NATION

PASSWORD

[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:38 pm

We are obviously opposed to this repeal for the same reason we have historically opposed the establishment of an international criminal court.

However, this repeal is likely to pass. Accordingly, would Imperium Anglorum be willing to accept a compromise where a hypothetical WA international criminal court refrains from requiring the extradition of suspected offenders so long as the nation where the offender is located conducts a prosecution in accordance with international standards?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Last edited by Auralia on Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:04 pm

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

b. 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,

This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute alleged offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, which means that member states are not required to try the alleged offender again if he has already been tried. However, it is not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.
Last edited by Auralia on Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:36 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:06 pm

Auralia wrote:
Believing that a lack of such a court means:

b. 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,

This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.


OOC: I don't think I see it. IA argues that the lack of a court creates that risk, not that the resolution necessarily prohibits itself. It can be construed as a criticism of the law in the context of extant law. And all you need to avoid an HM violation is a colorable argument. If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:12 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I don't think I see it. IA argues that the lack of a court creates that risk, not that the resolution necessarily prohibits itself. It can be construed as a criticism of the law in the context of extant law. And all you need to avoid an HM violation is a colorable argument. If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

It's very possible what you're describing was IA's intended meaning, but that's not what he wrote. The resolution does not say that "section 3(b) increases the risk that the offender will not receive a second trial where appropriate", which would have been fine. It simply says "section 3(b) prohibits a second trial", which simply isn't true. It implies that the resolution contains double jeopardy provisions similar to this resolution, when in fact it does not.
Last edited by Auralia on Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:21 pm

Auralia wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I don't think I see it. IA argues that the lack of a court creates that risk, not that the resolution necessarily prohibits itself. It can be construed as a criticism of the law in the context of extant law. And all you need to avoid an HM violation is a colorable argument. If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

It's very possible what you're describing was IA's intended meaning, but that's not what he wrote. The resolution does not say that "section 3(b) increases the risk that the offender will not receive a second trial where appropriate", which would have been fine. It simply says "section 3(b) prohibits a second trial", which simply isn't true. It implies that the resolution contains double jeopardy provisions similar to this resolution, when in fact it does not.

OOC: I know that I'm inclined to read this broadly, but I'm sure other members of GenSec could read it differently. If you think this constitutes an Honest Mistake, then definitely file a challenge. That is what the mechanism is for, after all.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4041
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:22 pm

Auralia wrote:
Believing that a lack of such a court means:

b. 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,

This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute alleged offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, which means that member states are not required to try the alleged offender again if the he has already been tried. It is not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.

Stealing my thunder eh? :lol2:

Separatist Peoples wrote:If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

He does say that...

Separatist Peoples wrote:. If you think this constitutes an Honest Mistake, then definitely file a challenge. That is what the mechanism is for, after all.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449222
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:23 pm

Aclion wrote:Stealing my thunder eh? :lol2:

Not exactly. I think you and I are claiming slightly different things, as I discuss in your challenge thread.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:26 pm

Aclion wrote:
Auralia wrote:This is factually inaccurate. Section 3 of the original resolution outlines the conditions under which member states are required to prosecute alleged offenders. 3(b) is an exemption to this requirement, which means that member states are not required to try the alleged offender again if the he has already been tried. It is not a prohibition. It is true that other World Assembly legislation on double jeopardy might indeed prohibit a second trial, but On Universal Jurisdiction does not do so.

Stealing my thunder eh? :lol2:

Separatist Peoples wrote:If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.

He does say that...

