NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Extradition Protocol
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: NeoCon Hubris



Description: Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1 - Obligation to follow the procedure

Obligates each UN State to comply with this extradition procedure when granting or denying extradition to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

Article 2 - Extraditable Offenses

Article 2(1) defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense as including an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Article 3 - Nationality

Provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

Article 4(2) provides that extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State:
4(2)(a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested;
4(2)(b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or
4(2)(c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

Article 5 - Capital Punishment

When an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but not under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

Article 6 - Extradition Procedures and Required Documents

Article 6(1) All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements,

Article 6(2) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by:
6(2)(a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority;
6(2)(b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

Article 7 - Additional Information

If the Requested State requires additional information to enable a decision to be taken on the request for extradition, the Requesting State shall respond to the request within such time as the Requested State requires.

Article 8 - Requests for Extradition Made by Several States

Provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the executive authority of the Requested State in determining to which State, if any, to surrender a person whose extradition is sought by more than one State.

Article 9 - Consultation

Provides that the Parties may consult with each other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty.

Endorsements needed.

It's been awhile, and I'm feeling like being an ass, so here it goes:

There is already a topic on this. Use it.

Okay, now on to the complaint you didn't address.

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

Under 4(1), all a nation has to do is acquit a person of all possible crimes they may or may not have committed while in another nation as soon as they cross the border. It takes five minutes to have them sign the sheet of paper. Then, whenever a nation requests extradition, all the requested nation has to do is point out that, by their records, the requested subject has already been acquitted of the crime. All records of court proceedings would amount to a signed piece of paper and a recording of the person accepting the decision and signing the piece of paper.

Your wording does not in any way preclude nations abusing the article in that method, as it does not specify how the acquital must be achieved.

And if you specify "In a court of law," you're just opening up another can of worms.

It's been awhile, and I'm feeling like being an ass,

I know.



Under 4(1), all a nation has to do is acquit a person of all possible crimes they may or may not have committed while in another nation as soon as they cross the border.

Nope. You can't acquit a person of all possible crimes they may or may have not committed while in a nother nation as soo as they cross the border. You can't acquit a person of a crime which did not happen in your country. You can only acquit a person if the person was put on trial for an actual crime committed in your country.

There's a difference between "all possible crimes" and "offense for which extradition is requested". First, not all possible crimes are extraditable. Second, you can't acquit a person of a crime he/she hasn't committed yet.

Nope. You can't acquit a person of all possible crimes they may or may have not committed while in a nother nation as soo as they cross the border. You can't acquit a person of a crime which did not happen in your country. You can only acquit a person if the person was put on trial for an actual crime committed in your country.

It doesn't say that. All it says is that I can acquit them for the crime.

It doesn't say that. All it says is that I can acquit them for the crime.


NOPE. Read carefully. "....that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested. Not just any crime which you tirelessly insist.


Where in Article 4(1) can you read the words "all possible crimes"?

Allow me to quote Resistancia.

if someone committed a rebellion in one country, and is convicted or acquitted, they cannot be charged with that individual crime. if they were to go to another country, comit rebellion there, it is a different crime (dif country, dif situation, etc), therefore can be charged for it. however another country cannot charge them with the initial rebellion that they were convicted/acquitted for.

Under 4(1), all a nation has to do is acquit a person of all possible crimes they may or may not have committed while in another nation as soon as they cross the border. It takes five minutes to have them sign the sheet of paper. Then, whenever a nation requests extradition, all the requested nation has to do is point out that, by their records, the requested subject has already been acquitted of the crime. All records of court proceedings would amount to a signed piece of paper and a recording of the person accepting the decision and signing the piece of paper.

I'm at a loss how this is an objection.

I fully intend to use that loophole to protect the person of my delegate if he(me) is accused of any crimes while visiting another nation. If a person is important to you, you have a way to avoid extradition. Of course, the requesting nation may be inclined to withdraw from the extradition agreement with you once you do it, so you have to weigh the pros and cons.

Frankly, I look at this clause as a money-maker.

Will this proposal authorize the police to tape a phone conversation, or to read mail, or things like that?

UN Extradition Protocol
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: NeoCon Hubris

Description: Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1 - Obligation to follow the procedure

Obligates each UN State to comply with this extradition procedure when granting or denying extradition to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

Article 2 - Extraditable Offenses

Article 2(1) defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense as including an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Article 3 - Nationality

Provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.


First, I wanted to chime in and say I think this is a worthy idea to explore. Second, the format of this resolution is easy to read, and very much appreciated. It is clear that some hard work and thought has gone into this.

My government finds Articles 1 and 3 fine, but we are still wondering what the goal of Article 2 is. Could you perhaps provide an example? :)

Will this proposal authorize the police to tape a phone conversation, or to read mail, or things like that?
I can answer this one:

NO.

This sets up the protocol UN nationstates will use for extradition treaties.

NOPE. Read carefully. "....that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested. Not just any crime which you tirelessly insist.


Where in Article 4(1) can you read the words "all possible crimes"?

You're missing a key piece of the puzzle: All possible crimes includes the extradition crime. And your resolution does not have any wording that excludes that legal possibility. All it states is the criminal must be cleared of the extradition crime, and clearing them of all possible crimes does that.

Allow me to quote Resistancia.

if someone committed a rebellion in one country, and is convicted or acquitted, they cannot be charged with that individual crime. if they were to go to another country, comit rebellion there, it is a different crime (dif country, dif situation, etc), therefore can be charged for it. however another country cannot charge them with the initial rebellion that they were convicted/acquitted for.

Which in no way precludes what I have said above, as it uses in its example the possible charging of a person for a crime in another nation. All that does is add more evidence to my case.

I'm at a loss how this is an objection.

I fully intend to use that loophole to protect the person of my delegate if he(me) is accused of any crimes while visiting another nation. If a person is important to you, you have a way to avoid extradition. Of course, the requesting nation may be inclined to withdraw from the extradition agreement with you once you do it, so you have to weigh the pros and cons.

Frankly, I look at this clause as a money-maker.

Simple: It's an opening of abuse, and it will be widely abused enough that the resolution won't matter. As guidelines, it provides a loophole big enough that it effectively cancels itself out.

Aside from DLE's analysis, which I find has merit, I also worry about abuses of 4(2). For example, a Kriovalian citizen is convicted of "Crime X" in your country that carries a 5-year prison sentence. Krioval has it on good authority that the criminal justice system in your nation is quite harsh. So the Kriovalian Tax Agency opens an "investigation" into the person's tax payments. Upon further "examination", Krioval issues an arrest warrant for rampant tax evasion, which would carry an 8-year term. Being the "bigger" crime, Krioval requests extradition. Should we receive it, we intend to either dismiss all charges or actually have a trial and find the person innocent. Then we refuse to send this person back because, by 4(1), he's already been convicted of the crime, so extradition cannot be sought.

Should the original extradition request be refused, Krioval howls loudly (and internationally). Further, we suspend any extradition requests pending from that nation and accuse them of being one-sided in enforcement. Depending on how far we're willing to push things, we may actually say that the only reason extradition was refused was because the man was Kriovalian. We decry the suggestion that Krioval must wait five years before justice for such an egregious breach of law can be corrected, and blah, blah, blah.

In short, we either abuse the protocol or we bitch it to death. There is little defense against this sort of tactic short of threatening open war, and who exactly is violating the agreement first is unclear (technically, it's us, but we're working within the framework of the proposal to undermine it, so it's tough to assign blame).

Since a crime can even be "under investigation", it is also possible, though admittedly unlikely, that a person could be extradited on no evidence whatsoever. There additionally is no protection for extra charges being applied after extradition is complete, including capital crimes. So I could think that I'm about to send someone to another country for an investigation into a robbery, and that the maximum sentence is two years, and then later find that the other country has decided to charge him with capital murder without having bothered to clear that with me earlier. Talk about frosty relations afterward.

I'll stop with those two examples of how this proposal could be used to instigate a war, because I find two examples to be sufficient to oppose this.

for shti's sake people! this is a protocol, not a law!

just as anyoone can abuse a law, anyone can abuse a protocoll. so what? this is actually stronger as a protocol than it would be as a law, because if you abuse it, other nations would cancel their extradition agreements with you.

for shti's sake people! this is a protocol, not a law!

just as anyoone can abuse a law, anyone can abuse a protocoll. so what? this is actually stronger as a protocol than it would be as a law, because if you abuse it, other nations would cancel their extradition agreements with you.

Protocols still need strength behind them. Otherwise, they are not worth the effort of creating.

for shti's sake people! this is a protocol, not a law!

just as anyoone can abuse a law, anyone can abuse a protocoll. so what? this is actually stronger as a protocol than it would be as a law, because if you abuse it, other nations would cancel their extradition agreements with you.

So I get to choose between "toothless and costing me money" or "easily abused and costing me money"? Isn't this the exact argument that was used to defeat the ICJ not-so-long ago? So why am I being taken to task for following the lead of the NSUN and doing everybody a favor by calling this out on the carpet early, as opposed to waiting for this to become a resolution? Heck, by the time the ICJ finally failed, my support for it was minimal. I typically try to avoid pushing proposals that do nothing to improve a situation and can be used as a pretext to start a war. People can find their own pretexts for war; stop making me pay for their privilege.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Will this proposal authorize the police to tape a phone conversation, or to read mail, or things like that?

No. There is no provision in the proposed legislation to authorize to tape a phone convo, etc. There is an existing UN resolution regarding that matter.

First, I wanted to chime in and say I think this is a worthy idea to explore. Second, the format of this resolution is easy to read, and very much appreciated. It is clear that some hard work and thought has gone into this.

My government finds Articles 1 and 3 fine, but we are still wondering what the goal of Article 2 is. Could you perhaps provide an example? :)


Article 2 only defines what extraditable offenses are.

If the crime of robbery in both UN State is punishable by imprisonment for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty, then that particular crime is an extraditable offense.

You're missing a key piece of the puzzle: All possible crimes includes the extradition crime. And your resolution does not have any wording that excludes that legal possibility. All it states is the criminal must be cleared of the extradition crime, and clearing them of all possible crimes does that.

Do you fully understand what an "extraditable offense" is defined by Article 2?

Not all possible crimes are extraditable. If all your crimes are punishable by less than a year in prison, then 100% you're not entitled to any extradition request. You're not allowed to request or to be requested.

An extraditable offense is a crime which in both UN State is punishable by one year or more in prison or by a more severe penalty.

If a crime is punishable by a week in prison, that's not extraditable.


Which in no way precludes what I have said above, as it uses in its example the possible charging of a person for a crime in another nation. All that does is add more evidence to my case.[.quote]

What's your case? Did you have any?



[quote=DemonLordEnigma]Simple: It's an opening of abuse, and it will be widely abused enough that the resolution won't matter. As guidelines, it provides a loophole big enough that it effectively cancels itself out.

Its an abuse if you abuse it. Extradition is not for corrupt people. If you use your diplomacy wisely, extradition is good. But if your a psycho dictator who threatens everyone with "anti-matter" weapons, then don't feel bad when no country would like to extradite any individual to you.

I have not created any multinational "committee" so the source of abuse is the country itself. And if you find a country abusing the extradition protocol, then cut your relations and declare their ambassador persona non grata.

Article 6(1) states that all extradition procedure shall be submitted through a diplomatic channel (an ambassador in this case). If you get rid of the ambassador, then no more pesky extradition requests.

Protocols still need strength behind them. Otherwise, they are not worth the effort of creating.

What kind of "strength" are you looking for? "Anti-matter" weapons?

The strength here is diplomacy. If you're a bad diplomat, I am sure that no one will even bother to entertain your extradition request. If you're a good diplomat, then expect the other party to extradite an individual to your country.

One more "strength" factor, is the procedure itself. If you abide by the protocol from Article 1 down to Article 9, then expect the other party to do the same.

So I get to choose between "toothless and costing me money" or "easily abused and costing me money"? Isn't this the exact argument that was used to defeat the ICJ not-so-long ago? So why am I being taken to task for following the lead of the NSUN and doing everybody a favor by calling this out on the carpet early, as opposed to waiting for this to become a resolution? Heck, by the time the ICJ finally failed, my support for it was minimal. I typically try to avoid pushing proposals that do nothing to improve a situation and can be used as a pretext to start a war. People can find their own pretexts for war; stop making me pay for their privilege.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Why would you spend on extradition if you decided in the first place not to extradite your individual? Where in the proposed legislation did you read that you are obliged to extradite any individual at all? Didn't you read how you can deny or refuse to grant extradition?

The proposed legislation only states that IF EVER you request for or receive an extradition, you are obliged to follow the procedure alone.

Say a person has a heart problem and heart by-pass is not the only available option. But in a case where the person has to receive a by-pass, then the surgeon is obliged to follow the by-pass procedure alone. You can't just open the person's chest and fix the heart, there are steps you should follow.

I suggest that the Pretenama Panel should prosecute nations in breach of the protocol.

Article 2 only defines what extraditable offenses are.

If the crime of robbery in both UN State is punishable by imprisonment for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty, then that particular crime is an extraditable offense.

Hmmm, I think what needs to be spelled out a bit more, perhaps not in the resolution text, but in a FAQ type of thing, is a case study. If a woman were to hijack a train in Mikitivity and then get away to say NeoCon Hubris, how does this resolution suggest the situtation work itself out?

What then if the woman, were only from NeoCon Hubris, but caught and charged with a crime in Mikitivity.

Extradition is certainly an international issue, and my government is pleased that this idea is being discussed ... we just feel it would do the resolution good to have a few examples (hypothetical).

[OOC: You could have a lot of fun here actually, by roleplaying a national newspaper and creating a few stories ... if another player went along, you could later use the news stories between the two countries as in-character debate when your proposal becomes a resolution ... which in time I think it will!] :)

Aside from DLE's analysis, which I find has merit, I also worry about abuses of 4(2). For example, a Kriovalian citizen is convicted of "Crime X" in your country that carries a 5-year prison sentence. Krioval has it on good authority that the criminal justice system in your nation is quite harsh. So the Kriovalian Tax Agency opens an "investigation" into the person's tax payments. Upon further "examination", Krioval issues an arrest warrant for rampant tax evasion, which would carry an 8-year term. Being the "bigger" crime, Krioval requests extradition. Should we receive it, we intend to either dismiss all charges or actually have a trial and find the person innocent. Then we refuse to send this person back because, by 4(1), he's already been convicted of the crime, so extradition cannot be sought.
My apologies. I missed your point on this last night.

This protocol seems to completely skip over extradition of someone already in prison. I think it needs to say that extradition can be delayed if the requested person is on trial, and it needs to say something about time served in the requesting nation applying or not applying towards the sentence in the requested nation, and it needs to say the requesting nation promises to return the inmate to the requested nation if he is not convicted.



Should the original extradition request be refused, Krioval howls loudly (and internationally). Further, we suspend any extradition requests pending from that nation and accuse them of being one-sided in enforcement. Depending on how far we're willing to push things, we may actually say that the only reason extradition was refused was because the man was Kriovalian. We decry the suggestion that Krioval must wait five years before justice for such an egregious breach of law can be corrected, and blah, blah, blah.

One or both ambassadors would have been ejected before you get to the point of war, and the extradition agreement therefore nullified.


Since a crime can even be "under investigation", it is also possible, though admittedly unlikely, that a person could be extradited on no evidence whatsoever. There additionally is no protection for extra charges being applied after extradition is complete, including capital crimes. So I could think that I'm about to send someone to another country for an investigation into a robbery, and that the maximum sentence is two years, and then later find that the other country has decided to charge him with capital murder without having bothered to clear that with me earlier. Talk about frosty relations afterward.

I'll stop with those two examples of how this proposal could be used to instigate a war, because I find two examples to be sufficient to oppose this.
You get to ask for evidence and then refuse extradition if you don't think it's sufficient. Article 6 or 7, I think.

You're right, there's nothing in there about piling on more charges after extradition. Should there be?

Do you fully understand what an "extraditable offense" is defined by Article 2?

Do you fully understand what "easily abused" means?

Not all possible crimes are extraditable. If all your crimes are punishable by less than a year in prison, then 100% you're not entitled to any extradition request. You're not allowed to request or to be requested.

An extraditable offense is a crime which in both UN State is punishable by one year or more in prison or by a more severe penalty.

If a crime is punishable by a week in prison, that's not extraditable.

Congrats. Another loophole. In this case, that I can make anything a citizen does in another nation as being, under DLE law, punishable by confinement for a day. Then, I've pretty much cirvumvented the entire process.

What's your case? Did you have any?

My case is that this is wide-open for abuse. And that it will be.

[quote]Its an abuse if you abuse it.

What do you think people are going to do? Abide by the spirit of it? Not in the least.

Extradition is not for corrupt people. If you use your diplomacy wisely, extradition is good. But if your a psycho dictator who threatens everyone with "anti-matter" weapons, then don't feel bad when no country would like to extradite any individual to you.

If I were a "psycho dictator," you would be dealing wih bombing runs right now. Be careful what you wish for.

While it may not be for corrupt people, corrupt people will use it to their advantage. It's that I'm trying to point out to you.

I have not created any multinational "committee" so the source of abuse is the country itself. And if you find a country abusing the extradition protocol, then cut your relations and declare their ambassador persona non grata.

Which is a perfect excuse for war with a nation who has been the victim of you abusing extradition.

Article 6(1) states that all extradition procedure shall be submitted through a diplomatic channel (an ambassador in this case). If you get rid of the ambassador, then no more pesky extradition requests.

If you get rid of the ambassador, one less POW if you get invaded by that nation. Every bargaining chip counts.

What kind of "strength" are you looking for? "Anti-matter" weapons?

Nah. Antimatter weapons are for bombing and tactical strikes against individual ships. Graviton weapons prove to be more powerful.

Ask a sarcastic question, get a sarcastic answer.

What I'm looking for is a removal of all of the opportunities for abuse.

The strength here is diplomacy. If you're a bad diplomat, I am sure that no one will even bother to entertain your extradition request. If you're a good diplomat, then expect the other party to extradite an individual to your country.

If you're a crafty diplomat, you convince them you are a good diplomat until you do enough internal damage they will fall to an invasion, and then you reveal you are really a bad diplomat as your military hits them. See the effectiveness?

One more "strength" factor, is the procedure itself. If you abide by the protocol from Article 1 down to Article 9, then expect the other party to do the same.

That is exactly what an abusive nation would be planning on.

DLE, if you don't want to have extradition agreements with other nations, don't have them. This doesn't force you to have them, it just sets up a uniform protocol to use if you're going to have them.

I'm missing the point of how this could be abused. Let's say we have an extradition agreement and one of your citizens eats one of mine, then flees back to DLE territory before my police can apprehend him.

I request extradition, you abuse it, I withdraw from the extradition agreement with you. So you lose the ability to make future requests for extradition of dissident citizens vacationing on The Isle Of Lesbos, but that's about the only effect.

DLE, if you don't want to have extradition agreements with other nations, don't have them. This doesn't force you to have them, it just sets up a uniform protocol to use if you're going to have them.

I'm missing the point of how this could be abused. Let's say we have an extradition agreement and one of your citizens eats one of mine, then flees back to DLE territory before my police can apprehend him.

I request extradition, you abuse it, I withdraw from the extradition agreement with you. So you lose the ability to make future requests for extradition of dissident citizens vacationing on The Isle Of Lesbos, but that's about the only effect.

Let's say, instead, my government decided it wanted to destroy your nation. So we make the agreement and I send several military agents in, disguised as tourists. They manage to plant bombs at several key locations and blow them up, crippling your internal economy. Then I withdraw my agents. You eventually figure out it was my people and which ones, and I ask for extradition. I refuse, having already acquitted them of the crime. You, angry and crippled, withdraw from the agreement. I publically use this as a sign you are planning to attack my nation and pull a preemptive attack, managing to subdue your military and remove your government.

Congrats. Everything I did was perfectly legal and now I have added your nation into my holdings.

Expulsion of ambassadors is typically a prelude to war, unless situations somehow miraculously improve. If Krioval is interested in making things deteriorate further, it's not a stretch that we could arrange circumstances to make the other nation involved in the agreement look like the aggressor. Then, as the "defender", we either call for allies or invade directly. The end is the same - if we wanted a war, we'd get it, and on our terms. Heck, it's even better if their diplomats are either naive beyond words or just bad overall.

The problem is that I can interpret all manner of bizarre situations into the text of the proposal that easily allow me to create nightmares for people. That is why I ultimately feel that these sorts of bilateral arrangements should be made between the two countries involved, without well-intentioned but ultimately flawed protocol opening up all manner of loopholes through which one could pilot a Kriovalian capital starship.

Hmmm, I think what needs to be spelled out a bit more, perhaps not in the resolution text, but in a FAQ type of thing, is a case study. If a woman were to hijack a train in Mikitivity and then get away to say NeoCon Hubris, how does this resolution suggest the situtation work itself out?

If hijacking a train in Mikitivity is a crime punishable by at least a period of one year in prison, therefore the crime is extraditable. If hijacking a train in NeoCon Hubris is a crime punishable by at least a period of one year in prison, therefore the crime is extraditable. Since we have compatible laws regarding train hijacking and fits the definition of an extraditable offense in Article 2, Mikitivity is entitled to request an extradition procedure.

If the woman tried to escape prosecution and moved into NeoCon Hubris, Mikitivity should request for an extradition procedure. Mikitivity should send NeoCon Hubris the required documents for extradition stated in Article 6. NeoCon would gladly extradite the requested individual because NeoCon Hubris don't like harboring criminals.

I can refuse to grant extradition if a) I find your nation's leader incompetent, b) the individual has already been acquitted or convicted of the same extraditable offense for that particular crime, c) you violate the protocol, d) lack of evidence. And many more.

What then if the woman, were only from NeoCon Hubris, but caught and charged with a crime in Mikitivity.

If the woman is a NeoCon citizen, hijacked a train in Mikitivity, caught and charged in your country, then you have to inform the executive authority of NeoCon Hubris about the case. NeoCon Hubris can't extradite an individual who is already in your custody. The two countries must, at least, reach an agreement about Article 5 of the extradition protocol.

Extradition is certainly an international issue, and my government is pleased that this idea is being discussed ... we just feel it would do the resolution good to have a few examples (hypothetical).

Yes. Hypothetical situations are very helpful.


[OOC: You could have a lot of fun here actually, by roleplaying a national newspaper and creating a few stories ... if another player went along, you could later use the news stories between the two countries as in-character debate when your proposal becomes a resolution ... which in time I think it will!] :)

Sounds fun.

Do you fully understand what "easily abused" means?

Nope. You're the expert on this. Tell me.


Congrats. Another loophole. In this case, that I can make anything a citizen does in another nation as being, under DLE law, punishable by confinement for a day. Then, I've pretty much cirvumvented the entire process.

That's your nation's law. If you wish to confine all your prisoners for just a day, the international community can't do anything about it. But your reputation will be damaged and probably could be a scum in the UN by being a "criminal appeaser." Its your choice if you want to cheat the system. You shouldn't be asking me about the words "easily abused," you know it very well.

What's your case? Did you have any?

My case is that this is wide-open for abuse. And that it will be.

Abuse by who? You?



What do you think people are going to do? Abide by the spirit of it? Not in the least.

RL extradition treaties are very effective though. I don't know how space aliens handle such "complicated" protocols.


If I were a "psycho dictator," you would be dealing wih bombing runs right now. Be careful what you wish for.

Wish what? Bombs? What bombs? Isn't that an example of "abuse"?

While it may not be for corrupt people, corrupt people will use it to their advantage. It's that I'm trying to point out to you.

Corrupt people won't gain any advantage at all. Nobody would want to grant an extradition request to a "corrupt leader." Would you?


Which is a perfect excuse for war with a nation who has been the victim of you abusing extradition.

