[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Concerned that the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts,

Observing that section 7 of the target resolution “[f]orbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state’s claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution”,

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

1. there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists, due to differing interpretations of section 3(c) and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and
   
   
2. victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

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

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

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

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.

[Wallenburg]

Against.

[Xanthal]

You have my support for a repeal, only because I regard GAR312 as largely useless, but I'm obliged to point out while the Federation agrees with the broad strokes of your argument, it would be useful to have at least a draft replacement text to which I could refer. Xanthal does support the establishment of a WA criminal court in principle, but the devil, as always, is in the details. I can't promise a vote for a replacement without a much clearer picture of what that would be.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Article 3 section 3 s bad under on universal jurisdiction. For

[Kenmoria]

“The main gist of this repeal, contained in all but one of the applicable clauses, is that the resolution prevents the WA from creating a universal court that would prosecuted incredibly serious crimes. I do not see why this is such a bad thing; the basis of international relations is that each country has the right to conduct itself how it pleases, within the constraints of international law. If a leader commits crimes that are against another nation, they can be tried there. If their actions affect no other state, there is no reason to try them.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“The main gist of this repeal, contained in all but one of the applicable clauses, is that the resolution prevents the WA from creating a universal court that would prosecuted incredibly serious crimes. I do not see why this is such a bad thing; the basis of international relations is that each country has the right to conduct itself how it pleases, within the constraints of international law. If a leader commits crimes that are against another nation, they can be tried there. If their actions affect no other state, there is no reason to try them.”

"Ambassador, do you not see the inherent conflict with allowing the perpetrator of an international crime to be tried in either their own nation or the victim nation?"

[Kenmoria]

“The main gist of this repeal, contained in all but one of the applicable clauses, is that the resolution prevents the WA from creating a universal court that would prosecuted incredibly serious crimes. I do not see why this is such a bad thing; the basis of international relations is that each country has the right to conduct itself how it pleases, within the constraints of international law. If a leader commits crimes that are against another nation, they can be tried there. If their actions affect no other state, there is no reason to try them.”

"Ambassador, do you not see the inherent conflict with allowing the perpetrator of an international crime to be tried in either their own nation or the victim nation?"

“The target resolution requires all prosecution to be conducted ‘safely and fairly’, so there cannot be an issue with bias. There is also a line whichever states that the punishment must not be disproportionate to the crime committed, so the idea that the victim nation would prosecute too harshly is unfounded. There is also the fact that most war crimes are done by people representing nations, so sanctions could be applied to the perpetrator’s nation rather than the perpetrator themself.”

[Thyerata]

The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any member state to prosecute crimes no matter where they occur. This means that a member state may prosecute, in its courts, another state's citizens for crimes recognised under the doctrine. Consequently there is no need for a "world court".

Opposed - though show us a replacement and we may reconsider (although it is very unlikely)

OOC: I would suggest you read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction. Furthermore, leading international criminal law scholars recognise the doctrine as a valid exercise of the inherent duty to prosecute. It has also been recognised as part of customary international law by Werle and Jessberger. O'Keefe recognises it too (though he acknowledges that it is controversial). Cryer goes so far as to say that universal jurisdiction has become entrenched
I did this in my Masters 6 months ago. I know what I'm talking about.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, do you not see the inherent conflict with allowing the perpetrator of an international crime to be tried in either their own nation or the victim nation?"

“The target resolution requires all prosecution to be conducted ‘safely and fairly’, so there cannot be an issue with bias. There is also a line whichever states that the punishment must not be disproportionate to the crime committed, so the idea that the victim nation would prosecute too harshly is unfounded. There is also the fact that most war crimes are done by people representing nations, so sanctions could be applied to the perpetrator’s nation rather than the perpetrator themself.”

"There are any number of legal tricks a court can use that maintain the facade of fairness, ambassador. And "disproportionate" is equally flexible when a population is angry. Or defensive. Surely you see the inherent subjectivity when you leave such a charged issue to national courts?"

OOC: The first round of Nuremberg trials were drumhead courts, more intent on vengeance and dismantling the power structure of the fallen Nazi Reich than on justice. They were the definition of Victor's Justice. Don't tell me that nations of either victims or perpetrators can be unbiased. Both have agendas. An international court has the advantage of having existing procedure and law, and insulation from agendas.

[Separatist Peoples]

The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any member state to prosecute crimes no matter where they occur. This means that a member state may prosecute, in its courts, another state's citizens for crimes recognised under the doctrine. Consequently there is no need for a "world court".

Opposed - though show us a replacement and we may reconsider (although it is very unlikely)

OOC: I would suggest you read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction. Furthermore, leading international criminal law scholars recognise the doctrine as a valid exercise of the inherent duty to prosecute. It has also been recognised as part of customary international law by Werle and Jessberger. O'Keefe recognises it too (though he acknowledges that it is controversial). Cryer goes so far as to say that universal jurisdiction has become entrenched
I did this in my Masters 6 months ago. I know what I'm talking about.

OOC: There is no customary international law in the GA. IA has without a doubt taken the time to research the topic. Probably well beyond the Wiki page.

Real World International customary practice isn't recognized in the GA, where there is no IC recognized customary practice other than codified international statute and rule.

Further, nothing prevents nations from maintaining universal jurisdiction practices on their own post-repeal.

Lets not wave credentials around if you cannot apply them to the GA.

[Thyerata]

The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any member state to prosecute crimes no matter where they occur. This means that a member state may prosecute, in its courts, another state's citizens for crimes recognised under the doctrine. Consequently there is no need for a "world court".

