[PASSED] - Civilian prisoner transfers

[United Calanworie]

Introduction

This is based on the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. So instead of talking about transferring prisoners of war, we are talking about transferring prisoners (say person A) that are locked up in one country (say Country A, the "host state" in the resolution) for an offence but who is originally from another country (Country B, the "home state" in the resolution) and wants to transfer to serve the remainder of Person A's sentence in Country B.

That should have some advantages, such as allowing Person A to potentially receive more visits from his friends and relatives, and for Person A to find a job locally or to go to a half-way house locally once that person is released.

Note that the entire process is voluntary: for example Person A may not want a transfer because his family and friends are in Country A, or that Country A's prisons are more comfortable than Country B, or any number of other reasons. That's entirely up to Person A.

Country A cannot reasonably decline a request for a transfer, but Country B can decline such a request, for example if Country B does not have prisons at all, it may not want the prisoner back from Country A.

There is deliberately no appeal process (on Natsov grounds) other than to the due process of the relevant country if either country denies the transfer.

Explanation for US:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... ng%20State.

Explanation from COE:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/transnationa ... ed-persons

Definitions

The definitions "home state" and "host" again follow the Consular Protection resolutions. So "home state" is whether the citizen is from, "host" is where the citizen is at. (This was formerly "host state" but I took out the word "state" for simplicity reasons).

1. The use of the "do not apply" language is deliberate. It is neither a Natsov or IntFed blocker - the resolution simply is not applicable to certain categories of prisoners, defined both in the definitions and in the last clarification parts. They'd have to sort that out bilaterally.
   
2. This is partly related to the repeal of GA279, the ongoing replacement of GA389 and various related resolutions. There are a number of clarifications, principally to deal with travel restrictions imposed by GA389.

The "so long as custodial sentence is imposed" qualifier is to allow for WA states that IC do not have prisons.

Category
Civil rights/mild (this seems closer to civil rights rather than legal reform, although it's about prison rights). There is a slight positive improvement to civil rights from giving prisoners (some) rights to serve in their home country rather than in a foreign country.

Submission

The World Assembly (WA),

Believing that prisoners' prospects upon release, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they return to serve their sentence in their home state instead;

Believing that this may allow prisoners to benefit from matters such as removing cultural barriers, easing contact with family members, social support, and starting post-release activities more quickly,

Desiring a coordinated approach for transferring prisoners between WA states;

The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Civilian offence" means an offence not related to:
      
      1. national security, or
      2. service in a military, government, or diplomatic capacity, or
      3. piracy.
   2. "Custodial sentence" means, for convenience, all of the following:
      
      1. confinement at a correctional facility; or
      2. release to half-way houses or day releases; or
      3. parole.
   3. "Home state" means the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of at the time a request for a transfer is made, and the destination preferred by the prisoner.
      
   4. "Host" means the WA state where the prisoner is held.
      
   5. "Prisoner" means anyone who is:
      
      1. duly convicted of a civilian offence; and
      2. has exhausted or has voluntarily forfeited all avenues of appeal; and
      3. sentenced to a minimum custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer, in the views of the WA states (and WA organs) involved.
   6. "WA organs" means all sub-divisions of the WA.
2. Transfers. So long as a host imposes custodial sentences for civilian offences:
   
   1. A prisoner may, at any time after starting their sentence, requests the host to permit the prisoner to transfer ("transfer") from the host to the home state to serve their sentence (or any remainder thereof).
      
   2. A host must promptly consider such a request, and if granted, contact the home state, which must also promptly consider such a request, and if granted, promptly arrange for the transfer to take place.
      
   3. A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve their sentence according to the laws of the host, and subject solely to the pardon or parole laws of the host.
      
   4. A prisoner's transfer must be voluntary, and a prisoner may not be coerced by anyone to accept or decline a transfer.
      
   5. If a prisoner is also wanted for extradition to another WA state ("third state") for trial or for confinement, the host retains exclusive jurisdiction, over the extradition process (or whether the extradition takes place) after the prisoner is transferred.
3. Rejections and appeals.
   
   1. A home state may not reject a transfer request, unless it reasonably believes it is incapable of fulfilling such a request, such as a lack of prison space or differing levels of technological development.
      
   2. A host may not reject a transfer request, unless it reasonably believes that:
      
      1. The home state does not offer comparable rights and welfare for those in custodial sentences compared to the host, or
      2. The home state may mistreat the prisoner, or
      3. The home state does not have adequate facilities to confine the prisoner.
   3. Appeals on the rejections in clauses (3a) and (3b) are to the state that made the said rejections, subject to due process.
   4. A prisoner who is rejected for any reason may re-apply if there is a significant change in circumstances.
4. Assistance and fees.
   
   1. WA organs shall render such assistance as the home state deems necessary to transfer the said prisoner, such as helping to transit the prisoner through a warzone.
      
   2. The transfer is free of charge to the prisoner. The prisoner is not liable for food, lodgings and travel costs.
      
   3. If assistance from WA organs is required, it shall be paid for by the WA General Fund.
      
   4. If a prisoner is a citizen of more than one WA state, the citizen may request for transfer to any one of the WA states for which that prisoner is a citizen (and that WA state receiving the request is deemed the home state).
5. Clarifications. Subject to extant resolutions:
   
   1. A home state may not strip a prisoner of citizenship merely for applying for a transfer.
   2. The host must provide the full criminal records of the prisoner in the host to the home state if a prisoner is transferred.
   3. This resolution does not apply if:
      
      1. the prisoner is convicted of an offence that is a crime in the host but not the home state;
      2. if the home state and the host are in a formally declared state of war;
      3. the prisoner is subject to quarantine.

Char count: 4,638

[Simone Republic]

I am still thinking about 3b grounds. All thoughts appreciated.

Space for old drafts.

[Juansonia]

The definition of "Host State" has a typo.

Also, I'd recommend calling the old draft space "Holding cell for old drafts transferred from the above post:"

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

I have edited 3b. Since I was originally dissatisfied with my own wording on 3b, I did not keep the original draft wording.

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Believing that prisoners' prospects for rehabilitation, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they are back at their home state instead;

Noting that the said prisoners may benefit from matters such as removing cultural barriers, easing contact with family members, social support networks, and starting job searches and other post-release activities more quickly,

Desiring a coordinated approach for transferring prisoners between WA states that adopt custodial sentences, hereby:


Defines:
"Custodial sentence" to mean, for convenience:
confinement at a correctional facility; or
release to half-way houses or partial releases, such as day releases; or
parole;
"Home state" as the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of, and the destination where the prisoner desires a transfer to;
"Host state" to mean the WA state where the prisoner has been duly convicted of an offence;
"Prisoner" means anyone who is:
Duly convicted of an offence which is subject to a custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer (as defined in this resolution), in the views of the WA states (and organs) involved; and
Duly convicted of an offence not related to national security or service in a military or government or diplomatic capacity; and
Has exhausted or has voluntarily forfeited all avenues of appeal;
"WA organs" to mean all sub-divisions of the WA;
Requires that, so long as a WA state imposes custodial sentences for offences:
A prisoner may voluntarily request the host state to permit the prisoner to serve the remainder of any custodial sentence in the home state rather than the host state;
A host state must promptly consider such a request, and if granted, contact the home state, which must also promptly consider such a request, and if granted, promptly arrange for the transfer to take place to the home state;
A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve the full tariff of the custodial sentence handed down by the host state, subject to the laws of the host state;
A prisoner's participation must be entirely voluntary and may not be coerced by anyone to accept or decline a transfer;
Requires that:
A home state may not reject a request from a prisoner for such a transfer, unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that it is incapable of fulfilling such a request, such as a lack of prisons or differing technological levels;
A host state may not reject a request from a home state for such a transfer, unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that:

The home state does not offer comparable rights and welfare for those in custodial sentences compared to the host state, or
The home state may potentially mistreat, torture, or otherwise inflict undue harm on the prisoner, or that the home state does not have adequate facilities to confine the prisoner;
The determination of "reasonable grounds" as per clauses 3a and 3b are subject to due process in the relevant WA state;
A home state may seek the assistance of organs of the WA for the transfer of the said prisoner from a host state, such as due to the need to transfer the prisoner through a warzone, subject to a full indemnity of the costs of such assistance from the home state;
The host state must provide the full criminal records of the prisoner in the host state to the home state;
Clarifies that, subject to extant resolutions:

If a prisoner is a citizen of more than one WA state, the citizen may request for transfer to any one of the WA states for which that prisoner is a citizen (and that WA state receiving the request, for the purpose of this resolution, becomes the host state):
If a prisoner is also wanted for extradition in another WA state ("third state") for trial or for confinement, the host state retains jurisdiction, subject to due process, over the extradition process (or whether the extradition takes place) even after the prisoner is transferred;
The words "prisoner" and "offence" are used in the singular only and that each offence must be considered separately for each prisoner, and that multiple prisoners duly convicted for the same offence must be considered on an individual basis;
This resolution does not apply if, subject to extant resolutions:

the prisoner is convicted of an offence that is a crime in the host state but not the home state;
if the home state and the host state are in a formally declared state of war;
the prisoner is subject to any medical or health related quarantine.
[/list]

[Simone Republic]

*Bump*

There had been some revisions in the meantime as I am trying to reduce the amount of cumbersome text I write.

[Normastan]

"We support this resolution as a valid way to increase the rights of prisoners worldwide. However, we have some issues with the current draft:

"Firstly, the home state can simply revoke citizenship of a prisoner, and through that method make this process inaccessible to any undesirable prisoner. I suggest you change the wording of this clause:

"Home state" as the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of at the time of the offence, and the destination where the prisoner desires a transfer to;

"Secondly, clause 3(c) is ambiguous. Does "relevant WA state" mean home state or host state?"

"Thirdly, clause 1(d)(iii) says "sentenced to a minimum custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer (as defined in this resolution)". Unless I've missed something, no definition ever appears?"

"Although, Normastan continues to support this resolution in principle, and hope to see this pass as soon as possible."

[Simone Republic]

"We support this resolution as a valid way to increase the rights of prisoners worldwide. However, we have some issues with the current draft:

"Firstly, the home state can simply revoke citizenship of a prisoner, and through that method make this process inaccessible to any undesirable prisoner. I suggest you change the wording of this clause:

"Home state" as the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of at the time of the offence, and the destination where the prisoner desires a transfer to;

GA386 "Reducing Statelessness", clause 1. They should not be able to strip citizenship if it leaves a citizen stateless. I can clarify that. There's also GA552 clause 3. I've changed it to "at the time the citizen requests the transfer" because I realized that logically there is a logical issue with "at the time of the offence" if the offence and the transfer were sufficiently far apart and I probably overly rely on GA386.

I added a new 4c:

[*]A home state may not strip a prisoner of citizenship merely for applying for a transfer;

"Secondly, clause 3(c) is ambiguous. Does "relevant WA state" mean home state or host state?"

I spelt it out now.

"Thirdly, clause 1(d)(iii) says "sentenced to a minimum custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer (as defined in this resolution)". Unless I've missed something, no definition ever appears?"

"Although, Normastan continues to support this resolution in principle, and hope to see this pass as soon as possible."

I meant a "transfer" is being defined by this resolution. I changed it to "as defined in clause 2".

Clause 2a now reads:

[*]A prisoner may voluntarily request the host state to permit the prisoner to transfer ("transfer") to the home state from the host state to serve the remainder of any custodial sentence;

[Elyreia]

"At this time, the Principality views this legislation favourably. Section 2 Clause c, Section 3 Clause b, and Section 4 help tie up our primary concerns for loopholes at this point, and will remain our requirements for ascension of this legislation. We'll monitor the legislation going forward for legality challenges and updates to the draft."

[Simone Republic]

Draft 3

[box]The World Assembly (WA),

Believing that prisoners' prospects for rehabilitation, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they return to their home state instead;

Noting that such a return may benefit the prisoners from matters such as removing cultural barriers, easing contact with family members, social support networks, and starting job searches and other post-release activities more quickly,

Desiring a coordinated approach for transferring prisoners between WA states that adopt custodial sentences, hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. "Civilian offence" to mean an offence not related to national security, nor related to service in a military, government or diplomatic capacity;
      
   2. "Custodial sentence" to mean, for convenience:
      
      1. confinement at a correctional facility; or
      2. release to half-way houses or partial releases, such as day releases; or
      3. parole;
   3. "Home state" to mean the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of at the time a request for a transfer is made, and the destination where the prisoner desires a transfer to;
      
   4. "Host state" to mean the WA state where the prisoner has been duly convicted of an offence;
      
   5. "Prisoner" to mean anyone who is:
      
      1. duly convicted of a civilian offence; and
      2. has exhausted or has voluntarily forfeited all avenues of appeal; and
      3. sentenced to a minimum custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer, in the views of the WA states (and WA organs) involved;
   6. "WA organs" to mean all sub-divisions of the WA;
2. Requires that, so long as a host state imposes custodial sentences for civilian offences:
   
   1. A prisoner may, at any time after commencing their sentence, voluntarily request the host state to permit the prisoner to transfer ("transfer") from the host state to the home state to serve their custodial sentence (or their remainder of);
      
   2. A host state must promptly consider such a request, and if granted, contact the home state, which must also promptly consider such a request, and if granted, promptly arrange for the transfer to take place to the home state;
      
   3. A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve the full tariff of the original custodial sentence, subject to the laws of the host state (including any pardon or commutation laws);
      
   4. A prisoner's participation must be voluntary and may not be coerced by anyone to accept or decline a transfer;
3. Requires that:
   
   1. A home state may not reject a request from a prisoner for such a transfer, unless it has reasonable grounds to determine that it is incapable of fulfilling such a request, such as a lack of prison space or differing levels of technological development;
      
   2. A host state may not reject a request from a home state for such a transfer, unless it has reasonable grounds to determine that:
      
      
      1. The home state does not offer comparable rights and welfare for those in custodial sentences compared to the host state, or
      2. The home state may mistreat the prisoner, or that the home state does not have adequate facilities to confine the prisoner;
   3. The determination of "reasonable grounds" as per clauses 3a and 3b are subject to due process in appeals, in the case of 3a to the due process of the home state and 3b to the due process of the host state, and that a prisoner who is rejected for a transfer for any reason may re-apply if there is a change in circumstances;
      
   4. WA organs shall render such assistance as they deem necessary for a home state to successfully transfer the said prisoner from a host state, such as assisting in transiting the prisoner through a warzone;
      
   5. The host state must provide the full criminal records of the prisoner in the host state to the home state;
4. Clarifies that, subject to extant resolutions:
   
   1. If a prisoner is a citizen of more than one WA state, the citizen may request for transfer to any one of the WA states for which that prisoner is a citizen (and that WA state receiving the request, for the purpose of this resolution, becomes the host state);
      
   2. If a prisoner is also wanted for extradition in another WA state ("third state") for trial or for confinement, the host state retains jurisdiction, subject to due process, over the extradition process (or whether the extradition takes place) after the prisoner is transferred;
      
   3. A home state may not strip a prisoner of citizenship merely for applying for a transfer;
      
   4. This resolution does not apply if:
      
      
      1. the prisoner is convicted of an offence that is a crime in the host state but not the home state;
         
      2. if the home state and the host state are in a formally declared state of war;
         
      3. the prisoner is subject to any medical or health related quarantine.

Made minor changes to conform with Magecastle/Sanctaria's draft on prisoners' financial rights. The resolution draft now leaves it at "the transfer is free of charge to the prisoner" but leaves it to the host state and the home state to decide how to pay for the transfer. (The home state can reject a transfer if it doesn't want to pay anyway).

"At this time, the Principality views this legislation favourably. Section 2 Clause c, Section 3 Clause b, and Section 4 help tie up our primary concerns for loopholes at this point, and will remain our requirements for ascension of this legislation. We'll monitor the legislation going forward for legality challenges and updates to the draft."

Thanks.

[The Ice States]

If a member nation's laws commute all sentences for a particular crime, does this mean that a home state can, if it offers sufficient human rights and is technically capable of enforcing that sentence, effectively commute any sentence for that crime in a host state by requesting a transfer and immediately commuting the sentence?

[Simone Republic]

If a member nation's laws commute all sentences for a particular crime, does this mean that a home state can, if it offers sufficient human rights and is technically capable of enforcing that sentence, effectively commute any sentence for that crime in a host state by requesting a transfer and immediately commuting the sentence?

Not under 2c because the host state's laws will continue to apply, not the home state's ones. Also clause 5(b)(i) (was 4bi but I changed the numbering) to narrow the scope of the "subject to extant resolutions" clause.

I made some minor wording amendments as a result to spell it out that it is solely subject to the pardon or parole laws of the host state. Otherwise there is a strong disincentive for the host state to participate in this, especially those more "law and order" minded states.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 4

The World Assembly (WA),

Believing that prisoners' prospects for rehabilitation, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they return to their home state to serve their sentence instead;

Believing that such a return may allow prisoners to benefit from matters such as removing cultural barriers, easing contact with family members, social support, and starting job searches and other post-release activities more quickly,

Desiring a coordinated approach for transferring prisoners between WA states; hereby

1. Defines:
   
   1. "Civilian offence" to mean an offence not related to national security, nor related to service in a military, government or diplomatic capacity;
      
   2. "Custodial sentence" to mean, for convenience, all of the following:
      
      1. confinement at a correctional facility; or
      2. release to half-way houses or day releases; or
      3. parole;
   3. "Home state" to mean the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of at the time a request for a transfer is made, and the destination where the prisoner desires a transfer to;
      
   4. "Host state" to mean the WA state where the prisoner is incarcerated;
      
   5. "Prisoner" to mean anyone who is:
      
      1. duly convicted of a civilian offence; and
      2. has exhausted or has voluntarily forfeited all avenues of appeal; and
      3. sentenced to a minimum custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer, in the views of the WA states (and WA organs) involved;
   6. "WA organs" to mean all sub-divisions of the WA;
2. Requires that, so long as a host state imposes custodial sentences for civilian offences:
   
   1. A prisoner may, at any time after commencing their sentence, voluntarily request the host state to permit the prisoner to transfer ("transfer") from the host state to the home state to serve their sentence (or the remainder of their sentence);
      
   2. A host state must promptly consider such a request, and if granted, contact the home state, which must also promptly consider such a request, and if granted, promptly arrange for the transfer to take place to the home state;
      
   3. A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve the full tariff of the original sentence according to the laws of the host state, and subject solely to the pardon or parole laws of the host state;
      
   4. A prisoner's participation must be voluntary and may not be coerced by anyone to accept or decline a transfer;
3. Requires that:
   
   1. A home state may not reject a transfer request, unless it reasonably believes it is incapable of fulfilling such a request, such as a lack of prison space or differing levels of technological development;
      
   2. A host state may not reject a transfer request, unless it reasonably believes that:
      
      
      1. The home state does not offer comparable rights and welfare for those in custodial sentences compared to the host state, or
      2. The home state may mistreat the prisoner, or that the home state does not have adequate facilities to confine the prisoner;
   3. WA organs shall render such assistance as the home state deems necessary for a home state to successfully transfer the said prisoner from a host state, such as assisting in transiting the prisoner through a warzone;
      
   4. The host state must provide the full criminal records of the prisoner in the host state to the home state if a prisoner is transferred;
4. Clarifies that, subject to due process:
   
   1. The determination of what is "reasonably believed" as per clauses 3a and 3b are subject to appeals, in the case of 3a to the home state and 3b to the host state, and that a prisoner who is rejected for any reason may re-apply if there is a change in circumstances;
      
   2. The transfer is free of charge to the prisoner, and, if assistance from WA organs is required, such assistance shall be paid for by the General Fund;
      
   3. If a prisoner is a citizen of more than one WA state, the citizen may request for transfer to any one of the WA states for which that prisoner is a citizen (and that WA state receiving the request is deemed the host state);
      
   4. If a prisoner is also wanted for extradition in another WA state ("third state") for trial or for confinement, the host state retains exclusive jurisdiction, over the extradition process (or whether the extradition takes place) after the prisoner is transferred;
5. Clarifies that, subject to extant resolutions:
   
   
   1. A home state may not strip a prisoner of citizenship merely for applying for a transfer;
      
   2. This resolution does not apply if:
      
      
      1. the prisoner is convicted of an offence that is a crime in the host state but not the home state;
         
      2. if the home state and the host state are in a formally declared state of war;
         
      3. the prisoner is subject to any medical or health related quarantine.

Char count: 4,874



*Bump* on the World Assmebly Official Christmas themed bumper which the bear still has in stock.

Draft 4 is based on the existing statue style I use. Draft 5 introduced headings and end sentences. I also excluded pirates. Draft 5 is last call.

Edit: this has been submitted.

[Simone Republic]

In order to accurately cover the various flaws in this proposal, this calls for a rare moment of utilizing a numbered list. So without further ado, here goes it:
Piracy is not defined when mentioned in 1.a.iii, which means that it could consider individual member state definitions of piracy which may equate the petty crimes of media and product piracy to the same level as crimes of national security.

The inclusion of defining prisoners by whether they have exhausted their avenues of appeals excluded prisoners under legal systems where there is an inherent and sustaining right to appeal, which is present is a vast majority of systems like this.

Clause 5.c.i disallows prisoners from serving in their home country if the action they committed is legal in their home, forcing prisoners to be subject to harsher legal systems than their own, removing this method of recourse, and disallowing prisoners from finishing sentences in their home nation even if the home nation agrees to it.

Clause 5.c.ii has the potential to punish citizens disconnected from current conflicts as prisoners of war, suspending what should be a granted civil right simply because of armed conflict. Since this resolution does not apply to crimes of national security or war, this would only punish non-involved citizens when the WA could clearly assist with wartime implementation of this act.

TCB's entire IFV misunderstands the proposal and is nonsensical. In reply:

1. "Piracy" is qualified by the word "civilian offence". Counterfeiting a Blu Ray DVD hardly counts as a non civilian offence under RNT.

2. The sustaining right of appeal issue is dealt with in clause 3 in detail.

3. Clause 5c-i and 5c-ii are both "does not apply" clauses. The resolution simply does not apply to those circumstances. There is no "disallowing". It does not prohibit states from working out bilateral solutions as it does now.

[Elwher]

Elwher votes no.

We believe that if an individual commits and is convicted of a crime in a country, they should be subject to the penalties enforced by that country. These penalties include whatever prison conditions may exist in the country in which the crime was committed. Bad conditions in the prisons of a country should serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior in that country.

[Urgench]

The Federated Sublime Khanate of Urgench notes with regret that this resolution is largely unenforceable due to the execrable quality of its language. It would largely function as junk law and our own courts would be unable to execute any part of it. We do hope that the quality of laws written by this august body will rise above the expectation of an average elementary school child's ramblings and that tendencies such as excessive and anachronistic definitions of terms is not commonplace in international law these days.

[Isabella van der Feltz]

is not commonplace in international law these days.

I will have to respectfully disagree with this misleading statement - just by looking at the legislation websites of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, we can see that's not the case.

I know for a fact also that on most online polsims/polsim websites with parliaments or congresses, submitting players tend to include "definitions" for their legislative drafts (and in some cases, they took it too far). NationStates' World Assembly board is actually one of the few polsims that do not follow strict criteria like the need to include definitions, with the SC forum going even more creative with using poems, International Incidents style storytelling, etc. for their commends/condemns and declarations legislation.

We do hope that the quality of laws written by this august body will rise above the expectation of an average elementary school child's ramblings

Having analysed the content of your post, it can be summarised as "older WA authors and legislation better, newer WA authors and legislation are lower quality," which again, I will have to respectfully disagree. There is a reason it's been so easy to repeal older resolutions - in some cases, the older the easier

[The World Defense Organization]

The World Defense Organization votes no for the reasons as follows:
The language is not enforceable, as a law that contradicts itself renders itself null.
On the topic of both host and home country having the ability to consider such a request, they must be able to deny the transfer of or receive of the prisoner in question.

The contents of the next important point note that the denial of transfer is extremely situational. So situational to the point where the right to the denial of transfer or receiving of said prisoner is nigh impossible. In this case, the rational rights of both nations have been transgressed.

Separately, The World Defense Organization recognizes that point 4 is commendable because it allows the prisoner to not be constrained by any possible fees in the transfer process.

We recognize that this bill has much potential, but due to its current state and language being contradictory and logically unsound, we will vote no.

However, if the current resolution is struck down, The World Defense Organization will vote for the bill if the aforementioned issues are resolved and submitted again.

[Urgench]

is not commonplace in international law these days.

I will have to respectfully disagree with this misleading statement - just by looking at the legislation websites of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, we can see that's not the case.

I know for a fact also that on most online polsims/polsim websites with parliaments or congresses, submitting players tend to include "definitions" for their legislative drafts (and in some cases, they took it too far). NationStates' World Assembly board is actually one of the few polsims that do not follow strict criteria like the need to include definitions, with the SC forum going even more creative with using poems, International Incidents style storytelling, etc. for their commends/condemns and declarations legislation.

We do hope that the quality of laws written by this august body will rise above the expectation of an average elementary school child's ramblings

Having analysed the content of your post, it can be summarised as "older WA authors and legislation better, newer WA authors and legislation are lower quality," which again, I will have to respectfully disagree. There is a reason it's been so easy to repeal older resolutions - in some cases, the older the easier

There are doubtless multiple reasons why some older resolutions have proven easy to repeal, your Excellency. We suspect it has more to do with the reality that most of the nations which helped draft and campaign for those historic resolutions are no longer members of this organisation or have lost interest in its doings.

Regardless of such speculations, which we regard as unhelpful, the current resolution at vote is very poorly written indeed. It is riddled with internal contradictions, prolix and actively unhelpful definitions, phrasing which sounds more appropriate for informal discussion rather than jurisprudential implementation and which makes sweeping and unfounded assumptions about the legal systems of member states which renders the entire resolution unenforceable in many nations. It should have spent more time being drafted, reads like it was scribbled down in a hurry, and requires a far more subtle and nuanced approach than that which it takes to what is a rather complicated issue.

