[PASSED] On Universal Jurisdiction

[Railana]

A suggested replacement for GAR #102, International Criminal Court.

On Universal Jurisdiction
Category: International Security | Strength: Significant

Recognizing the moral depravity of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Believing that such crimes are so heinous that the international community bears a collective responsibility to bring those who are guilty of such crimes to justice,

Concerned, however, about the potential lack of accountability and abuses of power associated with granting criminal jurisdiction to an international court,

Convinced, therefore, that the best means to fulfill this responsibility is to grant individual World Assembly member states the right and obligation to prosecute such individuals,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;
2. Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;
3. Requires member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2 in cases where:
   
   1. the individual is within the territorial jurisdiction of that member state,
   2. the individual has not already been given a fair trial for that crime by another state, and
   3. there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;
4. Directs member states to ensure that the severity of the sentence assigned to an individual following a conviction of a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution is consistent with the severity of their crime;
5. Strongly encourages member states to volunteer any evidence relevant to the prosecution of an individual for a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution;
6. Permits member states to transfer an individual subject to prosecution under section 3 of this resolution to the jurisdiction of another member state that is able and willing to safely and fairly prosecute that individual for the same alleged crime or crimes;
7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;
8. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;
9. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution precludes the World Assembly from passing further legislation on criminal jurisdiction, international police or judicial cooperation, or extradition.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Declares that all World Assembly member states have universal jurisdiction with respect to the following crimes:

1. the systematic murder, enslavement, torture, rape, forced sterilization or deportation of any group of individuals,
   
2. the systematic destruction of any group of individuals sharing a common identifiable characteristic, such as race, ethnicity or religion,
3. the mistreatment of civilian populations or prisoners of war during wartime,
4. wanton killing or destruction of property during wartime that is not justified by military necessity,
5. any other act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under extant and future international law;

GA Resolution #20 'Suppress International Piracy' effectively recognises all WA member nations as having universal jurisdiction for offences committed during acts of international piracy but does not define those offences as either "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes". Altering your list's last entry to

any other act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under extant and future WA law, or for which such jurisdicton is already recognised under extant WA legislation

would fix this problem.
I'd say "WA" rather than "international" because otherwise any group of [possibly as few as two or three] nations could create a treaty declaring some offence to count as either "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes" and then use this proposed resolution of yours to claim univeral jurisdiction because of that piece of "international legislation".

[Defwa]

This appears to be just as broken as the last time you tried it, Auralia.

The ICC creates consistency that local courts do not. It remains the best option to adequately punish crimes against humanity.

[Chester Pearson]

This appears to be just as broken as the last time you tried it, Auralia.

I think you may have hit the nail squarely on the head Ambassador.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"While we are opposed to this, if you're going to do it, you might consider adding a ban on statutes of limitations for these crimes - would you like fries with that? Crimes that are 'so heinous' should be recognised as such regardless of the length of time that has passed since their commission. There should be no statute of limitations on - go super-size? - genocide."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

(As Inky's diplomatic immunity has been revoked, he is currently working as a server at a fast food outlet across the street from the WA Headquarters, and all of his addresses to the General Assembly are shouted through a loudspeaker in a hail of static, interjected by occasional work comments.)

[Ainocra]

Yes I want fries with that, where's my chicken sandwich?


and why is it still frozen?



Perhaps you should consider a new career?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In general principle we are in favour of this proposal - we have ourselves claimed Universal Jurisdiction since time immemorial. However while ideologically the author may wish to make a statement like clause 5, if we were to leave that blocker out then it is less likely the proposal would be repealed later - presuming the proposal can get enough support to pass in the first place, of course.

Also while most nations probably don't mind the idea of claiming jurisdiction over foreigners, some of us are probably slightly more concerned about the implications of accepting that foreigners can claim jurisdiction over ourselves; particularly when we want to try our own criminals because some foreigners don't use common law or don't have habeas corpus or whatever.

Furthermore there is no point in letting someone else kidnap an individual who has already been tried or is being tried; unless there was something wrong with the trial.

We suppose these problems could be best fixed as follows:

2. Declares Permits and Encourages that all World Assembly member states have to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to the following crimes:
[...]
3. Requires member states to prosecute individuals suspected of committing a crime listed in section 2 when there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable but cautious person's belief that the individual is most likely guilty of that crime, unless another member state has already acted correctly to bring such an individual to trial;

Although undoubtedly other wordings could have the same effect.