Opposed - though show us a replacement and we may reconsider (although it is very unlikely)

OOC: I would suggest you read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction. Furthermore, leading international criminal law scholars recognise the doctrine as a valid exercise of the inherent duty to prosecute. It has also been recognised as part of customary international law by Werle and Jessberger. O'Keefe recognises it too (though he acknowledges that it is controversial). Cryer goes so far as to say that universal jurisdiction has become entrenched
I did this in my Masters 6 months ago. I know what I'm talking about.

OOC: There is no customary international law in the GA. IA has without a doubt taken the time to research the topic. Probably well beyond the Wiki page.

Real World International customary practice isn't recognized in the GA, where there is no IC recognized customary practice other than codified international statute and rule.

Further, nothing prevents nations from maintaining universal jurisdiction practices on their own post-repeal.

Lets not wave credentials around if you cannot apply them to the GA.

OOC: you realise that everything from "OOC" onwards was to be read OOC? I should add that telling me not to cite to RL, while doing so yourself, is a bit of hypocrisy

[Imperium Anglorum]

Actual application of the argument to policies applied in the GA one way or another would require their IC applicability. Which is also what Sep talks about when he says 'Lets not wave credentials around if you cannot apply them to the GA'. But that distracts from the total non-response to anything Sep said anyway, so I guess we're done here. As my ambassador would say, 'Addressed'.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: you realise that everything from "OOC" onwards was to be read OOC? I should add that telling me not to cite to RL, while doing so yourself, is a bit of hypocrisy

OOC: I did use an analogous example to demonstrate what would happen. I did not use it to bolster an argument that a legal policy exists ICly.

[Wallenburg]

Still against.

[Furry Things]

I don't see any drafting on this nor do I see a proposed replacement resolution. Against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't see any drafting on this nor do I see a proposed replacement resolution. Against.

Lol. 17 Jul 2018

[Wallenburg]

I don't see any drafting on this nor do I see a proposed replacement resolution. Against.

Lol. 17 Jul 2018

That wasn't a draft. You just resubmitted the same undrafted proposal as before.

[Kenmoria]

I don't see any drafting on this nor do I see a proposed replacement resolution. Against.

(OOC: I agree with this, and am also against.)

[Xanthal]

OOC: It's a repeal; that's literally its only effect. How much drafting is really necessary? A master politician's preamble and me jamming my fist on the keyboard a few times make absolutely no substantive difference. I agree it would be nice to have some idea of where we're going from here though, vis-a-vis a replacement.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Furthermore, leading international criminal law scholars recognise the doctrine as a valid exercise of the inherent duty to prosecute. It has also been recognised as part of customary international law by Werle and Jessberger. O'Keefe recognises it too (though he acknowledges that it is controversial). Cryer goes so far as to say that universal jurisdiction has become entrenched

OOC: None of which means The Hague has nothing to do, or makes it superfluous in any way. If all the target did was oblige nations to prosecute where they think they can get a conviction, that would be tolerable-to-peachy, but it also specifically forbids the creation of an international body to handle such crimes. RL universal jurisdiction has the advantage of that gold standard for people to measure it against and thus improve national procedures where necessary; but the WA has left everything in local hands. That's not a tenable situation for a supranational body intent on actually enforcing human rights.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That wasn't a draft. You just resubmitted the same undrafted proposal as before.

Lol, what, was the thread locked?

Furthermore, leading international criminal law scholars recognise the doctrine as a valid exercise of the inherent duty to prosecute. It has also been recognised as part of customary international law by Werle and Jessberger. O'Keefe recognises it too (though he acknowledges that it is controversial). Cryer goes so far as to say that universal jurisdiction has become entrenched

OOC: None of which means The Hague has nothing to do, or makes it superfluous in any way. If all the target did was oblige nations to prosecute where they think they can get a conviction, that would be tolerable-to-peachy, but it also specifically forbids the creation of an international body to handle such crimes. RL universal jurisdiction has the advantage of that gold standard for people to measure it against and thus improve national procedures where necessary; but the WA has left everything in local hands. That's not a tenable situation for a supranational body intent on actually enforcing human rights.

This is a good point. OUJ doesn't create universal jurisdiction. Nations can still claim it and exercise it. The main thing actually relevant here is that OUJ stops the creation of an international criminal court. What the WA has created is a system so that people who commit genocide don't get punished unless they opt into some jurisdiction in which they will get punished, which is pointless.

[Lord Dominator]

"Hrm, this seems decent. Might as well support." At this, Dee wanders out of the room and back to the Bar.

[Arasi Luvasa]

What the WA has created is a system so that people who commit genocide don't get punished unless they opt into some jurisdiction in which they will get punished, which is pointless.

While I do agree that this is an issue,I believe the issue most have is that there has been no alternative suggested. This is merely to repeal Universal Jurisdiction and thus needs not suggest the alternative, I do understand this, positing the alternative would likely convince more to support the idea. Yes I am also aware that the new proposal would likely mirror Universal Jurisdiction with slight alterations or specifically introduce the guidelines for an international court. Providing this would likely convince more individuals that this is the right move.

[Wallenburg]

That wasn't a draft. You just resubmitted the same undrafted proposal as before.

Lol, what, was the thread locked?

Argh! These zingers are diabolically lethal! I yield, I yield!

[Separatist Peoples]

Lol, what, was the thread locked?

Argh! These zingers are diabolically lethal! I yield, I yield!

Ooc: you heard Wally, everybody. IA wins. Everybody has to vote For now, or get banjected from the internet.