[DRAFT] World Assembly Law Enforcement

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Title subject to change. Companion resolution: viewtopic.php?p=40223854#p40223854

Also, sorry Banana

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following articles:

Article I- Definitions:

1. A "war crime" shall mean any violation of World Assembly law in regards to war or the treatment of prisoners of war.
2. A "crime against the Assembly" shall mean any violation of World Assembly law committed on or against World Assembly property (or the territory or citizens of its member nations) that is deemed serious enough to warrant imprisonment as determined by the WAJC.
3. A "crime against humanity" shall mean any repeated, widespread and systemic act that involves the destruction of cultures or peoples, or the violation of fundamental sapient rights.

Article II- The World Assembly Judiciary Committee:

1. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee (herein WAJC) shall be tasked with the issuance of arrest warrants for individuals who are strongly suspected to have committed a war crime, crime against the Assembly, or a crime against humanity. These warrants may be issued only if the WAJC intends on trying the individual suspected of the crime and intends to imprison them if found guilty.
2. In order for the WAJC to file an arrest warrant for a war crime or crime against humanity, both of the following must apply:
   
   1. There must be significant and convincing evidence available that the nation in which the crimes are being committed and/or the nation in which the target resides are incapable or unwilling to arrest and adequately punish individuals who have committed crimes similar to those that the individual is wanted for. Or, if the nation has through some procedure such as a trial decided not to punish the individual, if it is clear and obvious that the outcome of the procedure or the procedure itself was unjust.
   2. The crime(s) must have been committed in World Assembly territory or the territory of one or more of its member nations.
3. In order for the WAJC to file an arrest warrant for a crime against the Assembly, the offense must be considered serious enough that imprisonment is a necessary punishment, as determined by the WAJC.
4. Be it established that the WAJC shall have ultimate jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, or crimes against the Assembly whenever those crimes are committed in World Assembly member nation territory or on World Assembly property.
5. The WAJC shall develop its own procedures, legal definitions for crimes, sentencing guidelines, legal systems, etc. for their trials.

[Heidgaudr]

"Opposed in principle."

Recognizing that there exists no current means for the World Assembly itself to arrest, try, and imprison those in violation of World Assembly law,

"And it hasn't had need to for its entire existence. I don't see why this needs to change."

A "crime against the Assembly" shall mean any violation of World Assembly law committed on or against World Assembly property.

"If the World Assembly required ambassadors to wear purple shirts, but I refused - due to purple representing the imperialist capitalist which colonized us some decades ago - I would be treated as no better than a war criminal? Sure, this example is purposefully outrageous, but this mandate is similarly outrageous. It's far too broad."

Intentional, premeditated and not state-sanctioned killing,

"Killing is not legitimized by it being state-sanctioned. Those with the greatest power to commit war crimes are state actors."

Sexual assault,

"Not all forms of sexual assault are the same - especially as that term's definition varies wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Just say rape."

Taking a person hostage,
Kidnapping, or

"These seem like they can be rolled into one."

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. The list of crimes is too long. You should do substantial copy-editing to clean up your sections re these new organs to be created and their powers. Ombudsmen should be created as well with statutory reporting requirements and other transparency mechanisms or controls. I'm not entirely convinced that this draft handles the topic with sufficient grace.

[Tinhampton]

I cannot support this for obvious reasons. In addition, what are the "extreme circumstances" mentioned in Article III.2 (which I am ALSO not a fan of)?

[WayNeacTia]

I cannot support this for obvious reasons. In addition, what are the "extreme circumstances" mentioned in Article III.2 (which I am ALSO not a fan of)?

I would agree. 3(2) is a bridge too far. If the WA wanted jurisdiction on something, then they should have took it to begin with. Instead make nations pay for trials and obtain convictions, and then swoop in and impose a harsher sentence than was already delivered? Seeing as how this can't affect non-members to being with, this so called judicial system will have the teeth of a jellyfish.

[Bananaistan]

"We are glad that the warmongers have decided to target children and all these various crimes which have no international dimension as their first foray into the WA Army, and the complete absence of any sentencing guidelines. This will well and truly poison the well. Well done Ambassador."

[Juansonia]

--snip--

"Opposed."

---

Sexual assault,

"Not all forms of sexual assault are the same - especially as that term's definition varies wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Just say rape."

"Ambassador, there are many jurisdictions which define rape in a manner which excludes several acts commonly recognised as such." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

OOC: the UK is a RL example of this problem.

[Goobergunchia]

We can imagine a place for World Assembly criminal jurisdiction when the judicial systems of member states have proved inadequate in handling crimes against humanity as already defined by World Assembly law. (We imagine in practice this should target leaders of noncompliant states and their accomplices.) However we cannot support any proposal that renders ordinary citizens of compliant member states subject to international jurisdiction on a regular basis. There is no evidence that the typical member state is incapable of adequately prosecuting homicide or sexual assault.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Attempted Socialism]

Ambassador Pride: "We shall not contemplate a resolution giving police powers to the World Assembly unless said police powers are explicitly placed in the vanguard of the socialist revolution."

[Jedinsto]

"Opposed in principle."

"We appreciate your feedback despite your opposition."

"And it hasn't had need to for its entire existence. I don't see why this needs to change."

"I believe, and I hope others agree, that the WA could benefit from a real security force and actual means of enforcing its laws."

"If the World Assembly required ambassadors to wear purple shirts, but I refused - due to purple representing the imperialist capitalist which colonized us some decades ago - I would be treated as no better than a war criminal? Sure, this example is purposefully outrageous, but this mandate is similarly outrageous. It's far too broad."

"A massive overhaul is going to be made to include sentencing guidelines and more specific mandates. It is possible that this resolution be divided into two due to the character limit."

"Killing is not legitimized by it being state-sanctioned. Those with the greatest power to commit war crimes are state actors."

"You make a good point, ambassador, I frankly don't know what I was thinking when allowing state-sanctioned executions to not be included as crimes against humanity."

"Not all forms of sexual assault are the same - especially as that term's definition varies wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Just say rape."

"I'm unsure whether less serious forms of sexual assault should be included or not, so I'll wait for others to weigh in on the matter."

"These seem like they can be rolled into one."

"It will be done."

C Marcius Blythe. The list of crimes is too long. You should do substantial copy-editing to clean up your sections re these new organs to be created and their powers. Ombudsmen should be created as well with statutory reporting requirements and other transparency mechanisms or controls. I'm not entirely convinced that this draft handles the topic with sufficient grace.

"How do you suggest we shorten this list in a manner that does not eliminate what is truly necessary? As for ombudsmen and transparency requirements, improvements will be made shortly."

I cannot support this for obvious reasons. In addition, what are the "extreme circumstances" mentioned in Article III.2 (which I am ALSO not a fan of)?

OOC: Say someone kills 15 kids in a genocidal rage, and the state sentences them to community service to avoid the wrath of the WAPD.

[Kenmoria]

"Not all forms of sexual assault are the same - especially as that term's definition varies wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Just say rape."

"I'm unsure whether less serious forms of sexual assault should be included or not, so I'll wait for others to weigh in on the matter."

“My opinion on this would be that less serious forms of sexual assault should be excluded. Though both criminal and immoral, sexual assault can include some behaviours which are far less serious than the other crimes on this list, which makes it an unusual inclusion. However, rape can be defined and often is defined as penile penetration exclusively, so using rape is not a good approach either. Either sexual assault by penetration, or simply serious sexual assault, would be better standards. However, more generally, I concur with Ambassador Blythe that the specific list of crimes is overlong.”

[Uan aa Boa]

What does "any serious violation of any World Assembly law or regulation committed on or against World Assembly property" mean? Can you give us an example of a WA law/regulation that could be broken by an act against WA property?

When this body tries someone for a crime against humanity, what legal system will the case be conducted using? It's been pointed out that no WA resolution outlaws murder and most delegations consider that this would be unnecessary. So if someone is tried under section 3a, which legal system's definition of murder, standards of proof, judicial and appeal processes, sentencing standards etc etc are to be in use?

Even where WA law provides the basis for declaring an act to be a crime, WA law is binding upon national governments and the sanctions for breaking it are likewise directed at governments. If an individual commits crimes, the failing in WA law is on the part of the national government that did not do enough to prevent this. There is no existing system that allows an individual to be tried for breaking WA law.

Unless you intend this to be the worst kind of kangaroo court there is a lot of work still to be done here.

[Jedinsto]

What does "any serious violation of any World Assembly law or regulation committed on or against World Assembly property" mean? Can you give us an example of a WA law/regulation that could be broken by an act against WA property?

Say the WA sets regulations against the destruction of WA property, or one interprets GA#8 as outlawing the destruction of WA property. The, say somebody bombs the World Assembly headquarters. This is all hypothetical as of now, and was mainly meant as a way for future legislation to be made to protect the facilities of the WA with the creation of an army and police. I will include in this draft that destruction of WA property will be a violation of WA law that can be prosecuted by the WAJC.

When this body tries someone for a crime against humanity, what legal system will the case be conducted using? It's been pointed out that no WA resolution outlaws murder and most delegations consider that this would be unnecessary. So if someone is tried under section 3a, which legal system's definition of murder, standards of proof, judicial and appeal processes, sentencing standards etc etc are to be in use?

The definition is premeditated, intentional killing. Everything else is set by the WAJC.

