[DRAFT, 5.75TH] Ban on Extrajudicial Transfer

[Manticore Reborn]

The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn is pleased to approve this proposal.

[Embolalia]

(Want to say that it's only your own spies whose actions you're legalising, and nobdoy else's, do you? There's that pesky ban against discriminating on the basis of nationality that's included in the CoCR...)

I would say that would count as a "compelling practical purpose". I think it's perfectly practical not to license those who have not shown their allegiance to your nation to spy for it.

[Bears Armed]

Other people's spies, too? If the law is that espionage in foreign nations is legal then those spying on you is just as allowed as your agents spying on them...

(Want to say that it's only your own spies whose actions you're legalising, and nobdoy else's, do you? There's that pesky ban against discriminating on the basis of nationality that's included in the CoCR...)

Oh, darn, you're right. I guess that illegalizes visas as well. How can Quadrimmina allow its own citizens free access to our nation but at the same time require members of other nations with whom we have not signed "free travel" treaties to acquire a visa to enter our country? Isn't that a violation of CoCR for discrimination based on nationality?

It probably is, yes. 'Bears Armed' proper, as distinct from 'Bears Armed Mission', withdrew from the WA when the CoCR passed specifically because we saw the prohibition of national governments discriminating on the basis of nationality as an extremely awkward (not to mention "ridiculous") idea to have to implement...

[Darenjo]

Oh, darn, you're right. I guess that illegalizes visas as well. How can Quadrimmina allow its own citizens free access to our nation but at the same time require members of other nations with whom we have not signed "free travel" treaties to acquire a visa to enter our country? Isn't that a violation of CoCR for discrimination based on nationality?

It probably is, yes. 'Bears Armed' proper, as distinct from 'Bears Armed Mission', withdrew from the WA when the CoCR passed specifically because we saw the prohibition of national governments discriminating on the basis of nationality as an extremely awkward (not to mention "ridiculous") idea to have to implement...

Yes, CoCR does address nationality, but I don't think that it would be illegal to deny civilian access to your nation if such denial is based on recent events occurring between such nation and your nation.

Anyways, we wholeheartedly support the proposal.

[Quadrimmina]

Well, it has been a while. We wanted to bring this forward, if only because the number of proposals regarding abortions is sickening and we wanted something else to talk about.

That being said, we would appreciate input on this resolution, as looking through the papers of our prior delegation, it has come to our attention that there are many under-pursued resolution that we plan on pursuing.

We would also like to test the waters for a possible clause urging nations to make gross actions of leaving member nations to go to nonmember nations and commit acts of human rights violations as recognized by WA law a crime.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Simply transferring suspects outside the WA member area to commit acts like torture should be a crime, honoured ambassador.

[Sanctaria]

What is the current wording of the proposal that the author wishes to submit?

Kind regards.,

[Numdia]

Maybe, Numdia will have to look into it when it has more time.

[Scolville Units]

Memorandum:
From:
The desk of The Exalted Pep,

The heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units cannot endorse a proposal that further delineates the WA from non-WA-member nations in this way. It is already difficult to establish a healthy trade/alliance/social relationship with another nation. Add this proposal to the already strained relationships and it may become impossible. Our industrious country does not condone torture, however, as a developing nation we often trade with those who may have more lax policies on torture and other human rights abuses. Relationships require a level of trust and many non-WA-member countries already think us puppets of the WA operating under the WA's agenda. We cannot foster this idea among many of our trade partners.

Therefore we cannot lend our support to this proposal and will vote against were it to reach that stage.

Cordially,
Jean Claude VI

[Eireann Fae]

"A nice, short resolution written using clear language to secure the rights of individuals. You, of course, have our full support." Alexandra smiles and takes her seat.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"A nice, short resolution written using clear language to secure the rights of individuals. You, of course, have our full support." Alexandra smiles and takes her seat.

I can hardly see how the language is at all clear. The single-most important clause is a forty-six word sentence without any punctuation.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

Simply transferring suspects outside the WA member area to commit acts like torture should be a crime, honoured ambassador.

How would Ms. Harper propose that be done better?

What is the current wording of the proposal that the author wishes to submit?

Kind regards.,

Please check the original post for such language, honored ambassador.

Memorandum:
From:
The desk of The Exalted Pep,

The heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units cannot endorse a proposal that further delineates the WA from non-WA-member nations in this way. It is already difficult to establish a healthy trade/alliance/social relationship with another nation. Add this proposal to the already strained relationships and it may become impossible. Our industrious country does not condone torture, however, as a developing nation we often trade with those who may have more lax policies on torture and other human rights abuses. Relationships require a level of trust and many non-WA-member countries already think us puppets of the WA operating under the WA's agenda. We cannot foster this idea among many of our trade partners.

