[Draft] International Law Enforcement Act

[Weemike]

if the resolution prohibiting it were repealed

The resolution in question (GAR #2) is an IC representation of the game rules. Even if you managed to repeal Rights and Duties, it would still be against the rules.

Fair enough, thank you all for my crash course in international law

unfortunately, whilst I thought this proposal was such a brilliant idea, I simply don't see any workable way of it going forward. It either needs withdrawn and drastically altered, or simply withdrawn completely.

[Kalina]

Okay does anyone have suggestions on how to make it better, because i mean we can't just allow criminals to escape justice even the opposition can at least agree with that.

[United Federation of Canada]

Okay does anyone have suggestions on how to make it better, because i mean we can't just allow criminals to escape justice even the opposition can at least agree with that.

Then set up bilateral extradition treaties between countries that you deal with on your own, and leave the WA out if it.

The WA is NOT a world government, as much as some people would like to think it is.

[Alqania]

Okay does anyone have suggestions on how to make it better, because i mean we can't just allow criminals to escape justice even the opposition can at least agree with that.

"This may come as a shock to some", Lord Raekevik stated sarcastically, "but there are member states that prevent suspects from leaving the country. Apparently, a nation can have a working law enforcement without a World Assembly resolution explicitly allowing each measure that could possibly be taken."

[Glen-Rhodes]

Okay does anyone have suggestions on how to make it better, because i mean we can't just allow criminals to escape justice even the opposition can at least agree with that.

Like I said, I doubt many people would oppose an information-sharing system. Read up on Interpol for some ideas.

[United Federation of Canada]

Okay does anyone have suggestions on how to make it better, because i mean we can't just allow criminals to escape justice even the opposition can at least agree with that.

Like I said, I doubt many people would oppose an information-sharing system. Read up on Interpol for some ideas.

Information sharing yes. International Law-Enforcement agency, no.

[Point Breeze]

You people throw around the No Army Rule without even thinking, these days. Allowing the police forces of different member states to operate in each other's territories is not creating a WA police force. Creating an international information-sharing system (aka Interpol) is not creating a WA police force. The rule is not "the WA isn't allowed to talk about police."

P.s. Interpol doesn't actually enforce the law. I would be surprised if people actually opposed creating a WA version of Interpol. :|

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=222682

You're telling me.

[Araraukar]

P.s. Interpol doesn't actually enforce the law. I would be surprised if people actually opposed creating a WA version of Interpol. :|

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=222682
You're telling me.

Not applicable, PB, your proposal only wanted to share statistics, not actual info of actual criminals.

[Point Breeze]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=222682
You're telling me.

Not applicable, PB, your proposal only wanted to share statistics, not actual info of actual criminals.

I see my error now, thank you.

Since an information-sharing body is as close as we're going to get to a rule violation while still maybe possibly submitting this thing, I would be in support. A member state could issue something similar to an APB or BOLO to this international body when a fugitive has a danger or suspected intent to leave that nation. Other states can do what they will with that information - scramble the jets or toss it in the spam folder.

Additionally, I'm sure the many committee's of the WA collect some identifying personal information. Member states should be allowed to access these files for the purposes of furthering an investigation.

[Kalina]

Like I said, I doubt many people would oppose an information-sharing system. Read up on Interpol for some ideas.

Information sharing yes. International Law-Enforcement agency, no.

Okay can i just make this clear that this act does not establish an agency of any kind. It just allows one nation to go into another to apprehend criminals escaping justice. As for information sharing I'm all for it, but this act establishes ways to get the criminals not information on them.

[Araraukar]

The problem with anything that would share actual info of actual criminals between memberstates would be that a totalitarian nation where, say, slandering the leader's name is a crime, could then legitimately ask other nations for info on this person's whereabouts - if proclaimed a traitor, they might settle for sending an assassin rather than going through the legal channels. Blocking that loophole would render such a proposal about as useful as Point Breeze's statistics one.

[Point Breeze]

The problem with anything that would share actual info of actual criminals between memberstates would be that a totalitarian nation where, say, slandering the leader's name is a crime, could then legitimately ask other nations for info on this person's whereabouts - if proclaimed a traitor, they might settle for sending an assassin rather than going through the legal channels. Blocking that loophole would render such a proposal about as useful as Point Breeze's statistics one.

