[PASSED] World Assembly Justice Accord

[Naboompu]

What exactly constitutes "torturous punishment"? Is a reasonable expectation of penal labour disallowed? Would it not be better to refer to corporal punishment instead?

The World Assembly already has defined and prohibited torture under existing law, establishing a strong standard by which these courts might determine what constitutes torture.

Ah, ok. Great to know. Very comprehensive and well-written resolution by the way. It has my full support.

[Midland]

I would recommend removing the list and adding semicolons in replacement of the commas for the operative clauses describing the resolution, but other than that the resolution looks good. That being said, I do have some qualms. With the first operative clause, it should be subdivided into A. and B., like what you did with Operative Clause 5.

Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

Most notably, with this clause. Midland believe that the court should possess the power of issuing capital punishments, albeit within the reaches of national sovereignty. At the moment, there are no current previous resolutions regulating the usage of capital punishments, nor anything related.

[New Bremerton]

I would recommend removing the list and adding semicolons in replacement of the commas for the operative clauses describing the resolution, but other than that the resolution looks good. That being said, I do have some qualms. With the first operative clause, it should be subdivided into A. and B., like what you did with Operative Clause 5.

Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

Most notably, with this clause. Midland believe that the court should possess the power of issuing capital punishments, albeit within the reaches of national sovereignty. At the moment, there are no current previous resolutions regulating the usage of capital punishments, nor anything related.

"Preventing the Execution of Innocents" regulates capital punishment to a ridiculous and outrageous degree, and is currently up for repeal. There are no international courts at the moment, but there is a committee dedicated to ensuring that no executions occur in practice. New Bremerton will fight against any veiled attempts to outlaw capital punishment both at the national and international level. We request further clarification on whether this proposal would force us to try war criminals and genocidal tyrants who would commit heinous crimes against New Bremertonian citizens at home and abroad in WA courts, for there would be no death penalty, meaning New Bremerton would be legally barred from executing such individuals, who deserve death more than any other type of lesser criminal. Nay, such criminals would have to be tried at the national level in order to ensure that their victims, our citizens, have true justice. WAJA could serve as yet another potential roadblock on top of PtEoI, hence our opposition to it, unless it is amended accordingly.

especially under existing WA law that bans capital punishment.

So does the delegation from Wallenburg acknowledge that PtEoI does exactly that? Or are they referring to another GA resolution that we are not aware of? Because PtEoI at least pretends not to outlaw capital punishment, as willfully deceptive and dishonest as it may be.

Also, how would enforcement occur? Would the WA be tasked with assembling a WA army to invade a nation that is in violation of WA law, overthrowing that nation's government and apprehending government officials suspected of crimes against humanity, and if so, would member states be able to try such criminals or would the WAJC have automatic jurisdiction? How would this apply to war crimes committed solely within a nation's borders by citizens of that nation against their fellow citizens in a protracted civil war in which no other states are involved? Or is the WAJC intended to function more as a means to mediate and rule on disputes between member states (OOC: like the RL ICJ, unlike the RL ICC)?

[Kenmoria]

“Could you maybe find something a bit more creative than three ‘recognising’s in a row for the preamble? Other than that, this proposal has my support, and I like very much that the death penalty cannot be imposed.”

[Wallenburg]

I would recommend removing the list and adding semicolons in replacement of the commas for the operative clauses describing the resolution, but other than that the resolution looks good.

Apart from this being my standard format for active proposals, the list makes it far easier to find specific clauses. If this were only, say, 4 or 5 clauses long then that would not be of much importance, but 10 clauses and additional subclauses can become difficult to navigate without the assistance of a list.

That being said, I do have some qualms. With the first operative clause, it should be subdivided into A. and B., like what you did with Operative Clause 5.

I can certainly see the argument for that, but I'm trying to reduce the number of subclauses as much as possible. In that pursuit, I have used subclauses only to grant the WAJC additional powers and responsibilities related to the parent clause but not sharing parallel language, whereas clause 1's (a) and (b) sections are very similar in construction and can easily fit into one longer clause. The (a) and (b) notation exists solely to assist readers in navigating the complex of commas littered through clause 1. Of course, I will continue to explore other options for the structure of clause 1, but at this time the format adopted in the current draft is my best option.

Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

Most notably, with this clause. Midland believe that the court should possess the power of issuing capital punishments, albeit within the reaches of national sovereignty. At the moment, there are no current previous resolutions regulating the usage of capital punishments, nor anything related.

That is incorrect. Preventing the Execution of Innocents prohibits capital punishment, and to grant WAJL courts the power to kill citizens of member states--many of which prohibit capital punishment on their own accord--would not only turn countless member states hostile to what they might very well see as a barbaric international justice system, but would stand in direct contradiction to existing international policy on capital punishment.

Once again:

The World Assembly has no place in killing the citizens of member states, especially under existing WA law that bans capital punishment. If people want to prosecute for the death penalty against war criminals and the like, then they should 1) push for the repeal of "Protecting Innocents yada yada yada" and 2) prosecute those criminals through their own national criminal justice system.

[Wallenburg]

IC:

So does the delegation from Wallenburg acknowledge that PtEoI does exactly that? Or are they referring to another GA resolution that we are not aware of? Because PtEoI at least pretends not to outlaw capital punishment, as willfully deceptive and dishonest as it may be.

Ogenbond nods, "We most certainly recognize that, and to my knowledge, neither I nor any other member of my delegation has made any statement denying the prohibitive nature of 'Preventing the Execution of Innocents'."

Also, how would enforcement occur? Would the WA be tasked with assembling a WA army to invade a nation that is in violation of WA law, overthrowing that nation's government and apprehending government officials suspected of crimes against humanity, and if so, would member states be able to try such criminals or would the WAJC have automatic jurisdiction? How would this apply to war crimes committed solely within a nation's borders by citizens of that nation against their fellow citizens in a protracted civil war in which no other states are involved? Or is the WAJC intended to function more as a means to mediate and rule on disputes between member states (OOC: like the RL ICJ, unlike the RL ICC)?

"I intend this proposal as a natural extension of existing resolutions meant to increase compliance and extend the power to enforce international legislation. As the preamble reads:

Recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Recognizing that, with no material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

"Standing General Assembly Resolution #2, 'Rights and Duties of WA States', prohibits the World Assembly from raising, maintaining, or directing an army or police force, or even advocating or denouncing military action. For this reason, the World Assembly's ability to guarantee enforcement in all member states is crippled until that resolution is repealed. However, this and resolutions such as 'Compliance Commission', 'Administrative Compliance Act', and 'Circulation of World Assembly Law' make noncompliance far more obvious, egregious, and costly for all member states.

"Those member states that would violate this proposal undoubtedly flaunt existing resolutions. This and other compliance measures (1) make it near impossible for noncompliant member states to feign compliance, (2) force noncompliant states that wish to maintain some semblance of international dignity to adhere to mandates in good faith, and (3) expose willfully and unapologetically noncompliant actors for what they are."

[New Bremerton]

IC:

So does the delegation from Wallenburg acknowledge that PtEoI does exactly that? Or are they referring to another GA resolution that we are not aware of? Because PtEoI at least pretends not to outlaw capital punishment, as willfully deceptive and dishonest as it may be.

Ogenbond nods, "We most certainly recognize that, and to my knowledge, neither I nor any other member of my delegation has made any statement denying the prohibitive nature of 'Preventing the Execution of Innocents'."

Also, how would enforcement occur? Would the WA be tasked with assembling a WA army to invade a nation that is in violation of WA law, overthrowing that nation's government and apprehending government officials suspected of crimes against humanity, and if so, would member states be able to try such criminals or would the WAJC have automatic jurisdiction? How would this apply to war crimes committed solely within a nation's borders by citizens of that nation against their fellow citizens in a protracted civil war in which no other states are involved? Or is the WAJC intended to function more as a means to mediate and rule on disputes between member states (OOC: like the RL ICJ, unlike the RL ICC)?

