NationStates

Title subject to change. Companion resolution: viewtopic.php?p=40211351#p40211351

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following articles:

Article I- Definitions:

1. A "war crime" shall mean any violation of World Assembly law in regards to war or the treatment of prisoners of war.
2. A "crime against the Assembly" shall mean any violation of World Assembly law committed on or against World Assembly property deemed serious enough to warrant imprisonment as determined by the WAJC.
3. A "crime against humanity" shall mean any repeated, widespread and systemic act that involves the destruction of cultures or peoples, or the violation of fundamental sapient rights.

Article II- The World Assembly Police Department:

1. The World Assembly Police Department (herein WAPD) shall be created to execute international arrest warrants provided to them by the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (WAJC).
2. The WAPD shall work with other offices to protect the facilities of the WA, and any intentional destruction or damaging of WA property shall be illegal.
3. The WAPD shall only execute a warrant when at the time of execution the target is alive.
4. WAPD officers shall not use excessive force on any individual.
5. WAPD officers shall be equipped with body cameras which shall be activated and recording whenever the officer is engaging in law enforcement activities. All recordings must be saved and stored.
6. The Law Enforcement Transparency Committee (LETC) shall be created as a subset of the WAPD.
7. Any person who believes their rights established by WA law have been violated by an officer of the WAPD or member of the WAJC may report the incident to the LETC, who shall then investigate the incident.
8. If, after investigation, the LETC discovers that there was, in fact, a rights violation committed by an officer of the WAPD or WAJC, the offending official shall face penalties regarding their employment, and at the discretion of the LETC, may have charges pressed against them to be heard by the WAJC.
9. Any body camera footage requested by the LETC must be provided to it.
10. Should the WAPD have probable cause to believe an individual has committed a crime that a body created by the Assembly could issue a warrant for, the WAPD may arrest the individual.
11. Any assault or crime committed against a WAPD officer shall be considered a crime against the Assembly.
12. Officers shall be appropriately equipped to perform their specific duties and be provided just compensation for their work.
13. Officers must receive adequate training from more experienced law enforcement officers prior to engaging in law enforcement activities.

Article III- Punishment for Crimes

1. Should an individual be arrested by the WAPD for a crime against humanity, war crime, or crime against the Assembly, and is found guilty of the same crime by the WAJC, the WAJC may sentence the person to a fixed or indefinite term of imprisonment.
2. Should an individual be sentenced to imprisonment by the WAJC, the individual's imprisonment shall be carried out by a WA member nation.
3. Of all member nations that offer to take the prisoner into their custody, the WAJC shall exercise its discretion in choosing the safest, most secure and fit nation for the imprisonment to be carried out, and the prisoner shall be sent there for the remainder of their imprisonment.
4. The aforementioned prisoners shall have the same rights as native prisoners in that nation.

"It should be no surprise that planetborne savages such as yourselves cannot grasp the concept of basic justice and in its place would gather intelligent beings in captivity to make yourselves feel better. Among the civilized peoples, such a practice is called kidnapping, a crime that, when committed as systematically and repeatedly as you wish to effect, this very proposal renders a crime against humanity."

The obelisk's surface seems to tense, its sheen stretching and distorting. "You would do better to kill the poor victims of your psychotic hero complex than leave them to live in fear and privation. I understand this too would be regarded as a 'crime against humanity', but given the very act of war, including defensive action, also satisfies the terms of 'crime against humanity', and both ourselves and savages such as yourselves regard war as important—in our case as a necessary tool and in yours as the height of entertainment, no doubt—I can only imagine this is an error."

Kardashev III Civilization wrote:"It should be no surprise that planetborne savages such as yourselves cannot grasp the concept of basic justice and in its place would gather intelligent beings in captivity to make yourselves feel better. Among the civilized peoples, such a practice is called kidnapping, a crime that, when committed as systematically and repeatedly as you wish to effect, this very proposal renders a crime against humanity."

The obelisk's surface seems to tense, its sheen stretching and distorting. "You would do better to kill the poor victims of your psychotic hero complex than leave them to live in fear and privation. I understand this too would be regarded as a 'crime against humanity', but given the very act of war, including defensive action, also satisfies the terms of 'crime against humanity', and both ourselves and savages such as yourselves regard war as important—in our case as a necessary tool and in yours as the height of entertainment, no doubt—I can only imagine this is an error."

"We invite your delegation as well as others to ensure that the new language does not extend too far nor allow potential loopholes."

(OOC: I don’t feel as though the list of eight specific crimes in clause 3 accurately encapsulates the meaning of a crime against humanity. Why is kidnapping included but destruction of a language is not? Something less list-like would be more adaptable and appropriate to a wider variety of nations, Also, clause 3h doesn’t make sense, since clause 3 proper mandates that the act must constitute an act against a singular person, yet 3h refers to a group.)

Jedinsto wrote:[*]Any assault or crime committed against a WAPD officer shall be considered a crime against the Assembly.

"Strongly opposed to this clause in particular, unless the Timhamptonian delegation's Right to Self-Defence passes prior. Badges, even if approved by the WA, should not exempt the wearer from a duty to respect the rights of others. The safety of law enforcement must be balanced against the populace's freedoms."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

A random intern: Lydia's proposal on self-defence has been doing the rounds in some form for months before this proposal was being considered. Another proposal on use of force by policemen will also emerge in the near future. But even if those passed, the Tinhamptonians would not support this or the other resolution of its title. My line manager says that a WA military that follows best practices is still a WA military, which makes it bad.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I don’t feel as though the list of eight specific crimes in clause 3 accurately encapsulates the meaning of a crime against humanity. Why is kidnapping included but destruction of a language is not? Something less list-like would be more adaptable and appropriate to a wider variety of nations, Also, clause 3h doesn’t make sense, since clause 3 proper mandates that the act must constitute an act against a singular person, yet 3h refers to a group.)

You bring up an interesting point. Others have also brought up issues with the list of crimes against humanity, so I'm considering not defining it at all and leaving it to the interpretation of the WAJC. Thoughts on this?

Jedinsto wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I don’t feel as though the list of eight specific crimes in clause 3 accurately encapsulates the meaning of a crime against humanity. Why is kidnapping included but destruction of a language is not? Something less list-like would be more adaptable and appropriate to a wider variety of nations, Also, clause 3h doesn’t make sense, since clause 3 proper mandates that the act must constitute an act against a singular person, yet 3h refers to a group.)

You bring up an interesting point. Others have also brought up issues with the list of crimes against humanity, so I'm considering not defining it at all and leaving it to the interpretation of the WAJC. Thoughts on this?

(OOC: I would be far less amenable to the committee defining even than I am to the present list. Having a committee define it would lead to less specifity, as well as to a lack of clarity in the actual text. Instead, I would refer to those characteristics that define crimes against humanity, in terms of broad principles.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:You bring up an interesting point. Others have also brought up issues with the list of crimes against humanity, so I'm considering not defining it at all and leaving it to the interpretation of the WAJC. Thoughts on this?

(OOC: I would be far less amenable to the committee defining even than I am to the present list. Having a committee define it would lead to less specifity, as well as to a lack of clarity in the actual text. Instead, I would refer to those characteristics that define crimes against humanity, in terms of broad principles.)

Thoughts on the new definition?

Jedinsto wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I would be far less amenable to the committee defining even than I am to the present list. Having a committee define it would lead to less specifity, as well as to a lack of clarity in the actual text. Instead, I would refer to those characteristics that define crimes against humanity, in terms of broad principles.)

Thoughts on the new definition?

(OOC: It’s much better. I would change “inalienable” to “fundamental”, but that is quite a minor change. All fundamental rights should be inalienable but, in practice, they are sometimes alienated by malicious actors. Hence, fundamentality is a better metric to use.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Thoughts on the new definition?

(OOC: It’s much better. I would change “inalienable” to “fundamental”, but that is quite a minor change. All fundamental rights should be inalienable but, in practice, they are sometimes alienated by malicious actors. Hence, fundamentality is a better metric to use.)

Changed, as I realized "inalienable" would be problematic in and of itself.

Could I possibly get a legality check on this proposal regarding HoC?

There are no general legality checks. What is the specific issue that you think has been identified regarding a possible House of cards?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are no general legality checks. What is the specific issue that you think has been identified regarding a possible House of cards?

Ah I see. The potential issue would be if Part 1 passed first, then this passed, then the first was repealed, could this truly stand alone, legally?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are no general legality checks. What is the specific issue that you think has been identified regarding a possible House of cards?

Why don't you just rename this resolution rather than call it Part 1 and Part 2? It's not like Twilight or whatever Hollywood franchise.

Simone Republic wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There are no general legality checks. What is the specific issue that you think has been identified regarding a possible House of cards?

Why don't you just rename this resolution rather than call it Part 1 and Part 2? It's not like Twilight or whatever Hollywood franchise.

It's not?

Also on the substance I am opposing the very broad powers that you are granting to the WAPD (and the WAJC for that matter), more as a matter of principle.

Also if there's a time I agree with screaming "Natsov" this would be it.

Title changed in case exactly 1 of these pass.

and any intentional destruction or damaging of WA property shall be illegal.

We are pretty sure that this could prove problematic. If WA property becomes dangerous for whatever reason and needs to be destroyed or damaged then that should be legal.
The WA also should be able to do that itself if necessary.

"How a member state could condone such a complete surrender of its sovereignty is beyond my capacity to imagine, let alone understand. Remove the nonsense about 'crimes against the assembly' entirely. Nations are already obliged to uphold international law, and are even punished for their failure to do so. We agreed to join an international treaty organization to enable mutual trade ties, uphold the rights and welfare of persons, and in some cases defend each other from hordes of marauding rogue states. We did not agree to surrender any inhabitant up to an international tribunal for intellectual 'property' infringement, agricultural negligence, or insufficiently promoting beekeeping. None of these things warrants a prison sentence, and yet that fraction of the Assembly with a fetish for rent extraction, environmental fanaticism, or honey conscription may drive this supranational police brigade to use deadly force to abduct such rascals. Any such force must be reserved for the apprehension of truly heinous criminals only."