[ABANDONED] Repeal "Refugee Protection"

[Jutsa]

"Despite being a fairly new diplomat to the General Assembly, the allied states of Jutsa has some concerns about the following resolution,
and as such, I bring to the floor a proposal to repeal it, in hopes that it will be replaced with a more reasonable resolution in the future."

OOC: Second attempt, first repeal, first time proposing at least partially IC; I'm terrified, but even if this gets ripped to shreds and everyone points at me,
I thank you all for your time and honesty. Any help is appreciated.

Part 2: Legal Process of Refugees
Part 3: Rights of Refugees
Part 4: Asylum Accord

---

Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Worrying, however, that existing protection offers several loopholes and creates numerous unintentional consequences,

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

1. Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";
   
   
2. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;
   
   
3. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

Disgraced that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 still makes direct extradition totally illegal, and forces member nations to resort to a loophole involving a third party not residing in the World Assembly, which can then be done without regulation,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.

---

Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting that the lack of a definition of a "well-founded fear of unjust persecution" could imply that criminals can place a financial and bureaucratic burden upon a nation on a claim that their persecution would be unjust,

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

1. Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";
   
   
2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, and including those not classified as refugees, to not be transferred to a territory where they would likely be punished if said criminals claim they'd be persecuted or unjustly prosecuted;
   
   
3. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;
   
   
4. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

Disgraced that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 still makes direct extradition entirely illegal, and forces member nations to resort to a loophole involving a third party not residing in the World Assembly, which can then be done without regulation,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.

---

Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting that the lack of a definition of a "well-founded fear of unjust persecution" could imply that criminals can place a financial and bureaucratic burden upon a nation on a claim that their persecution would be unjust,

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

1. Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";
   
   
2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, and including those not classified as refugees, to not be transferred to a territory where they would likely be punished;
   
   
3. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;
   
   
4. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

Further noting that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 makes extradition illegal, although still technically viable and unrestricted through a loophole involving trade with a third party, and thus renders the article mostly useless,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.

---

Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacement resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

1. Overstepping its bounds in attempting to address not only refugees, but all non-refugees as well;
   
   
2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, to not be transferred to a territory where they would likely be punished;
   
   
3. Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;
   
   
4. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

Further noting that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 technically makes extradition illegal and thus renders the article mostly useless,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.

---

Repeal "Refugee Protection"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #57

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts made to protect refugees' rights and protect them from additional harm,

Hoping a replacemet resolution will continue to protect refugees as quickly as possible,

Observing however the fact that refugees are defined as "any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution", which could include those who have committed acts of crime, even those which are considered crimes by the member nation they reside in or by the World Assembly,

Noting the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:

1. Overstepping its bounds in attempting to address not only refugees, but all non-refugees as well;
   
   
2. Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, to not be transfered to a territory where they would likely be punished;
   
   
3. Forbiding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;
   
   
4. Forcing transortation, including but not limited to busses, trains, ships and planes, to stop or turn around if a refugee, or any non-refugee, decides last-minute to not go to the described territory;
   
   
5. Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

Further noting that clause 4 essentially mandates that a member nation facilitate the naturalization of a refugee in that nation if said refugee requests it, regardless of whether said refugee was granted asylum,

Dismayed that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 technically makes extradition illegal and thus renders the article mostly useless,

Hereby repeals GA 57 “Refugee Protection”.

[Doing it Rightland]

Interesting move, and I do believe you have some good ideas here. I'd just like to point out a few issues that I believe may be of note.

Technically allowing people who are considered criminals, even from the view of the World Assembly, to not be transfered to a territory where they would likely be punished;

I would disagree here. The target prohibits such movements if they may result in "...unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution..." However, assuming such punishments are justified (i.e. criminals that have been justly sentenced) then it should be totally fine.

Forcing transortation, including but not limited to busses, trains, ships and planes, to stop or turn around if a refugee, or any non-refugee, decides last-minute to not go to the described territory;

This is technically not true, as they could simply remove the refugee and continue forward. I would remove the "turn around" part as the target doesn't necessarily require it.

Further noting that clause 4 essentially mandates that a member nation facilitate the naturalization of a refugee in that nation if said refugee requests it, regardless of whether said refugee was granted asylum,

I disagree with your interpretation of the target's clause in this case. I believe that clause 4's meaning is that if a refugee requests assistance with the naturalization and integration process (which itself implies the individual is already permitted to stay, which would constitute asylum) to the best of the nation's ability. And here, you could make the argument that if the nation has laws in place forbidding certain forms of assistance, then the "best of the nation's ability" falls within those standards, thus the nation may not be mandated to facilitate the naturalization.

