[DEFEATED] Limitations on Banishment

[Excidium Planetis]

"I applaud the Euramathanian delegation for their commitment to improving this draft. Should Ambassador Fairburn cease to acknowledge you for any reason, I would suggest you take up your own draft."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"I applaud the Euramathanian delegation for their commitment to improving this draft. Should Ambassador Fairburn cease to acknowledge you for any reason, I would suggest you take up your own draft."

OOC: Now, now. Neville is doing the same and I don't see you criticising him.

Anyway, as for the suggested changes, I'll have to think about them.

[Ochea]

REQUIRES member states to allow banished persons back into their territory and to restore their citizenship with immediate effect, unless the banished person is a citizen of a country from which they are not banished,

So people would have to let domestic terrorists they banished back into their nation, and give them citizenship despite their crimes?
And you wants us to give compensation to these terrorists?!
This is going to lead to nations just killing criminals instead of banishing them.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: 'Nationality' (or 'Legal Nationality', if you must) would be more appropriate than the potentially narrower term 'Citizenship'... All citizens might be 'nationals', but not all nationals are [necessarily] citizens.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: 'Nationality' (or 'Legal Nationality', if you must) would be more appropriate than the potentially narrower term 'Citizenship'... All citizens might be 'nationals', but not all nationals are [necessarily] citizens.

OOC: Ugg. To be honest, citizenship is a much clearer term, though nationality provides more legal protections, if not only because some wilfully ignorant people are consistently trying to repeal Reducing Statelessness because they interpret nationality on the lines of ethnicity rather than one the lines of its legal definition.

Though, the author can easily solve that issue (and the issue with Reducing Statelessness) by defining what nationality is in terms of a WA resolution while also conveniently leaving out a 'for the purposes of this resolution' clause.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: 'Nationality' (or 'Legal Nationality', if you must) would be more appropriate than the potentially narrower term 'Citizenship'... All citizens might be 'nationals', but not all nationals are [necessarily] citizens.

OOC: IA's resolution already deals with nationals, though. A member state cannot deprive someone of their nationality if it would leave that person stateless, but right now, no such protection is applied to citizenship.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: We've decided to make some amendments to the proposal. Feel free to leave comments.

[Kitzerland]

Neville: We've decided to make some amendments to the proposal. Feel free to leave comments.

Whiskers does a little dance. "Yes! I am happy to say I can support this!"

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador of the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, the Honorable J. Everett:
We wish to thank Ambassador Fairburn for his passionate debate on this issue. We are pleased to accept this new draft, as it provides for the concerns we have stated in regard to the autonomy of member states. We look forward to supporting this resolution and seeing it pass this esteemed body.

[Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle]

"I have some concerns here." Twilight begins. "First of all, the title no longer accurately reflects the contents of the proposal, and may mislead voters. And not in a good way, they may vote against because they mistakenly think this proposal bans banishment entirely.

"Second, why not use the International Criminal Court instead of establishing an entirely new international court?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Wouldn't creation of an international court would violation On Universal Jurisdiction?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Wouldn't creation of an international court would violation On Universal Jurisdiction?

Neville: Only if it's a criminal court. The Court of International Jurisdiction deals with appeals and torts, but not with crimes.

"I have some concerns here." Twilight begins. "First of all, the title no longer accurately reflects the contents of the proposal, and may mislead voters. And not in a good way, they may vote against because they mistakenly think this proposal bans banishment entirely."

Fairburn: It's not entirely inaccurate. The proposal still bans banishment. We've only added an extra exemption.

"Second, why not use the International Criminal Court instead of establishing an entirely new international court?"

Fairburn: We can't establish an international criminal court due to On Universal Jurisdiction. That's like...one of the most obvious examples of contradiction in the entire WA. It's the sort of case study you would find in a primary school textbook on the World Assembly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Torts, because they include crimes, given this definition, I think, would violate On Universal Jurisdiction's preventing of the World Assembly from exercising jurisdiction.

[States of Glory WA Office]

(Image)
Torts, because they include crimes, given this definition, I think, would violate On Universal Jurisdiction's preventing of the World Assembly from exercising jurisdiction.

Neville: Why, then, does it say 'a crime as well as a tort'? That would imply that they were different.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(Image)
Torts, because they include crimes, given this definition, I think, would violate On Universal Jurisdiction's preventing of the World Assembly from exercising jurisdiction.

Neville: Why, then, does it say 'a crime as well as a tort'? That would imply that they were different.

Parsons: (facepalms) A train is a fast object and a machine. That a train is a fast object does not make it not a machine.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Why, then, does it say 'a crime as well as a tort'? That would imply that they were different.

Parsons: (facepalms) A train is a fast object and a machine. That a train is a fast object does not make it not a machine.

Neville: True, but you're arguing that since X is both a crime and a tort, all torts are crimes. That's like me saying that since a train is a fast object and a machine, all machines are fast objects.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (facepalms) A train is a fast object and a machine. That a train is a fast object does not make it not a machine.

Neville: True, but you're arguing that since X is both a crime and a tort, all torts are crimes. That's like me saying that since a train is a fast object and a machine, all machines are fast objects.

