[PASSED] International Criminal Protocol

by **Tinfect** » Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:57 am

OOC:
Kicking this back up to the first page.

by **Saranidia** » Sat Apr 18, 2020 11:23 pm

Saranidia might join the WA solely to pass this legislation.

by **Wallenburg** » Sun Apr 19, 2020 1:04 am

"I remain concerned that member states may interrupt otherwise consecutive periods of solitary confinement with short periods of limited interaction, so as to avoid making any real change to their application of torture. For instance, a member state may hold inmates in solitary confinement all day, then provide brief interaction with site security for essential purposes like feeding and hygiene needs. This could be repeated daily, effectively keeping the inmate in solitary confinement for years at a time and yet never violate the mandates of this proposal."

by **Tinfect** » Sun Apr 19, 2020 5:11 pm

Wallenburg wrote:"I remain concerned that member states may interrupt otherwise consecutive periods of solitary confinement with short periods of limited interaction, so as to avoid making any real change to their application of torture. For instance, a member state may hold inmates in solitary confinement all day, then provide brief interaction with site security for essential purposes like feeding and hygiene needs. This could be repeated daily, effectively keeping the inmate in solitary confinement for years at a time and yet never violate the mandates of this proposal."

"The draft has been amended in a manner that hopefully addresses this concern. The Imperium hopes to propose this legislation quickly, so any further comment is greatly appreciated."

by **Maowi** » Sun Apr 19, 2020 5:19 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Inhumane conditions as the refusal or withholding of necessary and healthy sustenance, medically or mentally necessary healthcare, severely confined or crowded conditions, or conditions inferior to those mandated for prisoners of war,

OOC: Simply linguistically, the way you've phrased this is "...the refusal or withholding of w, x, y, or z" when (I assume) you want "...the refusal or withholding of w or x, y, or z". Probably not a big enough "loophole" to actually make any difference ... but still, might be worth changing just in case.

by **Tinfect** » Sun Apr 19, 2020 5:23 pm

Maowi wrote:
Tinfect wrote:

OOC: Simply linguistically, the way you've phrased this is "...the refusal or withholding of w, x, y, or z" when (I assume) you want "...the refusal or withholding of w or x, y, or z". Probably not a big enough "loophole" to actually make any difference ... but still, might be worth changing just in case.

OOC:
I'll be real, it might just be that I'm not thinking straight today, but I cannot figure out what you're saying.

I did, however, catch one glaring flaw in the clause, and edited out; check if its the one you were talking about.

by **Maowi** » Sun Apr 19, 2020 5:39 pm

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I'll be real, it might just be that I'm not thinking straight today, but I cannot figure out what you're saying.

I did, however, catch one glaring flaw in the clause, and edited out; check if its the one you were talking about.

Yeah, sorry if that was kind of unclear.

I think we thought of similar things, but I think what you want it to look like is this:

Inhumane conditions as the refusal or withholding of necessary and healthy sustenance or of medically or mentally necessary healthcare, the maintenance of severely confined or crowded conditions, or conditions inferior to those mandated for prisoners of war,

If you wanted to be even more explicit about what that clause means, you could put a colon between "as" and "the" and replace the commas with semicolons.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:42 am

Prohibits:
3. The holding of any prisoner under the age of majority in protective confinement,

OOC: If some nation is imprisoning minors in prisons that also have adults, I would HOPE they WOULD be held in protective confinement! I mean, I don't want to go into graphical details of what could (and likely would) happen to them (based on RL data that I know you've read as well), but actually prohibiting it makes no sense whatsoever.

by **Tinfect** » Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:58 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Prohibits:
3. The holding of any prisoner under the age of majority in protective confinement,

OOC: If some nation is imprisoning minors in prisons that also have adults, I would HOPE they WOULD be held in protective confinement! I mean, I don't want to go into graphical details of what could (and likely would) happen to them (based on RL data that I know you've read as well), but actually prohibiting it makes no sense whatsoever.

OOC:
I'll look into what can be done about that.

by **Tinfect** » Sun May 10, 2020 6:38 pm

OOC:
The Forever Relevant Draft.

If anyone would please like to help make this ironclad and effective, it would be greatly appreciated, as I would like to move on with submission relatively soon.

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Sun May 10, 2020 6:56 pm

OOC: Small tweaks:

- Prohibits #2: is -> in
- Mandates #7: "...subject to protective +confinement be allowed..."
- Prohibits #3 contains what looks like a stray capital P

Otherwise, this seems pretty clear and comprehensive for its chosen topics.

by **Tinfect** » Sun May 10, 2020 7:00 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Small tweaks:

- Prohibits #2: is -> in
- Mandates #7: "...subject to protective +confinement be allowed..."
- Prohibits #3 contains what looks like a stray capital P

Otherwise, this seems pretty clear and comprehensive for its chosen topics.

OOC:
On it, thanks mate.

by **Honeydewistania** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:52 pm

Just submitted -> https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1594525231

by **Wallenburg** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:58 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:Just submitted -> https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1594525231

Full support.

by **Comfed** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 6:32 am

Aww... if this passes I won’t be able to execute my citizens for dissent.

by **Kenmoria** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:04 am

Comfed wrote:Aww... if this passes I won’t be able to execute my citizens for dissent.

(OOC: You can’t anyway due to Protecting Free Expression and Preventing the Execution of Innocents.)

“This proposal has my full support.”

by **Thermodolia** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:57 am

Against. Thermodolia will not support what is an effective ban on the death penalty nor will we support any bill which tries to tell us how to run our prisons

by **Tinfect** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:43 pm

Thermodolia wrote:Against. Thermodolia will not support what is an effective ban on the death penalty nor will we support any bill which tries to tell us how to run our prisons

OOC:
... You do realize that this draft was made specifically to block bans on capital punishment, right?

by **Flying Eagles** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:16 pm

Full support

by **Ardiveds** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:01 am

"If this can act as blocker for future attempts at banning capital punishment, you have our full support. The restrictions also seem quite reasonable."

by **Cretox State** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:05 am

"Well-written. Nice blocker. You have our support, ambassador."

by **Thermodolia** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:36 am

Tinfect wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Against. Thermodolia will not support what is an effective ban on the death penalty nor will we support any bill which tries to tell us how to run our prisons

OOC:
... You do realize that this draft was made specifically to block bans on capital punishment, right?

OOC: No I didn’t. This is what I get for quickly scanning two different proposals and confusing the two

Full support then.

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:19 pm

This is now at vote.

by **Tinfect** » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:26 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This is now at vote.

OOC:
And on that, I've finally remembered to add the Reserves clause to this version. Oops.

by **Office of WA Legislation** » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:55 pm

The Office of World Assembly Legislation has recommended a vote for "International Criminal Protocol". Best of luck.

[PASSED] International Criminal Protocol

Who is online