[GA, Discarded] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sil Dorsett

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett

ga.jpg

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"
Category: Repeal | GA #312
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​

This august World Assembly,

Concerned that the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts,

Observing that section 7 of the target resolution “[f]orbids 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”,

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

[ol][li]there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists, due to differing interpretations of section 3(c) and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and


[li]victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,[/li][/ol]
Expressing its malcontent at this state of affairs, where criminality of the worst degree is not punished and where the international rules-based order is unable to deter or bring justice to would-be tyrants from engaging in mass murder or other heinous crimes,

Saddened at the deaths caused by the Assembly’s inability to act and the incredible injustices that the Assembly is unable to take action to right, and

Calling for the creation of an compulsory, fair, and effective international tribunal to resolve these issues, hereby:

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:[ul][li]Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.[li]Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.[li]Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.[li]Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.[/li][/ul]

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Having thoroughly read both the initial resolution and the proposed repeal, I support the repeal. I think it is genuine, and I believe its reasoning to be sound. That it calls for repeal and - critically - replace, is important.

FOR.
 
Against.
There seems to be an almost willful misinterpretation of the language of the original legislation being used to justify this call for repeal.
The author of the above states:
"...the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts"
- The original legislation clearly states, in section 3, "...[a requirement for] member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2...". The notion that a 'fair' trial can be conducted without 'a full accounting of the facts' is a bit of a stretch. I believe the obligation to conduct a 'fair' trial comes with the universal understanding that a fair trial must be evidential in nature.
The author of the above then states: "...that it is patently obvious that this section [section 7 of the original] prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court"
- This is absolutely not the case. Section 7 of the original prohibits the WA from preempting a nation's right to claim universal jurisdiction. Period. That is to say, if a nation sees another nation committing a war crime and claims universal jurisdiction, the WA can't undermine or usurp that nation's right to that claim. That is all it prohibits, and the original even goes on to clarify that that applies only 'to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions.' Nothing in that suggests that the WA is prohibited 'from establishing an international court', as claimed. It simply means that the WA can't skirt the legislation by using a criminal court as proxy vehicle. Section 7 of the original is clearly meant to prevent the Assembly from sheltering member nations who may be in violation of the law, by attempting to 'preempt' any other nation's right to claim Universal Jurisdiction. It is designed to empower each and every nation as a means to keep checks and balances against any international court the WA may establish, and to prevent corruption.
Everything beyond that in this repeal is window dressing, fear mongering, and emotional manipulation designed to bolster the author's misleading and dishonest claims.
 
[quote uid=7865 name="bowloftoast" ]Against.
There seems to be an almost willful misinterpretation of the language of the original legislation being used to justify this call for repeal.
The author of the above states:
"...the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts"
- The original legislation clearly states, in section 3, "...[a requirement for] member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2...". The notion that a 'fair' trial can be conducted without 'a full accounting of the facts' is a bit of a stretch. I believe the obligation to conduct a 'fair' trial comes with the universal understanding that a fair trial must be evidential in nature.
The author of the above then states: "...that it is patently obvious that this section [section 7 of the original] prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court"
- This is absolutely not the case. Section 7 of the original prohibits the WA from preempting a nation's right to claim universal jurisdiction. Period. That is to say, if a nation sees another nation committing a war crime and claims universal jurisdiction, the WA can't undermine or usurp that nation's right to that claim. That is all it prohibits, and the original even goes on to clarify that that applies only 'to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions.' Nothing in that suggests that the WA is prohibited 'from establishing an international court', as claimed. It simply means that the WA can't skirt the legislation by using a criminal court as proxy vehicle. Section 7 of the original is clearly meant to prevent the Assembly from sheltering member nations who may be in violation of the law, by attempting to 'preempt' any other nation's right to claim Universal Jurisdiction. It is designed to empower each and every nation as a means to keep checks and balances against any international court the WA may establish, and to prevent corruption.
Everything beyond that in this repeal is window dressing, fear mongering, and emotional manipulation designed to bolster the author's misleading and dishonest claims. [/quote]What if an international court actually does its job, but a nation preempts the international court? Wouldn't this reverse situation also hold, and wouldn't that potentially be more problematic (and more likely) than the whole WA trying to undermine one nation's attempt to prosecute a war criminal?

It seems to me the resolution potentially being repealed blocks international court legislation, even if it doesn't say so outright. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

For
 
Alright, enough time has passed. Time to get a vote in (which can always be adjusted if needed)

Voting FOR
 
I think what's inspired the author of GA#312 is a look beyond the fourth wall, and into the real-world UN. There are some very large and very influential countries who have committed atrocities, used chemical weapons, engaged in illegal warfare, and who have suffered no consequences, stood no trial, simply because of their size, influence, or veto power.
I think the intent of the original legislation is to try and address the sort of corruption of justice that can occur in a scenario like that in a global organization like the WA. Granted, the WA is not the UN, this is our universe, but allegiances are allegiances, power corrupts, back room deals get done, cronyism exists, and some nations are held to different standards than others.
I genuinely don't think GA#312 is meant to counter the authority of the WA or any Int'l court, but rather, to make sure that crimes against humanity get punished, no matter who commits them, or how influential they may be in the organization.

I believe the design is to give any nation the right to prosecute, and to hold to legal account, even the Goliaths.
 
Against.
If the aim of an international court is in part, to dissuade countries from crimes against humanity, then we may see criminal regimes putting a larger effort into suppressing the spread of information, and perhaps a larger death tole. No court has been effective in stopping third-world coups from turning into genocides.
 
[quote uid=8203 name="Volkstahl" ]Against.
If the aim of an international court is in part, to dissuade countries from crimes against humanity, then we may see criminal regimes putting a larger effort into suppressing the spread of information, and perhaps a larger death tole. No court has been effective in stopping third-world coups from turning into genocides.[/quote]While that's true, I think the current system of universal jurisdiction is even less effective.
 
[quote uid=3325 name="El Fiji Grande" ]Having thoroughly read both the initial resolution and the proposed repeal, I support the repeal. I think it is genuine, and I believe its reasoning to be sound. That it calls for repeal and - critically - replace, is important.

FOR.[/quote]I wholeheartedly agree. The objective that the legislation takes is a good one, but it needs some tweaks to work out loopholes.

FOR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top