[DRAFT] International Criminal Tribunal

[Imperium Anglorum]

The World Assembly,

Believing that it is necessary to end the current state of affairs where (a) there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since criminals would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and where (b) victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as even when prosecutions occur, war criminals will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that their punishments 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 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, hereby:

1. Establishes an International Criminal Tribunal, hereinafter the Tribunal, in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, which shall hear and try cases in the original instance and appeals arising therefrom of criminal behaviours arising from World Assembly legislation creating a set of criminality generally understood to be a "war crime" or "crime against humanity" with the mandate and authority to:

1. undertake all reasonable actions to ensure the fairness of trials within the Tribunal,
   
2. try accused persons in absentia,
   
3. issue orders to compel the production of evidence, where reasonable,
   
4. impartially and speedily decide the guilt of persons tried before it based on a reasonable interpretation of international law and
   
5. give appropriate penalties proportional to the severity of crimes committed, taking into account force majeure and other mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

2. Grants the World Assembly Solicitor’s Office standing in the Tribunal to prosecute such crimes; requires all persons subject to World Assembly authority to comply with orders issued by and enforce penalties given by the Tribunal;

3. Requires member nations to immediately render to the Tribunal's custody persons charged for crimes in the Tribunal; prohibits member nations from passing laws prohibiting the Tribunal from effecting rendition of such persons; immunises any World Assembly agent from prosecution for actions taken in furtherance of the ends of this clause; and

4. Instructs the Office of Building Management to build, furnish, maintain, and administer facilities for the Tribunal and a gaol built in territory under the sole jurisdiction of the World Assembly and to avail that facility to the use of World Assembly institutions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What is the definition of preempt?

preempt | prēˈempt |
verb [with object]

1 take action in order to prevent (an anticipated event) from happening; forestall: the government preempted a coup attempt.
• act in advance of (someone) in order to prevent them from doing something: it looked as if she'd ask him more, but Parr preempted her.
• North American (of a broadcast) interrupt or replace (a scheduled program): the violence preempted regular programming.

2 acquire or appropriate (something) in advance: many tables were already preempted by family parties.
• North American take (something, especially public land) for oneself so as to have the right of preemption.

3 [no object] Bridge make a preemptive bid.

What other resolutions matter? (Also here for my reference.)

On Universal Jurisdiction: viewtopic.php?p=23823680#p23823680

Banning Extrajudicial Transfer: viewtopic.php?p=9652923#p9652923
Extradition Rights: viewtopic.php?p=5466479#p5466479

Preventing Multiple Trials: viewtopic.php?p=9653011#p9653011
Habeas Corpus: viewtopic.php?p=9653153#p9653153
Convict Appellate Rights: viewtopic.php?p=10021266#p10021266

[Kowani]

So if a nation tries Lord Genocide the 3rd independently of the ICT, can the Tribunal override the verdict if the sentence handed down isn’t compliant with International Law?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So if a nation tries Lord Genocide the 3rd independently of the ICT, can the Tribunal override the verdict if the sentence handed down isn’t compliant with International Law?

That nation wouldn't be able to issue such a sentence if it were not compliant with international law.

[Kowani]

So if a nation tries Lord Genocide the 3rd independently of the ICT, can the Tribunal override the verdict if the sentence handed down isn’t compliant with International Law?

That nation wouldn't be able to issue such a sentence if it were not compliant with international law.

Allow me to reword the question: Can the Tribunal override or supersede National Courts?

[Imperium Anglorum]

That nation wouldn't be able to issue such a sentence if it were not compliant with international law.

Allow me to reword the question: Can the Tribunal override or supersede National Courts?

It doesn't seem to.

[Kowani]

Allow me to reword the question: Can the Tribunal override or supersede National Courts?

It doesn't seem to.

Than it’s next to useless.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't seem to.

Than it’s next to useless.

I don't think you understand what concurrence means. The Tribunal can prosecute and compel administration of punishment, as can national courts. For a crude metaphor, consider an arrow target. The Tribunal can shoot at that target – as can member nations – which will still, at the end of the day, lead to the target having an arrow in it.

[Kowani]

Than it’s next to useless.

I don't think you understand what concurrence means. The Tribunal can prosecute and compel administration of punishment, as can national courts. For a crude metaphor, consider an arrow target. The Tribunal can shoot at that target – as can member nations – which will still, at the end of the day, lead to the target having an arrow in it.

And of course, any dictator can establish a puppet state, charge himself with a minor crime, and serve a grand total of 12 minutes in prison.

International Justice, 10/10 legal ruling.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And of course, any dictator can establish a puppet state, charge himself with a minor crime, and serve a grand total of 12 minutes in prison.

International Justice, 10/10 legal ruling.

Uh huh. So the Dictator has shot the target. The Tribunal can then itself shoot the target (except where not permitted to do so under Preventing Multiple Trials, which itself has an exception if there are 'significant and compelling miscarriages of justice').

[Kowani]

And of course, any dictator can establish a puppet state, charge himself with a minor crime, and serve a grand total of 12 minutes in prison.

International Justice, 10/10 legal ruling.

Uh huh. So the Dictator has shot the target. The Tribunal can then itself shoot the target.

Or, more likely, sentence themselves to prison, and once there, continue running things as they were in complete luxury.

(For RL examples, see the Ucciardone in Italy, and how Mafia bosses lived there.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Or, more likely, sentence themselves to prison, and once there, continue running things as they were in complete luxury. (For RL examples, see the Ucciardone in Italy, and how Mafia bosses lived there.)

Your argument doesn't follow, in that the Tribunal can just order the enforcement of its judgement.

[Kowani]

Or, more likely, sentence themselves to prison, and once there, continue running things as they were in complete luxury. (For RL examples, see the Ucciardone in Italy, and how Mafia bosses lived there.)

Your argument doesn't follow, in that the Tribunal can just order the enforcement of its judgement.

Yes. He has been sentenced to prison. Judgement has technically been enforced. As far as I can remember, the WA has no regulations stipulating that prisons have to be terrible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your argument doesn't follow, in that the Tribunal can just order the enforcement of its judgement.

Yes. He has been sentenced to prison. Judgement has technically been enforced. As far as I can remember, the WA has no regulations stipulating that prisons have to be terrible.

Uh huh, the Tribunal's judgement. Not just any judgement that exists somewhere.

[Kowani]

Yes. He has been sentenced to prison. Judgement has technically been enforced. As far as I can remember, the WA has no regulations stipulating that prisons have to be terrible.

Uh huh, the Tribunal's judgement. Not just any judgement that exists somewhere.

Let us see.
Tribunal’s Judgement: Life in prison.
Puppet State: Very well. Imprisoned for life.
Conditions of the prison: 5-Star hotel.

Is there a step that I missed?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Uh huh, the Tribunal's judgement. Not just any judgement that exists somewhere.

Let us see.
Tribunal’s Judgement: Life in prison.
Puppet State: Very well. Imprisoned for life.
Conditions of the prison: 5-Star hotel.

Is there a step that I missed?

Yea, lol, the Tribunal saying life in prison in our prison.

[Kowani]

Let us see.
Tribunal’s Judgement: Life in prison.
Puppet State: Very well. Imprisoned for life.
Conditions of the prison: 5-Star hotel.

Is there a step that I missed?

Yea, lol, the Tribunal saying life in prison in our prison.

You realize the draft doesn’t actually say that the Tribunal has a prison to put people in.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You realize the draft doesn’t actually say that the Tribunal has a prison to put people in.

Oh, lol, I just presumed that a Tribunal that clearly has the ability to have people in custody and has the ability to enforce orders of any level of detail, would just be able to order the creation of a jail for that purpose. Would you like me to add in the creation of a jail?

[Kowani]

You realize the draft doesn’t actually say that the Tribunal has a prison to put people in.

Oh, lol, I just presumed that a Tribunal that clearly has the ability to have people in custody and has the ability to enforce orders of any level of detail, would just be able to order the creation of a jail for that purpose. Would you like me to add in the creation of a jail?

You know what they say, when you Assume, you make an ass out of you and me. (I see you said presume, I just wanted to throw that in there.)
But yes, I would like that edited in.

[Verdant Haven]

preempt | prēˈempt |
verb [with object]
1 take action in order to prevent (an anticipated event) from happening; forestall: the government preempted a coup attempt.
• act in advance of (someone) in order to prevent them from doing something: it looked as if she'd ask him more, but Parr preempted her.

I have a genuine question, which lies at the root of my objections to your repeal efforts:

Here in the WA, do we, or do we not, use legal terminology when writing our laws?

I ask because I am fairly new here, and was very much under the assumption that, given the sometimes absurd amount of effort put in to making things as flowery and legalese sounding as possible, we use legal terminology.

This is important in this case, because what you quoted above is emphatically not what "preempt" means in a legal context in most English-speaking jurisdictions. Its origin and usage is largely American, and my objection is largely based on the very particular meaning preemption has in the US, but it is a meaning which has also been acknowledged by the EU (see page 4, page number 2) to match their term "supremacy." The term and its meaning is further recognized by Canada, which doesn't necessarily accept it as valid, but does acknowledge the definition and permit its introduction in court. That definition is:

Doctrine of Preemption: the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the two authorities come into conflict.