Even where WA law provides the basis for declaring an act to be a crime, WA law is binding upon national governments and the sanctions for breaking it are likewise directed at governments. If an individual commits crimes, the failing in WA law is on the part of the national government that did not do enough to prevent this. There is no existing system that allows an individual to be tried for breaking WA law.

There is actually, GA#466, and if you read the newer draft more closely you would see that this focuses heavily on governments and government-sanctioned/supported activities.

[Bananaistan]

When this body tries someone for a crime against humanity, what legal system will the case be conducted using? It's been pointed out that no WA resolution outlaws murder and most delegations consider that this would be unnecessary. So if someone is tried under section 3a, which legal system's definition of murder, standards of proof, judicial and appeal processes, sentencing standards etc etc are to be in use?

The definition is premeditated, intentional killing. Everything else is set by the WAJC.

OOC: This is problematic. I know just leaving everything to a committee is in vogue now because people want to rush through their militaristic wet dreams about the WA jack boot enforcing liberal bullshit on everyone and to actually write policy would take a bit of thought and finesse. But it's still as bad now as it was with GAR#472. And it's an obvious repeal hook.

Also, the international law on such matters is simply too short and lacking detail. Member states have the benefit of having laws and precedents of unlimited length which can actually properly deal with such matters in a considered fashion and see justice through.

Even where WA law provides the basis for declaring an act to be a crime, WA law is binding upon national governments and the sanctions for breaking it are likewise directed at governments. If an individual commits crimes, the failing in WA law is on the part of the national government that did not do enough to prevent this. There is no existing system that allows an individual to be tried for breaking WA law.

There is actually, GA#466, and if you read the newer draft more closely you would see that this focuses heavily on governments and government-sanctioned/supported activities.

Mention of GAR#466 is prescient as it actually has the committee use domestic legal systems.

Also problematic is that this proposal, as currently presented, would have this WA Police traipsing around not only just member states but also non-members.

[Jedinsto]

Also problematic is that this proposal, as currently presented, would have this WA Police traipsing around not only just member states but also non-members.

That is intentional.

[Kenmoria]

Also problematic is that this proposal, as currently presented, would have this WA Police traipsing around not only just member states but also non-members.

That is intentional.

(OOC: Though that is legal, it seems ill-advised. The entire reason that the General Assembly has a democratic mandate to pass legislation is because member-nations joined it voluntarily. What is the justification for it traipsing over non-members?)

[Attempted Socialism]

Also problematic is that this proposal, as currently presented, would have this WA Police traipsing around not only just member states but also non-members.

That is intentional.

You would have WA police officers go into countries that are definitely outside their jurisdiction (Which could easily and reasonably be interpreted as an act of war, a transgression by the WA against a non-member nation), apprehend someone and take them out of the country (Something known as an abduction in most jurisdictions), to get charged by a WA committee (With absolutely zero guidance to what legal system is in use and what rights the accused has)? I honestly can't see how you think the WA declaring war upon non-members, abducting their residents, and trying them in what may be a kangaroo court, is a good idea. It would also open the floodgates of non-member nations to retaliate -- and be reasonably justified in doing so -- or commit first strikes against a clearly aggressive WA. With only 12/50 of the highest population nations in the world being in the WA, the WA is unlikely to win that one.
I'm fundamentally against this type of proposals both OOC and IC, but this is going further than just bad policy.

[Dawsinian]

A "crime against the Assembly" shall mean any serious violation of any World Assembly law or regulation committed on or against World Assembly property.

So theoretically, if a citizen of my nation was to vandalize WA property, they would be arrested and tried by the World Assembly instead of local police? Seems a little heavy handed and unnecessary. Perhaps this should instead only include acts of terrorism and serious felonies.

The WAPD shall work with other offices to protect the facilities of the WA, and any intentional destruction or damaging of WA property shall be illegal.

See my above question.

WAPD officers shall not use excessive force on any individual.

What is defined as excessive force?

WAPD officers shall be equipped with body cameras which shall be activated whenever the officer is on duty.

"Activated" as in recording and saving that recording? Perhaps this should read "WAPD officers shall be equipped with body cameras which shall be activated whenever the officer is engaged in law enforcement activity", otherwise you'll be recording the entire time they're on duty, to include going to the bathroom.

The WAPD shall be in charge of all security measures within the Detention Center.

So will WAPD Police Officers be staffing this place? Or will there be dedicated corrections officers? Will WAPD have the authority to charge inmates with new crimes committed while incarcerated, like assaulting another prisoner?

The Detention Center may not contain more prisoners than can safely be provided adequate shelter, food, water, medical assistance, range of motion, safety, security, and any other services guaranteed to them by law.

What happens if they reach capacity? Do we house inmates in private prisons or in other countries' correctional facilities?


