[PASSED] No Penalty Without Law

[Sciongrad]

Category: Human Rights | Category: Significant | Proposer: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its stance that "one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law,"

Regretting, however, the lack of legal safeguards protecting individuals from criminal penalties in circumstances where no relevant law exists,

Believing that the World Assembly must act to rectify this oversight,

1. Declares that neither member nations, political subdivisions thereof, nor any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual unless such action is specifically permitted by international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

2. Mandates that such established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law shall define any punishable action in good faith so as to minimize ambiguity in enforcement;

3. Requires member nations to ensure that all established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated when it is determined to be both practical and necessary in preventing their inhabitants from committing punishable actions;

4. Prohibits member nations, political subdivisions thereof, or any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified, and;

6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall provide protection for those that claim ignorance of the law if the relevant law is publicly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of clause three.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its stance that "one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law,"

Regretting, however, the lack of legal safeguards protecting individuals from criminal penalties in circumstances where no relevant law exists,

Believing that the World Assembly must act to rectify this oversight,

1. Declares that neither member nations, nor political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish by law any individual unless such action is specifically permitted by international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

2. Permits the following exceptions to clause one, subject to limitations and guidelines recognized by extant General Assembly legislation: instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of themselves or others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning;

3. Mandates that such established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law shall define the punishable action in good faith so as to minimize ambiguity;

4. Requires member nations to ensure that all established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified, and;

6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall provide protection for those that claim ignorance of the law if the relevant law is publicly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of clause four.

[Sciongrad]

"It seems that nulla poena sine lege scripta is too radical a concept for this august assembly to embrace, so I've removed that bit on customary law. Furthermore, I've changed clause one (previously clause three) to permit detainment based not only on criminal law, but all law in general, so qualms concerning quarantine and conscription should be resolved as well."

[Araraukar]

Is clause #2 still supposed to be referring to clause #3 (as in old draft) or clause #1 (in this draft)?

Also, clause #6 refers to itself.

[Defwa]

Also, clause #6 refers to itself.

It's a really important clause.

[Sciongrad]

Is clause #2 still supposed to be referring to clause #3 (as in old draft) or clause #1 (in this draft)?

Also, clause #6 refers to itself.

"Good catches. I've fixed them."

Also, clause #6 refers to itself.

It's a really important clause.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We see that this new draft avoids the confusion between "common law" and "customary law". Instead, it focuses on the principles that (1) laws must be both made public and written so as to avoid ambiguity, and (2) arrest, detention and punishment can only be based on laws following principle (1). As a nation that firmly believes in the Rule of Law, we agree with these principles, and support this proposal as drafted.

[Nucoclan]

I support this version.

[Christian Democrats]

Again, I shall oppose this proposal as it shows undue favor for Western legal systems.

Also, it is unreasonable to require that laws be "publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary."

[Sciongrad]

Again, I shall oppose this proposal as it shows undue favor for Western legal systems.

"You're going to have to clarify your concern here, your Excellency."

Also, it is unreasonable to require that laws be "publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary."

"That is by no means an unreasonable expectation. If member nations only do some of what is necessary to publicly promulgate their laws, then they obviously haven't done so very effectively. As a matter of fact, the term itself prevents excessive or unnecessary efforts at promulgating laws. If a measure is excessive or unreasonable, then it's not necessary, and therefore not required. Effectively promulgating laws in a way that is both practical and necessary can be as simple as making them publicly accessible. For nations that rely on unwritten law, the standard may be higher, but still, the term inherently precludes excessive efforts."

[Lexicor]

5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified, and;

By nullified do you mean rescinded and removed from criminal record or simply nullified?

[Christian Democrats]

Again, I shall oppose this proposal as it shows undue favor for Western legal systems.

"You're going to have to clarify your concern here, your Excellency."

Your proposal assumes the superiority of common law and civil law over other legal systems, such as xeer.

If member nations only do some of what is necessary to publicly promulgate their laws, then they obviously haven't done so very effectively.

Why is this so "obvious"? If a nation publishes its laws online and nowhere else, for instance, this would be perfectly fine.

[Hakio]

We support this proposal like we did it's former incarnation. We might encourage you to maybe change the proposals name however to not associate with the negative reaction you got before. I don't know, maybe I'm starting to sound like Chester Pearson.

Hedishi lights her joint.

[Nucoclan]

We support this proposal like we did it's former incarnation. We might encourage you to maybe change the proposals name however to not associate with the negative reaction you got before. I don't know, maybe I'm starting to sound like Chester Pearson.

Hedishi lights her joint.

That's funny.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

"You're going to have to clarify your concern here, your Excellency."

Your proposal assumes the superiority of common law and civil law over other legal systems, such as xeer.

Could the esteemed representative explain their reasoning here? Our reading of the proposal indicates that it is neutral between the various legal codes; it only requires that a nation have a legal code.

[Chester Pearson]

When you submit, I stand ready to approve and vote FOR this Ambassador Santos....

Warmest regards,

[Christian Democrats]

Our reading of the proposal indicates that it is neutral between the various legal codes; it only requires that a nation have a legal code.

Unless I'm missing something, this proposal would not require nations to have legal codes.

OOC: The United States didn't have a legal code for the first century of its history.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

We remain opposed. We find the following clause ...

Permits the following exceptions to clause one, subject to limitations and guidelines recognized by extant General Assembly legislation: instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of themselves or others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning;

too restricting.

[Sciongrad]

Your proposal assumes the superiority of common law and civil law over other legal systems, such as xeer.

OOC: I'm not sure how systems like Xeer would be prohibited by this proposal as its written. Xeer uses customary law and often precedent to resolve disputes without actual laws in place, which is permitted by this proposal now that the prohibition on customary law has been removed.

Why is this so "obvious"? If a nation publishes its laws online and nowhere else, for instance, this would be perfectly fine.

"That was actually the point I just tried to make. If publishing its laws online and nowhere else is all that is necessary for a state to effectively promulgate them, then the resolution would require nothing more. The requirement is not as unreasonable as you're making it out to be.

We remain opposed. We find the following clause ...

Permits the following exceptions to clause one, subject to limitations and guidelines recognized by extant General Assembly legislation: instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of themselves or others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning;

too restricting.

"You'll have to be clearer than that, ambassador. I have many talents, but reading minds is not one of them. Tell me your specific concern, and I'll address it as best I can."

[Christian Democrats]

Xeer uses customary law and often precedent to resolve disputes without actual laws in place

See! You continue to take a Western-centric view even when I'm pointing it out to you. Xeer is actually law as are the other systems that you are implicitly rejecting as culturally inferior merely based on their form and not on their substance.

If old men in black robes get together and make decisions, it's "real law."
If tribal elders in loincloths get together and make decisions, it's "fake law."

[Sciongrad]

Xeer uses customary law and often precedent to resolve disputes without actual laws in place

See! You continue to take a Western-centric view even when I'm pointing it out to you. Xeer is actually law as are the other systems that you are implicitly rejecting as culturally inferior merely based on their form and not on their substance.

OOC: That's obviously not what I meant. If I've said that Xeer is a valid legal system that's consistent with nulla poena sine lege, then it's probably safe to assume that I consider it law. When I said "actual law," I meant codified laws, which was an obvious miscommunication on my part. The implicit accusations of racism are probably unnecessary. More relevant to this discussion is how, if at all, the proposal fails to recognize polycentric legal systems that rely on customary law, like Xeer.

[Araraukar]

Xeer is actually law

...is Xeer the law system in your nation? I'm curious now.

[Hakio]

Xeer uses customary law and often precedent to resolve disputes without actual laws in place

See! You continue to take a Western-centric view even when I'm pointing it out to you. Xeer is actually law as are the other systems that you are implicitly rejecting as culturally inferior merely based on their form and not on their substance.

If old men in black robes get together and make decisions, it's "real law."
If tribal elders in loincloths get together and make decisions, it's "fake law."

What the fuck is this "Xeer" you speak of and why should I hold it in consideration against western centric legal systems?

[Wrapper]

What the fuck is this "Xeer" you speak of and why should I hold it in consideration against western centric legal systems?

What the fuck is this "western centric legal systems" you speak of?

[Hakio]

What the fuck is this "Xeer" you speak of and why should I hold it in consideration against western centric legal systems?

What the fuck is this "western centric legal systems" you speak of?

Well he was referring to Xeer as a opposed to our "Western-Centric Legal System", I didn't come up with the term; Christian Democrats did. I have no idea what he meant by that or by his constant references towards the "Xeer legal system".

Hedishi grasps her head exasperated. Takes out a bottle of scotch and pours herself a drink.

Xeer legal system... I need a drink.

[Sciongrad]

"I really would like some more feedback, folks, because if another easily preventable issues arise the next time it's submitted, I'm pretty sure I'll have an aneurysm."