[Passed] Repeal "International Criminal Court"

[Mousebumples]

So long as I've got an SC draft going, I might as well unearth some of these promised GA repeals that I've had moldering on my hard drive for (no lie) ... years. This is the first, a second is forthcoming, and maybe you'll see a third within a week or so.

Repeal "International Criminal Court"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #102 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

RECOGNIZES that through the passage of previous legislation, the World Assembly has established a standard of conduct within WA member nations:

• GAR# 9, Prevention of Torture, outlawed torture and established procedures for the investigation and prosecution of those involved in torturing others.
• GAR#18, The Prisoners of War Accord, established standards of appropriate treatment and care for PoWs.
• GAR#23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, outlawed slavery and forced labor.
• GAR#25, WA Counterterrorism Act, worked to prevent terrorism by helping to coordinate counterterrorism activities and requiring WA member states to cease any state terrorist actions.
• GAR# 38, Convention Against Genocide, outlawed genocide and allowed for the prosecution of perpetrators of such a crime within WA Member States.
• GAR#40, The Landmine Convention, worked to negate the future deployment of landmines and mitigate the future risks to already deployed landmines.

ACCEPTS that such international standards are good and right within such an international body, even though the application of such legislation is limited to acting within the sovereign borders of WA member nations.

HIGHLIGHTS the following clause in GAR#102, International Criminal Court, which reads:
AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

NOTES that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and thereby the aforementioned International Criminal Court, is limited to only acting within WA member nations or through their actions within their territories.

BELIEVES that each WA member nation ensures that crimes outlawed within WA legislation are appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory, removing the need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants.

UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions, which would require additional legislation to outlaw international travesties that are not currently covered under existing WA resolutions.

ASSERTS that WA member nations will be most effectively served repealing the International Criminal Court, due to its limitations in both efficacy and utility, as outlined above.

REPEALS GAR#102, International Criminal Court.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Ainocra[/nation]

Repeal "International Criminal Court"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #102 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

RECOGNIZES that through the passage of previous legislation, the World Assembly has established a standard of conduct within WA member nations:

1. GAR# 9, Prevention of Torture, outlawed torture and established procedures for the investigation and prosecution of those involved in torturing others.
2. GAR#18, The Prisoners of War Accord, established standards of appropriate treatment and care for PoWs.
3. GAR#23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, outlawed slavery and forced labor.
4. GAR# 35, Convention on Genocide, outlawed genocide and allowed for the prosecution of perpetrators of such a crime within WA Member States.

ACCEPTS that such international standards are good and right within such an international body, even though the application of such legislation is limited to acting within the sovereign borders of WA member nations.

HIGHLIGHTS the following clause in GAR#102, International Criminal Court, which reads:
AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

NOTES that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and thereby the aforementioned International Criminal Court, is limited to only acting within WA member nations or through their actions.

BELIEVES, additionally, that there is no need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants, as each WA member nation shall do appropriate due diligence with regards to ensuring the crimes outlawed within WA legislation will be appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory.

UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions.

OBSERVES that the extradition clause within this resolution is unnecessary, due to the existence of GAR #147, Extradition Rights.

ASSERTS that WA member nations will be most effectively served by passing additional legislation aimed at outlawing additional international travesties that are not presently covered within existing WA resolutions and by doing away with this Court, due to its limitations in both efficacy and utility.

REPEALS GAR#102, International Criminal Court.

Co-authored by: [nation=short]Ainocra[/nation]

Repeal "International Criminal Court"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #102 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

RECOGNIZES that through the passage of previous legislation, the World Assembly has established a standard of conduct within WA member nations:

1. GAR# 9, Prevention of Torture, outlawed torture and established procedures for the investigation and prosecution of those involved in torturing others.
2. GAR#18, The Prisoners of War Accord, established standards of appropriate treatment and care for PoWs.
3. GAR#23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, outlaws slavery and forced labor.
4. GAR# 35, Convention on Genocide, outlawed genocide and allowed for the prosecution of perpetrators of such a crime within WA Member States.

ACCEPTS that such international standards are good and right within such an international body, even though the application of such legislation is limited to acting within the sovereign borders of WA member nations.

