NationStates

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:20 pm**

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:

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: **Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:22 pm**

Reserved.

Posted: **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!

Posted: **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.

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:47 pm**

That sounds fair enough. Thank you for your consideration.

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 pm**

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

Posted: **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.

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:13 pm**

No draft, no support.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

Posted: **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

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

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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,

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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?

Posted: **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.”

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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

NationStates

[PASSED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

[PASSED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"