"I intend this proposal as a natural extension of existing resolutions meant to increase compliance and extend the power to enforce international legislation. As the preamble reads:

Recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Recognizing that, with no material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

"Standing General Assembly Resolution #2, 'Rights and Duties of WA States', prohibits the World Assembly from raising, maintaining, or directing an army or police force, or even advocating or denouncing military action. For this reason, the World Assembly's ability to guarantee enforcement in all member states is crippled until that resolution is repealed. However, this and resolutions such as 'Compliance Commission', 'Administrative Compliance Act', and 'Circulation of World Assembly Law' make noncompliance far more obvious, egregious, and costly for all member states.

"Those member states that would violate this proposal undoubtedly flaunt existing resolutions. This and other compliance measures (1) make it near impossible for noncompliant member states to feign compliance, (2) force noncompliant states that wish to maintain some semblance of international dignity to adhere to mandates in good faith, and (3) expose willfully and unapologetically noncompliant actors for what they are."

So again, to clarify: Issues of enforcement aside, would New Bremerton and other member states be legally compelled to try war criminals and genocidaires in the WA courts, where there is no death penalty, even in situations where all of the parties involved are from one member state alone, or do member states have the final say on the matter of legal jurisdiction? Suppose the governments and laws of (certain) member states (such as ours) are fully compliant with WA law and said states wish to try international criminals who have murdered their citizens in their own national courts (a hypothetical scenario in our case)?

[Wallenburg]

So again, to clarify: Issues of enforcement aside, would New Bremerton and other member states be legally compelled to try war criminals and genocidaires in the WA courts, where there is no death penalty, even in situations where all of the parties involved are from one member state alone, or do member states have the final say on the matter of legal jurisdiction? Suppose the governments and laws of (certain) member states (such as ours) are fully compliant with WA law and said states wish to try international criminals who have murdered their citizens in their own national courts (a hypothetical scenario in our case)?

This proposal contains no clause granting preference to the WA courts, and certainly does not compel member states to surrender jurisdiction over any kind of criminal to this WA court system. If member states are enforcing WA law in good faith, then they have little to worry about. Since this seems to be a common misunderstanding, I will see about making it absolutely obvious.

[New Bremerton]

So again, to clarify: Issues of enforcement aside, would New Bremerton and other member states be legally compelled to try war criminals and genocidaires in the WA courts, where there is no death penalty, even in situations where all of the parties involved are from one member state alone, or do member states have the final say on the matter of legal jurisdiction? Suppose the governments and laws of (certain) member states (such as ours) are fully compliant with WA law and said states wish to try international criminals who have murdered their citizens in their own national courts (a hypothetical scenario in our case)?

This proposal contains no clause granting preference to the WA courts, and certainly does not compel member states to surrender jurisdiction over any kind of criminal to this WA court system. If member states are enforcing WA law in good faith, then they have little to worry about. Since this seems to be a common misunderstanding, I will see about making it absolutely obvious.

Thank you for the clarification. Since WA-compliant member states (such as New Bremerton) will not be legally compelled to try criminals in the WA court system, we will be changing our would-be vote to ABSTAIN.

[Wallenburg]

A couple tweaks made. Any further comments?

[Wallenburg]

Last call for input, this will be submitted within 48 hours.

[Elyreia]

The lenton has given me authorization to put our vote in favor of this legislation in its current form. We have our own war criminal to find and try, and so we are greatly interested in ensuring an apparatus to help in international judiciary such as this.

The delegation from Wallenburg have our support.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Isn't there a specific category/AoE thing for legal/court kind of things like this now?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Isn't there a specific category/AoE thing for legal/court kind of things like this now?

Not really. None of the AoEs for Regulation really capture the purpose of this proposal. I considered legal reform, but trying to shoehorn this into that AoE depends entirely on the association between "legal" and "court".

[Greater vakolicci haven]

((OOC: I am not racist and this is not my view. It is, however, the Havenic view.))