How do leaders "abuse" extradition? Is it a drug they use everyday?

If you get rid of the ambassador, one less POW if you get invaded by that nation. Every bargaining chip counts.

Do you really want to start a war because an individual was denied extradition? Insane people probably would.


Nah. Antimatter weapons are for bombing and tactical strikes against individual ships. Graviton weapons prove to be more powerful.

And? .....anyways, that was very informative.

Ask a sarcastic question, get a sarcastic answer.

I don't mean to. Its just me. How about you? Annoyed?

What I'm looking for is a removal of all of the opportunities for abuse.

You're getting rid of yourself?

If you're a crafty diplomat, you convince them you are a good diplomat until you do enough internal damage they will fall to an invasion, and then you reveal you are really a bad diplomat as your military hits them. See the effectiveness?

I will make a research on how many wars have been made because an individual was not extradited....... *searching RL database*...... None.


That is exactly what an abusive nation would be planning on.

So abiding by the protocol is your definition of "abuse"?

Let's say, instead, my government decided it wanted to destroy your nation. So we make the agreement and I send several military agents in, disguised as tourists. They manage to plant bombs at several key locations and blow them up, crippling your internal economy. Then I withdraw my agents. You eventually figure out it was my people and which ones, and I ask for extradition. I refuse, having already acquitted them of the crime. You, angry and crippled, withdraw from the agreement. I publically use this as a sign you are planning to attack my nation and pull a preemptive attack, managing to subdue your military and remove your government.

Congrats. Everything I did was perfectly legal and now I have added your nation into my holdings.

Congrats. You just failed to follow any stated Article in the protocol. Is it really that hard to understand?

You didn't only violate the protocol, but violated UN Resolution 47 sentence 5 stating, a fair trial "[i]s held in the venue from which the crime was committed."

I can't see any sane argument here. First, you ordered a terrorist attack. Second, you placed the terrorists on trial. Third, you acquitted them.

The whole argument: FARCE.

Where on earth have you seen a situation that a crime that was committed in America would be tried in Bangladesh?

If your people terrorized another country, you don't have any legal right to put them on trial except the victim country alone. Any knowledge about basic law?

Expulsion of ambassadors is typically a prelude to war, unless situations somehow miraculously improve. If Krioval is interested in making things deteriorate further, it's not a stretch that we could arrange circumstances to make the other nation involved in the agreement look like the aggressor. Then, as the "defender", we either call for allies or invade directly. The end is the same - if we wanted a war, we'd get it, and on our terms. Heck, it's even better if their diplomats are either naive beyond words or just bad overall.

The problem is that I can interpret all manner of bizarre situations into the text of the proposal that easily allow me to create nightmares for people. That is why I ultimately feel that these sorts of bilateral arrangements should be made between the two countries involved, without well-intentioned but ultimately flawed protocol opening up all manner of loopholes through which one could pilot a Kriovalian capital starship.

Good luck with that.

Congrats. You just failed to follow any stated Article in the protocol. Is it really that hard to understand?

You didn't only violate the protocol, but violated some UN Resolutions about terrorism too.

I can't see any sane argument here. First, you ordered a terrorist attack. Second, you placed the terrorists on trial. Third, you acquitted them.

The whole argument: FARCE.

Where on earth have you seen a situation that a crime that was committed in America would be tried in Bangladesh?

If your people terrorized another country, you don't have any legal right to put them on trial except the victim country alone. Any knowledge about basic law?

Well, since you're apparently the expert on other people's legal systems, you must know that Krioval, at least, has statutes to punish people for crimes committed abroad, especially acts of terror. Strangely enough, they carry prison terms of over one year. So they'd be bound by your protocol.

And if the trial results in an acquittal (or conviction for that matter), extradition is blocked. Now, I'm not worried that I'd stoop to a level to use this obvious (legal) abuse of the protocol, but more corrupt nations certainly would, over and over. Thus Krioval is unwilling to be put into a compromising position without at least having had the opportunity to put oneself into said position.

Also, please don't respond to my well-thought-out arguments with a sarcastic one-liner. It simply demonstrates that you are unable to refute the basic premise of my statements.

Nope. You're the expert on this. Tell me.

I would, but I'm having too much fun ripping this apart. I suggest investing in a dictionary.

That's your nation's law. If you wish to confine all your prisoners for just a day, the international community can't do anything about it. But your reputation will be damaged and probably could be a scum in the UN by being a "criminal appeaser." Its your choice if you want to cheat the system. You shouldn't be asking me about the words "easily abused," you know it very well.

But are you comfortable knowing that your resolution is being perverted in this way? Or that, by the wording of your resolution, it's perfectly legal?

Abuse by who? You?

Abuse by anyone who wants to. I'm not the only one who looks through these for ways they can be exploited. Hell, I've already exploited several to my advantage.

RL extradition treaties are very effective though. I don't know how space aliens handle such "complicated" protocols.

Real-life extradition treaties are very effective because of the different attitude. Real life nations don't almost need nukes from an early age in order to deal with possible threats, and real life nations don't have to worry about orbital attacks from people native to the planet with the same technology level or cultures that are far more advanced. Plus, unlike real life nations, NS tactics involve quite a bit of use of weapons of mass destruction, though these days the nuke wars have mostly died down.

Wish what? Bombs? What bombs? Isn't that an example of "abuse"?

No. That's an example of how to deal with someone who is being purposefully dense and thinks it's cute. If you wish, I'll send you a full explanation via whatever giant cannon of doom I have handy at the moment.

Corrupt people won't gain any advantage at all. Nobody would want to grant an extradition request to a "corrupt leader." Would you?

I'm beginning to think you're going out of your way to ignore what really damages your resolution in hopes your opponent won't notice. Corrupt people gain a very big advantage in being able to directly strike inside a nation, pull the people out, legally refuse extradition, and then attack when the treaty is broken. It's one of thje cheapest tactics in the book, but it is quite effective on those nations willing to trust.

And, yes, I would extradite to a nation with corrupt leaders. Most nations, I've found, have leaders corrupt in one way or another. It's just the type of corruption you have to watch out for.

How do leaders "abuse" extradition? Is it a drug they use everyday?

See above. And stop trying to play stupid.

Do you really want to start a war because an individual was denied extradition? Insane people probably would.

The indirect attacks are not helping your case. They're just adding fuel to the fire.

If an individual blew up several buildings inside my nation with home-made bombs, then yes I would start a war over it. If it's not a terrorist action, then it's clearly a military strike. But I have far better border controls than most, so I'm not worried about it.

You have missed a point I have stated twice. Read what I said, as at this point I'm not going to waste my time restating it.

And? .....anyways, that was very informative.

And I'm shipping one to you. It uses the shipping method of self-propulsion after being launched by a ship.

[insert comment made in previous post about sarcastic questions here]

I don't mean to. Its just me. How about you? Annoyed?

If I were annoyed, you'd know it. I'm amused. But I'm that way with all beings I find to not be up to presenting a benron, which they demonstrate by posting one liners that don't really present an arguement.

You're getting rid of yourself?

Nah. I'm just gonna destroy your nation and convince the UN to not vote on it. Then, with it defeated and the source destroyed, I have no worries about it comming up again and being abused.

I will make a research on how many wars have been made because an individual was not extradited....... *searching RL database*...... None.

I'm going to make a search to see in how many databases a nation of modern technology and a nation that calls space home have had a discussion in the UN over extradition policies. Hmm, can't find any.

Wait, let's search the UN for laws giving clones equal rights to the beings they were cloned from. Wait, still nothing.

Oooh, let's search for wars that have involved thermonuclear weapons being launched. Damn, can't find a thing.

All three of the above are present in NS. You might want to look at what this will really affect, which is NS, instead of what this has no bearing on and no way affects.

So abiding by the protocol is your definition of "abuse"?

Ya'know, that tactic they call "reading in context" is something you ought to try.

Congrats. You just failed to follow any stated Article in the protocol. Is it really that hard to understand?

Prove it.

You didn't only violate the protocol, but violated UN Resolution 47 sentence 5 stating, a fair trial "[i]s held in the venue from which the crime was committed."

Which has no bearing on cases in which no trial is involved but a decision is still handed down. DLE legal code allows for a trial to be skipped and sentencing handed down if the accused is willing to go along with the idea.

I can't see any sane argument here. First, you ordered a terrorist attack. Second, you placed the terrorists on trial. Third, you acquitted them.

The second never happened.

The whole argument: FARCE.

You whole post: Unproven statements based on assumptions and without evidence to back them. Therefore, illogical and false.

Where on earth have you seen a situation that a crime that was committed in America would be tried in Bangladesh?

No, but I do know of crimes committed in Poland and France that were tried in Germany. Ever hear of Nuremburg? A lot of the Nazis tried had not even committed their crimes inside Germany itself. Oh, and let's not forget the hundreds of Americans that were sent to Britain for trial right before the US was a nation. So, yes, a precedent for it exists.

If your people terrorized another country, you don't have any legal right to put them on trial except the victim country alone. Any knowledge about basic law?

Apparently, more than you. Knowledge of basic law tells you that, as in reality, legal codes vary from nation to nation, even in the UN. You have also, I noticed, failed to notice that nowhere did I state I was putting them on trial. Knowledge of basic law would tell you that, even in such real nations as the United States, you don't always need a trial to acquit someone of a crime.

I would, but I'm having too much fun ripping this apart. I suggest investing in a dictionary.

Not in my vocabulary.

But are you comfortable knowing that your resolution is being perverted in this way? Or that, by the wording of your resolution, it's perfectly legal?

Not at all. You will be tried for breaking other UN Resolutions. Resolution 47 that is.


Abuse by anyone who wants to. I'm not the only one who looks through these for ways they can be exploited. Hell, I've already exploited several to my advantage.

No nation could exploit some other nation if they didn't want to be exploited in the first place. Since I know your a leader who exploits every law, you're a rogue, corrupt, incompetent leader, and by using Article 6 I can refuse all of your requests because you're incompetent. I can't see how you can gain advantage by exploiting something. First, your country is creeping with criminals. Second, your reputation is damaged. Third, you're a criminal appeaser. Its all bad for you.


Real-life extradition treaties are very effective because of the different attitude. Real life nations don't almost need nukes from an early age in order to deal with possible threats, and real life nations don't have to worry about orbital attacks from people native to the planet with the same technology level or cultures that are far more advanced. Plus, unlike real life nations, NS tactics involve quite a bit of use of weapons of mass destruction, though these days the nuke wars have mostly died down.

Well that is because we have space ogres who aren't as civilised as humans and other earthly entities. We still believe in the law. I don't know about you.



No. That's an example of how to deal with someone who is being purposefully dense and thinks it's cute. If you wish, I'll send you a full explanation via whatever giant cannon of doom I have handy at the moment.

And?.....

I'm beginning to think you're going out of your way to ignore what really damages your resolution in hopes your opponent won't notice. Corrupt people gain a very big advantage in being able to directly strike inside a nation, pull the people out, legally refuse extradition, and then attack when the treaty is broken. It's one of thje cheapest tactics in the book, but it is quite effective on those nations willing to trust.

I don't really have much time to deal with farce arguments.

And, yes, I would extradite to a nation with corrupt leaders. Most nations, I've found, have leaders corrupt in one way or another. It's just the type of corruption you have to watch out for.

Then that's your problem. Not the protocol's.


See above. And stop trying to play stupid.

Who's playing what? I don't throw intensely farce arguments though.

The indirect attacks are not helping your case. They're just adding fuel to the fire.

If that's how you would like to see it, go ahead. I'm not the one who's bragging about "graviton" weapons.

If an individual blew up several buildings inside my nation with home-made bombs, then yes I would start a war over it. If it's not a terrorist action, then it's clearly a military strike. But I have far better border controls than most, so I'm not worried about it.

So what's your problem?

You have missed a point I have stated twice. Read what I said, as at this point I'm not going to waste my time restating it.

I don't waste time reading farce arguments too.


And I'm shipping one to you. It uses the shipping method of self-propulsion after being launched by a ship.

Sorry, we don't accept something from somewhere we do not have diplomatic relations with. Your shipment would just rot outside our border.


If I were annoyed, you'd know it. I'm amused. But I'm that way with all beings I find to not be up to presenting a benron, which they demonstrate by posting one liners that don't really present an arguement.

I feel no need to present arguments to you. You didn't present any either. The fact is, you're hoping that I would take you seriously if you brag about your "graviton" weapons. Sorry, not gonna work.


Nah. I'm just gonna destroy your nation and convince the UN to not vote on it. Then, with it defeated and the source destroyed, I have no worries about it comming up again and being abused.

Somebody definitely abused something. And its not the protocol. Ask yourself. The TPP will be dealing with you shortly.


I'm going to make a search to see in how many databases a nation of modern technology and a nation that calls space home have had a discussion in the UN over extradition policies. Hmm, can't find any.

So?

Wait, let's search the UN for laws giving clones equal rights to the beings they were cloned from. Wait, still nothing.[/quotes]

What's your point?

[quote=DemonLordEnigma]Oooh, let's search for wars that have involved thermonuclear weapons being launched. Damn, can't find a thing.

Great! That's good news to me.

All three of the above are present in NS. You might want to look at what this will really affect, which is NS, instead of what this has no bearing on and no way affects.

Then if we extradite criminals and punish them, I see no reason to launch war. Its criminals who are being punished here, not you. Unless you're one of them.


Ya'know, that tactic they call "reading in context" is something you ought to try.

Yup. I've been trying that. But its not applicable to you.

Prove it.

Prove what? Your farce arguments? Prove me it ain't farce.

Which has no bearing on cases in which no trial is involved but a decision is still handed down. DLE legal code allows for a trial to be skipped and sentencing handed down if the accused is willing to go along with the idea.

How many UN States share your "legal" code?

The second never happened.

Huh? How could you acquit someone without putting them on trial? Seriously, do you have any knowledge about laws?


You whole post: Unproven statements based on assumptions and without evidence to back them. Therefore, illogical and false.

You are my evidence. The longer your argument, the more evidence I have.


No, but I do know of crimes committed in Poland and France that were tried in Germany. Ever hear of Nuremburg? A lot of the Nazis tried had not even committed their crimes inside Germany itself. Oh, and let's not forget the hundreds of Americans that were sent to Britain for trial right before the US was a nation. So, yes, a precedent for it exists.

Article 8 could deal with that. Additionally, wasn't Nuremburg a very special court for a very special case? The extradition doesn't call for the creation of a Nuremburg court.


Apparently, more than you. Knowledge of basic law tells you that, as in reality, legal codes vary from nation to nation, even in the UN. You have also, I noticed, failed to notice that nowhere did I state I was putting them on trial. Knowledge of basic law would tell you that, even in such real nations as the United States, you don't always need a trial to acquit someone of a crime.

Whoa! Suddenly you realized about different laws in UN States. I know this is off the topic, but why haven't you realized this when discussing "marriage"?

The protocol doesn't even force a country to make similar laws. It just states thet if there are two countries with similar laws, those particular offenses are extraditable.

And from your hypothetical terrorist story, you said that you have acquitted the terrorist. You are acquitting criminals without trial. That's a flagrant violation of UN Resolution 47. So please don't lecture me about your farce ideas about "legal codes."

And tell me who were the persons acquitted by the US without trial.

Well, since you're apparently the expert on other people's legal systems, you must know that Krioval, at least, has statutes to punish people for crimes committed abroad, especially acts of terror. Strangely enough, they carry prison terms of over one year. So they'd be bound by your protocol.

Okay. So by Krioval laws, you are allowed to intervene or punish an individual who commited a crime abroad.

You mean, if a person terrorized my nation, it's perfectly legal for you to put them on trial in your own country using your laws?

You have flagrantly violated UN Resolution 47 sentence 5 then. It states that a person could only be held on trial in the venue from which the crime is committed.

Since the terrorist violated MY law, it is ME who's got jurisdiction over him, not you.

And if the trial results in an acquittal (or conviction for that matter), extradition is blocked. Now, I'm not worried that I'd stoop to a level to use this obvious (legal) abuse of the protocol, but more corrupt nations certainly would, over and over. Thus Krioval is unwilling to be put into a compromising position without at least having had the opportunity to put oneself into said position.

First, you can't acquit/convict a person who did not violate your law. Using your hypothetical story, its MY law that's been violated, and it's our government who will have sole jurisdiction regarding that matter.

Now, if we acquit/convict that person, Krioval will not be granted any extradition request charging the same crime that happened in my country. Krioval can only be grant extradition if you charge him of violating the same law in your own country.

Also, please don't respond to my well-thought-out arguments with a sarcastic one-liner. It simply demonstrates that you are unable to refute the basic premise of my statements.

Certainly, you are very different from DemonLordEnigma.

Okay. So by Krioval laws, you are allowed to intervene or punish an individual who commited a crime abroad.

You mean, if a person terrorized my nation, it's perfectly legal for you to put them on trial in your own country using your laws?

You have flagrantly violated UN Resolution 47 sentence 5 then. It states that a person could only be held on trial in the venue from which the crime is committed.

Since the terrorist violated MY law, it is ME who's got jurisdiction over him, not you.

Same resolution, clause 10: Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

I imagine the conversation would go something like this:

"So, I hear that [Nation X] puts convicted felons with rapists and beats them regularly with bullwhips. Would you like to waive your right to a trial in [Nation X] and instead be tried for the same offense by Kriovalian anti-terror laws?"

"I think I'll choose to be prosecuted by Krioval's laws. At least then I'm not going to be raped and beaten every hour."

"Good choice. Your trial date is set for one month from today."

See? The person will then be tried and likely convicted in Krioval for the offense. Extradition would be blocked as a result. Note, however, that this would apply almost exclusively to Kriovalian citizens or resident aliens. I could also see an ally requesting that we intervene if we pick up a suspect, though there are no guarantees that we'd act on that request. The actual intent of the Kriovalian laws against crimes committed abroad is to ensure punishment and rehabilitation of criminals who would otherwise escape justice.

First, you can't acquit/convict a person who did not violate your law. Using your hypothetical story, its MY law that's been violated, and it's our government who will have sole jurisdiction regarding that matter.

Not according to the way Krioval governs. It's a sticky situation, to be sure, and one that will demand the attention of several diplomats to resolve, but technically, the law in BOTH countries has been violated. Since this hypothetical person is in Kriovalian territory, from my perspective, it stands that I have jurisdiction. Hence the messiness.

Now, if we acquit/convict that person, Krioval will not be granted any extradition request charging the same crime that happened in my country. Krioval can only be grant extradition if you charge him of violating the same law in your own country.

We wouldn't bother with the charge if that person's already been punished abroad. And we wouldn't attempt to extradite if that person were caught in the country - we're not that naive or stupid to try (exception: if the person is an intelligence operative, in which case we're attempting either extraction or execution).

Certainly, you are very different from DemonLordEnigma.

That stands to reason. DLE is a space-based empire that (I presume) interacts primarily with FT nations. Krioval is spacefaring, but we're primarily based on (NS) Earth, and our dealings are primarily with MT nations. In fact, the Kriovalian laws against crimes committed elsewhere are a direct result of dealing either with repressive non-UN regimes or places with lax criminal codes.

Not in my vocabulary.

They're these books (the objects with covers that have large amounts of words, and sometimes pictures, on the sheets of paper inside them) that help you find out the meaning of words (the strange combination of sounds or letters that have meaning and are used for communication). You find them in stores (large buildings where you can buy items, such as food and clothes).

I would explain the internet to you to help you with finding the online versions of these items, but I'm not sure if you're ready.

Not at all. You will be tried for breaking other UN Resolutions. Resolution 47 that is.

The only court that exists in the UN is for dealing with genocide and other human rights violations. Skipping a trial is not a human rights violation if the accused is willing to skip it. So, really, once again you have no case.

No nation could exploit some other nation if they didn't want to be exploited in the first place. Since I know your a leader who exploits every law, you're a rogue, corrupt, incompetent leader, and by using Article 6 I can refuse all of your requests because you're incompetent. I can't see how you can gain advantage by exploiting something. First, your country is creeping with criminals. Second, your reputation is damaged. Third, you're a criminal appeaser. Its all bad for you.

1. If you don't know they are exploiting you, it's not willing exploitation.

2. I never said I exploit every law. I exploit quite a few to my advantage, but I'm not the only one. And if you took your foot out of your mouth and did some research to actually find proof for your asinine claims, you would realize how few I do exploit and how often I am trying to be rid of bad legislation or correct problems.

3. Considering you have repeatedly failed to present an arguement worthy of consideration and now you must result to attacks against a nation in an attempt to discredit that nation while yet again FAILING to prove your claims about the actions in the provided examples not following UN law, you really have no room to speak on the competence of another nation. If anything, you have proven you cannot actually prove your point and must result entirely to cheap shots in a futile attempt to remove the arguement you cannot disprove.

4. The crime problem results from very relaxed gun laws combined with grumblings about the UN, not from us pardoning every criminal that walks through the door.

5. Criminal appeasers don't have most of their money spent on law enforcement. Check Thirdgeek or Sunset sometime and look me up.

6. My reputation is that of an asshole, but it's also of a person who knows what they are doing in the UN. I know it quite well, and I know this won't damage it.

Well that is because we have space ogres who aren't as civilised as humans and other earthly entities. We still believe in the law. I don't know about you.

Then explain why the nation of Vegana, which is an Earth nation, had to be brought to the UN's attention for using biological weapons. Explain why pretty much all human rights violations found in NS are pulled by Earth nations with no space travel capacity, and the majority of them not even having space programs. Explain why I was one of the nations that invaded Slinao, which is an Earth nation and at the time had just recently acquired F16s and as yet had no space program, to stop them from committing human rights violations (this was before the Humanitarian Intervention resolution even). Explain why the nation of Cherry Ridge was attacked by myself and others to preven human rights violations.

And since you seem to enjoy pointing at my nation, explain why it is I have a better civil rights record than you do.

And?.....

Well, yesterday this lovely bunch of people showed up at my office to thank me for managing to get them a better commercial than the norm we produce. But that's just part of my job.

I don't really have much time to deal with farce arguments.

Then why do you keep making them?

Then that's your problem. Not the protocol's.

It's the protocol's problem because the simplest of edittings would deal with it. If that were not so, then it'd be the problem of individual nations.

Who's playing what? I don't throw intensely farce arguments though.

No, you throw farce arguements that you hope are logical without bothering to even provide evidence.

If that's how you would like to see it, go ahead. I'm not the one who's bragging about "graviton" weapons.

Gravitons are a theoretical particle that, in theory, cause gravity. They have yet to be found, but if they are they will revolutionize the human view of the universe. A cousin to them is dark matter, which may simply be antigravitons.

So what's your problem?

Some of my allies don't have that good of a border control. In fact, most nations don't.

I don't waste time reading farce arguments too.

And what relevance does your not reading your own arguements have on mine?

Sorry, we don't accept something from somewhere we do not have diplomatic relations with. Your shipment would just rot outside our border.

We know. This is why we are bypassing the border issue. Look up and smile.

I feel no need to present arguments to you. You didn't present any either. The fact is, you're hoping that I would take you seriously if you brag about your "graviton" weapons. Sorry, not gonna work.

Uh-huh. I notice you conveniently ignored all of my actual arguements to focus on that one item. As much as you may like trying to discredit the arguer rather than the arguements you have proven you cannot beat, why don't you just save us all trouble and admit that you have lost? I have yet to see anything from you that proves your claims, and quite a bit of it barely shows knowledge of the etiquette of internet arguing or UN law.

Somebody definitely abused something. And its not the protocol. Ask yourself. The TPP will be dealing with you shortly.

The TPP only deals with violations of human rights. Annexing your nation and deposing your government is not a violation.

So?

What's your point?

Great! That's good news to me.

My point is that your arguement has no bearing on this discussion because we are not discussing violations pulled by real-world nations. We are discussing violations pulled by NS nations. Those are mutually exclusive in many cases.

