[GA] At Vote: On Universal Jurisdiction[Archived]

---

Description: Recognizing the moral depravity of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Believing that such crimes are so heinous that the international community bears a collective responsibility to bring those who are guilty of such crimes to justice,

Concerned, however, about the potential lack of accountability and abuses of power associated with granting criminal jurisdiction to an international court,

Convinced, therefore, that the best means to fulfill this responsibility is to grant individual World Assembly member states the right and obligation to prosecute such individuals,

The General Assembly,

Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;

Requires member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2 in cases where:

the individual is within the territorial jurisdiction of that member state,

the individual has not already been given a fair trial for that crime by another state, and

there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;

Directs member states to ensure that the severity of the sentence assigned to an individual following a conviction of a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution is consistent with the severity of their crime;

Strongly encourages member states to volunteer any evidence relevant to the prosecution of an individual for a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution;

Permits member states to transfer an individual subject to prosecution under section 3 of this resolution to the jurisdiction of another member state that is able and willing to safely and fairly prosecute that individual for the same alleged crime or crimes;

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;

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution precludes the World Assembly from passing further legislation on criminal jurisdiction, international police or judicial cooperation, or extradition.

---

This thread is for both discussion and voting.

When voting, please use one of the following options: 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.

Posts which do not include an explicit and unambiguous vote are not counted in the tally.

This went to vote about 30 minutes ago.

I am voting For. This is an effective proposal and puts a conclusive end to the perennial questions about international courts and jurisdiction over "international" crimes. It's by far the best of the many proposals we have seen on the topic, certainly much better than the tribunal proposal we just rejected.

Rather than supplementing national law enforcement and trial jurisdiction with some sort of international judicial body, this proposal allows states to assert jurisdiction and prosecute alleged criminals as soon as they enter their territory. It also encourages other states to assist the state prosecuting, e.g., through the exchange of evidence. Therefore, it provides an effective framework for the enforcement of international criminal legislation.

Moreover, the proposal addresses an issue that was mentioned by many in the War Crimes Tribunal proposal, namely, what exactly is a war crime or a crime against humanity. This proposal provides a clear definition referencing previous WA legislation.

I was a little worried originally that this would create potential for abuse: a war criminal goes to a country with a corrupted or incompetent prosecutorial authorities, which helps them avoid a conviction, and by consequence saves them from being convicted anywhere else - it's effectively a kind of international-level double jeopardy. However, I believe the requirement for a "fair trial" under 3.b provides enough flexibility to deal with this, and make sure that states can claim no double jeopardy attaches in such cases of ineffective prosecution.

For all these reasons, I believe we should support the proposal.

Against

for

For

For.

Aye.

I strongly advise a vote against. By refusing to allow a WA court at all, this blocks future legislation that might create arbitration courts to settle disputes. Moreover, this bill, by excluding the WA's guaranteed impartiality, allows the ability to engage in outright corruption by removing oversight. If nations cannot be held to a higher standard, there is nothing stopping them from prosecuting a genocidal maniac and declaring their punishment to be a ten-minute ticke fight and a glass of cheap tequila.

A vote for UJ is a vote for the miscarriage of justice.

For.

Separatist Peoples:

I strongly advise a vote against. By refusing to allow a WA court at all, this blocks future legislation that might create arbitration courts to settle disputes. Moreover, this bill, by excluding the WA's guaranteed impartiality, allows the ability to engage in outright corruption by removing oversight. If nations cannot be held to a higher standard, there is nothing stopping them from prosecuting a genocidal maniac and declaring their punishment to be a ten-minute ticke fight and a glass of cheap tequila.

A vote for UJ is a vote for the miscarriage of justice.

Click to expand...

Well there are several major problems with your argument.

For one it doesn't refuse to allow a WA court at all. It just says that a WA Court cannot supersede a nation's claim for justice. It also does not remove all oversight it still allows for the possibility of an oversight committee. And your final point is completely wrong as that would trigger the "unfair trial" portion of the proposal and another state to lodge a claim.

Separatist Peoples:

By refusing to allow a WA court at all, this blocks future legislation that might create arbitration courts to settle disputes.

Click to expand...

This wouldn't ban an ICJ. The court blocker only applies to "preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction".

Moreover, this bill, by excluding the WA's guaranteed impartiality, allows the ability to engage in outright corruption by removing oversight. If nations cannot be held to a higher standard, there is nothing stopping them from prosecuting a genocidal maniac and declaring their punishment to be a ten-minute ticke fight and a glass of cheap tequila.

Click to expand...

The resolution requires that "the severity of the sentence assigned to an individual ... is consistent with the severity of their crime".

And if a nation genuinely does perpetrate a miscarriage of justice, then Preventing Multiple Trials no longer applies so a retrial would be possible anyway.

Good point about Preventing Multiple Trials, helps put my mind at ease about the issue I raised in the OP, along with the other safeguards present in the resolution.

The Democratic Republic of Tomb:

For.

Click to expand...

It blocks any attempt at WA oversight over noncompliance. It absolutely blocks any meaningful attempt at a court system, because it can't supersede any member state's jurisdiction.

As for the requirement to charge with appropriate severity? This is the World Assembly. It would hardly be the first time a nation used the argument that their nation considered X ridiculous punishment as appropriate. "A stern finger shaking" is a popular one amongst the GA regulars.


The issue pertaining to PMT is that there is still no WA authority able to determine what a miscarriage is, especially with the ICC gone. With a block on any meaningful attempt at WA Courts that follow an open and not dictatorial system of juris prudence, the only authority left to regulate states is - surprise! Themselves. Which is a major conflict of interests, especially when dealing with a crime agains humanity that may well have been state sanctioned.

It looks like this will pass anyways, so it's hardly worth arguing over by now, but even as a solid NatSov, I believe this does too little. It will absolutely help deal with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and general internationally criminal breeches of WA law, but only in states that would have adhered to similar principles to begin with.

EDIT: I misquoted my reply. My Apologies, Tomb

In fairness, it has been a long time since ICC was repealed. People who wanted an international court have had ample time to get together a proposal on the subject: almost eight months have passed! (Which admittedly still means that there's another month in which a baby conceived at the time of the ICC repeal can be legally aborted.) It's a "blocker", yes, but it could easily have not been able to block anything had more of a concerted effort been made to get a replacement in order. And given there wasn't such a concerted effort...I'm going to take my lumps and say this is the best we're going to get.

For.

Is there a particular reason why McMasterdonia has refrained from voting on this resolution?

Against

Against, due to clause 13. While the legislation is well constructed, obstructing future criminal courts or "like" institutions (which is a very broad term) from intervening in questionable war crimes trials at the behest of a local government is a no go. However, the legislation is a hefty improvement from the last resolution, so Luxah will simply be abstaining.

Acoustic Siberia:

In fairness, it has been a long time since ICC was repealed. People who wanted an international court have had ample time to get together a proposal on the subject: almost eight months have passed!

Click to expand...

It takes a little longer than eight months to contrive a resolution of this scope written well enough to survive a Mouse-smash. So no, this is not the best we were going to get. This is a ill conceived (albeit well written) piece of trash, that will be rife with corruption. The fact that war crimes, or crimes against humanity themselves were not even defined in the resolution leaves it open to very asinine interpretations.

Wolfstar:

It takes a little longer than eight months to contrive a resolution of this scope written well enough to survive a Mouse-smash.

Click to expand...

I doubt that that's true, although it's difficult to tell given in those eight months no one has so much as begun drafting such a resolution. But you could draft the thing for eight years and Mouse would still vote against it.

The fact that war crimes, or crimes against humanity themselves were not even defined in the resolution leaves it open to very asinine interpretations.

Click to expand...

We're trying to fix that with a resolution that will specifically delineate such crimes; you're welcome to contribute.

Topic moved to WA Archives.