At Vote: Repeal "International Criminal Court" [Complete] [Complete]

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Repeal "International Criminal Court"

Proposed by: Mousebumples | Resolution link | World Assembly forum thread​
Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #102: International Criminal Court (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

RECOGNIZES that through the passage of previous legislation, the World Assembly has established a standard of conduct within WA member nations:

GAR# 9, Prevention of Torture, outlawed torture and established procedures for the investigation and prosecution of those involved in torturing others.

GAR#18, The Prisoners of War Accord, established standards of appropriate treatment and care for PoWs.

GAR#23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, outlawed slavery and forced labor.

GAR#25, WA Counterterrorism Act, worked to prevent terrorism by helping to coordinate counterterrorism activities and requiring WA member states to cease any state terrorist actions.

GAR# 38, Convention Against Genocide, outlawed genocide and allowed for the prosecution of perpetrators of such a crime within WA Member States.

GAR#40, The Landmine Convention, worked to negate the future deployment of landmines and mitigate the future risks to already deployed landmines.

ACCEPTS that such international standards are good and right within such an international body, even though the application of such legislation is limited to acting within the sovereign borders of WA member nations.

HIGHLIGHTS the following clause in GAR#102, International Criminal Court, which reads:
AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

NOTES that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and thereby the aforementioned International Criminal Court, is limited to only acting within WA member nations or through their actions within their territories.

BELIEVES that each WA member nation ensures that crimes outlawed within WA legislation are appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory, removing the need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants.

UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions, which would require additional legislation to outlaw international travesties that are not currently covered under existing WA resolutions.

ASSERTS that WA member nations will be most effectively served repealing the International Criminal Court, due to its limitations in both efficacy and utility, as outlined above.

REPEALS GAR#102, International Criminal Court.

Co-authored by: Ainocra
Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.
 
This goes to vote next major. Again, I am not an expert on GA matters, but reading through the WA forum thread I am inclined to support this. So I vote For.
 
As the author, I'm obviously in favor. I'd be happy to answer any questions that TNP voters may have - either here, or via TG to my main nation, Mousebumples.

Thanks for the support, to all of those who do support ... and for the consideration, at least, either way. :)
 
Hi again, everyone. I just wanted to add my two cents here, because this is a very important resolution. I'm going to preface this by telling you that this proposal is probably one of the most factually inaccurate repeals ever submitted for serious consideration. Literally every single argument is factually incorrect or makes assumptions that cannot be backed up with evidence. For example, this clause:

"UNDERSTANDS that the existence of GAR #79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws restricts the crimes that can be brought before the International Criminal Court to those that are presently outlawed by existing WA resolutions, which would require additional legislation to outlaw international travesties that are not currently covered under existing WA resolutions."

- is illegal for two reasons. First, it assumes that the ICC can have its explicit mandate limited by a previous resolution. This, right of the bat, makes the argument illegal because it assumes that previous resolution can contradict the text of resolutions that follow it - they can't. If a resolution bans fruits, and one after it legalizes lemons, even though that second resolution was illegal, the repeal cannot recognize that because all passed resolution are de facto legal. Of course, that's not even the worst of it. The argument in the repeal conflates the principle of no ex post facto laws, which prohibits retroactively punishing someone, and nulla poena sine lege, which prohibits punishment without law. The former is not relevant at all, because that is simply not what GAR#79 does. If the resolution said "all individuals that have committed these crimes previously shall be prosecuted by the ICC," then at least the argument could be made, because I guess there are some places in the WA where murder, genocide, and forced sterilization aren't illegal (according to the repeal author's logic), but it doesn't. Furthermore, the concept of nulla poena sine lege allows for punishments based on international law - as a matter of fact, I have a draft of a resolution on the very topic. So this entire argument is simply wrong. And I don't mean that I disagree with it, I mean that if it was a multiple choice question on a test, it would be marked wrong because it's factually incorrect.

"BELIEVES that each WA member nation ensures that crimes outlawed within WA legislation are appropriately pursued and prosecuted within their sovereign territory, removing the need for the International Criminal Court to issue said arrest warrants."

This argument makes the assumptions that one, member nations all have the required judicial infrastructure to charge criminals (which is not guaranteed), and two, that prosecution and compliance are one and the same. A nation can comply, in good faith, with a resolution effectively and not prosecute every single crime committed. The doctrine of mandatory compliance has never included prosecution, and I have scholarly articles on the topic dating back to HotRodia in the UN days that corroborate my claim. So this argument relies on assumptions that are not necessarily true.

"NOTES that the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and thereby the aforementioned International Criminal Court, is limited to only acting within WA member nations or through their actions within their territories."