And, the BioRights resolution protects clones and gives them the same rights as the creatures they were cloned from if they are sentient. Read it.

Then if we extradite criminals and punish them, I see no reason to launch war. Its criminals who are being punished here, not you. Unless you're one of them.

Go back and read the example I posted in reply to YGSM to get an idea of how that is abused.

Yup. I've been trying that. But its not applicable to you.

Bullshit and we both know it.

Prove what? Your farce arguments? Prove me it ain't farce.

No, prove your claims. I've already posted my proof, and so far you can't refute them and have decided to attack me instead. And everyone who has argued with me knows my code of arguing, which is that the person who ignores the cry for proof first has no right to ask for it. Check several of the past threads I have posted on.

So far, all you have proven is that you would rather call my arguements farce than face the fact you cannot refute them without making claims you cannot back up, which is what you did in the quote to which my reply of "Prove it." was posted.

How many UN States share your "legal" code?

About extradition? Several. I borrowed it from Sarkaraseta, my first nation, which in turn borrowed it from another player at the time. I've seen it used a few times as well in extradition agreements.

About crimes in other nations? Most share it. Most nations in NS, including my own, are of the mindset we will not punish crimes our citizens commit in other nations. That's what extradition is for.

Huh? How could you acquit someone without putting them on trial? Seriously, do you have any knowledge about laws?

Easily. To acquit someone of a crime is to find them innocent of it before they are punished for it. All you need is someone with the authority to step in and do so. In my case, it would be a judge who only has the job of making them sign the papers acknowledging their agreement to not go to trial over it and the judge then acquitting them.

And if I didn't have knowledge about laws, I wouldn't have argued on here for as long as I have.

You are my evidence. The longer your argument, the more evidence I have.

Evidence of what? That your attempts to misdirect are failing?

Article 8 could deal with that. Additionally, wasn't Nuremburg a very special court for a very special case? The extradition doesn't call for the creation of a Nuremburg court.

Nuremburg was what the TPP is for us.

Whoa! Suddenly you realized about different laws in UN States. I know this is off the topic, but why haven't you realized this when discussing "marriage"?

UN marriage law overrides national marriage law. Which is why I kept my own laws out of it.

The protocol doesn't even force a country to make similar laws. It just states thet if there are two countries with similar laws, those particular offenses are extraditable.

Do you enjoy making this difficult for yourself?

Okay, let's go back to my nation with its view that offenses in other nations are not to be punished. In that case, what you have effectively said is that, as those are not illegal, I'm effectively immune to extradition simply because the crime happened in another nation. And let's not forget how fast a nation's leader can decide to change laws in certain nations.

And from your hypothetical terrorist story, you said that you have acquitted the terrorist. You are acquitting criminals without trial. That's a flagrant violation of UN Resolution 47. So please don't lecture me about your farce ideas about "legal codes."

Which is showing your own ignorance of that same resolution. Here, let me quote it for you:

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

Under that article, the defendent is allowed to wave any of 1-9. Under my scenario, the defendent is waving 2, 3, and 5-9. Once again, perfectly legal.

And tell me who were the persons acquitted by the US without trial.

Ever hear of the police having someone in custody and having charged him, only to let him go when they find evidence he isn't guilty suddenly? Compare that to what I said about acquitting above and think about it.

That stands to reason. DLE is a space-based empire that (I presume) interacts primarily with FT nations. Krioval is spacefaring, but we're primarily based on (NS) Earth, and our dealings are primarily with MT nations. In fact, the Kriovalian laws against crimes committed elsewhere are a direct result of dealing either with repressive non-UN regimes or places with lax criminal codes.

Actually, my territory on Earth and territory in the UN has me mostly dealing with modern nations. Like you, my extradition policies resulted from that when I first stole them. My arguing policies result from time spent on this forum.

Same resolution, clause 10: Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

Are you the defendant? Only the defendant can wave the above rights, not the government of Krioval.

See? The person will then be tried and likely convicted in Krioval for the offense. Extradition would be blocked as a result. Note, however, that this would apply almost exclusively to Kriovalian citizens or resident aliens. I could also see an ally requesting that we intervene if we pick up a suspect, though there are no guarantees that we'd act on that request. The actual intent of the Kriovalian laws against crimes committed abroad is to ensure punishment and rehabilitation of criminals who would otherwise escape justice.

Okay. Let's say a terrorist attacked my country, then Krioval wanted to put the terrorist on trial using their own law, even with UN Resolution 47 clause 10, I could simply deny the extradition request using Article 4(3)(a) of the protocol.



Not according to the way Krioval governs. It's a sticky situation, to be sure, and one that will demand the attention of several diplomats to resolve, but technically, the law in BOTH countries has been violated. Since this hypothetical person is in Kriovalian territory, from my perspective, it stands that I have jurisdiction. Hence the messiness.

So whose country was terrorized? Yours or mine?

Actually, it only violates the law of one nation. Even if a person terrorized my nation, the terrorist is still innocent under Krioval laws. But the terrorist is guilty under my law.

In RL America, most criminal offenses are state laws, not federal laws. That is why a wanted criminal must be extradited from one state to another because the alleged criminal is only guilty of an offense in one state.

Is Kobe Bryant from Colorado? No. But the alleged crime was commited in Colorado. So Colorado state courts will handle the case. Not California, not New York because none of their state laws were violated.


We wouldn't bother with the charge if that person's already been punished abroad. And we wouldn't attempt to extradite if that person were caught in the country - we're not that naive or stupid to try (exception: if the person is an intelligence operative, in which case we're attempting either extraction or execution).


So what's wrong with Article 4?

Are you the defendant? Only the defendant can wave the above rights, not the government of Krioval.

If the defendant-to-be is already in Kriovalian territory, we're usually able to convince them to accept a (known) punishment in Krioval than a similar (but unknown) punishment abroad. So he or she waives the right to a trial in the place where the crime was committed, a plea bargain is set up, and the matter is sealed within a month or two at most. Note that the Kriovalian government has done nothing improper here.

Okay. Let's say a terrorist attacked my country, then Krioval wanted to put the terrorist on trial using their own law, even with UN Resolution 47 clause 10, I could simply deny the extradition request using Article 4(3)(a) of the protocol.

My hypothetical situation involved the suspect being detained in Krioval. If the perpetrator were stupid enough to be caught in your country for a crime committed there, we're not lifting a finger to secure the idiot's release. Why would we? It's not in our best interests to make an issue out of it unless your nation does; a quiet trial and sentencing makes us happy.

If the suspect were detained in Krioval, however, we might decide to prosecute using our own laws and deny extradition, especially if the "criminal" were an intelligence operative, who would receive an abbreviated sentence for being messy, but would be spared almost-certain death otherwise. In such a case, it would be you making the request and Krioval denying it, indicating that we're punishing the criminal for violating Kriovalian law.

So whose country was terrorized? Yours or mine?

Yours, of course. Ours is extremely difficult to penetrate, hence the immediate suspicion fell on a government official when the last act of terror struck Krioval - and that suspicion turned out correct. But ultimately, to Krioval, what matters is that justice is served. Who carries it out is a secondary concern to us.

Actually, it only violates the law of one nation. Even if a person terrorized my nation, the terrorist is still innocent under Krioval laws. But the terrorist is guilty under my law.

For a citizen or resident alien of Krioval, Kriovalian law extends to infinity; however, it can only be adjudicated in Kriovalian territory. For example, pedophilia is illegal in Krioval. If a Kriovalian citizen solicits an underage prostitute abroad, that person has committed a crime in our eyes, but the crime cannot be punished unless that person sets foot in Krioval-controlled space. These statutes for a variety of reasons, but the primary point is that they do, in fact, exist.

In RL America, most criminal offenses are state laws, not federal laws. That is why a wanted criminal must be extradited from one state to another because the alleged criminal is only guilty of an offense in one state.

Is Kobe Bryant from Colorado? No. But the alleged crime was commited in Colorado. So Colorado state courts will handle the case. Not California, not New York because none of their state laws were violated.

Irrelevant. RL precedents do not affect Kriovalian criminal law.

So what's wrong with Article 4?

The problem with Article 4 in your protocol is that I can basically use it as a workaround of Article 3 - Kriovalian citizens in Krioval are going to essentially be immune from extradition if the government of Krioval wishes to make it so. Not only that, but the application of an actual punishment on an actual criminal makes it difficult for the "Requesting Nation" to complain that we're denying justice.

Is your government going to stand for it when I announce a sentence of five years in Kriovalian prison for a man who bombed your capital, causing massive property destruction, injury, and even death because our courts determined that the man was "brainwashed" and can thus be rehabilitated? How much worse does it get when rumors circulate that said man was acting on behest of the government of Krioval, whether true or not? We all know that those rumors would start regardless of the man's affiliation with the government, so I can almost take it as given that your nation would be howling in rage. Now add the complicating factor that the Extradition Protocol allows me to do all of the above.

Now do you see the problems inherent in Article 4?

They're these books (the objects with covers that have large amounts of words, and sometimes pictures, on the sheets of paper inside them) that help you find out the meaning of words (the strange combination of sounds or letters that have meaning and are used for communication). You find them in stores (large buildings where you can buy items, such as food and clothes).

So space creatures read dictionaries too?? Cool.


The only court that exists in the UN is for dealing with genocide and other human rights violations. Skipping a trial is not a human rights violation if the accused is willing to skip it. So, really, once again you have no case.

Yup. Skipping a trial is not a human rights violation, but the crime that you were called for is a violation.


1. If you don't know they are exploiting you, it's not willing exploitation.

Knowing your character, I know the intent of exploitation beforehand.

2. I never said I exploit every law. I exploit quite a few to my advantage, but I'm not the only one. And if you took your foot out of your mouth and did some research to actually find proof for your asinine claims, you would realize how few I do exploit and how often I am trying to be rid of bad legislation or correct problems.

Hmm.... but you still exploited laws. What makes you less corrupt?

3. Considering you have repeatedly failed to present an arguement worthy of consideration and now you must result to attacks against a nation in an attempt to discredit that nation while yet again FAILING to prove your claims about the actions in the provided examples not following UN law, you really have no room to speak on the competence of another nation. If anything, you have proven you cannot actually prove your point and must result entirely to cheap shots in a futile attempt to remove the arguement you cannot disprove.

Too many words. The burden of proving your competence is not mine. Its yours.

I am cynical, I don't fall for reasons like "There are more corrupt leaders than me." In my worldview, you're all equally corrupt, and the burden of proving your competency is on you.

4. The crime problem results from very relaxed gun laws combined with grumblings about the UN, not from us pardoning every criminal that walks through the door.

Is that your big problem? If the UN provides a relax gun law, then tighten it using your national legislature. The UN will not help you with everything.

5. Criminal appeasers don't have most of their money spent on law enforcement. Check Thirdgeek or Sunset sometime and look me up.

But you just stated you'd like to confine all your criminals for a day. Hypothetically suggested of destroying another country. What makes you different compared to the oveblown "criminal appeasers"?

6. My reputation is that of an asshole, but it's also of a person who knows what they are doing in the UN. I know it quite well, and I know this won't damage it.

If you say so.

Then explain why the nation of Vegana, which is an Earth nation, had to be brought to the UN's attention for using biological weapons. Explain why pretty much all human rights violations found in NS are pulled by Earth nations with no space travel capacity, and the majority of them not even having space programs. Explain why I was one of the nations that invaded Slinao, which is an Earth nation and at the time had just recently acquired F16s and as yet had no space program, to stop them from committing human rights violations (this was before the Humanitarian Intervention resolution even). Explain why the nation of Cherry Ridge was attacked by myself and others to preven human rights violations.

Aren't we here to make laws? If any of the Earth nations violated your laws, then request for an extradition.

And since you seem to enjoy pointing at my nation, explain why it is I have a better civil rights record than you do.

Because the UN report favor leftist countries more than conservative nations.

Well, yesterday this lovely bunch of people showed up at my office to thank me for managing to get them a better commercial than the norm we produce. But that's just part of my job.

Good for you.

Then why do you keep making them?

Because I have to return all the farce arguments you gave me.


It's the protocol's problem because the simplest of edittings would deal with it. If that were not so, then it'd be the problem of individual nations.

What exactly do you want to edit?

No, you throw farce arguements that you hope are logical without bothering to even provide evidence.

Like?


Gravitons are a theoretical particle that, in theory, cause gravity. They have yet to be found, but if they are they will revolutionize the human view of the universe. A cousin to them is dark matter, which may simply be antigravitons.

Do you want an A+ for that? It really doesn't matter to me at the moment.

Some of my allies don't have that good of a border control. In fact, most nations don't.

And suddenly you feel so concerned about it?

And what relevance does your not reading your own arguements have on mine?

Its equally farce.

We know. This is why we are bypassing the border issue. Look up and smile.

:)


Uh-huh. I notice you conveniently ignored all of my actual arguements to focus on that one item. As much as you may like trying to discredit the arguer rather than the arguements you have proven you cannot beat, why don't you just save us all trouble and admit that you have lost? I have yet to see anything from you that proves your claims, and quite a bit of it barely shows knowledge of the etiquette of internet arguing or UN law.

Its really annoying isn't it? Give me very logical argument first then I'll gladly respond.

The TPP only deals with violations of human rights. Annexing your nation and deposing your government is not a violation.[/qoute]

But how would you annex my nation or depose my government? Bribe us with cheese?


[quote=DLE]My point is that your arguement has no bearing on this discussion because we are not discussing violations pulled by real-world nations. We are discussing violations pulled by NS nations. Those are mutually exclusive in many cases.

Yes. Violations that would probably be perpetuated by the person I'm speaking with.

And, the BioRights resolution protects clones and gives them the same rights as the creatures they were cloned from if they are sentient. Read it.

I feel so happy for them.

Go back and read the example I posted in reply to YGSM to get an idea of how that is abused.

Sure.


Bullshit and we both know it.

Oooohhh. Bull**** not as slick as snake****.

No, prove your claims. I've already posted my proof, and so far you can't refute them and have decided to attack me instead. And everyone who has argued with me knows my code of arguing, which is that the person who ignores the cry for proof first has no right to ask for it. Check several of the past threads I have posted on.

I've been posting replies to almost all your posts. Didn't see any argument there, including this post.

So far, all you have proven is that you would rather call my arguements farce than face the fact you cannot refute them without making claims you cannot back up, which is what you did in the quote to which my reply of "Prove it." was posted.

There's nothing to refute if there was no argument made.

About extradition? Several. I borrowed it from Sarkaraseta, my first nation, which in turn borrowed it from another player at the time. I've seen it used a few times as well in extradition agreements.

This extradition I borrowed from the United States.

About crimes in other nations? Most share it. Most nations in NS, including my own, are of the mindset we will not punish crimes our citizens commit in other nations. That's what extradition is for.

Exactly.


Easily. To acquit someone of a crime is to find them innocent of it before they are punished for it. All you need is someone with the authority to step in and do so. In my case, it would be a judge who only has the job of making them sign the papers acknowledging their agreement to not go to trial over it and the judge then acquitting them.

Nope. Not all acquitted persons are innocent. It may be because the prosecution lacked evidence.

Your example is not really something I would call "acquitting." It is more appropriate to call it "dropping charges."

And if I didn't have knowledge about laws, I wouldn't have argued on here for as long as I have.

I'm sorry but I fail to see it.


Evidence of what? That your attempts to misdirect are failing?

We've already been misdirected the moment you argued first.

Nuremburg was what the TPP is for us.

And the TPP would charge you of crimes like ordering a terrorist attack.

UN marriage law overrides national marriage law. Which is why I kept my own laws out of it.

So?

Do you enjoy making this difficult for yourself?

Is this enjoying me? Yes. Is this difficult? No.

Okay, let's go back to my nation with its view that offenses in other nations are not to be punished. In that case, what you have effectively said is that, as those are not illegal, I'm effectively immune to extradition simply because the crime happened in another nation. And let's not forget how fast a nation's leader can decide to change laws in certain nations.

Can you start all over? A very detailed scenario please.

Which is showing your own ignorance of that same resolution. Here, let me quote it for you:


Under that article, the defendent is allowed to wave any of 1-9. Under my scenario, the defendent is waving 2, 3, and 5-9. Once again, perfectly legal.

Okay. Narrate a very detailed scenario of your case.


Ever hear of the police having someone in custody and having charged him, only to let him go when they find evidence he isn't guilty suddenly? Compare that to what I said about acquitting above and think about it.

Narrate in detail please.

Krioval, you might want to give it up. He didn't listen when I used that arguement and I'm pretty certain he's not going to listen to you using it.

If the defendant-to-be is already in Kriovalian territory, we're usually able to convince them to accept a (known) punishment in Krioval than a similar (but unknown) punishment abroad. So he or she waives the right to a trial in the place where the crime was committed, a plea bargain is set up, and the matter is sealed within a month or two at most. Note that the Kriovalian government has done nothing improper here.

Yes. Of course. You are perfectly allowed to convince a criminal to waive clauses 1-9. You're only protecting your citizen. But in a case where you are the Requesting State do not be disappointed if someone committed pedophilia in Krioval and escaped and was convinced to waive clauses 1-9 too.

But waving clauses 1-9 would be useless if our the NeoCon government is determined to extradite a criminal. The defendant cannot wave a UN State's decision to extradite him. I am happy to extradite any unpunished criminal. I don't like harboring them.


My hypothetical situation involved the suspect being detained in Krioval. If the perpetrator were stupid enough to be caught in your country for a crime committed there, we're not lifting a finger to secure the idiot's release. Why would we? It's not in our best interests to make an issue out of it unless your nation does; a quiet trial and sentencing makes us happy.

Okay.

If the suspect were detained in Krioval, however, we might decide to prosecute using our own laws and deny extradition, especially if the "criminal" were an intelligence operative, who would receive an abbreviated sentence for being messy, but would be spared almost-certain death otherwise. In such a case, it would be you making the request and Krioval denying it, indicating that we're punishing the criminal for violating Kriovalian law.

Of course you can deny extradition if you decide to prosecute that individual using your own laws. Article 4(3)(a),(b), and (c) implied those kind of situations.


Yours, of course. Ours is extremely difficult to penetrate, hence the immediate suspicion fell on a government official when the last act of terror struck Krioval - and that suspicion turned out correct. But ultimately, to Krioval, what matters is that justice is served. Who carries it out is a secondary concern to us.

Yup. Same here.

For a citizen or resident alien of Krioval, Kriovalian law extends to infinity; however, it can only be adjudicated in Kriovalian territory. For example, pedophilia is illegal in Krioval. If a Kriovalian citizen solicits an underage prostitute abroad, that person has committed a crime in our eyes, but the crime cannot be punished unless that person sets foot in Krioval-controlled space. These statutes for a variety of reasons, but the primary point is that they do, in fact, exist.

I understand. That's is why an extradition procedure would make it easier for you to punish Krioval citizen/alien resident. All you have to do is request extraditon and provide sufficient evidence then the pedophile will be surrendered. This is much easier than waiting for the pedophile to set foot on Krioval-controlled territory.

See, the point being missed here isn't that I'm worried about a breach of Kriovalian sovereignty. If I were, I probably wouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. What I do worry about are those nations who are going to manipulate the protocol to provoke a war in which they appear as the victim. If my examples haven't demonstrated how this is quite likely, it appears that we've reached an impasse. You don't want to admit that your protocol can possibly be abused or manipulated and I don't believe that everybody's going to follow the spirit of every law. So be it, but it's not going to gain my support on a proposal like this one.

So space creatures read dictionaries too?? Cool.

Read them? Hell, we write them with a better quality than found on Earth. But that's due to the fact we simply have more to put in, including other languages that Earth doesn't have to deal with (feel lucky in that).

Yup. Skipping a trial is not a human rights violation, but the crime that you were called for is a violation.

What? Invasion? I see nothing in law that states it is.

Knowing your character, I know the intent of exploitation beforehand.

If you knew my character, you would know three things. One, I would simply attack you if I wanted to take you out, since I do consider you weaker. Two, I only extradite to nations I trust will deal with me using the same policy, and in that case my citizens know who they are and know that committing crimes there will result in legal repercussions (but, not from my government). Three, if one of my citizens is stupid enough to commit a crime in your country and get caught, no matter my feelings towards you they know they cannot count on a rescue from your laws and they should have known your laws before even entering your nation. Part of our "You made the mess, you deal with it" attitude.

Hmm.... but you still exploited laws. What makes you less corrupt?

I'm a dictatorship with the dictator being an android. The laws exploited are exploited for the benefit of the nation as a whole, or in a few cases to deal with enemies we don't like that are committing crimes we cannot simply sit back and watch. It is still corruption, but only you seem to really mind it.

Too many words. The burden of proving your competence is not mine. Its yours.

And I don't have to, but simply have to point out you have yet to prove any incompetence on my side and are quite proving that your delegate could benefit from our education system. His talents are not serving his occupation well.

I am cynical, I don't fall for reasons like "There are more corrupt leaders than me." In my worldview, you're all equally corrupt, and the burden of proving your competency is on you.

Corruption != incompetence. Corrupt leaders can be perfectly competent in their job, with their corruption being of the kind that benefits the people as a whole instead of hurting them. If the corrupt politician is taking money from an AIDS group to focus on wiping out the virus and his policies succeed in doing so without extreme measures, the fact that he is corrupt won't change the fact he made decisions. Even in corruption there are many wonderful shades of white and grey. You don't see me claiming to not be corrupt, but you also don't see my people suffering for it.

Is that your big problem? If the UN provides a relax gun law, then tighten it using your national legislature. The UN will not help you with everything.

Actually, the gun laws are loose on purpose. Government policy, after the last attempt at an election, is that when the populous is finally ready to change government style, they should have the tools of doing so at hand. Plus, it makes invading us pretty bloody stupid and has cut down on the major robberies (nothing like trying to rob a bank and getting shot to death as soon as you make the announcement to discourage crime).

But you just stated you'd like to confine all your criminals for a day. Hypothetically suggested of destroying another country. What makes you different compared to the oveblown "criminal appeasers"?

We have a different view of confinement, viewing it as a waste of money. However, we have a wonderful and unpaid workforce that keeps the orbital platforms in top shape and don't even have to spend money on prison guards to make it so, thanks in part to our advanced AIs and liberal use of weaponry on said platforms. It's not slavery, but a punishment that adds on to society.

If you say so.

Hey, you gotta admit the asshole part is hard to damage. You'd have to prove I'm a nice guy, and that would require a medical operation to make entirely true. Well, two if you go the lobotomy route.

Aren't we here to make laws? If any of the Earth nations violated your laws, then request for an extradition.

If any nations violate my laws that I don't extradite to, I have more to worry about than just a random criminal.

Because the UN report favor leftist countries more than conservative nations.

Ironically, so do most civil rights policies.

Because I have to return all the farce arguments you gave me.

It helps if you assume the parts in the quote boxes that I am replying to are not my arguements. That's generally, unless I hint otherwise, true.

What exactly do you want to edit?

Change it so that a trial for the crime is required using evidence from the crime scene for acquital. Considering it is in another nation, the first nation must ask the other for evidence for trial. If evidence is not provided, then they face the choice of breaking the treaty or extradition.

Like?

Like your claims I violated your resolution and the Fair Trial one you love referencing.

Do you want an A+ for that? It really doesn't matter to me at the moment.

Nah. I got high-enough grades in college and actually found a purpose for that stuff.

And suddenly you feel so concerned about it?

Nope. Felt concerned with it since the draft you started.

Its equally farce.

Which is why I'm amused.

:)

Now, hold still while we align the targetting sensors... Perfect. As soon as you see the flash, say "Incomming projectile of burning death!" in a really cheerful voice.

Its really annoying isn't it? Give me very logical argument first then I'll gladly respond.