[Railana]

Declares that all World Assembly member states have universal jurisdiction with respect to the following crimes:

1. the systematic murder, enslavement, torture, rape, forced sterilization or deportation of any group of individuals,
   
2. the systematic destruction of any group of individuals sharing a common identifiable characteristic, such as race, ethnicity or religion,
3. the mistreatment of civilian populations or prisoners of war during wartime,
4. wanton killing or destruction of property during wartime that is not justified by military necessity,
5. any other act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under extant and future international law;

GA Resolution #20 'Suppress International Piracy' effectively recognises all WA member nations as having universal jurisdiction for offences committed during acts of international piracy but does not define those offences as either "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes". Altering your list's last entry to

any other act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under extant and future WA law, or for which such jurisdicton is already recognised under extant WA legislation

would fix this problem.
I'd say "WA" rather than "international" because otherwise any group of [possibly as few as two or three] nations could create a treaty declaring some offence to count as either "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes" and then use this proposed resolution of yours to claim univeral jurisdiction because of that piece of "international legislation".

Thank you for your suggestion. I will implement it shortly.

This appears to be just as broken as the last time you tried it, Auralia.

The ICC creates consistency that local courts do not. It remains the best option to adequately punish crimes against humanity.

This appears to be just as broken as the last time you tried it, Auralia.

I think you may have hit the nail squarely on the head Ambassador.

I'm sorry, were either of you addressing this delegation? I do not believe the Auralian Federation is currently a member of the World Assembly.

((OOC: While Auralia and Railana may be operated by the same player, this nation is not Auralia, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that, at least IC.

The present International Criminal Court has a myriad number of flaws, all discussed in this repeal proposal. However, the fundamental problem with an international court is that it fails to respect the legal traditions of individual member states by presuming that individual nations are somehow incapable of independently trying individuals who have committed serious crimes, even though the international court is itself no less fallible than any court in a member state.

If you believe that member states are incapable of trying such individuals, you should pass World Assembly legislation to resolve flaws in the judicial systems of all member nations. You should not stamp on national sovereignty by transferring criminal jurisdiction to an international court.))

"While we are opposed to this, if you're going to do it, you might consider adding a ban on statutes of limitations for these crimes - would you like fries with that? Crimes that are 'so heinous' should be recognised as such regardless of the length of time that has passed since their commission. There should be no statute of limitations on - go super-size? - genocide."

Another excellent suggestion that we shall implement shortly.

However while ideologically the author may wish to make a statement like clause 5, if we were to leave that blocker out then it is less likely the proposal would be repealed later - presuming the proposal can get enough support to pass in the first place, of course.

I believe a repeal of International Criminal Court should serve as a good litmus test for the acceptability of that clause among the World Assembly electorate.

Also while most nations probably don't mind the idea of claiming jurisdiction over foreigners, some of us are probably slightly more concerned about the implications of accepting that foreigners can claim jurisdiction over ourselves; particularly when we want to try our own criminals because some foreigners don't use common law or don't have habeas corpus or whatever.

We will edit this resolution to clarify that it does not require member states to prosecute individuals located in any state other than that member state.

Furthermore there is no point in letting someone else kidnap an individual who has already been tried or is being tried; unless there was something wrong with the trial.

Very true.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Defwa]

I'm sorry, were either of you addressing this delegation? I do not believe the Auralian Federation is currently a member of the World Assembly.

((OOC: While Auralia and Railana may be operated by the same player, this nation is not Auralia, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that, at least IC.

[OOC: I will do no such thing. The point remains.]

[Wrapper]

[OOC: I will do no such thing. The point remains.]

OOC: Eh, I'm willing to play along, but not with this proposal. Good luck with the repeal (not really).

[Railana]

[OOC: I will do no such thing. The point remains.]

((OOC: Then I am afraid I will be forced to ignore you when you address my delegation.))

[Morlago]

We believe that the current definition if universal jurisdiction

Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where the crime was allegedly committed or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual,

would implicitly include crimes happening in non-member states, thus rendering the proposal illegal. Would the author please clarify on this point?

Currently we oppose this resolution as we have the same doubts and fears Libraria and Ausitoria. How the entire WA with (possibly and most likely contradicting) laws from various states are supposed to coordinate with each other to try criminals is beyond us.

[Railana]

We believe that the current definition if universal jurisdiction

Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where the crime was allegedly committed or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual,

would implicitly include crimes happening in non-member states, thus rendering the proposal illegal. Would the author please clarify on this point?

World Assembly member states should be free to claim universal jurisdiction in non-member states, so long as the World Assembly itself does not intervene to facilitate the exercise of this jurisdiction.

Currently we oppose this resolution as we have the same doubts and fears Libraria and Ausitoria. How the entire WA with (possibly and most likely contradicting) laws from various states are supposed to coordinate with each other to try criminals is beyond us.

There is no need for World Assembly member states to coordinate with one another to try war criminals. The entire point of universal jurisdiction is that member states are free to independently try such criminals.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Araraukar]

((OOC: While Auralia and Railana may be operated by the same player, this nation is not Auralia, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that, at least IC.

