[LAST CALL] The International Criminal Tribunal Act

[Canadianers]

The International Criminal Tribunal Act
The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the devastating impact of genocide, crimes against persons, and war crimes;

Concerned that impunity for Severe International Crimes encourages further acts and denies victims closure;

Recognizing that a complementary international judicial body is needed when domestic judicial systems are unable or unwilling to prosecute such crimes;

Hereby:

1. Establishes the following definitions:

1. “Genocide” as:
   
   1. Acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such;
   2. Intentionally killing, forcibly sterilizing or preventing births, causing serious mental or bodily harm, forcibly transferring children between groups, or inflicting conditions of life intended to physically destroy the group;
2. “Crimes Against Persons” as murder, enslavement, torture, sexual violence, persecution of a group based on political, racial, or religious views, or enforced disappearance, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population;
3. “War Crimes” as serious crimes committed during external or internal war against civilians, Prisoners of War, or combatants who are hors de combat; specifically: willful killing, torture, medical or scientific experiments, or cruel and degrading treatment; or the wanton destruction of property, cities, or towns not imperatively demanded by the necessities of war, as reasonably assessed by the decision-making body at that time, not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, or the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure;
4. “Severe International Crimes” as Genocide, Crimes Against Persons, War Crimes, and any other crimes deemed by current or future World Assembly resolutions;

2. Establishes the International Criminal Tribunal (ICT), an independent and complementary judicial body of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the ICT's responsibilities;

1. Investigate and prosecute individuals accused of Severe International Crimes, subject to the restrictions in Clause 10;
2. Hold fair, transparent, and impartial trials, the burden of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt;
3. Take confidential witness and victim testimonies;

4. Stipulates that judges of the ICT be appointed by a non-partisan chamber (ICT Justice Selection Panel) consisting of seven senior legal officers nominated by World Assembly nations (limited to one nominee per term), and chosen by the WA Secretariat, to serve 5-year terms;

5. Decrees that the ICT Justice Selection Panel select twelve judges of the ICT meeting these criteria:

1. They must have extensive legal experience;
2. They must be of good character, fair, and impartial;
3. They must be mentally and physically fit for the role;

6. Mandates the Pre-Trial Chamber consist of three randomly assigned judges, who shall not sit as Trial Judges on that case;

7. Judges of the ICT serve a single five-year term;

8. Subject to the restrictions in Clause 10, establishes that the ICT can only initiate an investigation when:

1. A member state refers a case to the court accompanied by credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds that a Severe International Crime has been committed; or
2. The ICT Prosecution receives credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe a Severe International Crime has occurred, with express approval from the majority of an independent Pre-Trial Chamber;

9. The ICT may not develop, hire, or contract any armed force;

10. The ICT may only investigate or prosecute cases when:

1. A nation’s domestic judicial system is unable or unwilling to do so and the crime occurred on, or was perpetrated by a national of a WA Member State;
2. A domestic judicial system is determined “unable or unwilling” if an independent ICT Pre-Trial Chamber finds:
   
   1. The proceedings were intended to shield an accused person;
   2. The proceedings were not independent or impartial;
   3. An unjustified delay occurred inconsistent with a genuine intent to prosecute;
   4. The system has collapsed or is unavailable to obtain the accused, gather evidence, or carry out proceedings;
   5. The system cannot try Severe International Crimes;
3. If a Pre-Trial Chamber determines any of the above, the ICT may proceed with investigation or prosecution, even if the accused has already been tried or convicted;

11. If the ICT finds someone guilty, it may impose imprisonment, monetary fines, or other forms of punishment, provided the ICT may not punish convicts with torture, capital punishment, or otherwise cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment;

12. Member states must assist the ICT in good faith with investigations, arrests, warrants, and sharing of evidence to the extent of their capabilities;

13. Mandates that the ICT shall only investigate, prosecute, and rule on violations occurring after the passage of this Act;

14. If a nation willfully refuses to comply with this resolution:

1. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall publish its findings publicly;
2. The ICT may draw adverse inferences and proceed with trial.

