NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:52 am**

Mister Ambassador, if I'm irritating you and you aren't willig to come up with feedback which I can use in the final proposal and this is my thread I think you might want to leave this thread alone from now on. I do find you verry exaggerated with your statements, and that's anoying me.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:04 am**

Noordeinde wrote:Mister Ambassador, if I'm irritating you and you aren't willig to come up with feedback which I can use in the final proposal and this is my thread I think you might want to leave this thread alone from now on. I do find you verry exaggerated with your statements, and that's anoying me.

I'm easily irritated, but not easily deterred. I have been providing you with feedback constantly. You've only recently been paying attention. And it's the best kind of feedback too... I'm not asking you to add to the proposal, which would require some measureable effort, I'm telling you to delete some things (easy enough?) and make it legal.

I won't be leaving this thread alone, no matter how irritated I am, or how annoyed you are. In fact, so long as this proposal is illegal, I will continue to campaign against it. I don't pretend to have the power to single-handledly tank your proposal, but I do have the point.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:07 am**

I would suggest that you use this this proposal to create a World Assembly Court with a mandate to settle international disputes and then after it has passed create another proposal dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity. I know it will seem like more work but I do feel that it would easier to separate the two aspects.

This proposal could deal with all international disputes, such as boundary violations etc, and all accusations of international law violations and another proposal could extend the mandate of the court to try war crimes. I do think that this would allow you to create two simply worded proposals rather than one confusing proposal whose wording appears to causing a lot of arguments.

If you feel I'm wrong, I stand ready to be corrected, but that would be my advice at the moment.

Europic Diplomatic Corps
Grand Europic States

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:14 am**

This has so many flaws and bugs that would need to be worked out, I doubt it'd go through, even if it was legal.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:16 am**

I thank the Europic Diplomatic Corps for their advice. It's absolutely a good idea, but I will keep it as second option. First I would like to edit this proposal untill the most of us can agree with it. At that moment I would like to give it a try at the WA and submitt it. And if the proposal doen't make it to the General Vote I will probably try it the way you explained.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:25 am**

Absolvability wrote:In this particular scenario it would not be a duplication. It would be a HoC though because if torture were to no longer be illegal then the other would be prosecuting something perfectly legal.

(OOC: That is not House of Cards. Jesus. Stop being willfully ignorant. Just because something is stupid doesn't mean it's against the rules. I've half a mind to just write a damned international court resolution myself, since apparently I'm the only one here that actually understands the rules and how they work.)

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:42 am**

House of Cards wrote:This is becoming problematic. (1)If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. (2)Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. (3)If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution.

1) A court is a judicial body. It requires laws to function. These laws, however, may be repealed. Therefore it is unwise to specifically list any law that is defined by previous legislation. If these resolutions were repealed this Court thingy would indeed be gutted.
2) Suppose international law later decides that something not listed is illegal. Does the Court not have the authority to decide these matters?
3) Granting authority to a Court to prosecute offenders of particular crimes is an amendment to any resolution that leaves such judicial matters of prosecution and punishment to national sovereignty or has their own committee to arbitrate/mediate such affairs.

Creating Stuff wrote:Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

This whole Court thing is basically just one big committee.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:(OOC: That is not House of Cards. Jesus. Stop being willfully ignorant. Just because something is stupid doesn't mean it's against the rules. I've half a mind to just write a damned international court resolution myself, since apparently I'm the only one here that actually understands the rules and how they work.)

At the risk of being lectured about all the 'good' you've done for this community... "you obviously don't know shit about the rules."

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:14 am**

Absolvability wrote:1) A court is a judicial body. It requires laws to function. These laws, however, may be repealed. Therefore it is unwise to specifically list any law that is defined by previous legislation. If these resolutions were repealed this Court thingy would indeed be gutted.

(OOC: Your preconceived notions of what an international court, or a court alone, is, and what authority it has, are the reasons why you mistakenly attribute House of Cards. In the case of this proposal, the Court would be allowed to prosecute torture and the like, without any resolutions declaring torture illegal, because the resolution says it can.

Absolvability wrote:3) Granting authority to a Court to prosecute offenders of particular crimes is an amendment to any resolution that leaves such judicial matters of prosecution and punishment to national sovereignty or has their own committee to arbitrate/mediate such affairs.

In such cases, the Court wouldn't be able to prosecute such offenders, and it doesn't make any claim to be able to. Look, the two paragraphs provide examples. They don't say that the Court is the one and only place where the offenses can be prosecuted. If the counter-terrorism resolution directs how terrorists are prosecuted, then the matter is settled: the Court would not be allowed to prosecute terrorists. But, that doesn't mean terrorism can't be a listed example of 'crimes against humanity' or 'war crimes'. By what you're saying, your own 'fix' would be an amendment, too: being able to prosecute violations of 'international law' means being able to prosecute terrorists.

Besides, I can guarantee that if 'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes' were not defined in some way, we'd be sitting here telling the author to define them.

Absolvability wrote:This whole Court thing is basically just one big committee.

Yeah, it is a committee. If the proposal stopped at "The World Assembly hereby establishes the International High Court to prosecute persons who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes." you would have a point. But, it does more than creating a committee, it provides for the prosecution of criminals.)

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:21 am**

Well people, we can stay here catfighting, but I have received multiple positive reactions by telegramm and well should I give it a try with this version:

The World Assembly,

Recognizing; that "world peace" is still far away;

Noting that still in a lot of conflicts around the world crimes against humanity or war crimes are being committed;

Noting that many of the people who have committed crimes against humanity or war crimes escape prosecution

Believing that the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes have to be prosecuted in the interests of international security

Therefore:

The World Assembly hereby establishes the International High Court to prosecute persons who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The purposes of the Court, "crimes against humanity" are widespread or systemic atrocities committed by persons against a civilian population, including but not limited to: the extermination of civilians, enslavement, torture(intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused), rape, forced pregnancy, deportation, persecution on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds, and enforced disappearances, the crime of apartheid, or any other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Further:

The other purposes of the Court, “war crimes” are as well widespread or systemic atrocities committed by persons against a civilian population, surrendered combatant(s), humanitarian workers, or medical personnel with clear insignia, including but not limited to: a direct attack on a civilian population, a direct attack on humanitarian workers, killing a surrendered combatant, misusing a flag or truce, settlement of occupied territory, deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory, using poison weapons, using civilians as shield, using child soldiers or firing upon a (combat) medic with clear insignia.

The following Articles are included with the Statute.

Article 1. Composition.

1. The Court shall be composed of a group of independent judges, selected by merit...

Article 2. Delegation

1. The parties shall be represented by agents, with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court. They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.

Article 3. Documents

1. The written proceedings shall consist of the communication to the Court and to the parties of memorials and counter-memorials.

Article 4. Hearing
1. The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses,experts,agents,counsel,and advocates.
2. The hearing in Court shall be public.
3. During the hearing any relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts.
4. After the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose, it may refuse to accept any further evidence.
5. When the agents,counsel,and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed.
6. The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

Article 5. Judgement
1. The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.
2. The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based, it shall contain the names of the judges and shall be read in open court.
3. The judgment is final, but appeal is always possible.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:28 am**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:(OOC: Your preconceived notions of what an international court, or a court alone, is, and what authority it has, are the reasons why you mistakenly attribute House of Cards. In the case of this proposal, the Court would be allowed to prosecute torture and the like, without any resolutions declaring torture illegal, because the resolution says it can.)

Oh, I get it. Because the resolution says it can. -chuckles- Here's an idea... lets just rename the WA the World Assembly Court, since they seem to have the same functions. As usual your arguement only makes sense so long as it is self-contained. In order for anything you say to be true this proposal would be absurd for innumerable OTHER reasons. You're obviously so hell-bent on proving ME wrong that you don't give a damn about this proposal. As it so happens... this proposal is illegal, and I don't give a damn about it either.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:But, it does more than creating a committee, it provides for the prosecution of criminals.

Uh. It gives the committee the ability to prosecute criminals. To give a committee responsibilities is not to do more than create a committee. Why don't you go look at some other places such an arguement has come up. You'll find that I'm correct. To say that this particular idea is 'interesting' is not to say it needs to be an exception.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:29 am**

P.S.: There's a resolution on the books regarding fairness in criminal trials. Therefore the 'hearing' clause of this resolution should be stricken because it is a duplication/amendment/alteration. I don't know which, because I'm tired of doing your homework for you. -blows a kiss- Idiots.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:40 am**

(OOC: You are acting incredibly immature, Absolvability. Stop flaming or stop posting in the World Assembly forum, period.)

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:02 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:(OOC: You are acting incredibly immature, Absolvability. Stop flaming or stop posting in the World Assembly forum, period.)

You enjoy saying things like "apparently I'm the only one who knows anything about the rules." To me, that is calling me an idiot. I reserve the right to return the favor until a moderator tells me otherwise. I don't think my contributions to this discussion have constituted flaming... but again, I will stand corrected just as soon as I've been told. This is a sign of maturity. To stand corrected when proven wrong. You have not made a case against my maturity... or at least have not done so maturely, and therefore need not be the prosecutor or the judge.

Conversely, I've shown some degree of patience in explaining the various things that make this proposal illegal. You refuse to stand corrected. Grow up, and I think you'll find that we get along much better. I'm a friendly person, believe it or not. Quid pros quos.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:14 am**

Illegal... What's Next?

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:07 am**

In principle, I support the idea of a World Criminal Court. Nevertheless, I have several concerns which make me unable to support this in this form:

1) Warrants should NOT have police force, i.e., translating, it should be exceedingly clear the WA does NOT have in any way, shape or form an international "police", with most illegal powers to enter sovereign nations and enforce warrants. Just imagine this in the case of Chiefs of State!

In my opinion, warrants should have force of law, but it should be entirely up to the nation to enforce the warrant and deliver the suspects to the Court (where is the Court located, anyway? Who pays for it? Where are the prisons? Who pays for them? Death penalty will be an option? etc.). In case a nation is found in comtempt of warrants, the maximum the WA should be able to do, in my opinion, are trade sanctions, arms embargoes, that sort of thing.

2) Mentions to specific languages: a big NO. However, suspects should have the right of having warrants, rights and whatnot presented to them in their native language.

3) Appeal: The putative highest Court in the World. Appeal to whom?

4) Recognizing; that "world peace" is still far away; : as long such a thing is in the books, world peace will be far away.

There are certainly more concerns, but those are ones most easy to gather right now.

Posted: **Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:25 pm**

I might as well show two previous resolutions that would create an international court of law. I wrote a resolution about creating a War Crimes Tribnual to artibrate disputes to prevent civilian casualities, prehaps some elements from that resolution can assist you. While the resolution itself is a bad idea, the mechanics by which a court was introduced, on the other hand, seems very good...

This draft was proposed by DecaponTen, and I was credited as the co-author. Note that DecapodTen's resolution may not exactly be...ahem...good. This thread, which is when this resolution got to quorom and deleted, shows why it is a bad idea.

The World Assembly

REITERATES the right of all NationStates to self-defense,

CONFIRMS the right of a soldier to self-defense, yet limiting it to a judicious response,

1. PROHIBITS all military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict, unless the military forces exercise due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS military forces in any way funded by a memberstate's government, or any governmental organization therein, from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'. This clause does not affect clandestine intelligence assets or agents from pretending to be civilians.

3. DECLARES that targeting civilian areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's war aims is allowed, so long as clauses 1 & 2 are obeyed.

