[GA - passed] Convention Against Heinous Crimes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Convention Against Heinous Crimes
Category: International Security | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Ice States | Onsite Topic​

Whereas, given the heinous nature of crimes against humanity and other similar acts, member nations should cooperate with each other to bring those responsible to justice;

Whereas such cooperation is effectively promoted by facilitating comity between member nations in dealing with heinous crimes; and

Whereas, although the World Assembly has legislated to restrict extradition to comply with due process standards (GA #147), as well as to regulate trial procedure for fairness (GA #37, inter alia), this august institution does not yet mandate the extension of comity for most heinous crimes;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to previously enacted World Assembly law.
  1. Definitions: For the purposes of this resolution, a "heinous crime" means an act which World Assembly law explicitly or implicitly designates as a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity, regardless of what jurisdiction takes up a case regarding that act. Absent qualification otherwise, uses of the phrase "World Assembly law" make no regard for the timing, relative to this resolution, of the passage of such law, and exclude repealed legislation.

  2. Reviews: Where an individual charged or convicted for a heinous crime in a World Assembly member nation remains under the jurisdiction of another member nation, the latter member nation must make a bona fidereview to determine whether to extend comity over the case, if such comity is not already extended or to be extended. Such a review must be presided over by a court or other tribunal.
    1. Comity is to be presumptively granted if there is probable cause that the individual is guilty of said heinous crime, and in such a case may only be denied if the tribunal finds that extending comity would (i) result in a violation of due process or World Assembly law; or (ii) significantly harm a compelling public interest which outweighs the public's interest in extension of comity.

    2. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee may, with the consent of the reviewing member nation, supply judicial officials to participate in the tribunal or proceedings thereof.

  3. Comity:Comity may be extended either by resuming or enforcing the relevant judicial proceedings by the member nation to which comity is extended; or by extraditing the individual in question to the member nation to which comity is extended.
    1. No member nation or entity therein may wilfully obstruct the transportation of an individual between member nations for the purposes of such extradition, subject to Section 3b.

    2. A member nation may, subject to other World Assembly law, prevent or restrict its jurisdiction from being used for such transportation, so long as this does not prevent extradition from proceeding without posing a substantial additional burden on the time or finances of the extraditing member nation.

    3. The enforcement of a judicial sentence shall be considered a form of judicial proceedings in this resolution.

  4. Extradition support:The International Enforcement Commission, or IEC, is reestablished. Where a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3, the IEC may provide support, in the form of law enforcement officers and with the consent of the extraditing member nation, to facilitate the delivery of the extradited individual to the jurisdiction of the relevant member nation.
    1. IEC officers acting per this mandate may only use armed force where absolutely necessary to ensure that the individual is safely delivered to the relevant member nation.

    2. The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions, excepting regulations limited to the scope of preventing (i) arbitrary action against a person, entity, or property thereof; or (ii) use of force substantially greater than necessary to restrain a person or prevent imminent lawless action.
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
8400
 
Last edited:
Overview
Following the repeal of GA #666 "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes", this proposal seeks to reinstate a framework for member nations to collaborate in dealing with individuals accused or convicted of heinous crimes. If an individual is prosecuted or convicted of a terrible crime in one member nation but is under the jurisdiction of another, the latter must conduct a review to determine whether to extend comity. The proposal also creates the International Enforcement Commission (IEC), which can provide support for extradited individuals' delivery.

Recommendation
After the ultimately deceptive, bad faith repeal of GA #666 which we opposed at the time, we see no reason not to reinstate these protections. A framework for member nations to cooperate in dealing with heinous crimes such as war crimes, crimes against peace, or crimes against humanity is necessary to ensure those responsible are brought to justice. This proposal promotes collaboration and facilitates extradition or judicial proceedings against such individuals by requiring member nations to conduct a bona fide review to determine whether to extend comity over the case of an individual charged or convicted of a heinous crime in another member nation. Along with this, the creation of the International Enforcement Commission (IEC) increases member nations' ability to collaborate in dealing with heinous crimes by providing direct support for the delivery of extradited persons.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the current General Assembly proposal at vote, "Convention Against Heinous Crimes".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Non-WA and I do not disclaim obvious bias, but I support this -- I see no reason not to reinstate these protections given that the only reason we don't currently have them is a deceptive, bad faith repeal we opposed at the time anyway.

For, since I am apparently still an NPA member. Now For (non-WA) again.
 
Last edited:
I understand that people may have concerns about Section 4, but as Mage has said on the Discord, I don’t see why there is an issue with the WA being able to facilitate the trial of a WAR CRIMINAL, using physical force if necessary, with the consent of the member nation involved. This is not some kind of force that will be sending armed police squadrons on helicopters to infiltrate a ‘war criminal’s lair’.

Police brutality is as likely to happen with a national police force as with the proposed IEC, and in fact, it is better to use the IEC as they would be more accountable for the actions of the officers.

On that note, For
 
AraFuttio:
I understand that people may have concerns about Section 4, but as Mage has said on the Discord, I don’t see why there is an issue with the WA being able to facilitate the trial of a WAR CRIMINAL, using physical force if necessary, with the consent of the member nation involved.
Click to expand...
Because the purpose of the IEC is obviously not to transport war criminals across international borders, but rather to open the doors to future resolutions further empowering into an armed force of the WA. See this clause:
The World Assembly shall reserve the power to, by resolution, expand the authority of the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions, excepting regulations limited to the scope of preventing (i) arbitrary action against a person, entity, or property thereof; or (ii) use of force substantially greater than necessary to restrain a person or prevent imminent lawless action.
Click to expand...
AraFuttio:
Police brutality is as likely to happen with a national police force as with the proposed IEC, and in fact, it is better to use the IEC as they would be more accountable for the actions of the officers.
Click to expand...
They would actually be less accountable--WA canon is that committees, agencies, etc. are controlled by unaccountable civil servants which the WA cannot exercise oversight over.
 
Comfed:
Because the purpose of the IEC is obviously not to transport war criminals across international borders, but rather to open the doors to future resolutions further empowering into an armed force of the WA. See this clause:
Click to expand...
Future resolutions on the subject obviously wouldn't pass unless they're supported by a majority. The blocker just prevents a resolution which stops further powers for the IEC from even being considered.
Comfed:
They would actually be less accountable--WA canon is that committees, agencies, etc. are controlled by unaccountable civil servants which the WA cannot exercise oversight over.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this is true. Firstly, WA canon is also that committees are always compliant with their mandates, and therefore they would not break use-of-force standards established by law. Secondly, there is nothing saying that a committee cannot be formed to receive complaints about the actions of another committee, and to address such complaints. I'm not sure if that's been tried before, but it certainly can be; the WA has established appellate courts to overturn its own decisions. That something hasn't been done before doesn't mean that it cannot be.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Future resolutions on the subject obviously wouldn't pass unless they're supported by a majority. The blocker just prevents a resolution which stops further powers for the IEC from even being considered.
Click to expand...
But if your claim is that this is not the purpose of the IEC, then what is the purpose of having the blocker in the first place?
 
Comfed:
But if your claim is that this is not the purpose of the IEC, then what is the purpose of having the blocker in the first place?
Click to expand...
The purpose of having the IEC is to ensure the extradition of war (and other heinous) criminals. The purpose of the blocker is to prevent bans on WA police.
 
Magecastle:
The purpose of having the IEC is to ensure the extradition of war (and other heinous) criminals. The purpose of the blocker is to prevent bans on WA police.
Click to expand...
I think the concern is all based on "what happens after that blocker is installed" plus yes the gnomes issue

My infant nutrition resolution already has added "also to provide the same facilities at WA Headquarters" for that reason
 
Magecastle:
The purpose of having the IEC is to ensure the extradition of war (and other heinous) criminals. The purpose of the blocker is to prevent bans on WA police.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t such a ban contradict this existing resolution, or distinguish it from the ban so that the ban doesn’t apply to it?
 
I was in a huge argument with Mage around the time of GA#666 about whether the IEC served any objectively necessary purpose. I argued it didn't: a member state can always call upon one of the other 20,000+ member states to help with extradition; if all of them refused, there's the possibility of extending comity by trial instead. Mage accepted that the IEC wasn't actually necessary for any particular incident, but could be beneficial in some cases which he didn't immediately elaborate on. We continue to disagree on this point.
 
Last edited:
Pallaith:
Wouldn’t such a ban contradict this existing resolution, or distinguish it from the ban so that the ban doesn’t apply to it?
Click to expand...
Yes, a ban would be illegal if this passed. Theoretically something like "No new law enforcement duties may be performed directly by the World Assembly" would still be possible without the blocker -- it would prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Yes, a ban would be illegal if this passed. Theoretically something like "No new law enforcement duties may be performed directly by the World Assembly" would still be possible without the blocker -- it would prevent that.
Click to expand...
And why would that be an issue for you? If this is intended to only allow for this form of policing, and you don’t want to close the door on others as a general rule, but you admit that people voting by majority for additional uses is something you want, wouldn’t a majority vote deciding not to have additional uses for policing kind of be the same thing? Either way a majority has to make the call.

Seems to me you’re securing the thing you think is most important with this resolution anyway, so a blocker isn’t really necessary. I think the issue I’m picking up on here is that you’re trying to do two things with this resolution and the second (and arguably unnecessary thing) is the one causing you issues. Perhaps you ought to stick to the actual issue and not try to throw the second one in there.
 
Pallaith:
And why would that be an issue for you? If this is intended to only allow for this form of policing, and you don’t want to close the door on others as a general rule, but you admit that people voting by majority for additional uses is something you want, wouldn’t a majority vote deciding not to have additional uses for policing kind of be the same thing? Either way a majority has to make the call.

Seems to me you’re securing the thing you think is most important with this resolution anyway, so a blocker isn’t really necessary. I think the issue I’m picking up on here is that you’re trying to do two things with this resolution and the second (and arguably unnecessary thing) is the one causing you issues. Perhaps you ought to stick to the actual issue and not try to throw the second one in there.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I don't trust a majority not to vote for a blocker because they can't see the utility of a WA police, but when a practical use is presented support that. If a ban passes, even if the political wind shifts, people may be unwilling to support a repeal if only because of the ban's age (as we saw with GA #2) even if they'd support some practical application of a WA police which would be blocked. If the WA voting population voted entirely based on the factual policy questions, then the blocker would indeed have no use, but I don't particularly trust that is the case.
 
Tinhampton:
I was in a huge argument with Mage around the time of GA#666 about whether the IEC served any objectively necessary purpose. I argued it didn't: a member state can always call upon one of the other 20,000+ member states to help with extradition; if all of them refused, there's the possibility of extending comity by trial instead. Mage accepted that the IEC wasn't actually necessary for any particular incident, but could be beneficial in some cases which he didn't immediately elaborate on. We continue to disagree on this point.
Click to expand...
One possibility is the one I used for the piracy one: aut dedere aut judicare, ie if you don't extradite you must prosecute yourself to the fullest extent, and then rely on RNT I guess
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top