I already have. Check my previous posts.

But how would you annex my nation or depose my government? Bribe us with cheese?

Strategic strikes against all military and government facilities at once, using the smaller weapons. Any civilian casualties are unintended. Then we simply step in and take control. Hell, the only difference between this and the last time is that this time it'll be intentional and the military won't go decide their commander was killed in the attack and go on a slaughter spree.

Yes. Violations that would probably be perpetuated by the person I'm speaking with.

My violations are owning biological weapons and the occasional genocide, in some cases considered necessary due to circumstances. Check my factbook for the genocides. And, no, I have never been tried for them and have yet to commit another one.

I feel so happy for them.

So do I. Good thing I don't bother with it. If I wanted cloning, I wouldn't be in space.

Sure.

Enjoy the reading.

Oooohhh. Bull**** not as slick as snake****.

If you're going to do a sarcasting comment about bullshit, try using turkeyshit instead. It's a better retort.

I've been posting replies to almost all your posts. Didn't see any argument there, including this post.

Gee. All of that talk of violations, perverting the resolution, and how it can be used to go to war must have been for my health.

There's nothing to refute if there was no argument made.

See above.

This extradition I borrowed from the United States.

Which is, IIRC, guilty of refusing extradition to one of its allies in violation of extradition agreements, also happening to be under the leadership of the current Bush. I bet China is still a bit annoyed by having Bush refuse to extradite a missionary.

Also, if this is a direct copy of that policy, it's plagiarism. Which makes it illegal and can result in legal trouble in real life for you.

Nope. Not all acquitted persons are innocent. It may be because the prosecution lacked evidence.

Never said they were. My favorite myth is of how two people who knew each other kept committing murders using the same style. They each kept covering each other. Finally, the police got wise and arrested both of them. By that time they had spawned a copycat and were released because evidence pointed to them being innocent. They promptly fled the country to one without extradition and mailed in a confession.

It's a good myth, and it illustrates that point.

Keep in mind that lack of evidence can cause people to be found innocent when they are guilty.

Your example is not really something I would call "acquitting." It is more appropriate to call it "dropping charges."

It's why they are dropping the charges that matters.

I'm sorry but I fail to see it.

I know a good optometrist. He'll give you a good deal on glasses.

We've already been misdirected the moment you argued first.

Once again, trying to attack the author instead of refuting the arguement in hopes dealing with one will deal with the other. Not gonna work.

And the TPP would charge you of crimes like ordering a terrorist attack.

In order to charge, they need evidence. To get evidence, they need a fleet capable of space travel, to get past my border guards, and to find three worlds out of hundreds in what amounts to 1/16 of the galaxy in a region of space that all mapping technologies, except pure memory of directions, cannot work. Then they have to get past my orbital platforms and fleets guarding the planets, get past a combination of military and police personel trying to stop them, not get killed by angry and heavily armed civilians in the process, get the information while somehow bypassing the angry AIs, and get out alive without having committed any human rights violations in the process. And that's not even the difficult part, as they still have to deal with a (very alert and now very hostile) fleet between them and Earth, which by this point has also called in several allies to back them up. Otherwise, all they have is my acquital, my extradition policy, and this wild theory that is unlike what I actually do, which I make so well known it doesn't even need to be stated to the regulars.

They can ask for permission to enter, which they'll mostly get (some nations won't on principle). Of course, they'll be travelling on DLE transports with DLE guards and into the heart of my territory. And, naturally, I won't bother to give them directions on how to get in or out. And anyone can tell you why this is a bad idea.

Another reason I'd never do it is my position in the TPP, which I'm not going to jeopardize just for a puny nation I could easily take out with a military strike.

Is this enjoying me? Yes. Is this difficult? No.

Ah. Good to know.

Can you start all over? A very detailed scenario please.



Okay. Narrate a very detailed scenario of your case.

What the hell. This is just for amusement anyway.

Let's say that, for some unknown reason (maybe they suddenly became possessed by alien lifeforms that kill the host when they leave), I decide to take out YGSM (not likely to happen, due to the fact we're on good terms with them). Instead of simply obliterating them and moving on, we decide we want a legitimate reason. So, we get an extradition deal with them under these terms. I send in several military agents with orders to strike key targets. They succeed, crippling YGSM's economy, and return undiscovered. As soon as they step into spacedock, they agree to give up their rights to a trial and sign papers stating as such. It skips to the sentencing and they are acquitted. YGSM finally discovers who committed the crimes and asks for extradition. I send them files of acquitals for the people asked for. YGSM, having been screwed over, decides to withdraw from the treaty. I then use this as an excuse to declare war, declaring their withdrawal shows hostile intentions. By the end of the war, YGSM is now my territory.

Oh, and just to show no hard feelings and that I don't intend to do that, YGSM will now be getting a shipment of more nukes. These will be delivered in neutral waters via a civilian supply ship. YGSM has the right to examine the nukes for tampering and may reject any that have been without repercussions.

Narrate in detail please.

We already went over it earlier. To be honest, I'm not feeling up to another story.

Well, since you're apparently the expert on other people's legal systems, you must know that Krioval, at least, has statutes to punish people for crimes committed abroad, especially acts of terror. Strangely enough, they carry prison terms of over one year. So they'd be bound by your protocol.

And if the trial results in an acquittal (or conviction for that matter), extradition is blocked. Now, I'm not worried that I'd stoop to a level to use this obvious (legal) abuse of the protocol, but more corrupt nations certainly would, over and over. Thus Krioval is unwilling to be put into a compromising position without at least having had the opportunity to put oneself into said position.

Also, please don't respond to my well-thought-out arguments with a sarcastic one-liner. It simply demonstrates that you are unable to refute the basic premise of my statements.
Just on the off-chance that NH didn't bite this flamebait, I will.

DLE's example was one in which he sent covert ops into NH to sabotage vital infrastructure. Under what circumstances would any government anywhere from any era be willing to extradite those agents?

OK, Libya did when the whole world crippled their economy in retaliation for them not extraditing.

Your statement that corrupt nations certainly would, over and over exhibits either a misunderstanding of the proposal or an exceedingly low opinion of your fellow rulers.

If Krioval refused to extradite in a situation like the one above, the Grand Duchy of YGSM would have to consider very seriously whether or not to maintain any extradition agreement with Krioval. We would almost certainly face pressure from Neocon Hubris to withdraw.

Once, yes. Over and over, not so much.

See, the point being missed here isn't that I'm worried about a breach of Kriovalian sovereignty. If I were, I probably wouldn't have joined the UN in the first place. What I do worry about are those nations who are going to manipulate the protocol to provoke a war in which they appear as the victim. If my examples haven't demonstrated how this is quite likely, it appears that we've reached an impasse. You don't want to admit that your protocol can possibly be abused or manipulated and I don't believe that everybody's going to follow the spirit of every law. So be it, but it's not going to gain my support on a proposal like this one.
I am put off by Neocon Hubris's and DLE's serial fiskings of each other's line-by-line fiskings.

I see the glimmer of a valid objection in this post, but I'm not sure.

You say a nationstate could potentially abuse this proposal to make them seem the victim in a war they start?

Really, I've missed that if you had said it earlier.

Please, explain (a) how, and (b) why there aren't a hundred easier ways to do the same thing.

DLE's example was one in which he sent covert ops into NH to sabotage vital infrastructure. Under what circumstances would any government anywhere from any era be willing to extradite those agents?

None, of course. At the same time, should we be creating a UN resolution that effectively allows nations to carry out those kinds of operations and then thumb their nose at everybody else, thus provoking a war and making themselves look like they've been victimized? I can already hear the resounding chorus sing, "But we followed the resolution to the letter? Why are you attacking us?"

Your statement that "corrupt nations certainly would, over and over" exhibits either a misunderstanding of the proposal or an exceedingly low opinion of your fellow rulers.

In a moment of stunning bluntness, I'm going to say: it isn't the first. But it's not like I distrust every UN member. Strangely enough, they're the ones who *don't* threaten others directly when the line is being crossed who worry me the most. Those are the ones who strike out of the blue. I'll relent on this issue when the loopholes are closed (or better yet, the proposal is jettisoned completely).

If Krioval refused to extradite in a situation like the one above, the Grand Duchy of YGSM would have to consider very seriously whether or not to maintain any extradition agreement with Krioval. We would almost certainly face pressure from Neocon Hubris to withdraw.

And you'd get socked with cries of playing unfair. I'd probably ask other UN members (like DLE, for example) to help me "protect myself" by launching a strike in response to your withdrawal from the treaty. Under this proposal, I'd have several options in the "pick a pretext" game. And while I doubt strongly that DLE would intervene on my behalf against you (more likely I'd be told to stop being such a prat), NeoCon Hubris would merit half a glance from DLE for abandoning the treaty before being glassed.

And it'd all be perfectly legal and justifiable.

I am put off by Neocon Hubris's and DLE's serial fiskings of each other's line-by-line fiskings.

I see the glimmer of a valid objection in this post, but I'm not sure.

You say a nationstate could potentially abuse this proposal to make them seem the victim in a war they start?

Really, I've missed that if you had said it earlier.

Please, explain (a) how, and (b) why there aren't a hundred easier ways to do the same thing.

The situation:

Agent X547 of Krioval plants and detonates a bomb in NeoCon Hubris. X547 returns safely to Krioval, but X547's identity is uncovered by NeoCon Hubris, who demands extradition. Krioval has laws that punish Kriovalian citizens for crimes committed abroad. So X547 waives right to a trial in the country of origin (NH) and opts for a trial under Kriovalian courts. He is charged with "acts of terror in NeoCon Hubris" and whatever else NH wishes to throw at us. X547 then enters into a plea bargain in which she receives three years in Kriovalian prison for the acts. She is then transferred to "Camp Cupcake".

Extradition is then refused on the basis that X547 has been convicted of identical crimes as the ones for which she would be extradited for. By Article 4, she is now ineligible. Either NH sucks it up and accepts this, or, more likely, their nation threatens to withdraw from the protocol. I respond that any withdrawal will appear to be a prelude to aggression. When the withdrawal happens, I call for allies, and we attempt to coerce further compliance with "international law". This can (and eventually will) lead to a war in which Krioval is claiming to be fighting for the side of "law and order" against a "rogue state". Krioval has become the victimized nation, at least according to quite a few powerful nations, and what would otherwise be a simple war of context is now justified as a "liberation" or "police action".

Even if there are other ways to do this, many easier, it doesn't change the face that this *adds* another method.

Let's skip all the snake**** and deal with the topic.

What the hell. This is just for amusement anyway.

Let's say that, for some unknown reason (maybe they suddenly became possessed by alien lifeforms that kill the host when they leave), I decide to take out YGSM (not likely to happen, due to the fact we're on good terms with them). Instead of simply obliterating them and moving on, we decide we want a legitimate reason. So, we get an extradition deal with them under these terms. I send in several military agents with orders to strike key targets. They succeed, crippling YGSM's economy, and return undiscovered. As soon as they step into spacedock, they agree to give up their rights to a trial and sign papers stating as such. It skips to the sentencing and they are acquitted.

To this point the extradition protocol really has no say. The protocol itself is not a deal that you have to agree beforehand, it is a procedure you have to follow only after a request has been made.

Certainly, you didn't violate the extradition protocol because no request has been made yet. I don't know how the TPP would rule about this case. Maybe they could charge you for terrorism because you certainly didn't declare war.

YGSM finally discovers who committed the crimes and asks for extradition. I send them files of acquitals for the people asked for. YGSM, having been screwed over, decides to withdraw from the treaty. I then use this as an excuse to declare war, declaring their withdrawal shows hostile intentions. By the end of the war, YGSM is now my territory.

The moment YGSM requested for extradition, the Articles of the protocol are automatically imposed. This point, every procedure must be strictly followed.

In this case, you didn't exploit the extradition procedure. What you exploited is UN Resolution 47 particularly clause 10. You used clause 10 of the resolution to clear terrorists of their crime and allowed them to escape YGSM's prosecution.

YGSM has the right to request an extraditon. DLE has the right to deny or grant them. But in this case, DLE abused Resolution 47 clause 10 to escape their prosecution.

I don't know why the author of Resolution 47 created clause 10. That's definitely a loophole DLE could use to harass UN members.

The situation:

Agent X547 of Krioval plants and detonates a bomb in NeoCon Hubris. X547 returns safely to Krioval, but X547's identity is uncovered by NeoCon Hubris, who demands extradition. Krioval has laws that punish Kriovalian citizens for crimes committed abroad. So X547 waives right to a trial in the country of origin (NH) and opts for a trial under Kriovalian courts. He is charged with "acts of terror in NeoCon Hubris" and whatever else NH wishes to throw at us. X547 then enters into a plea bargain in which she receives three years in Kriovalian prison for the acts. She is then transferred to "Camp Cupcake".

The problem here is not the extradition protocol. The problem is the Kriovalian law that allows their government to intervene cases which they obviously shouldn't have any jurisdiction. But what gives them that right? UN Resolution 47 clause 10.

Clause 10 allows the Kriovalian government to wave all other provisions in Resolution 47. Clause 10 is like a built-in repeal. That's the problem.

And you'd get socked with cries of playing unfair. I'd probably ask other UN members (like DLE, for example) to help me "protect myself" by launching a strike in response to your withdrawal from the treaty. Under this proposal, I'd have several options in the "pick a pretext" game. And while I doubt strongly that DLE would intervene on my behalf against you (more likely I'd be told to stop being such a prat), NeoCon Hubris would merit half a glance from DLE for abandoning the treaty before being glassed.

And it'd all be perfectly legal and justifiable.

I must correct a mistake I see. You assume we would give them half a glance before we glassed them. I assure you this is not the case, as the half a glance would be to make sure they were thoroughly glassed.

And, you're right. I wouldn't help you against YGSM. Nor would I help him against you. Can't play favorites.

Let's skip all the snake**** and deal with the topic.

You don't have to censor here. This site has a policy that allows open cussing. Go take a look at the draft of rules to see even a mod getting foul of mouth. This is a British site, which means different (and better) rules.

To this point the extradition protocol really has no say. The protocol itself is not a deal that you have to agree beforehand, it is a procedure you have to follow only after a request has been made.

Certainly, you didn't violate the extradition protocol because no request has been made yet. I don't know how the TPP would rule about this case. Maybe they could charge you for terrorism because you certainly didn't declare war.

The TPP requires evidence that I even ordered it. Go to what I said are the difficulties of them trying to get it without warning me first.

The moment YGSM requested for extradition, the Articles of the protocol are automatically imposed. This point, every procedure must be strictly followed.

In this case, you didn't exploit the extradition procedure. What you exploited is UN Resolution 47 particularly clause 10. You used clause 10 of the resolution to clear terrorists of their crime and allowed them to escape YGSM's prosecution.

YGSM has the right to request an extraditon. DLE has the right to deny or grant them. But in this case, DLE abused Resolution 47 clause 10 to escape their prosecution.

I don't know why the author of Resolution 47 created clause 10. That's definitely a loophole DLE could use to harass UN members.

They created clause 10 probably because they felt it more fair. And, yes, sometimes a criminal will willingly give up certain rights.

Now, to the key item you are missing: Under Clause 4 of your proposal, YGSM cannot ask for extradition because it is no longer legal to do so. The reason why: The subjects in question were already acquitted for the crime the requested nation, which Clause 4 says is not extraditable. Thus, I am abusing your resolution as well.

Now I think we should replace Resolution 47 with a much better resolution because clause 10 definitely abolishes the purpose of having a court system.

The next question is: Who will do it?

Now I think we should replace Resolution 47 with a much better resolution because clause 10 definitely abolishes the purpose of having a court system.

The next question is: Who will do it?

I see no need to. It'll be nearly impossible as is to do it anyway, as the system works for too many of us.

The problem here is not the extradition protocol. The problem is the Kriovalian law that allows their government to intervene cases which they obviously shouldn't have any jurisdiction. But what gives them that right? UN Resolution 47 clause 10.

Clause 10 allows the Kriovalian government to wave all other provisions in Resolution 47. Clause 10 is like a built-in repeal. That's the problem.

Clause 10 was designed to allow for things like plea bargaining or other "trial accelerants". It turns out that I can use it to score an acquittal or a conviction of an "extraditable offense" and then manipulate the Extradition Protocols themselves. Clause 10 makes perfect sense in Res. 47. It's hardly a "built-in repeal", since a national government cannot force a suspected criminal to waive those rights. In the case I described, it's a clear-cut case of the government and the suspect colluding to avoid a harsher penalty.

In short, the problem's not Res. 47.

I must correct a mistake I see. You assume we would give them half a glance before we glassed them. I assure you this is not the case, as the half a glance would be to make sure they were thoroughly glassed.

Our apologies. To ensure that these sorts of miscommunications do not occur again, the official in charge of proofing this material before submitting it will be kicked swiftly in the ass.[/hijack]

Clause 10 was designed to allow for things like plea bargaining or other "trial accelerants". It turns out that I can use it to score an acquittal or a conviction of an "extraditable offense" and then manipulate the Extradition Protocols themselves.

It certainly made room to escape prosecution didn't it?

Clause 10 makes perfect sense in Res. 47. It's hardly a "built-in repeal", since a national government cannot force a suspected criminal to waive those rights.

Sure. A national government could not force a suspected criminal to waive those rights. The criminal would be more happy to waive it by himslef. Imagine, he could waive every provision in the Resolution except the part that makes him innocent.

The fact is, every criminal can invoke clause 10 without any reason and escape all types of prosecution, not only extraditable offenses.

The fact is, every criminal can invoke clause 10 without any reason and escape all types of prosecution, not only extraditable offenses.

Nope. They can use it to escape punishments proportional to their crimes, which means they will likely recieve an improportional punishment- like execution for jaywalking.

It doesn't say that rejecting those results in no ability to punish.

If a criminal waives the rights listed in Res. 47, it is typically going to be worse for him or her than if the rights are maintained. I have found a single instance in which this is not the case. I would love to hear, however, how a criminal can waive any of those rights in Krioval when being tried by Krioval for a Kriovalian offense and end up better off than by accepting them, save for the single example I gave you earlier.

Nope. They can use it to escape punishments proportional to their crimes, which means they will likely recieve an improportional punishment- like execution for jaywalking.


According to the resolution, what you explained are for a civil cases, not criminal ones.

If a criminal waives the rights listed in Res. 47, it is typically going to be worse for him or her than if the rights are maintained. I have found a single instance in which this is not the case. I would love to hear, however, how a criminal can waive any of those rights in Krioval when being tried by Krioval for a Kriovalian offense and end up better off than by accepting them, save for the single example I gave you earlier.

Why not try DLE's hypothetical terrorist story? The terrorists were acquitted according to DLE. I don't know if they allow double jeopardy though.

Let's say a group of militant Kriovalians bombed a Kriovalian park. Then was caught by Kriovalian authority, but according to resolution 47 the militants can escape prosecution if they give up their right to a fair trial and leave the clause that makes them innocent applicable. Innocent until proven guilty. Even with enormous amounts of evidence, how will the Kriovalian government convict these militants if they already waived their right to trial?

According to the resolution, what you explained are for a civil cases, not criminal ones.

Depends on the jaywalking.

Let's say a group of militant Kriovalians bombed a Kriovalian park. Then was caught by Kriovalian authority, but according to resolution 47 the militants can escape prosecution if they give up their right to a fair trial and leave the clause that makes them innocent applicable. Innocent until proven guilty. Even with enormous amounts of evidence, how will the Kriovalian government convict these militants if they already waived their right to trial?

The government makes up its own mind on the matter and simply hands down a decision. They waived the right to a trial, but they didn't stop to think they may still be punished.

Depends on the jaywalking.

My bad. Correction. You're right when you said about proportional punishments even for criminal cases. But they can still waive those rights though.


The government makes up its own mind on the matter and simply hands down a decision. They waived the right to a trial, but they didn't stop to think they may still be punished.

Punished how? Punishments would have to be made by a court. And the court would have no power to do that if they militants waived the right to trial.

How will the government reach a verdict if the militants are still innocent, and the only way to find them guilty is through trial?

Punished how? Punishments would have to be made by a court. And the court would have no power to do that if they militants waived the right to trial.

How will the government reach a verdict if the militants are still innocent, and the only way to find them guilty is through trial?

Simple. You're thinking too hard with a single mentality, and that mentality is that reliant on the courts to actually take action. If they wave the right to everything except being innocent, they are effectively telling the government itself to make the decision. And considering they waved those rights, they have no right to complain if the government takes the harshest road it can.

Simple. You're thinking too hard with a single mentality, and that mentality is that reliant on the courts to actually take action. If they wave the right to everything except being innocent, they are effectively telling the government itself to make the decision. And considering they waved those rights, they have no right to complain if the government takes the harshest road it can.

But they are still innocent though. Imposing a verdict would be violation of human rights.

Why not try DLE's hypothetical terrorist story? The terrorists were acquitted according to DLE. I don't know if they allow double jeopardy though.

Let's say a group of militant Kriovalians bombed a Kriovalian park. Then was caught by Kriovalian authority, but according to resolution 47 the militants can escape prosecution if they give up their right to a fair trial and leave the clause that makes them innocent applicable. Innocent until proven guilty. Even with enormous amounts of evidence, how will the Kriovalian government convict these militants if they already waived their right to trial?

Uh...no, actually. Looking at your scenario, if the suspects waived their rights, and the evidence were overwhelming, the Commander would likely use them in a ritual sacrifice. Capital punishment cannot be the result of a trial after all, except in cases of treason. If they don't want the protection of a judge or jury, they are certainly welcome to waive those rights. The right to a trial is meant to keep them from the hands of, in the case of Krioval, Commander Raijin's whimsy. And believe me, catching Raijin Dekker in a nasty mood when your life is dependent on his mercy isn't something that Kriovalian defendants are queuing up to do.

But they are still innocent though. Imposing a verdict would be violation of human rights.

They gave up their right to trial. It no longer applies.

They gave up their right to trial. It no longer applies.

They only waived their right to trial but not the "innocent until proven guilty" part. They're still innocent and resolution 47 obligates you to treat them as innocent people until proven guilty. No punishments. No verdicts.

They only waived their right to trial but not the "innocent until proven guilty" part. They're still innocent and resolution 47 obligates you to treat them as innocent people until proven guilty. No punishments. No verdicts.

Just jumping in here to say WRONG.

If you waive your right to a fair trial, that doesn't mean you can't have a trial. It simply means that your trial can be unfair. If you waive your right to a trial, that doesn't mean you can't have a trial anyway. You don't die immediately if you sign something which says "I waive my right to live". Otherwise, believe me, someone in reality would have tried that by now.

It also doesn't mean the person cannot be proven guilty. If the right to a trial has been waived, depending on how you do things, the guy goes up to the judge (or king, magistrate, etc.), the judge can say "I find you guilty", bangs the gavel, and that's it, he has been proven guilty. I'm going out on a limb here, but I remember hearing somewhere that pleading guilty to a crime is considered the same as waiving your right to a trial. Even if I'm wrong, in effect that is what happens.

None, of course. At the same time, should we be creating a UN resolution that effectively allows nations to carry out those kinds of operations and then thumb their nose at everybody else, thus provoking a war and making themselves look like they've been victimized? I can already hear the resounding chorus sing, "But we followed the resolution to the letter? Why are you attacking us?"
The pretext for war would be the infiltration and sabotage with viral agents, not the refusal to extradite. The refusal to extradite would just be put forward as proof that DLE was behind the attack.


In a moment of stunning bluntness, I'm going to say: it isn't the first. But it's not like I distrust every UN member. Strangely enough, they're the ones who *don't* threaten others directly when the line is being crossed who worry me the most. Those are the ones who strike out of the blue. I'll relent on this issue when the loopholes are closed (or better yet, the proposal is jettisoned completely).
You misunderstand me. My objection to the phrase "over and over" is based on the rational assumption that other nations would sever their extradition agreements with the abusive government the first time they did it.