In this legal speak, preemption has nothing to do with doing something first on a timeline, and its prohibition does not exclude mutual or alternate jurisdiction where laws are in agreement. It simply says that if there is a conflict between a higher authority and a lower authority, the higher authority nullifies the lower authority. Now, if the original OUJ proposal was written without knowledge of, or specifically ignoring, the legal meaning of its words, then I would be in agreement with you (though ironically, the OUJ author would have stumbled inadvertently on to exactly the proper legal term for a reasonable law). I have been operating under the assumption that it was written in a legal voice though, so I have been vehemently opposed to you, due to the fact that your repeal effort's assumptions about OUJ's words have nothing to do with my assumptions about OUJ's words.

I fully support the creation of an ICC and its affiliated structures - I'm completely with you on that. I just read OUJ as being complimentary to, rather than opposed to, an ICC. From a complimentary perspective, OUJ sets up a situation where nations can independently pursue charges, and an ICC can do likewise, so long as the ICC doesn't attempt to claim the nation has no authority of its own. It can even exist in a context similar to Canada's Paramountcy, where the higher authority sets a minimum, but may allow provinces to take things farther.

Basically, what it comes down to for me is, are we writing like legislators, or are we writing like common schlubs on the street? If the former, I object to your repeal on the basis above. If the latter, I would be forced to support it. In either case, I will certainly support the sufficiently well-drafted creation of an international body for criminal prosecution.

[Auralia]

I really don't see how this is legal while On Universal Jurisdiction remains on the books. Member states can lawfully decline to prosecute an alleged crime for which there is universal jurisdiction if there is insufficient evidence to do so. The decision not to prosecute still implicitly invokes criminal jurisdiction. If a World Assembly court decided to prosecute anyways, I think that would still be an act of preemption in violation of OUJ.

Regardless, member states who sought not to prosecute could still do so and find the alleged offender not guilty. A second prosecution by a World Assembly court might violate Preventing Multiple Trials, though I'm not sure whether the provisions of that resolution are binding on World Assembly institutions. PMT also says nothing on the existence or nonexistence of a separate sovereigns doctrine.

***

Not much to say on the substantive merits of this proposal, other than that Auralia remains staunchly opposed to the establishment of any kind of international criminal court, including this one. However, this provision in particular is just completely unacceptable:

immunises any World Assembly agent from prosecution for actions taken in furtherance of the ends of this clause;

Even the Americans only recognize qualified immunity for law enforcement!

[Imperium Anglorum]

I really don't see how this is legal while On Universal Jurisdiction remains on the books. Member states can lawfully decline to prosecute an alleged crime for which there is universal jurisdiction if there is insufficient evidence to do so. The decision not to prosecute still implicitly invokes criminal jurisdiction. If a World Assembly court decided to prosecute anyways, I think that would still be an act of preemption in violation of OUJ.

Looking into the dictionary, I get this:

preempt | prēˈempt |
verb [with object]

1 take action in order to prevent (an anticipated event) from happening; forestall: the government preempted a coup attempt.
• act in advance of (someone) in order to prevent them from doing something: it looked as if she'd ask him more, but Parr preempted her.
• North American (of a broadcast) interrupt or replace (a scheduled program): the violence preempted regular programming.

2 acquire or appropriate (something) in advance: many tables were already preempted by family parties.
• North American take (something, especially public land) for oneself so as to have the right of preemption.

3 [no object] Bridge make a preemptive bid.

Presumably, we're not #3, because that's only in Bridge. The other two talk about preventing something from happening or acquiring something. The Tribunal here does not prohibit nations from prosecuting crimes independently of the Solicitors Office nor does it acquire a rivalrous right which nations still have.

Moreover, even if that's not the case, nothing in oUJ grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction. With all criminals wanted by the Tribunal immediately rendered to the Tribunal's custody, member states have no claims to those persons. Moreover, if you want to invoke Extradition Rights, extradition is only among equal parties. The WA has more power than member states and can therefore order rendition of the person. E.g. Wikipedia, "Through the extradition process, one sovereign jurisdiction typically makes a formal request to another sovereign jurisdiction". And even if that's not the case, the Tribunal does not request extradition, it orders it. Thus, the Entitles clause does not apply, and the Further Declares clause does not apply, since they apply solely to requests. And the Clarifies clause also does not apply because of the contradiction exception.

Regardless, member states who sought not to prosecute could still do so and find the alleged offender not guilty. A second prosecution by a World Assembly court might violate Preventing Multiple Trials, though I'm not sure whether the provisions of that resolution are binding on World Assembly institutions. PMT also says nothing on the existence or nonexistence of a separate sovereigns doctrine.

