[PASSED] Consular Rights

[Topid]

I attempted to draft this thread here. The draft was mainly ignored, but was bumped several times. I made a new thread because that one was eight pages back, and the entire first page of the thread is devoted to a loosely related proposal that I abandoned to pursue this one, and don't make sense without the context of the first OP.

Consular Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Topid

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the existence of diplomatic missions like consulates and embassies which serve as a representation from one nation
to another,

Understanding in many nations the laws may be confusing to understand for a common citizen from another culture and that a representative from the diplomatic mission of one's home nation may make the law more clear,

Realizing that nations may also accuse a citizen of a crime falsely and that governments way want to hear evidence from the citizen that he or she is being falsely accused so the government may protect its citizens abroad,

Knowing that those citizens of a nation convicted of a crime in another nation may also wish to speak to a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission to inform their government on conditions within the prison or to seek advice on appeals,

Hereby:

Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
The "home nation" as the nation the accused holds citizenship in.
The "host nation" as the nation that has accused or convicted the foreigner of a crime.
A "diplomatic mission" as an embassy, consulate, or other formal representation of the home nation.

Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,

Allows host nations to require these meetings to occur off of the actual grounds of the diplomatic mission, to prevent a situation where the accused refuses to leave the building the host nation is not allowed to access,

Encourages nations to staff diplomatic missions with legal experts in the host nation's laws to be able to advice their citizens accused of a crime within the host nation,

Further declares that foreigners convicted of crimes and imprisoned within member states have the right to meet with a representative of their home nation's diplomatic mission privately, within the prison, once per year, should such a diplomatic mission exist.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador to Topid

[Connopolis]

I applaud the intent of this resolution, but its realistic applicability is lacking. If this nation was corrupt in the first place, what would a foreign lawyer do that a standard lawyer couldn't? I would promote fair consular advice, as opposed to the right to a foreign lawyer.

Yours in curiosity,

[Topid]

Corruption is only part of the reason. The consulate may or may not be able to offer advice on what to do/say to get the accused in better standing when it comes to the law, but they will often be able to give advice as to what things to avoid saying in order to preform better in the court of public opinion (which is relevant in many nations). But also if a prisoner is being held and has no explanation his home nation may want to know about it, and maybe will reach a solution by negotiating. And the final advantage is that if a culture (the host nation) is fairly isolationist or does not communicate much with the home nation of the prisoner, the prisoners family may have no idea what has happened to him/her while abroad. Allowing him to meet with his consulate allows home nations to inform the family, if that is something the home nation is interested in devoting resources to do.

Ultimately, it can't solve every problem that could pop up. Most resolutions that try to do that fail anyway. But it is one step that can help in many situations, at little cost in my opinion, so an obvious one.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Everyone in member states are entitled to a fair trial as far as I can remember. How does this draft improve on it?

Not a bad idea, I just need a few clarifications and I think it would go well with my statelessness draft, and perhaps a potential resolution on the principle of nationality. As I am planning a separate resolution to protect the most obvious rights in nationality, and just to be sure, would this resolution, if passed, allow such a potential resolution to state that every national of a member state have the right to obtain consular assistance (generalized)?

[Topid]

Fairness in criminal courts requires:

INSISTS that the accused be permitted expert representation by a professional versed in the area of law concerned;

INSISTS that the accused and their representative be permitted to confer in private as regards the facts and presentation of the case, and that no part of such a conference may be revealed to any third party without the explicit permission of the accused;

FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it;

REQUIRES that the accused be capable of understanding proceedings, through the provision by the court of translators and carers as necessary;

It does not prevent kangaroo courts whatsoever, or even require that the 'professional versed in the area of law concerned' has to actually help him with his defense instead of just sitting next to him silently as would be a common case in societies with a strong dislike for outsiders, where the lawyer is just as likely to dislike his client as the prosecutor. However, my resolution doesn't prevent that either, no resolution can ever prevent humans from having biases.

This proposal would allow a home nation to become aware of any of the above practices, what the home nation did with that information would be completely their decision. And of course as I said makes it possible for word to reach the prisoner's home regarding his/her whereabouts.

Ted Fairless, Ambassador to the WA

[Darenjo]

It looks like a good idea. I'll be watching this with interest.

[Garvug]

I mean, it's already up, and looks likely to be approved as is, but there's one thing I'd like to see that isn't present. Now, part of the act is as follows:

"Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,"

But, what if the home nation doesn't have a diplomatic mission in the host nation? Can no provision be included allowing for a willing third nation to intercede, and provide a representative?

(For some OOC examples: During the First Barbary War, while American POWs were being held in Tripoli, their status and well-being were monitored by the Danish consul since the US consul had been expelled. More recently, the American hikers imprisoned in Iran have been visited by and have met with representatives from the Swiss embassy, as the US does not have an embassy in Iran.)

Personally, I'd be much more comfortable voting for this if it contained a provision allowing for an agreed-upon third party nation to provide a representative to meet with the accused should the home nation (for any reason) not have representation in the host nation.

[Linux and the X]

The idea of being in a nation as a non-citizen could use clarification. Specifically, if a dual-national enters using a foreign passport, they are in the country as a non-citizen. However, they are still a citizen. Other changes may be needed to handle dual-nationals as well, but that's just the first I noticed.

[New Garzah]

I like this idea, but I see a slight problem that I have a feeling won't be important enough to mention. Maybe it is. In my nation, most serious crimes are punished by immediate execution if it can be proved that the suspect committed it. Sometimes this means a trial, other times it means mowing down bank robbers as they come out with a hostage. It doesn't matter at all who did it, they usually get shot on sight. Obviously, if they're dead, foreigners can't meet with their ambassador and request legal help. I have a feeling the answer you'll propose will be something along the lines of, "Stop shooting people," but I was just curious.

[Sanctaria]

I don't see any obvious problems, but then again I haven't really had to the time to scour through the proposal. While I find micromanagement has found its way into the final clause, I don't see why I can't support this proposal at the current time.

Warm Regards.,

[Quelesh]

My approval was actually the last one needed to reach quorum.

[Casta Nal]

Okay with this. Gets my approval because this is an issue of concern.

[Topid]

I mean, it's already up, and looks likely to be approved as is, but there's one thing I'd like to see that isn't present. Now, part of the act is as follows:

"Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,"

But, what if the home nation doesn't have a diplomatic mission in the host nation? Can no provision be included allowing for a willing third nation to intercede, and provide a representative?

(For some OOC examples: During the First Barbary War, while American POWs were being held in Tripoli, their status and well-being were monitored by the Danish consul since the US consul had been expelled. More recently, the American hikers imprisoned in Iran have been visited by and have met with representatives from the Swiss embassy, as the US does not have an embassy in Iran.)

Personally, I'd be much more comfortable voting for this if it contained a provision allowing for an agreed-upon third party nation to provide a representative to meet with the accused should the home nation (for any reason) not have representation in the host nation.

The original draft I started out with would have dealt with this problem. But it was also a little awkward and messy.
Unfortunately I'm of the school of thought that legislation can't be created that protects everyone in every single situation, and so this is a broad resolution that hits the major problem.

I like this idea, but I see a slight problem that I have a feeling won't be important enough to mention. Maybe it is. In my nation, most serious crimes are punished by immediate execution if it can be proved that the suspect committed it. Sometimes this means a trial, other times it means mowing down bank robbers as they come out with a hostage. It doesn't matter at all who did it, they usually get shot on sight. Obviously, if they're dead, foreigners can't meet with their ambassador and request legal help. I have a feeling the answer you'll propose will be something along the lines of, "Stop shooting people," but I was just curious.

If I had more time at the moment, I'd look through the existing WA resolutions. I think there is one on executions, there definitely is one allowing the accused a fair trial. So immediate executions already don't happen in WA states.

The idea of being in a nation as a non-citizen could use clarification. Specifically, if a dual-national enters using a foreign passport, they are in the country as a non-citizen. However, they are still a citizen. Other changes may be needed to handle dual-nationals as well, but that's just the first I noticed.

I think someone raised that in the other draft. Personally if a person is a citizen of NationX and NationY and is arrested in NationX while using a passport, I can't see the harm in a meeting with the consulate of NationY.

This is going to vote in a few minutes. Thanks to all the delegates who supported this effort.

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Maybe I am a bit of a quality assurance fan, but I think this resolution could be wider in regards to stolen passports and other stuff which requires consular assistance. Otherwise it could have been called Consular rights in criminal cases. Either way I'm not too bothered by it, and I might vote for.

Consular rights might be part of a future general nationality rights proposal, in which case I may not need to name it More Consular Rights.

[Ravlys]

While I get the general gist of what you are trying to accomplish with this bill, I find that the language you are using is confusing at time. Perhaps at a later date you could re-word it so it easier to follow along with what you are trying to accomplish. In the case that it's just me being confused because I am tired, I apologize in advance.

[Scollertoft]

The Empire of Scollertoft finds this resolution to be poorly and confusingly worded. We have decided to vote against it on the following grounds:

1) It's confusing and ambiguous language leaves it vulnerable to excessively-liberal interpretation, and
2) It involves outside nations in Scollertoft's internal justice system to a degree which we find uncomfortable.

Thank you for your consideration in proposing this resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

Further declares that foreigners convicted of crimes and imprisoned within member states have the right to meet with a representative of their home nation's diplomatic mission privately, within the prison, once per year, should such a diplomatic mission exist.

AGAINST

My nation wishes to monitor all conversations of foreigners in our prisons. If we've convicted and imprisoned a foreign terrorist, we do not believe such a person, who may continue to pose a danger to public safety, should be allowed to meet privately with anyone. I plan to draft an insta-repeal of this proposal on these grounds.

[Sanctaria]

Further declares that foreigners convicted of crimes and imprisoned within member states have the right to meet with a representative of their home nation's diplomatic mission privately, within the prison, once per year, should such a diplomatic mission exist.

AGAINST

My nation wishes to monitor all conversations of foreigners in our prisons. If we've convicted and imprisoned a foreign terrorist, we do not believe such a person, who may continue to pose a danger to public safety, should be allowed to meet privately with anyone. I plan to draft an insta-repeal of this proposal on these grounds.

Doesn't Fairness in Criminal Trials already allow private discussions with one's legal representative?

[Topid]

AGAINST

My nation wishes to monitor all conversations of foreigners in our prisons. If we've convicted and imprisoned a foreign terrorist, we do not believe such a person, who may continue to pose a danger to public safety, should be allowed to meet privately with anyone. I plan to draft an insta-repeal of this proposal on these grounds.

Doesn't Fairness in Criminal Trials already allow private discussions with one's legal representative?

Yes. But to be fair, this will allow them private conversations with at least two people.

I issue my sincerest thanks to the ambassadors who have given this resolution a strong early lead!

Ted Fairless, WA Ambassador from Topid

[Christian Democrats]

Doesn't Fairness in Criminal Trials already allow private discussions with one's legal representative?

I didn't think "INSISTS" was mandatory.

INSISTS that the accused and their representative be permitted to confer in private as regards the facts and presentation of the case, and that no part of such a conference may be revealed to any third party without the explicit permission of the accused

Also, there's a difference between a legal representative who is appointed by a domestic court and a representative of a foreign nation that may be hostile to your nation.

[Dukopolious]

I'm afraid this since this doesn't allow WA nations to send thier diplomats to non-member nations yet non-member nations are allowed to send thier diplomats to WA nations,

Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,

I for one would not like illegal drug cartels from the anarchy south of mine to let thier nation free him through diplomacy, yet when one of my people enter their nation and commit a crime no matter how small (They exicute for alomsot anything) I cannot do anythign about it. This seems abit one sided and for this reason and the fact that I'd rather not have my nation flooded with forgien diplomats,

Dukopolious is hereby OPPOSED.

But on the positive side it's well written, so I applaude you for that.

[Sanctaria]

Doesn't Fairness in Criminal Trials already allow private discussions with one's legal representative?

I didn't think "INSISTS" was mandatory.

I've always presumed it was. That's the art of writing resolutions though. Several meanings and ambiguity can keep many people happy, and all it required as a single word.

INSISTS that the accused and their representative be permitted to confer in private as regards the facts and presentation of the case, and that no part of such a conference may be revealed to any third party without the explicit permission of the accused

Also, there's a difference between a legal representative who is appointed by a domestic court and a representative of a foreign nation that may be hostile to your nation.

A legal representative isn't always appointed by a court. It's whomever your lawyer is. It's only provided by the courts if you can't afford one.

Also, if the foreign nation is hostile to your own, why would you (a) let citizens of that nation in and/or (b) allow a diplomatic mission in your homeland.

[Christian Democrats]

Also, if the foreign nation is hostile to your own, why would you (a) let citizens of that nation in and/or (b) allow a diplomatic mission in your homeland.

RL: The United States and China are somewhat hostile to each other and allow foreign travelers and maintain diplomatic relations. Another example is the United States and Russia.

Here are two news stories: 1, 2.

[Connopolis]

Also, if the foreign nation is hostile to your own, why would you (a) let citizens of that nation in and/or (b) allow a diplomatic mission in your homeland.

RL: The United States and China are somewhat hostile to each other and allow foreign travelers and maintain diplomatic relations. Another example is the United States and Russia.

Here are two news stories: 1, 2.

This is extremely unusual, but I find myself agreeing with my colleague. This resolution was submitted prematurely, and unfortunately, it's loophole ridden. Unless, of course, I've misinterpreted this incorrectly, in which case, I may or may not alter my stance.

Yours,

[Sanctaria]

Also, if the foreign nation is hostile to your own, why would you (a) let citizens of that nation in and/or (b) allow a diplomatic mission in your homeland.

RL: The United States and China are somewhat hostile to each other and allow foreign travelers and maintain diplomatic relations. Another example is the United States and Russia.

Here are two news stories: 1, 2.

Spying on other nations =/= hostile relations, it's just good intelligence practices; or, in these cases, bad ones because they got caught.

If the US and China were hostile to one another, I doubt China would be the one holding the majority of US debt.