[PASSED!] Convention Against Heinous Crimes

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Given that the previous version of this was repealed on the grounds of self-admitted lies (ie, inter alia, that it's "superfluous" to mandate extradition when a previous resolution restricts it) hopefully this one is not.

I would appreciate feedback on the Section 5 4b exceptions. Do people believe that it sufficiently permits reasonable regulations of the IEC, while preventing a de facto ban, eg "any law enforcement action is arbitrary and thus banned", or "to prevent the possibility of excessive force being used, all IEC deployments are banned"?

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice;

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes; and

Whereas, although the World Assembly has legislated to restrict extradition to comply with due process standards (GA #147), as well as to regulate trial procedure for fairness (GA #37, inter alia), this august institution does not yet mandate the extension of comity for most heinous crimes;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to previously enacted World Assembly law.

1. Definitions: For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act which World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designates as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity, regardless of what jurisdiction takes up a case regarding that act. Absent qualification otherwise, uses of the phrase "World Assembly law" make no regard for the timing, relative to this resolution, of the passage of such law, and exclude repealed legislation.
   
   
2. Reviews: Where an individual charged or convicted for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case, if such comity is not already extended or to be extended. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
   
   
   1. Comity is to be presumptively granted if there is probable cause that the individual is guilty of said heinous crime, and in such a case may only be denied if the tribunal finds that extending comity would (i) result in a violation of due process or World Assembly law; or (ii) significantly harm a compelling public interest which outweighs the public's interest in extension of comity.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply judicial officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.
3. Comity: Comity may be extended either by resuming or enforcing the relevant judicial proceedings by the member nation to which comity is extended; or by extraditing the individual in question to the member nation to which comity is extended.
   
   
   1. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nations for the purposes of such extradition, subject to Section 3b.
      
      
   2. A member nation may, subject to other World Assembly law, prevent or restrict its jurisdiction from being used for such transportation, so long as this does not prevent extradition from proceeding without posing a substantial additional burden on the time or finances of the extraditing member nation.
      
      
   3. The enforcement of a judicial sentence shall be considered a form of judicial proceedings in this resolution.
4. Extradition support: The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is reestablished. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the IEC may provide support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the jurisdiction of the relevant member nation.
   
   
   1. IEC officers acting per this mandate may only use armed force where absolutely necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions, excepting regulations limited to the scope of preventing (i) arbitrary action against a person, entity, or property thereof; or (ii) use of force substantially greater than necessary to restrain a person or prevent imminent lawless action.

[The Ice States]

The post directly below this one notwithstanding, this has become GA #698.

Drafts extradited for the heinous crime of being subpar,

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice;

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes; and

Whereas, while the World Assembly has previously legislated to restrict extradition to comply with due process standards, as well as to regulate trial procedure for fairness, this august institution is yet to legislate to mandate the extension of comity for most heinous crimes, with the last attempt at doing so being repealed;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act which World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designates as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity, regardless of what jurisdiction takes up a case regarding that act.
   
   
2. Where an individual charged or convicted for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case, if such comity is not already extended or to be extended. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
   
   
   1. In such a review, the tribunal must consider, at minimum, (i) the likelihood that the individual is guilty of the heinous crime; (ii) any state or public interests against or in favour of extending comity; and (iii) the nature of the relevant charges or conviction against the individual.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply judicial officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.
3. Comity may be extended either through the resumption or commencement of judicial proceedings against the individual in question for the relevant heinous crime; or through the extradition of the individual in question to the member nation which has charged or convicted the individual in question for said heinous crime.
   
   
   1. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nation jurisdictions for the purposes of such extradition.
      
      
   2. The enforcement of a judicial sentence shall be considered a form of judicial proceedings in this resolution.
4. The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is established. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the IEC may supply armed defensive support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the relevant member nation's jurisdiction. IEC officers acting per this mandate may only use armed force where strictly necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation. The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions.