Changelog: Clarified wording, ensured the Act applied to non-humans as well, fixed the ICT’s authority, affirmed the complementarity principle, strengthened the preamble, clarified definitions, fixed loopholes in Clause 8a, slightly edited Clause 1d to clarify it was to prosecute leaders and removed a part that was unrealistic, tightened Clause 9 and 10, added Clause 1e to reduce redundancy, clarified jurisdiction, allowed ICT to enforce non-compliance, tightened Clause 8, tightened Clause 14, added exact procedural details regarding justice selection process, numbers, and who appoints them, clarified sentencing restrictions, clarified clause 1a, 1b, and 1c.
This is my polished ninth draft. Last call for feedback! This bill is probably a couple of days from the World Assembly.

[Exo-Proton Dynamics]

A few suggestions:

a. Investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression fairly and impartially;

"Crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" are not defined anywhere. Additionally, the World Assembly operates throughout the multiverse and does not span only the Human species, as implied by "humanity".
It could be expanded to something such as "a. Investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes of aggression, or international crimes as defined by current and future World Assembly resolutions fairly and impartially;"

4. The ICT may not develop an international police force under any circumstances;

This could be expanded to something like "The ICT may not carry out sentences on prosecuted individuals. Such responsibility goes to member states/the member state of their origin/etc etc" to prevent it from being too specific.

[Canadianers]

I've edited my OP with Draft 2. Feedback is appreciated!

[Canadianers]

Updated OP with Draft 3 to account for feedback and some changes I wanted to make to my work! I’d appreciate any feedback, specifically regarding if it’s clear and if you catch any major loopholes.

[Meraud]

IC: The Chief Ambassador of Meraud, Nereida A. Pacífica, enters a General Assembly's conference room dedicated towards the drafting of 'The International Criminal Tribunal Act'.
"Meraud is grateful for receiving a telegraphed invitation for feedback." She places a paper copy of the resolution in front of her and silently focuses on the legislation for several minutes while using her three highlighters.
Green = Support | Red = Rejection | Blue = Modification
Once finished, she begins to speak:

Hereby:
1. Establishes the following definitions for the purposes of this Act:

1. “Genocide” as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group;
   "We recommend removing "national" and "religious" from the groups listed. Both nationality and religion are subjective traits, while ethnic and racial are objective traits. One can change one's nationality and religion, but one is born with one's ethnicity and racial background. In other words, it is not genocide to eradicate a nationality or religion if the organization ceases to exist."
2. “Crimes Against Persons” as murder, enslavement, torture, sexual violence, persecution of a group based on political, racial, or religious views, or enforced disappearance, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack;
   "We recommend adding the qualifier that this only applies to 'foreign non-combatants' in order to respect national sovereignty and prevent legitimate military action to be counted as murder. For example, in Meraud, taxation would be considered a form of enslavement, while forced labor for criminals is not considered a form of enslaverment."
3. “War crimes” as serious crimes committed during external or internal war, specifically willfully murdering civilians and/or Prisoners of War, torture, biological experiments, inhumane treatment, wanton destruction of property, cities, or towns not justified by military necessity;
   "The definition of military necessity is rarely agreed upon among enemies. We recommend merging this and the above clause all under "war crimes" that focuses solely on prohibiting these acts against foreign non-combatants."
4. “Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force that manifestly violates national sovereignty without prior authorization by the World Assembly or a valid justification of self-defence;
   "We recommend removing the 'prior authorization by the World Assembly' as this would imply that aggressive acts of non-self defence are acceptable if the majority approves of it."

2. Establishes the International Criminal Tribunal, an independent judicial body of the World Assembly, which will also be known as the ICT;
3. Lists the responsibilities of the ICT as the following:

1. Investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against persons, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and international crimes established in current and future WA resolutions fairly and impartially;
2. Hold fair, transparent, and impartial trials, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to be beyond a reasonable doubt;
3. Take confidential witness and victim testimonies;
   "We reject the concept of anonymous or confidential testimony. Any individual or organization has the right to know the identity of their accusers."