[August Imperium]

Rather than complain about the impossibility of enforcing this resolution, I suggest you actually explain what those supposed contradictions and dense language actually is. As a neutral observer I think it would be helpful to understand your reasoning and not vague and unproven claims about the language of this resolution.

I will also point out that this resolution had its own drafting thread, which no doubt was the place to discuss these alleged mistakes, and that this has been here for *checks notes* just over two months.

I'm also interested in what you mean by "excessive and anachronistic definitions". I have had no trouble understanding this text and I want to know if this is truly an issue with the resolution. I don't think that in any case there will be substansive issues, but it would still be helpful to know any definitions which are excessive and/or anachronistic.

[Urgench]

Rather than complain about the impossibility of enforcing this resolution, I suggest you actually explain what those supposed contradictions and dense language actually is. As a neutral observer I think it would be helpful to understand your reasoning and not vague and unproven claims about the language of this resolution.

I will also point out that this resolution had its own drafting thread, which no doubt was the place to discuss these alleged mistakes, and that this has been here for *checks notes* just over two months.

I'm also interested in what you mean by "excessive and anachronistic definitions". I have had no trouble understanding this text and I want to know if this is truly an issue with the resolution. I don't think that in any case there will be substansive issues, but it would still be helpful to know any definitions which are excessive and/or anachronistic.

The most glaring and problematic definition, which is categorical and not conditional, is that of the term "prisoner" it effectively defines what a prisoner is for all purposes. Given the nature of WA law this recategorises the term prisoner for all member states regardless of how the term might currently be framed in existing national law. It effectively requires the law of member states to only regard someone convicted of a crime and in custody for that crime as a prisoner if they have exhausted all legal appeal or abnegated all appeals.

In terms of language we would argue that this entire resolution presupposes that incaceration of some form is the norm among member states. This is far from proven. Incaceration is extremely rare in Urgench and we strongly suspect we are far from the only state in which this is the case. The FSKU is a federation in which many regions and subject nations have wide autonomy over substantial aspects of government. Criminal justice is one such area of government in which the imperial government does not have primacy. For what we assume this resolution means by "civilian crimes" there is no imperial legal competence. For common theft or assault for instance the imperial bureacracy could not facilitate the implemenation of this resolution since no imperial court can overrule a subject national court. Since various forms of federation (many forms being even less centralised than our own) are very common among the member states of the WA we also strongly suspect we are far from singular in this either. We could only facilitate the implementation of this resolution with respect to crimes tried in imperial courts which typically do not hear cases of what we suspect this resolution means by "civilian crime" which means we would be unable to facilitate transfers at all.

Indeed the term "civilian crime" is problematic in itself. Civilian as opposed to non-civilian is not a distinction many WA member states make. In some states all crimes are considered crimes against the state of one form or another. In other member states all crimes commited by foreign citizens who do not have dual citizenship are resolved by summary extradition to the non-citizen's state of origin. This resolution overturns that and would make it a requirment that member states must seek the convicted person's permission to extradite them to their country of origin. This introduces a possible form of legal descrimination whereby a citizen of a non-WA member state who has been convicted of a crime would be returned to their country of origin as per the legal norms of the WA member state they were convicted in while a foreign citizen of a WA member state would be given the right to refuse this because they do not wish to be transfered to their country of origin for whatever reasons they see fit. This is inherently unfair and unjust. Rectifying that would require member states to apply this new dispensation to all non-citizens convicted of a crime in their national courts. This is an undue and unnecessary overreach. It might also involve the overturning of the outcomes of historic convictions since no exception is made for historic convictions.

[Simone Republic]

The most glaring and problematic definition, which is categorical and not conditional, is that of the term "prisoner" it effectively defines what a prisoner is for all purposes. Given the nature of WA law this recategorises the term prisoner for all member states regardless of how the term might currently be framed in existing national law.

In terms of language we would argue that this entire resolution presupposes that incaceration of some form is the norm among member states.

It explicitly does not. Clause 2 already says "so long as a host imposes custodial sentences for civilian offences" so if the host does not impose custodial sentences, this resolution doesn't apply in the first place. The definitions also use the word "prisoner" to include parole etc.

Obviously if they have not exhausted their appeals, it's likely that they are subject to bail and there's already a resolution for that. (GAR 688, Bail Conditions Arrangements).

