NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's my proposal up for approval. It affects all nations, across borders, and is necessary in stopping crime.

Full Extradition


Category: International Security Strength: Mild

Description: Noting that an alarming number of criminals, most involved in violent crimes, can commit heinous acts upon others and merely flee the country to avoid punishment, this proposal seeks to allow complete extradition of criminals.

This includes but is not limited to:
1. Convicted criminals escaped from prison.
2. Persons posting bail, and fleeing soon after.
3. Persons wanted by investigative authorites for questioning or suspected of crimes.
4.Persons committing crimes across borders (snipers and such)
5.Terrorist organizations.

Too many times have the cancers of society been able to escape from justice, avoiding having to face the consequences of their actions. This proposal seeks to bring about international security and peace by prohibiting rogue nations and evil countries from harboring criminals. By allowing police, military, and investigators to enter a nation and extract a criminal we can cut down crime easily.

This also allows nations to send bounty hunters to help the authorities obtain the suspect.

If a nation believed to be harboring criminals refuses to cooperate or is having difficulty catching said person, the UN can decide whether or not outside forces should be sent in to bring the person(s) back to justice, violently if need be.


Tell me what you think. In the "Real World" stuff like this happens all the time. Someone will shoot a police officer then run to Mexico. It's actually already been submited, so you can approve it now.

OK, what's to stop our authorities from deciding that they want to question parliment members of your nation?

Without some incredibly complicated system for extradition approval, this just isn't going to work. One nation can simply demand that another nation turn over their civilian leaders - or their generals even.

Don't make me come over there.

What may be a crime in one country...may not be so in another nation. A good start, but still needs lots of work.

It should be more specific on which crimes this would affect? Laio would only think about supporting it... if it covered what were recognized as "capital" crimes. In Laio, we actually refer to them as High Crimes. This is limited to murder, rape, endangerment of a child (includes molestation and forced sex) and treason.

Also, any arrest would have to be done by our own police and have the case reviewed by the Grand and All-Mighty Royal Bench of Justice. We will not be a party to sending an innocent person to jail... anywhere.

It's uncanny...East Hackney's crack lawyers were drafting a proposal on this very same issue when we saw Valued Knowledge's post.
We fully intend to go ahead and draft our own version, posting it here for comment and modification before submission. The chief problem we can see is that the real-life extradition treaty between the US and UK runs to around 15 pages, so there may be problems in dealing with everyone's concerns and plugging all the loopholes while still coming in at under the character limit.
Anyone know what the limit is, by the way? I know Tactical Grace was struggling with his Freedom of Choice proposal.

Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

We reserve the right to shelter those who seek asylum from corrupt and vicious regimes, those who have broken laws we consider immoral, and governments-in-exile wanted by new regimes.

Persons wanted by investigative authorites for questioning or suspected of crimes.

And you're saying this is 'mild'? This would represent a massive breach of our sovereignty. Frankly, this is the sort of legislation that would make us leave the UN.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry of Being Nice

The chief problem we can see is that the real-life extradition treaty between the US and UK runs to around 15 pages, so there may be problems in dealing with everyone's concerns and plugging all the loopholes while still coming in at under the character limit.


Simple, limit to extradition to a very specific condition or make another resolution that just encourages nations to establish bi-lateral arrangements. In either case, bill the proposal as the first of many to come in the next year.

We don't have to build international law over night. Sure there will be gaps, but remember my old saying about human children. We are all born unable to walk (except for the crab people, they can craw from the day they are hatched). After months of care, we then learn to crawl, but even then, it is without grace. A year later, we begin to waddle places. And by the time we are teenagers, we can pole-vault, dance, swim, you name it.

If you choose to do this, please work out DRAFT proposals here. I'd like to provide some insight.

Though I want to say there should be a case made for political asylum. There are nations here that have few political freedoms! They are basically fascist regimes with no real desire to cooperate. My nation regularly "accepts" refugees from these nations, and could not in good faith hand over a freedom fighter wanting to start anew in Mikitivity because by virute of birth she was born to a nation where women have no rights and so spoke out against her government and was labled a criminal.
Michael

How do you determine whether a person is a 'terrorist', a 'secret agent' or a 'freedom fighter'? If you believe terrorists to be people who are willing to kill innocent people to further their own goals, then surely the CIA is the largest terrorist agency in the (real) world.

Asidefrom that, the Council of Enn believes in discussions nation to nation as regarding the people your nation refers to. We would prefer that this not be legislated.

If you choose to do this, please work out DRAFT proposals here. I'd like to provide some insight.

Naturally. I will post a draft proposal in due course. I expect it to be full of loopholes and flaws as it'll be heavily based on a single bilateral treaty. I'd value the help of all UN members in reworking it until it's fit for submission.

The political asylum one's the real problem, actually. It's possible to put in a clause allowing extradition to be refused where a nation is not following the UN resolutions on fair trials, human rights, gay rights etc, which covers a lot of potential problems.
But the US-UK treaty has a clause allowing extradition to be refused in cases which are "politically motivated" - which specifically excludes assassination or assassination attempts, bombings etc. Now, the line between terrorism and legitimate insurgency or self-defence is very fine, and I'd hate to see a treaty that, say, demanded that FARC guerrillas (whatever you may think of them) had to be extradited to Colombia, or Palestinian insurgents to Israel. Phrasing of this part is likely to be very tricky indeed.
Anyway, that's just something to think on until I get round to posting a draft...

In Lubria, capital punishment is illegal, thus we do not extradite to countries who will seek the death penalty for the criminal.

Extradition Treaties are just that, individual agreements between individual nations, it makes no sense to try to standardize such a concept.

Bounty Hunting is a heavily regulated activity in Lubria, with strict rules and procedures. Unless these foreign nationals are willing to go through our certification process, their apprehension activities within our borders are criminal.

The Right Honble. Peter Javanis
Baron of Altrec
Special Envoy
Office of His Grace, the Lubrian Prime Minister

In Lubria, capital punishment is illegal, thus we do not extradite to countries who will seek the death penalty for the criminal.

We see no reason why a UN extradition treaty can't allow nations to refuse extradition unless they're given assurances that the death penalty won't be used. [OOC: That's what the US-UK one does.]

Extradition Treaties are just that, individual agreements between individual nations, it makes no sense to try to standardize such a concept.

We feel that a standardised UN extradition treaty could be of great value, since it would prevent rogue states which refuse to sign bilateral treaties from becoming bolt-holes for wanted criminals across the UN.
Moreover, since we see part of the UN's role as being a model for best practice for non-UN members, a properly thought-out UN extradition treaty would provide an ideal model for non-members to follow.

In Lubria, capital punishment is illegal, thus we do not extradite to countries who will seek the death penalty for the criminal.

Extradition Treaties are just that, individual agreements between individual nations, it makes no sense to try to standardize such a concept.


*ponders for a second*

Well, if the individual being sought was somehow to fall into international jurisdiction, then this may be another matter. But it seems to me that any crime that is committed will always be in a nation.
Hmmm, my first reaction would be to suggest that if a freedom fighter from a fascist nation were to renounce his / her prior acts, including assassination, then I'd like to think that they could be free of the oppression of the Father Knows Best styled governments.

10kMichael

Naturally. I will post a draft proposal in due course. I expect it to be full of loopholes and flaws as it'll be heavily based on a single bilateral treaty. I'd value the help of all UN members in reworking it until it's fit for submission.


Another thing that may prove helpful in this case would be to create a few case studies / examples.

Basically make up some fictious nations and stories to illustrate which cases would result in extradition and which cases would be granted an exception, such as in the case of political asylum.

10kMichael

[OOC: Besides, the use of examples may mean you won't have to argue semantics nearly as much.]

Damn good idea, Mikitivity. Nothing's going to happen for up to a week as I'm still moderately snowed under, but hopefully once this show gets on the road we can hammer out something worthy of the UN.

We will not permit extradition to any nation which practices capital punishment.

Damn good idea, Mikitivity. Nothing's going to happen for up to a week as I'm still moderately snowed under, but hopefully once this show gets on the road we can hammer out something worthy of the UN.

Thanks. :)

The way I would do this, is off-line using MS Word or Notepad or Textpad. Make only a sentence or two describing the nations involved and the crime committeed and treat it like the daily issues.

If you just start the process with about 2 - 3 of these, other nations can debate the issue using a similar approach.

Because if I have to listen to another semantics based attack on a proposal, I will go insane. IMHO, semantics attacks are really so pointless, and usually what representatives use when they've got nothing productive to add.

10kMichael

Ah, but that depends what your definition of "pointless" is... :wink:
You wouldn't be talking about a certain attempt to redefine the word "year", would you?

*EAST HACKNEY!!!* We dinnae ken, nor care how monny dittions ye have, nor no extra wans ye might have up yer sleeve, ye're no gettin Rory Bigger than Big Rory an' Much Bigger than Wee Rory, an ye're no gettin' Taller than Hamish but no as broad as Hamish Hamish neither!