Separatist Peoples wrote:. If you think this constitutes an Honest Mistake, then definitely file a challenge. That is what the mechanism is for, after all.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=449222

OOC: Yes, I had posted a response to Auralia without seeing your challenge. Didn't mean to blow it off. I just hadn't scrolled down yet.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Xanthal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1026
Founded: Apr 16, 2005
New York Times Democracy

Postby Xanthal » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:26 pm

I hesitate to discuss the formation of an international criminal court here rather than in a committee convened for that purpose, but since the subject has been broached a demarcation of jurisdiction is clearly needed, unless the international court is to supplant national judiciaries entirely. In the perfect case I think the WA court would function only as a court of appeals, taking on cases which involve multiple countries or involve crimes against World Assembly laws only when those cases are not dealt with appropriately by national institutions. Perhaps at the request of an involved party? It is the opinion of the Federation that a WA court should also have a defined scope of remedial actions at its disposal, and possibly limitations on the types of party which may stand before it as defendants to prevent overreach. It's also important to consider whether the WA will have a prosecutorial role in international trials or serve purely as an adjudicator, with national or sub-national agents acting as plaintiffs. The question of whom is responsible for implementing orders given by the court should also be answered: will the WA have its own police and prisons, or utilize national resources through either compulsion or cooperation? My country considers all of these to be open issues which must necessarily be addressed as a part of any attempt to form a World Assembly court.
General Assembly IC
Security Council OOC

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 640
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Auralia, I believe the issue is that potential perpetrators may stay indefinitely within the confines of a nation which refuses to prosecute the individual or for some other reason may not adequately prosecute the individual. Atleast from what I understand, the individual must be within the country prosecuting while the current resolution is still in place.
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:56 am

I'm now going to critique the repeal's arguments in depth:

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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,

Sounds like a good idea for a resolution, but not a valid reason to repeal this one. OUJ doesn't require the exchange of evidence, but it doesn't prohibit it either.

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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,

As I note in the legality challenge thread, this isn't strictly true. OUJ does prohibit the World Assembly from establishing an international court, but only if the court preempts member state jurisdiction in cases where the member state claims universal jurisdiction. This is an important condition. If the member state does not claim universal jurisdiction, then the World Assembly can prosecute. As such, I agree "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" is too broad a claim, read on its own.

If you have to resubmit, you should probably just remove the second clause and let the first clause do all the work.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Believing that a lack of such a court means:

there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists, due to differing interpretations of section 3(c)

I don't see how prosecutorial discretion is unique to member states. A hypothetical international court will also have a particular threshold for determining guilt and will make decisions about who to prosecute on that basis. Would it therefore engage in few prosecutions as well?

Imperium Anglorum wrote: and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and

Every World Assembly member state must prosecute them. That's the whole point of the resolution.

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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

These "friendly" jurisdictions will still be World Assembly member states subject to the requirements of World Assembly law, required to interpret OUJ in good faith and subject to fines and sanctions if they do not.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:(ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

No, it does not.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

User avatar
Albertstadt
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Feb 26, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Reichstag voted in favor.

Postby Albertstadt » Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:26 pm

The Reichstag has voted in favor of this repeal. I have conferred with the President, and am accepting the decision of the Reichstag-although I will not sign it. It therefore becomes the policy of the people, and not the government. Anti-World Assembly feeling is running strong in Albertstadt.

OOC: You know, perhaps it is because I am almost 50, I see this much like a blackboard or whiteboard--you erase the existing notation to write a new one. So in this case, you remove the laws before you write new ones. It then will give people a much cleaner slate to write a new version with cleaner language, and not have the "this modification reflects changes in this law/regulation/policy" kind of housekeeping.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Senator
 
Posts: 4999
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:08 am

OOC: We're all regally sodded. The flag is Pope Pius XII until further notice. (CLICK FOR IC FLAG)

* Mayor: Saffron Howard (UCP; libertarian)
* Foreign Minister: Ryan Terrence (TLP)
* WA Delegate-Ambassador: Alexander Smith (NatSov)
* WA Assistant: Bianca Venkman (IntFed)
* Nat'l Football Team Manager: Harta-Yunal Den (QUS)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (trigram TIN, pop. 319,372)
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267
Football: Cup of Harmony 73 Champions - KPB rank 37th (18.05pts), UICA rank 59th (6pts)

User avatar
Thyerata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thyerata » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:57 am

Auralia wrote:We are obviously opposed to this repeal for the same reason we have historically opposed the establishment of an international criminal court.