I agree that the phrasing of target's clauses 1 and 6 do present the possibility to interpret a contradiction of sorts. I still might rephrase that part because of the potential "criminal" issue not being one, but I'll let others comment on that as well. It's certainly a good start, and its nice to see it on the forums and not already submitted; that's how these things get polished out beforehand.

Hopefully this helps, and I wish you luck!

[Jutsa]

"Indeed this has, ambassador! Your input is invaluable!"

*takes a moment to polish a pair of pince-nez*

"All of your points are reassuring... except for one. I still argue that article 1 exempts criminal behavior, as stated:"
*spends about ten seconds looking for it.*

"Ahah. 'to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution'.
This means that any a person guilty of pretty much any crimes is not allowed to be forced back home,
and thus, essentially makes extradition impossible. Though your other points also exist,
I'd like to highlight that the conjunction is or, not and, and thus, it is to my belief,
along with the rest of the allied states of Jutsa, that this is a viable and dastardly loophole."

OOC: Seriously though, many thanks. If you still argue it's not a problem, I'm all eyes.

[Jutsa]

"A new draft has been provided. The old one is currently documented, however, so as not to lose the potentially albeit unlikely valuable information it contained."

OOC: old versions are the norm in GI, figure it probably is here too. Also fixed several typos... another problem I always confront myself with over in GI.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Link the resolution somewhere in your thread. Here's a link : viewtopic.php?p=473724#p473724

[Capercom]

I like it. I've had issues with this Resolution before but haven't had the time to cross it off the list of things I need to discuss with my superiors so they can start the lobbying process.

Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

I would assume the author meant both a nation or a region, not being exclusive to just a refugee of a nation. But until you mentioned it in the repeal, I never thought about the fact it could mean internal borders between states within a nation. Good catch.

Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

Exactly! By allowing a loophole in the Resolution, the W.A. is enabling secret channel discussions amongst non-member and member nations to create a triangle of deportation to completely negate this Resolution's purpose.

Overall, it's not a bad repeal. I think there needs to be a little more meat to it for explanations. Exactly how does it "overstep its bounds" in point "a.", etc.

So below are some spitballing ideas in relation to the repeal of this. Some of it you've touched on, but I'm providing my view of some things that may spark a thought for additions to the draft:

A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality, or who refuses to do so because of a well-founded fear of unjust persecution.

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration...

...2. Where a member nation has denied asylum to or expelled a refugee, the nation shall, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that person's transport to another nation which is willing to grant asylum, and must not obstruct that person's efforts to seek asylum in another nation.

A murderer, who doesn't want to go to jail, can claim fear of an unjust incarceration. This Resolution specifies no definition of the burden of proof required by the refugee to prove his/her fear is "well-founded".

Example: Steve kills a school bus full of kids because he was driving while extremely tired. He feared being sent to jail for life for killing 20 children + the bus driver. He flees the country to the neighboring nation. They go through their processes to accept/deny asylum. They find out via internet searches he's wanted for the wreck. He makes the claim that it was the bus driver's fault, not his, and he is getting framed because someone needs to be punished and everyone's dead but him.

Per the Resolution, because he's claiming unjust persecution if he returns home, regardless of their immigration policies, the "neighboring nation" he fled to now bears the financial burden of assisting him find a nation that will accept his asylum request based on his false statements regarding his fear of unjust incarceration.

4. In recognition of the potential that the circumstances causing a person to become a refugee may exist in the long term, member nations shall as far as possible seek to facilitate the naturalisation and favourable integration of refugees, should the refugee request such assistance.

I don't like the vagueness of "favourable integration of refugees". A W.A. nation could create tent cities specifically to house asylum refugees and force them to live there, as they aren't citizens and don't have full rights within all nations, but claim that is their way of providing "favourable integration" because the government is still providing basic necessities to those they so "graciously" granted asylum.

I feel the vague wording of that allows W.A. member nations to treat refugees in sub-par ways that are counter to the usual W.A.'s goal to improve humanity.

I'm in full support of this repeal and would love to assist however I could to see it make it to the Proposal voting stage!

[Jutsa]

Link the resolution somewhere in your thread. Here's a link : viewtopic.php?p=473724#p473724

Linked.

I like it. I've had issues with this Resolution before but haven't had the time to cross it off the list of things I need to discuss with my superiors so they can start the lobbying process.

"Understandable. Due to our being fairly new, we don't have a lot of things in need of crossing off just yet."

I think there needs to be a little more meat to it for explanations. Exactly how does it "overstep its bounds" in point "a.", etc.

