NationStates Jolt Archive

As stated in the official issue, there is a problem with our system of crime management that only an organization like the UN can break. I will present this problem in an analagy.

I am a person. I decided to break Eagleville's law that protects eagles and shoot the eagles, sell them, etc. In Eagleville, I am a criminal.

However, I am clever and move my from Eagleville to Fishland. It isn't illegal to kill eagles according to Fishland so they can't do anything, but now that I'm in Fishland, the Eagleland police can't prosecute me. Neither country can touch me as long as I have asylum in Fishland. Even though I don't have officially granted asylum, I'm fine. The law really doesn't apply to me, does it?

My resolution will change this injustice so that, in this case, Fishland would either have to deliver me to Eagleville or I would face Fishland's court system as if it had been their law the whole time and supposing they held that law equally dear to their hearts as Eagleville does.

Imagine how many laws criminals can break and not get prosecuted. It really is as if the law doesn't apply to them, which is definitely not fair.

We can make the world more fair, and without a catch, too! For those of you who feel obliged to vote with the majority, a poll can be found above to determine the outcome supposing the needed 150 pre-approvals are granted.

:wink:

In your example this looks like a good thing.

However; I read a book in a country where doing so is ileagal, or I wear an article of clothing that is ileagal, or I say something ileagal, or I don't bribe a corrupt official who claims I do something ileagal.

I get out of this country to a more progressive country where I am then put on trial for doing something that is not against the former countries laws or I am sent back to the countries who's laws I have broken.

Extradition will only occur within Nebbyland where the criminal has broken one of our laws in a foreign country, the foreign country has a treaty with us and there is no option for the death penalty being used in the foreign country. We of have and no doubt will again try people for crimes commited outside of our nation but they must have broken one of our laws.

We are fine with the NS UN making laws that impose themselves on our nation, and believe that more international laws should be implimented ensuring that nations have a common sence of decency. We understand that we are in the minority however if you look back at the previous resolutions our vision of the NS UN is already here.

Ben
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

I may disagree with that law, but one must keep in mind that the person with the shirt chose to either be a citizen of or be in that country, and therefore, they accepted that law and must pay the consequence.

We can only hope your Anticertainshirtberg doesn't weigh that law too heavily, but again, they did agree to it. It is fair for a country to hold you to your word. That's why in real life, we can decide not to be a citizen of basically any Western-thought-promoting country and pick another.

One might say, "but what if the country decides not to let you go so you can't choose?" The UN is the pinnacle of the *Western* world anyways.

Therefore, it still stands: they did not do as they agreed. Besides, I would fine a man wearing a shirt to catch poachers and terrorists if need be.

8)

Where did the idea of a shirt come from?

I believe that your argument is that if I travel to a country I make a contract to obey that countries laws.
Let me give you an extreme example of why this is a bad thing.

I, a Nebbylander visit Badland my stay is planned to be for 2 weeks. After a week a coup occurs and the new government declares that all those will blue eyes are put into concentration camps. I have blue eyes and flee back to Nebbyland. Were your resolution to become law Nebbyland would then have to choose if it should try a person for having blue eyes (not a crime in Nebbyland), or extradite them to Badland where they will face trial for something my country does not concider a crime.

Anne
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

(Still confused about the shirts)

We the People's Republic Of Amyth feel this issue would be done more justice with the issue of Drug Smuggling (as people actually care about this issue, no offense shirt-guy). While we don't as a nation care either way, the example of smuggling drugs from a country where possession is legal into a country where it is illegal would present the same problems of extradition that the eagle and shirt scenarios do (Assuming the drug smuggler escapes after the sale). We at the PROA feel this should be an issue which requires a case by case inquiry and not some blanket law easily subject to abuse.

We thank you all for your extradition treaties...

Well, that is interesting, Nebbyland, however the Acerbus Pastors agree that you have avoided the fact that you chose to go to that country and as such are subject to their laws.

We concede that the resolution can be manipulated, but this is the rough draft looking for acceptance! Once it is passed, it can be edited to what the majority feels is perfection, of course. Right now, we just want the idea accepted. If people fail to realize changes can and will be made, then we will resubmit with even more specification.

Our universities, known world-wide for its general excellence and variety in thought, have also come to the conclusion that the world would be better if one master terrorist or drug dealer is stopped even if at the cost of, in your example, the "Blue Eye Manipulation," for example, because it would benefit the vast majority, clearly.