HIGHLIGHTS the following clause in GAR#102, International Criminal Court, which reads:
AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

NOTES that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and thereby the aforementioned International Criminal Court, is limited to only acting within WA member nations or through their actions and, therefore may be limited in its efficacy, in terms of international justice, due to such restrictions.

ARGUES that the inclusion of crimes within GAR#102 that are not otherwise specified within existing resolutions may result in individuals being tried on an Ex Post Facto basis, depending on the laws of the nation or region in question.

OPPOSES the police and military power granted to the WA, superseding the standard practices of the police and military of WA member nations.

DISPUTES, additionally, the ICC's power to extradite such an individual based solely on probable cause.

BELIEVES that such an abbreviation of the legal process is unjust and unacceptable violation of an individual’s human rights.

DECLARES that such a questionable legal process should be neither endorsed nor enshrined in World Assembly law.

ASSERTS that WA member nations will be most effectively served by passing additional legislation aimed at outlawing the international travesties included within GAR#102 that are not presently covered within existing WA resolutions.

REPEALS GAR#102, International Criminal Court.

Co-authored by: Ainocra

As always, thoughts, comments, and critiques are welcome!

[The Dark Star Republic]

ASSERTS that WA member nations will be most effectively served by passing additional legislation aimed at outlawing the international travesties included within GAR#102 that are not presently covered within existing WA resolutions.

"Pretty good repeal argument overall. Once those replacement drafts are ready to be reviewed, will be happy to lend the repeal my nation's (entirely nominal) support."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I will never get used to seeing you in red....

IC: "This is one that I was thinking of trying a repeal on for some time. I could never quite get the arguments convincing enough however. I support this repeal, and agree that the WA is best served with individual laws than blanket resolution, especially one allowing an external body policing powers in member states. This has my full support"

[Mousebumples]

OOC: I will never get used to seeing you in red....

IC: "This is one that I was thinking of trying a repeal on for some time. I could never quite get the arguments convincing enough however. I support this repeal, and agree that the WA is best served with individual laws than blanket resolution, especially one allowing an external body policing powers in member states. This has my full support"

Haha, thanks, Normlpeople, for your support. As DSR mentioned above, I'm sure that there are plenty of infractions that should get their own specific resolution - rather than be covered somewhat haphazardly by this catch-all resolution.

And, DSR, I would rather be proactive and repeal this and then let plenty of other players "fill in the blanks," as I just said to Normlpeople. Yes, I can "draft everything" myself, but I rarely draft my own replacements. I believe another player has a replacement for this one in the drafting stages, though, so I'll send up the Bat-Signal to get them to post that draft on the forums shortly.

(Also, as an aside, I think it's somewhat clear that I wouldn't be making modly rulings in my own thread, so I'm going to be lazy and not bother with my usual IC signature. Okay? Okay. )

[The Dark Star Republic]

And, DSR, I would rather be proactive and repeal this and then let plenty of other players "fill in the blanks," as I just said to Normlpeople. Yes, I can "draft everything" myself, but I rarely draft my own replacements. I believe another player has a replacement for this one in the drafting stages, though, so I'll send up the Bat-Signal to get them to post that draft on the forums shortly.

OOC: I don't believe you.

(Also, as an aside, I think it's somewhat clear that I wouldn't be making modly rulings in my own thread, so I'm going to be lazy and not bother with my usual IC signature. Okay? Okay. :P)

Good, it's image spam and shouldn't be used, ever.

[Mousebumples]

And, DSR, I would rather be proactive and repeal this and then let plenty of other players "fill in the blanks," as I just said to Normlpeople. Yes, I can "draft everything" myself, but I rarely draft my own replacements. I believe another player has a replacement for this one in the drafting stages, though, so I'll send up the Bat-Signal to get them to post that draft on the forums shortly.

OOC: I don't believe you.

That's your perogative; however, I expect you will be proven wrong later tonight. I could link you to the off-site forum post for said repeal, but given that you don't have citizenship/viewing privs at the region in question, I doubt you'll be able to see said draft. As such, I will let said player post up the replacement when they have time, hopefully later tonight.

(Also, as an aside, I think it's somewhat clear that I wouldn't be making modly rulings in my own thread, so I'm going to be lazy and not bother with my usual IC signature. Okay? Okay. )

Good, it's image spam and shouldn't be used, ever.

