Not a single one of the examples you've provided extends a member nation's jurisdiction. In every situation you've provided (including some non-binding preambulatory clauses?), nothing in the text indicates, either explicitly or otherwise, that the resolution allows a member nation to extend its jurisdiction over foreign nationals or stateless individuals.
Where is a member nation's jurisdiction
limited within WA law? Did I fall asleep that day at WA resolution school? You keep insisting that "because things are this way in RL,
they MUST be the same way in NS" ... because ... magic? Some things follow naturally, yes. However, with the exception of the Diplomatic Immunity Act (which doesn't apply here, anyhow, since diplomats are obviously not stateless), I can't think of any resolution that specifically either limits or expands a nation's ability to prosecute, detain, imprision, etc.,
any individuals.
So far as the "non-binding preambulatory clauses" portion goes - I tried to refrain from quoting EVERYTHING at everyone ... especially since the intent was to show
who was covered in the resolutions that I cited. Since I expect anything less than complete capitulation by me (hint: not gonna happen) is going to be met with the same mule-headed response, I suppose I should have just quoted everything.
It looks like you literally went through the resolution list, used control F, and just posted every resolution with the phrase "all persons," because none of these actually support your argument, and I'm even more baffled that almost half are preambulatory clauses.
The resolutions I cited are the same ones that I cite within the text of the repeal itself. So ... thanks for make believing that you've read the repeal text that you're arguing so strongly against?
The "individuals" covered in these resolutions is what I focused on. I can't give proof that something "doesn't exist" (unless, again, you want me to include the text of every single resolution in here), so I don't really know what I was supposed to "magically find." There is not anything in WA law to support the RL=NS jurisdictional claims that you're making.
I think you may have missed my point. My point was that the only reason the process is separate is because there's no other way for it to be done effectively. Multilateral prosecution of stateless individuals is the only sensible way to go about the issue. Just like it's not unfair that individuals without legs can't use the stairs like everyone else. Furthermore, the "judicial protocols" are the same, except the duty of prosecuting stateless individuals is given to a quasi-judicial body with the proper jurisdiction. This whole argument is nothing but fearmongering.
Who says that there's "no other way for it to be done effectively" ? That is
your opinion, which you are welcome to hold - however, that doesn't make it fact/law/the only way to do anything.
You say that the "judicial protocols" are the same, but why is an individual nation's own judicial system "not good enough" ? Similar to the ICC, I believe that individuals that commit crimes within my own nation
should be tried within my own nation - whether they are Mousebumplonian citizens or not.
Oh my goodness, I literally cannot tell if you're being serious. You're comparing prosecuting stateless individuals in a quasi-judicial committee with the proper jurisdiction, under which they're guaranteed the same treatment, liberties, and rights as every other individuals under any other court in the World Assembly, to racial segregation in the United States, where "separate but equal" entailed bigotry, unfair treatment, racism, and segregation? Either this is a very offensive political tactic or you honestly think charging stateless individuals in an international court is the same thing as systematic segregation based on race. Clearly, dividing bathrooms up based on gender is also an unfair example of the draconian "separate but equal" principle?
As above, I think that crimes committed within my own nation should be tried within the courts of my own nation. And, yes, bathrooms are the same as courts.
Thanks again for making another extreme example that doesn't really support your argument here except to go, "Nuh uh!"
This "quasi-judicial committee" follows the same protocols
as laid out by WA law. It cannot possibly follow the exact same protocols followed within every WA nation, as there are undoubtedly some variables that are not enshrined within WA law. The WA laws I cited do establish a "bare minimum," but to say that an individual going through the Mousebumplonian court system and the ICMP are going to be "exactly the same" is pushing it. Of course, this magical RL=NS concept that you're clinging to, might have something to do with that ...
I don't understand. Under the resolution, only stateless detainees captured by multilateral efforts would need to be transported to the ICMP. Could you perhaps clarify your point here? Could you cite the text that you're getting this from?
I cited the text I'm getting this from, but since you're confused, I'll try to explain again.
This resolution ONLY covered stateless detainees captured by a "multilateral effort." If we buy your argument (which I don't, obviously), there is
no way to try stateless detainees that are captured by a single nation. Because ... jurisdiction or something. They're not covered under ICMP, and - according you to - I can't try them on my own because I don't have the jurisdiction to do so.
No matter which side you're on, I'd consider that to be a fault of the proposal, as well - unless that was an intended loophole by the author of the resolution, so as to ensure that certain stateless detainees are never prosecuted?
