Advertisement
by Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:38 pm
by 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,
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
Separatist Peoples wrote:If he had said the resolution prohibits the same, that would definitely be out. But that's just my reading.
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.
by Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:23 pm
Aclion wrote:Stealing my thunder eh?
by 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?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
by Xanthal » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:26 pm
by Arasi Luvasa » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:45 pm
by Auralia » Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:56 am
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,
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,
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)
Imperium Anglorum wrote: and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and
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
Imperium Anglorum wrote:(ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,
by Albertstadt » Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:26 pm
by Tinhampton » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:08 am
by 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
by 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?
by Azadistan-land of the free » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:32 pm
by Tinhampton » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:33 pm
Azadistan-land of the free wrote:Will there be an alternative to universal jurisdiction?
by Xanthal » Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:39 pm
by 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.
by 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: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).
- ICC and
- ICC, just run in your country,
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement