NationStates Jolt Archive

Global Extradition treaty

ACKNOWLEDGING that many laws differ from nation to nation

KNOWING that people are sometimes able to flee to another nation to avoid punishment for their crimes

BEING AWARE that the crimes people are most likely to flee from are among the most grevious known to mankind

PROPOSING therefore that a treaty be created to allow the extradition of criminals who attempt to avoid the law by remaining in self-imposed exile in another nation back to the country where their crime was comitted.


Exemptions
Any nation may opt to refuse to extradite under any of the following conditions

1) If they have credible reason to believe that the accused will not recieve the benefit of a fair trial in the country which they will be extradited to.

2) If they have credible reason to believe the accused will be subjected to corporal punishment, torture or the death penalty in the country which they will be extradited to.

3) If the accused is a citizen of the country in which they currently reside, or has comitted crimes in said country for which they are currently recieving punishment.


Any additional exceptions, rewordings, subclauses or clarifications that anyone wishes to suggest would be most welcome.

DP, apologies

Extraordinary. The thorny issue of extradition is avoided like the plague for who knows how long and then two proposals come along in the space of three days.

The debate concerning the other proposal can be found at the following link:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131575&sid=e0b878da49f033c9bdbd2cd720da2ae8

With regards to this particular proposal, we wish to make the following comments:

1) First, the pedantry (apologies). Please note the following spellings: 'grievous' and 'received'.

2) I'm glad to see that you have made provision for exemptions on the basis of fair trials, torture, etc.

3) I think you need to make it clear that the individuals wanted for extradition are suspected criminals in the eyes of international law (even if not in the eyes of the nation looking to extradite).

4) Please note that non-UN members are perfectly free to ignore this treaty.

5) While this is a laudable first step, I feel that the issue of extradition is highly complex and in need of a more expansive resolution. I also think that reference should be made to relevant earlier resolutions (dealing with fair trials, human rights, etc).

As an aside, this is really going to piss off East Hackney. They're also working on an extradition resolution...

Best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Extraordinary. The thorny issue of extradition is avoided like the plague for who knows how long and then two proposals come along in the space of three days.

The debate concerning the other proposal can be found at the following link:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131575&sid=e0b878da49f033c9bdbd2cd720da2ae8

With regards to this particular proposal, we wish to make the following comments:

1) First, the pedantry (apologies). Please note the following spellings: 'grievous' and 'received'.

2) I'm glad to see that you have made provision for exemptions on the basis of fair trials, torture, etc.

3) I think you need to make it clear that the individuals wanted for extradition are suspected criminals in the eyes of international law (even if not in the eyes of the nation looking to extradite).

4) Please note that non-UN members are perfectly free to ignore this treaty.

5) While this is a laudable first step, I feel that the issue of extradition is highly complex and in need of a more expansive resolution. I also think that reference should be made to relevant earlier resolutions (dealing with fair trials, human rights, etc).

As an aside, this is really going to piss off East Hackney. They're also working on an extradition resolution...

Best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal AffairsDamn...

I've sent East Hackney a TM asking if he want to collaborate.

I'll take under account your suggestion about suspected criminals, but can you expand a bit more on your point 5?

1st reworking

Global Extradition treaty

ACKNOWLEDGING that many laws differ from nation to nation

KNOWING that people are sometimes able to flee to another nation to avoid punishment for their crimes

BEING AWARE that the crimes people are most likely to flee from are among the most grievous known to mankind

PROPOSING therefore that a treaty be created to allow the extradition of suspected criminals who attempt to avoid the law by remaining in self-imposed exile in another nation back to the country where their crime was comitted.


Exemptions
Any nation may opt to refuse to extradite under any of the following conditions

1) If they have credible reason to believe that the accused will not receive the benefit of a fair trial in the country which they will be extradited to.

2) If they have credible reason to believe the accused will be subjected to corporal punishment, torture or the death penalty in the country which they will be extradited to.

3) If the accused is a citizen of the country in which they currently reside, or has comitted crimes in said country for which they are currently receiving punishment.

It seems I wasn't as thorough as I thought. Another spelling: 'committed'. Sorry.

Regarding point 5, there's some good discussion on the link I provided with respect to political asylum, defining terrorists and freedom fighters, secret services. A couple of quotes:

East Hackney: 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.

And...

Kappastan: 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.

In response...

East Hackney: 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...)

I think you're wise to contact East Hackney. I believe they will be able to provide you with more detail than I am presently able to.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

OOC: I have a headache and I'm struggling to think clearly, hence buck-passing!

Sure, the US is demanding Bin Laden

What is this US you speak of and who is Bin Laden? I think that I remember something about them in an alternate-history novel.

As an aside, this is really going to piss off East Hackney. They're also working on an extradition resolution...

Pissed off? We're delighted. Especially if it means someone else does all the work and we take half the credit.