[GA - Discarded] Repeal: On Universal Jurisdiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Repeal: “On Universal Jurisdiction”
Category: Repeal | GA #312
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​
General Assembly Resolution #312 “On Universal Jurisdiction” (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

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:



  1. 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



  2. victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist,
Expressing its discontent 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 a compulsory, fair, and effective international tribunal to resolve these issues, hereby:

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.
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!
 
For, despite GAR 312 being well meaning, it hurts the chances of WA nations receiving justice for WC/CAH against their citizens or affiliated parties. While an International court might be concerning to those involved, it should only deal with jurisdiction between WA member nations in regards to aforementioned crimes.
 
Against.
This is just a rehash of the argument that took place previously, and it's still not true. The target still does not prevent the establishment of an international court, it prevents the Assembly from undermining any nation's right to claim universal jurisdiction, via a ruling of an international court. This repeal was dishonest then. It's dishonest now.
This is simply a means to centralize power, and to centralize justice. It's will lead to a massive backlog in cases by bureaucracy, and will actually hurt the causes of justice, and enable and embolden those committing war crimes.
 
Last edited:
bowloftoast:
Against.
This is just a rehash of the argument that took place previously, and it's still not true. The target still does not prevent the establishment of an international court, it prevents the Assembly from undermining any nation's right to claim universal jurisdiction, via a ruling of an international court. This repeal was dishonest then. It's dishonest now.
This is simply a means to centralize power, and to centralize justice. It's will lead to a massive backlog in cases by bureaucracy, and will actually hurt the causes of justice, and enable and embolden those committing war crimes.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that clause 7's use of preempting under the unlimited scope of jurisdiction actually prevents an international court from being established as nations might only be able to take action when the perpetrator is in the specific member nation's borders.
 
The language used is...
'7. Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court...'
At no point does it say that an international criminal court can not be established. It does not say 'through the establishment of a criminal court'. It very clearly states that such a court can't preempt a member states claim to universal jurisdiction. I've always interpreted it as a means to protect the rights of nations granted by this proposal.

In short, it means that if the WA sets up such a court, that court can not turn around and say 'hey, we're the only place that such matters can be tried now, and too bad about the rights granted to all nations under GAR#312.' - that is what it means to preempt.

I suspect this is what's motivating the repeal. Not that it prevents the establishment of a court, but that it prevents the WA running roughshod over national rights granted under the target. This seems a lot like the WA expressing no faith in individual member nation's ability to deliver justice on these matters.
 
I want to note to the Minister that the proposal was not passed, it was discarded for an Honest Mistake. I take full responsibility for it. You can read more about it here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=453874

bowloftoast:
In short, it means that if the WA sets up such a court, that court can not turn around and say 'hey, we're the only place that such matters can be tried now, and too bad about the rights granted to all nations under GAR#312.' - that is what it means to preempt.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't do just that. It also prohibits (1) the ability for the World Assembly to override corrupt national courts on appeal and (2) the ability for the World Assembly to in fact prosecute independently. Both of these mean that there is no actual solvency against war crimes.

Under oUJ, Assad can just be tried by a Syrian court which gives him a fine of 10 dollars, and nothing further happens. That's already taking it generously. Insofar as fewer war criminals are prosecuted because prosecutorial discretion exists, different reasonable people can reach different conclusions on whether an "individual is guilty of that crime", and different people can have different ideas about severity of a crime, there simply doesn't exist a credible solvency mechanism.

Moreover, the Assembly has recognised in the past the existence of non-compliance and created compliance mechanisms to deal with it. If member nations are noncompliant with oUJ, the only effective means to actually have justice served and deterrence against those crimes in the future is to have compulsory jurisdiction with availed self-help measures.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top