[CHALLENGE] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

[Bananaistan]

Public challenge thread here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=453874

This has ~2.5 days left at vote.

BA and I have posted in the thread agreeing with the challenge.

I move we hear the challenge.

[Bears Armed]

Seconded.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Yea.

With the caveat that an international court that can't handle the most international of crimes is f@#$ing stupid and pointless, I agree that technically the target resolution doesn't prohibit a stupid and pointless an international court per se from being created.

Honest Mistake, illegal.

[Bananaistan]

The Independent Adjudicative Office established in Administrative Compliance Act is an international court in all but name. The target had no impact whatsoever in blocking its establishment.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I s'pose. Though since its fodder is breaches of international law by nations, we should perhaps have found it illegal for contradiction of OUJ (or if not contradiction, then strength), as that can't help but include cases of breach of GAR #38, 121, 242, 272, SP's constellation of laws of war, etc. I suppose the coda at the end of this ruling no longer applies; if our reading in this case is accurate, then our holding there (mine, specifically) was wrong.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Independent Adjudicative Office established in Administrative Compliance Act is an international court in all but name. The target had no impact whatsoever in blocking its establishment.

The IAO doesnt have appellate authority, or even jurisdiction over domestic violations so its a bit like comparing apples to oranges. I maintain that this is an over-technical reading looking for an illegality.

[Bananaistan]

The Independent Adjudicative Office established in Administrative Compliance Act is an international court in all but name. The target had no impact whatsoever in blocking its establishment.

The IAO doesnt have appellate authority, or even jurisdiction over domestic violations so its a bit like comparing apples to oranges. I maintain that this is an over-technical reading looking for an illegality.

The absence of appellate authority or jurisdiction over domestic violations do not make it any less an international court considering that it's an international body, it holds "fair and independent evidentiary hearings", has independent adjudicators, ensures procedural due process, issues punishments &tc. That all looks like a court to me!

I s'pose. Though since its fodder is breaches of international law by nations, we should perhaps have found it illegal for contradiction of OUJ (or if not contradiction, then strength), as that can't help but include cases of breach of GAR #38, 121, 242, 272, SP's constellation of laws of war, etc. I suppose the coda at the end of this ruling no longer applies; if our reading in this case is accurate, then our holding there (mine, specifically) was wrong.

I wouldn't agree. OUJ is all about individuals, specifically section 1 refers to "a crimes allegedly committed by an individual", while ACA is all about nations. IAO whacking a member nation for a breach of, say, GAR#38 does not preempt any member state's claim to universal jurisdiction against an individual under OUJ for that same breach of GAR#38.

[Bears Armed]

So, 3:1 for 'Honest mistake: Illegal' at present. Being that Sciongrad has announced they're likely to be inactive during this period (as they have been), and that Christian Democrats apparently had their 'Most Recent Government Activity' 12 days ago, I suspect that that's all the votes we're going to see cast on this point.
1 day & 16 hours [or slightly less] left until voting ends.
Who's going to post the request for a Discard, unless both of our other members turn up and say 'Legal', and when?
(I might have to be offline for all of tomorrow.)

[Bears Armed]

Anybody? only 15 hours of voting left, now...
I'm here for just over another couple of hours, barring accidents: if nobody else has objected by tow hours from now (3.30pm GMT) then I'll place the request.

EDIT: The request has now been posted.

[Bears Armed]

The new version submitted claims that "Seeing that international courts cannot be established with this resolution in effect,".
Obviously IA is going to claim that this parallels Auralia's use of "criminals cannot be extradited" sufficiently for those of us who recognized that as legal -- on the basis that "criminals" could reasonably be read as "some criminals" rather than just as "all criminals" -- to have to accept this as legal too.
In my opinion, there's enough difference between those two cases in context/emphasis -- especially as he goes on to talk specifically about the type of international law courts that OUJ does block -- for that comparison not to be valid, and so for this version of IA's proposal to be considered just as illegal as the first submitted one.
What do the rest of you think?

[Bananaistan]

I'd lean the other way, following on from my ramblings in the Repeal P Innocents pubic challenge thread. Dropping the an and talking about plurals is enough of a change of emphasis for me to think that it's as reasonable to read it as meaning "some" international courts rather than "all" international courts.

[Bears Armed]

I'll agree that it's only 'borderline' illegal at worst. I haven't actually marked it as 'illegal' yet, myself, anyway.

Let's hope that there isn't a challenge, and a ruling in IA's favour, because I suspect that that would be followed by lengthy arguments from IA that this means we shouldn't have ruled his previous submission to be illegal either...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Do we have the makings of a full precedent-setting opinion here? We've been prompted to release one.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

As we've now been prompted multiple times to release our two most recent opinions, I can assimilate our basic points into an organized format for this one. But not before approx. the middle of next week.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

(Sep - do you care to formalize your "literal meaning" vs. "plain meaning" interpretive scheme into an overt dissent?)

Draft Opinion

We find the challenged resolution illegal for an Honest Mistake violation. Sierra Lyricalia wrote the majority opinion, [[joined by Bananaistan and Bears Armed]]. Separatist Peoples dissented.

As a result of this decision, the proposed repeal was discarded at vote.

Majority Opinion (3-1):

We are asked to assess the legality of "Repeal 'On Universal Jurisdiction.'" Based on one sentence that could be passed off as mere exaggeration, yet still clearly and undeniably misrepresents its target, we find the proposed repeal illegal for an Honest Mistake violation.

The clause in question reads:

Observing that section 7 of the target resolution “[f]orbids 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”,

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

The intent of the target is clear: no international court shall have the power to prosecute e.g. a war crime if any member nation wishes to do so. Universal jurisdiction over such crimes is a benefit and duty of World Assembly membership, and any nation may assert such jurisdiction. Given the sheer number of member states, it seems to beggar belief that for any alleged war crime there won't be even a single nation ready or willing to do so. But the target resolution does in fact leave that possibility open, and there is the repeal's downfall.

The repeal clause in question is effectively guilty of asserting that the underlined portion of the previous paragraph does not exist or can otherwise be ignored. But technically the target does not prohibit the creation of an international court (and it may not even prohibit such a court from prosecuting a war crime, assuming that of the 20,000+ member nations, not a single one would claim jurisdiction over the crime or its suspect).

While the exaggeration is relatively small, it still glosses over a clear nuance in the meaning of its target. The nuance may go indefinitely without ever being applied, but it does exist. Indeed, the same author's Administrative Compliance Act (co-author credit) establishes a body that is an international court in all but name, albeit one that does not criminally prosecute individuals for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Therefore the statement that the target totally prohibits any international court is an Honest Mistake, and the proposed repeal is illegal as submitted.

[Bananaistan]

iSign.

[Bears Armed]

I sign.