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly War Crimes Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating and fairly trying all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by agents of memberstates, if requested by any nation that is party to the alleged violations.

6. DECLARES that the WAWCT tribunals will grant suspects a trial fair in every respect. The trials will render a verdict on all defendants and suggest, but not enforce, a sentence on guilty parties. The additional conditions are placed on WAWCT trials:
-The governmental authority affiliated with the defendant is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The governmental authority affiliated with the victims is allowed to appoint legal advisers, including lawyers and experts in military affairs.
-The WAWCT may accept advice and/or testimony from relevant non-governmental organizations.
-The defendant and the victim(s) have the right to bear witness in court.
-No defendant shall be acquitted because they were following orders of a superior.
-Those who order crimes shall be held as accountable as those who committed them.
-No person shall be tried twice for the same offense.
-No crime occurring before this resolution shall be prosecuted by the WAWCT.

7. DECREES that if an individual is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the WAWCT, that nation's government must:
(a) pay WAWCT ordered monetary reparations to the victims, or their next of kin AND
(b) arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2 in a fair trial. The WAWCT is to provide its evidence and court records to the judiciary of the memberstate for the purposes of the trial.

8. AUTHORIZES the WAWCT to investigate the practices of nations that lead to individual war crimes. Grants the WAWCT the power to impose appropriate sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation enacts WAWCT mandated reforms to end the practices that lead to violations of this resolution.

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

This was an earlier draft of the proposal I have written, before I left Nationstates and let DecapodTen posted his revisions.

<preamble to be added in later>

1. PROHIBITS all military forces from either directly or indirectly causing civilian casualties in any armed conflict unless the military forces excerised due diligence in trying to avoid or significantly reduce civilian casualties.

2. FURTHER PROHIBTS military forces from having their military forces pretend to be civilians or attempt to use civilians as 'human shields'.

3. DECLARES that the targeting of areas of strategic value in order to prosecute a state's sovereign war aims is allowed, as long as the military forces follow the above Clauses and excerised due diligence,

4. REQUIRES all nations to modify their military tactics and weapon programs in order to comply with Clauses 1 and 2,

5. ESTABLISHES the United Nations War Crime Tribunal and tasks it with the goal of investigating all alleged violations of the Clauses 1 and 2 by memberstates, if requested by the targeted nation.

6. DECREES that if a memberstate is found guilty of violating Clause 1 or Clause 2 by the UNWCT, the government must:
(a)pay monetary reparations to the families of dead or injured civilians AND
(b)arrest and prosecute all war criminals who are found guilty of breaking Clause 1 or Clause 2.

7. MANDATES the UNWCT impose sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation refrains from committing the violations. (OR

7. MANDATES the UNWCT impose sanctions on any nation who is found in repeat violation of either the spirit or the letter of Clause 1 or Clause 2, until the nation refrains from committing the violations.)

Again, I want you to look at these resolutions and learn about how we invisioned the UNWCT operating, rather than debating about banning civilian casualities, since I have came to the conclusion that banning civilian casualities is a foolhardy excerise. Remember, both resolutions has several loopholes. The drafts in question need to get rid of Clause 7, which places sanctions on other nations.

Posted: **Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:52 am**

Firing upon a Combat Medic with clear insignia

This part of the resolutions makes no sense whatsoever. As a vetern of three civil wars, firing upon a Combat Medic may be needed in order to save one's own life.

If its not obvious I'll make it clear "Combat Medic" the key word there is combat. They are legal combatants on the field of battle. Yes their purpose is to patch up their brothers, but they're just as able to kill you as you are to kill them.

Now, if you simply meant Medical personnel who travel to the field of battle to get to the wounded and do not have a real means to defend themselves, that is understandable. But do not make war more stressful than it is already by making soliders afraid to fire upon a Combat Medic.

Posted: **Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:08 am**

Alright, having looked at it more, I see some problems...