The problem arises when you try to force a nation to enforce another nation's laws. However, not requiring any participation would be illegal due to optionality. At this point, I'm our of ideas.

[United Federation of Canada]

Information sharing yes. International Law-Enforcement agency, no.

Okay can i just make this clear that this act does not establish an agency of any kind. It just allows one nation to go into another to apprehend criminals escaping justice. As for information sharing I'm all for it, but this act establishes ways to get the criminals not information on them.

You may want to read this: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=210403

It has been tried already.

[Bears Armed]

Like I said, I doubt many people would oppose an information-sharing system. Read up on Interpol for some ideas.

In fact we actually had one, established by a 'historical' resolution, back in the days of the organisation that is not to be named...

[Glen-Rhodes]

The problem with anything that would share actual info of actual criminals between memberstates would be that a totalitarian nation where, say, slandering the leader's name is a crime, could then legitimately ask other nations for info on this person's whereabouts - if proclaimed a traitor, they might settle for sending an assassin rather than going through the legal channels. Blocking that loophole would render such a proposal about as useful as Point Breeze's statistics one.

In the real world, Interpol's Constitution requires that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be observed. That doesn't render the system useless.

[United Federation of Canada]

So let's say that Nation A, has located a fugitive in my nation, and wants to cross my border to apprehend them, and they are facing execution in their country, but my nations has banned the death penalty. Why would I allow them into my nation, upsetting my citizens, and using my resources to capture said fugitive? What happens in they are a political dissident in their nation? Furthermore, do I not have the sovereign right to grant them asylum?

This muddies the water far too much. This is better left for regional legislation, and treaties.

[Kalina]

So let's say that Nation A, has located a fugitive in my nation, and wants to cross my border to apprehend them, and they are facing execution in their country, but my nations has banned the death penalty. Why would I allow them into my nation, upsetting my citizens, and using my resources to capture said fugitive? What happens in they are a political dissident in their nation? Furthermore, do I not have the sovereign right to grant them asylum?

This muddies the water far too much. This is better left for regional legislation, and treaties.

For one thing the criminal in question would still be a citizen of the nation they ran from, therefore unless they apply for citizenship, which they can't because a criminal record would prevent them from doing this, The nation they ran to would have no jurisdiction over them except if they were brought into custody on charges of border jumping by which the only thing they can do is deport the criminal back to the nation they ran from.

[Point Breeze]

So let's say that Nation A, has located a fugitive in my nation, and wants to cross my border to apprehend them, and they are facing execution in their country, but my nations has banned the death penalty. Why would I allow them into my nation, upsetting my citizens, and using my resources to capture said fugitive? What happens in they are a political dissident in their nation? Furthermore, do I not have the sovereign right to grant them asylum?

This muddies the water far too much. This is better left for regional legislation, and treaties.

For one thing the criminal in question would still be a citizen of the nation they ran from, therefore unless they apply for citizenship, which they can't because a criminal record would prevent them from doing this, The nation they ran to would have no jurisdiction over them except if they were brought into custody on charges of border jumping by which the only thing they can do is deport the criminal back to the nation they ran from.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the laws and practices of other nations. You cant make these sweeping generalizations and then expect to pass legislation based off of them.

[Poni]

So let's say that Nation A, has located a fugitive in my nation, and wants to cross my border to apprehend them, and they are facing execution in their country, but my nations has banned the death penalty. Why would I allow them into my nation, upsetting my citizens, and using my resources to capture said fugitive? What happens in they are a political dissident in their nation? Furthermore, do I not have the sovereign right to grant them asylum?

This muddies the water far too much. This is better left for regional legislation, and treaties.

For one thing the criminal in question would still be a citizen of the nation they ran from, therefore unless they apply for citizenship, which they can't because a criminal record would prevent them from doing this, The nation they ran to would have no jurisdiction over them except if they were brought into custody on charges of border jumping by which the only thing they can do is deport the criminal back to the nation they ran from.

Oh really? And say if some criminal was fleeing from your country and into mine. If they got into the country illegally, but were doing so in a last ditch effort to avoid you, we would have two options in this situation. A: We would be forced to give you the criminal against our will because they aren't a citizen of my country, even if we have our own plans to deal with them for trespassing in this nation. B: We give the criminal from your country citizenship in our country, regardless of the criminal records because what they did in your country illegally is acceptable by our nation's standards. They are now one of us, but also a criminal to you. What happens now? You're going to invade Poni, over one or two troublemakers?