And you'd get socked with cries of playing unfair. I'd probably ask other UN members (like DLE, for example) to help me "protect myself" by launching a strike in response to your withdrawal from the treaty. Under this proposal, I'd have several options in the "pick a pretext" game. And while I doubt strongly that DLE would intervene on my behalf against you (more likely I'd be told to stop being such a prat), NeoCon Hubris would merit half a glance from DLE for abandoning the treaty before being glassed.

And it'd all be perfectly legal and justifiable.
Withdrawing from a treaty is not a casus belli, nor a signal that a nation intends to attack another. If I see you abusing the protocol with another nation and find it unjustifiable, I'd tell you to stop being a prat and say that I was cancelling our bilateral extradition agreement until you showed by your actions that you were inclined to respect it. If the offense were heinous enough, I might even put punitive tariffs on your nation until such time as you stopped acting like a rouge nation.

If many governments agreed that your conduct was abusive, you'd lose extradition privileges with them. You'd lose (perhaps) or weaken (perhaps) some of your alliances, but you wouldn't be facing a massed invasion from the rest of the UN.

I have a question on the proposal. In 2(2), it says that "counseling...the commission of [an extraditable crime]" is an extraditable offense.

I think I understand all the other stuff in 2(2), as it describes criminal conspiracies, murder (and other crimes) for hire, serving as an accomplice, etc. But "counseling the commision of a crime"? Is that like saying, "I think you should go rob a bank", or is that saying, "If you're going to rob a bank, be sure to have a note for the teller", or just what is it saying? I'm not sure that either of the examples I gave should be an extraditable offense.

They only waived their right to trial but not the "innocent until proven guilty" part. They're still innocent and resolution 47 obligates you to treat them as innocent people until proven guilty. No punishments. No verdicts.

No way. They've only waived their right to an equal hearing. If you kick someone in the shin and are arrested for battery, and you waive your right to a fair trial, the judge can sentance you to death soley on the hearsay of the victim. Now, granted, that's a little extreme, but in some of the more Orwellian NS dictatorships, it's possible.

In an attempt to rescue this thread from the Resolution 47 hijacking, I'm reposting part of my response to Krioval from a couple days ago.
My apologies. I missed your point on this last night.

This protocol seems to completely skip over extradition of someone already in prison. I think it needs to say that extradition can be delayed if the requested person is on trial, and it needs to say something about time served in the requesting nation applying or not applying towards the sentence in the requested nation, and it needs to say the requesting nation promises to return the inmate to the requested nation if he is not convicted.
Neocon Hubris, have you thought about how to change the proposal to close these loopholes or clarify the procedure?

1. The proposal needs to clarify whether extradition can be delayed if a person is on trial or in prison in the requested nation.
2. I think we need assurances that once a person is extradited, new charges won't be piled on.
3. Repatriation after trial, or after prison, needs to be addressed.
4. I don't understand under what circumstances time served in one nation should apply toward a prison term in the other nation.

If hijacking a train in Mikitivity is a crime punishable by at least a period of one year in prison, therefore the crime is extraditable. If hijacking a train in NeoCon Hubris is a crime punishable by at least a period of one year in prison, therefore the crime is extraditable. Since we have compatible laws regarding train hijacking and fits the definition of an extraditable offense in Article 2, Mikitivity is entitled to request an extradition procedure.

If the woman tried to escape prosecution and moved into NeoCon Hubris, Mikitivity should request for an extradition procedure. Mikitivity should send NeoCon Hubris the required documents for extradition stated in Article 6. NeoCon would gladly extradite the requested individual because NeoCon Hubris don't like harboring criminals.

I can refuse to grant extradition if a) I find your nation's leader incompetent, b) the individual has already been acquitted or convicted of the same extraditable offense for that particular crime, c) you violate the protocol, d) lack of evidence. And many more.


First, thanks. This helps a great deal.

Now what would be my government's recourse, if the woman who hijacked a Mikitivity Bahn managed to get away to a country that didn't consider this a crime punishable by at least one-year?

It sounds like that nation would have the right to refuse my government's request for extradition.

Maybe a better example is in order ...

In the Confederated City States, the ownership of porn is legal. But what if there were some country where it was illegal and punishable by a 1-year reabilitation sentence. If a Mikitivity citizen had a playboy, flew to this nation where it is illegal, then returned to Mikitivity ... but the other government found out while searching his baggage on departure from that nation and in the process of attempting to arrest him, somehow messed up.

Where I feel the train hijacking is likely an unrealistic example, the above may be more realistic.

In fact, let's change the scenario ... Mikitivity allows the consumption of wine. But in some other place, BoringLand, the government considers anything that is not blessed by Smurf (their god), to be illegal. A citizen from Mikitivity has some Spice Melange in his suit case. He travels to BoringLand and follows all of the laws, except, he is carrying a bottle of wine. He doesn't drink it, and doesn't talk about it. He ends up leaving it in BoringLand when he finds out it is illegal, because he does not want to get caught carrying a bottle of wine when he checks out at the Airport on his way back home. He flies back to Mikitivity ... but later the hotel he was staying at finds the bottle of wine, and then BoringLand wants to arrest the man for leaving the bottle.

It sounds like in this case (which may actually be fairly realistic), that my government would want to deny extradition, whereas BoringLand might want to press the issue. It sounds as though in this case, that the law would protect the citizen from the more liberal country? Is this correct?

For a crime to be properly tried, it must be tried in accordance with the laws and procedures persuant to the jurisdiction where the crime took place. One jurisdiction, regardless of any agreement reached with the holding state and the accused, cannot try a person for crimes commited outside of their jurisdiction (to do so, would be to set legal precedence as to the inviolability of the other jurisdiction). Extradiction exists as a legal recognition legal jurisdiction of the other state. As such, to set precedence that an accused person may waive, and grant jurisdiction of their crime to the state in-holding, is to set precedent that the state requesting possession possesses no jurisdiction over crimes commited within its borders... Such cannot be allowed.

Requirements for fair trial include the ability of the accused to face their accuser(s)... Such can only occur, legally, if the trial occurs in the jurisdiction where the crime took place... As such, I would deem the waiver as a violation of the "Right to Fair Trial" resolution.

Requirements for fair trial include the ability of the accused to face their accuser(s)... Such can only occur, legally, if the trial occurs in the jurisdiction where the crime took place... As such, I would deem the waiver as a violation of the "Right to Fair Trial" resolution.

Read requirement 10 under criminal proceedings. If the defendent so chooses, they can choose not to have that requirement apply.

Some notes on the peculiarities of Kriovalian extraterritorial law:

The system devised is meant to protect Kriovalian citizens (and resident aliens) from disproportionate punishments as well as making them liable for committing crimes abroad that would ultimately tarnish Krioval's reputation. So the following cases could arise:


A Kriovalian man solicits an underage prostitute in WhoreLand, where it's perfectly legal to engage in prostitution at any age. Krioval, however, would charge this man for violating Kriovalian law abroad when and if the man returns home (if the act was discovered). In essence, the law prevents him from bragging about it or encouraging others to do similar things since evidence is going to be difficult to obtain otherwise.

A Kriovalian woman with no prior criminal record gets involved in a hit-and-run accident in DeathLand that results in a death (appropriately enough). In the chaos, she flees the country and returns home. The country in which she had the accident punishes such things with life imprisonment, and DeathLand prisons (affectionately called gulags) are known for their brutality. Krioval begins by charging the woman with the crime committed abroad, sentencing her to anywhere from five to twenty years in prison. We then attempt to resolve the diplomatic situation. In this case, the goal is to rehabilitate the woman rather than throw her in what is effectively a concentration camp. Often, the diplomatic phase will result in an upward shift in the prison term that the defendant is encouraged to take, but it stops extradition. In the meantime, Kriovalian police were able to take the woman into custody under our own laws and question her rather than being forced to wait for DeathLand to submit all its evidence.


Krioval doesn't pass all that many laws restricting behavior, so the ones we do pass are enforced universally if one wishes the privilege of Kriovalian citizenship. And not all laws are going to have an extraterritorial component; drug use is restricted to the home and certain social venues in Krioval, yet other countries are freer in their tolerance of drug use in public, so we don't care if someone is smoking marijuana in public in PotLand. But the point is that the Kriovalian extraterritoriality laws exist to both ensure even application of laws to all citizens and to protect them from punishment we consider barbaric (our level of invoking this depends on many factors, including the suspect's prior criminal record).

Read requirement 10 under criminal proceedings. If the defendent so chooses, they can choose not to have that requirement apply.

It is irregardless of the accused... It is impossible for the holding state to try a criminal... There is no way to hold a fair trial... Or indeed, within the scope of law, provide a trial to the accused... A foreign state cannot bring charges upon a person for a crime which did not occur in their own jurisdiction. They lack the legal means, authority or capability to hold a trial as required by law. All such trials would end, and would be wracked with an inability to even make it out of the appelate unscathed. This extraditionary law would make it impossible for states to try criminals who have fled their jurisdiction.

Some notes on the peculiarities of Kriovalian extraterritorial law:

The system devised is meant to protect Kriovalian citizens (and resident aliens) from disproportionate punishments as well as making them liable for committing crimes abroad that would ultimately tarnish Krioval's reputation. So the following cases could arise:


A Kriovalian man solicits an underage prostitute in WhoreLand, where it's perfectly legal to engage in prostitution at any age. Krioval, however, would charge this man for violating Kriovalian law abroad when and if the man returns home (if the act was discovered). In essence, the law prevents him from bragging about it or encouraging others to do similar things since evidence is going to be difficult to obtain otherwise.

A Kriovalian woman with no prior criminal record gets involved in a hit-and-run accident in DeathLand that results in a death (appropriately enough). In the chaos, she flees the country and returns home. The country in which she had the accident punishes such things with life imprisonment, and DeathLand prisons (affectionately called gulags) are known for their brutality. Krioval begins by charging the woman with the crime committed abroad, sentencing her to anywhere from five to twenty years in prison. We then attempt to resolve the diplomatic situation. In this case, the goal is to rehabilitate the woman rather than throw her in what is effectively a concentration camp. Often, the diplomatic phase will result in an upward shift in the prison term that the defendant is encouraged to take, but it stops extradition. In the meantime, Kriovalian police were able to take the woman into custody under our own laws and question her rather than being forced to wait for DeathLand to submit all its evidence.


Krioval doesn't pass all that many laws restricting behavior, so the ones we do pass are enforced universally if one wishes the privilege of Kriovalian citizenship. And not all laws are going to have an extraterritorial component; drug use is restricted to the home and certain social venues in Krioval, yet other countries are freer in their tolerance of drug use in public, so we don't care if someone is smoking marijuana in public in PotLand. But the point is that the Kriovalian extraterritoriality laws exist to both ensure even application of laws to all citizens and to protect them from punishment we consider barbaric (our level of invoking this depends on many factors, including the suspect's prior criminal record).

It would be impossible for you, within the realm of Due Process, fairly, to try your citizens for non-crimes commited in other jurisdictions. If a Krivolian citizen visiting the Constitutional Republic, were to shoot another in self-defense, and, after having been determined innocent by Tekanian courts, and Krival were to attempt to try him again upon his return... We would official consider Krival in violation of the Due Process Resolution's section on Double-Jeopardy, and take all appropriate and legal or military action necessary to bring the Rogue state of Krival back into complaince. No state but the Constitutional Republic of Tekania has the authority or right to try crimes commited within our borders... Any violation of that, in the attempt to try crimes commited on our own soil, by a foreign state, as such, would be considered an act of war upon the Constitutional Republic...

It is irregardless of the accused... It is impossible for the holding state to try a criminal... There is no way to hold a fair trial... Or indeed, within the scope of law, provide a trial to the accused... A foreign state cannot bring charges upon a person for a crime which did not occur in their own jurisdiction. They lack the legal means, authority or capability to hold a trial as required by law. All such trials would end, and would be wracked with an inability to even make it out of the appelate unscathed. This extraditionary law would make it impossible for states to try criminals who have fled their jurisdiction.

That is nice, but completely false and ignoring several aspects that have been mentioned so many times that we shouldn't even have to say them.

Under our favorite regulations of a Fair Trial, it is perfectly legal for a citizen charged with a crime to give up as many of the requirements of fairness as they like. Species, legal system, etc. don't matter. Where the crime happened doesn't matter. All that matters once they give up those rights is what the nation holding them decides to do. And, in that case, the state has every right to do as it wishes.

No matter how you dislike it, it's perfectly legal.

It would be impossible for you, within the realm of Due Process, fairly, to try your citizens for non-crimes commited in other jurisdictions. If a Krivolian citizen visiting the Constitutional Republic, were to shoot another in self-defense, and, after having been determined innocent by Tekanian courts, and Krival were to attempt to try him again upon his return... We would official consider Krival in violation of the Due Process Resolution's section on Double-Jeopardy, and take all appropriate and legal or military action necessary to bring the Rogue state of Krival back into complaince. No state but the Constitutional Republic of Tekania has the authority or right to try crimes commited within our borders... Any violation of that, in the attempt to try crimes commited on our own soil, by a foreign state, as such, would be considered an act of war upon the Constitutional Republic...

If you've already held a trial and decided on acquittal, Krioval isn't going to hold a second trial. As you've indicated, that would violate one's right to not be tried twice for the same offense. Kriovalian law does, however, allow us to try our citizens who violate Kriovalian law abroad if that person returns to Krioval. Don't read more into it than what's there.

And really, if you're going to threaten military action against the Armed Republic of Krioval, I would hope your nation has sufficient technology to back that threat up - and even then, I have allies. So before you whip it out, militarily speaking, why not make sure that your hypotheticals match mine. As for the last sentence, if we have no extradition agreement with you and we decide to prosecute a Kriovalian for a crime committed in your nation, we're doing you a favor.

That is nice, but completely false and ignoring several aspects that have been mentioned so many times that we shouldn't even have to say them.

Under our favorite regulations of a Fair Trial, it is perfectly legal for a citizen charged with a crime to give up as many of the requirements of fairness as they like. Species, legal system, etc. don't matter. Where the crime happened doesn't matter. All that matters once they give up those rights is what the nation holding them decides to do. And, in that case, the state has every right to do as it wishes.

No matter how you dislike it, it's perfectly legal.

Where a crime occures DOES matter... That is what "jurisdiction" is all about... It does not matter what the accused signs or agrees to with a foreign state in which he is residing... they have no power or authority to try any crime occuring within the jurisdiction of another state... To state otherwise shows blatant ignorance of jurisprudence....

OK. Please.
Instead of arguing about whether or not the US government can charge me for the hooker I slept with in Brazil, can we focus on this resolution?

What could NH change in the resolution to make this controversy go away?

Where a crime occures DOES matter... That is what "jurisdiction" is all about... It does not matter what the accused signs or agrees to with a foreign state in which he is residing... they have no power or authority to try any crime occuring within the jurisdiction of another state... To state otherwise shows blatant ignorance of jurisprudence....

To state they do not is willing ignorance of UN law.

Here, let me quote you UN law on the subject, since you seem to be so arguementative about it:

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:

1. Is speedy and efficient.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.

3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.

4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.

9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.

10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

Habeas Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeas Corpus by the voting members,

Habeas Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefutable legal principle to which all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject.

Recognising that Habeas Corpus is a founding principle of law in many nations, the UN formally adopts Habeas Corpus across all member states.

To clearly define Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 48 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws.

This period does not apply to any time when the judicial authorities are not active, such as weekends or national holidays.

Habeas Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting, If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs and not Habeas Corpus shall apply to his or her treatment.

Furthermore, be it hereby resolved that any person who is not detained as a prisoner of war is entitled to Habeas Corpus.

Now, point out where you see jurisprudence mentioned. Point out where it is even covered by the UN. Jurisprudence has no legal standing within the UN and is, as such, not acceptable as an arguement until it has the legal standing to back it. As such, it is perfectly legal for Krioval or myself to hand out punishments or acquitals to citizens for crimes committed in other nations if they are willing to give up their right to have it held in the venue in which the crime was committed.

If you wish to argue jurisprudence further, find a resolution that gives the arguement a legal standing.

What could NH change in the resolution to make this controversy go away?

Article 4. That has been the source of all of this, and I have suggested a change to him already.

To state they do not is willing ignorance of UN law.

Here, let me quote you UN law on the subject, since you seem to be so arguementative about it:


Now, point out where you see jurisprudence mentioned. Point out where it is even covered by the UN. Jurisprudence has no legal standing within the UN and is, as such, not acceptable as an arguement until it has the legal standing to back it. As such, it is perfectly legal for Krioval or myself to hand out punishments or acquitals to citizens for crimes committed in other nations if they are willing to give up their right to have it held in the venue in which the crime was committed.

If you wish to argue jurisprudence further, find a resolution that gives the arguement a legal standing.

DLE you have no power or authority to rule over my territory... Jurisprudence is the science of law... Jurisprudence is an extention of Jurisdiction, and therefore the protection of the right to try all crimes commited in my territory by my own laws is protected under Rights and Duties... As such, attempts to try individuals for crimes in another jurisdiction is a violation of my nations Jurisprudence (aka jurisdiction) in matters of law over my states own territory... Thus, any state, regardless of agreement between foreign state and accused, who tries a person for a crime in another jurisdictional territory is in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution... You lose DLE, Krival loses.... You assume powers you never possessed... And are dangerously close to violating the R&D... The only court which possesses the power to try crimes commited in the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, is the Courts set up by the Constitutional Republic of Tekania... Take your rhetoric elsewhere DLE. It does not stand against honest scrutiny...

If you think you can try crimes that occures in my territorial jurisdiction... Please state the NSUN resolution which grants your state jurisdiction over my territories...

Article 4. That has been the source of all of this, and I have suggested a change to him already.

And to be a hard-ass about it, it wouldn't hurt from my perspective to see the submitter change as well. Krioval is far less likely to support any proposal with NeoCon Hubris's name attached to it due to prior interactions and said nation's inability to conceive of a compromise, or even admit that any part of that nation's proposal could possibly contain a mistake.

Maybe that's not a "nice" position to adopt, but it's a perfectly acceptable one from my perspective. Find someone who's willing to address issues before fifty posts are devoted to the matter and I'll likely endorse the proposal.

DLE you have no power or authority to rule over my territory... Jurisprudence is the science of law... Jurisprudence is an extention of Jurisdiction, and therefore the protection of the right to try all crimes commited in my territory by my own laws is protected under Rights and Duties... As such, attempts to try individuals for crimes in another jurisdiction is a violation of my nations Jurisprudence (aka jurisdiction) in matters of law over my states own territory... Thus, any state, regardless of agreement between foreign state and accused, who tries a person for a crime in another jurisdictional territory is in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution... You lose DLE, Krival loses.... You assume powers you never possessed... And are dangerously close to violating the R&D... The only court which possesses the power to try crimes commited in the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, is the Courts set up by the Constitutional Republic of Tekania... Take your rhetoric elsewhere DLE. It does not stand against honest scrutiny...

If you think you can try crimes that occures in my territorial jurisdiction... Please state the NSUN resolution which grants your state jurisdiction over my territories...

I think that such a resolution is right up there with the one that gives you jurisdiction over my citizens. Go ahead and look for it. Now granted, I could probably count on one hand the number of high-profile cases tried under Kriovalian extraterritorial law - we don't prosecute unless we're all but certain we can get a conviction. The fact of the matter remains that your nation has no legal leg upon which to stand.

There is nothing to guarantee that a suspected criminal who is a citizen of Krioval cannot be tried in Krioval, under Kriovalian law, just because the crime happened to occur abroad. That one's in our constitution, which, last time I checked, was still ours. Whether you recognize that right or not is up to you, naturally, but we're not violating any international laws in holding such trials, and frankly, what happens inside my borders without violating said law is none of your business. As it stands, I'm simply claiming original jurisdiction over my citizens on my land. You, apparently, are claiming original jurisdiction over my citizens on my land based on what they did in your country. While you have a legitimate claim to try them, it doesn't change the fact that their fate is still determined by Krioval, not you.

And for the record, there's an "o" in Krioval.

DLE you have no power or authority to rule over my territory...

Just as you have over mine. But I do rule over my citizens, and any of my citizens in my territory are under my law. If you wish to try them so bad, try to catch them while they are in your nation. If you don't, don't be surprised when they legally waive their right to be tried in your nation and I legally try them in mine.

Jurisprudence is the science of law... Jurisprudence is an extention of Jurisdiction, and therefore the protection of the right to try all crimes commited in my territory by my own laws is protected under Rights and Duties...

Obviously, you need to be reminded of what it says.

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

The immunities recognized by international law include immunity to being tried in your courts if the accused gives up the right to be tried in the venue of the crime. Once again, the law doesn't agree with you.

As such, attempts to try individuals for crimes in another jurisdiction is a violation of my nations Jurisprudence (aka jurisdiction) in matters of law over my states own territory... Thus, any state, regardless of agreement between foreign state and accused, who tries a person for a crime in another jurisdictional territory is in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution...

Nope. International law on the matter does not agree with that. Until you can find something that states without room for interpretation that giving up the right to be tried in the venue of the crime does not grant immunity to being tried in the nation the crime was committed in, I see no legal code that backs the claim.

You lose DLE, Krival loses.... You assume powers you never possessed... And are dangerously close to violating the R&D... The only court which possesses the power to try crimes commited in the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, is the Courts set up by the Constitutional Republic of Tekania... Take your rhetoric elsewhere DLE. It does not stand against honest scrutiny...

Try reading the law in entirety before arguing, Tekania. You have no legal leg to stand on in this issue and will continue to have none. As it stands, you don't even have a case for attempting to tell me I am close to violating UN law with the actions stated here.

If you think you can try crimes that occures in my territorial jurisdiction... Please state the NSUN resolution which grants your state jurisdiction over my territories...

Definition of 'Fair Trial', criminal proceedings section, clause 10. Let me quote that for you for a second time.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:

1. Is speedy and efficient.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.

3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.

4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.

9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.

10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

Clause 5 is the venue clause. A citizen of any nation may, when wanted for crimes in another nation, execute Clause 10 to wave Clause 5. Extradition is automatically denied because the citizen chose to use their legal right not to be tried in the venue of their crime. It doesn't mean they cannot still be sent to a different country, just that they cannot be sent to the nation in which the crime happened. To do so would be in violation of Clause 10, rendering the whole trial illegal.

And to be a hard-ass about it, it wouldn't hurt from my perspective to see the submitter change as well. Krioval is far less likely to support any proposal with NeoCon Hubris's name attached to it due to prior interactions and said nation's inability to conceive of a compromise, or even admit that any part of that nation's proposal could possibly contain a mistake.

Maybe that's not a "nice" position to adopt, but it's a perfectly acceptable one from my perspective. Find someone who's willing to address issues before fifty posts are devoted to the matter and I'll likely endorse the proposal.
I understand. I've done my best to keep this proposal and the repeal of marriage seaparate in my mind.

Neocon was more than willing to make significant changes to the draft of this proposal in his first thread. I believe he'll make changes to deal with the previous issues you pointed out. I don't find him to be incorrigibly intransigent.

I feel that this will be an important addition to the body of UN resolutions, once these issues are resolved. I don't care what disagreements I have with the author on other proposals.

For the record, I'm barely touching on events in the other thread. But when I'm forced to wonder if the "Grand Poobah of National Sovereignty" (rotating title - goes to NH this round) finds that principles aren't as important as getting one's name on a resolution, I feel that I need to ask a few pointed questions to feel out that person's stance.

I've come to the conclusion that a person who can abandon one's principles at will AND refuse to compromise is someone whose name should never appear on the title of a NSUN resolution. Maybe that's petty, but I don't believe in reinforcing that kind of behavior or style of debate with a passed resolution. And I certainly don't think that NH fully grasps the non-subtleties (let alone the subtleties) of Kriovalian law sufficiently to understand how the proposal under discussion has serious flaws. Yet another strike.