1) According to the Convetion of Genocide,

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

I do not know what "appropriate authority" is, but I strongly suspect that it refers to the nation in question where the genocide has taken place. So, if a genocider committed genocide in a WA nation and fled to another WA nation, that second WA nation must extradite the genocider over to the first WA Nation.

So, since the Convetion already handles how genocide gets prosecuted (hand it over to the country where he commited the crime and let him meet justice there), a lot of the court work of the Court goes away. To be fair, you are including other stuff too...but...

2) The Court has the power to administer any sort of punishment it wants. For my proposal, all I wanted was just a fine on the war criminal in question. You're allowing the Court to propose whatever punishment they want. What if the Court decides the death penalty? Or some other cruel punishment? TPP only allowed for a life imprisonment, at its most extreme.

3) In Noordeinde's proposal, the Court's definition of crimes appears to be a laundary list of deeds that the proposer in question does not like. The actual definition is that war crimes and Crimes against Humanity are "widespread or systemic atrocities" committed by persons against "civilian populations", and the laundary list is just a list, it may be extended whenever the Court desires, as long as the Court determines it to be widespread or systemic. That just begging for the Court to abuse its powers.

And the crimes you mention such as Rape would mean that the Court has the power to basically drag a serial rapist into the international court system and try him like a war criminal!

And deportation? If somebody is illegally within my country, I'm going to instruct my police force to deport that person. I'm NOT going to get myself dragged into the international court system and get punished as a war criminal.

Further, you criminalize "any other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health". That's swell. So, if a cop uses a loudspeaker to scream at protesters, "DO NOT RIOT!" I have no choice but to arrest that cop and send him off to the UN Court system? I mean, he is intentionally causing great suffering and possibly serious injury to the hearing of the protesters in question. In any event, if the Court wants to summon my cop to a trial, and if I'm in the WA, I have no choice, I'll give in.

4) Who is this President mentioned in Article 4, Clause 5? Is it the head of this Court?

I'm interested in creating my own resolution about a world court, considering that I don't really like this one, but I do understand where a world court might be useful. Like in settling border disputes.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:53 pm**

I have only two questions to ask. What punishments exactly will be given to those proven guilty of the crimes listed in this proposal and why does this proposal only deals with crimes created within WA member nations? Shouldn't a international court whether created by the WA or not deal with international crime be it committed by a nation who is a member of the WA or not.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:24 pm**

You call it "enforced disappearance of persons," but here in the Domain of Doctor Cyclops we prefer to think of it as "on holiday," and it is an integral part of our public peace system.

Ask any of my wise, intelligent and attractive subjects about this policy and you will find only unabashed enthusiasm. Just look at these testamonials:

"If it weren't for my holiday, I would still be selfishly hoarding Cyclopeans instead of spending them in the Domain's many lavish shopping districts!"
-Ted, UNDISCLOSED LOCATION

"I used to call our loving and kind Doctor Cyclops many dreadful things. Some of them even in public! But ever since I went on holiday I've been right as rain! After the surgery, they even let me [REDACTED]."
-Susan, Main Street, Anytown

"Holiday comes from 'holy day,' but it could also be 'holey' day, like the hole in which I sleep. Or it could be 'wholly day' because it makes me feel whole again. I like the butterflies I see when I dream."
-Sammy Budkins, Camp Fun Time

As you can see, the "on holiday" program is very popular within my Domain and the citizenry is quite fond of it. Who doesn't want an all expenses paid vacation to a secret facility located on no maps? Especially when you need it most: when you've been saying unkind and hurtful things about your great and glorious nation for no reason, no reason at all. Only a profoundly disturbed mind could ever entertain such a thought, and the "on holiday" program aims to correct that.

Remove the "enforced disappearance of persons" clause and I will consider this proposal in greater depth.

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:47 pm**

(OOC: I think this one is dead, guys.)

Posted: **Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:36 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:(OOC: I think this one is dead, guys.)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

NationStates

Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court

Re: Proposal: World Assembly Court