[GA, Illegal] - Repeal: "Convention Against Heinous Crimes"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookiemonster

Cookiemonster

Lost Butterfly
Pronouns
She/Her
TNP Nation
Isabella van der Feltz
Discord
isabella_respublica
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Convention Against Heinous Crimes"
Category: Repeal | GA #698
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#698 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 extraordinarily low standards of good faith in these reviews: requiring that the tribunal grant comity if there exists "probable cause that the [suspect] is guilty of said heinous crime," unless granting comity would violate active WA law or "due process," or if "a compelling public interest" stronger than comity is to be greatly harmed should comity be granted,

Reaffirming that 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,

Deducing that GA#698's comity standards are superfluous, because since comity can only be exercised either via trial in the suspect's member state of residence or via deportation with a view to trial in the member state that charged them, then all trials resulting from the decision to extend comity must adhere to the basic standards of WA law,

Recognising that, even if a member state does not extend comity against a person pursuant to GA#698, it may readily introduce its own substantially identical charges against that person (at any time, given the provisions of GA#428 "Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes"), meaning that whether or not comity exists as constituted in GA#698, members are free to bring war criminals to justice in their own courts and in full compliance with other WA law,

Observing that, beyond comity, Article 4 requires the International Enforcement Commission (IEC) to supply police officers, who may "use armed force" in circumstances defined in Article 4a, 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" (with very limited exceptions), but also that the IEC itself is actually immediately constituted by GA#698 as a police force that pursues those who have merely been "charged or convicted for a heinous crime" while awaiting trial or sentencing (as appropriate) in the overseas member state that charged 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 (especially at times when the WA does not possess the kinds of "regulations" that Articles 4b(i-ii) allows it to have):
  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#698, when it is not somehow reminscent of prior WA law on criminal justice, endeavours to create a WA police force without setting firm and direct guidelines on its use of force, making it unnecessary and harmful at the same time...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#698 "Convention Against Heinous Crimes."
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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
0803
 
Last edited:
Against

I don’t appreciate the prospect of two identical repeals that constitute the exact same argument especially when that argument stretches the truth of the target resolution. Sadly I have seen how fickle the WA as a whole is in repealing and replacing its resolutions, so I can’t rule out that they would literally vote for two versions of the same proposal and then repeal it twice with the exact same argument against.

I hope that whatever the outcome of this particular vote, this is the last we have to endure this stupid tug of war, because the WA has as of late been nothing but endless bickering over the same topics over and over and it’s beyond old. To think people could get two author credits for the same exact and inaccurate piece of work…well in my view that would as good as drive a stake through the heart of the concept that the WA has any credibility an institution, for those inclined to believe it still has any.

I am against any replacement of this should this repeal be successful, but hopefully the repeal itself can be avoided.
 
I am against this proposal. There are three prongs to the proposal’s argument as to why the targeted resolution should be repealed, and I will address these in turn.

First, there is the suggestion that the standard of good faith is too low. The requirement that is set by the targeted resolution is that if probable cause that the suspect is guilty of the relevant offence. Presumably, though this is not made clear, the proposal would prefer a standard such as being beyond a reasonable doubt. This, however, would preempt the process of criminal trial, and it is illogical for certainty in the commission of an offence to be a prerequisite for the process of attaining the same. Additionally, the proposal impliedly critiques the vagueness of such terms as “due process” and “compelling public interest”. While I agree that these terms are undefined, I do not think that this is so great a flaw so as to merit a repeal.

Second, there is the argument that the regulations vis-à-vis the extension of comity are superfluous. I disagree with the premise on which this argument is founded, which is seemingly that the GA should not create multiple pieces of legislation with overlapping scope. Although the targeted resolution certainly does tackle the same ground as previous resolutions about international criminal procedure, it does so in order to expand on a particular point. The reason that this is exempted from the Duplication Rule is because it is necessary in order to create legislation that is not riddled with awkward holes. It is not justifiable to repeal the targeted resolution merely because it achieves the same result in certain areas as other resolutions. No harm is caused by the same principles of fairness being mandated twice.

Third, there is the real crux of the proposal. Tinhampton does not like the idea of there being an international police or military sponsored by the GA. The rest of the proposal is essentially dressing around this supposed flaw. I believe that the assumptions underlying the GA, such as the flawlessness of gnomes, make many of the critiques of this international force rather weak. In this particular case, the IEC has a very modest ambit of authority and, although I acknowledge that there are some areas where restraints have not been imposed, this is beneficial to allowing discretion in the IEC’s operation. I am quite wholeheartedly in favour of this international force, which is why I find this argument unpersuasive.

In summary, I am therefore against this proposal.
 
Kenmoria:
I believe that the assumptions underlying the GA, such as the flawlessness of gnomes, make many of the critiques of this international force rather weak.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, there are gnomes who are paragons of moral virtue, the World Assembly Headquarters is protected by magic shields that protect it from any kind of harm, and the WA is a magical fantasy land where the author of every resolution is awarded a million unicorns. The notion that everything created by the WA is sacred and inviolable and could never, ever do anything wrong is a lazy excuse for bad policy, which the "International Enforcement Commission" certainly is. The only reason that I can't support this proposal is how weak the rest of its arguments are, but there are no flawless gnomes and magic is not real.
 
Comfed:
Ah, yes, there are gnomes who are paragons of moral virtue, the World Assembly Headquarters is protected by magic shields that protect it from any kind of harm, and the WA is a magical fantasy land where the author of every resolution is awarded a million unicorns. The notion that everything created by the WA is sacred and inviolable and could never, ever do anything wrong is a lazy excuse for bad policy, which the "International Enforcement Commission" certainly is. The only reason that I can't support this proposal is how weak the rest of its arguments are, but there are no flawless gnomes and magic is not real.
Click to expand...

Bother, I want a unicorn.

I would agree that a proposal cannot actively rely on the infallibility of gnomes to do anything substantive. A proposal that simply passes all governance over to committees on the basis that committees are perfect would be a bad, of amusing, proposal. However, it has long been the case that authors do not need to specify the makeup of a committee and similar things; the justification for this has always been that committees are composed of ideal bureaucrats who will determine such matters themselves. It seems strange to break that assumption only with respect to the IEC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top