I understand that's your opinion. However, such images have been used in the GA in the past. The one player who used such a signature frequently was Delegate Vinage (example post), although I know there were others. If my posts (or my inclusion of such images within my posts) bothers you, I'd suggest you enable the friends/foes features of this forum.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I don't believe you.

That's your perogative; however, I expect you will be proven wrong later tonight. I could link you to the off-site forum post for said repeal, but given that you don't have citizenship/viewing privs at the region in question, I doubt you'll be able to see said draft. As such, I will let said player post up the replacement when they have time, hopefully later tonight.

OOC: Not quite what I meant. What I meant was: you have a track record of authoring repeals calling for a replacement, such as WA Environmental Council which argued the original was too mild, with no intention of providing a meaningful replacement (Cool Egg Sandwich's blocker was far more mild). It's intellectually dishonest, it makes other repeals harder to pass, and it ruins the whole process. If you don't want a replacement, that's completely fine and a defensible opinion, but your repeal should reflect that instead of disingenuously trying the WHL tactic.

I understand that's your opinion. However, such images have been used in the GA in the past. The one player who used such a signature frequently was Delegate Vinage (example post), although I know there were others. If my posts (or my inclusion of such images within my posts) bothers you, I'd suggest you enable the friends/foes features of this forum.

Moderators can't be put on foes lists.

Image

Let's go ahead and nip that in the bud. This is the World Assembly, and we don't really go for image spam here.

[Ainocra]

ooc:

OOC: Not quite what I meant. What I meant was: you have a track record of authoring repeals calling for a replacement, such as WA Environmental Council which argued the original was too mild, with no intention of providing a meaningful replacement (Cool Egg Sandwich's blocker was far more mild). It's intellectually dishonest, it makes other repeals harder to pass, and it ruins the whole process. If you don't want a replacement, that's completely fine and a defensible opinion, but your repeal should reflect that instead of disingenuously trying the WHL tactic.

This draft has been floating around our forums for quite some time now. I know as I contributed a great deal to it.
If you want a decent replacement why don't you pen one?

IC:

The people of Ainocra are proud to give whatever support this measure needs.

DISPUTES, additionally, the ICC's power to extradite such an individual based solely on probable cause.

I think would be better as, but I'm not choosy either way

DISPUTES, additionally, the ICC's power to extradite such an individual based solely on suspicion.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This draft has been floating around our forums for quite some time now. I know as I contributed a great deal to it.

OOC: Further intensifying my suspicion, given you have quite consistently argued the WA shouldn't have any laws against war crimes whatsoever.

If you want a decent replacement why don't you pen one?

Because I'm not arguing for a repeal.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is in full support", pledged Lord Raekevik, "and as for any replacement, we hope it would not include the (re)establishment of any international court."

[Sciongrad]

ooc:

OOC: Not quite what I meant. What I meant was: you have a track record of authoring repeals calling for a replacement, such as WA Environmental Council which argued the original was too mild, with no intention of providing a meaningful replacement (Cool Egg Sandwich's blocker was far more mild). It's intellectually dishonest, it makes other repeals harder to pass, and it ruins the whole process. If you don't want a replacement, that's completely fine and a defensible opinion, but your repeal should reflect that instead of disingenuously trying the WHL tactic.

This draft has been floating around our forums for quite some time now. I know as I contributed a great deal to it.
If you want a decent replacement why don't you pen one?

"As repeal authors, you are under no obligation to draft a replacement yourselves - that's your choice. But similarly, by promising a replacement, it isn't unreasonable for other ambassadors to make their support contingent on the existence of a suitable replacement."

[Ainocra]

This draft has been floating around our forums for quite some time now. I know as I contributed a great deal to it.

OOC: Further intensifying my suspicion, given you have quite consistently argued the WA shouldn't have any laws against war crimes whatsoever.

If you want a decent replacement why don't you pen one?

Because I'm not arguing for a repeal.

ooc

No, I've consistently argued that the ones we have are a flawed over reach that could land one in prison for defending their country.
By the definition put forth in the original text Alcon Enta could be put on trial for war crimes, Which is one IC reason why he remains the ambassador to the WA....diplomatic immunity


I only asked because you mentioned a replacement. I do not recall offering to draft one, but then again I could just be getting old and senile.