"Agreed. This has been rephrased to hopefully add a bit more detail.
I am aware that more meat could be included, but am not at ease with the idea of making the repeal too unnecessarily long-winded. Any suggestions are appreciated."

A murderer, who doesn't want to go to jail, can claim fear of an unjust incarceration. This Resolution specifies no definition of the burden of proof required by the refugee to prove his/her fear is "well-founded".

"Would an example such as this, especially given its length, be permitted in a resolution? We are uncertain, though this point has been noted and added to the text."

I don't like the vagueness of "favourable integration of refugees".

"I, too, was disturbed by this. I disregarded this fact upon reading 'facilitate the naturalisation', but I forgot that this is still a viable point after, as Doing it Rightland pointed out, would be 'to the best of the nation's ability', which in turn makes this a serious problem. This clause has been added."

"I have also added a bit more information to the point about article 6, as well as section b detailing the flaws of article 1."

I'm in full support of this repeal and would love to assist however I could to see it make it to the Proposal voting stage!

"Thank you for your invaluable input, ambassador. It is greatly appreciated."

OOC: This genuinely has a lot more positive reception than I first thought it would. Many thanks for the help!

[Imperium Anglorum]

When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?

[Capercom]

When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?

Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

[Kowani]

When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?

Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

That is the norm, yes. Or at least, a barebones idea.

[Imperium Anglorum]

When it comes to something of such import as this, I think there is reason to ask for a replacement. If you have one, could you link it?

Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

Not necessarily immediately, but a draft that shall credibly be passed within a short time frame of the repeal.

[Capercom]

Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

Not necessarily immediately, but a draft that shall credibly be passed within a short time frame of the repeal.

Are you stating that he needs to push this repeal and a replacement proposal at the same time so they follow voting on the floor back to back?

That is the norm, yes. Or at least, a barebones idea.

Thank you, I wanted to make sure I understood what was being said! I've been in trouble numerous times in the past by my (now former) W.A. Ambassador bosses for assuming during the drafting process.

[Jutsa]

"Unfortunately, we do not currently have a replacement draft made. I would be honored to pass the word and propose a replacement, however.
I hope that, upon the creation of such a draft, that we can work together to iron out the loopholes found in this draft while also avoiding new ones."

[Capercom]

"Unfortunately, we do not currently have a replacement draft made. I would be honored to pass the word and propose a replacement, however.
I hope that, upon the creation of such a draft, that we can work together to iron out the loopholes found in this draft while also avoiding new ones."

Iron this one out, get the replacement ball rolling, and I'm sure you'll have plenty of nations offering their opinion!

[Kenmoria]

“The further noting clause seems as though it addresses two separate points: that the resolution in question attempts to ban extradition, and that this ban is worthless anyway because of a loophole. I question what is the problem with the target resolution banning extradition, if it actually doesn’t. You mention a third party having to be involved, so I would recommend writing something about that.”

[Jutsa]

"Ah, yes. I should certainly clarify that what I'm referring to is that direct extradition is illegal. I shall attempt to rectify that."

[Jutsa]

"We have removed former clause 'b' on account of 'unjustified' officially being recognized by us as an acceptable term,
as the nation helping the refugee can determine whether a charge was justified through courts and laws governing extradition."

[Kenmoria]

“I find the observing clause doesn’t quite work in light of the word ‘unjust’ being in the original resolution in the referenced mandate. Also, the word ‘totally’, in the final clause looks rather informal for a GA proposal.”

[Jutsa]

"Good points. Also, the clause beneath the observation clause also builds off of that.

Thank you, ambassador. The appropriate adjustments have been made."

[Kelssek]

Disgraced by the extensive flaws of Article 1, including:
[list=a][*]Overstepping its bounds, which should be limited to protecting the rights of refugees, by deliberately stating "No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee";

"Overstepping bounds" is a debatable claim, not statement of fact. It's a nice rhetorical ploy lots of repeals use but that doesn't make it tenable. So please explain why you think the non-refoulement clause should not apply universally regardless of whether someone is classified as a refugee, and has no place in World Assembly law. Regardless of whether someone is fleeing persecution, surely you would agree it is an important individual right not to be forcibly sent somewhere they would face serious violations of their rights, such as a state for some reason deporting someone to a place where that person's ethnicity makes them a slave, for instance.

Something I note may be at the root of many misunderstandings is that "prosecution" (which means being the subject of criminal proceedings and does not appear in the resolution) and "persecution" (which one authoritative dictionary defines as "hostility and ill-treatement; oppression") are different words with different meanings, and the drafter of this repeal seems to be confusing them.

[*]Forbidding forced transport of criminals within national borders due to the definition of "territories" not being specified;

Resolution 57 simply does not do that. The phrase "territories" was used specifically because it is a broad term with a primarily geographic meaning, avoiding the potential loopholes that could be created by using words like "state" or "country".