Therefore we cannot lend our support to this proposal and will vote against were it to reach that stage.

Cordially,
Jean Claude VI

This is simply to ensure that member nations cannot commit things that they legally consider crimes outside of their jurisdiction. It's not delineating the WA from the non-WA nations, but simply closing a loophole in laws created by the WA and by member nations. It could be argued that such a loophole exists in non-WA nations, but then again, they can make whatever they want legal or illegal.

"A nice, short resolution written using clear language to secure the rights of individuals. You, of course, have our full support." Alexandra smiles and takes her seat.

Thank you, honored ambassador.

"A nice, short resolution written using clear language to secure the rights of individuals. You, of course, have our full support." Alexandra smiles and takes her seat.

I can hardly see how the language is at all clear. The single-most important clause is a forty-six word sentence without any punctuation.

- Dr. B. Castro

So your main argument against closing one of the largest human rights loopholes left in international law is that I didn't use enough commas?

[Glen-Rhodes]

So your main argument against closing one of the largest human rights loopholes left in international law is that I didn't use enough commas?

My argument is that the convoluted clause ultimately has little effect in the area you wish it to affect, and that is entirely due to how it is written. Perhaps Your Excellency should re-read the transcripts, so we don't have to re-argue everything.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

So your main argument against closing one of the largest human rights loopholes left in international law is that I didn't use enough commas?

My argument is that the convoluted clause ultimately has little effect in the area you wish it to affect, and that is entirely due to how it is written. Perhaps Your Excellency should re-read the transcripts, so we don't have to re-argue everything.

- Dr. B. Castro

Having done so, our number one concern is that we don't want this limited to punishment. There are many other reasons that extrajudicial transfer are employed (internment camps, sex trade, the list goes on and on) by both governments and non-governmental organizations. Therefore, we want to make sure that nobody can subvert national laws by going to non-member nations (or even to other member nations).

[Glen-Rhodes]

There are many other reasons that extrajudicial transfer are employed (internment camps, sex trade, the list goes on and on) by both governments and non-governmental organizations. Therefore, we want to make sure that nobody can subvert national laws by going to non-member nations (or even to other member nations).

I disagree with your broadening of extrajudicial 'transfer.' That is not the correct meaning of a well-established legal term, especially now that you're apparently including NGOs. If you want to stop internment camps and sex trade, write a resolution for those. If you want to stop extrajudicial punishment, then write a resolution for that. Don't try and shoe-horn all international illegal activity into an extremely oversimplified and thus horribly written resolution.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Atlantaena]

We could support this resolution on the condition that the language is made a little clearer.

Warm Wishes,

Gyt-Ƨit-Ÿyƪe
Atlantæn Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Embolalia]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm thick, but would someone mind explaining to me again what's unclear about the language? I mean, I suppose you could break up DEFINES into
DEFINES "extrajudicial transfer" as the transfer of a person outside of a member nation's jurisdiction with the intent of either:
1) Committing any act that would be illegal in that member nation's jurisdiction or
2) Infringing upon any right of such a person guaranteed in that member nation.
That would make it clearer, but really it seems perfectly clear as it is.

As to Dr. Castro: Are the things you describe not incredibly closely related? Doesn't an internment camp that is placed on another nation's soil for the purpose of circumventing domestic law fall precisely within a reasonable definition of extrajudicial punishment? (As for the accepted definition, well... This thread is the third Google result for "extrajudicial transfer", and the first that makes any attempt to define it. Take that as you will.)
Is there any specific example you can think of where this proposal would outlaw something that shouldn't be outlawed, or bar something from being prohibited that should be prohibited? If so, please tell.

[Atlantaena]

Well, is it the author's intention that this proposal outlaw espionage and espionage agencies?

Warm Wishes,

Gyt-Ƨit-Ÿyƪe
Atlantæn Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Glen-Rhodes]

That would make it clearer, but really it seems perfectly clear as it is.

I've offered legitimate interpretations of the language used that entirely nullifies the proposal's attempt to outlaw extrajudicial 'transfer.'

Are the things you describe not incredibly closely related? Doesn't an internment camp that is placed on another nation's soil for the purpose of circumventing domestic law fall precisely within a reasonable definition of extrajudicial punishment?

No. An internment camp is an internment camp. Extrajudicial punishment is extrajudicial punishment. The two should not be conflated.

Is there any specific example you can think of where this proposal would outlaw something that shouldn't be outlawed, or bar something from being prohibited that should be prohibited? If so, please tell.