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice;

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes; and

Whereas, while the World Assembly has previously legislated to restrict extradition to comply with due process standards, as well as to regulate trial procedure for fairness, this august institution is yet to mandate the extension of comity for most heinous crimes, with the last attempt at doing so being repealed;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force,

1. For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act which World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designates as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity, regardless of what jurisdiction takes up a case regarding that act.
   
   
2. Where an individual charged or convicted for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case, if such comity is not already extended or to be extended. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
   
   
   1. In such a review, the tribunal must consider, at minimum, (i) the likelihood that the individual is guilty of the heinous crime; (ii) any state or public interests against or in favour of extending comity; and (iii) the nature of the relevant charges or conviction against the individual.
      
      
   2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply judicial officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.
3. Comity may be extended either through the resumption or commencement of judicial proceedings against the individual in question for the relevant heinous crime; or through the extradition of the individual in question to the member nation which has charged or convicted the individual in question for said heinous crime.
   
   
   1. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nation jurisdictions for the purposes of such extradition.
      
      
   2. The enforcement of a judicial sentence shall be considered a form of judicial proceedings in this resolution.
4. The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is established. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the IEC may supply armed defensive support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the relevant member nation's jurisdiction. IEC officers acting per this mandate may only use armed force where strictly necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation.
   
   
5. The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions, excepting regulations limited to the scope of preventing arbitrary action against a person or property thereof; or use of force substantially greater than necessary to restrain a person or prevent imminent lawless action.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

There will not, I repeat will NOT, be any resolutions on the books that explicitly create a police force for the WA as long as I'm around.

I look forward to seeing this soundly defeated should it somehow get forced to vote. Absolutely and unequivocally opposed.

Nice try basically submitting the exact same text.

[The Ice States]

Nice try basically submitting the exact same text.

Ooc: I absolutely acknowledge that this is very similar to the resolution being repealed. It's not some shocking revelation, even though you seem to think it is. The reason, to be perfectly blunt, is that most of the arguments in the repeal are either subjective or so nonsensical that there is absolutely no reason to address them here, except so that voters don't believe they still apply. There is an added preamble clause to address the redundancy argument. There is also an amendment in Section 2a to avoid the double jeopardy false concern. However the assertions in the repeal with at least some objectivity need not be addressed in policy terms -- they already were.

[The Orwell Society]

(Haven't posted here in a hot minute but I'm currently bored)

This is the next step in what the WA Elite truly wants -complete and utter control of all member states and I'm all for it. Because why the hell not? It's not like the WA will become an even bigger pit of corruption, this time being able to directly influence the lives of citizens living in member states by force if neccessary - of course that wouldn't happen!

[Sea Peoples League]

The period after "still in force" technically ends the statement where a comma may be more appropriate

[The Ice States]

The period after "still in force" technically ends the statement where a comma may be more appropriate

"Thanks for the feedback, Ambassador. The period has been changed to a comma."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Sea Peoples League]

You're welcome. We need to take strong action on the international level to ensure CAH perpetrators can't escape justice, or they will dedicate as much of their energy and resources as possible to doing just that. Naivety is no moral strength when it comes to those who violate, kill and destroy as a calling.

tbh I've chronic fatigue and all my RP energy is going to NSS rn so i don't have a name or system for you all yet. other than as might be inferred from the existence of a sports-based confederation of these 4 otherwise unstable countries of varying sizes inside the Supermassive Sea Dome as per links in signature; also see descriptions in signatures of each, etc

So this is pretty much just my real life legislation opinion which will be reflected in Sea Dome's WAGA vote

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: May I suggest an alternative title for your proposal, such as 'Arrest the War Criminals Act'? It may win you more votes, and the current one sounds like it's supporting heinous crimes by 'enforcing' them

[The Ice States]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: May I suggest an alternative title for your proposal, such as 'Arrest the War Criminals Act'? It may win you more votes, and the current one sounds like it's supporting heinous crimes by 'enforcing' them

"We prefer to use more formal titles, but we have added a new title to hopefully help garner more support."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
I will here remind you of the frequent fate of authors who think they're clever by adding a little aside to the repealed version of the resolution into their drafts and resubmitting functionally identically bad legislation immediately after repeal.