IC:

"As repeal authors, you are under no obligation to draft a replacement yourselves - that's your choice. But similarly, by promising a replacement, it isn't unreasonable for other ambassadors to make their support contingent on the existence of a suitable replacement."

I have made no such offer to draft a replacement, though I would not automatically be opposed to such, provided our concerns were addressed.

[Wrapper]

We do have a great deal of trouble with GAR #102's "AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person... if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice" clause. The emphasized portion is an overreach and is open to abuse -- we can see it used, if the "wrong" forces were to influence the ICC, to deny Wrapperian nationals of basic ideals (for example, freedom to blaspheme false gods in our off-world colonies or during onboard peace summits).

You do have our support for this repeal. That said:

OPPOSES the police and military power granted to the WA, superseding the standard practices of the police and military of WA member nations.

We don't see how GAR#102 grants police or military power to the WA.

OOC: Just thinking aloud... if compliance with WA resolutions is mandatory, what's the point of a WA international court anyway? Particuarly one that only has jurisdiction over WA nations and has no power over non-WA nations?

[Ainocra]

You do have our support for this repeal. That said:

OPPOSES the police and military power granted to the WA, superseding the standard practices of the police and military of WA member nations.


We don't see how GAR#102 grants police or military power to the WA.

Thank you for your support, The ICC can compel police and military units to act through this clause

REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;

In nations without an independent police force, or one that is subject to the military this does just that.
For example, I myself was court martialed many years ago. I was acquitted of all charges, however your original concern could be used to say my home nation never "brought me to justice."

Assume for a moment that the ICC issued a warrant for me.

The military police of Ainocra would then be legally bound to arrest me and turn me over to the ICC.

I would be arrested by a military police unit acting on orders from the WA

Seems like military control to me.

[Glen-Rhodes]

These repeal arguments don't make any sense at all.

The first is that WAR#102 is unfair because the crimes it outlaws aren't prohibited in separate resolutions. Why is that a big deal? How on earth is prohibiting a crime, and then setting up a way to prosecute people for it, going to lead to ex post facto prosecution of those crimes... just because it's all done in a single resolution?

The second is that WAR#102 usurps domestic police authority. That is absolutely false, and I would expect an esteemed author would be more knowledgeable about the resolution they're seeking to repeal, especially when their position may automatically grant a lot of deference to them in the first place. The ICC issues arrest warrants. Domestic police forces are urged to execute those warrants. In no reasonable world is issuing arrest warrants equivalent to usurping the police forces of member states. In fact, if the ICC tried to do that, it would have been declared illegal under the current interpretation of the No Army Rule.

The third argument is that "probable cause" is disputably not enough to issue an arrest warrant. I'd like to hear more on this, given that probable cause is the golden standard in issuing arrest warrants. Does the author think the ICC should determine innocence or guilt first, before holding a trial?

Finally, the broad argument this resolution is really advocating is that the ICC is unnecessary because we can just pass resolutions that will magically alter the laws of the universe, making it physically impossible for people in member states to commit acts prohibited by those resolutions. That's just silly.

[Elke and Elba]

Tl;dr (actually did read it but-)

Don't expect us to support this if there isn't a replacement.

Ambassadors of EnE

[Ainocra]

Postby Elke and Elba » Tue May 20, 2014 3:38 pm
Tl;dr (actually did read it but-)

Don't expect us to support this if there isn't a replacement.

Ambassadors of EnE

oocly:

I really don't have time to even attempt a replacement, RL is a bit tight right now and shows no signs of letting up. (My eldest graduates HS tomorrow!)

ICly:

Ambassador, if you are interested in a replacement then I suggest you draft one. We would not be automatically opposed to said, provided our concerns were met.

[Louisistan]

After carefully reading the draft put forth by the Mousebumplian(?) delegation and confering with counsel, Deputy Ambassador Schulz rises to address the assembly.
Esteemed colleagues,
we are not convinced by the repeal argument put forth in this proposal and we will now examine it more closely:

NOTES that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and thereby the aforementioned International Criminal Court, is limited to only acting within WA member nations or through their actions and, therefore may be limited in its efficacy, in terms of international justice, due to such restrictions.

That is technically correct - the best kind of correct. However, there is no mechanism and indeed no mandate to this glorious assembly to impose the rules passed by this body to states which aren't members of it. So there is absolutely no chance that there will ever be a system of international justice for member AND non-member states. It is not a flaw of this resolution, it is an inherent problem of the WA.

