NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNISING that the United Nations does not infringe upon the Soverign rights of its member nations,

NOTING that support of the United Nations and its organizations is voluntary and is not required by any international law,

CALLS FOR the creation of a new international police organization from hence forward named IADTF (International Anti-Drug Trafficing Force) to lead the war against drug trafficing and use in United Nations member nations with its primary purpose to end the illegal drug trade which is found across the globe,

THUS ARGUES that the formation of a organization whose primary focus is only the trafficing of drugs will not be held in restriant by the diversion of organization resources to other sections of the department such as found in traditional law enforcement agencies that are employed around the world allowing a more efficent front against the illegal drug trade,

CONSIDERING that the organiaztion does not infringe upon the soverign rights of the member nations, the agency when aprehending criminal suspects trandescend international borders, and by the suspects presence in a United Nations member nation willfully suspends their right to be held accountable only to the laws of the soverign nation they are in,

THUS ARGUES that suspects aprehended by the organization are to be tried and held accoutable of their actions before the International Court of Justice,

ASSERTING that the organization will have primary jurisdiction overriding the jurisdiction of member nations law enforcement agents,

NOTING that the organization while holding primary jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of national law enforcement once the International Court of Justice has tried the suspect the national courts may try the suspect for their crimes,

NOTING that the principle of Double Jepardy does not apply to the suspects crimes as two seperate courts will be trying the suspect nad should the International Court of Justic find the suspect Innocent the the Suspect may still be found guilty by the national courts.

RECOGNISING that the United Nations does not infringe upon the Soverign rights of its member nations,


Erm - it does. Quite a lot. It's almost it's raison d'etre :}


NOTING that support of the United Nations and its organizations is voluntary and is not required by any international law,


That's kind of true I guess.


CALLS FOR the creation of a new international police organization from hence forward named IADTF (International Anti-Drug Trafficing Force) to lead the war against drug trafficing and use in United Nations member nations with its primary purpose to end the illegal drug trade which is found across the globe,


What about the nations where the drug trade is legal? Are they excluded from the war?


THUS ARGUES that the formation of a organization whose primary focus is only the trafficing of drugs will not be held in restriant by the diversion of organization resources to other sections of the department such as found in traditional law enforcement agencies that are employed around the world allowing a more efficent front against the illegal drug trade,


Okay - that much is true.


CONSIDERING that the organiaztion does not infringe upon the soverign rights of the member nations, the agency when aprehending criminal suspects trandescend international borders, and by the suspects presence in a United Nations member nation willfully suspends their right to be held accountable only to the laws of the soverign nation they are in,


I have no clue what this means, but at a guess it appears to say that this organization will be above the law of what ever nation it is in. Which gives it WAY too much power, and makes it far, far, far more dangerous than the drug war it is fighting.


THUS ARGUES that suspects aprehended by the organization are to be tried and held accoutable of their actions before the International Court of Justice,


The what?


ASSERTING that the organization will have primary jurisdiction overriding the jurisdiction of member nations law enforcement agents,


I can live with that. Except this does not define international law on drugs. Are people going to be imprisoned? Excuted? I think that you might need to detail some of this if you are going to punish someone infront of the international community.


NOTING that the organization while holding primary jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of national law enforcement once the International Court of Justice has tried the suspect the national courts may try the suspect for their crimes,


Erm - okay. If the original court imprisons them, they serve their sentence and are released, the national court may imprison them again? I am not sure that's entirely fair.


NOTING that the principle of Double Jepardy does not apply to the suspects crimes as two seperate courts will be trying the suspect nad should the International Court of Justic find the suspect Innocent the the Suspect may still be found guilty by the national courts.

What about the alternative - being convicted by both courts?

I take no UN military to mean no UN police force either.

Even if all the nations in my region did not legalize drugs, I would not support.

I see where this is coming from but as it stands it is just confusing and with some rather unsavoury implications..