However, this repeal is likely to pass. Accordingly, would Imperium Anglorum be willing to accept a compromise where a hypothetical WA international criminal court refrains from requiring the extradition of suspected offenders so long as the nation where the offender is located conducts a prosecution in accordance with international standards?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly


I agree with Auralia (for once), though given recent events this point might be moot for the time being
From the Desk of the Honourable Matthew Merriweather Ph.D. (Law, 2040) LLM Public and International Law, 2036) LLB Law (2035) (all from Thyerata State University)
Thytian Ambassador to the World Assembly and Security Council

I'm a gay man with an LLM, mild Asperger syndrome and only one functioning eye. My IC posts may reflect this, so please be aware

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8742
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:45 am

Auralia wrote:However, this repeal is likely to pass. Accordingly, would Imperium Anglorum be willing to accept a compromise where a hypothetical WA international criminal court refrains from requiring the extradition of suspected offenders so long as the nation where the offender is located conducts a prosecution in accordance with international standards?

I don't see how that has any meaningful difference from a normal ICC. If your alternatives are:

  • ICC and
  • ICC, just run in your country,
There really isn't a difference other than extradition cost? And not moving the prisoner so that the prisoner can more easily escape? I think it'd be best to discuss this more in depth though. Now that it's patently obvious that the resolution can be defeated, it likely will be (also, on that, let's all get aboard GA 2 repeal).

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Azadistan-land of the free
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1552
Founded: May 01, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Azadistan-land of the free » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:32 pm

Will there be an alternative to universal jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tinhampton
Senator
 
Posts: 4999
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:33 pm

Azadistan-land of the free wrote:Will there be an alternative to universal jurisdiction?

Yes - universal jurisdiction. This proposal will be discarded when voting ends, for violation of the Honest Mistake rule. ;)
OOC: We're all regally sodded. The flag is Pope Pius XII until further notice. (CLICK FOR IC FLAG)

* Mayor: Saffron Howard (UCP; libertarian)
* Foreign Minister: Ryan Terrence (TLP)
* WA Delegate-Ambassador: Alexander Smith (NatSov)
* WA Assistant: Bianca Venkman (IntFed)
* Nat'l Football Team Manager: Harta-Yunal Den (QUS)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (trigram TIN, pop. 319,372)
Author: SC#250, SC#251, SC#267
Football: Cup of Harmony 73 Champions - KPB rank 37th (18.05pts), UICA rank 59th (6pts)

User avatar
Xanthal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1026
Founded: Apr 16, 2005
New York Times Democracy

Postby Xanthal » Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:39 pm

While we wait, assuming a repeal ultimately takes effect does the delegation from Imperium Anglorum intend to propose a replacement, or do you intend to leave that privilege to others?
General Assembly IC
Security Council OOC

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5906
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:07 pm

"Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"" was discarded by the WA for rule violations after garnering 12,238 votes in favor and 2,543 votes against.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:18 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't see how that has any meaningful difference from a normal ICC. If your alternatives are:

  • ICC and
  • ICC, just run in your country,
There really isn't a difference other than extradition cost? And not moving the prisoner so that the prisoner can more easily escape? I think it'd be best to discuss this more in depth though. Now that it's patently obvious that the resolution can be defeated, it likely will be (also, on that, let's all get aboard GA 2 repeal).

What I describe is not "ICC, just run in your country". Under the approach I suggested, the World Assembly would not be involved in any way in the prosecution of offenders in authorized states. They would merely certify that the state has the capacity to engage in fair, competent trials.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Drystar, Maowi, Marxist Germany, Separatist Peoples, Tic Cove

Advertisement

Remove ads