ARGUES that the inclusion of crimes within GAR#102 that are not otherwise specified within existing resolutions may result in individuals being tried on an Ex Post Facto basis, depending on the laws of the nation or region in question.

Would the esteemed ambassador care to explain this? I'm missing a causal link here. With the passing of this resolution the crimes mentioned in it became illegal. As far as I know it would only be considered ex post facto if the resolution would mandate - or at least allow - to prosecute crimes taht happened before GAR#102 was passed. It does not.

OPPOSES the police and military power granted to the WA, superseding the standard practices of the police and military of WA member nations.

The amdassdor from Ainocra was kind enough to explain the thought behind this. We do not concur with your interpretation that the ICC would usurp police power simply by issuing a warrant.

DISPUTES, additionally, the ICC's power to extradite such an individual based solely on probable cause.

Why?

BELIEVES that such an abbreviation of the legal process is unjust and unacceptable violation of an individual’s human rights.

Would the ambassador care to point out, at which point he feels the legal process is 'abbreviated' by the ICC?

ASSERTS that WA member nations will be most effectively served by passing additional legislation aimed at outlawing the international travesties included within GAR#102 that are not presently covered within existing WA resolutions.

If your repeal came to pass, that would indeed be a prudent measure.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

We like this resolution a lot. Especially the "Ex Post Facto" argument.

[Ainocra]

Mousebumples wrote:ARGUES that the inclusion of crimes within GAR#102 that are not otherwise specified within existing resolutions may result in individuals being tried on an Ex Post Facto basis, depending on the laws of the nation or region in question.

Would the esteemed ambassador care to explain this? I'm missing a causal link here. With the passing of this resolution the crimes mentioned in it became illegal. As far as I know it would only be considered ex post facto if the resolution would mandate - or at least allow - to prosecute crimes that happened before GAR#102 was passed. It does not.

Mousebumples wrote:OPPOSES the police and military power granted to the WA, superseding the standard practices of the police and military of WA member nations.

The ambassador from Ainocra was kind enough to explain the thought behind this. We do not concur with your interpretation that the ICC would usurp police power simply by issuing a warrant.

The answer to all of these is can be summed up by my earlier example. I myself have been tried by the Ainocran justice system for alleged crimes and was lawfully acquitted. The ICC makes no statute of limitations on these alleged crimes, It only requires a charge. The fact that I have been acquitted could be construed as my home "refusing to bring me to justice." There is no ex post facto, or double jeopardy exemption carved out for these alleged crimes, the ICC has the mandate to try anyone at any time for these offenses. The court seems to have no latitude in this respect.

The ICC issuing a warrant would only be the start of it. police and military units from anywhere in the WA would be compelled to arrest me on sight.

Mousebumples wrote:DISPUTES, additionally, the ICC's power to extradite such an individual based solely on probable cause.


Why?

There is no reasonable definition of probable cause, Suspicion is the only prerequisite. Should a replacement be drafted we would hope that the circumstances under which this assembly can abduct a citizen from their home are spelled out a little better.

Mousebumples wrote:BELIEVES that such an abbreviation of the legal process is unjust and unacceptable violation of an individual’s human rights.


Would the ambassador care to point out, at which point he feels the legal process is 'abbreviated' by the ICC?

Perhaps Abrogate would be a better term.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The answer to all of these is can be summed up by my earlier example. I myself have been tried by the Ainocran justice system for alleged crimes and was lawfully acquitted. The ICC makes no statute of limitations on these alleged crimes, It only requires a charge. The fact that I have been acquitted could be construed as my home "refusing to bring me to justice." There is no ex post facto, or double jeopardy exemption carved out for these alleged crimes, the ICC has the mandate to try anyone at any time for these offenses.

"Except that Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws already prevents ex post facto punishment, and Preventing Multiple Trials already bans double jeopardy. Resolutions cannot contradict one another.

There is no reasonable definition of probable cause, Suspicion is the only prerequisite. Should a replacement be drafted we would hope that the circumstances under which this assembly can abduct a citizen from their home are spelled out a little better.

"Probable cause is a common legal standard for an arrest warrant. It makes no sense to define commonly understood legal terms, any more than to define other common legal terms such as 'arrest' or 'conviction'.

"Secondly, if you really cannot function without the WA detailing every last legal trifle for you, there is nothing preventing you now writing a definition of 'probable cause'. It wouldn't count as an amendment and could be passed without any need for a repeal."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Sciongrad]

There is no reasonable definition of probable cause, Suspicion is the only prerequisite. Should a replacement be drafted we would hope that the circumstances under which this assembly can abduct a citizen from their home are spelled out a little better.

All of a sudden, Natalia motioned for Ricardo to retrieve her purse. Upon receiving it, she rummaged through it for a few moments before pulling out a big, yet almost flat, rectangular package. She tore open the wrapping paper and removed the box cover. She approached the Ainocran ambassador and dropped torn up pieces of green wrapping paper on the way. Once she positioned herself in front of the noble Fleet Marshall, she looked directly into his eyes. From her box, she removed a large, colorful book with the words "A to Z for Ambassadors Like You and Me." As she dropped the box at her feet, she put on her reading glasses and opened the book to its first page.

"A is for ambassadors," she spoke in her frail, matronly voice. "Who debate and write legislation all day. Hooray!" She turned the page and continued. "B is for Bar. The Strangers' Bar of course! Where all of the diplomats drink away their disappointment and remorse." She skipped a page or so before continuing again. "D is for defenestration. So don't try to be bold because that Vastiva Memorial Pool is cold!" She again skipped ahead in the book before going ahead. "L is for literacy. It's clearly not a prerequisite because many ambassadors don't have it!" Finally, she opened to another page before nodding and continuing. "P is for probable cause. An example of a common legal term that many ambassadors think they can intentionally misconstrue, which is why this book was made for you!" She shut the book, but before walking back to her seat, she laid the book at the fearless Fleet Marshall's feet. "It's my first book. Tell me what you think when you've read through it." And with that, the ancient emissary skipped happily back to her seat to be greeted by a characteristically unenthusiastic Ricardo.

[Louisistan]

Mousebumples wrote:ARGUES that the inclusion of crimes within GAR#102 that are not otherwise specified within existing resolutions may result in individuals being tried on an Ex Post Facto basis, depending on the laws of the nation or region in question.

Would the esteemed ambassador care to explain this? I'm missing a causal link here. With the passing of this resolution the crimes mentioned in it became illegal. As far as I know it would only be considered ex post facto if the resolution would mandate - or at least allow - to prosecute crimes that happened before GAR#102 was passed. It does not.

Mousebumples wrote:OPPOSES the police and military power granted to the WA, superseding the standard practices of the police and military of WA member nations.

The ambassador from Ainocra was kind enough to explain the thought behind this. We do not concur with your interpretation that the ICC would usurp police power simply by issuing a warrant.

The answer to all of these is can be summed up by my earlier example. I myself have been tried by the Ainocran justice system for alleged crimes and was lawfully acquitted. The ICC makes no statute of limitations on these alleged crimes, It only requires a charge. The fact that I have been acquitted could be construed as my home "refusing to bring me to justice." There is no ex post facto, or double jeopardy exemption carved out for these alleged crimes, the ICC has the mandate to try anyone at any time for these offenses. The court seems to have no latitude in this respect.

The ICC issuing a warrant would only be the start of it. police and military units from anywhere in the WA would be compelled to arrest me on sight.

I'm sorry, Ambassador, I just don't see it. Considering that we are all reasonable nations, I don't think that this could be construed as "refusing to bring you to justice" if you have been lawfully acquitted in an orderly trial.

[Ainocra]

I'm sorry, Ambassador, I just don't see it. Considering that we are all reasonable nations, I don't think that this could be construed as "refusing to bring you to justice" if you have been lawfully acquitted in an orderly trial.

Well as I recall at the time of the initial draft it was feared that such a trial would be only a sham, but the court has made no allowances for various judicial systems and in it's current incarnation could be used as a political weapon.

Right now, any one of you could go to the ICC and file charges against me. I would certainly be exonerated, but it would still be a needless headache. Let us suppose for a moment that I aspired to higher political office at home, or that someone who had already been tried and cleared for something by Ainocran authorities and who also happened to by my political opponent were suddenly arrested and charged by the ICC?

[Ziwaiworld]

Repeal!