Even if one accepts this tendentious interpretation of "territories", member states are still entirely free to move prisoners and detainees around inside their territory, unless they intend to carry out "persecution, unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution, torture, or other serious violations of their rights" within its prison system. Not only are these things which are also illegal under other resolutions like #9 and #35, for instance, I would argue it's probably a Good Thing this might be interpreted to prohibit it.

[*]Despite attempting to prevent forced transport of people to nations where they'd be at risk of persecution or torture, not forbidding member nations from forcibly transporting people to non-member nations which could, in turn, transport people to nations where they'd be at risk,

If this is being coordinated in any way between the member state A and non-member state B, State A is still "transporting" people in violation of the non-refoulement clause and that would be prohibited. The wording does not necessarily cover only the first stop of the journey, indeed it says "in any manner" which covers this kind of "forced rendition" tactic.

No resolution can enforce compliance on a non-member state. To the extent that this is not a complete protection, I don't see how any resolution we pass could improve on this.

Disturbed by the fact that article 4 tasks upon member nations to see "as far as possible" to create "favourable integration of refugees", which could imply that a government do its best to create integration conditions that are favourable to its agendas and thus unfavourable conditions for the refugees,

It could imply. But that doesn't mean it does, and the clearest reading is that integration is to be favourable for the refugee's interests. Overall, this is a very vague concern. Indeed in certain "governmentality" theories of political sociology, any application of state power is likely to produce such effects. Moreover, the clause also says "should the refugee request such assistance" so if they consider it to be creating unfavourable conditions for them, they can refuse.

Disgraced that despite article 6's attempt to protect extradition, its exception to article 1 still makes direct extradition totally illegal, and forces member nations to resort to a loophole involving a third party not residing in the World Assembly, which can then be done without regulation,

For reasons already explained: no it doesn't, and no it doesn't. In the case where this resolution prohibits a WA member state from extraditing someone to a jurisdiction where they would have their basic rights violated, that is part of the intent of article 1's non-refoulement principle and I challenge you to argue why you believe this would be justified.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As you are the author, what are your thoughts on this vis-à-vis extradition?

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution...

[The Republic Of Ardenhelm]

Why I’m not in the WA. we are all full blooded Norsemen here! No racism and no race crime and tourists can’t stay!

[Kelssek]

As you are the author, what are your thoughts on this vis-à-vis extradition?

1. No person, whether or not they meet the definitions of a refugee, shall be transported against their will, in any manner or for any reason, to a territory in which that person may be put at risk of persecution...

This section permits extradition as long as doing so does not force a person somewhere where they will be subject to "serious violations of their rights", where persecution, torture, etc. are given as explicit examples of what that term means. If they are being extradited to face a fair trial in which there are reasonable protections of their legal and civil liberties, they are facing incarceration or execution (opinions about the death penalty notwithstanding) in accordance with procedures meant to achieve justice. No problem there, and non-refoulement as formulated here puts no obstacle to such an extradition proceeding.

But maybe the state requesting extradition considers that individual to only count as 3/5ths of a person because of their skin colour ("unjustifiable discriminatory treatment"). Maybe torture is a routine occurrence in that state's prison system. If that's the case, then the person cannot be extradited to that particular place at that particular time. This is a good thing - it helps to prevent serious violations of individual rights. [OOC: The courts of the country the person is in would presumably decide these questions, or however we think of the Compliance Gnomes working these days.]

Again, the key word is persecution. It is not the same as prosecution. Now, sometimes dissidents or other people get charged with crimes like treason, terrorism, sedition, or some other specious legal violation by a state that wants to get their hands on them. In other words, they use criminal proceedings (prosecutions) as a means of persecution. This provision would indeed block extradition in such circumstances, and is in line with the concept of political asylum. But it would certainly not block extradition to face prosecution, generally speaking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This section permits extradition as long as doing so does not force a person somewhere where they will be subject to "serious violations of their rights", where persecution, torture, etc. are given as explicit examples of what that term means. If they are being extradited to face a fair trial in which there are reasonable protections of their legal and civil liberties, they are facing incarceration or execution (opinions about the death penalty notwithstanding) in accordance with procedures meant to achieve justice. No problem there, and non-refoulement as formulated here puts no obstacle to such an extradition proceeding.

But maybe the state requesting extradition considers that individual to only count as 3/5ths of a person because of their skin colour ("unjustifiable discriminatory treatment"). Maybe torture is a routine occurrence in that state's prison system. If that's the case, then the person cannot be extradited to that particular place at that particular time. This is a good thing - it helps to prevent serious violations of individual rights. [OOC: The courts of the country the person is in would presumably decide these questions, or however we think of the Compliance Gnomes working these days.]