If you had to, would you chop off a toe to save your leg? For just your foot? For just your other toes?

We believe that acts should be made to serve (or benefit) the majority, no matter what.

:!:

[quote="Nebbyland"] However; I read a book in a country where doing so is ileagal, or :arrow: I wear an article of clothing that is ileagal, or I say something ileagal, or I don't bribe a corrupt official who claims I do something ileagal.


I just chose shirt for an example to continue the discussion without jumping around with a million analagies.

You know, many nations have treaties of extradition that allow nations to place criminals from other nations in custody, and return them to their home nation to face trial.

This is a matter of diplomacy, not something for the UN.

Extradition is, to us, a subject best discussed on a case-by-case basis, and as such, a Resolution on it would be a terrible idea.

If a nation wishes to extradite someone who has broken a law that TYB clearly disagrees with, TYB will not, under any circumstances, extradite said person.

At the same time, we recognize that some issues are very controversial. In TYB, neither possesion of marijuana or performing abortions, for example, are against the law. But we would, in most cases, extradite people who did these things in countries where these things would be aginst the law (unless they apply for political asylum, which would open up a whole new can of worms), because we understand that these are touchy issues.

If a nation wishes to clearly define which laws they can and cannot extradite people for, they can sign a treaty with me. Otherwise, the above is the policy of TYB.

Patrick Ewing, TYB/UN Ambassador

Greetings,
My name is Goliath Cobalt. I am the Foreign Relations Representative for The Commonwealth of Siga. As a United Nations Member perusing the proposal ideas set forth in this community, the Commonwealth has asked that I step forth and speak on their behalf.

The matter of extradition should, in the general consensus of the Commonwealth, be regulated as follows:

1) All United Nations member nations should be required to extradite a criminal to the nation where said crime was committed with the following exceptions:
a) The nation requesting the extradition of the said criminal is not a member of the United Nations, in which case extradition is solely up to the United Nations member nation involved.
b) The proper procedures for applying for political asylum and refuge have been carried out by the criminal that is being requested to be extradited, and said asylum and refuge is granted.
c) The criminal has applied for political asylum and refuge and is waiting for a decision to be made. The United Nations member nation that the criminal currently resides in may be imprisoned in a human manner to ensure both the safety and whereabouts of the criminal until said decision is final. Upon a decision against the criminal, then said criminal would be extridited per regulations of this proposal.
2) The procedures for requesting political asylum and refuge should include a hearing of cause presented by the criminal and a representative from the nation requesting extradition. This hearing should be overseen by at least 3 members of the United Nations member nation's current government or their appointees.
3) No nation may refuse to give review to a criminal's request for political asylum or refuge.
4) In the case that extradition is to take place, it is the responsibility of all parties involved to adhere to United Nations policies and the policies of the nations involved regarding humane treatement.



That is how The Commonwealth of Siga feels the United Nations should treat extradition of criminals; however, our region lacks enough United Nations members to appoint a delegate so as to present this proposal properly. We therefore humbly place this concept for proposal up for debate and sponsorship.

Sincerely,
Goliath Cobalt
Foreign Relations Representative
Commonwealth of Siga
United Territories of Siga

<<Comes out of the back room of the forums covered in dust>>
*cough cough*
<<Damn, this was WAAAAAAY back there>>

You know, many nations have treaties of extradition that allow nations to place criminals from other nations in custody, and return them to their home nation to face trial.

This is a matter of diplomacy, not something for the UN.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint wholeheartedly agrees with this assessment. We will not and cannot support any proposal put forth to force us to either extradite a foreign national within our borders to a nation with whom we have no extradition agreement to face charges for an act that is not criminal in Greenspoint, or try a foreign national within our own court system for committing an act outside our borders.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

We of the Red empiric provences also agree. This is not a matter for the UN, and our recently addressed refugee crisis has taught us the benefits of accepting so-called 'undesirables' into our society. Many of these people have been branded war criminals or traitors for their fight against injustice in other nations, and we would be loath to extradite them back.

This would be a profitable topic for negotiation between neighboring nations or regions. Maybe on the NS forum?

We understand that a parallel universe exists where an International Criminal Court has been established. This appears to be an excellent example of the kind of organisation that would serve us well. However, it has been somewhat sabotaged by a rogue nation that goes by the abbreviation 'USA'. We would advise ensuring that such irresponsible behaviour is not allowed to disrupt our own 'ICC'.

Our very best wishes.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations
Community of Ecopaeia