[Proposals] Charters to Prevent and Punish Wartime Misconduct

MacSalterson

MacSalterson

TNPer
Pronouns
They/Them
Charter for the War Crimes Tribunal of the International Association of Nations (WCT IAN)

Preamble

In order to bring to justice the various nations and individuals who would seek to infringe upon the natural rights of a nation, their own or otherwise, the establishment of a judiciary system is necessary.

All nations are beholden to the rulings of the Tribunal in accordance with the founding Charter of the International Association of Nations.


Article 1

1.1 The purpose of the established Tribunal will be to prosecute those who would seek to commit Crimes of War or Crimes against Humanity, established in the Subsidiary Charters of the WCT Charter, the Charter Regarding the Treatment of Civilian Populations, and the Charter for Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War


Article 2

2.1 The Tribunal shall consist of a number of Justices equal to the number of nations on the Council of Nations plus half of that number (rounding up to the nearest whole integer, where the number of Justices would otherwise not be a whole integer). The nations that make up the Council of Nations will each appoint a Justice, who will serve on the Tribunal for as long as that nation remains on the Council of Nations or until they are removed by the Assembly of Nations; the remaining Justices will be nominated by any of the nations in the Assembly of Nations (save for those that are also on the Council of Nations) and will be appointed by the Secretary-General on confirmation by the vote of a majority of the Council of Nations, they will serve on the Tribunal unless they are removed by the Assembly of Nations.
2.2 The Tribunal include a Head Justice, appointed by the Secretary General from the current panel. The Head Justice may propose rules to govern the proceedings of the Tribunal. Any rules proposed must be approved by the Council of Nations to be effective and must be consistent with the IAN Charter and subsidiary legislation. When the Tribunal is to try any matter, the Head Justice will apoint a number of Justices equal to the number of nations on the Council of Nations, and four fifths of the Justices appointed by the Head Justice must be Justices appointed the Council of Nations as members (unless conflicts or absences prevent such selection, in which case the maximum possible number of Justices appointed by the nations on the Council of Nations will be selected, with the remainder being other Justices).
2.3 The Tribunal will be tasked with trying any matter set out in Article 3 of this Charter and determining the validity of the accusations presented. When trying any matter, the Tribunal will hear representations as to facts and law from a single prosecutor and from any defendant, and will hear representations as to law from counsel for any nation in the IAN.
2.4 The Tribunal may return a verdict of guilty, not guilty or not proven, in relation to any matter it is trying. A verdict of guilty will indicate that the accusations have been proven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and will permit the Tribunal to pass sentence in relation to the matter. A verdict of not guilty will indicate that the accusations have been disproven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and the matter will not be subject to further trial. A verdict of not proven will indicate that the accusations have neither been proven nor disproven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and the matter will not be subject to further trial unless new and compelling evidence may lead to a difference outcome. A majority of at least three-fifths of the panel is required to return a verdict, other than a verdict of not proven. A verdict of not proven will be returned if neither of the other verdicts have the requisite majority.

Article 3

3.1 Individuals and/or Nations accused of committing Crimes against Humanity, Crimes of War, or Abuse of Prisoners of War (as noted in clauses 3.2-4, respectively) as noted in Clause 1.1, may be brought before the Tribunal.
3.2 Crimes against Humanity are defined as any violation of the IAN Legislation regarding Treatment of Civilian Populations.
3.3 Crimes of War are defined as any violation of the IAN Legislation regarding Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War..
3.4 Abuse of Prisoners of War is defined as any violation of the IAN Legislation regarding Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War
3.5 This Tribunal shall operate within existing legislation provided by the IAN for determining the prosecution of a case.
Click to expand...

Charter for Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War

Preamble

In order to preserve life during times of war, the IAN hereby establishes this charter to define Crimes of War, Wartime Conduct, and the treatment of those captured during wartime.

All nations are beholden to the rulings of the Tribunal in accordance with the founding Charter of the International Association of Nations.

Article 1

1.1 This charter shall establish necessary conduct during times of war between conflicting nations, including treatment of Prisoners of War and Civilian population.
1.2 This charter shall further establish prohibited or banned forms of weaponry or warfare that would otherwise cause undue suffering and death during times of war.

Article 2

2.1 Upon capturing any civilian population of an opposing or enemy nation during times of war, the capturing nation is expected to abide to certain treatment of the aforementioned civilians.
2.2 Civilian populations captured by an enemy force may not be put to the death or killed in large numbers by enemy military forces.
2.3 Civilian populations captured by an enemy force may not be forced into unpaid labor, labor for the purpose of constructing supplies for war, or forced into labor otherwise prohibited of their home country.
2.4 Civilian populations captured by an enemy force and put to labor are required to receive compensation of $AMT per day of labor.
2.5 Civilian populations captured by an enemy force may not be relocated by the invading country to either other captured territories or the territory of the invading nation itself for any reason.
2.5 Civilian populations captured by an enemy force may not be relocated by the invading country to either other captured territories or the territory of the invading nation itself unless doing so would place them in a position of undue harm, or to another valid camp for Prisoners of War.
2.6 Civilian populations may not be deprived of drink, food or shelter by the invading force.

Article 3

3.1 Upon capturing any military population of an opposing or enemy nation during times of war, the capturing nation is expected to abide to certain treatment of the aforementioned civilians.
3.2 This Charter defines any military personnel captured by an enemy force during times of war to be a Prisoner of War.
3.3 Prisoners of War held by an enemy force may not be executed or otherwise killed by the enemy force upon capture.
3.4 Prisoners of War must be registered by the enemy force upon capture and reported as a Prisoner of War to their home country immediately.
3.5 Prisoners of War held by an enemy force may not be forced into unpaid labor, labor for the purpose of constructing supplies for war, or forced into labor otherwise prohibited of their home country.
3.6 Prisoners of War held by an enemy force and put to labor are expected to receive compensation equal to their military paycheck, provided by the capturing force. Upon the War’s end, the sum total of compensation towards Prisoners of War must be reimbursed by their home country to the opposing force within five (5 years) of the cessation of hostilities and return of captured POWs.
3.7 Prisoners of War held by an enemy force are expected to be provided with food and drink equal to their dietary of 1800 calories per day, and must be housed by the enemy force.

Article 4
[Unfinished, to be proposed during discussion]
Click to expand...

Charter Regarding the Treatment of Civilian Populations

Preamble

All peoples of recognised nations are entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in this document, without distinaction of any kind, including but not limited to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status

Article 1

1.1 This Charter Shall Establish the Universal Rights shared by any lawful resident in a nation, regardless of race, sex or class.

Article 2

1.1 No one shall be held in slavery, and the slave trade in all its forms is prohibited.
1.2 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel or degrading punishment or treatment.
1.3 All peoples of recognised nations shall be acknowledges as such in all places.
1.4 All peoples of recognised nations are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law and against any discrimination.
1.5 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted by this document.
1.6 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of their nation, unless prohibited by due process of law.
1.7 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to freely assemble and associate peacefully with any of person, unless prohibited by due process of law.
1.8 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to a free education, to seek work freely, and to protection against unemployment, unless prohibited by due process of law.
1.9 The rights handed down in this document shall be interpreted by an International Court of Human Rights where all peoples of recognised nations may apply to be heard.
Click to expand...


The Stan Yera submits the above Charters for discussion and ratification before the International Association of Nations.

Struck through clauses, phrases, or words have been deleted from the proposed charter, bolded clauses, phrases, or words have been added to the proposed charter.
 
The nation of Cogoria protests this proposal. Stan Yera is not a member of the Council, indeed there is no council as of yet. According to the charter it is the council that sets the agenda. Therefore we move to have this removed from the floor until such a time that Stan Yera is sitting on the council and can submit it legally, or until a member of the council approves it for debate.
 
Cogoria:
The nation of Cogoria protests this proposal. Stan Yera is not a member of the Council, indeed there is no council as of yet. According to the charter it is the council that sets the agenda. Therefore we move to have this removed from the floor until such a time that Stan Yera is sitting on the council and can submit it legally, or until a member of the council approves it for debate.
Click to expand...
I would like to remind the Representative from Cogoria that, according to the Charter:
Charter:
Article 3
  1. The International Association of Nations shall consist of an Assembly of Nations and a Council of Nations.
  2. The Assembly of Nations shall consist of the entire membership of the International Association of Nations and shall be the body responsible for drafting and passing legislation within the International Association of Nations.
Click to expand...
It is therefore entirely the right of Stan Yera to propose this legislation. I suggest the Representative read through the Charter again, such that minor confusions such as this do not happen again.
 
The Cogirian interpretation is that drafting is one thing, submitting another. And as the council is the body that sets the agenda, it is the council's responsibility to propose legislation.
 
The Myrorian delegation opposes this legislation. We will never allow our own people to be tried by foreign agitators and haughty distant legal scholars. All Myrorians are legally entitled to be tried by their own peers, that is, by other Myrorians.

Secondly, Myroria will not repeal its internal passport system for resident aliens and foreigners in our country, as the Charter for the Treatment of Civilian Populations would have us do. This system is essential to maintain tranquility and security in the All-House Union, and keep Myrorian holy sites and necropoli closed to foreign meddlers. It seems the IAN would gladly allow strangers to lay in bed in people's homes and require the homeowner to feed and care for them free of charge.



The Ilamzati delegation can accept the existence of a court, with reservations, but refuses to honor or respect the political opinions of those who advocate against the equality of all human beings, as the Charter Regarding the Treatment of Civilian Populations would require. There are crazed far-right bigots and fascists who would stop at nothing to enact their dystopia on the world, and petty monarchists who advocate people's superiority based purely on the circumstances of their birth. These opinions are not to be treated with kid gloves, or respected as one might respect someone else's favorite song, but should instead be crushed and eradicated from this world.

The Ilamzati delegation would also like to remind this body that no one can promise protection from unemployment without the destruction of the capitalist system, which many nations seem more than keen to uphold.
 
Cogoria:
The Cogirian interpretation is that drafting is one thing, submitting another. And as the council is the body that sets the agenda, it is the council's responsibility to propose legislation.
Click to expand...
One's interpretation and reality are two separate things. Considering the Assembly is "the body responsible for drafting and passing legislation," proposing it in the first place is assumed. While I myself dislike this minor loophole in the law, this assumption is far more reasonable than the assumption you derive from the Council's listed responsibilities.

If one would rather not run on assumptions, however, there are no bodies listed as responsible for proposing legislation in the charter at all. In fact, according to the initial statement by the Toliman government, the charter is currently entirely provisional.

I suggest you put forth an actual argument against this proposal if you wish for it not to pass. Perhaps if the representative from Tolima could clear up this laughable attempt at misdirection, we could spend our time discussing the actual proposal, like reasonable representatives.
 
To address the Myrorian delegation, the Stan Yera fails to see how the proposed charters would allow for the free movement of foreigners within the national boundaries of their state. Note Clause 1.6, which is the only statement that addresses this concern of yours.

"1.6 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of their nation."

At first glance, this might be taken to mean free travel within any country, but the Stan Yera is of the belief that it only refers to their home country, i.e. they may be restricted from intranational travel upon visiting a foreign nation, should the nation in question's laws so apply.

To address the Illamzati delegation, the Stan Yera sees no proposed clause requiring the protection of individuals based on political bent, only that individuals may be free to associate themselves with any other person.
 
Myroria accepts this interpretation, but is still opposed to the existence of an international court with jurisdiction in the Union.

Ilamzat's delegarion accepts this change to the Charter, and while it still holds reservations regarding bourgeois participation in this court, it believes that the National Peoples' Congress will ratify this legislation, though it may invoke its right to home governance in the future.
 
The Stan Yera fails to see why the Myrorian Delegation would seek to prevent punitive measures being brought against those who would seek to harm the Myrorian People, regardless of nationality.

The Stan Yera would also wish to draw attention to Clause 4 of the Charter for Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War, as it will regard restriction on weaponry and ordnance that could cause undue suffering to populations, civilian or otherwise.
 
The Cogorian delegation agrees that the Charter must ratified before any legislation can be passed as the IAN can not be expected to enforce legislation without the proper groundwork in place.
Aside from this we can see little to argue with that the Ilamzati delegate has not already highlighted. There are certain enemies of the world's workers who will only submit to the bayonet, and removing that threat with international sanctions enables the oppression of peoples across the globe.
 
We do agree with the proposed charter, and we would like to make several additions to Clause 4 of the Charter for Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War.

1) The purpose targeting of civilians in conflict is outlawed
2) The purposeful targeting of specific groups - "genocide" - is outlawed
3) The use of unnecessarily inhumane weapons is outlawed
 
AUG.1.

1. For administrative purposes, the August Consular Office wishes to suggest that the proposals be referred to as A, B, and C, in the order in which they were presented, such that regarding the Charter for the War Crimes Tribunal of the International Association of Nations (WCT IAN), Article 1, Clause 2 would be referred to as A.1.2., and so on.

2. The August Consular Office further wishes to clarify the definition of 'civilian populations' on which B.2.x relies on. The August Consular Office also wishes to note that A.3.3 and A.3.4 define "Crimes of War" and "Abuse of Prisoners of War" respectively using the same text, and cannot interpret a distinction between the two clauses justifying the inclusion of both.

3. The August Consular Office would note that many jurisdictions do not have a preexisting definition of the legal term "Not Proven", used in A.2.3 & A.2.4, and may hence benefit from clarification on this term.

4. The August Consular Office would note that B.2.3 - in particular, "labour otherwise prohibited of their home country" - has the potential to make wartime labour prohibitively expensive for impoverished nations with low standards of labour at war with more wealthy ones, especially in comparison to the presumed advantage wealthy nations would gain from exploiting cheap prisoner of war labour.

5. The August Consular Office would note that B.2.5 would necessitate that captured prisoners of war cannot be moved under any reason - including active fire, bombardment, the passage of military assets through the active battlefields on which prisoners of war are generally taken, or even emergency medical treatment.

6. The August Consular Office would also comment on the Xentheridan proposal (hereafter, Xen.1.x) to point out that Xen.1.2 would outlaw all warfare whatsoever if printed verbatim, and is otherwise not a clear statement of the Xentheridan intentions in the use of the word 'genocide'. Our understanding is that genocide predominantly refers to targeting groups based on ethnic or cultural grounds, but the word is one that is both too controversial and used in too many differing contexts to print without definition.

7. The August Consular Office wishes to note that C.1.6 through C.1.8 do not make sufficient exception for what we understand is customarily considered lawful detention, like imprisonment, arrest without trial for the purposes of investigating a crime (as is, for example, the general use of institutions known as 'gaols' or 'jails' in distinction to prisons), or mental health commitment.

8. Finally, the August Consular Office indicates that it will not substantially consider the proposals in any sense unless they are accompanied, or preceded by, a blanket ban on radioactive, nuclear, and contagious biological weaponry. It will continue to offer commentary on clerical concerns as it has above.
 
We would like to thank the August delegation for pointing out all of the above issues; further constructive criticism will only help this proposal's construction. Indeed, our proposals mentioned were hastily concocted, in order to bring their attention to the issues arising.

To clarify on our first proposal, the meaning of the "specific purposeful targeting of civilians" is of violence directed towards civilians on purpose, in order to harm the populace affected. This would include the massacre of civilians in a town, for instance, or a mass rape of women and girls, or, say, the indiscriminate attacking of towns, without consideration to whether civilians could come to harm. Whether each case is "specific purposeful targeting" would be decided upon by uninvolved, neutral nation/s.

Next, on Xen 1.2, we should once more clarify. By genocide, we mean the deliberate mass killing of non-combatants for reasons such as religion or ethnicity. The definitions can be decided upon by the IAN assembled.

Finally, in Xen 1.3, we will clarify that such inhumane weapons include ones that cause unnecessary suffering to the victim. These include but are not limited to: fragmenting bullets, which shred the internal organs, causing immense pain; Fragmentation weapons with non-detectable fragments, in which a weapon that primarily kills through fragmentation has fragments that are not visible by X-Ray; and incendiary weapons, in which the victim is set alight and burns to death in a slow, painful death. Incendiary weapons can include napalm, flamethrowers, and dragon's breath.
 
AUG.1.

1. For administrative purposes, the August Consular Office wishes to suggest that the proposals be referred to as A, B, and C, in the order in which they were presented, such that regarding the Charter for the War Crimes Tribunal of the International Association of Nations (WCT IAN), Article 1, Clause 2 would be referred to as A.1.2., and so on.

2. The August Consular Office further wishes to clarify the definition of 'civilian populations' on which B.2.x relies on. The August Consular Office also wishes to note that A.3.3 and A.3.4 define "Crimes of War" and "Abuse of Prisoners of War" respectively using the same text, and cannot interpret a distinction between the two clauses justifying the inclusion of both.

3. The August Consular Office would note that many jurisdictions do not have a preexisting definition of the legal term "Not Proven", used in A.2.3 & A.2.4, and may hence benefit from clarification on this term.

4. The August Consular Office would note that B.2.3 - in particular, "labour otherwise prohibited of their home country" - has the potential to make wartime labour prohibitively expensive for impoverished nations with low standards of labour at war with more wealthy ones, especially in comparison to the presumed advantage wealthy nations would gain from exploiting cheap prisoner of war labour.

5. The August Consular Office would note that B.2.5 would necessitate that captured prisoners of war cannot be moved under any reason - including active fire, bombardment, the passage of military assets through the active battlefields on which prisoners of war are generally taken, or even emergency medical treatment.

6. The August Consular Office would also comment on the Xentheridan proposal (hereafter, Xen.1.x) to point out that Xen.1.2 would outlaw all warfare whatsoever if printed verbatim, and is otherwise not a clear statement of the Xentheridan intentions in the use of the word 'genocide'. Our understanding is that genocide predominantly refers to targeting groups based on ethnic or cultural grounds, but the word is one that is both too controversial and used in too many differing contexts to print without definition.

7. The August Consular Office wishes to note that C.1.6 through C.1.8 do not make sufficient exception for what we understand is customarily considered lawful detention, like imprisonment, arrest without trial for the purposes of investigating a crime (as is, for example, the general use of institutions known as 'gaols' or 'jails' in distinction to prisons), or mental health commitment.

8. Finally, the August Consular Office indicates that it will not substantially consider the proposals in any sense unless they are accompanied, or preceded by, a blanket ban on radioactive, nuclear, and contagious biological weaponry. It will continue to offer commentary on clerical concerns as it has above.
Click to expand...

To address the Imperium Delegation:

1. Agreed. The charters shall be referred to in the proposed manner from hereon.

2. Civilian population shall be defined as any noncombatant group of individuals of any nation. The Yeran delegation wishes to indicate Abuse of Prisoners of War is a specific type of Crime of War, and should be considered separately.

3. "Not Proven" in this case shall refer to a legal ruling in which the trial is placed on hiatus due to the request of the prosecution or the wishes of the judiciary, and acts as an acquittal (or ruling of Innocent) until the trial is brought out of hiatutus.

4. The Yeran delegation notes the validity of this complaint, and shall request a proposal is brought forward in stead of B.2.3 regarding the labor of prisoners of war.

5. The Yeran delegation notes the validity of this complaint, and shall change the wording of B.2.5 to as follows:

B.2.5 Civilian populations captured by an enemy force may not be relocated by the invading country to either other captured territories or the territory of the invading nation itself unless doing so would place them in a position of undue harm, or to another valid camp for Prisoners of War.
Click to expand...

6. The Xentheridan Delegation has already addressed these concerns.

7. The Yeran delegation shall change the wording of C.1.6 through C.1.8 to the following.

1.6 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of their nation, unless prohibited by due process of law.
1.7 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to freely assemble and associate peacefully with any of person, unless prohibited by due process of law.
1.8 All peoples of recognised nations have the right to a free education, to seek work freely, and to protection against unemployment, unless prohibited by due process of law.
Click to expand...

8. The Yeran delegation requests that the Imperium delegation make a formal proposal as to the types of weaponry it wishes to prohibit.
 
Helen Etherington coughs slightly and then rises to speak, "If I may digress briefly from the proposals at hand, Mr Acting Chairman, I would suggest that it would perhaps be wise to wait for the agreement of some standard order of managing business before moving to pass any other proposals.

"Moving on to the proposals, which I will refer to as the Tribunal Charter, the PoW Charter, and the Civilian Charter, respectively. The Confederacy must disagree with the drafting of the first article of the Tribunal Charter, it suggests a far too wide jurisdiction for the proposed Tribunal:
1.1 The purpose of the established Tribunal will be to prosecute those who would seek to violate any of the rights of the natural and true citizens of any country or the recognized and true government of any country through crimes of war and crimes against humanity, as established in various documents and charters of legislation of the IAN
Click to expand...

"To permit the Tribunal to try any violation of any right of a citizen of a county would permit this Tribunal to interfere in almost any proceeding in a nation and to usurp the place of national judicial systems. The Confederacy would suggest that the article be redrafted to reference solely crimes of war and crimes against humanity.

"With respect to the second article, we would suggest a number of alterations; some simply for clarity in terms of the precise membership of the Tribunal, others more substantive. First, we would suggest that 1.1 be amended in the following manner:
2.1 The Tribunal shall consist of nations currently presiding on the Council of Nationsa number of Justices equal to the number of nations on the Council of Nations plus half of that number (rounding up to the nearest whole integer, where the number of Justices would otherwise not be a whole integer). The nations that make up the Council of Nations will each appoint a Justice, who will serve on the Tribunal for as long as that nation remains on the Council of Nations or until they are removed by the Assembly of Nations; the remaining Justices will be nominated by any of the nations in the Assembly of Nations (save for those that are also on the Council of Nations) and will be appointed by the Secretary-General on confirmation by the vote of a majority of the Council of Nations, they will serve on the Tribunal unless they are removed by the Assembly of Nations. In the event of a conflicted party presiding on the Council of Nations, a new nation will be chosen to preside in the conflicting nation's place in the same manner as the normal election of a nation to the Council of Nations
Click to expand...

"This makes clear the division between the Justices and the nations they are appointed, and, further, guarantees that the Justices to be appointed would not be liable to removal on a whim. It also makes provision for a number of Justices not from the Council Nations but still chosen by the Council nations; this would form what I will refer to as the supplementary panel. The supplementary panel will serve as a standing group of Justices from which replacements for the ordinary Justices can be drawn, in cases of conflict or absence, for instance. The Confederacy suggests that the provisions for absence, and, indeed, for the composition of panels generally, to be split off to their own clause and I will deal with them separately for that reason:
2.2 The Tribunal will internally select a President and a Vice President (and, where either or both of the President or the Vice President are conflicted or absent, will similarly select Acting Presidents and Vice Presidents). When the Tribunal is to try any matter, the President and the Vice President will jointly select a number of Justices to form a panel to do so. Any panel will have a number of Justices equal to the number of nations on the Council of Nations and will have at least four-fifths of the Justices appointed by the nations on the Council of Nations as members (unless conflicts or absences prevent such selection, in which case the maximum possible number of Justices appointed by the nations on the Council of Nations will be selected, with the remainder being other Justices).
Click to expand...

"This makes provision, firstly, for a President and Vice President of the Tribunal, who will serve to oversee the proper administration of the Tribunal. It then goes on to make provision as to the make up of the panels of the Tribunal, leaving the precise makeup of a given panel to the President and Vice President to determine but establishing basic constraints on that makeup: first, it requires that the panel always be equal to the membership of the Council of Nations (so between five and thirteen); and, second, it requires that a given panel is to have four-fifths of its members by those Justices appointed by the Council of Nations nations (for the smallest panel this would be four of the five and for the largest it would be eleven of the thirteen), unless it is impossible for panel to have such composition due to absence or conflict, in which case it permits the appointment of more of the supplemental panel but still requires the maximum possible number of Council of Nations nations' Justices to be selected. The Confederacy also suggests that a clause be included as follows:
2.3 The President and Vice President may jointly propose rules to govern the proceedings of the Tribunal. Any rules proposed must be approved by the Council of Nations to be effective and must be consistent with the IAN Charter and subsidiary legislation.
Click to expand...

This provision permits the President and the Vice President, acting together, to establish rules for the court, dealing with the minutiae that cannot be dealt with in ordinary legislation, provided that the rules are approved by the Council of Nations. The Confederacy is flexible as to the need for approval and, indeed, the precise body doing the approving, however, we do think some power to make rules of court is likely to be necessary. Moving to the next clause, the Confederacy suggests some minor alterations and an addition:

2.24 JusticesThe Tribunal will be tasked with hearing the case presented against the prosecution trying any matter set out in Article 3 of this Charter and determining the validity of the accusations presented. When trying any matter, the Tribunal will hear representations as to facts and law from a single prosecutor and from any defendant, and will hear representations as to law from counsel for any nation in the IAN.
Click to expand...

"These changes," Helen pauses and takes a sip of water, this was going on for longer than she'd expected when reviewing her speech earlier "are mostly minor, making it clear that the hearings are only related to the matters set out in this Charter in Article 3 and that there is to be a single prosecutor; it also establishes that all nations should have the opportunity to put arguments as to law to the Tribunal, which the Confederacy thinks likely to improve the prospective jurisprudence of the Tribunal, allowing it to reflect the best reasoning of jurists from throughout the world, rather than just those from the nations of the Justices, prosecutor and defendants. Moving on:
2.35 The Tribunal may return a verdict of guilty, not guilty or not proven, in relation to any matter it is trying. A verdict of guilty will indicate that the accusations have been proven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and will permit the Tribunal to pass sentence in relation to the matter. A verdict of not guilty will indicate that the accusations have been disproven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and the matter will not be subject to further trial. A verdict of not proven will indicate that the accusations have neither been proven nor disproven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and the matter will not be subject to further trial unless new and compelling evidence may lead to a difference outcome. A majority of at least 60% (3-8 based on Council size) justices are three-fifths of the panel is required to convict, pardon, or grant Not Proven to, the accused nation or individual return a verdict, other than a verdict of not proven. A verdict of not proven will be returned if neither of the other verdicts have the requisite majority.
2.4 In the case of a majority of 60% not being reached, the accused is granted a status of Not Proven.
Click to expand...

"These changes set out in greater detail the meaning of each of the three proposed verdicts (guilty and not guilty are used in place of convicted and pardoned, as the Confederacy is of the view that the latter of these suggests an act of clemency by some executive organ after a finding of guilt by a judicial one, rather than an original finding of a lack of guilt, and that reference to guilty, not guilty, and not proven is more consistent than convicted, acquitted, and not proven). The meaning of the verdict for not proven that is suggested is the meaning that the Confederacy understands that the Stan Yera intendeds, however, the Confederacy would not be averse to altering it somewhat, so as to remove the possibility of further trial. Clause 2.4 is also consolidated into clause 2.3.

I will note, the amendments proposed make reference to removal of Justices by the Assembly. At this time, the Confederacy has not drafted detailed provisions as to possibilities for mechanisms by which this can be done, and at this time is content for it to be done in the same manner as ordinary resolutions of the Assembly, however, the Confederacy can see that some other, specific mechanism may be desirable.

With respect to the third article, the Confederacy has the same initial complaint as with the first: that it is too broadly drawn. Particularly, this complaint relates to clause 3.1, operating together with the original IAN charter's clause 2.4:
3.1 Violators of the IAN charter, and derivatives thereof may be brought before the tribunal by an appointed and impartial prosecution. Individuals and/or Nations accused of committing acts of Crime against Humanity (Clause 3.2), Crimes of War (3.3), and Abuse of Prisoners of War (Clause 3.4) may be brought before the Tribunal by a representative of the victim nation or individual in Prosecution, or a prosecution appointed by the victim nation or individual at their discretion.
Click to expand...
IAN Charter:
2.4 Members shall respect the rights of all citizens are granted by local or international law.
Click to expand...

"The provision of clause 3.1 of the Tribunal Charter, that violation of the IAN charter is sufficient to warrant proceedings before the Tribunal, when coupled with the IAN charter's provision requiring the respect of local rights, is, in the Confederacy's view, open to far to wide interpretation. It could, as with the first article, be taken to permit prosecution for any matter, including matters with no international dimension beyond the clause 2.4 requirement from the IAN Charter, usurping the place of domestic judiciaries; in any event, it may be taken that clause 3.1 widens the jurisdiction of this tribunal, clearly intended to deal only with serious criminal matters, such as crimes against humanity, to interfering in other international disputes.

"The Confederacy would therefore suggest that the reference to violations of the IAN charter and its derivatives be removed and that only the specified crimes be included in the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

"The Confederacy will be further considering the PoW Charter and the Civilian Charter and I will, therefore, be responding to them later. Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman." Helen takes her seat again.
 
The Kingdom of Esroniet hereby seconds the motion, as we believe fully in this resolution.
The Empire is wary of this resolution, as it establishes a standard for human rights yet, as noted by the delegation of Myroria, it limits the right of nations to be tried by their peers. At the moment, we choose to abstain on this resolution.
 
The Cogoria delegation moves to delay any vote until such a time as the council elects a secretary general to oversee the voting and establish a timeframe for such a vote. Let us not put the cart before the horse
 
The following is the view and opinion of the Kingdom Republic of Ceretis and is in no way a reflection upon any delegate. This is the view and opinion of our people regarding the political interests and requirements that these proposals would place upon the good people of our land.



"All nations are beholden to the rulings of the Tribunal" The formation of a justice tribunal formed of foreign persons which has the potential to place citizens of the Kingdom Republic or this great nation itself on trial is an infringement upon the natural right of the Kingdom Republic to govern its own affairs. It is a threat to our and other's sovereignty and ability of a nation to uphold their citizens right of trial by peers.

It is our belief that there are insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the international court and insufficient protection against use of the court as a tool of political agenda. We feel this court is a danger and potentially will be used for politicized prosecutions or other abuses especially as a punitive measure for not following group think. Last we are concerned with delegates interest in not separating powers and desire to coalesce power in the hands of the 'Council of Nations' speaks making of them oligarchs. You may keep your court, and any attempt to prosecute a citizen of the Kingdom Republic without prior written authorization will be recognized as an act of aggression against this nation.


Regarding the "Charter for Wartime Conduct and Treatment of Prisoners of War" due to vague and poorly defined terminology, failure to reasonably account for a myriad of wartime circumstances, lack of definition of all parties present in given wartime conditions, and significantly poor recognition of required minimum treatment of prisoners and civilians this charter shall be ignored. The government of Ceretis is unable to accept the terms of the charter nor will it abide by the charter even if passed by the IAN. The people of Ceretis find the charter woefully inadequate and a humanitarian tragedy in the making.


The "Charter Regarding the Treatment of Civilian Populations" is curious in that it does not establish a protection of true rights. This document further limits the nature of who is considered worthy of those rights established in the treaty. Not only does this document damage the nature of rights of a person but goes on to harm the rights and nature of a sovereign nation. Placing arbitrary demands and granting of false 'rights' that are in no way a natural right of an individual but bribery by political oppression is vile.

Recognize individuals have a right to determine their own path in life, and that demanding one person pay for or supply the fruits of their labor unwillingly for advantage of another even for these perceived 'rights' is in itself slavery. (See your section 1.1.) We shall not accept nor participate in these limitations of true natural rights. We shall not accept nor elevate your series of FALSE rights. We shall not accept nor participate in the disgusting and underhanded attempts to subjugate sovereign nations through the murky bowels of the 'Court of Human Rights.' May a stake be driven through the heart of this false savior.
 
Helen Etherington coughs slightly and then rises to speak, "If I may digress briefly from the proposals at hand, Mr Acting Chairman, I would suggest that it would perhaps be wise to wait for the agreement of some standard order of managing business before moving to pass any other proposals.

"Moving on to the proposals, which I will refer to as the Tribunal Charter, the PoW Charter, and the Civilian Charter, respectively. The Confederacy must disagree with the drafting of the first article of the Tribunal Charter, it suggests a far too wide jurisdiction for the proposed Tribunal:
1.1 The purpose of the established Tribunal will be to prosecute those who would seek to violate any of the rights of the natural and true citizens of any country or the recognized and true government of any country through crimes of war and crimes against humanity, as established in various documents and charters of legislation of the IAN
Click to expand...


"To permit the Tribunal to try any violation of any right of a citizen of a county would permit this Tribunal to interfere in almost any proceeding in a nation and to usurp the place of national judicial systems. The Confederacy would suggest that the article be redrafted to reference solely crimes of war and crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...
Noted. Charter will be changed accordingly to reflect the capacity of the Tribunal.

"With respect to the second article, we would suggest a number of alterations; some simply for clarity in terms of the precise membership of the Tribunal, others more substantive. First, we would suggest that 1.1 be amended in the following manner:
2.1 The Tribunal shall consist of nations currently presiding on the Council of Nations a number of Justices equal to the number of nations on the Council of Nations plus half of that number (rounding up to the nearest whole integer, where the number of Justices would otherwise not be a whole integer). The nations that make up the Council of Nations will each appoint a Justice, who will serve on the Tribunal for as long as that nation remains on the Council of Nations or until they are removed by the Assembly of Nations; the remaining Justices will be nominated by any of the nations in the Assembly of Nations (save for those that are also on the Council of Nations) and will be appointed by the Secretary-General on confirmation by the vote of a majority of the Council of Nations, they will serve on the Tribunal unless they are removed by the Assembly of Nations.In the event of a conflicted party presiding on the Council of Nations, a new nation will be chosen to preside in the conflicting nation's place in the same manner as the normal election of a nation to the Council of Nations
Click to expand...


"This makes clear the division between the Justices and the nations they are appointed, and, further, guarantees that the Justices to be appointed would not be liable to removal on a whim. It also makes provision for a number of Justices not from the Council Nations but still chosen by the Council nations; this would form what I will refer to as the supplementary panel. The supplementary panel will serve as a standing group of Justices from which replacements for the ordinary Justices can be drawn, in cases of conflict or absence, for instance. The Confederacy suggests that the provisions for absence, and, indeed, for the composition of panels generally, to be split off to their own clause and I will deal with them separately for that reason:
Click to expand...

Noted. Wording shall be changed to match your proposal for the sake of clarity.

2.2 The Tribunal will internally select a President and a Vice President (and, where either or both of the President or the Vice President are conflicted or absent, will similarly select Acting Presidents and Vice Presidents). When the Tribunal is to try any matter, the President and the Vice President will jointly select a number of Justices to form a panel to do so. Any panel will have a number of Justices equal to the number of nations on the Council of Nations and will have at least four-fifths of the Justices appointed by the nations on the Council of Nations as members (unless conflicts or absences prevent such selection, in which case the maximum possible number of Justices appointed by the nations on the Council of Nations will be selected, with the remainder being other Justices).
Click to expand...

"This makes provision, firstly, for a President and Vice President of the Tribunal, who will serve to oversee the proper administration of the Tribunal. It then goes on to make provision as to the make up of the panels of the Tribunal, leaving the precise makeup of a given panel to the President and Vice President to determine but establishing basic constraints on that makeup: first, it requires that the panel always be equal to the membership of the Council of Nations (so between five and thirteen); and, second, it requires that a given panel is to have four-fifths of its members by those Justices appointed by the Council of Nations nations (for the smallest panel this would be four of the five and for the largest it would be eleven of the thirteen), unless it is impossible for panel to have such composition due to absence or conflict, in which case it permits the appointment of more of the supplemental panel but still requires the maximum possible number of Council of Nations nations' Justices to be selected. The Confederacy also suggests that a clause be included as follows:
2.3 The President and Vice President may jointly propose rules to govern the proceedings of the Tribunal. Any rules proposed must be approved by the Council of Nations to be effective and must be consistent with the IAN Charter and subsidiary legislation.
Click to expand...


This provision permits the President and the Vice President, acting together, to establish rules for the court, dealing with the minutiae that cannot be dealt with in ordinary legislation, provided that the rules are approved by the Council of Nations. The Confederacy is flexible as to the need for approval and, indeed, the precise body doing the approving, however, we do think some power to make rules of court is likely to be necessary.
Click to expand...

The Yeran delegation does not see the point of selecting a president and vice president, feeling that it would only complicate matters. Instead, the Yeran delegation proposes that a Head Justice be appointed by the Secretary General, and would suggest the following wording:

2.2 The Tribunal include a Head Justice, appointed by the Secretary General from the current panel. The Head Justice may propose rules to govern the proceedings of the Tribunal. Any rules proposed must be approved by the Council of Nations to be effective and must be consistent with the IAN Charter and subsidiary legislation.
Click to expand...

This would expedite the process required to attend to a trial, while keeping in line with your original suggestion.

2.24 JusticesThe Tribunal will be tasked with hearing the case presented against the prosecution trying any matter set out in Article 3 of this Charter and determining the validity of the accusations presented. When trying any matter, the Tribunal will hear representations as to facts and law from a single prosecutor and from any defendant, and will hear representations as to law from counsel for any nation in the IAN.
Click to expand...

"These changes," Helen pauses and takes a sip of water, this was going on for longer than she'd expected when reviewing her speech earlier "are mostly minor, making it clear that the hearings are only related to the matters set out in this Charter in Article 3 and that there is to be a single prosecutor; it also establishes that all nations should have the opportunity to put arguments as to law to the Tribunal, which the Confederacy thinks likely to improve the prospective jurisprudence of the Tribunal, allowing it to reflect the best reasoning of jurists from throughout the world, rather than just those from the nations of the Justices, prosecutor and defendants. Moving on:
2.35 The Tribunal may return a verdict of guilty, not guilty or not proven, in relation to any matter it is trying. A verdict of guilty will indicate that the accusations have been proven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and will permit the Tribunal to pass sentence in relation to the matter. A verdict of not guilty will indicate that the accusations have been disproven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and the matter will not be subject to further trial. A verdict of not proven will indicate that the accusations have neither been proven nor disproven to the Tribunal's satisfaction and the matter will not be subject to further trial unless new and compelling evidence may lead to a difference outcome. A majority of at least 60% (3-8 based on Council size) justices are three-fifths of the panel is required to convict, pardon, or grant Not Proven to, the accused nation or individual return a verdict, other than a verdict of not proven. A verdict of not proven will be returned if neither of the other verdicts have the requisite majority.
2.4 In the case of a majority of 60% not being reached, the accused is granted a status of Not Proven.
Click to expand...

"These changes set out in greater detail the meaning of each of the three proposed verdicts (guilty and not guilty are used in place of convicted and pardoned, as the Confederacy is of the view that the latter of these suggests an act of clemency by some executive organ after a finding of guilt by a judicial one, rather than an original finding of a lack of guilt, and that reference to guilty, not guilty, and not proven is more consistent than convicted, acquitted, and not proven). The meaning of the verdict for not proven that is suggested is the meaning that the Confederacy understands that the Stan Yera intendeds, however, the Confederacy would not be averse to altering it somewhat, so as to remove the possibility of further trial. Clause 2.4 is also consolidated into clause 2.3.

I will note, the amendments proposed make reference to removal of Justices by the Assembly. At this time, the Confederacy has not drafted detailed provisions as to possibilities for mechanisms by which this can be done, and at this time is content for it to be done in the same manner as ordinary resolutions of the Assembly, however, the Confederacy can see that some other, specific mechanism may be desirable.
Click to expand...

This suggestion is in line with our intentions, and clarifies the wording to a large extent. Will be changed.

With respect to the third article, the Confederacy has the same initial complaint as with the first: that it is too broadly drawn. Particularly, this complaint relates to clause 3.1, operating together with the original IAN charter's clause 2.4:
3.1 Violators of the IAN charter, and derivatives thereof may be brought before the tribunal by an appointed and impartial prosecution. Individuals and/or Nations accused of committing acts of Crime against Humanity (Clause 3.2), Crimes of War (3.3), and Abuse of Prisoners of War (Clause 3.4) may be brought before the Tribunal by a representative of the victim nation or individual in Prosecution, or a prosecution appointed by the victim nation or individual at their discretion.
Click to expand...
IAN Charter:
2.4 Members shall respect the rights of all citizens are granted by local or international law.
Click to expand...

"The provision of clause 3.1 of the Tribunal Charter, that violation of the IAN charter is sufficient to warrant proceedings before the Tribunal, when coupled with the IAN charter's provision requiring the respect of local rights, is, in the Confederacy's view, open to far to wide interpretation. It could, as with the first article, be taken to permit prosecution for any matter, including matters with no international dimension beyond the clause 2.4 requirement from the IAN Charter, usurping the place of domestic judiciaries; in any event, it may be taken that clause 3.1 widens the jurisdiction of this tribunal, clearly intended to deal only with serious criminal matters, such as crimes against humanity, to interfering in other international disputes.

"The Confederacy would therefore suggest that the reference to violations of the IAN charter and its derivatives be removed and that only the specified crimes be included in the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

"The Confederacy will be further considering the PoW Charter and the Civilian Charter and I will, therefore, be responding to them later. Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman." Helen takes her seat again.
Click to expand...

Your final suggestions will be included as well, as it is the intention of the Stan Yera for this Tribunal to act against Crimes against Humanity and Crimes against War, along with further related legislation, should such come to pass.

Your further suggestions are appreciated.



The Stan Yera notes that the very purpose of this Tribunal is for nations to be tried by their peers, which would imply other nations, albeit those elected to the Council of Nations. The Stan Yera therefore does not see the point of this complaint.

If in the eventuality your complaint would instead refer to individuals being restricted from being tried by their peers, the Stan Yera would suggest that the Syrixian Delegation read the accepted changes proposed by the Zyvetskistaahni delegation.



The Stan Yera would request that this legislation not be put to vote until it is complete. It is notably lacking Article 4 of Charter B, which is suggested to be used for defining banned and/or prohibited ordnance and weaponry so as to limit undue casualties in wartime conditions.



To the Cereteian Delegation; should it come to pass that your nation. or any nation, including the Stan Yera, is responsible for either crimes against humanity or crimes of war, then it is in the interest of all of Eras to see justice carried out for the aggrieved nation. Your concerns about not being to manage your own affairs are unjustified when this legislation clearly applies to international affairs.

Furthermore, it is noted that the Tribunal is by nature a political tool, as it is a political entity designed for the use of bringing those who would violate international and inalienable rights to justice. The Stan Yera believes the lack of an international check on potentially catastrophic actions perpetrated by a nation or individual is far more of a greater concern than your nation's self-absorbed interests in protecting only itself. The fact that you would accuse a democratically elected Council of being oligarchical in nature because they potentially would not suit your nation's agenda is reprehensible, and your vague threats of war against any nation that should seek justice is even more reprehensible.

If the Cereteian Delegation has no more substantial words than vague complaints without recommended changes, the Stan Yera will consider their word of no import and continue to address more pressing complainants and their concerns.
 
The Empire thinks Ceretis makes a decent point; and wish to display in our strongest terms our disapproval of the rude dismissal by the Stan Yera of the Kingdom Republic's argument.

In conjunction with Myroria's opinion the points posed by the Myrorians and Ceretians tip the Empire's doubt over whether to accept or reject the bill from abstention to rejection. The Empire believes that the International Court would be used as a political tool by other nations and believes that a court whose rulings are above the highest courts of individual nations is a breach of sovereignty, something that, as a 2000-year-old state, the Empire takes very seriously.

If the Stan Yera fully intends for their proposed Court to not be used as a tool for political corruption, the Empire demands an independent tribunal from the proposed Court to judge the merit of court cases and whether or not they are true and pressing or simply inspired by political motives.
 
Andrew Douglas, the ambassador from Navaronia to the IAN, pulled himself up from his chair to speak. "Mister Chairman, if I may interject in this matter." Andrew's voice began. "I'd like to profoundly state that the works in this assembly have been wonderful, but I've been wondering how will we reasonably detain-or relocate-an perpetrator that breaks the presets in the proposal."

"This can either be forcefully or without, but the latter option would result in a higher chance of failure. And if we were to use force it would have to require men and woman from somewhere, which brings me to my next point."

"I believe that an international task force of sorts should be created for the purpose of maintaining and subjugating. At this time I do not have a complete form of the addition prepared."
 
The Cogoria Delegation believes Mr Douglas thinks too highly of this proposal's authority. No IAN body should possess a force capable of subjugating an entire sovereign nation.
 
The Rose League feels that while this charter may be true and sincere in its efforts and beliefs, it is heavily flawed in its execution and as such we shall be voting against this resolution and should it pass, it shall not be implemented within The Rose League as it oversteps the bounds of sovereign law. With regards to the 'Charter Regarding the Treatment of Civilian Populations', the Senators of the League, the President of the Federation and the Chancellor of the Commonwealth view that it is pure folly in trying to subjugate all nations of Eras to some poorly conceived notion of civil and political rights when the guarantee of said rights is a sacrosanct right of all sovereign nations and that to try and force those rights on nations is a pure violation of sovereign law.

With regards to the 'Charter for the War Crimes Tribunal of the International Association of Nations', Merilian Constitutional Law either outright prohibits or bars the majority of the provisions of this charter. According to Article II, Section XXIII, "ad-hoc courts are prohibited" and the majority of legal scholars in the League feel that the War Crimes Tribunal is an ad-hoc court in its purest form as it is being set up to go after and prosecute those accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section XXV, no "Kaltian [or] Andalucian citizens may be expelled from their home country and may only be extradited to a foreign authority with their consent". As such, should a Kaltian or Andalucian ever be found guilty of a war crime, which is a near impossibility, they are protected by Merilian Constitutional Law and may only be brought before this Tribunal if either the government of Kalti or the government of Andalucia votes to override the citizens consent and this override is not challenged by the judicial courts. Lastly, we would like to remind all present here that The Rose League has not been involved in a war or major conflict since the 1800's and we feel that implementing these laws will prove to be more detrimental to our citizens than provide some poorly conceived safety net from the possibility of war crimes and crimes against humanity occurring throughout Eras which are bound to happen, regardless of these charters being put into place or not.

As to the point brought up the Navaronian Delegation, I would like to point out that an international task force for the purpose of "maintaining and subjugating" is a severe violation of sovereign law. Furthermore, it is also a direct threat against The Rose League's neutrality as this task force could easily be used to try and grab a Merilian citizen for whatever perceived slight the Tribunal can dream up. This same concern applies to other foreign nations all around the region and we would hate to see the Tribunal used as a way of forcing a nation into voting or leaning one way or another via coercion and this threat of "maintaining and subjugating" that an international task force would allow to rise. We will have no part in what is becoming more and more clear a charter to create organizations within the International Association of Nations that seek to undermine sovereign law and the most basic of civil and political liberties guaranteed to every citizen of Eras by his or her home nation.

----
Regards,
Elizabeth O'Shea
Merilian Representative to the
International Association of Nations
 
The Equestrian Commonwealth has reviewed the terms of the proposal, and its arguments, and would like to point out how diverse our region is. Eras contains a vast number of nations of different types and cultures, and all actions by such a court would be highly controversial between the aforementioned nations, not to mention the high possibility of conflict(s) occurring.
 
Arrandal is particularly concerned with the term "Crimes against Humanity' as we are home to a race of sentient non-humans, the Dryadic Tree folk, who we feel this proposal would leave out. As such we can not give our support to this proposal.
 
The Kingdom of Esroniet hears the point of the delegation of Arrandal. We note to the Yerän delegation that there are, in fact, many non-human sentient species on this planet, such as the Dragons, Aed Kaenë, Dryadic Tree Folk, and others. Humans may be in the majority, but we are not alone.

The Kingdom henceforth changes its alignment from support to abstention. We will not vote against purely due to the term "crimes against humanity" because while it is vital, it is still a small tidbit in the overall document.
 
As The Stan Yera is home to non-human species itself, it would wish to indicate that humanity would encompass such creatures outside of the human race as mentioned. Humanity is of course, not the most accurate of terms when considering this viewpoint, but it should suffice as far as the intent is clear.
 
The August Consular Office has considered inviting nomination and sponsorships for this legislation to go to vote, and has decided to do so.

We would ask that the author themselves nominate their proposal for vote, and then receive a sponsorship and a seconding sponsorship on the nomination before the proposal is put to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top