IC:
"The Haven disagrees with this proposal in its entirety. As a nation which does not tolerate the imprisonment of its citizens by foreign governments, and will respond most violently should execution be threatened, the Haven again feels the need to state what should be obvious. The freedom of a Havenic citizen is sacred; it will not be broken by some international law. It is the sacred duty of every Havenic citizen to punish all who would break it; should a judge of this so-called court be killed by a havenic citizen acting on such a duty, the Havenic government would offer its full support. The foreigners life is not sacred in the eyes of the Haven; we care little if you are dead, enslaved, or tortured to the point of deformity. We do not wish for it, but we just simply don't care. You are not a Havenic citizen, and therefore by extention you are unimportant. If you wish to become a havenic citizen, it is free and easy, and can be accomplished in 5 minutes."

[Kenmoria]

((OOC: I am not racist and this is not my view. It is, however, the Havenic view.))

IC:
"The Haven disagrees with this proposal in its entirety. As a nation which does not tolerate the imprisonment of its citizens by foreign governments, and will respond most violently should execution be threatened, the Haven again feels the need to state what should be obvious. The freedom of a Havenic citizen is sacred; it will not be broken by some international law. It is the sacred duty of every Havenic citizen to punish all who would break it; should a judge of this so-called court be killed by a havenic citizen acting on such a duty, the Havenic government would offer its full support. The foreigners life is not sacred in the eyes of the Haven; we care little if you are dead, enslaved, or tortured to the point of deformity. We do not wish for it, but we just simply don't care. You are not a Havenic citizen, and therefore by extention you are unimportant. If you wish to become a havenic citizen, it is free and easy, and can be accomplished in 5 minutes."

“Then your nation is already contravening numerous resolutions, in the double digits, so your opposition is uncared for anyway. As it stands, Kenmoria is not in the WA, but still follows more resolutions than the Haven. It is quite hypocritical to refuse to follow laws to which your nation agreed, by joint the WA, but still be benefited by its programs. For example, this proposal could easily benefit the Haven if a foreign entity acted aggressively towards it.”

[Wallenburg]

"My delegation has no interest in the psychotic ramblings of backwards, nonmember regimes."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"My delegation has no interest in the psychotic ramblings of backwards, nonmember regimes."

((OOC: ICly, the GVH is a member of the WA. I can't put my nation in it for gameplay purposes, however I do vote with a puppet.))

[Wallenburg]

"My delegation has no interest in the psychotic ramblings of backwards, nonmember regimes."

((OOC: ICly, the GVH is a member of the WA. I can't put my nation in it for gameplay purposes, however I do vote with a puppet.))

OOC: I'm not really sure how you can claim to RP as a member when you clearly RP as sustaining policies that violate potentially dozens of WA resolutions.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

((OOC: ICly, the GVH is a member of the WA. I can't put my nation in it for gameplay purposes, however I do vote with a puppet.))

OOC: I'm not really sure how you can claim to RP as a member when you clearly RP as sustaining policies that violate potentially dozens of WA resolutions.

((OOC: The Haven doesn't claim, at all, to be able to maintain its will across its area. It is effectively a failed state.))

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I'm not really sure how you can claim to RP as a member when you clearly RP as sustaining policies that violate potentially dozens of WA resolutions.

((OOC: The Haven doesn't claim, at all, to be able to maintain its will across its area. It is effectively a failed state.))

OOC: That's a bullshit excuse when you RP as a nation that actively encourages violation of WA resolutions.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

((OOC: The Haven doesn't claim, at all, to be able to maintain its will across its area. It is effectively a failed state.))

OOC: That's a bullshit excuse when you RP as a nation that actively encourages violation of WA resolutions.

((OOC: It's all entirely IC. I know the problem with what I'm doing, don't worry.))

[Wallenburg]

Bump, still working on this.

[Kenmoria]

“It’s traditional to have your last clause end with a full stop. Other than that, admittedly rather minor query, this proposal has my support, and this delegation shall most likely cast a vote ‘for’ were it to come to vote.”

[Wallenburg]

“It’s traditional to have your last clause end with a full stop. Other than that, admittedly rather minor query, this proposal has my support, and this delegation shall most likely cast a vote ‘for’ were it to come to vote.”

Thanks for pointing that out, would have been rather embarrassing to submit it with that kind of error.