AT VOTE: Habeas Corpus [Complete] [Complete]

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sanctaria

Habeas Corpus:
Description: The General Assembly,

BELIEVING that being detained unlawfully is a serious affront to an individual's liberty and right to freedom,

CONCERNED that some nations may not have the pathway of habeas corpus to rectify such illegal detentions,

CONVINCED that habeas corpus is a legal remedy that must be available to those who are detained,

Hereby

MANDATES that any individual detained by the state, or a state actor, shall have the right to appeal the legality of that detention before an impartial judicial body, or its equivalent, by oneself or through proxy;

DEMANDS that detention shall neither be arbitrary nor shall continue if deemed illegal;

REQUIRES that nations employ the usage of time limits on detention so as to avoid the unnecessary breach of an individual's liberty and right to freedom.
Click to expand...
 
If anyone has any questions regarding the proposal, I'm happy to answer them!
 
Elu asked me to write a short piece on why you should vote for this proposal.

Most of us can agree that habeas corpus is fairly important. This shouldn't be a decisive issue, but past resolutions on the topic have proven ineffective and restrictive, especially with regards to their set time limits.

This proposal does exactly what it says on the tin; it grants the right of habeas corpus and that if a detention is found to be illegal the detainee is set free.

The third binding clause also asks nations to put time limits on detention. This just bans indefinite detentions. This is not a blocker clause, as espoused by some individuals. As expressed by a Mod, one can still author a resolution on setting time limits for certain things. My addition of the "time limits clause" was done at the urging of Ambassadors in the drafting thread. Please note that time limits and habeas corpus are different things.

I would ask that you vote in favour. We need to end this continuous cycle.

Elu asked me to write a short piece on why you guys should vote in favour of this habeas corpus proposal.

I think most of us can agree that habeas corpus is a fairly important right. Being able to appeal the legality of one's detention should be a cornerstone of one's justice system.

First off, yes, this is not the first time you're being asked to vote on Habeas Corpus. For that I'm sorry. This should not be a decisive issue, but past resolutions on the topic have proven to be ineffective and too restrictive on member nations, especially with regards to their faulty set time limits.

This proposal does not go into that much detail. This proposal is short and to the point. Simply titled Habeas Corpus, it does exactly what it says on the tin; it grants the right of habeas corpus. It also demands that there be no arbitrary detention, i.e. detention for no cause, and that if a detention is found to be illegal, via the habeas corpus process, the detainee is set free.

The third binding clause also asks nations to put time limits on detention. This basically bans indefinite detention which is a good thing because it means if a detention is legal, detainees can be sure that they know when the detention will definitely end. This is not a blocker clause, as espoused by some individuals. As expressed by a Mod, one can still author a resolution on setting time limits for certain things.

However it's important to stress that time limits and habeas corpus are different things. Habeas Corpus grants one the right to appeal the legality of one's detention, that's it. The addition of the "time limits clause", as it has come to be known, was done at the urging of most Ambassadors in the drafting thread.

I would ask that you guys vote in favour. We need to end this continuous cycle on an issue that should be fairly non-contentious.
 
Draft Information for Voters (Request For Comments)

In order to further the World Assembly's mission and better represent what The North Pacific's World Assembly nations intend, the Delegate is establishing an "Information For Voters" program. While making no guarantees as of yet, I hope to release an Information For Voters sheet on every Resolution At Vote.

In terms of mechanics, as this is a Significant Human Rights proposal, it will raise Civil Rights significantly in your nation.

Sanctaria:
Summary in Favor:Most of us can agree that habeas corpus is fairly important. This shouldn't be a decisive issue, but past resolutions on the topic have proven ineffective and restrictive, especially with regards to their set time limits.

This proposal does exactly what it says on the tin; it grants the right of habeas corpus and that if a detention is found to be illegal the detainee is set free.

The third binding clause also asks nations to put time limits on detention. This just bans indefinite detentions. This is not a blocker clause, as espoused by some individuals. As expressed by a Mod, one can still author a resolution on setting time limits for certain things. My addition of the "time limits clause" was done at the urging of Ambassadors in the drafting thread. Please note that time limits and habeas corpus are different things.

I would ask that you vote in favour. We need to end this continuous cycle.
Click to expand...

Eluvatar:
Summary opposed:

Several ambassadors to the World Assembly have noted that this proposal requires Time Limits without specifying them, and argued that a 100 year limit on detention without charges would be permissible. These ambassadors were worried that this resolution's language would prevent a resolution specifying such time limits on detention, but the secretariat appears to have ruled otherwise. However, one can sincerely doubt whether a proposal solely written to establish time limits on detention will pass.
Click to expand...

As a note, Eluvatar wrote a summary opposed because none was submitted by an actual opponent. Hopefully in future we will get more submissions. I did my best effort to find and summarize the best counter-argument.
 
This resolution would conflict with the policies of the Sovereign Kingdom of Ator People, so we will be voting nay on the proposal.
 
Ator People:
This resolution would conflict with the policies of the Sovereign Kingdom of Ator People, so we will be voting nay on the proposal.
Click to expand...
That is most regrettable.
 
Ator People:
This resolution would conflict with the policies of the Sovereign Kingdom of Ator People, so we will be voting nay on the proposal.
Click to expand...
Do you wish to submit an alternate counter-argument summary?
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the WA.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a WA nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Eluvatar:
Ator People:
This resolution would conflict with the policies of the Sovereign Kingdom of Ator People, so we will be voting nay on the proposal.
Click to expand...
Do you wish to submit an alternate counter-argument summary?
Click to expand...
Well our argument isn't anything special, so no. Ator People, as an absolute monarchy, does not bind His Majesty to time limits on detentions.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Just thought I would point out that this resolution is authored by the Delegate of the International Democratic Union. :)
Click to expand...
And registered citizen of TNP!

Still awaiting entry into the RA though... :pinch:
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top