[Lucian De Mundo]

For one thing the criminal in question would still be a citizen of the nation they ran from, therefore unless they apply for citizenship, which they can't because a criminal record would prevent them from doing this, The nation they ran to would have no jurisdiction over them except if they were brought into custody on charges of border jumping by which the only thing they can do is deport the criminal back to the nation they ran from.

Oh really? And say if some criminal was fleeing from your country and into mine. If they got into the country illegally, but were doing so in a last ditch effort to avoid you, we would have two options in this situation. A: We would be forced to give you the criminal against our will because they aren't a citizen of my country, even if we have our own plans to deal with them for trespassing in this nation. B: We give the criminal from your country citizenship in our country, regardless of the criminal records because what they did in your country illegally is acceptable by our nation's standards. They are now one of us, but also a criminal to you. What happens now? You're going to invade Poni, over one or two troublemakers?

I believe the details of this particular circumstance is covered fairly well in W.A.R. 147 Extradition Rights[.

[Poni]

Oh really? And say if some criminal was fleeing from your country and into mine. If they got into the country illegally, but were doing so in a last ditch effort to avoid you, we would have two options in this situation. A: We would be forced to give you the criminal against our will because they aren't a citizen of my country, even if we have our own plans to deal with them for trespassing in this nation. B: We give the criminal from your country citizenship in our country, regardless of the criminal records because what they did in your country illegally is acceptable by our nation's standards. They are now one of us, but also a criminal to you. What happens now? You're going to invade Poni, over one or two troublemakers?

I believe the details of this particular circumstance is covered fairly well in W.A.R. 147 Extradition Rights[.

Care to provide a link to that?

[Frisbeeteria]

Care to provide a link to that?

That's GA 101, dude. If you can't be bothered to look up previously passed resolutions (particularly when you've been handed the name and number on a silver platter), you shouldn't be discussing the current ones.

But if you're that lazy, here.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So let's say that Nation A, has located a fugitive in my nation, and wants to cross my border to apprehend them, and they are facing execution in their country, but my nations has banned the death penalty. Why would I allow them into my nation, upsetting my citizens, and using my resources to capture said fugitive? What happens in they are a political dissident in their nation? Furthermore, do I not have the sovereign right to grant them asylum?

The ideal system would be that Nation A contacts World Assembly Criminal Police Organization, or whatever name is chosen, which acts as a liaison between Nation A's relevant police institution and Nation B's relevant police institution. Nation B can permit Nation A's police to enter their territory and assume jurisdiction, but that is not necessary and would depend entirely upon bilateral treaties and agreements. However, the expectation is that Nation B will assist Nation A in catching the criminal(s).

The question of extraditions also depends on bilateral treaties and agreements between Nations A and B. There is no universal extradition agreement in the World Assembly. WAR#174 does not provide the right to extradition, but rather the right of persons to appeal an extradition request, and requires that such appeals be settled in the person's favor should certain criteria be met. Additionally, no member state may extradite a person to a nation in which there is a reasonable expectation that the person will be tortured. Therefore, Nation B can determine for itself whether or not to extradite, subject to the preceding limitations. In many member states, it is illegal to extradite a person to a country that practices execution. That is a sovereign right of member states, of course.

If the extradition request is for a person seeking asylum, the World Assembly has set forth rules for refugee protection. In addition to that, an WACPO or similar organization should not be involved in questions of political, religious, military or ethnic matter.

This muddies the water far too much. This is better left for regional legislation, and treaties.

We wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's a complicated area of policy, but there's no reason why regional organizations are the only institutions fit to address it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Like I said, I doubt many people would oppose an information-sharing system. Read up on Interpol for some ideas.

In fact we actually had one, established by a 'historical' resolution, back in the days of the organisation that is not to be named...

Yes indeed we did. If you're concerned about legality, try culling inspiration from the limits that author imposed on himself.

[The Lathrop Confederacy]

I ain't letting ya losers into my country! We'll flog your criminals ourselves, thank you very much!
-The Lathrop Confederacy