[The Ice States]

OOC:
I will here remind you of the frequent fate of authors who think they're clever by adding a little aside to the repealed version of the resolution into their drafts and resubmitting functionally identically bad legislation immediately after repeal.

Ooc: Shockingly, I do indeed understand how the GA works. Lots of resolutions have blockers, even if not directly on their primary areas of concern. Nor has this been resubmitted; I won't be submitting this immediately. I reiterate what I said on the WA Discord: I'm happy to fight for this until 2027 as we did for Rita or repealing GA #2.

[Second Sovereignty]

Ooc: Shockingly, I do indeed understand how the GA works.

OOC:
Clearly, else this draft would be titled something mundane and representative of it's actual objectives, like, "The Completely Unregulated WA Police Force Resolution", and similarly not include all that dead air in the first three clauses. I too, thought I was very clever with that whole, international minimum standards for imprisonment angle, and yet, here we are.

Lots of resolutions have blockers, even if not directly on their primary areas of concern.

And where, do tell, is there a blocker in this draft? Do you mean clause 4? The establishment of something is generally not referred to as a blocker; quite the opposite, really, you ought to know that.
Oh and don't play this 'primary area of concern' game with me. We both know how thin that mask is.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Shockingly, I do indeed understand how the GA works.

OOC:
Clearly, else this draft would be titled something mundane and representative of it's actual objectives, like, "The Completely Unregulated WA Police Force Resolution", and similarly not include all that dead air in the first three clauses. I too, thought I was very clever with that whole, international minimum standards for imprisonment angle, and yet, here we are.

This does not create a "completely unregulated WA police force". What do you think the second-to-last sentence of Section 4 does? The blocker is there to stop resolutions which prevent the use of a WA police force from even being considered.

Lots of resolutions have blockers, even if not directly on their primary areas of concern.

And where, do tell, is there a blocker in this draft? Do you mean clause 4? The establishment of something is generally not referred to as a blocker; quite the opposite, really, you ought to know that.
Oh and don't play this 'primary area of concern' game with me. We both know how thin that mask is.

Obviously I wasn't referring to the establishment clause, I was referring to "The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions". That quite clearly blocks bans, which is intended.

[Second Sovereignty]

This does not create a "completely unregulated WA police force". What do you think the second-to-last sentence of Section 4 does? The blocker is there to stop resolutions which prevent the use of a WA police force from even being considered.

OOC:
Yes, it renders it completely unregulated. That's what I said. I'm glad we're in agreement, it's nice.

[The Ice States]

This does not create a "completely unregulated WA police force". What do you think the second-to-last sentence of Section 4 does? The blocker is there to stop resolutions which prevent the use of a WA police force from even being considered.

OOC:
Yes, it renders it completely unregulated. That's what I said. I'm glad we're in agreement, it's nice.

This isn't a strong gotchya. Saying that armed force "may only [be] use[d]" under the condition that it be "strictly necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation" is a regulation.

[Second Sovereignty]

This isn't a strong gotchya. Saying that armed force "may only [be] use[d]" under the condition that it be "strictly necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation" is a regulation.

Clever bit of misdirection there; admirable, really. Let's go back to discussing that bit we actually talking about, yeah? The one that actually matters?

The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions.

Because, you see, this little clause here, put the lie to that 'may only [be] use[d]' excerpt of yours. Familiar tactic to selectively ignore bits and pieces of the draft, but from experience I assure you it's simply not good argument.

[The Ice States]

This isn't a strong gotchya. Saying that armed force "may only [be] use[d]" under the condition that it be "strictly necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation" is a regulation.