Go on! yer can even get yer extra dittions frae the UN!!!1

"Ah, if it isn't our rambunctious comrades the Wee Free Menaces. We've been meaning to speak to you in relation to the widespread disappearances of many of our nation's cows, along with a sudden and unforeseen drop in our whisky reserves. Now, are you going to come quietly, or do we have to read you some poetry?"
Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

The acts of pirates and bandits are often done in international waters or multinational land terirtories.

We see no problem at all with an international agreement allowing the prosecution and punishment of criminal acts committed in these areas. However, the ability of one nation to necessarily demand that another nation hand over a person or persons who supposedly violated the laws of another nation is abhorrent. It is within the powers of a nation to make laws about "racial purity", for example - and I don't think that anyone likes the concept of having to turn over all of their Romany to some new would-be Hitler.

Don't make me come over there.

Well, I believe the UN's various mandates on human rights would cover that possibility. But yes, there's a lot of room for abuse that needs to be covered.

I think these concerns can be addressed without too many problems. As Rehochipe says, the various human/gay/whatever rights resolutions cover a lot of potential problems.
Second, to Hooglastan: apart from a few very exceptional circumstances, real-world nations can only request the extradition of someone who's committed a crime in their nation. So a Nation States Hitler couldn't demand the extradition of all Romany/Jews/whoever to his country unless they'd already been in that country and then left it again. Which still allows for the possibility of demanding the return of refugees of whatever kind, but I think these holes are pluggable. Give me a few days/weeks/months to bash something together...

real-world nations can only request the extradition of someone who's committed a crime in their nation.

Aside from the fact that nothing in this resolution covers that - that isn't actually true. For example, the very high-profile case of Osama Bin-Laden, who has in fact not committed any crimes in the United States, is being demanded by the US for trial there for having funded and participated in the conspiracy to commit crimes in the United States.

While that may be justified - you can doubtless imagine similar logic being used to demand the extradition of propagators of Communist Thought by compulsory consumerist states or demands for the extradition of international human rights advocates by the nations whose policies they criticize.

After all, if an author in Kappastan reports on human rights abuses in Iota Complex - they really are attempting to change the government policies of Iota Complex - and that's a crime in Iota Complex.

Mandatory extradition treaties are not workable, because what nations consider to be direct attacks on their country (and thus punishable offenses) are in no fashion uniform or entirely rational. If someone funds and advocates people who drop bombs in your bus stations, isn't that a crime against your country? If someone publishes articles about how your government is corrupt and oppressive, prompting freedom fighters to start dropping bombs in your military police barracks - how is that different?

We in Kappastan approve of those who fight for ideals we believe in. And as a nation and as individuals - we support them morally and materially. We refuse to turn over our residents who engage in these activities, regardless of whether these activities constitute crimes in other nations. We will only sign bilateral extradition agreements with nations who share some semblance of an idea of what constitutes a crime and what constitutes simply defending one's own liberties.

Good night, everyone.

If the proposal was more specific it would gain my vote. As it is now it is far too indcriptive.

If the proposal was more specific it would gain my vote. As it is now it is far too indcriptive.

I think this is a fair statement. But it also begs the following reply ... since this is a draft and since the authors want our help and suggestions, what would you change?

For me, I'm finding that this is on the edge of my understanding. I'm still kinda pondering this proposal, as I always believe it is better to make a suggestion for the simple reason that the majority of the time people are wise enough to accept friendly amendments. It also is a great way to improve diplomatic relations between two countries.

10kMichael

Sorry, should clarify.

real-world nations can only request the extradition of someone who's committed a crime in their nation.

Aside from the fact that nothing in this resolution covers that - that isn't actually true. For example, the very high-profile case of Osama Bin-Laden, who has in fact not committed any crimes in the United States, is being demanded by the US for trial there for having funded and participated in the conspiracy to commit crimes in the United States.

First off, I'm trying to sort out what'll go in the [much more detailed] proposal on extradition that I may eventually submit, workload permitting. I wasn't referring to the proposal mentioned above.
Second, I meant extradition through formal treaties. Sure, the US is demanding Bin Laden, but the treaties that they have don't cover his extradition. Which is why they have to ask nicely, then break out the B52s if they don't get their way.
That said, I think some extradition treaties make some allowance for crimes committed in a third state under special circumstances. I'll have to look into it (aargh, more work...)