[GA - passed] Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes"
Category: Repeal | GA #666
Proposed by: Tinhampton, Co-authored by: Refuge Isle, Witchcraft and Sorcery, Merni | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​

Noting that, whenever someone in a member state is charged by another member with a heinous crime (as defined), GA#666 requires that their state of residence conduct "a bona fide review... by a court or other tribunal" into whether they should be tried in that state or deported to the state seeking the charge instead,

Disappointed that the target resolution sets low standards of good faith in these reviews through only requiring the tribunal to consider the suspect's "past trials," their likelihood of guilt, the "relevant charges or conviction" they face, and "any state or public interests" regarding comity,

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,

Convinced that the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous, because GA#147 "Extradition Rights" allows appeals against extradition between members to be rejected where the suspect has violated WA law (and every "heinous crime" is a violation of WA law), and GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" ensures that their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in,

Observing that, beyond comity, Article 4 requires the International Enforcement Commission (IEC) to supply armed officers when members ask it for help with certain extraditions,

Bemused not only that Article 4 further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions," but also that - despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - it is actually constituted by GA#666 as a police force that pursues those who are merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial or otherwise have to return to the state that convicted them,

Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear:
  1. what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest,
  2. what kind of force they may use in self-defence if the suspect goes beyond resisting arrest to assault IEC agents,
  3. what immediately non-injurious actions (such as the destruction of obstacles the suspect is hiding behind) they are allowed to take to ensure safe extradition,
  4. when they are meant to deploy arms in the first instance, or indeed
  5. what degree of force they are meant to use against the suspect or any other person at any time, and

Believing that GA#666, when it is not somehow reminscent of prior WA law on criminal justice, endeavours to create a WA police force without setting firm guidelines on its use of force, making it unnecessary and harmful at the same time...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#666 "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes."
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
0704
 
Last edited:
Overview
The resolution proposal at hand seeks to repeal "Convention On Law Enforcement For Heinous Crimes", primarily citing the resolution's bona fide review requirements on deportation, partial duplication with two other resolutions (GA147 and GA37), and the accordance of enforcement powers (with an enforcement commission) under this resolution, believing that it "endeavours to create a WA police force without setting firm guidelines on its use of force, making it unnecessary and harmful at the same time".

Recommendation
There are arguments regarding evidence against a defendant and the definition of comity which was extensively debated at the time of the passing of the resolution, and we believe the author of the repeal has not advocated a convincing case beyond what had been previously extensively discussed. The author's opposition to the establishment of the International Enforcement Commission and whether it amounts to a police force (as argued in the repeal) make undistinguished and generalized arguments and we find the totality of the repeal arguments unconvincing.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Repeal: “Convention On Law Enforcement For Heinous Crimes".
 
Last edited:
Against. Let's dissect this line by line, shall we.

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,
Click to expand...
Why would acquittals be ever used as evidence against a defendant? The provision in that resolution is there so that acquittals for the same heinous crime can be used as evidence for the defendant, so as to avoid double jeopardy. Theoretically a member nation can interpret the mandate the way the repeal does, but if so, they would do so regardless of the presence of the target.

Convinced that the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous, because GA#147 "Extradition Rights" allows appeals against extradition between members to be rejected where the suspect has violated WA law (and every "heinous crime" is a violation of WA law), and GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" ensures that their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in,
Click to expand...
This is just not true. #147 does not impose mandates for extradition, it merely restricts extradition. This does not justify that #666 is redundant, as #666 actually does impose mandates for extradition or otherwise comity. Nor does the argument regarding #37 do so -- the purpose of #666 is not that trials be fair (although they obviously still have to be under #37 and other legal process resolutions), but rather that such trials happen ab initio.

Bemused not only that Article 4 further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions," but also that - despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - it is actually constituted by GA#666 as a police force that pursues those who are merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial or otherwise have to return to the state that convicted them,
Click to expand...
The only reason here that this is an issue is that the authors disagree with any World Assembly police force for any reason. Such arguments are largely philosophical, so there is no real reason to rebut it here. However, even if you oppose a WA police, you should still oppose this repeal because of the false or irrelevant statements it makes, as described above.

Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear:

  1. what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest,
  2. what kind of force they may use in self-defence if the suspect goes beyond resisting arrest to assault IEC agents,
  3. what immediately non-injurious actions (such as the destruction of obstacles the suspect is hiding behind) they are allowed to take to ensure safe extradition,
  4. when they are meant to deploy arms in the first instance, or indeed
  5. what degree of force they are meant to use against the suspect or any other person at any time, and
Click to expand...
It is actually not unclear at all. Necessary means it is a sine qua non. This is an objective standard.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Against. Let's dissect this line by line, shall we.
Click to expand...
Challenge accepted.

Magecastle:
Why would acquittals be ever used as evidence against a defendant? The provision in that resolution is there so that acquittals for the same heinous crime can be used as evidence for the defendant, so as to avoid double jeopardy. Theoretically a member nation can interpret the mandate the way the repeal does, but if so, they would do so regardless of the presence of the target.
Click to expand...
This horse was beaten multiple times, almost to death, in the forumside thread. Thank you, at least, for admitting that this particular argument holds a grain of truth. :P

Magecastle:
This is just not true. #147 does not impose mandates for extradition, it merely restricts extradition. This does not justify that #666 is redundant, as #666 actually does impose mandates for extradition or otherwise comity. Nor does the argument regarding #37 do so -- the purpose of #666 is not that trials be fair (although they obviously still have to be under #37 and other legal process resolutions), but rather that such trials happen ab initio.
Click to expand...
The restrictions imposed by GA#147 on extradition for heinous crimes are de-facto tantamount to "mandates for extradition." Read that clause again.

GA#666 requires that comity be organised ASAP. The decision of comity must be delivered ASAP as well and either be to deport or try at home. The speed is irrelevant: the consequences are. And the consequences have been discussed, also to death, on the NS forums.

Magecastle:
The only reason here that this is an issue is that the authors disagree with any World Assembly police force for any reason. Such arguments are largely philosophical, so there is no real reason to rebut it here. However, even if you oppose a WA police, you should still oppose this repeal because of the false or irrelevant statements it makes, as described above.
Click to expand...
Obviously I wouldn't call our arguments either of those things. To flip my deck of cards over - even if I was open to a WA police (and I am not, as you said), I would still not believe that the IEC as constituted serves any absolutely necessary purpose. Unnecessary committees are repealed; history shows this.

Magecastle:
It is actually not unclear at all. Necessary means it is a sine qua non. This is an objective standard.
Click to expand...
Necessary may be "an objective standard" but it is also a weak one. The force must be necessary in proportion to safe extradition. How, exactly, will extradition be safe? In what circumstances, and how, does that barometer of safety change?
 
Tinhampton:
The restrictions imposed by GA#147 on extradition for heinous crimes are de-facto tantamount to "mandates for extradition." Read that clause again.
Click to expand...
How? And this still does not address the point regarding how it is "superfluous". One resolution restricts extradition, the other mandates it in certain circumstances.

Tinhampton:
Obviously I wouldn't call our arguments either of those things. To flip my deck of cards over - even if I was open to a WA police (and I am not, as you said), I would still not believe that the IEC as constituted serves any absolutely necessary purpose. Unnecessary committees are repealed; history shows this.
Click to expand...
It can be beneficial without being "absolutely necessary". Why should it be repealed if not "absolutely necessary"?

Tinhampton:
Necessary may be "an objective standard" but it is also a weak one. The force must be necessary in proportion to safe extradition. How, exactly, will extradition be safe? In what circumstances, and how, does that barometer of safety change?
Click to expand...

: free from harm or risk : unhurt
Click to expand...
not harmed or damaged:
Click to expand...
Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt.
Click to expand...
So if the individual can be extradited without being harmed etc, that means they were safely extradited.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I object to Magecastle writing this IFV as the author of the repeal target.

Other than that I agree with everything Tinhampton said and encourage some serious thought here on the ramifications of allowing a resolution that creates a literal militarized police force for the WA, with a backdoor for it to increase its authority by a simple majority vote of the WA, to stand. WA should not get guns or cops.
 
Nobody, let alone myself, has written an IFV on this repeal, or has "dibs" on writing it. I am happy to refrain from writing it when it comes up.
 
Last edited:
Witchcraft and Sorcery:
Honestly I object to Magecastle writing this IFV as the author of the repeal target.

Other than that I agree with everything Tinhampton said and encourage some serious thought here on the ramifications of allowing a resolution that creates a literal militarized police force for the WA, with a backdoor for it to increase its authority by a simple majority vote of the WA, to stand. WA should not get guns or cops.
Click to expand...

The IFV won't be done by Magecastle, you can be sure of that. The fact that Magecastle opens the thread here and reserves the space for IFVs does not mean he gets to do the IFV.
 
Last edited:
Against.

Many reasons the Comrades' Assembly disagrees with this repeal.
Most notably:
Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear
Click to expand...

If a common infantry soldier can understand it with minimal error in their RoEs, then I think the lawyers of governments can understand it perfectly fine.
 
Resolution Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes" was passed 9,476 votes to 3,334.

This is Tin's 31st resolution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top