[PASSED!] Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes

[The Ice States]

Update: This is now GA #666.

---

"As some may know, shortly after the formation of the Communal Union of the Ice States, a large international tribunal was organised to try various high-ranking figures in the imperial Ice government for crimes against humanity. We are certainly not the only nation to have similarly suffered due to crimes against humanity. We therefore propose this as a solution to assist member nations in dealing with such crises."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice; and

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force.

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act which World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designates as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity, regardless of what jurisdiction takes up a case regarding that act.
   
   
2. Where an individual charged or convicted for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case, if such comity is not already extended or to be extended. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
   
   
   1. In such a review, the tribunal must consider, at minimum, (i) any past trials of said individual for the heinous crime in question; (ii) the likelihood that the individual is guilty of the heinous crime; (iii) any state or public interests against or in favour of extending comity; and (iv) the nature of the relevant charges or conviction against the individual.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply judicial officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.
   
   
3. Comity may be extended either through the resumption or commencement of judicial proceedings against the individual in question for the relevant heinous crime; or through the extradition of the individual in question to the member nation which has charged or convicted the individual in question for said heinous crime.
   
   
   1. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nation jurisdictions for the purposes of such extradition.
      
      
   2. The enforcement of a judicial sentence shall be considered a form of judicial proceedings in this resolution.
   
   
4. The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is established. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the IEC may supply armed defensive support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the relevant member nation's jurisdiction. IEC officers acting per this mandate may use armed force only as necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation. The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions.

[The Ice States]

Drafts eaten by the devil,

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice; and

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force.

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act which World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designates as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity, regardless of what jurisdiction takes up a case regarding that act.
   
   
2. Where an individual charged or convicted for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case, if such comity is not already extended or to be extended. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
   
   
   1. In such a review, the tribunal must consider, at minimum, (i) any past trials of said individual for the heinous crime in question; (ii) the likelihood that the individual is guilty of the heinous crime; (iii) any compelling state or public interests against or in favour of extending comity; and (iv) the nature of the relevant charges or conviction against the individual.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply court officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.
   
   
3. Comity may be extended either through the resumption or commencement of judicial proceedings against the individual in question for the relevant heinous crime; or through the extradition of the individual in question to the member nation which has charged the individual in question for said heinous crime.
   
   
   1. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nation jurisdictions for the purposes of such extradition.
      
      
   2. The enforcement of a judicial sentence shall be considered a form of judicial proceedings in this resolution.
   
   
4. The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is established to carry out law enforcement activities, which member nations may assign to it here or in future resolutions. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the IEC may supply armed defensive support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the relevant member nation's jurisdiction. IEC officers acting per this mandate may use armed force only as necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation.

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice, and

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes,

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act explicitly or implicitly classified by World Assembly law as a war crime or a crime against humanity.
   
   
2. Where an individual charged for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
   
   
   1. In such a review, the tribunal must consider, at minimum, (i) any past trials of said individual for the heinous crime in question; (ii) the likelihood that the individual is guilty of the heinous crime; (iii) any compelling state or public interests against or in favour of extending comity; and (iv) the nature of the relevant charges against the individual.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply court officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.
   
   
3. Comity, following a Section 2 review, may be granted, as appropriate, either through the resumption or commencement of judicial proceedings against the individual in question for the relevant heinous crime; or through the extradition of the individual in question to the member nation which has charged the individual in question for said heinous crime. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nation jurisdictions for the purposes of such extradition.
   
   
4. The World Assembly Enforcement Commission, or WAEC, is established. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the WAEC may supply armed defensive support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the relevant member nation's jurisdiction. WAEC officers acting per this mandate may use armed force only as necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation.
   
   
5. Member nations shall reserve the right to expand the powers of the WAEC via World Assembly resolution.

[Tinhampton]

What is comity? Why should I care?

Why do we need a WAEC, rather than requiring members to look after extraditees themselves? Is this yet another undercover attempt to introduce a WA Police Force?

[The Ice States]

What is comity? Why should I care?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity

Do note that comity is also defined in Section 3.

Why do we need a WAEC, rather than requiring members to look after extraditees themselves? Is this yet another undercover attempt to introduce a WA Police Force?

The WAEC is designed to assist members in "look[ing] after extraditees themselves". The resolution explicitly states that "the WAEC may supply armed defensive support, in the form of law enforcement officers". It is certainly not "undercover" in that it establishes a WA police force, albeit one which is given a very limited mandate.

[Chipoli]

Support in Principle.

[Comfed]

Section 1 - Include crimes against peace.

Section 2 - Is comity the recognition of the laws of another member state in one's own member state for the purposes of crimes against humanity or war crimes? If so, why are you using the definitions in WA law to do this?

Sections 4 & 5 - I think the actual purpose of this clause is to sneakily create a WA police force, not give it any powers in this resolution, and in a later resolution extend it's powers.

[The Ice States]

Section 1 - Include crimes against peace.

Done.

Section 2 - Is comity the recognition of the laws of another member state in one's own member state for the purposes of crimes against humanity or war crimes? If so, why are you using the definitions in WA law to do this?

Comity includes "mutual recognition of...judicial acts". This draft focuses on this aspect of comity. However, this still legislates on recognition of member nation laws against acts which are also prohibited under World Assembly law.

Sections 4 & 5 - I think the actual purpose of this clause is to sneakily create a WA police force, not give it any powers in this resolution, and in a later resolution extend it's powers.

This certainly gives the police force powers, even if in a very limited manner. Would you like Section 5 to be removed?

Edit: Removed Section 5.

[Simone Republic]

Given the hostility towards Jedinsto's two resolutions, I am hesitant on this as well. Not a straight forward no but depends on the final draft.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[The Ice States]

Bumping again!

[Simone Republic]

Probably no. Still in principle opposed to a WA judiciary or police force.

[The Ice States]

This does not establish a WA judiciary -- it entirely acts on member nation judiciaries, and the only mandate on the WAJC (an existing committee) is to assist member nation judiciaries in their individual proceedings.

[The Ice States]

Submitting soon!

This will be submitted depending on the progress of Namwenia's proposal.

[The Orwell Society]

Support.

[Republic of Mesque]

At face value, it is easy to support this resolution.
However, members must consider that we would be giving the World Assembly, a multiverse oligarchic entity, the ability to get involved in extraditions, and other unspecified, perhaps even dishonest, law enforcement activities.
The World Assembly's demeanor transpires absolute distrust, unchallenged arrogance, and judicial activism from its members, which may result in the corruption, malignant dedifferentiation of clause 4, further down the line.

[The Ice States]

At face value, it is easy to support this resolution.
However, members must consider that we would be giving the World Assembly, a multiverse oligarchic entity, the ability to get involved in extraditions, and other unspecified, perhaps even dishonest, law enforcement activities.
The World Assembly's demeanor transpires absolute distrust, unchallenged arrogance, and judicial activism from its members, which may result in the corruption, malignant dedifferentiation of clause 4, further down the line.

"If the World Assembly is so arrogant and oligarchic, why are you debating in its chambers?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Republic of Mesque]

At face value, it is easy to support this resolution.
However, members must consider that we would be giving the World Assembly, a multiverse oligarchic entity, the ability to get involved in extraditions, and other unspecified, perhaps even dishonest, law enforcement activities.
The World Assembly's demeanor transpires absolute distrust, unchallenged arrogance, and judicial activism from its members, which may result in the corruption, malignant dedifferentiation of clause 4, further down the line.

"If the World Assembly is so arrogant and oligarchic, why are you debating in its chambers?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Why not?

Edit: to further address this matter, We would also like to point out that your question makes sense in an oligarchic setting - to question one's presence in the World Assembly forums is to presume that they are either breaking the rules, or should not be welcome.
Since We are not breaking the rules, then it supposes the latter. If the WA was really democratic, we would not need to respond to this question.

The World Assembly isn't going anywhere. We neither.

[The Ice States]

"If the World Assembly is so arrogant and oligarchic, why are you debating in its chambers?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Why not?

Edit: to further address this matter, We would also like to point out that your question makes sense in an oligarchic setting - to question one's presence in the World Assembly forums is to presume that they are either breaking the rules, or should not be welcome.
Since We are not breaking the rules, then it supposes the latter. If the WA was really democratic, we would not need to respond to this question.

The World Assembly isn't going anywhere. We neither.

"Ambassador, your arguments are misrepresenting the reason for my reply. If the World Assembly genuinely were oligarchic and arrogant, then your comments in the drafting chambers would be of no relevance or effect. That is, of course, not the case; rather, it seems that deep down not even you actually believe that the World Assembly is so 'oligarchic' and 'arrogant'."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Republic of Mesque]

Why not?

Edit: to further address this matter, We would also like to point out that your question makes sense in an oligarchic setting - to question one's presence in the World Assembly forums is to presume that they are either breaking the rules, or should not be welcome.
Since We are not breaking the rules, then it supposes the latter. If the WA was really democratic, we would not need to respond to this question.

The World Assembly isn't going anywhere. We neither.

"Ambassador, your arguments are misrepresenting the reason for my reply. If the World Assembly genuinely were oligarchic and arrogant, then your comments in the drafting chambers would be of no relevance or effect. That is, of course, not the case; rather, it seems that deep down not even you actually believe that the World Assembly is so 'oligarchic' and 'arrogant'."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

You make a good point.
But, it is not these draft discussions or the forums themselves that makes the World Assembly oligarchic and arrogant, they are but part of the façade. While We have a limited amount of freedom to post here, the real deal lies in its structure.
The World Assembly suffers from chronic imbalance of powers, mismanagement of the organization, judicial activism, conspiratory collusion to topple colleagues, super-delegate clientelism, financially draining promotion policies, egocentric power holders, unclear and obscure prerrogatives, lack of addressing its flaws and genuine unwillingness to improve.
We debate ideas, drafts, politics and ideology, but everyone turns a blind eye to a clearly corroding structure, which nobody wants to or is open to discuss. The reason why the World Assembly is seen as elitist is because those who should be working to improve its structure appear locked in their pathological bubbles and personal ego trips, valuing to flex their personal achievements on others in these forums, instead of even considering internal reform. While the World Assembly continues this behavior, it will never be seen as completely worthy of trust or bask in its democratic achievements, because these are only illusions.

This may be seen as philosophical, but it is not. And those who know it, do know it. We will be here.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Tinhampton]

I still do not get the point of the IEC. Surely any member state willing to provide police support for extraditees will have enough police support on each occasion that they don't need to ask the WA for more. The fact it is called the International Enforcement Commission, which is an extremely WA Police name, rather than something that looks like an extradition support team only heightens my concerns.

[The Ice States]

I still do not get the point of the IEC. Surely any member state willing to provide police support for extraditees will have enough police support on each occasion that they don't need to ask the WA for more.

In most cases, it may indeed be unnecessary; but there may be cases where a member nation might not want to use its own finite police resources for extradition, for example. The opportunity for WA assistance should still exist, even if it is only occasionally used.

The fact it is called the International Enforcement Commission, which is an extremely WA Police name, rather than something that looks like an extradition support team only heightens my concerns.

Section 4 states that it is designed to "carry out law enforcement activities, which member nations may assign to it here or in future resolutions".

[Kenmoria]

“The first sentence of the fourth clause seems ambiguous, your Excellency. Member-nations cannot assign duties to a committee within the actual text of a proposal, since the IEC is referenced nowhere in the proposal aside from the fourth clause. I therefore suggest the following wording: ‘The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is established to carry out law enforcement activities, including supporting those duties which member nations are obligated to perform herein, or other duties mandated by future resolutions.’ In any case, I must reiterate the support of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria of this sort of proposal.”

[The Ice States]

I have addressed Kenmoria's comment per discussion on Discord. This is also a bump.

[Heidgaudr]

"With the passing of GA#654, the IEC is obviously an attempt to establish a WA-wide law enforcement body for use in future resolutions. I'd rather not be codifying the establishment of jackbooted thugs who in future resolutions will be granted the authority to traipse through the Associated Communities and do Bægþrýnðmængr knows what. Against."