I think I'll criticise this in general terms. On NSUN there seem to be a lot of proposals, even some that are approved for the vote and in a few cases adopted, that do not pay any attention to whether there are suitable legal structures in place to meaningfully implement the proposal/resolution. Obviously this is down to the limitations of the game, but that doesn't excuse the adoption of a proposal that cannot have real effect for want of the enforcement bodies required of it. Any resolution that seeks to grant or impede on the legal rights of NSUN member state citizens without actually creating or making use of judicial bodies, national or international that already exist, ought to be automatically rejected.

Please prove me wrong but I am not aware of an International Court of Justice within the NSUN universe. Without the body in place to make this resolution properly enforceable, this proposal falls at the first hurdle. But say this such a body exists, or let's imagine that the real world ICJ can be 'used' in NS as well. The ICJ does not have the proper jurisdiction nor the capacity to deal with individial drug crimes as it stands at the moment.

Also, the idea that one court can convict while the other acquit makes a total mockery of legal certainty. A person's guilt or innocence must be conclusive. And what about his rights of appeal? If he has none from a national court to an international court, then what is the purpose of the ICJ to begin with? I'm assuming that for the sake of administrative workability that cases will be brought before lower national courts before they progress in the judicial hierarchy to a potential international tribunal.

Furthermore, the community on whose behalf the individual is charged (remember that drug offences are criminal acts and by the definitions of most legal systems crimes against society as a whole) won't know if the charged is indeed guilty or innocent because courts that they both recognise as delivering judgements affecting their civil rights can't reach the same conclusion.

To make a long story short, if you are not prepared to create or otherwise rely on actual judicial bodies capable of enforcing this, then skip any reference to what will happen to someone after they are charged and stick with the international police force only. Do a bit of research into inter-jurisdictional police forces (eg Europol, Interpol) and see how they function within the various jurisdictions in which they operate, redraft, and then see what happens.. best of luck.

Two main problems.

The first is that, as already pointed out, drugs are not illegal everywhere.

The second is that there is no NS International Court of Justice. I believe there is currently a proposal to establish such a thing (and I hope it passes) but as of yet, it does not exist.

Which brings up a whole other mistake in this proposal.

The International Court of Justice, should it be passed, will exist to settle disputes between nations only. Individuals cannot be defendents, as I read the proposal (same as in RL).

You're thinking of the ICC - the International Criminal Court, a.k.a. the international court of political persecution. But even that only has jurisdiction when the country of the accused is unable or unwilling so press charges.

You would need a whole new kind of court system for this. Or you need to change the proposal to talk about choosing some national court system for each case.

War on drugs?
Why exactly is it that we want drugs illegalized, again?

*checks list*

Nope, we're not at war with drugs. We give people the power and responsibility for their own choices.

Made us a lot of money.

This will just be another grand way to waste the UNs money fighting a war which gets more and more costly each year and is completely counterproductive.

The war on drugs is a nonsensical social policy which should have been ditched years ago. When a policy which has been proved time and time again to not work at all except to make the situation worse has been continued with for 70 or so years it's a travesty of justice and should be dropped as a stupid, unenforceable mistake, same as the US prohibition on alcohol was.

The war on drugs does far more damage than good, end of story.

I should add that in The Freeland of Whinging Trancers all drugs are legal, we have zero crime, a happy and healthy population and no problems with it. :D

Sovereign! Apprehension! Restraint! Jeopardy! Before I take anything else into consideration, I often reject proposals specifically because the person who made them didn't have enough common sense to run them through a spellchecker. The U.N. passed resolutions regarding literacy, now perhaps we should show a bit of it. Or be made to look like fools. Our choice.

The best way to advance the War on Drugs would be to end it.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Drugs can not fight back. Therefore, any war against drugs is considered cruel and unusual by the Empire.

Drugs can not fight back. Therefore, any war against drugs is considered cruel and unusual by the Empire.
So possibly I should quit torturing these Ecstacy tabs before you introduce trade sanctions against me?
:D

Possibly ;)