This argument is, in all candor, simply ridiculous. I have never heard a repeal argument that claims that the target resolution is ineffective because it only affects member nations. How is that even an argument? Of course it only affects member nations, who else is it going to affect?

"ACCEPTS that such international standards are good and right within such an international body, even though the application of such legislation is limited to acting within the sovereign borders of WA member nations."

This argument and the preceding list of example resolutions falls into the same trap as the "believes" clause. Member nations do not have to prosecute individuals for actions to be in compliance with a resolution.

So please, put this resolution down before it permanently damages the World Assembly's integrity. Whether or not you disagree with the ICC is irrelevant because we should all work together to prevent specious repeals like this from passing.
 
Against this as there isn't a replacement up.

My WA is on Nierr currently.
 
Sciongrad:
*snip due to length*
Click to expand...
Hey guys - sorry for the delay in responding here. RL has been interfering more than anticipated this weekend, so I haven't had the time I expected to be able to respond to posts here - and on other off-site forums or on the NS forum, for that matter.

For starters, Sciongrad states "this repeal is illegal" - which is patently false, per this Secretariat ruling on the NS forums. He may not like the arguments, and he may not agree with them. However, to call them "illegal" when the WA Mods clearly stated otherwise seems rather underhanded and, honestly, seems to be a sort of dirty politicking I wouldn't expect from him.

So far as "Mandatory Compliance not including prosecution" ... then what's the point of outlawing anything if nations don't have to prosecute for individuals within their borders that violate these laws? How many existing resolutions need to be repealed and replaced in order to ensure that stuff the WA doesn't want to doesn't want to happen ... is properly punished if it does happen? That's the most nonsensical explanation I've heard of for evading compliance, no matter what the "scholarly articles from the UN days" may say. I wasn't very active in the UN then (nor was Sciongrad, I'll add), and I didn't participate in those discussions or drafting of said articles, but it doesn't make any sense.

Seriously, think this through: For example, GA#4 bans child labor fairly explicitly. However, it doesn't require that employers that hire children - in violation of this resolution's set restrictions - specifically be prosecuted or fined or whatever. So that means that it's up to the children to "not work" ? There's no onus placed on employers to not employ children, and WA nations have no dictate from the WA to ensure that children do not work by punishing offending employers accordingly? How does that make any sense?

So far as the WA territories are the only ones affected - that ties into the aforementioned mandatory compliance argument that Sciongrad doesn't agree with. IF the ICC could act in non-WA nations, it would serve a purpose to help deter the utilization of war crimes in non-WA nations and territories. However, by the rules of the WA, the ICC is prohibited from doing that. WA nations - by my understanding (and, I'd think, by the understanding of any rational player) - are compliant with WA resolutions and are enforcing them accordingly. Sure, as with any law in Real Life, some crimes may go unreported or undiscovered, but I would expect that rather than having the ICC "issue a warrant," the WA nation in question could (and should!) be notified and should then take the appropriate steps to begin the detention and trial for the individual(s) in question.

I've got a few more family things that came up for tomorrow, but I'll try to be around a bit more in the evening at least, if any further questions arise after this lengthy response.
 
Can we repeal GA#4 while we're at it then? Thats the problem today. Kids have no work ethic. They think money just manifests in daddys wallet. If they want that new iPhone or iPad or whatever. I say work for your measly 5 cents a day and save up for it.

In fact can we just scrap all the Resolutions and start from scratch?
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
In fact can we just scrap all the Resolutions and start from scratch?
Click to expand...
Haha, as you may know, we already did that once. (check out this news post ... and the one from the following day)

I would support doing that again. However, I don't think most players (or mods, or admins, or techies ... and probably even Max himself) would agree with me.

But we can do it the hard way, and repeal what we can, bit by bit. You're welcome to target GA#4 on those grounds, if you want - I lay no claim to them, and I don't know if I buy that argument myself as it just seems illogical to me. *shrugs*
 
I've done my best to follow the debate here on the forum (thank you Mousebumples and Sciongrad) as well as the other links presented.

I will accept that Sciongrad's argument that the current resolution is not illegal as dictated by the WA moderators. However, I am not convinced that repealing the International Criminal Court is a good move.

From my understanding of such things, there may be situations where criminal cases may get mixed up with national interests between two or more nations. In this case, an impartial arbitrator is required. I take it that the ICC serves this function.

With this in mind, I vote against.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Can we repeal GA#4 while we're at it then? Thats the problem today. Kids have no work ethic. They think money just manifests in daddys wallet. If they want that new iPhone or iPad or whatever. I say work for your measly 5 cents a day and save up for it.

In fact can we just scrap all the Resolutions and start from scratch?
Click to expand...
I'd be for a repeal of WA 1 personally. But I think it's more of a goal to work towards than a legitimate possibility.
 
Mousebumples:
Sciongrad:
*snip due to length*
Click to expand...
Hey guys - sorry for the delay in responding here. RL has been interfering more than anticipated this weekend, so I haven't had the time I expected to be able to respond to posts here - and on other off-site forums or on the NS forum, for that matter.

For starters, Sciongrad states "this repeal is illegal" - which is patently false, per this Secretariat ruling on the NS forums. He may not like the arguments, and he may not agree with them. However, to call them "illegal" when the WA Mods clearly stated otherwise seems rather underhanded and, honestly, seems to be a sort of dirty politicking I wouldn't expect from him.

So far as "Mandatory Compliance not including prosecution" ... then what's the point of outlawing anything if nations don't have to prosecute for individuals within their borders that violate these laws? How many existing resolutions need to be repealed and replaced in order to ensure that stuff the WA doesn't want to doesn't want to happen ... is properly punished if it does happen? That's the most nonsensical explanation I've heard of for evading compliance, no matter what the "scholarly articles from the UN days" may say. I wasn't very active in the UN then (nor was Sciongrad, I'll add), and I didn't participate in those discussions or drafting of said articles, but it doesn't make any sense.

Seriously, think this through: For example, GA#4 bans child labor fairly explicitly. However, it doesn't require that employers that hire children - in violation of this resolution's set restrictions - specifically be prosecuted or fined or whatever. So that means that it's up to the children to "not work" ? There's no onus placed on employers to not employ children, and WA nations have no dictate from the WA to ensure that children do not work by punishing offending employers accordingly? How does that make any sense?

So far as the WA territories are the only ones affected - that ties into the aforementioned mandatory compliance argument that Sciongrad doesn't agree with. IF the ICC could act in non-WA nations, it would serve a purpose to help deter the utilization of war crimes in non-WA nations and territories. However, by the rules of the WA, the ICC is prohibited from doing that. WA nations - by my understanding (and, I'd think, by the understanding of any rational player) - are compliant with WA resolutions and are enforcing them accordingly. Sure, as with any law in Real Life, some crimes may go unreported or undiscovered, but I would expect that rather than having the ICC "issue a warrant," the WA nation in question could (and should!) be notified and should then take the appropriate steps to begin the detention and trial for the individual(s) in question.

I've got a few more family things that came up for tomorrow, but I'll try to be around a bit more in the evening at least, if any further questions arise after this lengthy response.
Click to expand...
Before you go around calling my arguments "dirty politicking," notice that I made the argument before the ruling. And while I don't agree with the ruling, there's really not much more I can do about it. Sorry for any misunderstanding. :blush:

However, your argument about compliance is still only an assumption and isn't the most widely accepted view on mandatory compliance. As I've said before, compliance means implementing the policy goals of a resolution, which doesn't not necessarily include prosecution of every single case. You keep saying that this doesn't make sense but the examples you give make the false assumption that prosecution is the only means by which policies are implemented and they're not. There are several types of policy implementation - hortatory, incentive-based, etc. - and prosecution, or an authoritative technique that uses criminal penalties is just one type. Furthermore, even if a nation complied in good faith with every resolution and prosecuted every single individual that's violated a WA resolution except for one, is that active non-compliance? Of course it's not. Regarding your point on GAR#4 - the onus is on the government of the nation in question to prevent child labor, and while a criminal penalty for those that use child labor is probably common, it's not the only way to implement the policies of the resolution. You're making the assumption that implementation is the same thing as prosecution, and almost everyone involved in the debate has told you otherwise.

Also, your argument about the limitations of the ICC's jurisdiction is silly. "The ICC would be effective if the GA rules were different, but they're not." That's not really an argument about the resolution, that's just pointing out a fact of the GA's rule set.

EDIT: *hortatory
 
Sciongrad:
Also, your argument about the limitations of the ICC's jurisdiction is silly. "The ICC would be effective if the GA rules were different, but they're not." That's not really an argument about the resolution, that's just pointing out a fact of the GA's rule set.
Click to expand...
It's at the point where we'll have to agree to disagree on most of this. I can keep arguing the point back and forth, but I don't think either of us are going to concede at this point, and I also don't know that either of us have any new information to add.

So far as this final point, yes, it's a fact of the GA's rule set - but it's why an International Court in NS is - in my opinion - not as awesome as an idea as the concept in the Real World. I can't speak for the author, or if the wide variety of RL international courts impacted their decision to write this resolution in the first place, but smart money would say, yes, it did. Pointing out the details of the GA ruleset, for me at least, makes it clear (to both myself and to voters) that NS =/= RL, and that good ideas in RL are not necessarily good ideas in NS, due to the limitations imposed on things (such as the International Court) by the ruleset.
 
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