NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8520
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

[PASSED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:20 pm

Image
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 this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international tribunal capable of actually effecting judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, that is, an international court that actually does things on meaningful topics,

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 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”.
Last edited by Wrapper on Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 26 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
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8520
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:22 pm

Reserved.

Author: 1 SC and 26 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
Verdant Haven
Envoy
 
Posts: 304
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdant Haven » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:58 pm

I have no technical objections to this wording, as I did to the previous, so I would already consider it stronger. I still see a few semantic arguments to be made though, which I will humbly here suggest for consideration:

Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international tribunal capable of actually effecting judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, that is, an international court that actually does things on meaningful topics,


This comes across as snarky, which is probably not best for a law. I would dispute, for example, the concept that no other topics are meaningful for an international court. This was an objection previously raised by others, and this is an opportunity to avoid needlessly re-awakening those objections. I do not dispute, nor (I don't believe) do those others, that these particular topics are especially weighty - we simply do not agree that they are the only ones.

Based on my previous debate points regarding the legal term "preemption" I would also not necessarily agree that OUJ prevents the WA from establishing a court capable of judgement on the cited major crimes. I would, however, agree that it does not leave the possibility of a WA-established ICC with unfettered jurisdiction in those fields, which may be necessary for true recognition of its authority.

My personal suggestion of a rewording on this line would be:

"Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international tribunal possessing unfettered jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes, that is, an international court with unquestioned authority to adjudicate these most meaningful of topics,"

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,


Just one minor word change suggestion here. Instead of "would-be tyrants from engaging" I would write "would-be tyrants who engage" - that makes it work with both "unable to deter" and "bring justice to," as opposed to just the former.

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


I suppose this is more of a question that a suggestion, but since we're talking about punishment for crimes committed, are deaths really being caused by this lack, or is it simply a lack of justice for deaths that have already occurred? I would understand (though not entirely agree with) a deterrence-based argument, that perhaps if a fully capable ICC existed these murderers would not commit their crimes, but given the weight of evidence against the effectiveness of deterrence-based punishment, I'm not sure that would be solid ground. The most effective deterrent is increasing the belief that one will be caught, rather than increasing the punishment if caught. As such, this might work better for me as "Saddened for the victims who never see justice, and the crimes for which..." or similar. Just a thought there!
Last edited by Verdant Haven on Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8520
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:09 pm

I'll consider your suggestions. Vis-à-vis the last one, I was thinking of deterrence, which, I think in the scope of state actors, carries more effect than in a normal crime of passion.

Author: 1 SC and 26 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
Verdant Haven
Envoy
 
Posts: 304
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdant Haven » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:47 pm

That sounds fair enough. Thank you for your consideration.
Last edited by Verdant Haven on Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 280
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 pm

Did you change any of the language of your previous proposal that was determined to be illegal?

User avatar
Xanthal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1026
Founded: Apr 16, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthal » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:01 pm

In favor of the last one, in favor of this one. Hopefully I don't have to be in favor of the next one too.
General Assembly IC
Security Council OOC

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19630
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:13 pm

No draft, no support.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:41 am

As with the other repeal, without any indication on what will replace such a cornerstone I can’t support it currently - even though I really want to.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8520
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:10 am

Battlion wrote:As with the other repeal, without any indication on what will replace such a cornerstone I can’t support it currently - even though I really want to.

But... it's... right... there... on the first page... viewtopic.php?f=9&t=453979

Author: 1 SC and 26 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
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:00 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Battlion wrote:As with the other repeal, without any indication on what will replace such a cornerstone I can’t support it currently - even though I really want to.

But... it's... right... there... on the first page... viewtopic.php?f=9&t=453979

:oops:

I’m clearly blind - well, then support :roll:

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 3259
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:27 am

Liberimery wrote:Did you change any of the language of your previous proposal that was determined to be illegal?

He rewrote the specific clause that was subject to the challenge. But not the two clauses that were dependent on it, and also contradict the target.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
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: 4914
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:46 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international tribunal capable of actually effecting judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, that is, an international court that actually does things on meaningful topics,

Is this really correct, though? As you pointed out in the legality thread, I think you could establish an international court that effects judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, so long as member states voluntarily surrender jurisdiction to that court.

Why not use the language I suggested? Here is a revised version:

Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court that prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity, at least without the authorization of affected member states,
Last edited by Auralia on Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8520
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:50 am

One of the synonyms of effect I see in my dictionary is #3, meaning force.

Moreover, even if that isn't the case. If we are going to read "international court" to encompass all kinds of international court, then we should also read "actually effecting judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes" to encompass doing so in all cases.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 26 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
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4914
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:24 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Moreover, even if that isn't the case. If we are going to read "international court" to encompass all kinds of international court, then we should also read "actually effecting judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes" to encompass doing so in all cases.

