[GA, defeated] 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, and 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 would be greatly harmed should comity be granted),

Emphasising that the result of this review will always result in comity either being extended, or not extended, against the relevant person, and subsequently recognising that:
  • if comity is extended against a person, it can only be extended via trial (or sentencing) in their member state of residence, or via deportation with a view to trial (or sentencing) in the member state that charged them, meaning that they will always be tried (or sentenced) in a member state as a result; therefore, such legal proceedings must adhere to all active World Assembly law,
  • there is no reason to be concerned that either member state in the comity process will violate the rights of the person against whom comity has been extended under GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" and other relevant resolutions, given that GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" provides for fines or WA-wide sanctions for members that refuse to comply with active WA law such as GA#37, and
  • if comity is instead not extended against a person, the member state in question can readily introduce its own substantially-identical charges against that person (and may do so at any time, courtesy of GA#428 "Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes"), meaning that members will be free to bring war criminals to justice in their own courts and in full compliance with other WA law even in the absence of GA#698's comity provisions,
Deducing that GA#698's comity standards are superfluous, because all trials resulting from the decision to extend comity must adhere to the basic standards of WA law, and it is easy for member states that decide not to extend comity to press like charges (which must also adhere to said standards) anyway,

Observing that, beyond comity, Article 4 allows 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 4b 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 may pursue 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):
  • what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest,
  • what kind of force they may use in self-defence if the suspect goes beyond resisting arrest to assault IEC agents,
  • 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,
  • when they are meant to deploy arms in the first instance, or indeed
  • 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
01401
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal is a lightly amended version of GA #680: Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes", after that target was replaced by GA #698: Convention Against Heinous Crimes. It reraises many of the complaints GA #680 did, such as that the target is supposedly "superfluous", as well as creation of the International Enforcement Commission in the target.

Recommendation
We opposed the previous repeal, and we see no reason to change our position here. This is a poorly-justified repeal whose arguments fall apart when subjected to any scrutiny; for example the claim that the target is "superfluous" amounts to claiming that trying heinous crimes is unnecessary when such trials have to be fair. Regardless of our opinion on the merits or lack thereof in an international police force, repeals should present a compelling argument for why they should be passed. This particular repeal fails to do so.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the at-vote GA resolution, "Repeal 'Convention Against Heinous Crimes'".
 
Last edited:
Still voting Present. I don't like WA Police but I also find bothersome the tug of war over this (not that I haven't been part of it, given all the tugs of war over hunting and cannibalism).
 
I'm changing my vote from Present to Against - I don't like seeing and voting on the exact same proposal attempt again, again, and again. I'm not sure whether it's true, but apparently this version will be marked as Illegal as well (from Mage's message on the WALL Discord server, unless they were referring to the previous attempt)
 
Last edited:
Cookiemonster:
I'm changing my vote from Present to Against - I don't like seeing and voting on the exact same proposal attempt again, again, and again. I'm not sure whether it's true, but apparently this version will be marked as Illegal as well (from Mage's message on the WALL Discord server, unless they were referring to the previous attempt)
Click to expand...
Nobody knew about the existence of this proposal until 5:41am GMT (12:41am EST; 6:41pm NZDT). If Mage said what he did before that time, he was referring to the old proposal. If he said so after that time, I would be interested in finding out what exactly is illegal about this attempt.

Furthermore, there will be no vote on this version of the proposal until 5am GMT on Wednesday 3rd January 2024.
 
Last edited:
Cookiemonster:
I'm not sure whether it's true, but apparently this version will be marked as Illegal as well (from Mage's message on the WALL Discord server, unless they were referring to the previous attempt)
Click to expand...
Yes, I was referring to the old version.

Like the old version, this repeal still makes a number of quite exaggerated, misleading complaints.

Emphasising that the result of this review will always result in comity either being extended, or not extended, against the relevant person, and subsequently recognising that:

  • if comity is extended against a person, it can only be extended via trial (or sentencing) in their member state of residence, or via deportation with a view to trial (or sentencing) in the member state that charged them, meaning that they will always be tried (or sentenced) in a member state as a result; therefore, such legal proceedings must adhere to all active World Assembly law,
  • there is no reason to be concerned that either member state in the comity process will violate the rights of the person against whom comity has been extended under GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" and other relevant resolutions, given that GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" provides for fines or WA-wide sanctions for members that refuse to comply with active WA law such as GA#37, and
  • if comity is instead not extended against a person, the member state in question can readily introduce its own substantially-identical charges against that person (and may do so at any time, courtesy of GA#428 "Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes"), meaning that members will be free to bring war criminals to justice in their own courts and in full compliance with other WA law even in the absence of GA#698's comity provisions,
Deducing that GA#698's comity standards are superfluous, because all trials resulting from the decision to extend comity must adhere to the basic standards of WA law, and it is easy for member states that decide not to extend comity to press like charges (which must also adhere to said standards) anyway,
Click to expand...
This is still just a more bloated way of repeating nonsense. That a trial is fair does not mean that requiring said trials to happen is "superfluous". This is reduced to a rather nonsensical "we shouldn't try war crimes because we have to do so fairly!!!!!". As to "like charges", it certainly may be "easy" for that to happen, but that does not mean that it will. It is easy for member nations to extend comity, yet they certainly may choose not to. The point of the resolution is to restrict this situations in which comity must be extended. I genuinely cannot think of any real justification for this claim assuming one actually understands how comity works; recognising another member nation's jurisdiction over an offence is not the same as extending your own jurisdiction over it. The scope of the resolution is squarely the former, not the latter. Should certain conditions (stated in the target) be met, a member nation is required extend comity; if those conditions are not met, comity need not be extended; whether a member nation decides later to bring up its own charges if comity is not extended is unrelated.

The argument is obviously a cover for a much more banal "WA police bad!!!!". I don't think that's a particularly convincing argument, but even if you agree with "WA police bad" we shouldn't encourage this sort of bad faith lying in repeals. (Incidentally, this got the previous version of this repeal marked illegal, by extension meaning that the passed repeal also would have been illegal had it been challenged).

Please vote against so that these exaggerated, misleading claims do not reenter the books.
 
Last edited:
I am against this proposal, for reasons that are identical to why I was against its predecessor. Though I certainly wouldn’t call this proposal in bad faith or deceptive, I do disagree with the arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top