The "gay marriage" debate isn't really germane to this topic, so I'll keep this brief, but I am also appalled at how I'm going to be diced for human rights violations that are *not* happening when the accuser would deny others' human rights. Strike three, but the least of all of the strikes.

I think that such a resolution is right up there with the one that gives you jurisdiction over my citizens. Go ahead and look for it. Now granted, I could probably count on one hand the number of high-profile cases tried under Kriovalian extraterritorial law - we don't prosecute unless we're all but certain we can get a conviction. The fact of the matter remains that your nation has no legal leg upon which to stand.

There is nothing to guarantee that a suspected criminal who is a citizen of Krioval cannot be tried in Krioval, under Kriovalian law, just because the crime happened to occur abroad. That one's in our constitution, which, last time I checked, was still ours. Whether you recognize that right or not is up to you, naturally, but we're not violating any international laws in holding such trials, and frankly, what happens inside my borders without violating said law is none of your business. As it stands, I'm simply claiming original jurisdiction over my citizens on my land. You, apparently, are claiming original jurisdiction over my citizens on my land based on what they did in your country. While you have a legitimate claim to try them, it doesn't change the fact that their fate is still determined by Krioval, not you.

And for the record, there's an "o" in Krioval.

Crime is jurisdictional... That is applicable to the jurisdiction of the offense... Jurisdiction is scope of law over territorial claim, that is, events which occur within the realm of my jurisdiction are only applicable to my laws... It would be impossible for you to try a person for an event in my territories, and therefore in my jurisdictional realm of power within your jurisdiction without first violating exisiting individual protections in regards to the rights of the accused without cooperation from my own jurisdictional authority to provide evidence... That is, if you did try someone for a non-crime in the Constitutional Republic by your own laws to a citizen who has returned to your territories, you would only be able to reach a guilty verdict in the absense of adiquate evidence, and therefore would only be able to reach a guilty verdict by denying them a right to a Fair Trial, Due Process and the like... Hense why crimes are only applicable under the scope of Jurisdictional Authorities where the crimes occured... Obviously the only place this can stand, in the normal course is when I surrender or grant Jurisdictional Authority to your government over the event and provide your government with the necessary evidence to satisfy the demands of a fair hearing under your own laws... However, would the CRoT provide evidence to a foreign government to try a person accused by your nation for a non-crime in my own? The answer is no... Within the scope of my own jurisdictional authority, no crime would be manifest, and therefore the determination of the court would be to deny evidence to your authorities, based on the fact that the accused commited no crimes in The Republic... Evidence will be withheld to your state to even provide a valid and fair trial...

On other notes of Jurisprudence... Let's assume ownership of sidearms is illegal in Krival.... Someone is found with a sidearm, and arrested in Krival, they escape arrest and flee to Tekania, where ownership of such is perfectly legal... Krival then tried to seek Extradition based on Violating Krival laws on sidearms... Since there is no comparible law violated in the CRoT, the Extraditionary hearing in Tekania would determine no laws have been violated, and deny extradition to Krival... On another note were extradition sought for evading arrest, there would be comparible laws and extradition would be granted... Jurisprudence, that is the logical extrapolation of law in dealing with contested crimes amongst between two seperate states; is that for extradition to be valid, the indictment presented must be criminal violations in both states...

Also, should someone be accused of a crime in Tekania, Tekania were to seek extradition; and such were to be denied, precedent set through the jurisprudence of the extraditionary hearing would be that the person is innocent of the crime within your own territories, and therefore to try the person in your territory following the extraditionary hearing and denial; would be a case of double jeopardy... In that you have tried the person twice for the same offense... Once in denial of Extraditionary Jurisdiction of the crime within our territories, and again on your own laws...

For criminal law to be fair, and jurisprudence (and therefore jurisdictional authority to stand within the realm of territories), jurisdictional legal authority must be respected, in a valid functional and logical manner amongst all states.

In all cases, The CRoT will not surrender our rights under the R&D, to our own jurisdictional authorities... And therefore any attempt by a foreign state to try persons who have commited crimes within our own jurisdiction, is a violation of the R&D protected rights of states own territorial authorities. A violation of our Jurisdictional Authority, and an affront to the people of the Constitutional Republic.

So, unless you seek waiver from the foreign state first, to try citizens who have violated laws which only exist in your jurisdictional authority; you too are violating the R&D, in that you are enforcing laws ourside of your own jurisdictional authority... That is Krival's laws do not exist outside of Krival.

Now there are obvious loop-holes... Say someone visits the CRoT and purchases something which is illegal in Kirval... Trying them for the actual purchase of a banned item in my jurisdiction, is a violation of the R&D, in that you are applying your laws to my jurisdiction... Trying them for smuggling contraban into your nation, however, would not be. Since you are trying them for bringing the item into the jurisdiction of your state; and not trying them for purchasing the item in Tekanian jurisdiction.

Just as you have over mine. But I do rule over my citizens, and any of my citizens in my territory are under my law. If you wish to try them so bad, try to catch them while they are in your nation. If you don't, don't be surprised when they legally waive their right to be tried in your nation and I legally try them in mine.

Once again, their waiver means nothing... I have the RIGHT to try them in mine, since the crime exists only in my jurisdictional authority. You can't legally try them without VIOLATING the R&D.


Obviously, you need to be reminded of what it says.

I realize what it says... Adding to it won't help you... No Resolution has immunized my jurisdictional authority under the R&D. The "waiver" means nothing in this case, since the waiver is not a piece of international law. You can waive it all you want... The violation is not their right to a fair trial, the violation is my right to jurisdictional authority in my territory. If you deny them extradition, you tie your hands to try them for the crime that occured in my territory, unless I too waive my jurisdictional rights in this matter. It's all quite logical, I'm suprised your cybernetic brain can't fathom the basic logic.



The immunities recognized by international law include immunity to being tried in your courts if the accused gives up the right to be tried in the venue of the crime. Once again, the law doesn't agree with you.

No one has ever, by any international law, been immunized from trial in my own courts for crimes commited in my territories... You can deny extradition all you want... You just can't try them for crimes in my territory unless I agree to it as well. Which I would not, since a "fair trial" is more than a right to the people of the CRoT, it is a responsibility. Appearantly the people of the CRoT believe in the connection of Rights and Responsibility, whereas those in the DLE have no concept of responsibility. It is the responsibility of the government to gurantee the rights of the people, even if they don't want them... To allow the waiver of rights, is to create an enviroment where no rights exist.



Nope. International law on the matter does not agree with that. Until you can find something that states without room for interpretation that giving up the right to be tried in the venue of the crime does not grant immunity to being tried in the nation the crime was committed in, I see no legal code that backs the claim.

The legal code is right before you... And logical... You seem to lack any form of functional jurisprudence in the realm of law. The person only has the power to waive their rights... They do not have the power to waive the rights of the entire state. No law has immunized my rights to complete jurisdictional authority over the laws in my territories, and no international law has granted you the authority to hold hearings over laws in my territories... The waiver of the "FT" clause does not grant you jurisdictional authority... And no judge would agree with you should this be heard before an international court.

DLE, you accuse me where you are the guilty party... It is you who are inventing ideas not born out in international law...



Try reading the law in entirety before arguing, Tekania. You have no legal leg to stand on in this issue and will continue to have none. As it stands, you don't even have a case for attempting to tell me I am close to violating UN law with the actions stated here.

I have read it... And nothing you have said is born by it... Nothing grants you jurisdiction over my territories... And a persons Right to a FT, or their waiver does not deny my rights under the R&D by any logical argument.



Definition of 'Fair Trial', criminal proceedings section, clause 10. Let me quote that for you for a second time.

Once again, they are free to waive it... You simply cannot try them, however, without violating the R&D. Once again, the crime exists in my jurisdictional authority... They "waiver" grants you no rights to violate such... It merely waives there's. Jurisdiction and Venue are not the same thing... A person who has commited a crime in, say, Yorktown, may freely waive their right and let the hearing be made in Doswell... Since it is still the same jurisdictional authority, yet not the same venue... However, outside of the jurisdictional authority, waiver also waives the ability of the foreign jurisdiction the ability to hear the case without violating the jurisdictional authority where the offense took place. There is no contest here or contradition, as you would like to impose through language trickery... Waiver of venue does not waive jurisdictional authority in the matter. You are inventing an immunity that does not exist...



Clause 5 is the venue clause. A citizen of any nation may, when wanted for crimes in another nation, execute Clause 10 to wave Clause 5. Extradition is automatically denied because the citizen chose to use their legal right not to be tried in the venue of their crime. It doesn't mean they cannot still be sent to a different country, just that they cannot be sent to the nation in which the crime happened. To do so would be in violation of Clause 10, rendering the whole trial illegal.

The first part is valid... They may waive such, and they may go to any other nation... However... In none of this were rights granted to the foreign state to possess jurisdictional authority over the crime. The person who has been denied extradition, even through waiver... will not be tried for the crime in a foreign state, since such is a direct violation of the R&D, once again, no immunities were imposed on my rights over jurisdictional authority... The person is immune from trial in the matter, unless returned to my territories. You can try them for any violations in your territories, you just can't try them for such in mine.

Denial of jurisdictional authority, and violation of jurisdictional authority, are two seperate concepts... For me, for example, to deny extradition, is denying jurisdictional authoirty over the accused... However, trying them for the crime that you accused them of in your territory, in mine, is a violation of jurisdictional authority and therefore a violation of the R&D....

For examples... Say someone were to be caught for a crime in Tekania, they are also wanted in DLE for certain crimes... Extraditionary hearings can deny extradition... Tekania would be denying you jurisidictional authority over the accused... Now, we can try them for any number of crimes in the CRoT that they commited in the CRoT.... However, for us to try them for the crimes they commited in DLE would be a violation of DLE's jurisdictional authority... Would Tekania do such? No we would not... Because it would violate international law which protects DLE's jurisdictional rights over its territories... We may have legal jurisdiction at present over the accused, but in no way can the accused grant us jurisdictional authority over the crimes they commited in the DLE by waiving an existing right possessed by the accused. This does not mean we HAVE to, or on the flip side, that you HAVE to, surrender the accused to the foreign state for trial... It merely means that that neither of us can hold a trial for the accused, to enforce the laws of the foreign state.

Crime is jurisdictional... That is applicable to the jurisdiction of the offense... Jurisdiction is scope of law over territorial claim, that is, events which occur within the realm of my jurisdiction are only applicable to my laws...

Do you care to show me where this is spelled out? And even if it is spelled out somewhere, the Kriovalian constitution specifically allows for extraterritorial crimes to be prosecuted in Krioval. It's not a common occurrence, but it can happen. Exceptions would be "victimless" crimes, like the violation of a Kriovalian drug law without any other breaches of the criminal code.

It would be impossible for you to try a person for an event in my territories, and therefore in my jurisdictional realm of power within your jurisdiction without first violating exisiting individual protections in regards to the rights of the accused without cooperation from my own jurisdictional authority to provide evidence... That is, if you did try someone for a non-crime in the Constitutional Republic by your own laws to a citizen who has returned to your territories, you would only be able to reach a guilty verdict in the absense of adiquate evidence, and therefore would only be able to reach a guilty verdict by denying them a right to a Fair Trial, Due Process and the like...

First, it's not "impossible". It's being done right now, in fact. Second, I'd be able to get a guilty verdict if the suspect confessed or if he or she made an offhand comment about breaking the law and was telepathically scanned (panel of 5 who aren't told what the suspected crime is). So basically, those laws in Krioval exist to stop people from going abroad to evade Kriovalian law and then returning to brag about it. We don't really bother otherwise, and we'd rather know if a majority of citizens want to repeal a given law rather than find creative workarounds. Telepathic scans, by the way, are vigorously monitored for disinterest on the part of the examiners, and as such are admissible in court as evidence for or against the defendant. So the trial is perfectly fair.

Evidence will be withheld to your state to even provide a valid and fair trial...

How's that for equivocation? Even if a trial is fair and held under the laws in that country's constitution, you would intentionally obstruct it? Interesting.

So, unless you seek waiver from the foreign state first, to try citizens who have violated laws which only exist in your jurisdictional authority; you too are violating the R&D, in that you are enforcing laws ourside of your own jurisdictional authority... That is Krival's laws do not exist outside of Krival.

Oh, but they do. The Kriovalian Constitution claims that the rule of our law extends to our citizens throughout the entire Universe (recently amended from "world"). This was primarily adopted to prevent any crimes such as pedophilia by a Kriovalian citizen everywhere. Certainly, jurisdictional conflicts will arise from this, but most of them resolve to everybody's satisfaction (except, maybe for the accused).

Say someone visits the CRoT and purchases something which is illegal in Kirval... Trying them for the actual purchase of a banned item in my jurisdiction, is a violation of the R&D, in that you are applying your laws to my jurisdiction... Trying them for smuggling contraban into your nation, however, would not be. Since you are trying them for bringing the item into the jurisdiction of your state; and not trying them for purchasing the item in Tekanian jurisdiction.

...in which case I wouldn't bother with the extraterritoriality law unless the government of Krioval really hated this person. And that's really rare.

Once again, their waiver means nothing... I have the RIGHT to try them in mine, since the crime exists only in my jurisdictional authority. You can't legally try them without VIOLATING the R&D.

Wrong. By the R&D, the moment they give up the right to be tried in the venue is the moment I can try them, as to have you try them would be violating the DoFT. In that case, everyone except you can try them as long as it does not result in double jeopardy. This is one of those immunities it allows to be an exception.

I realize what it says... Adding to it won't help you... No Resolution has immunized my jurisdictional authority under the R&D. The "waiver" means nothing in this case, since the waiver is not a piece of international law.

Bullshit, Tekania. I can't accept the idea you are actually that ignorant of international law as to say that.

Yes, the waiver is international law. It's part of international law in the rights a defendant has in criminal proceedings. Choosing to ignore that, as you are doing, is potentially violating international law.

You can waive it all you want... The violation is not their right to a fair trial, the violation is my right to jurisdictional authority in my territory. If you deny them extradition, you tie your hands to try them for the crime that occured in my territory, unless I too waive my jurisdictional rights in this matter. It's all quite logical, I'm suprised your cybernetic brain can't fathom the basic logic.

Tekania, that does not match with international law. Nowhere does it state you must give up jurisdiction when a criminal has chosen to waive their right to be tried in venue. What has been stated amounts to the fact you have no choice in the matter if they wave that right. I've already posted the evidence that proves my case, while I am still waiting for the evidence that proves yours. Of which, I add, none exists beyond a purposeful misinterpretation of a single resolution through ignoring the part of what it says about immunities or misconstruing it to support your arguement in a way that violates another law.

Face facts, Tekania. International law does not agree with you.

No one has ever, by any international law, been immunized from trial in my own courts for crimes commited in my territories... You can deny extradition all you want... You just can't try them for crimes in my territory unless I agree to it as well. Which I would not, since a "fair trial" is more than a right to the people of the CRoT, it is a responsibility. Appearantly the people of the CRoT believe in the connection of Rights and Responsibility, whereas those in the DLE have no concept of responsibility. It is the responsibility of the government to gurantee the rights of the people, even if they don't want them... To allow the waiver of rights, is to create an enviroment where no rights exist.

To allow the waiver of rights is legal and not in your hands. By international law, specifically Clause 10 of the Criminal Proceedings section of the DoFT, a defendant may give up their right to be tried in the venue of a crime when charged with a criminal offense. It says nothing in that resolution about any exceptions, whether it be another city or another nation, and allows no government to override it. As much as you don't like it, it's the law. And under that law, I can try the crimes in my nation if the accused doesn't want to be tried in yours.

The legal code is right before you... And logical... You seem to lack any form of functional jurisprudence in the realm of law. The person only has the power to waive their rights... They do not have the power to waive the rights of the entire state. No law has immunized my rights to complete jurisdictional authority over the laws in my territories, and no international law has granted you the authority to hold hearings over laws in my territories... The waiver of the "FT" clause does not grant you jurisdictional authority... And no judge would agree with you should this be heard before an international court.

Tekania, I've read the evidence. I've posted it. I've shown it to you repeatedly. Point out exactly where it supports your arguement. Provide evidence instead of purposeful misinterpretations. In other words, I want the UN resolution and the exact words that support what you say. And the R&D, which allows for immunities under UN law, is not it.

And, Tekania, you should know as well as I do that the UN doesn't give a damn about the rights of nations as a whole, but of the rights of individuals. The individual has the right to be tried outside the venue of the crime if they so choose. You cannot change that no matter how you try to twist the resolutions to your viewpoint.

DLE, you accuse me where you are the guilty party... It is you who are inventing ideas not born out in international law...

Prove I have invented something instead of spouting off accusations. I've given my proof. Where is yours?

I have read it... And nothing you have said is born by it... Nothing grants you jurisdiction over my territories... And a persons Right to a FT, or their waiver does not deny my rights under the R&D by any logical argument.

If the venue of the crime is your nation, then by waving the right to be tried in the venue of a crime the person does not have to be tried in your nation and doing so is violating their rights. DoFT, Criminal Proceedings, Clauses 5 and 10. It may not grant me jurisdiction over your territory, but I keep jurisdiction over my people with it, and nothing in international law prevents me from trying my people for crimes committed elsewhere if that person cannot be legally tried in that location.

Once again, they are free to waive it... You simply cannot try them, however, without violating the R&D. Once again, the crime exists in my jurisdictional authority... They "waiver" grants you no rights to violate such... It merely waives there's. Jurisdiction and Venue are not the same thing... A person who has commited a crime in, say, Yorktown, may freely waive their right and let the hearing be made in Doswell... Since it is still the same jurisdictional authority, yet not the same venue... However, outside of the jurisdictional authority, waiver also waives the ability of the foreign jurisdiction the ability to hear the case without violating the jurisdictional authority where the offense took place. There is no contest here or contradition, as you would like to impose through language trickery... Waiver of venue does not waive jurisdictional authority in the matter. You are inventing an immunity that does not exist...


No, Tekania, I am not. If a person comes into my nation after committing a crime in yours and waives the venue right, you cannot legally try them without violating their civil rights. If you tried, I'd be forced to take you before the TPP and have you tried for the crime. But at the same time, because they cannot be tried in your jurisdiction does not mean they cannot be tried in mine for the crime. After all, nothing in the R&D protects you against cases where the subject escapes to another location and then waves the right to venue. In the case, if the venue is judged to be just your nation, you cannot legally try them, and in such case the R&D is forced to recognize an immunity. No trickery of law, just exploitation of it.

The first part is valid... They may waive such, and they may go to any other nation... However... In none of this were rights granted to the foreign state to possess jurisdictional authority over the crime. The person who has been denied extradition, even through waiver... will not be tried for the crime in a foreign state, since such is a direct violation of the R&D, once again, no immunities were imposed on my rights over jurisdictional authority... The person is immune from trial in the matter, unless returned to my territories. You can try them for any violations in your territories, you just can't try them for such in mine.

Find the piece of international law that supports this. In such a case, by waiving their right to venue they have effectively created an immunity for themselves against you exercising jurisdiction. You cannot try them for the crime at all.

Denial of jurisdictional authority, and violation of jurisdictional authority, are two seperate concepts... For me, for example, to deny extradition, is denying jurisdictional authoirty over the accused... However, trying them for the crime that you accused them of in your territory, in mine, is a violation of jurisdictional authority and therefore a violation of the R&D....

If they waive the right to venue and you try them for a crime in my nation, I see nothing in international law that prevents you from going ahead. By using the waiver to create an immunity for themselves against being tried under mjy jurisdiction, they have created an immunity for themselves that is recognized by international law. In such a case, that part of the R&D no longer applies.

For examples... Say someone were to be caught for a crime in Tekania, they are also wanted in DLE for certain crimes... Extraditionary hearings can deny extradition... Tekania would be denying you jurisidictional authority over the accused... Now, we can try them for any number of crimes in the CRoT that they commited in the CRoT.... However, for us to try them for the crimes they commited in DLE would be a violation of DLE's jurisdictional authority... Would Tekania do such? No we would not... Because it would violate international law which protects DLE's jurisdictional rights over its territories... We may have legal jurisdiction at present over the accused, but in no way can the accused grant us jurisdictional authority over the crimes they commited in the DLE by waiving an existing right possessed by the accused. This does not mean we HAVE to, or on the flip side, that you HAVE to, surrender the accused to the foreign state for trial... It merely means that that neither of us can hold a trial for the accused, to enforce the laws of the foreign state.

And here you argued yourself into a hole. You are trying to argue that they are not giving themselves an immunity recognized by UN law, and then turned around and effectively stated that they did. If you take everything in context and recognize it for what it is, you realize you can try them if they waive the right to venue through what that right creates.

Wrong. By the R&D, the moment they give up the right to be tried in the venue is the moment I can try them, as to have you try them would be violating the DoFT. In that case, everyone except you can try them as long as it does not result in double jeopardy. This is one of those immunities it allows to be an exception.

Wrong.. Their waiver in no way grants you rights over jurisdictional prudence of my territories and the laws therein. I repeat, YOU CANNOT TRY THEM FOR CRIMES COMMITED IN MY JURISDICTION, SINCE YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER MY TERRITORIES. If they waive, then you can hold them for whatever crimes in your territories... BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER OR AUTHORITY OF GOVERNANCE OF LAWS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA... Any attempt to assert as such means you are already, at least within the realm of your laws, VIOLATING THE R&D. Since you REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. You can refuse extradition... You can try them for crimes in your territories... BUT YOU CANNOT TRY THEM for crimes that occured in my territories, without first seeking waiver to do so by the people and government of THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. Their waiver of the DoFT, grants you no rights in persuant to enforement or trial towards crimes the THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. Since such crimes ONLY are the jurisprudence of THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. As such, they cannot be tried for any crimes they commited in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA, unless they return bodily to THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA, or any of her PROTECTORATES.



Bullshit, Tekania. I can't accept the idea you are actually that ignorant of international law as to say that.

No... I am not... You are... For failure to see basic logic and the extent and limits of such laws.


Yes, the waiver is international law. It's part of international law in the rights a defendant has in criminal proceedings. Choosing to ignore that, as you are doing, is potentially violating international law.

The waiver is not international law... It only exists, legally in the realm of your own jurisdictional authority... And is not applicable to any other jurisdictional authority... If they were to later return to THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA, I could try them for the crimes they commited in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. Since they have never been, before, legitimately heard before proper jurisdictional authority. While the waiver is LEGAL in international law... It does not extend past jurisdictional boundries.



Tekania, that does not match with international law. Nowhere does it state you must give up jurisdiction when a criminal has chosen to waive their right to be tried in venue. What has been stated amounts to the fact you have no choice in the matter if they wave that right. I've already posted the evidence that proves my case, while I am still waiting for the evidence that proves yours. Of which, I add, none exists beyond a purposeful misinterpretation of a single resolution through ignoring the part of what it says about immunities or misconstruing it to support your arguement in a way that violates another law.

You don't give up jurisdiction.. You've never had it. And jurisdiction of law cannot be forced by waiver of rights by the accused. THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA has not granted you jurisdiction to try the case. And unless we were to, your hands are LEGALLY tied and barred from prosecution. In effect... You simply cannot try them for any laws they broke in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. You can try them for any laws they broke in your own jurisdictional realm... But not in ours... Pure and simple.


Face facts, Tekania. International law does not agree with you.


International Law agrees with me... No rights are violated, unless you indeed do try them for laws SPECIFICALLY VIOLATED in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA... Once again... You have no jurisdiction... NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.... My territories, my laws, my jurisdiction... Let them waive it... That is on you... But you cannot try them. If they have commited no violations in your own territories, then, in accordance with existing International Laws... They must be released on their own.


