NationStates

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:30 am**

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:

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

victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist,
Expressing its discontent 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 a compulsory, fair, and effective international tribunal to resolve these issues, hereby:

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:30 am**

Reserved.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:34 am**

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

OOC:This might or might not be seen as legislating in a repeal and I would recommend asking the Secretariat about this.

IC:Do you have a replacement ready? If so, where is it?

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:38 am**

Old Hope wrote:OOC:This might or might not be seen as legislating in a repeal and I would recommend asking the Secretariat about this.

That part isn't. We've already passed resolutions with the term in it. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=32730365&hilit=repeal#p32730365. And that matter didn't come up last time when the faction in the WA which hates enforcement of (cough) On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms (cough) threw every legality challenge they could think up last time.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:05 am**

OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:41 am**

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.

OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for."

IC: "Ambassador, I sure would replace the word 'malcontent' with something else - you probably want 'discontent.' A malcontent is a person, and moreover a person who stirs up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, a professional outrage machine and a rebel without a cause - or rather, with any cause that looks like it might score political points. Whereas discontent is a feeling, a motivation, and a will to sincerely fix things."

"Also you've got a rogue 'an' - as opposed to 'a' - in the last line there, next to 'compulsory.'"

"Support."

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:01 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.

OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for."

IC: "Ambassador, I sure would replace the word 'malcontent' with something else - you probably want 'discontent.' A malcontent is a person, and moreover a person who stirs up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, a professional outrage machine and a rebel without a cause - or rather, with any cause that looks like it might score political points. Whereas discontent is a feeling, a motivation, and a will to sincerely fix things."

"Also you've got a rogue 'an' - as opposed to 'a' - in the last line there, next to 'compulsory.'"

"Support."

OOC:Precedent? Or a proposal becoming a resolution without a specific legality challenge? The latter isn't precedent, normally(as it could be a missed illegality).

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:01 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for.

OOC
*<checks>*
I seem to have posted only once -- and that very briefly -- in that resolution's thread, for some reason (which, by now, I can't remember; probably, during that stage of that year, RL wearing me out), and apparently overlooked the point then. From what I can see, nobody else raised the point either and there certainly doesn't seem to be any GenSec ruling there that such wording was okay. Without a ruling to show, does that use actually count as a precedent rather than just as something that slipped through without being challenged?

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:30 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.

OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for."

IC: "Ambassador, I sure would replace the word 'malcontent' with something else - you probably want 'discontent.' A malcontent is a person, and moreover a person who stirs up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, a professional outrage machine and a rebel without a cause - or rather, with any cause that looks like it might score political points. Whereas discontent is a feeling, a motivation, and a will to sincerely fix things."

"Also you've got a rogue 'an' - as opposed to 'a' - in the last line there, next to 'compulsory.'"

"Support."

Done.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:41 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for.

OOC
*<checks>*
I seem to have posted only once -- and that very briefly -- in that resolution's thread, for some reason (which, by now, I can't remember; probably, during that stage of that year, RL wearing me out), and apparently overlooked the point then. From what I can see, nobody else raised the point either and there certainly doesn't seem to be any GenSec ruling there that such wording was okay. Without a ruling to show, does that use actually count as a precedent rather than just as something that slipped through without being challenged?

I mean, I suppose the latter is the most that can be forcefully argued. But I'm disinclined to be too much of a hardass re: such a minor point of wording (would we call "calling for" an operative clause in an original resolution? I kind of doubt it - it's a rhetorical display of piety in every place it's used), and the plain fact is that it went through before without anyone seeing an issue with it. But it's not a hill I recommend anyone dying on.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:43 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for”

OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:51 am**

Wrapper wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for”

OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.

OOC: This is a fair distinction, but even so the act of calling for such a tribunal does not cause it to exist, in the same manner that calling for a replacement resolution does not cause replacement legislation to exist. Unless you can prove that this clause has some immediate effect on member states, then I cannot find merit for an argument that this legislates within a repeal.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:53 am**

I was going to respond with something that said something like the above, but I saw that I had been ninja'ed by exactly what I wanted to say.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:00 am**

Wallenburg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.

OOC: This is a fair distinction, but even so the act of calling for such a tribunal does not cause it to exist, in the same manner that calling for a replacement resolution does not cause replacement legislation to exist. Unless you can prove that this clause has some immediate effect on member states, then I cannot find merit for an argument that this legislates within a repeal.

Perhaps not, but neither does an URGES clause or a RECOMMENDS clause, which are legislative in nature. I suppose it’s up to GenSec where to draw the line. I, for one, trust their judgement.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:44 am**

Wallenburg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.
OOC: This is a fair distinction, but even so the act of calling for such a tribunal does not cause it to exist, in the same manner that calling for a replacement resolution does not cause replacement legislation to exist. Unless you can prove that this clause has some immediate effect on member states, then I cannot find merit for an argument that this legislates within a repeal.

Wrapper wrote:Perhaps not, but neither does an URGES clause or a RECOMMENDS clause, which are legislative in nature.

OOC: Perhaps not surprising that I agree with Wrapper on this one; "calling for the creation of a committee" would likely be not challenged (legally, I mean; though people would likely point out that it should read "calls" instead) in a mild proposal, especially if there was an additional active clause, and repeals get one even if it wasn't written into it (in this case it has been). Changing it to "hoping" would make it okay, as would be changing it to "calling for legislation to create".