4. Establishes the ICT can only initiate an investigation when:

1. A World Assembly member nation refers a case to it clarifying that the alleged crime must have happened on the aforementioned nation’s territory or the accused individual(s) must be residents and/or citizens of a WA member nation;
2. The General Assembly or Security Council mandates the ICT to investigate a case; or
3. The ICT Prosecution receives credible evidence demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe a crime mentioned in this Act has occurred, with express approval from the majority of a Pre-Trial Chamber independent from the ICT Prosecution;

5. The ICT may not attempt to develop any military force to enforce its warrants, or otherwise, no matter the circumstances;
6. The ICT may only prosecute cases when a nation is unable or unwilling to;
7. If the ICT prosecutes a case, concerned states must assist the ICT in good faith with investigations, arrests, warrants, and/or sharing of evidence;
8. The text in this Act shall be interpreted in good faith.

"We look forward to this resolution's development." The Chief Ambassador of Meraud rises and exits the room, heading for the next resolution...

[First Nightmare]

“Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force that manifestly violates national sovereignty without prior authorization by the World Assembly or a valid justification of self-defence;

This clause is unacceptable. If a nation attacks us we will stop them permanently, and that means attacking that nation in kind and ensuring they don't do that again. The latter would not be self-defence. Furthermore, it is a flagrant violation of national sovereignity itself to order member states to not engage in warfare. Warfare is the last tool a nation can employ if another nation is engaging in harmful actions to the environment, for example, which would not normally be classified as a reason for self-defense.

[Canadianers]

“Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force that manifestly violates national sovereignty without prior authorization by the World Assembly or a valid justification of self-defence;

This clause is unacceptable. If a nation attacks us we will stop them permanently, and that means attacking that nation in kind and ensuring they don't do that again. The latter would not be self-defence. Furthermore, it is a flagrant violation of national sovereignity itself to order member states to not engage in warfare. Warfare is the last tool a nation can employ if another nation is engaging in harmful actions to the environment, for example, which would not normally be classified as a reason for self-defense.

Hello there! That's actually the entire point of the clause. Let's say you get into a minor border incursion with a nation that has 5 casualties.. Does that give you justification to nuke their capital? No. If a nation is engaging in harmful actions to the environment, yes that is bad, but if we allow that to justify war, soon we get a leader invading a nation because they chopped down one tree. In this scenario, there are two options that come to Canadianers' mind that in their opinion would work much better: 1. Engage in peaceful diplomacy with the nation or 2. Consider, if the action is inherently bad to the international community, drafting a WA resolution about the issue. A key thing to note is that by joining the World Assembly, you inherently have to surrender from sovereign rights. Unfortunately, Canadianers will not be making that change.

[Canadianers]

IC: The Chief Ambassador of Meraud, Nereida A. Pacífica, enters a General Assembly's conference room dedicated towards the drafting of 'The International Criminal Tribunal Act'.
"Meraud is grateful for receiving a telegraphed invitation for feedback." She places a paper copy of the resolution in front of her and silently focuses on the legislation for several minutes while using her three highlighters.
Green = Support | Red = Rejection | Blue = Modification
Once finished, she begins to speak:

Hereby:
1. Establishes the following definitions for the purposes of this Act:

1. “Genocide” as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group;
   "We recommend removing "national" and "religious" from the groups listed. Both nationality and religion are subjective traits, while ethnic and racial are objective traits. One can change one's nationality and religion, but one is born with one's ethnicity and racial background. In other words, it is not genocide to eradicate a nationality or religion if the organization ceases to exist."
2. “Crimes Against Persons” as murder, enslavement, torture, sexual violence, persecution of a group based on political, racial, or religious views, or enforced disappearance, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack;
   "We recommend adding the qualifier that this only applies to 'foreign non-combatants' in order to respect national sovereignty and prevent legitimate military action to be counted as murder. For example, in Meraud, taxation would be considered a form of enslavement, while forced labor for criminals is not considered a form of enslaverment."
3. “War crimes” as serious crimes committed during external or internal war, specifically willfully murdering civilians and/or Prisoners of War, torture, biological experiments, inhumane treatment, wanton destruction of property, cities, or towns not justified by military necessity;
   "The definition of military necessity is rarely agreed upon among enemies. We recommend merging this and the above clause all under "war crimes" that focuses solely on prohibiting these acts against foreign non-combatants."
4. “Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force that manifestly violates national sovereignty without prior authorization by the World Assembly or a valid justification of self-defence;
   "We recommend removing the 'prior authorization by the World Assembly' as this would imply that aggressive acts of non-self defence are acceptable if the majority approves of it."

2. Establishes the International Criminal Tribunal, an independent judicial body of the World Assembly, which will also be known as the ICT;
3. Lists the responsibilities of the ICT as the following:

1. Investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against persons, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and international crimes established in current and future WA resolutions fairly and impartially;
2. Hold fair, transparent, and impartial trials, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to be beyond a reasonable doubt;
3. Take confidential witness and victim testimonies;
   "We reject the concept of anonymous or confidential testimony. Any individual or organization has the right to know the identity of their accusers."

4. Establishes the ICT can only initiate an investigation when:

1. A World Assembly member nation refers a case to it clarifying that the alleged crime must have happened on the aforementioned nation’s territory or the accused individual(s) must be residents and/or citizens of a WA member nation;
2. The General Assembly or Security Council mandates the ICT to investigate a case; or
3. The ICT Prosecution receives credible evidence demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe a crime mentioned in this Act has occurred, with express approval from the majority of a Pre-Trial Chamber independent from the ICT Prosecution;

5. The ICT may not attempt to develop any military force to enforce its warrants, or otherwise, no matter the circumstances;
6. The ICT may only prosecute cases when a nation is unable or unwilling to;
7. If the ICT prosecutes a case, concerned states must assist the ICT in good faith with investigations, arrests, warrants, and/or sharing of evidence;
8. The text in this Act shall be interpreted in good faith.

"We look forward to this resolution's development." The Chief Ambassador of Meraud rises and exits the room, heading for the next resolution...

Hello there! Canadianers appreciates the effort you put into your feedback; here's the response to each modification or rejection Meraud has made: 1. Remove "nationality" and "religion". Canadianers will not be doing this, as they believe Meraud has fundamentally misunderstood the clause. The clause does not prohibit "eradicating" a nationality that has ceased to exist in terms of name. The clause does not prohibit, for example, stripping a citizen of being a resident of a specific nation. However, it bans the killing based on nationality or religion. 2. Canadianers disagrees with this. While we have edited it so it only applies to civilians, it is explicitly to ensure nations do not persecute their own civilians or unfairly treat them. However, for your mention about "enslavement", assuming the forced labor for criminals does not make them the nation's property, it would not be categorized as enslavement. 3. As you can see, the definition also applies to internal wars, and editing it only to apply to "foreign non-combatants" would mean that theoretically during a civil war a nation could do a war crime and the ICT would have no jurisdiction. 4. The "prior authorization" clause requires authorization by the World Assembly. For the World Assembly to approve an act, the nation would have had to be doing horrendous things. Removing the prior authorization part would allow a nation to ruthlessly genocide, torture, and mutilate a minority in their nation, and no World Assembly Member Nation leader would be able to do anything unless they wanted to be convicted by the ICT for a "Crime of Aggression." 5. While Canadianers understands your point, allowing an individual or organization to know the identity of their accusers can and most likely eventually lead to the witness being silenced.

[First Nightmare]

This clause is unacceptable. If a nation attacks us we will stop them permanently, and that means attacking that nation in kind and ensuring they don't do that again. The latter would not be self-defence. Furthermore, it is a flagrant violation of national sovereignity itself to order member states to not engage in warfare. Warfare is the last tool a nation can employ if another nation is engaging in harmful actions to the environment, for example, which would not normally be classified as a reason for self-defense.

Hello there! That's actually the entire point of the clause. Let's say you get into a minor border incursion with a nation that has 5 casualties.. Does that give you justification to nuke their capital? No. If a nation is engaging in harmful actions to the environment, yes that is bad, but if we allow that to justify war, soon we get a leader invading a nation because they chopped down one tree. In this scenario, there are two options that come to Canadianers' mind that in their opinion would work much better: 1. Engage in peaceful diplomacy with the nation or 2. Consider, if the action is inherently bad to the international community, drafting a WA resolution about the issue. A key thing to note is that by joining the World Assembly, you inherently have to surrender from sovereign rights. Unfortunately, Canadianers will not be making that change.

We think you fail to see the other scenario. Let's say that an enemy non-member nation attacks your nation, and destroys much of your infrastructure in these attacks. Then that non-member nation would simply offer peace with no compensation... and you'd have to take it? That's what you propose?

[Canadianers]

Hello there! That's actually the entire point of the clause. Let's say you get into a minor border incursion with a nation that has 5 casualties.. Does that give you justification to nuke their capital? No. If a nation is engaging in harmful actions to the environment, yes that is bad, but if we allow that to justify war, soon we get a leader invading a nation because they chopped down one tree. In this scenario, there are two options that come to Canadianers' mind that in their opinion would work much better: 1. Engage in peaceful diplomacy with the nation or 2. Consider, if the action is inherently bad to the international community, drafting a WA resolution about the issue. A key thing to note is that by joining the World Assembly, you inherently have to surrender from sovereign rights. Unfortunately, Canadianers will not be making that change.

We think you fail to see the other scenario. Let's say that an enemy non-member nation attacks your nation, and destroys much of your infrastructure in these attacks. Then that non-member nation would simply offer peace with no compensation... and you'd have to take it? That's what you propose?

In that scenario you could attack them back and it would be justified self-defence.

[Lipizia]

There is GA#6 for this.

[Canadianers]

There is GA#6 for this.

Hi! If you look closely Canadianers' resolution is actually a binding complementary court prosecuting individuals accused of Severe International Crimes (Genocide, Crimes Against Persons, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression, and crimes established in current and future GA resolutions), while GA#6, the International War Crimes Convention, is like a "Code of Conduct" for warfare. Both handle War Crimes, but GA#6 regulates the battlefield side of things, while the International Criminal Tribunal Act handles the judicial side of things when individuals commit Severe International Crimes.

[Lipizia]

There is GA#6 for this.

Hi! If you look closely Canadianers' resolution is actually a binding complementary court prosecuting individuals accused of Severe International Crimes (Genocide, Crimes Against Persons, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression, and crimes established in current and future GA resolutions), while GA#6, the International War Crimes Convention, is like a "Code of Conduct" for warfare. Both handle War Crimes, but GA#6 regulates the battlefield side of things, while the International Criminal Tribunal Act handles the judicial side of things when individuals commit Severe International Crimes.

Mh you 're right but what means "willful"?

[Canadianers]

Hi! If you look closely Canadianers' resolution is actually a binding complementary court prosecuting individuals accused of Severe International Crimes (Genocide, Crimes Against Persons, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression, and crimes established in current and future GA resolutions), while GA#6, the International War Crimes Convention, is like a "Code of Conduct" for warfare. Both handle War Crimes, but GA#6 regulates the battlefield side of things, while the International Criminal Tribunal Act handles the judicial side of things when individuals commit Severe International Crimes.

Mh you 're right but what means "willful"?

Hi! In this context it means intentional murder. In the General Assembly you interpret in good faith and willful murder is a widely accepted term.

[Lipizia]

Mh you 're right but what means "willful"?

Hi! In this context it means intentional murder. In the General Assembly you interpret in good faith and willful murder is a widely accepted term.

Ok, well I think I'm For.

[The Crusader Kings]

This is quite good, Canadianers! Well done!

