NationStates Jolt Archive

In this proposal, I attempt to codify the rights of international criminals and the methods by which nations should extradite (or refuse to extradite) these persons. This proposal would help to ensure proper treatment of the accused as well as to further clarify international law.

I ask you to endorse this proposal so that it may be voted upon by all UN member nations. Thank you for your consideration.

Processes of Extradition

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Monocia

Description:
- WHEREAS the United Nations (UN) has previously codified definitions and requirements of basic human rights afforded to all persons, and

- WHEREAS the UN aspires to be a community that both works together toward common goals while upholding these human rights,

- BE IT RESOLVED, that while a nation may arrest anyone for breaking its own laws, a nation shall not arrest a non-citizen for crimes committed abroad until requested to do so by the nation where the crime was committed. An exception to this clause is granted to an arresting nation if the crime was committed against its own citizens or property;

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an arrested non-citizen shall not only be treated in a manner consistent with all UN resolutions (including, but not limited to, "The Universal Bill of Rights" and "Due Process"), but shall also be granted the same rights and fair treatment as would any domestic detainee or prisoner;

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that since each nation is sovereign and may treat its accused and convicted according to its own laws, it is generally not the place of an arresting nation to deny extradition. However, an arresting nation may--at its own discretion--grant the detainee political asylum, if and only if it has legitimate reason to believe that, if extradited, the detainee will not receive the basic human rights to which he is entitled (as defined by the UN);

- AND LASTLY BE IT RESOLVED, that in providing the detainee with food, shelter, medical care, and all other basic human rights, the arresting nation incurs costs. Once (and only if) the detainee is extradited, the receiving country shall be responsible for reimbursing all reasonable costs incurred in the apprehension and holding of the detainee.

This proposal is the first in quite some time that actually deals with a legitimate internation issue in a reasonable and rational manner. Barring significant flaws as might be disclosed below by future posters to this topic, Frisbeeteria has endorsed this for Approval.

M.J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria (Approved)

New Eriu endorses this proposal, but agrees with Frisbeeteria - Barring flaws that might be disclosed later.

---------------------------------
Phineous Oakhurst
New Eriu's Delegate to the United Nations

I see a minor problem with this. In Real Life (which is a rather addictive NS simulator that many of our politicians play in their spare time, before anyone points out that the things I'm going to mention don't exist), some countries have agreements which would go against this - for instance, the EU has an agreement which says that none of its members will extradite a criminal to a nation unless they have an assurance that the prisoner will not be executed. This is seen by the EU nations as a human rights issue, but no explicit ban on capital punishment is included in the UN's laws, so such an agreement would go against the following clause:

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that since each nation is sovereign and may treat its accused and convicted according to its own laws, it is generally not the place of an arresting nation to deny extradition. However, an arresting nation may--at its own discretion--grant the detainee political asylum, if and only if it has legitimate reason to believe that, if extradited, the detainee will not receive the basic human rights to which he is entitled (as defined by the UN);

I can't seem to find it in the Proposal List...

I see a minor problem with this. In Real Life (which is a rather addictive NS simulator that many of our politicians play in their spare time, before anyone points out that the things I'm going to mention don't exist), some countries have agreements which would go against this - for instance, the EU has an agreement which says that none of its members will extradite a criminal to a nation unless they have an assurance that the prisoner will not be executed. This is seen by the EU nations as a human rights issue, but no explicit ban on capital punishment is included in the UN's laws, so such an agreement would go against the following clause:

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that since each nation is sovereign and may treat its accused and convicted according to its own laws, it is generally not the place of an arresting nation to deny extradition. However, an arresting nation may--at its own discretion--grant the detainee political asylum, if and only if it has legitimate reason to believe that, if extradited, the detainee will not receive the basic human rights to which he is entitled (as defined by the UN);

Indeed, our UN just recently passed a legalise euthanasia resolution that could very well be used to support capital punishment. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :wink:

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like to congratulate Monocia on a well written, properly spelled, grammatically correct proposal, one of the first we've seen.

We support this proposal and, if they have not yet done so, will request that our Regional Delegate to the UN approve it for quorum.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs.
Greenspoint

Good to see an appropriately international proposal.

We approve.

Great proposal, if any holes appear and are fixed better, but this has Bariloche's vote if it reaches the floor.