Aside from the above, I will ask you some of the same questions I asked in another WA Police proposal:

• Will WA Police Officers be armed?
• If yes, what standards will there be for armed police officers?
• Who is responsible for the training of WA Police Officers?
• Do they have power of arrest for crimes committed in their presence? (ie if a WA Police Officer witnesses a mugging, do they have authority to do anything?)
• Do they have authority to search individuals if they develop probable cause they may have a weapon or illegal substance?
• Will WA Police Officers be able to charge people in local courts as well, or just international court? (ie a WA Police Officer has authority to intervene in the aforementioned mugging, can they arrest the perpetrator and charge them in local court since assault and robbery likely aren't crimes the WA court is going to be dealing with? Or do they need to summon local police to handle the assault and robbery?)

[Jedinsto]

So theoretically, if a citizen of my nation was to vandalize WA property, they would be arrested and tried by the World Assembly instead of local police? Seems a little heavy handed and unnecessary. Perhaps this should instead only include acts of terrorism and serious felonies.

It only includes serious offenses. If the vandalism was serious, yes. Local police do not have jurisdiction over WA property nor any responsibility to protect it.

What is defined as excessive force?

Now that I've divided the proposal into two, I'll likely include a real definition rather than leaving it to LETC interpretation.

"Activated" as in recording and saving that recording? Perhaps this should read "WAPD officers shall be equipped with body cameras which shall be activated whenever the officer is engaged in law enforcement activity", otherwise you'll be recording the entire time they're on duty, to include going to the bathroom.

Good idea, will be included in the new proposal.

So will WAPD Police Officers be staffing this place? Or will there be dedicated corrections officers? Will WAPD have the authority to charge inmates with new crimes committed while incarcerated, like assaulting another prisoner?

Yes, it will be staffed by WAPD. And the WAJC would have that authority, not the WAPD.

What happens if they reach capacity? Do we house inmates in private prisons or in other countries' correctional facilities?

Presumably they would have to expand, an unlikely scenario considering the few individuals eligible for detainment there.

• Will WA Police Officers be armed?
• If yes, what standards will there be for armed police officers?
• Who is responsible for the training of WA Police Officers?
• Do they have power of arrest for crimes committed in their presence? (ie if a WA Police Officer witnesses a mugging, do they have authority to do anything?)
• Do they have authority to search individuals if they develop probable cause they may have a weapon or illegal substance?
• Will WA Police Officers be able to charge people in local courts as well, or just international court? (ie a WA Police Officer has authority to intervene in the aforementioned mugging, can they arrest the perpetrator and charge them in local court since assault and robbery likely aren't crimes the WA court is going to be dealing with? Or do they need to summon local police to handle the assault and robbery?)

1. Yes.
2. They will be armed enough to carry out their specific duties. For example, if they arrest a wizard, they'd have their magic wands . If they were to arrest a normal person they'd have guns and tazers.
3. The WAPD. Training requirements will be implemented.
4. Not yet, this clarification will be made to allow probable cause arrests.
5. Not yet, clarifications will be made so they can do so if the substance is illegal by WA standards.
6. The WAJC would have jurisdiction.

Thank you for your comments!

[Hulldom]

JLM: "My Delegation can be amenable to this. We would like a clearer definition, if the author could grant it, of what a crime against the assembly is."

[Jedinsto]

JLM: "My Delegation can be amenable to this. We would like a clearer definition, if the author could grant it, of what a crime against the assembly is."

"We hope the new language satisfies your delegation's wishes."

[Jedinsto]

Bumpity bump

[Jedinsto]

Following discussions offsite, I have included in crimes against the assembly any crime that the WAJC should reasonably have jurisdiction over that does not fall under a war crime or crime against humanity. I have also removed the government status requirement for arrests, and included criminals that got off by a sham trial. This and the other proposal of the same name shall likely be submitted tomorrow if no concerns are raised between now and then.

[Tinhampton]

4. Be it established that the WAJC shall have ultimate jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, or crimes against the Assembly whenever those crimes are committed in World Assembly member nation territory or on World Assembly property, or when a victim of the crime is a citizen in one or more World Assembly member nations. The WAJC shall have no jurisdiction surrounding crimes committed in international territory or non-member nation territory unless a victim is a citizen in one or more World Assembly member nations.

Are you trying to establish the WAJC as a court of appeal?

[Jedinsto]

4. Be it established that the WAJC shall have ultimate jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, or crimes against the Assembly whenever those crimes are committed in World Assembly member nation territory or on World Assembly property, or when a victim of the crime is a citizen in one or more World Assembly member nations. The WAJC shall have no jurisdiction surrounding crimes committed in international territory or non-member nation territory unless a victim is a citizen in one or more World Assembly member nations.

Are you trying to establish the WAJC as a court of appeal?

No