To allow the waiver of rights is legal and not in your hands. By international law, specifically Clause 10 of the Criminal Proceedings section of the DoFT, a defendant may give up their right to be tried in the venue of a crime when charged with a criminal offense. It says nothing in that resolution about any exceptions, whether it be another city or another nation, and allows no government to override it. As much as you don't like it, it's the law. And under that law, I can try the crimes in my nation if the accused doesn't want to be tried in yours.

Once again, to poke through that 400 meters of solid granite you call a skull... It is perfectly legal, internationally, for them to waive such rights to a FT... However... You possess no jurisdictional authority over the specific offenses in the Republic to try the case. There will be no trial for them, at all... And it will remain an open case, as such, untill they return to the proper, legal, jurisdictional authority of THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. In effect, their waiver prevents them from being tried at all, unless they return to the Republic.


Tekania, I've read the evidence. I've posted it. I've shown it to you repeatedly. Point out exactly where it supports your arguement. Provide evidence instead of purposeful misinterpretations. In other words, I want the UN resolution and the exact words that support what you say. And the R&D, which allows for immunities under UN law, is not it.

Your evidence means absolutely nothing, because none of it supports what you have to say... No where in international law are you granted the power and jurisdictional authority to try cases where you have not been given jurisdiction by the original jurisdiction. Waiver, for them, means they are immune from trial of the crime, as long as they remain outside of Tekanian jurisdictional territories. You cannot try them because you have never been granted jurisdiction over the case by THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. As long as we do not allow jurisdiction, you cannot try them for the crime... And no trial takes place, no verdict rendered. The person remains in fugitive status in the Republic and is free, for all intensive purposes within other jurisdictions....


And, Tekania, you should know as well as I do that the UN doesn't give a damn about the rights of nations as a whole, but of the rights of individuals. The individual has the right to be tried outside the venue of the crime if they so choose. You cannot change that no matter how you try to twist the resolutions to your viewpoint.

In this case they would... I would contest your jurisdictional authority to try the case... Since the crime exists in my own jurisdictional authority... I recognize your right, as a state, to deny jurisdiction... In effect, I would be saying the person would not be tried for any crime, since they are not in my jurisdiction... If you refuse extradition, you tie your hands as far as trying the case yourself... YOU CANNOT TRY THE CASE... You can release the person, BUT CANNOT TRY THEM FOR CRIMES IN MY JURISDICTION. The accused CANOT GRANT YOU JURISDICTION. No international law says they can.



Prove I have invented something instead of spouting off accusations. I've given my proof. Where is yours?

My proof is in plain site for anyone with a functional mind. THERE IS NO LAW WHICH GRANTS YOU JURISDICTION OVER MY LEGAL AUTHORITIES. YOUR ATTEMPT TO ASSERT SUCH IS NOTHING LESS THAN A INTENT TO VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAWS IN RECOGNIZATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES GRANTED TO MEMBER STATES AS GIVEN IN THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES RESOLUTION. AS SUCH, AT THIS POINT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA SITES THAT DLE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE R&D, AND THAT THEY ENTER AGAIN INTO IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER UNITED NATION MEMBER STATES TO JURISDICTION OVER THE THEIR OWN STATE TERRITORIES AND LAW.



If the venue of the crime is your nation, then by waving the right to be tried in the venue of a crime the person does not have to be tried in your nation and doing so is violating their rights. DoFT, Criminal Proceedings, Clauses 5 and 10. It may not grant me jurisdiction over your territory, but I keep jurisdiction over my people with it, and nothing in international law prevents me from trying my people for crimes committed elsewhere if that person cannot be legally tried in that location.

The RIGHTS AND DUTIES prevents you.... REMEMBER JURISDICTION. The laws are my laws... YOU CANNOT ENFORCE THEM WITHOUT MY EXPRESSED PERMISSION. Pure and %^$%^ing simple. Your trial will be illegal. Since it was not performed with proper and right jurisdictional authority. The same occurs in reverse... Were the Government of the Constitutional Republic to issue a pardon for the offense to the person, your hands would ALSO be tied, since you are forced, by the R&D to recognize my jurisdiction.... As such, everything you have said, had been for the expresses intent for ignoring the R&D Resolution, through the use of deciet, fraud and legal trickery... Once again, events that occur within the realm of Tekanian criminal code, is applicable ONLY to Tekanian jurisdictional authority. Such is true of every NSUN member state. Which is the purpose of the R&D resolution. To force, through international law, for all UN member states to recognize the legal authority of all other UN member states. As well as to prevent any one NSUN member state from violating the jurisdictional authority of any other NSUN member state. You are most free to try them for any number of crimes they commited in your territory.... However, YOU POSSESS NO AUTHORITY TO TRY THEM FOR ANY CRIME COMMITED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, UNDER TEKANIAN LAW. Once again, My Jurisdiction.... if they violated no law of yours... and you attempt to try them, we will immediately take international actions against your state for violating the R&D, and seek immediate action from as many NSUN members as possible, for illegally trying a person without right or authority.




No, Tekania, I am not. If a person comes into my nation after committing a crime in yours and waives the venue right, you cannot legally try them without violating their civil rights. If you tried, I'd be forced to take you before the TPP and have you tried for the crime. But at the same time, because they cannot be tried in your jurisdiction does not mean they cannot be tried in mine for the crime. After all, nothing in the R&D protects you against cases where the subject escapes to another location and then waves the right to venue. In the case, if the venue is judged to be just your nation, you cannot legally try them, and in such case the R&D is forced to recognize an immunity. No trickery of law, just exploitation of it.

As long as they are outside my jurisdiction I cannot try them period, in persuance of the FT, DoFT and DP. However, you also CANNOT TRY THEM. Since I have granted you no jurisdictional authority over the crime. The criminal procedings are my own authority, and no one elses. My state has complete control and venue of jurisdiction of the crime, including the power to ex parte pardon the accused and immunize you, and anyone else from such a trial... This is why the R&D exists... Because my jurisdiction over crimes in my nation, overstep any authority you have for trial. My law, my jurisdiction, my authority.


Find the piece of international law that supports this. In such a case, by waiving their right to venue they have effectively created an immunity for themselves against you exercising jurisdiction. You cannot try them for the crime at all.

That is the part you got right... to some extend, they are immune as long as they remain outside of the territorial pervue of the nation where the crime commited, unless the holding nation were to grant extradition of the criminal back to the legal jurisdiction of the offense. Effectively, they are immunized from prosecution for the offense untill any such time they return to the Constitutional Republic. My jurisdiction is not immunized... It still exists... But they are outside of proper jurisdictional authority, and are therefore free within all other jurisdictions. Once again, The DoFT does not alter jurisdictional authority... Waiver by the accused to such rights allows the state possessing Jurisdictional authority over the crime (CRoT) to choose the venue. Not the accused. Once again, you may possess jursidictional authority over the accused, but you do not possess jurisdictional authority over the offense.



If they waive the right to venue and you try them for a crime in my nation, I see nothing in international law that prevents you from going ahead. By using the waiver to create an immunity for themselves against being tried under mjy jurisdiction, they have created an immunity for themselves that is recognized by international law. In such a case, that part of the R&D no longer applies.

They would not have to waive anything, since the CRoT would never illegally charge them for a crime. After the Extraditionary hearing denies DLE. They would be released. Since they have commited no crimes in the CRoT, in accordance with the legal authority as presented in the R&D. Charging them for the crime, is in itself a violation of the R&D, since it asserts authority over the jurisdiction where the crime was commited, against the explicit rights to states over their own territories. For us to charge them, would be illegal, since we have no right to in the first place.

The only way we could. Were if both the accused, and DLE to present waivers, granting us temporary jurisdiction over the case, in accordance with the DoFT and R&D. In any case, unless the DLE were to grant the CRoT jurisdiction over the case, then we must release them from the indictment.


And here you argued yourself into a hole. You are trying to argue that they are not giving themselves an immunity recognized by UN law, and then turned around and effectively stated that they did. If you take everything in context and recognize it for what it is, you realize you can try them if they waive the right to venue through what that right creates.

They are only partially immunized. They are immune from prosecution, logically, outside of the jurisdictional authority in possession of the case (CRoT). They are immune because of international law preventing states from violating the jurisdictional authority of another nation. (You seem not to recognize the R&D and legal jurisdiction). They are not immune from ever being prosecuted, they are merely free from prosecution in that they are not in the proper authorotative scope of legal jurisdictional possession.

The concept is logical. Let's say in Nation "A". Smoking is illegal, but punishable by 1 year in jail. Let's say in Nation "B" Smoking is also illegal, but punishable by 10 years in jail. Nation "A" seeks extradition from Nation "B". Nation "B" denies extradition. Now, Nation "B" seeks to the accused to waive. The accused does, and is tried by Nation "B". No where was Nation "B" given jurisdiction over the case by Nation "A"... In fact, while the accused is in possession of Nation "B", Nation "A" possesses the case itself. Nation "B" trying the case is directly violating Nation "A"'s jurisdictional possession of the case.

Now, let's say that Nation "A" finds new evidence exonerating the accused, but Nation "B" has already tried and convicted the accused (albeit against the jurisdictional protections of the R&D)... Well, Nation "A" drops all charges. now having found the actual perpetrator. Now, NAtion "B" has put themselves in a pickle haven't they? They have tried and convicted a person who is innocent by under the proper jurisdictional authority... This is why R&D exists... Because, the state in possession of JURISDICTION is the only court capable of fairly trying a crime. At this point, Nation "A" would have perfect legitmate claims to charge Nation "B" with crimes against Humanity.

This is why R&D exists... This is why jurisdictional authority exists... Sorry... You have never, and will never possess, jurisdictional authority over cases in the Constitutional Republic. We will try our cases, and any attempt by you to do so, is nothing short of an act of war. Your own presentment here is proof that your nation is incapable of fairness under the law. And is proof of your intent to take whatever means neccessary to violate international laws, specifically to illegally try persons, in violation of Due Process, without indictment, to illegally usurp the proper legal authority and jurisdiction of other NSUN member states.

Let me see if I can make this any simpler by reducing it to cases:


A person does not commit a crime. There is no penalty. (obvious, but included for completeness)
A person commits a crime in Krioval and is arrested in Krioval. Krioval has jurisdiction; the person is punished in accordance with Kriovalian law regardless of citizenship.
A person commits a crime in Krioval and is arrested outside of Krioval.

If the act is not a crime elsewhere AND the person is not a citizen of Krioval, Krioval may ask for extradition but will not expect it. If the person enters Krioval and is arrested, case 2 applies.
If the act is not a crime elsewhere AND the person is a citizen of Krioval, Krioval will ask for extradition and expect it. If the person enters Krioval and is arrested, case 2 applies.
If the act is a crime elsewhere, Krioval will request and expect extradition.
EXCEPTION: If the person is not a citizen of Krioval, we will likely accept a similar sentence elsewhere.

A person commits a crime outside of Krioval and is detained in Krioval.

If the act is not a crime in Krioval AND the person is not a citizen of Krioval, we may or may not honor an extradition request at our discretion.
If the act is not a crime in Krioval AND the person is a citizen of Krioval, we are unlikely to honor an extradition request unless exceptional circumstances prevail.
If the act is a crime in Krioval AND the person is not a citizen of Krioval, we will likely honor an extradition request except under exceptional circumstances.
If the act is a crime in Krioval AND the person is a citizen of Krioval:

If our governments are enjoying strong relations, we will likely extradite.
If our governments are at odds, or Krioval does not trust the government in question, Kriovalian extraterritorial law will be invoked.


A person performs an act that would be considered a crime in Krioval but is outside of Krioval, and the act is legal in that location.

If the person is not a citizen of Krioval, we reserve the right to deny entry into Krioval for that person indefinitely. The exception is if the location of the act and the nation of citizenship for that person are the same, in which case border restriction is limited to three months.
If the person is a citizen of Krioval, we reserve the right to prosecute under Kriovalian extraterritorial law.



That should cover all the cases of jurisdictional issues I can think of right now. As you can see, the only places where there are conflicts are in bold, and involve the extraterritoriality law being applied. Other areas can cause tension as well, considering that Krioval can always refuse extradition, but the situations in bold show where I'm likely to run into problems. Of course, the idea behind those sections is to ensure that justice is done, rather than caving to the latest political pressures from either the right or left. So in applying law as described above, I feel that I'm doing the proper thing by the greatest number of people possible.

Wrong.. Their waiver in no way grants you rights over jurisdictional prudence of my territories and the laws therein. I repeat, YOU CANNOT TRY THEM FOR CRIMES COMMITED IN MY JURISDICTION, SINCE YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER MY TERRITORIES. If they waive, then you can hold them for whatever crimes in your territories... BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER OR AUTHORITY OF GOVERNANCE OF LAWS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA... Any attempt to assert as such means you are already, at least within the realm of your laws, VIOLATING THE R&D. Since you REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. You can refuse extradition... You can try them for crimes in your territories... BUT YOU CANNOT TRY THEM for crimes that occured in my territories, without first seeking waiver to do so by the people and government of THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. Their waiver of the DoFT, grants you no rights in persuant to enforement or trial towards crimes the THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. Since such crimes ONLY are the jurisprudence of THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. As such, they cannot be tried for any crimes they commited in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA, unless they return bodily to THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA, or any of her PROTECTORATES.

That's right Tekania. Shouting makes it true when the law doesn't back it.

The moment they waive rights to venue under the DoFT, they are given effective immunity to your jurisdictional claims by the fact they have used their UN-granted rights not to be tried in the nation where the crime was committed. That is an immunity recognized by UN law, the R&D allows immunities recognized by UN law to override the right of jurisdiction, and thus your right to jurisdiction is overridden. It's all perfectly legal, perfectly logical, and backed by UN law.

No... I am not... You are... For failure to see basic logic and the extent and limits of such laws.

The above is basic logic using the reality of what happens. Read it, learn it, love it. The extent and limits of laws are what the reality of them makes those limits out to be. In most cases, it's spelled out. In a few cases, it's not and you must use logic to find them.

The waiver is not international law... It only exists, legally in the realm of your own jurisdictional authority... And is not applicable to any other jurisdictional authority... If they were to later return to THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA, I could try them for the crimes they commited in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. Since they have never been, before, legitimately heard before proper jurisdictional authority. While the waiver is LEGAL in international law... It does not extend past jurisdictional boundries.

First you say "The waiver is not international law" and then you say "While the waiver is LEGAL in international law." Which is it, Tekania? Is the waiver international law or not? You can't seem to make up your mind. Also, nothing in the DoFT says anything about jurisdictional limits and you trying them for a crime they have already been convicted of is double-jeopardy, a violation of their civil rights and a crime that may get you brought before the TPP for investigation.

You don't give up jurisdiction.. You've never had it. And jurisdiction of law cannot be forced by waiver of rights by the accused. THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA has not granted you jurisdiction to try the case. And unless we were to, your hands are LEGALLY tied and barred from prosecution. In effect... You simply cannot try them for any laws they broke in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. You can try them for any laws they broke in your own jurisdictional realm... But not in ours... Pure and simple.

Tekania, you keep making these claims and keep failing to prove them. I've posted my logical proof, and you keep railing on about something while failing to provide the context and exact wording of a UN resolution that proves the right of jurisdiction in R&D overrides the effective immunity to jurisdiction granted by a waiver of venue under the DoFT. And no matter how hard you try to shout without that proof, you won't make it true.

Go back and read what I said at the top. It is a simple explanation based entirely on UN law and the results of actions taken. It is undisputable without having some actual evidence.

International Law agrees with me... No rights are violated, unless you indeed do try them for laws SPECIFICALLY VIOLATED in THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA... Once again... You have no jurisdiction... NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.... My territories, my laws, my jurisdiction... Let them waive it... That is on you... But you cannot try them. If they have commited no violations in your own territories, then, in accordance with existing International Laws... They must be released on their own.

Nothing in international law says they must be released if they wave the right to venue once outside of your nation. Nothing in international law says they cannot be tried for it. Nothing in international law proves that you are correct. If you are going to claim it, provide your proof.

Once again, to poke through that 400 meters of solid granite you call a skull... It is perfectly legal, internationally, for them to waive such rights to a FT... However... You possess no jurisdictional authority over the specific offenses in the Republic to try the case. There will be no trial for them, at all... And it will remain an open case, as such, untill they return to the proper, legal, jurisdictional authority of THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. In effect, their waiver prevents them from being tried at all, unless they return to the Republic.

Okay, let's try this: They waive the right to venue. If they return to your nation and you try them, you are violating their civil rights by ignoring their legal decision to not be tried for the crime in your nation. That is an offense that can have you brought before the TPP for trial. Keep it up, Tekania.

And I am still waiting on proof of legality.

Your evidence means absolutely nothing, because none of it supports what you have to say... No where in international law are you granted the power and jurisdictional authority to try cases where you have not been given jurisdiction by the original jurisdiction. Waiver, for them, means they are immune from trial of the crime, as long as they remain outside of Tekanian jurisdictional territories. You cannot try them because you have never been granted jurisdiction over the case by THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA. As long as we do not allow jurisdiction, you cannot try them for the crime... And no trial takes place, no verdict rendered. The person remains in fugitive status in the Republic and is free, for all intensive purposes within other jurisdictions....

Tekania, now you are throwing words that do not exist into resolutions. Nothing in the DoFT makes the rights it grants conditional. Nothing. What you are doing is putting conditions on those rights that are not supported by international law. Find me where in the DoFT it says those rights are conditional that doesn't involve the individual giving them up.

In this case they would... I would contest your jurisdictional authority to try the case... Since the crime exists in my own jurisdictional authority... I recognize your right, as a state, to deny jurisdiction... In effect, I would be saying the person would not be tried for any crime, since they are not in my jurisdiction... If you refuse extradition, you tie your hands as far as trying the case yourself... YOU CANNOT TRY THE CASE... You can release the person, BUT CANNOT TRY THEM FOR CRIMES IN MY JURISDICTION. The accused CANOT GRANT YOU JURISDICTION. No international law says they can.

Actually, the R&D allows for it. They waive their rights, making them effectively immune to being tried in your jurisdiction. If you try them in your jurisdiction, you are violating their civil rights and can expect your nation to be brought before the TPP for trial. In the R&D, it says that any UN-recognized immunity allows for the rights of jurisdiction to be overridden. Since the waiver is legally-backed by the UN and the result is immunity to your jurisdiction trying them, the effect is that the R&D allows for your jurisdiction to be overridden and the accused tried in another nation, as you cannot legally try them in yours.

Find something besides just spouting the same unsupported crap over and over again like a broken record that disproves the above.

My proof is in plain site for anyone with a functional mind. THERE IS NO LAW WHICH GRANTS YOU JURISDICTION OVER MY LEGAL AUTHORITIES. YOUR ATTEMPT TO ASSERT SUCH IS NOTHING LESS THAN A INTENT TO VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAWS IN RECOGNIZATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES GRANTED TO MEMBER STATES AS GIVEN IN THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES RESOLUTION. AS SUCH, AT THIS POINT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF TEKANIA SITES THAT DLE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE R&D, AND THAT THEY ENTER AGAIN INTO IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER UNITED NATION MEMBER STATES TO JURISDICTION OVER THE THEIR OWN STATE TERRITORIES AND LAW.

No matter how much you shout, you won't make it true. See above.

The RIGHTS AND DUTIES prevents you.... REMEMBER JURISDICTION. The laws are my laws... YOU CANNOT ENFORCE THEM WITHOUT MY EXPRESSED PERMISSION. Pure and %^$%^ing simple. Your trial will be illegal. Since it was not performed with proper and right jurisdictional authority. The same occurs in reverse... Were the Government of the Constitutional Republic to issue a pardon for the offense to the person, your hands would ALSO be tied, since you are forced, by the R&D to recognize my jurisdiction.... As such, everything you have said, had been for the expresses intent for ignoring the R&D Resolution, through the use of deciet, fraud and legal trickery... Once again, events that occur within the realm of Tekanian criminal code, is applicable ONLY to Tekanian jurisdictional authority. Such is true of every NSUN member state. Which is the purpose of the R&D resolution. To force, through international law, for all UN member states to recognize the legal authority of all other UN member states. As well as to prevent any one NSUN member state from violating the jurisdictional authority of any other NSUN member state. You are most free to try them for any number of crimes they commited in your territory.... However, YOU POSSESS NO AUTHORITY TO TRY THEM FOR ANY CRIME COMMITED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, UNDER TEKANIAN LAW. Once again, My Jurisdiction.... if they violated no law of yours... and you attempt to try them, we will immediately take international actions against your state for violating the R&D, and seek immediate action from as many NSUN members as possible, for illegally trying a person without right or authority.

Still spouting this crap, I see. See what I said above about the DoFT granting effective immunity through a legal clause recognized by the UN. The moment that immunity is granted, you have no right to jurisdiction, as put down in the R&D. My evidence is plain as day and simple enough anyone can understand it.

As long as they are outside my jurisdiction I cannot try them period, in persuance of the FT, DoFT and DP. However, you also CANNOT TRY THEM. Since I have granted you no jurisdictional authority over the crime. The criminal procedings are my own authority, and no one elses. My state has complete control and venue of jurisdiction of the crime, including the power to ex parte pardon the accused and immunize you, and anyone else from such a trial... This is why the R&D exists... Because my jurisdiction over crimes in my nation, overstep any authority you have for trial. My law, my jurisdiction, my authority.

And your misinterpretation of UN law.

That is the part you got right... to some extend, they are immune as long as they remain outside of the territorial pervue of the nation where the crime commited, unless the holding nation were to grant extradition of the criminal back to the legal jurisdiction of the offense. Effectively, they are immunized from prosecution for the offense untill any such time they return to the Constitutional Republic. My jurisdiction is not immunized... It still exists... But they are outside of proper jurisdictional authority, and are therefore free within all other jurisdictions. Once again, The DoFT does not alter jurisdictional authority... Waiver by the accused to such rights allows the state possessing Jurisdictional authority over the crime (CRoT) to choose the venue. Not the accused. Once again, you may possess jursidictional authority over the accused, but you do not possess jurisdictional authority over the offense.

Now, let's point out where your arguement just fell apart.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

By admitting they are immune, the part I just bolded comes into play. They are immune, and thus your right to jurisdiction is overridden. Now, you might counter with these two:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

For Article 1 the immunity also comes into play, as you cannot legally try the person at any time once they have waved the right to venue without violating their civil rights and making your own nation in violation of international law. You can try to play Article 3, but this is a legal matter and not one of economy, politics, religion, or society. If this is political in manner, then I must question why you are having them listed as a criminal and ask the TPP to investigate for possible intended violations of civil rights.

They would not have to waive anything, since the CRoT would never illegally charge them for a crime. After the Extraditionary hearing denies DLE. They would be released. Since they have commited no crimes in the CRoT, in accordance with the legal authority as presented in the R&D. Charging them for the crime, is in itself a violation of the R&D, since it asserts authority over the jurisdiction where the crime was commited, against the explicit rights to states over their own territories. For us to charge them, would be illegal, since we have no right to in the first place.

In cases where the nation in which they committed the crime cannot legally charge them, the matter of jurisdiction is solved due to the immunity clauses. You can try them as you like or not. It's perfectly legal.

The only way we could. Were if both the accused, and DLE to present waivers, granting us temporary jurisdiction over the case, in accordance with the DoFT and R&D. In any case, unless the DLE were to grant the CRoT jurisdiction over the case, then we must release them from the indictment.

If I cannot legally try them without violating their civil rights, the immunity clauses come into affect. Try them if you wish.

