[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] International Criminal Protocol

[Cretox State]

I'd like to request a review of the legality of the current at-vote GA proposal, International Criminal Protocol. Specifically, the proposal's penultimate clause, which reads:

Reserves to Member-States the right to determine the legality of capital punishment within their jurisdiction,

My question pertains to the meaning of "legality" in this context. "Legality refers to the state or quality of being legal; lawfulness. It can also mean strict adherence to law, prescription, or doctrine or observance of law. The term 'legalities' usually refer to a requirement enjoined by law or an obligation imposed by law." I am not aware of an explicit GA definition of legality.

GAR #443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocence" specifically deals with under what circumstances capital punishment is legal. For example, clause 6 of the aforementioned resolution reads:

Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method which is, upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering.

This clause restricts the legality of capital punishment by asserting that "[member] nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person." However, the penultimate clause of "International Criminal Accord" declares that only member nations may determine the legality of capital punishment within their sovereignty.

Does the penultimate clause of "International Criminal Accord" contradict GAR #443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"? Moreover, since the at-vote proposal itself places qualifications on the legality of capital punishment, does the proposal contradict itself? These questions hinge on whether "legality" is to be viewed as a matter of if something is entirely outlawed, or a matter of something's holistic state of being legal. If the General Assembly outlaws pointy desk corners in classrooms, is it not legislating on the legality of pointy desk corners?

[Separatist Peoples]

PEoI doesn't ban nations passing death sentences. PEoI bans nations from carrying them out. I don't see this as illegal.

[Cretox State]

PEoI doesn't ban nations passing death sentences. PEoI bans nations from carrying them out. I don't see this as illegal.

Clause 6 says: "Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person." This seems to explicitly refer to the sentencing.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

PEoI doesn't ban nations passing death sentences. PEoI bans nations from carrying them out. I don't see this as illegal.

Clause 6 says: "Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person." This seems to explicitly refer to the sentencing.

Clause 6 of P. Innocents prevents nations from carrying out capital punishment on narrowly defined specific groups of people. It does not prevent nations from using capital punishment generally [assuming at face value that the resolution is not in fact a series of Catch-22s]. Since the clause in ICP is a general protection, there is no conflict. Perhaps it would have been better worded more explicitly as something like "Subject to narrowly tailored World Assembly regulation, the power to determine legality of capital punishment is reserved to member states." But our policy is that where there is a reasonable interpretation of a resolution that renders it legal, that interpretation is preferred to an interpretation that renders it illegal. Here, I think it is reasonable to read that ICP says nations may determine themselves whether or not they use capital punishment in general; but does not guarantee an absolute power to execute people free of all WA regulation of the practice. The proposal says nothing about such an unprecedented and unhinged power, and indeed has its own restrictions on when capital punishment may be used (Ctrl+F exceptional).

Therefore I see no contradiction sufficient to render this illegal.



Edit: [bracketed] portion added

[Cretox State]

Clause 6 of P. Innocents prevents nations from carrying out capital punishment on narrowly defined specific groups of people. It does not prevent nations from using capital punishment generally [assuming at face value that the resolution is not in fact a series of Catch-22s]. Since the clause in ICP is a general protection, there is no conflict. Perhaps it would have been better worded more explicitly as something like "Subject to narrowly tailored World Assembly regulation, the power to determine legality of capital punishment is reserved to member states." But our policy is that where there is a reasonable interpretation of a resolution that renders it legal, that interpretation is preferred to an interpretation that renders it illegal. Here, I think it is reasonable to read that ICP says nations may determine themselves whether or not they use capital punishment in general; but does not guarantee an absolute power to execute people free of all WA regulation of the practice. The proposal says nothing about such an unprecedented and unhinged power, and indeed has its own restrictions on when capital punishment may be used (Ctrl+F exceptional).

Therefore I see no contradiction sufficient to render this illegal.



Edit: [bracketed] portion added

Fascinating. So if I understand you correctly, it would be legal to implement specific restrictions to the effect of preventing nations from acquiring or possessing nuclear weapons so long as they are generally allowed to possess them?

[Separatist Peoples]

Clause 6 of P. Innocents prevents nations from carrying out capital punishment on narrowly defined specific groups of people. It does not prevent nations from using capital punishment generally [assuming at face value that the resolution is not in fact a series of Catch-22s]. Since the clause in ICP is a general protection, there is no conflict. Perhaps it would have been better worded more explicitly as something like "Subject to narrowly tailored World Assembly regulation, the power to determine legality of capital punishment is reserved to member states." But our policy is that where there is a reasonable interpretation of a resolution that renders it legal, that interpretation is preferred to an interpretation that renders it illegal. Here, I think it is reasonable to read that ICP says nations may determine themselves whether or not they use capital punishment in general; but does not guarantee an absolute power to execute people free of all WA regulation of the practice. The proposal says nothing about such an unprecedented and unhinged power, and indeed has its own restrictions on when capital punishment may be used (Ctrl+F exceptional).

Therefore I see no contradiction sufficient to render this illegal.



Edit: [bracketed] portion added

Fascinating. So if I understand you correctly, it would be legal to implement specific restrictions to the effect of preventing nations from acquiring or possessing nuclear weapons so long as they are generally allowed to possess them?

OOC: Thats been the general rule. You can limit acquisition, and even possession down to two warheads (you can own nuclear arms, plural). You can regulate use and transfer under NAPA.

[Cretox State]

OOC: In that event, the blocker in ICP would be all but useless.

[Bananaistan]

Agree with Sep and SL so far.

OOC: In that event, the blocker in ICP would be all but useless.

Not quite. It would prevent any outright ban on capital punishment.

[Attempted Socialism]

PEoI (Clause 1) states:

Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

(Of course it then proceeds to make capital punishment impossible as mentioned, but that's a different kind of cat.)

If anything, the ICP blocker line is a duplication of PEoI -- though I expect the secretariat to allow it as minor duplication usually is.

[Wallenburg]

PEoI (Clause 1) states:

Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

(Of course it then proceeds to make capital punishment impossible as mentioned, but that's a different kind of cat.)

If anything, the ICP blocker line is a duplication of PEoI -- though I expect the secretariat to allow it as minor duplication usually is.

Yes, partial duplication has always been legal.