[GA - In Queue] Convention Against Torture

---

The World Assembly, wishing to thoroughly and clearly condemn the practice of torture in all its forms, enacts the following:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, “Agent” is defined as any person working on behalf of another entity, or on its explicit order and interests. “Torture” is defined as any act which seeks to inflict severe psychological or physical pain and trauma for an interest in:
   • coercing natural persons into providing information or consent, or complying with demands that are not strictly necessary to the conduction of law enforcement with minimal harm to affected individuals;
   • punishing natural persons, coercing them into complying with a certain demand, or using them as an example to others;
   • satisfying the torturer, if they are an agent; or
   • satisfying the torturer, if they are not an agent, at the discretion and interpretation of national legislatures and courts.
2. Any act that does not meet the criteria in 1.a may not be interpreted as "Torture" if it is derived from the execution of national and international law with appropriate force, legitimate use of force for self-defence, or measures of law enforcement taken by persons empowered by their government to do so. This exception only applies if such actions are compliant with their relevant regulations in national and international law, and if they are taken with minimisation of harm to affected individuals.
3. Subjecting a natural person to any form of torture or attempt of such shall be proportionately treated as a serious criminal offence in individual member-nations’ jurisdictions and, when done in large scale against a civilian population, a crime against humanity as covered by international law. Aiding the execution of the crimes herein described shall be concomitantly penalised, with sanctions to be set proportionately to involvement.
4. Agents shall be given the explicit right and mandate to not comply with any orders from entities that contravene this resolution. Agents shall be held fully accountable for failure to comply with this, under Article 3. Consideration must be given to situations of coercion and other legal extenuating circumstances that may alter sanctions in favour of the agent.
5. The World Assembly Judiciary Committee is hereby tasked with expediently reviewing any charges brought against agents and institutions of member-nations for violations of this resolution, under that committee's own procedures.
6. Member-nations must provide educational materials for agents serving roles in interrogation or criminal investigation, which include instruction on the international prohibition of torture and the rights of natural persons against the same.
7. It is the duty of every member-nation to combat the practice of torture in its institutions and among its inhabitants. A member-nation’s government is expected and required to thoroughly investigate any credible report or accusation of torture within their jurisdiction, and prosecute it to the fullest extent of law.
8. Confessions, testimonies, statements, and any other piece of evidence acquired by means of torture shall be considered inadmissible in every court proceeding, national or otherwise. An exception is made for evidence that is used exclusively against those being accused of torture in the criminal proceedings pertaining to such accusations, and that was initially extracted by the person accused of torture, or by others acting under their direct orders.
9. Entities or other persons may not persecute persons for reporting or attempting to report, in good faith, a violation of this resolution's mandates.
10. The General Disclosure Appellate Agency (GDAA) is re-established and is authorised to discreetly receive any reports of violations of this resolution from persons who may feel threatened or coerced by any involved entity to otherwise not file said reports. The GDAA may only process these reports with unimpeded jurisdiction if it deems that there is reasonable motive and evidence to believe an entity will not adequately or safely respond to the report and that the relevant member-nation will have an equally or more insufficient or dangerous response to the reporter.

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!

---

IFV

[Non-WA]

I certainly support this effort.

For!

For

For

[Non-cit, non-WA]

Just wanted to say that I'll be lurking around here as well for any questions, doubts, and criticisms; I'll be sure to take into account any detailed opinions. Have my completely unbiased, non-WA, non-Citizen for too!

For

For

For

Nay

Against

For

For

I have some concerns with the fourth section of the proposal. What happens if the agent truly deserves consideration for the circumstances causing their violation of these provisions, and a nation does indeed take the extenuating circumstances into account only to discard that consideration just as quickly? I think this could have used more teeth. Less crucially but still kind of awkward, throwing the words "right" and "mandate" together like that. I'm not a lawyer but this seems like one of those areas where execution can get messy. And never split your prepositions: "to not comply," instead of "not to comply?"

To some extent I am also concerned about the second section. Coming to an understanding as to what constitutes "appropriate" force and whether harm is being minimized (compared to whatever the scenario may entail or require, which can vary, as well as how much harms any given individual, again, which can vary) is obviously difficult, and certainly doesn't seem to have happened here. Just as section 4 concerns me because one could consider mitigating the handling of agents and yet give them no actual break, I worry that this clause is more accommodating than it should given the subject matter. I recall that some critiques of this proposal were concerned that the recently repealed resolution was too broad, and therefore they wanted to rein it in. I do not know if that's actually been accomplished. Reasonable nation theory does not automatically cover this - you can conceivably apply its provisions in good faith and in a reasonable matter, and still veer close to the kind of behavior I imagine we'd like to discourage. I worry this clause is a loophole that undermines the purpose of the resolution.

Consequently, I must at this time oppose the resolution.

Against

[Non-cit, non-WA]

Thanks for the commentary!

Article four was written with the consideration that, realistically, member-nations may be either indifferent or unwilling to prosecute torture carried out by agents of a given entity - especially agents of public entities. I think a reasonable nation would either take into account extenuating legal circumstances which are common to all legal systems in the proportion already allowed by their legal culture and conventions, or would use this wording to be softer on the prosecution of some of its agents, though not extremely more so than they would already be under their own laws and applications of such by their courts. The legislative and judiciary burden was, intentionally, left to member-states.

As for the considerations of "appropriateness" in article two, those are - in my estimation - better to be had in the national sphere and, in more exceptional circumstances, by the compliance mechanisms of the WA, notably the IAO. The same mechanisms may satisfactorily arbitrate what constitutes minimisation of harm. By making these mandates into international law, I'd hoped that national and international entities with the power to arbitrate legal matters may - if they are independent and functional - constantly ensure that a given member-nation is in compliance, by their own mechanisms, and with the aid of external mechanisms if the former one proves insufficient.

If a nation's courts are not independent and functional, the IAO may be of use to a certain extent, but there's only so much the WA can do for a member-nation whose justice system is corrupt. Short of sanctioning it, that is, which the IAO may do.