PARSONS: No, we're arguing that because some torts are also crimes, that overlap contradicts On Universal Jurisdiction's provision.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: True, but you're arguing that since X is both a crime and a tort, all torts are crimes. That's like me saying that since a train is a fast object and a machine, all machines are fast objects.

PARSONS: No, we're arguing that because some torts are also crimes, that overlap contradicts On Universal Jurisdiction's provision.

Neville: Let the law decide whether the tort is significant enough to be classified as a crime then go from there.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: No, we're arguing that because some torts are also crimes, that overlap contradicts On Universal Jurisdiction's provision.

Neville: Let the law decide whether the tort is significant enough to be classified as a crime then go from there.

PARSONS: So... write that into the law.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Let the law decide whether the tort is significant enough to be classified as a crime then go from there.

PARSONS: So... write that into the law.

Neville: Just to be clear, you want the WA to decide whether or not a tort is significant enough to be elevated to the status of a crime?

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: So... write that into the law.

Neville: Just to be clear, you want the WA to decide whether or not a tort is significant enough to be elevated to the status of a crime?

PARSONS: Given that there are torts which are crimes and that criminal jurisdiction is reserved to member nations, not doing so would contradict prior legislation.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Neville: Just to be clear, you want the WA to decide whether or not a tort is significant enough to be elevated to the status of a crime?

PARSONS: Given that there are torts which are crimes and that criminal jurisdiction is reserved to member nations, not doing so would contradict prior legislation.

The Ambassador from the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, the Honorable J. Everett :
Your argument is undermined by clauses 8 & 9 of On Universal Jurisdiction which reads:

8. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;
9. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution precludes the World Assembly from passing further legislation on criminal jurisdiction, international police or judicial cooperation, or extradition

The banished person is outside the scope of territorial jurisdiction by definition, in regards to the banishing state. And such a body does not preempt another state from claiming universal jurisdiction once such an individual is within their territory. This body is implicitly limited in scope to those who no longer have a state that could in fact claim jurisdiction, for time in which such an individual is outside of any territorial jurisdiction. The newly established body, is acting within the scope of judicial cooperation, as it provides access to the courts by such persons. As such, it remains within the remit of the WA to establish a new body to provide for access and judicial cooperation to otherwise disaffected persons.

While we feel that Ambassador Fairburn was being a bit provocative in naming this new agency as a court knowing the language of WA 312, we find that the term by itself is not prohibited. What is prohibited is establishing any body which would reduce a member-states claim to have universal jurisdiction. Clause 7, which contains the prohibition, lists International Criminal Court as an example. However, the language of clauses 8 & 9, leave me to believe that there are circumstances where international panels could be formed to deal with judicial cooperation as the one established in this draft intends. It would seem obtuse in the extreme to think that the WA would be forever barred from establishing anything resembling a 'court' because of one resolution. For example,An international criminal justice board would be in violation of WA 312 if it sought to limit universal criminal jurisdiction, but no-one has suggested then that all boards are prohibited going forward. Even if that example was included by name in the resolution it would remain unlikely that people would argue that "board" ought to be not used for anything.

It is clear that to test contradiction in this matter it should be as to whether this resolution impedes the goals of the previous resolution or improves upon affirming it mandates. As there is currently no clear way for member states to claim universal jurisdiction on behalf of an individual not within their territory, then banished persons would be bereft of access to WA jurisdiction without this new agency. That is what is trying to be fixed. By providing for access to appeals, and torts, the banished individual retains some measure of competency in the world, furthering their rights of self determination. This seems a clear improvement over the status quo.

[Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle]

"Second, why not use the International Criminal Court instead of establishing an entirely new international court?"

Fairburn: We can't establish an international criminal court due to On Universal Jurisdiction. That's like...one of the most obvious examples of contradiction in the entire WA. It's the sort of case study you would find in a primary school textbook on the World Assembly.

"But you aren't establishing an international court, silly." Twilight Sparkle smiles. "It was already established. You are simply granting the ICC new duties, the same duties as the court you have here. Either the duties are legal, and thus you can give them to the ICC, or the duties are illegal, and this you can't give them to any court, ICC or otherwise."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: We can't establish an international criminal court due to On Universal Jurisdiction. That's like...one of the most obvious examples of contradiction in the entire WA. It's the sort of case study you would find in a primary school textbook on the World Assembly.

"But you aren't establishing an international court, silly." Twilight Sparkle smiles. "It was already established. You are simply granting the ICC new duties, the same duties as the court you have here. Either the duties are legal, and thus you can give them to the ICC, or the duties are illegal, and this you can't give them to any court, ICC or otherwise."

Fairburn: You criticise us for our supposedly inaccurate title, then ask us to utilise a committee with an inaccurate name considering the circumstances. You can't have it both ways.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Harold enters the chamber dressed as a priest.

Harold: I hereby banish this draft to the fiery pits of Hell! The power of Christ compels thee!

Barbera: Oh, look, another old draft. Alright, let's revive this thing.

Harold: Please don't. I'm not in the mood required to perform a real exorcism.