[The Overmind]

The most glaring and problematic definition, which is categorical and not conditional, is that of the term "prisoner" it effectively defines what a prisoner is for all purposes. Given the nature of WA law this recategorises the term prisoner for all member states regardless of how the term might currently be framed in existing national law. It effectively requires the law of member states to only regard someone convicted of a crime and in custody for that crime as a prisoner if they have exhausted all legal appeal or abnegated all appeals.

Definitions in proposals are for the purposes of the proposal only, and, indeed, definitions can even be contradictory across resolutions, as defining is not legislating. The only way this wouldn't be true is if the proposal used language like, "requires member nations to ascribe the label of "prisoner" only to a person within their jurisdiction who meets the definition in this proposal." Otherwise, it has no effect whatsoever on how member nations define things in their own jurisdictions.

[Urgench]

The most glaring and problematic definition, which is categorical and not conditional, is that of the term "prisoner" it effectively defines what a prisoner is for all purposes. Given the nature of WA law this recategorises the term prisoner for all member states regardless of how the term might currently be framed in existing national law. It effectively requires the law of member states to only regard someone convicted of a crime and in custody for that crime as a prisoner if they have exhausted all legal appeal or abnegated all appeals.

Definitions in proposals are for the purposes of the proposal only, and, indeed, definitions can even be contradictory across resolutions, as defining is not legislating. The only way this wouldn't be true is if the proposal used language like, "requires member nations to ascribe the label of "prisoner" only to a person within their jurisdiction who meets the definition in this proposal." Otherwise, it has no effect whatsoever on how member nations define things in their own jurisdictions.

It does not need to say "requires etc" because that is what it does. The existence of competing definitions of terms across resolutions is an argument for repeal of these resolutions. Resolutions are legislation. They are not advisory. They come into effect as legislation in member states (OOC this is reflected as stat effects) their definitions are not merely for the purposes of the resolution unless the resolution states that this is so.

The law does what the law says. Indeed this resolution goes so far as to place its definitions subject to the phrase "...hereby enacts etc" meaning that creative noncompliance could not even be deployed. The definitions in this resolution will be cited in legal cases to undermine and pervert the course of justice in member states.

[The Overmind]

Definitions in proposals are for the purposes of the proposal only, and, indeed, definitions can even be contradictory across resolutions, as defining is not legislating. The only way this wouldn't be true is if the proposal used language like, "requires member nations to ascribe the label of "prisoner" only to a person within their jurisdiction who meets the definition in this proposal." Otherwise, it has no effect whatsoever on how member nations define things in their own jurisdictions.

It does not need to say "requires etc" because that is what it does. The existence of competing definitions of terms across resolutions is an argument for repeal of these resolutions. Resolutions are legislation. They are not advisory. They come into effect as legislation in member states (OOC this is reflected as stat effects) their definitions are not merely for the purposes of the resolution unless the resolution states that this is so.

The law does what the law says. Indeed this resolution goes so far as to place its definitions subject to the phrase "...hereby enacts etc" meaning that creative noncompliance could not even be deployed. The definitions in this resolution will be cited in legal cases to undermine and pervert the course of justice in member states.

I wasn't giving you an opinion. It's a fact that proposal definitions are self-contained. What you propose would make proposals with definitions that compete with standing resolution definitions illegal for contradiction, but since that is not the case, competing definitions do, in fact, exist. They do not change anything about how those words are defined outside of the proposal/resolution in any member nation jurisdiction.

[Urgench]

It explicitly does not. Clause 2 already says "so long as a host imposes custodial sentences for civilian offences" so if the host does not impose custodial sentences, this resolution doesn't apply in the first place. The definitions also use the word "prisoner" to include parole etc.

Obviously if they have not exhausted their appeals, it's likely that they are subject to bail and there's already a resolution for that. (GAR 688, Bail Conditions Arrangements).

Indeed this wording is also problematic since it provides those convicted of any sort of crime (even those we assume this resolution does not mean to encompass) the right to request transfer not because their case is a "civilian crime" but merely because the state they have been convicted in passes down custodial sentences for any crime at all. Under this wording an individual convicted of treason and espionage could request transfer to their home state merely because someone else in that state has been given a custodial sentence for common assault.

The assumption that all, many or most states have systems which include a right to bail is also not proven.

OOC I should point out that many of the problems with this resolution stem from it being inspired fairly directly by RL laws. NS is not like RL, there are uncountable forms of government of varying degrees of divergence from the norms of RL. Assuming that legal concepts from RL can be applied to NS is wrongheaded.