Clever bit of misdirection there; admirable, really. Let's go back to discussing that bit we actually talking about, yeah? The one that actually matters?

The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions.

Because, you see, this little clause here, put the lie to that 'may only [be] use[d]' excerpt of yours. Familiar tactic to selectively ignore bits and pieces of the draft, but from experience I assure you it's simply not good argument.

This still does not disprove what I said. Please drop the condescending I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude. The blocker allows the activities of the IEC to be expanded, and yes, regulated, in future resolutions. Future resolutions which expand the IEC's powers can obviously also regulate said activites, the same way this resolution does. If said future resolutions don't, then that is an issue with those resolutions, not this one. All IEC activites established in this resolution are regulated. It, therefore, still does not create this "completely unregulated WA police force".

[Second Sovereignty]

This still does not disprove what I said. Please drop the condescending I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude. The blocker allows the activities of the IEC to be expanded, and yes, regulated, in future resolutions. Future resolutions which expand the IEC's powers can obviously also regulate said activites, the same way this resolution does. If said future resolutions don't, then that is an issue with those resolutions, not this one. All IEC activites established in this resolution are regulated. It, therefore, still does not create this "completely unregulated WA police force".

OOC:
I will drop the attitude when you have more to offer in defense than pedantry and sophistry. There are, quite specifically, quite deliberately, no controls on what this police force can be used for. That you, presently, only assign it a minuscule remit per the perfunctory clauses on extradition so as to fulfill the basic obligation to not have that clause seem entirely detached from the rest of the text, is irrelevant, as is the paltry 'restriction' on violence imposed on said initial purpose.

You are creating something which can very easily be misused, - if you must believe that its creation is not itself misuse, - and you provide no means to curtail that. Indeed, your draft is specifically calculated to prohibit any such curtailment.

If this is genuinely a mistake, fix it, otherwise, don't insult me playing-pretend otherwise.

[The Ice States]

There are, quite specifically, quite deliberately, no controls on what this police force can be used for.

You are creating something which can very easily be misused, - if you must believe that its creation is not itself misuse, - and you provide no means to curtail that. Indeed, your draft is specifically calculated to prohibit any such curtailment.

There is a control and curtailment: the fact that a future resolution cannot stand without receiving majority support, and not getting repealed by a majority. The purpose of the blocker is so that resolutions do not pass which prevent a use from even being considered; not so that such uses all necessarily happen.

I would honestly support an attempt to regulate what purposes WA police can be used for (so long as such regulations are themselves good policy); however I'm not sure how to make an exception for that in this resolution without having to deal with the blurry line between "regulation" and "de facto ban". I am certainly amenable if you can suggest a way to clearly delineate this so as to prevent the latter but not the former.

[Second Sovereignty]

There is a control and curtailment: the fact that a future resolution cannot stand without receiving majority support, and not getting repealed by a majority.

OOC:
Do you genuinely believe a statement that naive or are you simple scrabbling for excuses? The former is more respectable, honestly, but you're not quite so new to have the benefit of that doubt. Democratic vote - to the extent the WA can be considered a democracy in the meaningful sense, - is not a magical barrier to bad law. You should know that.

The purpose of the blocker is so that resolutions do not pass which prevent a use from even being considered; not so that such uses all necessarily happen.
I would honestly support an attempt to regulate what purposes WA police can be used for (so long as such regulations are themselves good policy); however I'm not sure how to make an exception for that in this resolution without having to deal with the blurry line between "regulation" and "de facto ban". I am certainly amenable if you can suggest a way to clearly delineate this so as to prevent the latter but not the former.

