Manticore Reborn wrote:The government of The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn has reviewed this proposal with great interest. We have several comments we would like to put before this assembly.
I sincerely thank Your Excellency for your interest in my proposal and for your suggestions.
2. Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies
Our understanding is that Prisoners of War are already protected under World Assembly Resolution #18 and therefore this clause does not appear to be needed.
GAR18 does indeed prohibit the governments of WA member states from mistreating POWs. The purpose of including the above clause in my proposal is to allow the ICC to issue warrants for individuals who commit such acts, in situations where their home nation refuses to try them. This could happen, for example, if a rogue operator in a member state abuses or kills POWs, and once he is caught the nation's government refuses to prosecute. It could also happen in the case of a citizen of a non-member state mistreating POWs. Therefore, I feel that, even though governments of WA member states are prohibited from mistreating POWs, this clause is still useful.
5. The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population
My government cannot support this proposal with the current wording and would like to suggest the following change to this clause:5. The intentional targeting of civilian populations with nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons
The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn arsenal contains nuclear weapons of a tactical nature. Our military leaders will not be held responsible for civilian casualties when those civilians are too close to a valid tactical target.
You make a valid point about tactical nuclear weapons, Ambassador. You suggest exempting accidental usage of nuclear weapons against civilians? This may allow the use of tactical nukes where the presence of civilians was unknown, resulting in collateral damage, but it might also be used to justify the use of much larger strategic nuclear bombs, ostensibly against a military facility, but one that is very near to a heavily populated area, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands or more. Those who committed this crime would say that the target was the military facility, and that the civilians were just collateral damage, and that, since the civilians were not intentionally targeted, they cannot be arrested for it. I am not inclined to allow this.
I am, however, certainly open to further discussion of tactical nukes, and may be open to revising the proposal to address them, although the character limit is a serious problem for me still.
My government also feels the "Crimes Against Humanity" section needs to include a clause criminalizing forced medical experimentation.
I would be open to including such a clause, if at some point in future revisions the character limit will allow me to do so. There is currently a proposal, "Medical Research Ethics Act," submitted but not yet in the queue (and with only 29 minutes left, it doesn't look like it will gain the needed approvals). A separate proposal, similar to that one, may be the best vehicle to prohibit forced medical experimentation.
Additionally, my government strongly opposes the clause forbidding WA members from using military force to compel extradition of wanted war criminals. Our very kingdom has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of an attempted genocide and reserves the right to pursue those responsible with whatever means necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice.
I certainly commend your nation's dedication to and pursuit of justice. However, allowing member states to use military force to apprehend wanted persons would, unfortunately, be illegal according to the rules for WA proposals. Proposals cannot directly affect non-member states. I am able to allow the ICC to issue arrest warrants for individuals that are citizens of non-member states because those non-member states are not compelled to actually do anything as a result. I would like to compel them to hand the person over, but doing so would be illegal, and my proposal must follow the rules. Allowing military force would be an illegal compulsion against non-member states. Therefore, I must specifically prohibit military force to ensure the proposal's legality.
Lastly, we suggested the following change to section A of the ICC's tasks towards the accuesed:A. The ICC shall contract with a neutral member state to hold pre-trial detainees ("defendants") and to house, for the duration of their sentences, those convicted by the ICC ("convicts") and sentenced to incarceration
After first hearing this suggestion my inclination was to make the change. The wording certainly sounds good. The problem would come when one attempts to define "neutral." Presumeably, a neutral member state would be one that does not have any citizens as defendants or convicts of the ICC. What happens, though, if the ICC then issues a warrant for a citizen of the member state with which it is contracting to house convicts? If the proposal requires that this member state be "neutral," then the ICC would have to immediately void the contract and contract instead with a different member state, arranging for the transfer of all prisoners, etc. It's also possible (though unlikely) that at some point in the future, every WA member state will have at least one citizen that is a defendant or convict of the ICC. What then?
I would say that the "neutral" wording is not necessary. The ICC would obviously only contract with a member state known for its neutrality, and even if one of that state's citizens were in the ICC's system, that state would have an international obligation to not do anything underhanded (releasing that person, for example). If it tried, the ICC would certainly void the contract and seek out another state to house the convicts. I think it would be counterproductive (and also impossible due to the character limit) to try to specify all of this in the proposal itself, so it's best to just leave it alone.
Again, I thank Your Excellency for the suggestions and am open to any further discussion of them, or further suggestions regarding the tactical nukes issue.