Again, the key word is persecution. It is not the same as prosecution. Now, sometimes dissidents or other people get charged with crimes like treason, terrorism, sedition, or some other specious legal violation. In other words, they use criminal proceedings (prosecutions) as a means of persecution. This provision would indeed block extradition in such circumstances. But it would certainly not block extradition to face prosecution, generally speaking.

That's what I wanted to hear, thanks.

[Jutsa]

OOC: Indeed, I did originally mix of persecution and prosecution quite a lot before remembering there's a difference.

Regardless of whether someone is fleeing persecution, surely you would agree it is an important individual right not to be forcibly sent somewhere they would face serious violations of their rights, such as a state for some reason deporting someone to a place where that person's ethnicity makes them a slave, for instance.

"I agree wholeheartedly, and believe it's a good thing to have covered in legislation. However, the fact that this is covered in a piece of legislation that is specifically designed for refugees is the part I'm disagreeing with, ambassador. We honour your intentions, and will accept if this must remain this way, but we hope it will become its own resolution."

Something I note may be at the root of many misunderstandings is that "prosecution" (which means being the subject of criminal proceedings and does not appear in the resolution) and "persecution" (which one authoritative dictionary defines as "hostility and ill-treatement; oppression") are different words with different meanings, and the drafter of this repeal seems to be confusing them.

"Though it is true that we made a terrible mistake in this original interpretation, the fact of the matter is this still means that a person can not be extradited if, upon later being released, they have to face potential persecution from non-government entities. While we loathe the very idea, if a person has, in fact, committed a crime in a nation where they may be at risk of any of these factors, but not directly from their government, and only upon said person being released, should the government still not have the right to hold their criminals accountable if they so choose?"

Even if one accepts this tendentious interpretation of "territories", member states are still entirely free to move prisoners and detainees around inside their territory, unless they intend to carry out "persecution, unjustifiably discriminatory treatment, unjust incarceration or execution, torture, or other serious violations of their rights" within its prison system. Not only are these things which are also illegal under other resolutions like #9 and #35, for instance, I would argue it's probably a Good Thing this might be interpreted to prohibit it.

"This is an excellent point, Ambassador! Indeed, the World Assembly already prevents internal territories from doing such acts. However, I may note that some nations may still have trouble keeping rebellious and non-compliant vigilanties that could still pose a serious risk. This still technically means that a person could not be transported to a territory where illegal happenings are going on — even if that place it technically safer than another 'territory' they're currently in. We admit this is a very sharp nitpick of the definition, but one we're afraid could technically still be exploited without 'risk' being further defined."

If this is being coordinated in any way between the member state A and non-member state B, State A is still "transporting" people in violation of the non-refoulement clause and that would be prohibited. The wording does not necessarily cover only the first stop of the journey, indeed it says "in any manner" which covers this kind of "forced rendition" tactic.

No resolution can enforce compliance on a non-member state. To the extent that this is not a complete protection, I don't see how any resolution we pass could improve on this.

"I somewhat disagree, here. Though a resolution can not enforce compliance of a non-member state, it can still enforce compliance of a member state, and forbid said member state from giving their refugees to a non-member state.
Furthermore, I disagree with your definition. As long as the member nation is not the one transporting the refugee to a nation that violates article 1, it is technically legal.
However, even if the member nation did not facilitate a planned destination, a non-member state could still give their refugees to any other state at random or for money. While we agree this scenario is unlikely, we still would prefer a safeguard. One that's not too stringent, since any nation could hypothetically do such a thing at any time, but one that safeguards against established and well-documented instances of such thing happening."

For reasons already explained: no it doesn't, and no it doesn't. In the case where this resolution prohibits a WA member state from extraditing someone to a jurisdiction where they would have their basic rights violated, that is part of the intent of article 1's non-refoulement principle and I challenge you to argue why you believe this would be justified.

"Agreed. Thank you, Ambassador, and any more comments on this draft are welcome. If we can widdle down the problems we see with this resolution, we'll be more than happy to lay this proposition to rest, particularly if extreme circumstances may be glanced over. For now, however, we intend to keep up discussion until we can further improve the repeal proposal with our discussion points."

"Another point we forgot to make was about article 4 enforces member nations to give refugees, upon their request, naturalization and integration, regardless of whether said refugee was granted asylum. Furthermore, it technically doesn't specify naturalization, and though most would probably interpret it as within their own nation, it could be read as a mandate to facilitate naturalization in any nation."