I think that's fair. To be clear, I'm not going to file a legality challenge on this point -- I'm just trying to help you come up with language that is incontrovertibly valid.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19630
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:06 am

I agree with Auralia that the language of the clause in question isn't really true, but it isn't particularly false either. I'd say the inaccuracy reduces to a matter of opinion about the consequences of the target's mandates. I won't bother challenging it, but I'm still voting against this.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3147
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:38 am

Auralia wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international tribunal capable of actually effecting judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, that is, an international court that actually does things on meaningful topics,

Is this really correct, though? As you pointed out in the legality thread, I think you could establish an international court that effects judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, so long as member states voluntarily surrender jurisdiction to that court.


I believe OUJ does not give member states the right to waive jurisdiction except the very limited power in Clause 6. The only way they may ever fail to prosecute is if they are unaware either that the suspect is a suspect, or that there is evidence "which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime." Clause 3 says they are required to prosecute suspects of such acts. Clause 6's permission to transfer suspects says member states can effect transfer to other member states who intend to prosecute. I don't think I can honestly interpret that as "...or an international court.". And I can't see any other provision of OUJ that would allow prisoner transfer or waiver of jurisdiction.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4914
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:01 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Auralia wrote:Is this really correct, though? As you pointed out in the legality thread, I think you could establish an international court that effects judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, so long as member states voluntarily surrender jurisdiction to that court.


I believe OUJ does not give member states the right to waive jurisdiction except the very limited power in Clause 6. The only way they may ever fail to prosecute is if they are unaware either that the suspect is a suspect, or that there is evidence "which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime." Clause 3 says they are required to prosecute suspects of such acts. Clause 6's permission to transfer suspects says member states can effect transfer to other member states who intend to prosecute. I don't think I can honestly interpret that as "...or an international court.". And I can't see any other provision of OUJ that would allow prisoner transfer or waiver of jurisdiction.

That's a good point. I forgot that section 6 only permits transfers to other member states, not to World Assembly institutions.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17795
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:12 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Auralia wrote:Is this really correct, though? As you pointed out in the legality thread, I think you could establish an international court that effects judgement for crimes against humanity and war crimes, so long as member states voluntarily surrender jurisdiction to that court.


I believe OUJ does not give member states the right to waive jurisdiction except the very limited power in Clause 6. The only way they may ever fail to prosecute is if they are unaware either that the suspect is a suspect, or that there is evidence "which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime." Clause 3 says they are required to prosecute suspects of such acts. Clause 6's permission to transfer suspects says member states can effect transfer to other member states who intend to prosecute. I don't think I can honestly interpret that as "...or an international court.". And I can't see any other provision of OUJ that would allow prisoner transfer or waiver of jurisdiction.

Agreed.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:12 am

Has anyone in GenSec noticed that there are two repeals in queue? And that the one in quor had the "August mistake" in again? And maybe it should be discarded before a vote starts and it gets removed again?

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4001
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:39 am

Battlion wrote:Has anyone in GenSec noticed that there are two repeals in queue? And that the one in quor had the "August mistake" in again? And maybe it should be discarded before a vote starts and it gets removed again?

(OOC: Gensec pick up most illegalities in fairly quickly. It is recommended to post in the illegal proposals thread if you see one that hasn’t been addressed by them, or a challenge thread in some circumstances.)

“This repeal has my support, if only through sheer persistence. The wording looks good, and I can’t wait for the explosion of rage that will emerge from some ambassadors when the replacement is at vote.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17795
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:08 am

Battlion wrote:Has anyone in GenSec noticed that there are two repeals in queue?

We've noticed. If the first one passes then the second will be declared illegal for duplication, but it's existence is allowed until then.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8520
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:52 am

I was under the impression that they were removed automatically because the repeal is no longer valid, the target having already been repealed.

Author: 1 SC and 26 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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3147
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:04 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I was under the impression that they were removed automatically because the repeal is no longer valid, the target having already been repealed.


This is actually a good question. The only time I've ever seen multiple repeals of a single resolution submitted at once, one or more of them have been hilariously illegal, and never has more than one at a time made it to quorum. Assuming the voters aren't exhausted and vote yes, either the game will take care of it or we will.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Battlion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:05 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Battlion wrote:Has anyone in GenSec noticed that there are two repeals in queue?

We've noticed. If the first one passes then the second will be declared illegal for duplication, but it's existence is allowed until then.


My main point was that the first one that is at quorum has the “This august world assembly” again really :p

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads