[Submitted] Repeal Convention Against Heinous Crimes

[Lieutenant Columbo]

The disheveled homicide detective himself finds an out-of-the-way conference room and sets up shop. "Oh no oh no this won't do. This sort of legislation has got to go!"

---

Recognizing a robust international judicial apparatus as necessary to the carriage of international law,

Incensed that, twice now, the subject matter of comity has been exploited to ride in the institution of a World Assembly law enforcement agency authorized to use any degree of force necessary to carry out its functions, the International Enforcement Commission, and to pave a road for future resolutions to expand its police scope in such a manner as to severely erode member state sovereignty,

Particularly concerned that GAR #698 therefore reserves to the World Assembly authority to conduct by the terms of future legislation military invasions and occupations via the International Enforcement Commission, and alarmed at the probable scope of destruction and death such operations might inflict on innocent inhabitants of member states,

Horrified that this same reservation blocks any future World Assembly legislation to prevent the International Enforcement Commission from committing acts that, were they committed by a member state's military, would violate this body's laws of war, namely:

1. conscription into the International Enforcement Commission, where preexisting protections in GAR #660 "Protecting Objectors In Combative Military Service" prohibit member states from conscripting for combat roles, and
   
   
2. systemic restriction of occupied populations' freedoms, including from several forms of coerced labor, and from unredressed devastation of civilian infrastructure, some of the many injustices GAR #519 "Provisional Rule in Wartime" seeks to regulate,

Further observing that the scope of the comity directives in GAR #698 includes only acts illegal under World Assembly law, and therefore illegal in every member state's jurisdiction,

Therefore regarding comity in national or subnational criminal proceedings against parties accused of such acts as likely

1. superfluous, since all member states will regard the act as illegal, and even where a member may fail to enforce the law the World Assembly Judiciary Committee is fully equipped to deliver justice in member nations' stead,
   
   
2. obstructive of justice, since these proceedings must now account for incongruent foreign legal customs and precedents either by incorporating them into their own goings on, or by surrendering the accused to another jurisdiction even if that jurisdiction is unlikely to complete judicial proceedings with the same degree of justice as would the other, and
   
   
3. elusive, since the extension of comity is a spectrum of allowances and courtesies, rendering the boundary of good-faith compliance blurry beyond acceptability,

Alarmed that the standards for extending comity are so lax and prejudicial as to include whether "there is probable cause that the individual is guilty", a determination which may effectively act as a preliminary ruling for or against the accused before trial even begins,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR #698 "Convention Against Heinous Crimes".

[Lieutenant Columbo]

ooc: hah! That would be just like me, to only notice Tinhampton and Co.'s draft once I've gotten my writing all started. I'll leave this up just in case, but given the robustness of the other preexisting draft, I have no desire to compete against it.

[Lieutenant Columbo]

Since Tinhampton's resolution was, unfortunately, defeated, I'm inclined to come back to this. Taking all comments/criticism, please.

[The Ice States]

Therefore regarding comity in national or subnational criminal proceedings against parties accused of such acts as

[list=a][*]superfluous, since all member states will regard the act as illegal,

This was asserted in the defeated repeal and I still don't understand this line of reasoning. Something may certainly be illegal, and yet a member nation may not prosecute such acts unless compelled to (whether via international pressure, legislative requirements, or so on). This is especially the case where it is a member nation committing the said war crimes itself.

obstructive of justice, since these proceedings must now account for incongruent foreign legal customs and precedents either by incorporating them into their own goings on, or by surrendering the accused to another jurisdiction regardless of their own capacity to complete judicial proceedings justly, and

The alternative is no justice whatsoever. I'm not sure how it obstructs anything.

Alarmed that the standards for extending comity are so loose and prejudicial as to include whether "there is probable cause that the individual is guilty", a determination which functions as a preliminary ruling for or against the accused before trial even begins,

Again, the alternative would be blind extension of comity regardless of the situation, which seems far worse. I don't believe that there's anything prejudicial about not advancing cases where there is no probable cause for the charges.

Incensed that, twice now, this subject matter has been exploited to ride in the institution of a World Assembly law enforcement agency authorized to use any degree of force necessary to carry out its functions, the International Enforcement Commission, and to explicitly pave a road for future resolutions to expand its police scope in such a manner as to severely erode member state sovereignty,

As with the repeal by W&S et al, if your rationale is "WA police bad" you should just say this and put it at the forefront of the repeal, instead of focusing on spurious justifications entirely unrelated to that.

[Lieutenant Columbo]

Therefore regarding comity in national or subnational criminal proceedings against parties accused of such acts as

[list=a][*]superfluous, since all member states will regard the act as illegal,

This was asserted in the defeated repeal and I still don't understand this line of reasoning. Something may certainly be illegal, and yet a member nation may not prosecute such acts unless compelled to (whether via international pressure, legislative requirements, or so on). This is especially the case where it is a member nation committing the said war crimes itself.

"Member states are, uh, required to comply with all resolutions in good faith, yeah? That's whatcher Civil Charter says. You see, since all criminal acts relevant to the target're illegal under World Assembly law, member states are required to prosecute these acts, or at least try to. Otherwise that's not good faith compliance."

obstructive of justice, since these proceedings must now account for incongruent foreign legal customs and precedents either by incorporating them into their own goings on, or by surrendering the accused to another jurisdiction regardless of their own capacity to complete judicial proceedings justly, and

The alternative is no justice whatsoever. I'm not sure how it obstructs anything.

"No, I don't think so. What I describe here is no justice whatsoever. The alternative is that member states enforce their own laws in their own jurisdictions or, failing that in your exceptional case of a rogue state, the World Assembly enforces it itself through the international court. That's real justice. You even bring the Judiciary Committee into this, only to bypass their entirely capable courts in favor of foreign ones not relevant to the case."

Alarmed that the standards for extending comity are so loose and prejudicial as to include whether "there is probable cause that the individual is guilty", a determination which functions as a preliminary ruling for or against the accused before trial even begins,

Again, the alternative would be blind extension of comity regardless of the situation, which seems far worse. I don't believe that there's anything prejudicial about not advancing cases where there is no probable cause for the charges.

"It is necessarily prejudicial for a member nation's court to make a fact judgement of an individual's probable guilt and deliver those it deems guilty to another court prior to any actual conviction."

Incensed that, twice now, this subject matter has been exploited to ride in the institution of a World Assembly law enforcement agency authorized to use any degree of force necessary to carry out its functions, the International Enforcement Commission, and to explicitly pave a road for future resolutions to expand its police scope in such a manner as to severely erode member state sovereignty,

As with the repeal by W&S et al, if your rationale is "WA police bad" you should just say this and put it at the forefront of the repeal, instead of focusing on spurious justifications entirely unrelated to that.

"They're hardly spurious. Besides, this is not a lengthy proposal, people can read all the way through, and my wife always tells me in things like these you leave your strongest argument for last. Adds that bit of 'oomph!', yeah?"

[The Ice States]

Ooc: For the record, that was an Ooc post, however I will respond Ic anyway.

This was asserted in the defeated repeal and I still don't understand this line of reasoning. Something may certainly be illegal, and yet a member nation may not prosecute such acts unless compelled to (whether via international pressure, legislative requirements, or so on). This is especially the case where it is a member nation committing the said war crimes itself.

"Member states are, uh, required to comply with all resolutions in good faith, yeah? That's whatcher Civil Charter says. You see, since all criminal acts relevant to the target're illegal under World Assembly law, member states are required to prosecute these acts, or at least try to. Otherwise that's not good faith compliance."

"For what it's worth, I admit that this is a stronger justification than that given in the defeated repeal, and I do appreciate the elaboration. I am, however, still unconvinced by this. Ideally, member nations would indeed prosecute all acts of war crimes, but unfortunately they often fail to do so. If it is a member nation's own war criminal, that member nation has, frankly, nothing to lose by not prosecuting without attention being brought to that specific case, whether it be in the form of WACC investigation, public outrage, or a request for comity from another member nation seeking to enforce the law against that person. This is, in effect, nothing more than basic reasonable nation theory."

"If, on the other hand, a member nation is required to at least give consideration, via a tribunal if comity is not already to be extended, to a request for comity, that will itself incentivise the sending of such requests, and when they are sent create an obligation to deal with the specific case in question. A generic incident of a soldier shooting a civilian ipso facto has no real incentive to be specifically dealt with. There is, however, an incentive if another member nation is actively trying to get the same soldier prosecuted, and thus is likely to report a failure to comply with obligations under #698, as well as good faith compliance required in #654, to the Compliance Commission. Mandating comity therefore still has a substantial value in facilitating the process of bringing heinous criminals to justice."

The alternative is no justice whatsoever. I'm not sure how it obstructs anything.

"No, I don't think so. What I describe here is no justice whatsoever. The alternative is that member states enforce their own laws in their own jurisdictions or, failing that in your exceptional case of a rogue state, the World Assembly enforces it itself through the international court. That's real justice. You even bring the Judiciary Committee into this, only to bypass their entirely capable courts in favor of foreign ones not relevant to the case."

"I still fail to see how this is obstructive of justice. If it is incongruent and too difficult to try otherwise, a member nation can just extradite and leave it to the member nation requesting comity. If it is feared that due process will be violated, that is explicitly stated as grounds for denial of comity."

Again, the alternative would be blind extension of comity regardless of the situation, which seems far worse. I don't believe that there's anything prejudicial about not advancing cases where there is no probable cause for the charges.

"It is necessarily prejudicial for a member nation's court to make a fact judgement of an individual's probable guilt and deliver those it deems guilty to another court prior to any actual conviction."

"Right, but the resolution is not doing this, Ambassador. The tribunal is not deeming any individual guilty, it is merely deeming that there is a possibility that an individual is guilty. The alternative is granting member nations no discretion in whether to extend comity, which would mean that member nations are obligated to facilitate frivolous charges of heinous crimes."

"As of now, we remain opposed to this resolution."

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

[Astrobolt]

Since Tinhampton's resolution was, unfortunately, defeated, I'm inclined to come back to this. Taking all comments/criticism, please.

OOC: Given that the previous attempt at repeal was defeated, why do you think you will be successful?

[Stella Nera]

Full support, though why can't you just say WA police bad instead of giving all these other reasons.

[Lieutenant Columbo]

Since Tinhampton's resolution was, unfortunately, defeated, I'm inclined to come back to this. Taking all comments/criticism, please.

OOC: Given that the previous attempt at repeal was defeated, why do you think you will be successful?

I guess I'm an optimist. Plus, it's been successfully repealed before. I understand there are a few detractors that got upset that Tinhampton wrote 'another' repeal of this target, but that's only because Magecastle resubmitted the same resolution with a few words shuffled around and convinced people that was a suitable improvement upon their original version. The same problems for which it was repealed back in August still exist.

Full support, though why can't you just say WA police bad instead of giving all these other reasons.

All those other reasons are still relevant. Should I instead expound upon the last item, lending it unambiguous primacy by the sheer word count attached to it?

[Tigrisia]

The delegation of Tigrisia firmly rejects this proposal, as a repeal of said convention would make it very hard for people who suffer from the atrocities of their governments to achieve justice.

[Iron Felix]

Full support. I consider all repeals good at this point and don't particularly care what arguments are used. There are literally hundreds of resolutions that are in need of repeal.

[The Overmind]

Full support. I consider all repeals good at this point and don't particularly care what arguments are used. There are literally hundreds of resolutions that are in need of repeal.

You can instantly repeal them all for yourself with the single press of a button.

[Iron Felix]

Full support. I consider all repeals good at this point and don't particularly care what arguments are used. There are literally hundreds of resolutions that are in need of repeal.

You can instantly repeal them all for yourself with the single press of a button.

Felix lowers his newspaper and peers over the top of his glasses. "Who is this imbecile and why is he going on about buttons?" he wonders.

He goes back to reading his paper.

[The Overmind]

You can instantly repeal them all for yourself with the single press of a button.

Felix lowers his newspaper and peers over the top of his glasses. "Who is this imbecile and why is he going on about buttons?" he wonders.

He goes back to reading his paper.

That was OOC, but if you insist:

You know, the shiny button at your desk that says, "LEAVE THE WORLD ASSEMBLY THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY JOINED." That button. Crazy how many letters they managed to fit on it, but it does summarize the NatSov concern rather nicely, doesn't it?

[Iron Felix]

Felix lowers his newspaper and peers over the top of his glasses. "Who is this imbecile and why is he going on about buttons?" he wonders.

He goes back to reading his paper.

That was OOC, but if you insist:

You know, the shiny button at your desk that says, "LEAVE THE WORLD ASSEMBLY THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY JOINED." That button. Crazy how many letters they managed to fit on it, but it does summarize the NatSov concern rather nicely, doesn't it?

Becoming more annoyed now, Felix looks up from his paper again and addresses the not terribly bright ambassador from The Overmind.

"I see your government has a policy of hiring the mentally disadvantaged. I suppose that could be a good thing for filling lower echelon positions in the Department of Sorting Shiny Things, but it amazes me that they would send someone of your caliber to represent them in the WA."

He looks around his desk.

"There is no button here labeled 'LEAVE THE WORLD ASSEMBLY THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY JOINED'. It's just a desk. Now I advise you to take your unhinged ramblings elsewhere."

Felix slips off the safety on his sidearm, in case things get sporty.

[The Overmind]

-snip-

In all seriousness, and OOC, if you find yourself wanting to repeal most of the legislation that you're bound to as a member of the WA, I seriously question the wisdom of subjecting yourself to it. International legislation is not going to be summarily liquidated any time soon, and since most nations, by definition, supported the passage of those hundreds of resolutions, a more equitable and realistic solution is to just not voluntarily be bound by them.

[Iron Felix]

-snip-

In all seriousness, and OOC, if you find yourself wanting to repeal most of the legislation that you're bound to as a member of the WA, I seriously question the wisdom of subjecting yourself to it. International legislation is not going to be summarily liquidated any time soon, and since most nations, by definition, supported the passage of those hundreds of resolutions, a more equitable and realistic solution is to just not voluntarily be bound by them.

Felix smiles.

"You're pushing your luck, little man"

Felix turns to a nearby Destructor Bunny and says "go and prepare the DEFENESTRATINATOR V3. It appears we will need it soon".

The Destructor Bunny replies "CAG!, and scurries away.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: A defenestration? Oooh! Me next! Me! Me!

As for the repeal: absolutely against. We need to eliminate the competition by getting rid of all the WA war criminals. Then we'll be #1!

[Lieutenant Columbo]

"Here we go, now, a fresh draft. Folks, come on and tell me what you think."

[The Ice States]

Horrified that this same reservation blocks any future World Assembly legislation to regulate or prohibit conscription into the International Enforcement Commission, and that the preexisting protections in GAR #660 "Protecting Objectors In Combative Military Service" only prohibit member states from conscripting for combat roles,

How does it do this? I wouldn't consider conscription a "law enforcement action", inasmuch as no law mandates it and therefore there is no law enforcement.

[Lieutenant Columbo]

Horrified that this same reservation blocks any future World Assembly legislation to regulate or prohibit conscription into the International Enforcement Commission, and that the preexisting protections in GAR #660 "Protecting Objectors In Combative Military Service" only prohibit member states from conscripting for combat roles,

How does it do this? I wouldn't consider conscription a "law enforcement action", inasmuch as no law mandates it and therefore there is no law enforcement.

"Well, the IEC has to get warm bodies somewhere, and if some rogue state refuses to let go of an accused war criminal the armed force necessary to extract that suspect is warfare. Either the gnomes get spawning much faster than they usually do, or the IEC starts recruiting with whatever concern for recruits' consent it pleases, since regulation of how it acquires and treats its soldiers is prohibited."

[Lieutenant Columbo]

"As fun as it is talking with my target's author," Columbo says with a few 'w's in that last word, "I really would appreciate, if it's not too much to ask, that is, everyone being rather busy, it would help if some other folks would offer their genuine feedback. The other folks we've got in the room, uh, well my wife would say that they could use a good roof over their heads and someone to talk to."

[Lieutenant Columbo]

"My concern, um, at the moment...here: I've just updated the draft language. I'm pretty confident in my claims in this repeal, but I'd rather not encounter any Honest Mistake violations--that's what you call them, yeah? If something's wrong here, it'd be good to get that out of the way before I submit this."

[Lieutenant Columbo]

"Unless someone's got a pretty bit of argument coming in soon, I think this is the version I'm going with."

[Midlona]

Midlona fully supports this resolution, and reasserts its previous position on the matter.

What in GA#698 is so ineffective, overparented, or otherwise indicative of requiring a resolution of Repeal? For clarity, what exactly would your repeal of GA#698 accomplish that attached legislations do not already provide?

The Federal Republic of Midlona, concurring in the outcome of this resolution, doesn't wholly endorse its justifications for why GA #698 should be repealed.

Midlona's principal objection is GA #698's encouragement of unilateral prosecution of foreign individuals alleged to have committed heinous crimes. A victorious belligerent or concerned nation who wishes to try those it perceives as war criminals, either with the accused in its custody or in abstentia, is welcome to do so. Midlona should not be forced by the WA to recognize and expend judicial resources on analyzing the internal proceedings of other (potentially hostile) nations. International law on war and war crimes is fraught with controversy and normative considerations that are too fragile to 1) empower individual nations to implement autonomously while 2) (potentially) requiring any member-nation to participate in those autonomous pursuits. See 3(b).

Midlona believes that the realities of war, grief, and human temper will reduce GA #698 to cannon fodder in ideological and geopolitical battles once an armed conflict ceases.

On this point, Midlona rejects the apparent consensus that the jurisdiction which tries #698-defendants is immaterial. While WA law would reign in a heinous crimes trial, it must be assumed that domestic law of the trying jurisdiction will fill the gaps, and, therefore, have great influence on the outcome. The rather sparse jurisprudence on WA law also opens the door to bad-faith or mis- interpretation of WA law in favor of the goals/biases of the trying jurisdiction. (OOC= The Soviet Union's idea of "justice" for Nazi officials after WWII was quite different from that of the western Allies, yet both claimed the mantle of international humanitarian law.)

For all these reasons, Midlona supports GA #698's repeal and replacement with a similar system that relies upon international tribunals, either through the WA or a consortium of neutral nations.