My only problem with it :“Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force by military or political leaders that manifestly violates the sovereignty of another state, unless authorized by that state or undertaken in an act of justified self-defense against an armed attack that is proportional". Sounds a lot like you're making war illegal. An invasion would, in theory, violate the sovereignty of another state. Also, define "Self Defense". If my neighbor has a military, does that mean that I can preemptively defend myself by killing said military? Redfine "Genocide". Is it Genocide to kill the last remaining person in a religious group that tried to bomb my state and kill my leader?

This topic is always sketchy, on all fronts. Tread carefully, and watch your wording.

[Canadianers]

This is quite good, Canadianers! Well done!

My only problem with it :“Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force by military or political leaders that manifestly violates the sovereignty of another state, unless authorized by that state or undertaken in an act of justified self-defense against an armed attack that is proportional". Sounds a lot like you're making war illegal. An invasion would, in theory, violate the sovereignty of another state. Also, define "Self Defense". If my neighbor has a military, does that mean that I can preemptively defend myself by killing said military? Redfine "Genocide". Is it Genocide to kill the last remaining person in a religious group that tried to bomb my state and kill my leader?

This topic is always sketchy, on all fronts. Tread carefully, and watch your wording.

Hi! Canadianers would like to clarify each individual part: first, about making war illegal. It aims to prevent nations from rampaging smaller nations around them. As for the definition of "Self-Defense", there's already a widely accepted definition in the World Assembly; preemptive strikes are not Self-Defence. As for your question about "Genocide", it depends on intent. If you intended to kill them due to religion, yes. If they tried to attack you and then you killed them, no.

[First Nightmare]

This is quite good, Canadianers! Well done!

My only problem with it :“Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force by military or political leaders that manifestly violates the sovereignty of another state, unless authorized by that state or undertaken in an act of justified self-defense against an armed attack that is proportional". Sounds a lot like you're making war illegal. An invasion would, in theory, violate the sovereignty of another state. Also, define "Self Defense". If my neighbor has a military, does that mean that I can preemptively defend myself by killing said military? Redfine "Genocide". Is it Genocide to kill the last remaining person in a religious group that tried to bomb my state and kill my leader?

This topic is always sketchy, on all fronts. Tread carefully, and watch your wording.

Hi! Canadianers would like to clarify each individual part: first, about making war illegal. It aims to prevent nations from rampaging smaller nations around them. As for the definition of "Self-Defense", there's already a widely accepted definition in the World Assembly; preemptive strikes are not Self-Defence. As for your question about "Genocide", it depends on intent. If you intended to kill them due to religion, yes. If they tried to attack you and then you killed them, no.

We do not think that "Self-Defense" is what accurately describes what you want here. Self-defense is generally regarded as acts necessary to defend oneself against an attack, and a couple of scenarios you'd like to be covered are actually not.
1. A non-member nation attacks Canadianers to permanently absorb it. After some gruesome battles in your own territory, you start driving them out. They officially declare that they no longer want to fight your nation and retreat behind their own borders. This is, according to previous behaviour and your intelligence, trustworthy. As such, the threat has passed and you are prohibited from attacking that non-member nation... unless you leave the World Assembly.
Maybe simply add

Authorizes member nations to seek restitution for the damages resulting of an aggressive military action of another state, including, should diplomatic efforts fail, by aggressive deployment and use of armed forces, as long it is proportional, even if self-defense is no longer a concern.

[Canadianers]

Hi! Canadianers would like to clarify each individual part: first, about making war illegal. It aims to prevent nations from rampaging smaller nations around them. As for the definition of "Self-Defense", there's already a widely accepted definition in the World Assembly; preemptive strikes are not Self-Defence. As for your question about "Genocide", it depends on intent. If you intended to kill them due to religion, yes. If they tried to attack you and then you killed them, no.

We do not think that "Self-Defense" is what accurately describes what you want here. Self-defense is generally regarded as acts necessary to defend oneself against an attack, and a couple of scenarios you'd like to be covered are actually not.
1. A non-member nation attacks Canadianers to permanently absorb it. After some gruesome battles in your own territory, you start driving them out. They officially declare that they no longer want to fight your nation and retreat behind their own borders. This is, according to previous behaviour and your intelligence, trustworthy. As such, the threat has passed and you are prohibited from attacking that non-member nation... unless you leave the World Assembly.
Maybe simply add

Authorizes member nations to seek restitution for the damages resulting of an aggressive military action of another state, including, should diplomatic efforts fail, by aggressive deployment and use of armed forces, as long it is proportional, even if self-defense is no longer a concern.

Hello! This is a severe edge case. First, to address your clause, theoretically, if a nation owes another nation $1 million for an unclarified loan, they could ditch diplomatic efforts without even trying, ravage the nation, and claim "it was proportional". Second of all, just because they "ended the war" does not mean they are scot-free. If you pursue them proportionally to secure a peace agreement, arrest the infringers, or otherwise, it would still be permissible, so long as it is proportional.

[The Crusader Kings]

This is quite good, Canadianers! Well done!

My only problem with it :“Crimes of Aggression” as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of armed force by military or political leaders that manifestly violates the sovereignty of another state, unless authorized by that state or undertaken in an act of justified self-defense against an armed attack that is proportional". Sounds a lot like you're making war illegal. An invasion would, in theory, violate the sovereignty of another state. Also, define "Self Defense". If my neighbor has a military, does that mean that I can preemptively defend myself by killing said military? Redfine "Genocide". Is it Genocide to kill the last remaining person in a religious group that tried to bomb my state and kill my leader?

This topic is always sketchy, on all fronts. Tread carefully, and watch your wording.

Hi! Canadianers would like to clarify each individual part: first, about making war illegal. It aims to prevent nations from rampaging smaller nations around them. As for the definition of "Self-Defense", there's already a widely accepted definition in the World Assembly; preemptive strikes are not Self-Defence. As for your question about "Genocide", it depends on intent. If you intended to kill them due to religion, yes. If they tried to attack you and then you killed them, no.

Then make that clear in your proposal. Also, be it a widely recognized definition or not. put it in the proposal. Same with the genocide thing.

[First Nightmare]

We do not think that "Self-Defense" is what accurately describes what you want here. Self-defense is generally regarded as acts necessary to defend oneself against an attack, and a couple of scenarios you'd like to be covered are actually not.
1. A non-member nation attacks Canadianers to permanently absorb it. After some gruesome battles in your own territory, you start driving them out. They officially declare that they no longer want to fight your nation and retreat behind their own borders. This is, according to previous behaviour and your intelligence, trustworthy. As such, the threat has passed and you are prohibited from attacking that non-member nation... unless you leave the World Assembly.
Maybe simply add

Authorizes member nations to seek restitution for the damages resulting of an aggressive military action of another state, including, should diplomatic efforts fail, by aggressive deployment and use of armed forces, as long it is proportional, even if self-defense is no longer a concern.

Hello! This is a severe edge case. First, to address your clause, theoretically, if a nation owes another nation $1 million for an unclarified loan, they could ditch diplomatic efforts without even trying, ravage the nation, and claim "it was proportional". Second of all, just because they "ended the war" does not mean they are scot-free. If you pursue them proportionally to secure a peace agreement, arrest the infringers, or otherwise, it would still be permissible, so long as it is proportional.

1. That clause would NOT allow that for normal loans, as it only applies to restitution for the damages resulting of an aggressive millitary action of another state. A loan isn't an aggressive military action.
2.Your claims - that you are allowed to pursue them proportionally, and try to arrest the attackers, are not supported by the text of your resolution. Self-defense is only doing what you need to do to defend yourself. It doesn't extend to revenge or restitution.