EDIT: Though I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that IA writes up with the exact purpose of getting a precedent to abuse later.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:51 am**

I will certainly agree that the current wording is sub-optimal, and that it would better be replaced by something like "anticipating" or "hoping for" or "supporting".

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:31 pm**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
*<checks>*
I seem to have posted only once -- and that very briefly -- in that resolution's thread, for some reason (which, by now, I can't remember; probably, during that stage of that year, RL wearing me out), and apparently overlooked the point then. From what I can see, nobody else raised the point either and there certainly doesn't seem to be any GenSec ruling there that such wording was okay. Without a ruling to show, does that use actually count as a precedent rather than just as something that slipped through without being challenged?

I mean, I suppose the latter is the most that can be forcefully argued. But I'm disinclined to be too much of a hardass re: such a minor point of wording (would we call "calling for" an operative clause in an original resolution? I kind of doubt it - it's a rhetorical display of piety in every place it's used), and the plain fact is that it went through before without anyone seeing an issue with it. But it's not a hill I recommend anyone dying on.

I'm reasonably certain that it was long ago established that the mere passage of a potentially offending phrase or provision is not counted as precedent. Or at least that it has been accepted around here for so long, that it doesn't need mentioning.

But in any case I agree that the particular clause would be meaningless and count neither as an operative clause nor a preambular clause (sort of like section 8, GAR#213) in a resolution. If it's not an operative clause in a resolution, then it's not an operative clause in a repeal. It would make no sense to count the WA urging itself to do something as a valid operative clause.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:32 pm**

Araraukar wrote:EDIT: Though I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that IA writes up with the exact purpose of getting a precedent to abuse later.

Have you even followed events in the Assembly recently? This was already at vote. "I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that Ara and co. pull out of their hats to derail actual authors." Oh also, about that claim that I'm some kind malicious legality challenger, please, look at the GenSec catalogue again and look at who files the most challenges. Next, I'm also profoundly unclear about what you think is the scope of "abuse". There isn't one. I don't think it's in fact at all possible to argue that such a scope has an area greater than zero, insofar as my passing a resolution with Calling for doesn't also magically spawn another resolution on the same topic. So please, take your fear mongering about the Caravan of IA test cases approaching the WA border someplace else.

And not only that, but Calling for has already been enacted. When I called for replacement, one didn't magically appear in the resolution books. If it had, that'd be one hell of a trick. And I would guarantee that half the forum would have then spent every waking moment trying to get it ruled illegal after the fact.

But more broadly, this is one of those cases which comes down to whether the Secretariat should purposefully interpret resolutions to be illegal. I guess the crowd that doesn't write resolutions and lives here to play Rules lawyer is back for more courtroom drama. Insofar as (1) the Secretariat doesn't purposefully interpret resolutions to be illegal and (2) the WA calling for things doesn't automagically make them happen, this isn't an actual controversy. Again, on this topic, Gruen was right.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:02 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:EDIT: Though I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that IA writes up with the exact purpose of getting a precedent to abuse later.

*snip*

OOC: You have yourself admitted on at least two different drafts that you wrote them exactly so they'd be challenged and you would get a verdict, without caring what exactly the verdict was going to be. A "win-win" situation for you.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:06 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: You have yourself admitted on at least two different drafts that you wrote them exactly so they'd be challenged and you would get a verdict, without caring what exactly the verdict was going to be. A "win-win" situation for you.

This just in, settling matters one way or the other is bad. And we should endeavour at all possible to keep the actual rules we follow as ambiguous as possible, so that we can have repetitive time-wasting debates over what the proposal rules are.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:01 pm**

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:17 pm**

It seems like this went from drafting to submitted quite fast, with the only real discussion being an argument about the semantics of the word. Reading the proposal itself, I was of two minds about it, but without more time in drafting, I find myself against this proposal at this time.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:20 pm**

Furry Things wrote:It seems like this went from drafting to submitted quite fast, with the only real discussion being an argument about the semantics of the word. Reading the proposal itself, I was of two minds about it, but without more time in drafting, I find myself against this proposal at this time.

There was a earlier attempt from the same resolution
Discarded Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction but it got discarded for illegality.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:26 pm**

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:
Furry Things wrote:It seems like this went from drafting to submitted quite fast, with the only real discussion being an argument about the semantics of the word. Reading the proposal itself, I was of two minds about it, but without more time in drafting, I find myself against this proposal at this time.

There was a earlier attempt from the same resolution
Discarded Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction but it got discarded for illegality.

You're correct. I forgot about that. At this point, I think I'm back to my previous stance on this issue as last time. Without proposed replacement legislation and no sign of one in the drafting stages, I'm still going to be against for now.

Posted: **Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:58 am**

Furry Things wrote:
Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:There was a earlier attempt from the same resolution
Discarded Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction but it got discarded for illegality.

You're correct. I forgot about that. At this point, I think I'm back to my previous stance on this issue as last time. Without proposed replacement legislation and no sign of one in the drafting stages, I'm still going to be against for now.

Agreed with this, I need to see a potential replacement first.

NationStates

[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"