First, thank you all for your support and your comments. At the time of this posting, the proposal has already welcomed 20 endorsements in less than 24 hours. While a full 122 endorsements short of quorum, I'm very pleased with the progress to date, especially since the proposal is still buried on the 16th page. :)

Second, re: the comment quoted below:

I see a minor problem with this. In Real Life (which is a rather addictive NS simulator that many of our politicians play in their spare time, before anyone points out that the things I'm going to mention don't exist), some countries have agreements which would go against this - for instance, the EU has an agreement which says that none of its members will extradite a criminal to a nation unless they have an assurance that the prisoner will not be executed. This is seen by the EU nations as a human rights issue, but no explicit ban on capital punishment is included in the UN's laws, so such an agreement would go against the following clause:

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that since each nation is sovereign and may treat its accused and convicted according to its own laws, it is generally not the place of an arresting nation to deny extradition. However, an arresting nation may--at its own discretion--grant the detainee political asylum, if and only if it has legitimate reason to believe that, if extradited, the detainee will not receive the basic human rights to which he is entitled (as defined by the UN);

I do agree, this is certainly a concern, and one to which I gave a great deal of consideration when first writing the proposal.

Really, the issue comes down to: does the criminal's nation of citizenship have a right to collect its citizen, or does the nation where the criminal currently resides have a right to "protect him" from his own government? Who has jurisdiction?

In the interest of national sovereignty (a nation's right to govern its own citizens), and despite being against the death penalty myself, I decided to write the proposal in favor of the criminal's nation of citizenship. I decided that it is not the place of one nation to impose its belief system or code of laws upon another. Although, it is the place of the UN to establish its own code of laws, and have those laws enforced in all of its member nations.

Therefore, this "power" comes with the caveat that the UN (we nations that would be affected by the passing of this proposal) may choose to temper that "power" (i.e. may choose to extend the holding nation's right to grant asylum) by way of extending the definition of "basic human rights" via a future resolution(s).

Thus, if the UN later decides that capital punishment is indeed a violation of basic human rights, a nation's discretion to grant asylum would, by default, be broadened. And it follows, a nation's right to collect its international fugitives (against the wishes of the holding nation) would be diminished.

Lastly, let me say that I don't stand behind this decision 100%. In the end, however, for the proposal to carry any weight at all, it needed to take a definitive stance on this issue. I deemed it best that the "line in the sand" not be drawn to favor one side or the other explicitly, but instead be tied to the remainder of applicable UN law, and that the UN's definition of "basic human rights" (and however that definition may evolve going forward) should be that line.

Please continue to comment--I am very much open to all suggestions on this topic (or any other).

Thank you again,

Emetu, Monocia (proposal author)
UN Delegate, 0000000

As a nation concerned strongly will human and civil rights we find this proposal very fitting. No doubt some revisions will need to be made, but you have the support of Etern.

Thank you all for the endorsements and other support to date.

Thank you especially to _Myopia_ for raising a very legitimate concern earlier, re: "human rights" and capital punishment (see above).

...Barring significant flaws as might be disclosed below...

Fellow UN members: please continue to raise "significant flaws" in the proposal--I was hoping for more... While proud of my proposal, I'm the first to admit that there absolutely must be more holes that can be poked in it, and the more criticism it receives, the better I can make it. Don't be shy. :)

Thank you,

Emetu, Monocia (proposal author)
UN Delegate, 0000000

My only problem with the proposal is the fact that it was submitted before it was checked for flaws.

My only problem with the proposal is the fact that it was submitted before it was checked for flaws.

Granted. I had a few neighboring nations read it over for me, but in retrospect, yes, I should have sent it to the UN Forum for a larger-scale review prior to submission.

You caugh me in a good mood so i approved it, 65 more to go!!! :D

Please withdraw your proposal and make some much needed edits. In future, I ask that you do as Frisbeeteria has with its proposal and get a lot of feedback. Your current proposal has some areas I find flawed (not uncommon when you don't get feedback first) and I have made some additions and/or corrections I think would help clarify some points or merely edit the text to more appropriate phrasing. My notes are in red:

[quote="Frisbeeteria"]Processes of Extradition

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Monocia

Description:
- WHEREAS the United Nations (UN) has previously codified definitions and requirements of basic human rights afforded to all persons, and

- WHEREAS the UN aspires to be a community that both works together toward common goals while upholding these human rights,

- BE IT RESOLVED, that while a nation may arrest anyone for breaking its own laws within its borders of control, a nation shall not arrest a non-citizen residing or found within its borders of control for crimes committed abroad until requested to do so by the nation where the crime was committed. An exception to this clause is granted to an arresting nation if the crime was committed against its own citizens or property;

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an arrested non-citizen shall be treated in a manner consistent with all UN resolutions enforced by that nation at the time of arrest (including, but not limited to, "The Universal Bill of Rights" and "Due Process"), and shall also be granted the same rights and fair treatment as would any domestic detainee or prisoner.

- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that since each nation is sovereign and may treat its accused and convicted according to its own laws, it is generally not the place of an arresting nation to deny extradition. However, an arresting nation may--at its own discretion--grant the detainee political asylum, if and only if it has legitimate reason to believe that, if extradited, the detainee will not receive the basic human rights to which he is entitled (as defined by the UN);

- AND LASTLY BE IT RESOLVED, that in providing the detainee with food, shelter, medical care, and all other basic human rights, the arresting nation incurs costs. Once (and only if) the detainee is extradited, the receiving country shall be responsible for reimbursing all reasonable costs incurred in the apprehension and holding of the detainee.

KNOW ALL YE PRESENT; A nation has the soveriegn right to pursue criminals who commit crimes against its citizens, their properties, its government or military, or other property or citizens of the nation including embassies or areas of control abroad. A nation may therefore deny extradiction on the basis that it has pursued and/or apprehended a criminal for these crimes and intends to prosecute the criminal for same

Heru Ur, thank you for your comments.

I have already admitted my failure to seek a discourse prior to submitting my proposal (this being my first ever submission, I chalk that up to inexperience). Everyone: please accept my sincere apology for this oversight--in the interest of considering all possible input and building greater consensus, I will certainly make better use of the UN Forum in the future.

Heru, I am however disturbed by several comments you omitted and one that you made.

Your omissions: I would challenge you to go one step further with your commentary and actually argue your points, rather than just make them. You put forth some very precise suggestions, but offer no supporting arguments whatsoever for any of them. At present, it's not clear to me how (or if) your edits constitute improvements upon either the policy or the verbiage of the proposal. In short, I invite you to either support your commentary with (some) reasoning, or else respectfully ask you to retract it.

And, the disturbing comment you made:

Please withdraw your proposal and make some much needed edits.

Forgive me if I am hesitant to succumb to such a non-constructive imperative. As stated above, you haven't convinced me (nor did you even attempt to convince me) that there even exist "much needed edits". (Don't misread--I am certain there are flaws; you just haven't said what they are.) Furthermore, with the proposal having already garnered more than two-thirds of the endorsements necessary for quorum--a few of those approvals from some rather large and powerful nations, I might add--I am loathe to withdraw the proposal entirely at this point, on the sole (and again, unsubstantiated) dissenting opinion of one non-delegate.

Respectfully,

Emetu, Monocia

As it is about to expire, let me thank the 108 delegates that endorsed my proposal, despite my not canvassing for input prior to submission (again, my apologies for a rookie mistake). Thank you also to all those that sent me support and suggestions (most of which came via telegram).

I will rewrite and post to the forum for additional input before resubmitting for endorsement consideration.

In the meantime, I ask you to read and comment on "Declaration on Rights and Duties of NationStates", offered by Frisbeeteria. It is well-written (personally, my first litmus test), well thought-out, and appears to be evolving well, thanks to bountiful commentary.

And again, thank you for your support of "Processes of Extradition"--I hope to have a rewrite for you soon.

Emetu, Monocia

BTW, you can't actually withdraw a proposal. You can wait for it to die or succeed, but you can't take it off the list before it expires.

What my suggestions are is clarification and definition, removing some broadness to the post and giving some sovereignty to nations rather than removing their rights. Also some verbage changes that are dropping the negative tone; It's a "grammar" thing.

The reason I ask that you withdraw is because by your own words, the proposal was flawed. If it had passed and gone to a vote, it woulf have been yet another flawed proposal sent to the masses and a fine example of what "not" to do.

- BE IT RESOLVED, that while a nation may arrest anyone for breaking its own laws within its borders of control, a nation shall not arrest a non-citizen residing or found within its borders of control for crimes committed abroad until requested to do so by the nation where the crime was committed. An exception to this clause is granted to an arresting nation if the crime was committed against its own citizens or property;

I take issue with this, as anyone currently within the terrirotrial bounds of a state is held to be under the jurisdiction of that state's laws, save for those with specific immunity (diplomats, heads of state and other recognized protected persons). Thus, a state needs no permission to detain a non-citizen for crimes comitted abroad, although depending upon the laws of the state, may or may not actually arrest that person. Likely the state would declare the individual a persona non grata and expel him to his country of origin.

There is also the possibility of crimes that are considered to have universal jurisdiction, such that any nation may be authorized to bring charges regardless of the specific location where the crime was comitted. Examples of such crimes often include things like genocide or terrorism.

Still, Alsanchia offers its tenative support for the proposal, at it appears to address the major issues, and does not contradict any of the core values of Alsanchia. However, the verbiage may need some work, if only to clairify certain points.