[Canadianers]

Hello! This is a severe edge case. First, to address your clause, theoretically, if a nation owes another nation $1 million for an unclarified loan, they could ditch diplomatic efforts without even trying, ravage the nation, and claim "it was proportional". Second of all, just because they "ended the war" does not mean they are scot-free. If you pursue them proportionally to secure a peace agreement, arrest the infringers, or otherwise, it would still be permissible, so long as it is proportional.

1. That clause would NOT allow that for normal loans, as it only applies to restitution for the damages resulting of an aggressive millitary action of another state. A loan isn't an aggressive military action.
2.Your claims - that you are allowed to pursue them proportionally, and try to arrest the attackers, are not supported by the text of your resolution. Self-defense is only doing what you need to do to defend yourself. It doesn't extend to revenge or restitution.

Hello there! You are right. However, the problem with allowing members to be able to invade for punitive measures, which could and will get exploited. What is an “aggressive military action?” While it’s theoretically in the definitions section, since it doesn’t establish who determines it nations can abuse it. It also can turn a war from taking a week from taking years using this clause, and if such a scenario were to occur, diplomatic measures probably would be better to take for the victim nation.

[Canadianers]

Hi! Canadianers would like to clarify each individual part: first, about making war illegal. It aims to prevent nations from rampaging smaller nations around them. As for the definition of "Self-Defense", there's already a widely accepted definition in the World Assembly; preemptive strikes are not Self-Defence. As for your question about "Genocide", it depends on intent. If you intended to kill them due to religion, yes. If they tried to attack you and then you killed them, no.

Then make that clear in your proposal. Also, be it a widely recognized definition or not. put it in the proposal. Same with the genocide thing.

Hello there! I’ve clarified the definition of genocide using “as such” clarifying that you didn’t just need the intent to kill them, you needed the intent to kill then because they were part of a certain group listed in the definition. As for self-defense, there is only one widely agreed upon definition; there’s no ambiguity that needs to be defined. If you have a proposed amendment, however, you’re welcome to post it and I’ll consider it.

[First Nightmare]

1. That clause would NOT allow that for normal loans, as it only applies to restitution for the damages resulting of an aggressive millitary action of another state. A loan isn't an aggressive military action.
2.Your claims - that you are allowed to pursue them proportionally, and try to arrest the attackers, are not supported by the text of your resolution. Self-defense is only doing what you need to do to defend yourself. It doesn't extend to revenge or restitution.

Hello there! You are right. However, the problem with allowing members to be able to invade for punitive measures, which could and will get exploited. What is an “aggressive military action?” While it’s theoretically in the definitions section, since it doesn’t establish who determines it nations can abuse it. It also can turn a war from taking a week from taking years using this clause, and if such a scenario were to occur, diplomatic measures probably would be better to take for the victim nation.

Right. Okay. But there's also the problem of non-member states abusing this limitation. So you need to balance both problems properly, and I don't think the current balance is the right one.

[Canadianers]

Hello there! You are right. However, the problem with allowing members to be able to invade for punitive measures, which could and will get exploited. What is an “aggressive military action?” While it’s theoretically in the definitions section, since it doesn’t establish who determines it nations can abuse it. It also can turn a war from taking a week from taking years using this clause, and if such a scenario were to occur, diplomatic measures probably would be better to take for the victim nation.

Right. Okay. But there's also the problem of non-member states abusing this limitation. So you need to balance both problems properly, and I don't think the current balance is the right one.

True. At the same time, if a non-member state were to take such a horrendous action as you mentioned, it would be in the ICT's jurisdiction, and in this case, I'm assuming the WA nation would refer the case to the ICT. If a leader of the non-member state was convicted, and the state willingly protected them, the International Criminal Tribunal could heavily condemn them and demand economic or diplomatic sanctions, as well as war reparations. Most nations are not self-sufficient and most likely have an abundance of trade with World Assembly Nations or at least assets with the World Assembly, so these threats will have some ground, as if they didn't comply, a huge portion of their economy could get shut down. If you have a proposed amendment that compromises between my views and your views, and is what you believe to be the best balance, please tell me! I'd be happy to view it. I've still edited it slightly if you'd like to check.