Espionage, for one. Any act of a person leaving a nation for oppressive laws is another example of the unintended results of the convoluted and simultaneously over-simplified language.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

Are the things you describe not incredibly closely related? Doesn't an internment camp that is placed on another nation's soil for the purpose of circumventing domestic law fall precisely within a reasonable definition of extrajudicial punishment?

No. An internment camp is an internment camp. Extrajudicial punishment is extrajudicial punishment. The two should not be conflated.

How does transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp differ from transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and not putting them in an internment camp? Wouldn't a law banning transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof bar both transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp and transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and not putting them in an internment camp?
If you banned internment camps, that wouldn't prevent nations from, god I need an abbreviation for this, transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp. Presumably, internment camps are already banned by CoCR, or prevention of torture, or some other WA resolution anyway.

Is there any specific example you can think of where this proposal would outlaw something that shouldn't be outlawed, or bar something from being prohibited that should be prohibited? If so, please tell.

Espionage, for one. Any act of a person leaving a nation for oppressive laws is another example of the unintended results of the convoluted and simultaneously over-simplified language.

Espionage is easy: Make it illegal, within your country, to spy on the government of your country, but not other countries. Then, transferring people outside your jurisdiction to spy on other countries isn't breaking your law. Really, I don't know why you would have spying on other countries outlawed in the first place, but I know WA members aren't above making strange laws to win an argument.

I suppose if you consider individuals entities, then an individual leaving of his or her own volition would be illegal. This is why I ask the question, though. Rather than just saying "this is incomprehensible", nobody can understand this", or "this is too vague", offer examples of what needs to be changed, or what the actual problematic consequences would be.
For what it's worth, all that would need to be done to fix this almost-problem would be to remove "any entity within". If it would get Dr. Castro to quit whining, I'd suggest doing it. But since that's not going to happen under any circumstance, I wouldn't bother.

[Glen-Rhodes]

How does transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp differ from transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and not putting them in an internment camp?

Because one involves an internment camp and the other does not. In fact, extrajudicial punishment is a rather secret endeavor and an internment camp is more often than not a widely publicized thing. Conflating the two so that you can ban both in the same clause is unnecessary and irresponsible. It's like saying espionage and diplomacy both involve gathering valuable information, so there's no significant difference between the two and they can be addressed using the same definition.

Espionage is easy: Make it illegal, within your country, to spy on the government of your country, but not other countries. Then, transferring people outside your jurisdiction to spy on other countries isn't breaking your law. Really, I don't know why you would have spying on other countries outlawed in the first place, but I know WA members aren't above making strange laws to win an argument.

As the Bears Armed delegation mentioned early on, that kind of scheme would be illegal under the CoCR, since the CoCR includes, for some god-awful reason, discrimination based on nationality. If your government likes to maintain compliance all the time, it would be difficult to maintain an effective and legal espionage program after the passing of this resolution.

I suppose if you consider individuals entities, then an individual leaving of his or her own volition would be illegal.

My mention of individuals has more to do with the unintended consequences of the wording than the intended consequences thereof.

For what it's worth, all that would need to be done to fix this almost-problem would be to remove "any entity within". If it would get Dr. Castro to quit whining, I'd suggest doing it. But since that's not going to happen under any circumstance, I wouldn't bother.

I actually have offered wording that would make me 'quit whining' -- which, even though I shouldn't even need to mention it, is incredibly insulting and completely immature of the Embolalia delegation to say.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

How does transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp differ from transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and not putting them in an internment camp?

Because one involves an internment camp and the other does not. In fact, extrajudicial punishment is a rather secret endeavor and an internment camp is more often than not a widely publicized thing. Conflating the two so that you can ban both in the same clause is unnecessary and irresponsible. It's like saying espionage and diplomacy both involve gathering valuable information, so there's no significant difference between the two and they can be addressed using the same definition.

Far be it from me to accuse you of quoting me out of context, but I think you might find a useful part of my argument in the sentences that follow the one you quote. I'll say again, to be clear: A law banning transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof would bar both transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp and transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and not putting them in an internment camp.
Presumably, internment camps are already banned by CoCR, or prevention of torture, or some other WA resolution anyway.
I have more of an argument here, but I'd like to hear you actually respond to the points I've already made first.

Espionage is easy: Make it illegal, within your country, to spy on the government of your country, but not other countries. Then, transferring people outside your jurisdiction to spy on other countries isn't breaking your law. Really, I don't know why you would have spying on other countries outlawed in the first place, but I know WA members aren't above making strange laws to win an argument.

As the Bears Armed delegation mentioned early on, that kind of scheme would be illegal under the CoCR, since the CoCR includes, for some god-awful reason, discrimination based on nationality. If your government likes to maintain compliance all the time, it would be difficult to maintain an effective and legal espionage program after the passing of this resolution.

False. CoCR applies to discrimination against individuals in employment, housing, etc. It might (depending on your interpretation of "compelling practical purposes") bar you from not hiring a foreigner for a spy, but how would it prevent you from not banning spying on another country? Unless a foreign government is an inhabitant, but then you're just being silly.

For what it's worth, all that would need to be done to fix this almost-problem would be to remove "any entity within". If it would get Dr. Castro to quit whining, I'd suggest doing it. But since that's not going to happen under any circumstance, I wouldn't bother.

I actually have offered wording that would make me 'quit whining' -- which, even though I shouldn't even need to mention it, is incredibly insulting and completely immature of the Embolalia delegation to say.

Yes, we've been over your proposed wording. The only real change is that you say punishment rather than violating any law. Yet, at the same time, you accuse this proposal of being too simplistic. How does that work, exactly? Now that I think of it, you've bounced back and forth between saying it's too broad, or it's too simplistic, or it's too complicated. Pick one.

[Quadrimmina]

How does transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and putting them in an internment camp differ from transferring someone out of a jurisdiction to avoid the laws thereof and not putting them in an internment camp?

Because one involves an internment camp and the other does not. In fact, extrajudicial punishment is a rather secret endeavor and an internment camp is more often than not a widely publicized thing. Conflating the two so that you can ban both in the same clause is unnecessary and irresponsible. It's like saying espionage and diplomacy both involve gathering valuable information, so there's no significant difference between the two and they can be addressed using the same definition.

We wanted to make one thing explicitly clear. Our nation's push for this resolution is for it to involve "transfer" of any kind. Not just "punishment". Extrajudicial punishment is a subsection of what this resolution does. Ensuring that the human rights laws of the WA and the constitutional guarantees of nations are protected by governments is one of the most important human rights issues of our time.

I actually have offered wording that would make me 'quit whining' -- which, even though I shouldn't even need to mention it, is incredibly insulting and completely immature of the Embolalia delegation to say.

Yes, we've been over your proposed wording. The only real change is that you say punishment rather than violating any law. Yet, at the same time, you accuse this proposal of being too simplistic. How does that work, exactly? Now that I think of it, you've bounced back and forth between saying it's too broad, or it's too simplistic, or it's too complicated. Pick one.

We wanted to ensure that not only the government but also, say, a company doesn't do such a thing. Especially a military contractor.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We wanted to make one thing explicitly clear. Our nation's push for this resolution is for it to involve "transfer" of any kind. Not just "punishment". Extrajudicial punishment is a subsection of what this resolution does. Ensuring that the human rights laws of the WA and the constitutional guarantees of nations are protected by governments is one of the most important human rights issues of our time.

What you have failed to argue is how and when 'extrajudicial transfer' is used for any means other than to punish. And if it's not used to be punish, but to rather award, then why ban it?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quadrimmina]

We wanted to make one thing explicitly clear. Our nation's push for this resolution is for it to involve "transfer" of any kind. Not just "punishment". Extrajudicial punishment is a subsection of what this resolution does. Ensuring that the human rights laws of the WA and the constitutional guarantees of nations are protected by governments is one of the most important human rights issues of our time.

What you have failed to argue is how and when 'extrajudicial transfer' is used for any means other than to punish. And if it's not used to be punish, but to rather award, then why ban it?

- Dr. B. Castro

Extrajudicial transfer could conceivably be used for the subversion of any of a number of national or international laws. A major example that I have provided is internment camps. CoCR prevents discrimination by ethnicity, but sending people outside of the WA's jurisdiction based on ethnicity would not be considered a part of this. The fact of the matter is that governments and the WA have laws that protect people, but those laws only apply in the WA's jurisdiction. Yes, some of those laws protect people from unfair or unjust punishment, and thats where extrajudicial punishment becomes a problem. However, our aim is to provide something much more broad to the discourse. To ensure that all guarantees by law of rights and privileges and freedoms in WA member nations don't end with their boundaries.

As an example, we will use the Medical Research Ethics Act (our own legislation). By that law, national IRBs must approve all research. However, a nation could technically allow illegal and unsafe research practices by sending inhabitants to a non-WA nation and performing research on them that would be illegal within their nation.

As you can see, this issue doesn't and shouldn't end with punishment.