[GA] At Vote: No Penalty Without Law [Complete]

Separatist Peoples

Separatist Peoples

TNPer
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE

No Penalty Without Law

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sciongrad​

Description: The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its stance that "one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law,"

Regretting, however, the lack of internationally recognized legal safeguards protecting individuals from criminal penalties in circumstances where no relevant law exists,

Believing that the World Assembly must act to rectify this oversight,

1. Declares that neither member nations, political subdivisions thereof, nor any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual unless such action is specifically permitted by international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

2. Mandates that such established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law shall define any punishable action in good faith so as to reasonably minimize ambiguity in enforcement;

3. Requires member nations to ensure that all established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated when it is determined to be both practical and necessary in preventing their inhabitants from committing punishable actions;

4. Prohibits member nations, political subdivisions thereof, or any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified, and;

6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall provide protection for those that claim ignorance of the law if the relevant law is publicly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of clause three.
Click to expand...

Please vote For, Against, or Abstain. All bribes must be in the form of interpretive dance.
 
Ministry Review
Vote Recommendation: FOR

To my admittedly spotty knowledge, TNP is required by treaty to vote FOR anything that the IDU brings to vote, so this may be an exercise in futility. However, in the event that I am incorrect, I'll post my justification.

The proposal requires, at minimum, that a law be in place, publicly, in order for punishments to be doled out for violating it. This is a basic standard of fair and transparent government, as it prevents authorities inventing charges to levy against undesirables.

The proposal is minimally invasive: Odd are that all but the most tyrannical governments already have this level of accessibility and accountability established. Average nations wouldn't have to change anything to remain in compliance with this law.

It requires the freeing of those individuals arrested on grounds that are contrary to this resolution. While this, admittedly, may involve releasing individuals who would have been guilty under the new system anyways, it ensures that all individuals wrongfully imprisoned have reparation for the transgression against their rights.

This proposal has been through months of drafting and redrafting, working to take into account civil as well as customary law. Having watched this evolve over time, I feel that this has reached the point where the critical loopholes are closed and the maximum good that can be done will be.

Best of all, a law dealing with such a complex concept as all other laws would be expected to be long and verbose. NPWL is not; it is clear, crisp, and to the point. It is, technically speaking, exactly the kind of law we should strive to enshrine in the General Assembly's records.

As such, it is the Ministry's determination that No Penalty Without Law's provisions are in the best interests of The North Pacific and her citizens, and recommends a vote FOR.
 
If WA member nations truly abide by passed GA resolutions, then this proposal (while well written and well executed) is unnecessary.

GA Resolution #37 in particular covers this proposal. One of its clauses specifically says:

GA #37:
MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence;
Click to expand...

GA #37 provides fair trials for accused criminals; this successfully criminalizes the situation that the at-vote proposal addresses, in which member states are throwing people in jail for no reason, or without a fair trial.

Also, GA #201 allows criminals to appeal their case to the courts, which any unjustly accused 'criminal' would do. So again, this covers the at-vote proposal.

GA #201:
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;
Click to expand...

Also, GA #202.

Thus, Xapili stands firmly AGAINST the proposal.
 
Xapili:
If WA member nations truly abide by passed GA resolutions, then this proposal (while well written and well executed) is unnecessary.

GA Resolution #37 in particular covers this proposal. One of its clauses specifically says:

GA #37:
MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence;
Click to expand...

GA #37 provides fair trials for accused criminals; this successfully criminalizes the situation that the at-vote proposal addresses, in which member states are throwing people in jail for no reason, or without a fair trial.

Also, GA #201 allows criminals to appeal their case to the courts, which any unjustly accused 'criminal' would do. So again, this covers the at-vote proposal.

GA #201:
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;
Click to expand...

Also, GA #202.

Thus, Xapili stands firmly AGAINST the proposal.
Click to expand...
None of this is correct. This law deals with punishments that occur without laws, and ensuring those laws are available.

GAR#37 deals with those accused of violating a law they did not violate. Not punishment without a violated law to begin with.

The section of GAR#201 you've quoted deals with appeals. If there is no law to have violated in the first place, an appeal process is as likely to be arbitrarily denied as the punishment added.

This is a certifiable gap within the WA's attempt to correct judicial corruption. The mods have not found this to be contradictory in the least.
 
GA #201 states:

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;
Click to expand...

The second clause in particular is the exact same thing as this whole proposal.
 
At the very least, clause 5 of the at-vote proposal is directly redundant with GAR 201 and the idea of habeus corpus.

And no, while GAR #37 and GAR #202 do not directly say the same thing as the proposal, I would argue that the effect of the proposal is already subsumed within the passed resolutions.
 
At the very least, it's inherently flawed anyway, because member nations can just redefine any 'political' subdivisions are 'administrative' ones.
 
Xapili:
At the very least, clause 5 of the at-vote proposal is directly redundant with GAR 201 and the idea of habeus corpus.

And no, while GAR #37 and GAR #202 do not directly say the same thing as the proposal, I would argue that the effect of the proposal is already subsumed within the passed resolutions.
Click to expand...
The law does what the law says. Unless it is directly spelled out in WA law, you can't assume that. Violations of the spirit of the law aren't illegal, and are even expected. Even if there is minor overlap, which is considered legal if it is done in such a manner as to clarify a specific issue, the law at vote still approaches a problem wherein regimes can abuse their population's political rights unfairly.

It isn't illegal, though I realize that the mods haven't yanked it is absolutely no indication of legality, and it addresses a real problem, which the debate clearly shows. The best argument I can see for opposition is the standpoint that it isn't an international issue, which is subjective at best.
 
Nierr:
At the very least, it's inherently flawed anyway, because member nations can just redefine any 'political' subdivisions are 'administrative' ones.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure that anything but an entirely unreasonable interpretation would yield that effect. An administrative division is still political in nature, and it can be reasonably assumed that a nation will not utilize an interpretation of a resolution that is more expensive or damaging than compliance. Authors are really only expected to address the major loopholes in that regard.
 
I'm not arguing about the spirit of the law. I'm saying that if 37, 201, and 202 are taken into account, it essentially becomes impossible for a member nation to punish an individual without lawful reasoning.
 
Xapili:
I'm not arguing about the spirit of the law. I'm saying that if 37, 201, and 202 are taken into account, it essentially becomes impossible for a member nation to punish an individual without lawful reasoning.
Click to expand...
Except, theoretically, there can be legal reasoning: They could cite a law that isn't public knowledge. It would be like being arrested for not hopping every third step, but no law existing in a place you could find it. The government could cite any infraction, theoretically, and claim it was always an unwritten one. Then there is a "legal" base for such laws, as per those laws you've cited.
 
I've come here to encourage your region to vote AGAINST this proposal.

First, Section 5 could result in the release of thousands of dangerous criminals worldwide.

Second, this proposal would infringe on the cultural rights of indigenous peoples and of preindustrial societies by limiting their authority to enforce their customary laws (e.g., xeer), which are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, procedurally fair and substantively just.

Per subsection 6(iii) of your IDU treaty, your region is permitted to oppose this proposal.

Thank you for your time,

Christian Democrats
Officer of WA Affairs
The Rejected Realms
 
So the vote count is currently 4 Against, 1 For, and 1 Abstain.

I am switching my vote to: Against.

Please note that Christian Democrat's vote is discounted. However, we do welcome your opinion, of course.

~ Tomb
 
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