Let's say they are, PMT doesn't say retrials are banned. It says retrials are banned unless there is a significant and compelling miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's judgement thus stands where there is a significant and compelling miscarriage of justice.

immunises any World Assembly agent from prosecution for actions taken in furtherance of the ends of this clause;

Even the Americans only recognize qualified immunity for law enforcement!

The purpose of this clause is to immunise self-help actions by the World Assembly. That the Assembly is able to do so is quite clear. It need simply to establish, vis-à-vis Extrajudicial Transfer, that rights are secured by law. And that part of that law after the passage of this resolution is not having a right to not be sent to the Tribunal. (Insert scare quotes here.)

[Doing it Rightland]

3. Requires member nations to effect immediate rendition to the Tribunal's custody persons charged for crimes in the Tribunal; prohibits member nations from passing laws prohibiting the Tribunal from effecting rendition of such persons; immunises any World Assembly agent from prosecution for actions taken in furtherance of the ends of this clause, excepting where these actions are in contravention of international law;

If I'm reading this part correctly, that's actually illegal for multiple reasons. Under GA#197, nations may not willingly transfer individuals to other nations to circumvent political and civil rights. And in this context, "rendition" means: The practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners. The implication here is that the WA should have the right to force nations to move criminals being tried in the tribunal to areas where they can be denied political and civil rights they might otherwise have. Nations simply cannot transfer individuals to other nations simply to get around existing laws. In addition, GA#147 re-establishes that member nations are not permitted to be extradited to places where they are likely to be tortured (which is the implication of the "rendition" part) and clarifies that nations can refuse extradition provided the refusal doesn't violate existing WA law. In order for this proposal to move forward, you really should address these legality issues.

impartially and speedily decide the guilt of persons tried before it based on a reasonable interpretation of international law and

I would replace "speedily" with "in a timely manner" so that it means that prosecutors take the time they need, and aren't forced to rush important decisions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

3. Requires member nations to effect immediate rendition to the Tribunal's custody persons charged for crimes in the Tribunal; prohibits member nations from passing laws prohibiting the Tribunal from effecting rendition of such persons; immunises any World Assembly agent from prosecution for actions taken in furtherance of the ends of this clause, excepting where these actions are in contravention of international law;

If I'm reading this part correctly, that's actually illegal for multiple reasons. Under GA#197, nations may not willingly transfer individuals to other nations to circumvent political and civil rights. And in this context, "rendition" means: The practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners. The implication here is that the WA should have the right to force nations to move criminals being tried in the tribunal to areas where they can be denied political and civil rights they might otherwise have. Nations simply cannot transfer individuals to other nations simply to get around existing laws. In addition, GA#147 re-establishes that member nations are not permitted to be extradited to places where they are likely to be tortured (which is the implication of the "rendition" part) and clarifies that nations can refuse extradition provided the refusal doesn't violate existing WA law. In order for this proposal to move forward, you really should address these legality issues.

I guess dictionaries really do think the word "rendition" means American-style torture flights. That doesn't mean that the word "rendition" in a legal sense, in fact means torture flights. First, if it did, you wouldn't need the euphemistic "extraordinary" in front of it. And second, https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rendition/

Though, Extradition Rights doesn't incorporate. If it did, it would be illegal. You are looking for Banning Extrajudicial Transfer. Moreover, I've already given argumentation above regarding extradition, which isn't the same.

impartially and speedily decide the guilt of persons tried before it based on a reasonable interpretation of international law and

I would replace "speedily" with "in a timely manner" so that it means that prosecutors take the time they need, and aren't forced to rush important decisions.

That's what speedy means. When the US Bill of Rights says "speedy trial" (or something similar), that doesn't mean "skimp on the procedures".

[Doing it Rightland]

I guess dictionaries really do think the word "rendition" means American-style torture flights. That doesn't mean that the word "rendition" in a legal sense, in fact means torture flights. First, if it did, you wouldn't need the euphemistic "extraordinary" in front of it. And second, https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rendition/

Thanks for the link to that definition. That certainly clears up the issue with GA#197. However, I still think that GA#147 guarantees member nations' rights to refuse an extradition request. (I say request because that's how it's presented in GA#147). This would mean that the Tribunal cannot force nations to accept an extradition request. In practice, unless the rendering and custody parts of Clause 3 were within the nation the person was found in, any unauthorized extradition by the Tribunal could be in violation of the existing international law. (At least, that's the interpretation I'm getting out of it)

If that's the case, I would just clarify that even though nations have to turn criminals over to the Tribunal, those criminals cannot be extradited from said nations without the nations' consent.