OOC: For the sake of IC info, then, does Railana have anything to do with Auralia? Same continent/planet/universe? Political/economical/religious ties? Because otherwise many will be assuming it's just a WA puppet used to dodge the bad karma associated with Auralia.

[Railana]

((OOC: While Auralia and Railana may be operated by the same player, this nation is not Auralia, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that, at least IC.

OOC: For the sake of IC info, then, does Railana have anything to do with Auralia? Same continent/planet/universe? Political/economical/religious ties? Because otherwise many will be assuming it's just a WA puppet used to dodge the bad karma associated with Auralia.

((OOC: To be honest, I haven't decided. Railana will probably have close political and economic ties with Auralia, but will nevertheless be sufficiently independent to justify separate World Assembly representation.))

[Separatist Peoples]

[OOC: I will do no such thing. The point remains.]

((OOC: Then I am afraid I will be forced to ignore you when you address my delegation.))

OOC: Then there's really no reason Defwa shouldn't tag a link to the self-commendation debacle every time she tries. Seems a fair exchange for the refusal to reject reality.

[Texan Hotrodders]

A suggested replacement for GAR #102, International Criminal Court.

On Universal Jurisdiction
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

Recognizing the moral depravity of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Believing that such crimes are so heinous that the international community bears a collective responsibility to bring those who are guilty of such crimes to justice,

Convinced, however, that the best means to accomplish this goal is to grant individual World Assembly member states the right and obligation to prosecute such individuals rather than to grant criminal jurisdiction to an international court,

The General Assembly,

[list=1][*]Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where the crime was allegedly committed or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual,
[*]Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to the following crimes:

Good day to you, Chief Ambassador Fulton.

I am somewhat confused as to how the World Assembly could grant the right to claim universal jurisdiction.

Does the illustrious and much-commended author believe that the World Assembly has universal jurisdiction to delegate to its member states? If so, then how would one reconcile that with this body's consistent stance that it does not by its nature have universal jurisdiction?

Assuming that this body is correct in its previous assessment that it does not have universal jurisdiction (and indeed that it only has jurisdiction when member states voluntarily allow it by their membership), how would it even be possible for the World Assembly to delegate to member states that which it does not have?

Thank you for your consideration,

Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tlaloc Blackstone

[Chester Pearson]

Does the illustrious and much-commended author believe that the World Assembly has universal jurisdiction to delegate to its member states? If so, then how would one reconcile that with this body's consistent stance that it does not by its nature have universal jurisdiction?

That is a very good question. The last time I checked, it was The Ministry of Immigration who granted that right to Federation citizens, not some gnome.

[Araraukar]

((OOC: To be honest, I haven't decided. Railana will probably have close political and economic ties with Auralia, but will nevertheless be sufficiently independent to justify separate World Assembly representation.))

OOC: Then you'll likely get treated as Auralia in any case. Me, I'll decide after seeing how you react to things that would cause the Auralian ambassador to lose their cool.

[Ainocra]

I could support this.

[Railana]

Submarine Warfare Protocol's reference to war crimes reminded me of this draft.

I am somewhat confused as to how the World Assembly could grant the right to claim universal jurisdiction.

I don't think we're looking at the proposal the same way. I don't see the World Assembly granting the right to claim universal jurisdiction; rather, I see the member states of the World Assembly as a whole declaring that each state has the right to claim universal jurisdiction.

[Ainocra]

I like this idea, though I think 3c should be stricken or reworded. Written as it is would make it appear prejudicial.

perhaps dig a bit about probable cause up from somewhere.

[Three Weasels]

We support the spirit of your proposal. Nevertheless, we are concerned that without a singular court or oversight agency that there will be discrepancy in sentencing.

[The Dark Star Republic]

We support the spirit of your proposal. Nevertheless, we are concerned that without a singular court or oversight agency that there will be discrepancy in sentencing.

"The whole point about universal jurisdiction is it applies to crimes where it's reasonable to assume sentences would reflect their seriousness. Otherwise there would be no point exercising such jurisdiction.

"Though this is a good draft and an interesting idea, I assume this would render our own draft moot, and we're opposed to the blocking nature."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Railana]

I like this idea, though I think 3c should be stricken or reworded. Written as it is would make it appear prejudicial.

perhaps dig a bit about probable cause up from somewhere.

((OOC: That is the definition of probable cause.))

We support the spirit of your proposal. Nevertheless, we are concerned that without a singular court or oversight agency that there will be discrepancy in sentencing.

"Though this is a good draft and an interesting idea, I assume this would render our own draft moot, and we're opposed to the blocking nature."

As far as I can tell, this draft only blocks the formation of an International Criminal Court or a similar institution. I also believe that while there is some overlap between your draft and ours, there is a key difference: our draft explicitly defines certain particularly heinous crimes and requires prosecution for these or similar crimes, while your draft requires prosecution for any crime under international law.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly