[GA - Passed] Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes [Complete]

BMWSurfer

BMWSurfer

Some random groundhog idk
-
TNP Nation
Veniyerris
Discord
BMWSurfer#1965

ga.jpg

Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Auralia | Onsite Topic​

Recognizing the moral depravity of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace,

Recalling this Assembly's prior commitments to the prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes,

Emphasizing that the effective protection of human rights by this Assembly necessitates that there be no statutory limitations on prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes,

The General Assembly,

Defines a statutory limitation as any limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime, with the understanding that this includes, but is not limited to, limitations imposed by administrative regulation, judicial order, or legislative statute;

Prohibits member states, whether acting individually or collectively through World Assembly resolution, from applying a statutory limitation to any crime explicitly or implicitly recognized under World Assembly law as:

1. a war crime,

2. a crime against humanity, or

3. a crime against peace.
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2018_04_10_ban_on_statutory_limitations_for_heinous_crimes[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2018_04_10_ban_on_statutory_limitations_for_heinous_crimes[/wavote]
 
This proposal would ban limits on punishments for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes against peace. The proposal reaffirms the World Assembly's goal of bringing justice to criminals, and we believe that this is a worthy goal.
 
Against. Fails to define "War Crime", "Crime against humanity", and "Crime against peace". In the absence of such definitions, it piggybacks off other resolutions that defines them and therefore violates House of Cards. Auralia should know better.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Against. Fails to define "War Crime", "Crime against humanity", and "Crime against peace". In the absence of such definitions, it piggybacks off other resolutions that defines them and therefore violates House of Cards. Auralia should know better.
Click to expand...
But it's been ruled legal?
 
Sil Dorsett:
I think GenSec made a mistake.
Click to expand...
Maybe another member will rule it illegal, but perhaps a new ruling has been made? I'm really not sure why it was ruled legal if it violates the House of Cards rule.

Hm. How weird.
 
Unless GenSec decided that terms can be left undefined and that future resolutions can establish definitions for past resolutions, if all past resolutions that defined the terms are repealed, this resolution has no effect.
 
I'm against, both for Sil's point, and that it doesn't strike me as actually being that well-written in general; the best I can put it into words is that it reads to me like a poorly-written resolution made by someone who's clearly very good at writing GA resolutions.


Vote Counted.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Against. Fails to define "War Crime", "Crime against humanity", and "Crime against peace". In the absence of such definitions, it piggybacks off other resolutions that defines them and therefore violates House of Cards. Auralia should know better.
Click to expand...
This is a misinterpretation of the House of Cards rule. The same objection was raised during drafting of On Universal Jurisdiction, which establishes universal jurisdiction for "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity".

My response now is the same as my response then:

OOC: I don't think you're applying the House of Cards rule correctly, and you need to ask yourself why that rule exists in order to understand why it doesn't apply here. The whole point of that rule is to ensure that a resolution will not suddenly become invalid as a result of the repeal of a separate resolution. The rule requires that a resolution not be dependent on specific past resolutions, because if those resolutions are repealed than the dependent resolution irrevocably loses part of its meaning.

That's not the case here, though. This proposal does not rely on any specific past resolutions. Even if all other resolutions were repealed, it could still stand on its own because, in addition to being a blocker, it would continue to provide a working mechanism for enforcement that can be used by future resolutions. Even if all resolutions that presently create grounds for universal jurisdiction were repealed, it will always possible for another resolution to be passed that creates new ones.
Click to expand...
Similarly, it will always be possible for a resolution to define additional war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace in future.
 
Sasten:
I'm against, both for Sil's point, and that it doesn't strike me as actually being that well-written in general; the best I can put it into words is that it reads to me like a poorly-written resolution made by someone who's clearly very good at writing GA resolutions.
Click to expand...
That's not really a coherent criticism.

The reality is that it's simply not that complicated to ban statutes of limitations for certain crimes, which makes for a fairly short proposal.
 
This isn't a vote, but I want to weigh in that Auralia is correct regarding the HoC rule. We interpret it very literally on GenSec, where the proposal fails for HoC reasons only where the resolution relies explicitly on extant law that might be repealed. In line with this, we permit prefatory references and implicit references that are applicable to potential future law. That a resolution might change in light of a repeal is not sufficient to violate the HoC rule.

Vote as you will, but GenSec has carefully considered this rule in this context and found it permissible.
 
Against;

War crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace are already restricted under WA law. What this would do, rather than address the ills directly, is micromanage the administrative procedure of the member nations. Regulating procedure, unless the procedure itself is essential to the protection of clear human rights, is a can of worms the WA should never go into.

The resolution pushes a very narrow view of criminal justice; nations who prioritize deterrence and practical public safety may see no use in exerting effort to put on a spectacle for those people who commit these actions decades ago.

Emphasizing that the effective protection of human rights by this Assembly necessitates that there be no statutory limitations on prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes,
Click to expand...
Where has it been declared the human rights necessitates the prosecution of perpetrators? We are conflating two value systems here, one of criminal justice and one of human rights.

I'll direct you to GA #38
6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.
Click to expand...
Provisions such as these does a sufficient enough job pushing the WA's view on the matter. It also clearly declares that the primary objective should be the prevention of recidivism, not retribution.

7. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.
Click to expand...

We should keep the protection of human rights to the WA, and leave the varying applications of justice to the individual member states.


Vote Counted.
 
Separatist Peoples:
This isn't a vote, but I want to weigh in that Auralia is correct regarding the HoC rule. We interpret it very literally on GenSec, where the proposal fails for HoC reasons only where the resolution relies explicitly on extant law that might be repealed. In line with this, we permit prefatory references and implicit references that are applicable to potential future law. That a resolution might change in light of a repeal is not sufficient to violate the HoC rule.

Vote as you will, but GenSec has carefully considered this rule in this context and found it permissible.
Click to expand...
Alright. If that's how the rule works, I have no other reason to object.

For


Vote Counted.
 
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