased one, and a highly arguable one and pass it off to a new nation as "truth."
Oh please, I was speaking that as far as the game code is concerned that's all that matters, something that from what I can see everyone, except for you perhaps, was able to understand.


I am glad to hear I misunderstood and you did not mean what I thought you meant. I apologize if I overreacted, but I do think you could have and should have been clearer.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Tue May 10, 2011 9:37 pm

If you find a statement unclear, one thing you should ask yourself is: IC or OOC? Flib's post above was plainly OOC, as it was posted as himself, and he was giving a clear explanation of the practical effects of the game code. When he is posting IC he usually posts as Bob Flibble.

In general, player or mod comments on the (roleplayed) effects of (roleplayed) legislation can usually be taken as IC. For example:

OOC: Habeas Corpus increases a nation's Civil Rights rating.

IC: Habeas Corpus protects people against indefinite detention without charge.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Wed May 11, 2011 1:17 am

Ardchoille wrote:If you find a statement unclear, one thing you should ask yourself is: IC or OOC? Flib's post above was plainly OOC, as it was posted as himself, and he was giving a clear explanation of the practical effects of the game code. When he is posting IC he usually posts as Bob Flibble.

In general, player or mod comments on the (roleplayed) effects of (roleplayed) legislation can usually be taken as IC. For example:

OOC: Habeas Corpus increases a nation's Civil Rights rating.

IC: Habeas Corpus protects people against indefinite detention without charge.


I appreciate the clarification and repeat and strengthen my apology for misunderstanding Flib's post. :blush:

It does seem a bit unrealistic to expect someone who asked the question that was asked to necessarily recognize these nuances in evaluating Flib's post, however. Again, my mistake was just stupidity, but others less might not get the distinction between different types of "voices from on high" when they aren't clear. :eyebrow:
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Neaglia
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Mar 09, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Neaglia » Wed May 11, 2011 1:25 am

My government disposes of dissidents through gladiatorial combat, how will this affect us?
Last edited by Neaglia on Wed May 11, 2011 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Morlago
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1396
Founded: Jun 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Morlago » Wed May 11, 2011 4:30 am

Flibbleites wrote:
Wartom wrote:
Do this work backwards as well, so that nations that join the WA gets all previous resolutions in effect, statwise?

No, only resolutions that pass while you're a member affect you, leading to the old tactic of temporarily dropping WA membership in order to avoid the effects of a resolution that you don't like.


I've been thinking about this. So this would mean that anything passed before Jun 2009 would not be applicable to me. This is a big loophole and the next time somebody quote a resolution like CoCR, I can just shrug my shoulders and say "before my time". Can we right a resolution about it, or would that be illegal due to Game Mechanics/Metagaming?

Regarding this repeal, we would like to see the replacement first before deciding, but so far, based on the repeal, we are most likely going to support it.
Angelo Gervoski
Minister of WA Affairs of
The United Islands of Morlago
Yë Morre Waidamün i Mórlago

DEFCON: 1 2 (Low) 3 4 5 6


Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Graph
Center-left social moderate.
Left: 2.2, Libertarian: 0.75
Foreign Policy: -6.11 (Non-interventionalist)
Culture: -6.31 (Cultural liberal)

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Wed May 11, 2011 5:50 am

Morlago wrote:I've been thinking about this. So this would mean that anything passed before Jun 2009 would not be applicable to me. This is a big loophole and the next time somebody quote a resolution like CoCR, I can just shrug my shoulders and say "before my time".


This is another yes-and-no answer. OOC, it's just as Flib told you. But when you're IC -- look, do you think the Pope is going to say, to all the babies who are at this moment being baptised, "Oh, that stuff about Original Sin came in before you were around, so you can disregard it"? Or you don't have to obey road rules because they were made before you were old enough to get a licence? The Masons aren't going to let you in if you say you'll only accept this year's precepts. Likewise the WA. It's a legislative body and your nation, by joining it, accepts its laws in good faith.

In short, yes, you can shrug your shoulders, but if your nation does it, it's point-and-laugh time.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9010
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Wed May 11, 2011 8:40 am

Quelesh wrote:Here is the post by Nerv in my ICC drafting thread that mentions the double jeopardy issue. If a clause in the ICC resolution prohibiting double jeopardy only in certain circumstances (for people acquitted by the ICC) is illegal for contradiction, then a broader resolution banning double jeopardy entirely would certainly also be illegal.

NERVUN wrote:The forbidding of retrial to member nations conflicts with resolution 67 (Habeas Corpus) as it allows for the retrial of nationals


I would like it to be wrong, and if the mods tell me it is, I would be happy to draft a new resolution banning double jeopardy and filling the holes in GAR67 without bothering with a repeal, but if Nerv's post stands, a repeal would be necessary.

I would agree with The Cat Tribe that Nerv's ruling was wrong, but only because of a highly nuanced interpretation. Habeas Corpus does speak of retrials, but only insofar as who is able to issue a retrial and when they can issue it.
8) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.


One could make a simple argument that this clause implies an allowance for retrial. However, in my reading, I believe it simply recognizes that some member nations may not employ double jeopardy. I think it simply says that at minimum the World Assembly should place some restrictions until we decide whether or not to enforce double jeopardy in international law. Even with a ruling that the clause does create an authorization for retrial, it is still entirely possible to enforce double jeopardy. In that case, the World Assembly would be removing the legal authorization of individuals to issue retrial in certain circumstances, which is in full compliance with the second clause of the section.

User avatar
Jedi Utopians
Envoy
 
Posts: 281
Founded: Dec 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Jedi Utopians » Wed May 11, 2011 2:01 pm

Ardchoille wrote:
Morlago wrote:I've been thinking about this. So this would mean that anything passed before Jun 2009 would not be applicable to me. This is a big loophole and the next time somebody quote a resolution like CoCR, I can just shrug my shoulders and say "before my time".


This is another yes-and-no answer. OOC, it's just as Flib told you. But when you're IC -- look, do you think the Pope is going to say, to all the babies who are at this moment being baptised, "Oh, that stuff about Original Sin came in before you were around, so you can disregard it"? Or you don't have to obey road rules because they were made before you were old enough to get a licence? The Masons aren't going to let you in if you say you'll only accept this year's precepts. Likewise the WA. It's a legislative body and your nation, by joining it, accepts its laws in good faith.

In short, yes, you can shrug your shoulders, but if your nation does it, it's point-and-laugh time.


This only matters if you're involved in the roleplaying aspect (which I'm not, except in limited amounts in the WA forums). And by "Point-and-laugh," he means "be jealous and wish we thought of it first."
The honorable Son Rai, envoy of the Republic Council
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
"Think: Christ, Gandhi, or Mr. Rogers."
--
Me: You're funny. Naive, but funny.
Jedi8246: I fail to see the humor. Or how I am naive.
--

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35275
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Rich Port » Wed May 11, 2011 2:07 pm

Monikian WA Mission wrote:We'd support this if the resolution only contained ABBA lyrics.


So what you're saying is... We should take a chance on it? 8)
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads