Uan aa Boa wrote:I never asked you to add a preamble. We're not a hive mind, you know.
You sure about that?
Advertisement
by Lord Dominator » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:00 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:I never asked you to add a preamble. We're not a hive mind, you know.
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:24 am
by New Min » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:27 am
Wallenburg wrote:Serious question: why bother banning capital punishment when you know member states won't comply with that ban? Really, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.
by Forensatha » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:44 am
by Greater vakolicci haven » Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:42 am
by Ru- » Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:17 am
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."
Wallenburg wrote:Serious question: why bother banning capital punishment when you know member states won't comply with that ban? Really, it all comes down to what member states will and will not do. The World Assembly has no real power.
by Kenmoria » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:29 am
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."
by Uan aa Boa » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:06 am
by United Massachusetts » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:43 am
Kenmoria wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"Some things are really difficult for the world assembly's stuffier diplomats to understand," Lord Zahl spoke in his usual condescending tones.
"Banning capital punishment is just another in a long line of idiotic decisions handed down by this assembly which alienates nations who would previously have joined and helped to assist it in protecting cevillians in war, the environment from over-industrialising, and in aiding the standardisation of shipping regulations. In short, stuff that an international organisation should be doing. Some infringements on national sovereignty may be needed, for sure, however banning capital punishment defies logic: it is not the worlds responsibility to cry at the feight of certain of our criminals, much as it is not the duty of Havenic officials to protect the criminals of other far-off nations. This is a matter for nations and provinces. Firmly opposed."
One of the stuffier diplomats from the World Assembly, James Lewitt, rises to speak. “Whilst there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty, driving away nations is not one of them. It could be said that a ban on slavery harms nations that rely on the slave trade for their economy, or a ban on torture is unacceptable to those that consider part of ancient ritual sacrifice, also forbidden. The World Assembly isn’t there to pass proposals that please every nation, that would be impossible, and certainly shouldn’t aim to appease those who already are blatantly in noncompliance. The stronger the proposals passed, the more of an impact the WA has on global affairs. If nations leave, so be it, we cannot force them to stay nor should we want them to if they have no interest in following the legislation they voted on.”
“Although, I do think the war criminal problem outlined by the Ru delegation needs to be addressed, as it stops the worst of the worst from being extradited to the places they hurt most.”
Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.
Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.
Declares that no member state shall permit the execution of any person within its jurisdiction.
by Kenmoria » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:31 am
United Massachusetts wrote:EDIT: Do I need to do this:Declares that no member state shall permit the execution of any person within its jurisdiction.
to prevent subnational units (ie. states, provinces, counties, etc.) from executing people?
by Greater vakolicci haven » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:13 am
United Massachusetts wrote:Kenmoria wrote:One of the stuffier diplomats from the World Assembly, James Lewitt, rises to speak. “Whilst there are valid reasons to oppose the death penalty, driving away nations is not one of them. It could be said that a ban on slavery harms nations that rely on the slave trade for their economy, or a ban on torture is unacceptable to those that consider part of ancient ritual sacrifice, also forbidden. The World Assembly isn’t there to pass proposals that please every nation, that would be impossible, and certainly shouldn’t aim to appease those who already are blatantly in noncompliance. The stronger the proposals passed, the more of an impact the WA has on global affairs. If nations leave, so be it, we cannot force them to stay nor should we want them to if they have no interest in following the legislation they voted on.”
“Although, I do think the war criminal problem outlined by the Ru delegation needs to be addressed, as it stops the worst of the worst from being extradited to the places they hurt most.”
Presumably, if their crimes are so heinous as to want make the death penalty, they could be extradited to a court of international jurisdiction (for instance, a war crimes tribunal) that is likely to be established in the future. It's a thin line, but is absolutely there, I think.Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.
Also:Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.
The ban on the death penalty would appear to outlaw the death penalty only in courts of national jurisdiction. Thus, if an international court wants the death penalty, I shan't stop them. When said court is established, it is up to the WA to determine policy there.
I have merely left the door open to the possibility.
EDIT: Do I need to do this:Declares that no member state shall permit the execution of any person within its jurisdiction.
to prevent subnational units (ie. states, provinces, counties, etc.) from executing people?
by United Massachusetts » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:00 am
by United Massachusetts » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:11 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:In clause 3 "in line" should be two words. Otherwise, this looks great and I think it's ready to go.
by Uan aa Boa » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:34 am
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"The revised version would be unenforceable in the Greater Vakolicci Haven. The Havenic central courts, in Iros, which try criminals accused of federal crimes (largely treason and corporate offenses) does not practice the death penalty. However most criminal matters are handled by provincial courts, which the Havenic constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating. Changing this constitution would invariably result in the Haven ceasing to be: Celeria is not going to drop slavery, Velstrania will never allow it within its borders; Vrarna will never allow for private mercenary forces to operate from its territory, and the corporate states will not forego such a lucrative source of income."
United Massachusetts wrote:Thanks, Uan, for all the help. <3
by Bears Armed » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:39 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"The revised version would be unenforceable in the Greater Vakolicci Haven. The Havenic central courts, in Iros, which try criminals accused of federal crimes (largely treason and corporate offenses) does not practice the death penalty. However most criminal matters are handled by provincial courts, which the Havenic constitution prohibits the federal government from regulating. Changing this constitution would invariably result in the Haven ceasing to be: Celeria is not going to drop slavery, Velstrania will never allow it within its borders; Vrarna will never allow for private mercenary forces to operate from its territory, and the corporate states will not forego such a lucrative source of income."
Since the Haven is clearly not compliant with GA#23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking and GA#37 Fairness in Criminal Trials you can add this proposal to the list when it passes.
by Omicron Convenience IV » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:26 pm
by Kenmoria » Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:07 am
Omicron Convenience IV wrote:Haven's claims are literally impossible. It is not possible to fail to comply with WA resolutions, it is automatic and completely effective. Claims to the contrary should be dismissed, because they are necessarily wrong.
by Omicron Convenience IV » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:35 am
by Ru- » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:10 pm
by A Cornstar » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:37 pm
by A Cornstar » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:16 am
by United Massachusetts » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:47 am
A cornstar wrote:Regarding the author's religious inspiration, I would like to remind my esteemed brother of Genesis 9:6, Acts 25:10-11, and Romans 13:1-4.
In any case my nation RP is that our society is entirely militarized; we'll just formally declare war on crime.
by A Cornstar » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:44 pm
United Massachusetts wrote:A cornstar wrote:Regarding the author's religious inspiration, I would like to remind my esteemed brother of Genesis 9:6, Acts 25:10-11, and Romans 13:1-4.
In any case my nation RP is that our society is entirely militarized; we'll just formally declare war on crime.
I would like to remind my brother equally that the risen Lord himself was a victim of the execution of the innocent, and his life would appear to indicate opposition to the very notion of "eye for an eye" justice. This is particularly noteworthy considering that Jesus himself publicly thwarted an execution, claiming that only he without sin should throw stones at the adulterer.
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:19 am
United Massachusetts wrote:[quote="A cornstar";p="34582113"I would like to remind my brother equally that the risen Lord himself was a victim of the execution of the innocent
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement