[Rough Draft / Test] International Administration of Justice

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Alright, yeah, this is going to be seriously flawed and possibly illegal. But I had this idea awhile ago and want to explore whether or not this is possible in the current GA context. Please help.

Ambassador Blackbourne emerges from a darkened drafting room, flips on the lights, puts up a sign by the door, and announces to anybody walking by: "I have drafted a new proposal, which seeks to end injustice within the World Assembly as perpetrated by certain nations."

International Administration of Justice
Category: Political Stability (?)
Strength: Significant (?)

---

Seeking to promote international security and reduce crime through an international justice system

Believing the best way to implement this is mutual cooperation by WA member states,

The Assembly of Worlds hereby

Reaffirms the right of member nations to universal jurisdiction over war crimes, so-called "crimes against humanity" and any other such crime that the World Assembly may decide to grant universal jurisdiction for;

Defines the jurisdiction of the World Assembly as all matters of law addressed by this Assembly over which member nations do not have universal jurisdiction,

Reestablishes the International Criminal Court as an appellate court operated by the World Assembly, with the following mandates:

• Establishing an international court system and staffing it appropriately,
• Reviewing appeals submitted by individuals in member nations who, being unsatisfied with criminal justice in their own nation, wish to receive a hearing in the ICC,
• Choosing to accept cases which it deems to be of serious international importance and which fall under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly,
• Delaying or refusing requests for weeks on end,
• Reviewing evidence submitted by all parties to such cases as well as any evidence submitted by the Compliance Commission or any other World Assembly body,
• Deciding such cases as it decides to hear;

Empowers the International Criminal Court to determine whether individuals or nations have violated World Assembly law in cases under World Assembly jurisdiction, to issue appropriate fines to nations found in noncompliance, and to withhold WA general funds from nations which refuse to pay fines;

Grants to member nations the right to pursue, apprehend, and prosecute individuals suspected of committing a crime under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly within their own territory, and within the territory of any member nation if there is good reason to suspect that such member nation is refusing or neglecting to prosecute such criminal suspects within their territory;

[Imperium Anglorum]

On Universal Jurisdiction comes to mind.

[Separatist Peoples]

Pursuing and apprehending sounds like police action, too. This doesn't look feasible with Rights & Duties and Universal Jurisdiction removed.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Interesting. I think you might have successfully slid around OUJ (aside by-the-way: IA, the listing for 312 in the Passed Resolutions thread has the Ctrl-F shortcut as "ONJ' rather than "OUJ") by making this thing exclusively an appellate court. However, I don't think "Establishing an international court system" manages to fit in that very tiny loophole, since a "court system" includes trial courts with original jurisdiction, and that won't fly. Under OUJ only member states can have original jurisdiction.

This, though:

Defines the jurisdiction of the World Assembly as all matters of law addressed by this Assembly over which member nations do not have universal jurisdiction,

...is either an empty set or a contradiction of #312. What matter of law is left out of both that resolution's affirmation of universal member state jurisdiction for heinous crimes, and the ordinary sovereign right of jurisdiction over ordinary crimes?

Then, I echo SP's point - giving member states the right to root around in any other member state, even for wanted war criminals, violates the most basic sovereignty as delineated in GAR #2.

This might not be dead on arrival, though. I'm curious to see what comes of it (and what others make of the legality issues herein).

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Interesting. I think you might have successfully slid around OUJ (aside by-the-way: IA, the listing for 312 in the Passed Resolutions thread has the Ctrl-F shortcut as "ONJ' rather than "OUJ") by making this thing exclusively an appellate court. However, I don't think "Establishing an international court system" manages to fit in that very tiny loophole, since a "court system" includes trial courts with original jurisdiction, and that won't fly. Under OUJ only member states can have original jurisdiction.

This, though:

Defines the jurisdiction of the World Assembly as all matters of law addressed by this Assembly over which member nations do not have universal jurisdiction,

...is either an empty set or a contradiction of #312. What matter of law is left out of both that resolution's affirmation of universal member state jurisdiction for heinous crimes, and the ordinary sovereign right of jurisdiction over ordinary crimes?

Then, I echo SP's point - giving member states the right to root around in any other member state, even for wanted war criminals, violates the most basic sovereignty as delineated in GAR #2.

This might not be dead on arrival, though. I'm curious to see what comes of it (and what others make of the legality issues herein).

I disagree that it gets around OUJ.

including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution,

Clause 7 explicitly includes any international criminal court. An appellate court for criminal acts is still a criminal court or substantially similar institution.

The question of original jurisdiction isn't ever dealt with.

[Imperium Anglorum]

(aside by-the-way: IA, the listing for 312 in the Passed Resolutions thread has the Ctrl-F shortcut as "ONJ' rather than "OUJ")

Corrected.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I disagree that it gets around OUJ.

including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution,

Clause 7 explicitly includes any international criminal court. An appellate court for criminal acts is still a criminal court or substantially similar institution.

The question of original jurisdiction isn't ever dealt with.

The full text of clause 7 (emphasis mine):

7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

I don't see that an appellate court is capable of "preempting" a claim; by definition it only hears cases which a member state has already tried to completion. The proposed institution is, yes, quite obviously "an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution," but not one capable of "preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction."

(aside by-the-way: IA, the listing for 312 in the Passed Resolutions thread has the Ctrl-F shortcut as "ONJ' rather than "OUJ")

Corrected.

Thanks!

[Imperium Anglorum]

The full text of clause 7 (emphasis mine):

7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

I don't see that an appellate court is capable of "preempting" a claim; by definition it only hears cases which a member state has already tried to completion. The proposed institution is, yes, quite obviously "an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution," but not one capable of "preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction."

For what it's worth, I believe this has been for quite some time the dominant interpretation, I agree with it, and it is also the one which was taken by the moderators in some ruling or another in 2014 or 2015.

[Excidium Planetis]

On Universal Jurisdiction comes to mind.

"I have already taken it into consideration." Blackbourne replies.

OOC: asked about this awhile ago in a discussion thread titled On "On Universal Jurisdiction". This is the result.

Pursuing and apprehending sounds like police action, too. This doesn't look feasible with Rights & Duties and Universal Jurisdiction removed.

OOC?
Undertaken by the police of member nations, so the police actions clause should not come under effect. There isn't even a WA committee doing any organizing this time. Are you arguing that member nations are prohibited from using their own police in ways allowed by WA law?

OOC: Interesting. I think you might have successfully slid around OUJ by making this thing exclusively an appellate court. However, I don't think "Establishing an international court system" manages to fit in that very tiny loophole, since a "court system" includes trial courts with original jurisdiction, and that won't fly. Under OUJ only member states can have original jurisdiction.

OOC:
Hmmm... that was not my intent. I will work to correct that.

This, though:

Defines the jurisdiction of the World Assembly as all matters of law addressed by this Assembly over which member nations do not have universal jurisdiction,

...is either an empty set or a contradiction of #312. What matter of law is left out of both that resolution's affirmation of universal member state jurisdiction for heinous crimes, and the ordinary sovereign right of jurisdiction over ordinary crimes?

The WA has laws, so therefore all violations of WA law should be crimes. Some of these are crimes against humanity and war crimes, but most are not and therefore no explicit right to universal jurisdiction is granted. The argument is whether it is implied that member nations have universal jurisdiction over all violations of WA law. I do not believe so.

Then, I echo SP's point - giving member states the right to root around in any other member state, even for wanted war criminals, violates the most basic sovereignty as delineated in GAR #2.

Matters of international law has always been exempted. If the WA grants a right to violate national sovereignty, then it is so.

As an example, treaty organizations may, through certain agreements, violate national sovereignty (such as by requiring adoption of a common currency). But these are specifically exempted in GA#2. In the same way, nations must, because the WA says so, allow other nations to track down criminals in their territory. It is part of an obligation to international law.

---

Curious to see what Auralia makes of this.

[United Massachusetts]

What if a nation attempted to execute a prisoner before his repeal was heard? Or what if a nation denies a citizen the right to appeal?

[United Massachusetts]

Also, is a WA Police Force, if you will, an army?

Grants to member nations the right to pursue, apprehend, and prosecute individuals suspected of committing a crime under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly within their own territory, and within the territory of any member nation if there is good reason to suspect that such member nation is refusing or neglecting to prosecute such criminal suspects within their territory;

I'm sure someone's ruled on this before, but I don't know which way the ruling was decided

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm sure someone's ruled on this before, but I don't know which way the ruling was decided

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... FToKr5Ues/

[Auralia]

OOC: Interesting. I think you might have successfully slid around OUJ (aside by-the-way: IA, the listing for 312 in the Passed Resolutions thread has the Ctrl-F shortcut as "ONJ' rather than "OUJ") by making this thing exclusively an appellate court. However, I don't think "Establishing an international court system" manages to fit in that very tiny loophole, since a "court system" includes trial courts with original jurisdiction, and that won't fly. Under OUJ only member states can have original jurisdiction.

I don't see that an appellate court is capable of "preempting" a claim; by definition it only hears cases which a member state has already tried to completion.

((OOC: But "trying to completion" implies the ability to control the entire process, including the appeals process. If a member state have a claim to criminal jurisdiction, that claim is absolute and applies to both original and appellate jurisdiction. An international appellate court would force member states to share appellate jurisdiction, which is exactly what the blocker in OUJ was supported to prevent.

I remember the moderator ruling IA is referencing and I did not agree with it. I hope GenSec rejects that particular moderator precedent.

With that said, I do not think OUJ prohibits an international court for crimes for which universal jurisdiction is not recognized by the World Assembly. Nor does it prohibit an international court for civil matters. I'm not sure either is a particularly good idea, though.))

What matter of law is left out of both that resolution's affirmation of universal member state jurisdiction for heinous crimes, and the ordinary sovereign right of jurisdiction over ordinary crimes?

((OOC: The World Assembly does not recognize an explicit inalienable sovereign right of jurisdiction over ordinary crimes for which there is no universal jurisdiction.))

[Auralia]

((OOC: Link to the appellate court ruling. I think it clearly misreads OUJ as merely granting some kind of initial "right to prosecute" as opposed to full criminal jurisdiction.))

[Excidium Planetis]

((OOC: With that said, I do not think OUJ prohibits an international court for crimes for which universal jurisdiction is not recognized by the World Assembly. Nor does it prohibit an international court for civil matters. I'm not sure either is a particularly good idea, though.))
((OOC: The World Assembly does not recognize an explicit inalienable sovereign right of jurisdiction over ordinary crimes for which there is no universal jurisdiction.))

OOC:
In regards to this, which is probably the second of the two large challenges to this proposal (the other being Legality) I will argue this:
For matters addressed by World Assembly law, the World Assembly has clearly decided that such matters are
A) Of international importance and
B) Should not be left solely in the hands of member nations.
Therefore, I do believe that such matters are both of importance to be addressed by an international court and should not be left solely to the courts of member nations.

Finally, there is pressing need for such judicial action because member nations have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to adhere to WA mandates and will ignore those mandates or find loopholes to avoid compliance. Even if such actions as those of the international court do not create perfect compliance, they would certainly go quite a way by disincentivizing non-compliance and ignorance of WA resolutions.

[Bears Armed]

(Will comment next week, when a holiday from work means that I'll have more time available to consider the arguments and the applicable resolutions.)

[Fauxia]

I might actually support, although I have reservations, that said, can you please not call it the Assembly of Worlds? It is the World Assembly, not the Worlds Assembly.

[United Massachusetts]

I still contend that this violates the no-armies rule

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't see that an appellate court is capable of "preempting" a claim; by definition it only hears cases which a member state has already tried to completion. The proposed institution is, yes, quite obviously "an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution," but not one capable of "preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction."

But it preempts that final jurisdiction that member courts have. I don't see how any supranational court doesn't do that.

[Separatist Peoples]

I still contend that this violates the no-armies rule

That rule was thrown out. The only no-army barrier is in GAR#2.