Here's an easy one for you; a list. NationStates, as a website, graciously provides us with the tools to make such things without even dipping into the chasm of HTML. Here's one you can paste right in;

Code: Select all

The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions, excepting:
[list=1][*]
[*]
[*] (Repeat [*] for as many items as you so please)[/list]

But, of course, that takes away the unity of theme with regards to extradition. Indeed it rather is something that warrants a resolution all on its own, rather than existing as something smuggled into an otherwise unrelated text.

[The Ice States]

There is a control and curtailment: the fact that a future resolution cannot stand without receiving majority support, and not getting repealed by a majority.

OOC:
Do you genuinely believe a statement that naive or are you simple scrabbling for excuses? The former is more respectable, honestly, but you're not quite so new to have the benefit of that doubt. Democratic vote - to the extent the WA can be considered a democracy in the meaningful sense, - is not a magical barrier to bad law. You should know that.

It is a control and curtailment.

The purpose of the blocker is so that resolutions do not pass which prevent a use from even being considered; not so that such uses all necessarily happen.
I would honestly support an attempt to regulate what purposes WA police can be used for (so long as such regulations are themselves good policy); however I'm not sure how to make an exception for that in this resolution without having to deal with the blurry line between "regulation" and "de facto ban". I am certainly amenable if you can suggest a way to clearly delineate this so as to prevent the latter but not the former.

Here's an easy one for you; a list. NationStates, as a website, graciously provides us with the tools to make such things without even dipping into the chasm of HTML. Here's one you can paste right in;

Code: Select all

The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions, excepting:
[list=1][*]
[*]
[*] (Repeat [*] for as many items as you so please)[/list]

But, of course, that takes away the unity of theme with regards to extradition. Indeed it rather is something that warrants a resolution all on its own, rather than existing as something smuggled into an otherwise unrelated text.

Okay. Now please address what I said. How can I clearly delineate a difference between simple regulations and a de facto ban? I am not too keen on someone writing a resolution saying "WA police may only be used to protect against the destruction of the entire multiverse by repeated nuclear war."

[Second Sovereignty]

It is a control and curtailment.

OOC:
So is skin, with regards to foreign bodies getting into, one's body. And yet, we exist in a world shared with body armor. Why would that be I wonder?

Okay. Now please address what I said. How can I clearly delineate a difference between simple regulations and a de facto ban? I am not too keen on someone writing a resolution saying "WA police may only be used to protect against the destruction of the entire multiverse by repeated nuclear war."

As I thought clearly implied, - and I will genuinely apologize of I was mistaken in that assumption, - list exceptions and regulations in the resolution in which you establish it, rather than pawning off the effort to later legislation so you can smuggle it in under the average voter's nose.

[The Ice States]

As I thought clearly implied, - and I will genuinely apologize of I was mistaken in that assumption, - list exceptions and regulations in the resolution in which you establish it, rather than pawning off the effort to later legislation so you can smuggle it in under the average voter's nose.

Done.

[Sea Peoples League]

"WA police may only be used to protect against the destruction of the entire multiverse by repeated nuclear war."

now there's a world police department we can all get behind!

Seriously though, a message from the Sea Dome WAGA Delegation: You both make equally compelling and equally misleading arguments; in the end we support the cause and are neutral to this draft. It is clear international action must be taken against perpetrators of crimes against humanity and suchlike. We remain unimpressed that the creation of a GA police force is necessary, nor that the potential downsides to creating a police force that does not intend to disband have been given due consideration beyond ideological dismissal.

We remain hostile, as will some others, to any attempt to permanently block future legislation moving the world past policing, should it agree upon some future means to do so. The author is clearly just as hostile to abolitionism, and that is their prerogative. We will not move against the best viable plan to escalate the isolation of heinous criminals, but neither are we free to carry the author's hostility all the way home to anti-state communities that play a crucial role in home defense against the capitalist menace. There are constitutional implications here in the City & Massives for expressing such contempt toward even the possibility of abolition.

We do recognize and appreciate the author's choice to at least allow reasonable limits to the use of force. What has the GA come to that this is a compromise, rather than the foundation of all police law?