They are only partially immunized. They are immune from prosecution, logically, outside of the jurisdictional authority in possession of the case (CRoT). They are immune because of international law preventing states from violating the jurisdictional authority of another nation. (You seem not to recognize the R&D and legal jurisdiction). They are not immune from ever being prosecuted, they are merely free from prosecution in that they are not in the proper authorotative scope of legal jurisdictional possession.

Once again, I want you to point out where in the DoFT it states any of those rights are conditional based on what jurisdiction the person is in. As it doesn't say that, it logically is not limited to jurisdictions, as UN law on the matter makes no distinction of jurisdictions when it comes to this issue. Fair Trial also fails to make mention of jurisdictions, as well as Due Process and Habeas Corpus. The ECoG makes a definition of jurisdiction, but only in defining that of the TPP.

The concept is logical. Let's say in Nation "A". Smoking is illegal, but punishable by 1 year in jail. Let's say in Nation "B" Smoking is also illegal, but punishable by 10 years in jail. Nation "A" seeks extradition from Nation "B". Nation "B" denies extradition. Now, Nation "B" seeks to the accused to waive. The accused does, and is tried by Nation "B". No where was Nation "B" given jurisdiction over the case by Nation "A"... In fact, while the accused is in possession of Nation "B", Nation "A" possesses the case itself. Nation "B" trying the case is directly violating Nation "A"'s jurisdictional possession of the case.

[quote]Now, let's say that Nation "A" finds new evidence exonerating the accused, but Nation "B" has already tried and convicted the accused (albeit against the jurisdictional protections of the R&D)... Well, Nation "A" drops all charges. now having found the actual perpetrator. Now, NAtion "B" has put themselves in a pickle haven't they? They have tried and convicted a person who is innocent by under the proper jurisdictional authority... This is why R&D exists... Because, the state in possession of JURISDICTION is the only court capable of fairly trying a crime. At this point, Nation "A" would have perfect legitmate claims to charge Nation "B" with crimes against Humanity.

Nation "B" is allowed in this case because Nation "A" cannot legally try the crime.

This is why R&D exists... This is why jurisdictional authority exists... Sorry... You have never, and will never possess, jurisdictional authority over cases in the Constitutional Republic. We will try our cases, and any attempt by you to do so, is nothing short of an act of war. Your own presentment here is proof that your nation is incapable of fairness under the law. And is proof of your intent to take whatever means neccessary to violate international laws, specifically to illegally try persons, in violation of Due Process, without indictment, to illegally usurp the proper legal authority and jurisdiction of other NSUN member states.

Wow. You don't even know the Due Process resolution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Okay, so all I have to do is use a Grand Jury, not commit double-jeopardy, not ask them to speak against themselves, not deprive them of the three items mentioned there, and I must compensate them if I take their property. Nope, no mention of jurisdiction. If you are referring to the due process of law part, that's where the DoFT comes in and their waiver of right of venue makes it perfectly legal. The R&D itself has nothing that contradicts this, as I have shown. So, really, you don't have a case.

Oh, and Tekania, if you are stupid enough to attack me over a trial, know that I won't hesitate to annex your nation. And, under DLE law, your people will be granted citizenship and the full rights of Sarkarasetans. I'll lose a few people, but not numbers I cannot handle, especially with the heavy use of automated fighters doing a good portion of the dirty work.

To allow the waiver of rights, is to create an enviroment where no rights exist.

...so, in order to preserve a person's civil rights, you deny them the right to waive their rights.

*head explodes*

EDIT:

Also, DLE, a person waiving their right to be tried in the venue of the crime doesn't mean they cannot be tried in the venue of the crime anyway. If so, anyway charged with a crime can say, "I waive my right to be tried at the venue of the crime" and then you can't touch them.

I said it earlier... waiving your right to a trial doesn't mean you can't be tried anyway. Same thing here.

Also, DLE, a person waiving their right to be tried in the venue of the crime doesn't mean they cannot be tried in the venue of the crime anyway. If so, anyway charged with a crime can say, "I waive my right to be tried at the venue of the crime" and then you can't touch them.

Them waiving the right to venue is them saying they do not wish to be tried in the venue. To try them in the venue anyway is, in this case, a violation of their rights. The problem is the definition of venue. If international, it's countries as a whole. If not, it's individual separations inside a nation. Anyone stupid enough to try it in DLE as an attempt to get out of criminal proceedings fails to understand exactly how public we make it that we arrested them and how violent the general populous is towards escaped criminals.

I said it earlier... waiving your right to a trial doesn't mean you can't be tried anyway. Same thing here.

Waiving your right to trial is tantamount to telling the government to do as it wishes on the matter.

Anyone stupid enough to try it in DLE as an attempt to get out of criminal proceedings fails to understand exactly how public we make it that we arrested them and how violent the general populous is towards escaped criminals.

No one does it (though they can be stupid enough to try, of course) because it cannot be done. That's the point.

Waiving your right to trial is tantamount to telling the government to do as it wishes on the matter.

Yes, which means they can put you on trial anyway if they so desire. Same concept.

A person has the right to be tried in the venue his crime was committed in. If they waive that right, they can be tried anywhere, including the venue that the crime was committed in. They have a right to say "I have a right to be tried here, but no, that's fine, I don't mind being tried somewhere else." They do NOT have a right to say, "I don't want to be tried here, I demand I be tried in another jurisdiction."

At this point, DLE, your logic is so fundamentally flawed, I am going to just have to back up, and hold this in a detailed matter, so you can understand the logic. And where you keep continuously erroring.

1. Rights and Duties: Each state has the legal authority of its own territory.
- The R&D exists to enforce the principle that each state has the right towards its own laws and people. The right to hear cases, make and remove laws, all within its own borders.
- All other states must recognize this jurisdictional authority of each state. Including each states authority over its own laws.
- For one state to charge someone for crimes in violation of the laws of another state, is a failure of that state to recognize the jurisdictional authority of that state.

2. Certain laws exists on the international scope, which effect these Rights and Duties. Certain forms of jurisprudence, such as the DoFT, DP, HC, etc. Force courts within the jurisdictions of each member state to handle the accused in specific matters.

3. DoFT insists that the state in possession of the charge, hold the trial for an accused person(s) within the venue where the crime took place.
- Waiver of this particular right of venue, removes the state, in possession of the charge, obligation to hold the trial in venue. (NOTE: It removes the states obligation to provide the right, it does not obligate the state to which it cannot provide those rights).
- By such waiver, the state is then free, in absense of law, to hold the trial in venue of its choosing. Such venue change would allow the state to transfer authority of the case to another jurisdiction, if it so chooses to. However, this waiver does not "obligate" the state to transfer of venue.

4. DP and HC exist to obligate the state to have the accused bodily present before his accusers.
- Waiver of such rights no longer places this obligation upon the state. This state can hold the trial for the accused in body or out. Since it is no longer under international legal obligations towards those rights which the accused have waived.

__________________________________

Here are the several flaws you bring invent:

1. Waiver of rights does not "obligate the state" to not providing them. No international law exists which says it does. Just because someone "Waives their right" to be present at their hearing, does not mean that the state is forced to not hear the case. Under your logic, any accused person could waive their right to a hearing, and create an effective immunity for any crime they ever commit. Since you have invented an enviroment where waiver created obligation.

2. One state does not possess jurisdictional authority over the laws and crimes of another state. Immunities, are the laws passed within international scope. That is, I am free to try all cases of laws in my borders IN ACCORDANCE with all other international laws. No where do "these immunities" create some unwritten law, where I can try people for crimes commited in yours, in absense of specfic jurisdictional transfer by your own courts.

____________________________________________

Mr. Smith is accused of murder in DLE. But presently resides in the CRoT. DLE presents the CRoT with an extraditionary request for possession of the accused to stand trial. The courts in CRoT issue a HC for Mr. Smith. And he is brought in, and a Extraditionary hearing is held in CRoT where DLE is asked to be present. Due to some evidence provided at the Extraditionary hearing. It is determined that the crime he commited in DLE is not a crime in the scope of Tekanian law. Therefore CRoT assumes no authority to extradite Mr. Smith. Tekania is then under the legal responsibility to release Mr. Smith. Even if Mr. Smith provided CRoT with waiver of rights to the case. CRoT would assume no jurisdictional authority over the case, in accordance with the R&D. We would forward such waiver to the proper authority (DLE). However, still not being extradited, we would be obligated to set Mr. Smith free.

Now, let's assume Mr. Smith was determined to be extradited by the hearing. With the waiver. Since jurisdictional authority still exists by the R&D in the hands of DLE, CRoT extradites Mr. Smith to DLE. Since DLE possesses the Jurisdictional authority under the R&D.

Now let's assume DLE receives this waiver, and determines venue for CRoT. DLE can present CRoT which a waiver of jurisdiction, and transfer authority over the case to the courts of CRoT. CRoT would then request all evidence and persons relevant to the trial of the case to be present in CRoT for the trial, whereby we would posses, due to DLE waiver, the power to hear the case over Mr. Smith.

Mind you, our "authority" over the case, only exists because DLE has given us temproal waiver and authority over the case. Otherwise, our hands would be tied, in relation to the accusation under the R&D.

This is all very simple. And all absolute law.

...so, in order to preserve a person's civil rights, you deny them the right to waive their rights.

In a way, yes. It may sound odd. But as I stated. Waiver does not obligate us to not provide such rights. It merely means we are under no "international legal obligation" as such. Tekania would still provide those rights, and effective "force" the accused to have a fair trial against his will for one. To do otherwise would be a violation of Tekanian law in regards to our fundamental belief of everyone to have a fair trial. To us, fair-trial is more than a "Right", it is a fundamental aspect of our law. Waiver, may remove our theoretical obligation under international law to provide such, but does not remove our fundamental principled obligation as a people to the accused.

Within CRoT Federal judicial law, waiver is not absolutely needed. Since we provide evidentiary hearings for the possibility of venue change, should the defense believe that holding the venue within the locality of the crime would not be fair to the accused. In effect, the accused would be presenting a partial waiver of his right of venue, in conjunction with specific legal determination by the courts to alter the venue to a locality within our jurisdiction (or into another, as can be the case in some of my examples) where such a trial could be held in a fair and just manner.

However, all legal authority of the case, lies in the pervue of tekanian jurisdictional authority. That is, the case cannot be heard before another jurisdictional authority, without CRoT granting said authority to the other jurisdiction.

They can present waiver for any number of rights. However, we theoretically would not be "accepting" such waiver, in that we would still provide the accused with the same rights.... Just rather than being obligated by International Law, we would only be doing such under the principle of Tekanian jurisprudence. So effectively, we are "Denying the right to waive" while not actually doing it. Their waiver is legal. However, so it our provision of rights, after the fact, even in its presence.

It's based on our principle as a Constitutional Republic. Government is limited by the "contract" that is, the Constitution of the Republic, as to the powers it can execute. While international law may provide provision where the accused can waive his rights before the court... The court, based upon this "Constitutional Contract" is still obligated by the people to provide those rights. The waiver, while in more totalitarian regimes, may provide the government with a "free-hand", in the Republic the waiver does not provide the government with any right to violate such under its own law.

Waiving your right to trial is tantamount to telling the government to do as it wishes on the matter.

That is the first truthfull statement that has come from your mouth. And, I can unfortuneately tell, you made it in jest.

It is true. If you waive your right to a trial. You are telling the state that it can do as it wishes.

Under a more totalitarian regime, waiver would effectively be placing your life in the hands of a government. Under Tekanian Jurisprudence, waiver does not mean anything. Since even in the presence of the waiver, we would still provide trial.

Once again, waiver does not create some "obligation to terrorize" by the member state. It only means we are no longer under the legal obligation of international law to provide those rights. Not being obligated, is not the same as not being allowed to.

For example. No international law exists which obligates me to possess a military force. However, lacking international obligation as such, does not mean I am obligated to not have one. No international law obligates me to make attempts to hold peace talks between warring nations. However, lacking such, does not mean I am obligated not to attempt to bring warring states to a peace conference. Lack of obligation does not ex nihlo-create some new unwritten obligation.

Kriovalian Extra-territorial Laws are illegal under the principle of the Rights and Duties. As it is a law which violates the specifies legal limits imposed upon states in the Right and Duties. Effectivly, your law grants you rights to try crimes in my jurisdiction if the person is in yours. Such is illegal. No nation, in the UN may have "extra"-territorial laws. as they have no extra-territorial jurisdiction under the Rights and Duties. Only intra-territorial powers. Mere possession of the person, does not give you the right of trial.

Also, again, no state is specifically obligated by any international law to extradite. As such, "Expecting extradition" is a valueless claim. Under the principle of jurisprudence, extradition can only occur if the claim of accusation is legal under the state in possession of the accused.

If a person is wanted in Krioval for smoking marijuana in public. And is present in Tekania, you can present a request for extradition under Kriovalian law. However, lacking a comparable law in Tekania, the Extraditionary Court would be forced, by our law, to deny extradition of the accused. Based upon the fact that they have violated no Tekanian laws. While we recognize your rights, as such, towards jurisdictional authority in the case... We would lack our own jurisdictional authority under our laws for extradition. This applies regardless if they are citizens of the Republic or not. All people in residence enjoy the same rights, regardless of their possession of citizenship or not.

If a person were to violate Tekanian Law, and later, after release from their sentance, return to Krioval, and then be tried under your illegal "Extra-Territorial" laws, You would have, by default, violated Due Process.

Also, such trial would violate DoFT, since it necessitates that the trial be held in venue (unless waived by the accused), thus, regardless of your "telepathic" witness' you would be in violation of UN laws.

Regardless of your wishes. It is impossible for this "Extra-Territorial Law" to hold legality against the scrutiny of international legal requirements of placed upon us by our membership in these United Nations. Irregardless of your rights under the R&D towards jurisdiction of the people's within your borders. It is impossible for the ExtraTerritorial Kriovalian laws to be legal under the mandates imposed by the Definition of Fair Trial, Due Process.

Thus, it is determined by the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, that Kriovalian law stands in direct violation of mandated International Laws imposed by the United Nations upon its members. And thus, Krioval must immediately rewrite its laws to come into compliance with such... Including the removal of any provisions of extra-territorial laws which stand in direct violation of Due Process, Definition of Fair-Trial and any other internation law, which immunizes Kriovalian claims of Jurisprudence over the matter in accordance with the Right and Duties Resolution.

At this point, the delegates and senators of the Combined Congress of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, in full authority and power granted to us by the people of the Republic and her protectorates. Do hereby remove our recognition of the government in power in Krioval untill such time as they return to compliance with international laws presented by the body of nations in these United Nations.

No one does it (though they can be stupid enough to try, of course) because it cannot be done. That's the point.

If they try, we release them into the general populous and announce they escaped jail. Only one person has tried, and he decided to interpret the laws correctly.

Yes, which means they can put you on trial anyway if they so desire. Same concept.

A person has the right to be tried in the venue his crime was committed in. If they waive that right, they can be tried anywhere, including the venue that the crime was committed in. They have a right to say "I have a right to be tried here, but no, that's fine, I don't mind being tried somewhere else." They do NOT have a right to say, "I don't want to be tried here, I demand I be tried in another jurisdiction."

You would have a point if we were just arguing about those resolutions. But, we are arguing about those resolutions with the assumption this proposal has passed. Thus, the context includes this:

Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

That overrides the jurisdiction of a nation and, in effect, allows a nation to deal with it as they choose. It, in effect, allows a nation to override the jurisdiction of another. The only reason I state this now is it occured to me that you may not be aware of the context. After this many pages, it can get lost.

My goal this entire time has been to point out a flaw in the proposal, and it is something I refuse to give up on until everyone realizes the flaw. But you have to admit this has been one hell of a game. And now that Tekania has bored me, time to deliver the death blow and move on. But you have to admit, that entire time my distraction of Tekania with the immunity effect and him not realizing which arguement I had posted pages ago I was referencing was fun. This is a technique I call the "Endgame Tie-In". Watch and laugh.

At this point, DLE, your logic is so fundamentally flawed, I am going to just have to back up, and hold this in a detailed matter, so you can understand the logic. And where you keep continuously erroring.

You keep continuously erring in not bothering to consider the context of the entire arguement I have been presenting since page one. As far as I can tell, you didn't even bother to check what it was before jumping in. And, as such, you've been arguing this entire time under a mistaken impression you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to this issue and that you actually have a point to make. In this case, you don't. Remember: Context is everything, and sometimes I use that to my advantage.

1. Rights and Duties: Each state has the legal authority of its own territory.
- The R&D exists to enforce the principle that each state has the right towards its own laws and people. The right to hear cases, make and remove laws, all within its own borders.
- All other states must recognize this jurisdictional authority of each state. Including each states authority over its own laws.
- For one state to charge someone for crimes in violation of the laws of another state, is a failure of that state to recognize the jurisdictional authority of that state.

R&D: Any internationally-recognized immunity makes the jurisdiction of a nation void.

2. Certain laws exists on the international scope, which effect these Rights and Duties. Certain forms of jurisprudence, such as the DoFT, DP, HC, etc. Force courts within the jurisdictions of each member state to handle the accused in specific matters.

This includes international courts, except those that are designed to ignore a law.

3. DoFT insists that the state in possession of the charge, hold the trial for an accused person(s) within the venue where the crime took place.
- Waiver of this particular right of venue, removes the state, in possession of the charge, obligation to hold the trial in venue. (NOTE: It removes the states obligation to provide the right, it does not obligate the state to which it cannot provide those rights).
- By such waiver, the state is then free, in absense of law, to hold the trial in venue of its choosing. Such venue change would allow the state to transfer authority of the case to another jurisdiction, if it so chooses to. However, this waiver does not "obligate" the state to transfer of venue.

The waiver, under the terms in which it will be used with the proposal under discussion, automatically grants an immunity that is recognized by international law. After all, it does state a court can convict or acquit a citizen for an extraditable offense, which I quote for you below:

Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

Don't like it? Take it up with NeoCon. As it stands, this allows me to try a citizen in my nation for a crime committed in yours and gives you no legal standing for even complaining about it. After all, it does state I can acquit or convict them of it by the very wording of it.

4. DP and HC exist to obligate the state to have the accused bodily present before his accusers.
- Waiver of such rights no longer places this obligation upon the state. This state can hold the trial for the accused in body or out. Since it is no longer under international legal obligations towards those rights which the accused have waived.

__________________________________

Which is what allows a state to acquit a citizen without them even going to trial.

Here are the several flaws you bring invent:

1. Waiver of rights does not "obligate the state" to not providing them. No international law exists which says it does. Just because someone "Waives their right" to be present at their hearing, does not mean that the state is forced to not hear the case. Under your logic, any accused person could waive their right to a hearing, and create an effective immunity for any crime they ever commit. Since you have invented an enviroment where waiver created obligation.

If you had paid attention on this to my early arguements, you would have seen that I was referencing those earlier ones about acquittal. None of my arguing on here has been qithout the previous in mind and all have been towards the same goal.

The immunity granted is that a person can wave their rights to venue and then have their home state, using the precedence of the possibility a state can acquit or convict a citizen for a crime before extradition is requested that NeoCon creates, to deal with them for a crime committed abroad. The result of this is a person can be dealt with for a crime they committed in a nation that gives a lesser sentence before the nation they committed the crime in can even ask to deal with it. Perfectly legal under the R&D to pull because it would be a legally-recognized immunity.

2. One state does not possess jurisdictional authority over the laws and crimes of another state. Immunities, are the laws passed within international scope. That is, I am free to try all cases of laws in my borders IN ACCORDANCE with all other international laws. No where do "these immunities" create some unwritten law, where I can try people for crimes commited in yours, in absense of specfic jurisdictional transfer by your own courts.

____________________________________________

Actually, according the the R&D, any immunity recognized by international law automatically overrides what the immunity is for. An immunity to jurisdiction results from Clause 4 of this proposal in that it allows a state to convict or acquit a citizen for an extraditable offense.

Mr. Smith is accused of murder in DLE. But presently resides in the CRoT. DLE presents the CRoT with an extraditionary request for possession of the accused to stand trial. The courts in CRoT issue a HC for Mr. Smith. And he is brought in, and a Extraditionary hearing is held in CRoT where DLE is asked to be present. Due to some evidence provided at the Extraditionary hearing. It is determined that the crime he commited in DLE is not a crime in the scope of Tekanian law. Therefore CRoT assumes no authority to extradite Mr. Smith. Tekania is then under the legal responsibility to release Mr. Smith. Even if Mr. Smith provided CRoT with waiver of rights to the case. CRoT would assume no jurisdictional authority over the case, in accordance with the R&D. We would forward such waiver to the proper authority (DLE). However, still not being extradited, we would be obligated to set Mr. Smith free.

Now, let's assume Mr. Smith was determined to be extradited by the hearing. With the waiver. Since jurisdictional authority still exists by the R&D in the hands of DLE, CRoT extradites Mr. Smith to DLE. Since DLE possesses the Jurisdictional authority under the R&D.

Now let's assume DLE receives this waiver, and determines venue for CRoT. DLE can present CRoT which a waiver of jurisdiction, and transfer authority over the case to the courts of CRoT. CRoT would then request all evidence and persons relevant to the trial of the case to be present in CRoT for the trial, whereby we would posses, due to DLE waiver, the power to hear the case over Mr. Smith.

Mind you, our "authority" over the case, only exists because DLE has given us temproal waiver and authority over the case. Otherwise, our hands would be tied, in relation to the accusation under the R&D.

This is all very simple. And all absolute law.

All of which is only legal under the current law. This proposal passes, it will change to allow a nation to prosecute before extradition is requested. Which is what I have opposed since the draft.

That is the first truthfull statement that has come from your mouth. And, I can unfortuneately tell, you made it in jest.

Actually, I was serious. You once again misunderstand.

It is true. If you waive your right to a trial. You are telling the state that it can do as it wishes.

Under a more totalitarian regime, waiver would effectively be placing your life in the hands of a government. Under Tekanian Jurisprudence, waiver does not mean anything. Since even in the presence of the waiver, we would still provide trial.

You do realize I am a dictatorship, right?

Once again, waiver does not create some "obligation to terrorize" by the member state. It only means we are no longer under the legal obligation of international law to provide those rights. Not being obligated, is not the same as not being allowed to.

Which is covered by "The state can do as it wishes."

For example. No international law exists which obligates me to possess a military force. However, lacking international obligation as such, does not mean I am obligated to not have one. No international law obligates me to make attempts to hold peace talks between warring nations. However, lacking such, does not mean I am obligated not to attempt to bring warring states to a peace conference. Lack of obligation does not ex nihlo-create some new unwritten obligation.

Thanks. I enjoyed the laugh at this as you think you proved a point and won an arguement.

Tekania, I enjoyed the game. Anytime you wish to play again, feel free to let me know. I'll enjoy the toying.

In which I oppose NeoCons proposals. As he demonstrates an inability to exercize any functional form of fair and just law.

As well as Krioval which already executes laws illegal under present international law.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

This has nothing to do with Kriovalian extraterritorial law, as it is being applied solely to Kriovalian citizens on Kriovalian territory. Thus it becomes our jurisdiction. This law (or extension of law, if one prefers) is limited to two situations:


A citizen of Krioval violates a law abroad that is not a crime in that location. That person returns home and likely receives a slap on the wrist or a stern warning; prosecution is reserved for stronger crimes. In any case, it's nobody's concern but Krioval's. Sod off.
A citizen of Krioval violates a law abroad that *is* a crime in that location. Now there's a conflict of jurisdiction - your territory and my citizen. Nine times out of ten, Krioval will extradite to that country and be done with it. In the other cases, Krioval is concerned that the accused will be improperly punished or one of us no longer recognizes the legitimacy of the other's government.


If a person were to violate Tekanian Law, and later, after release from their sentance, return to Krioval, and then be tried under your illegal "Extra-Territorial" laws, You would have, by default, violated Due Process.

Note that nowhere did I indicate that a person will be tried twice for the same offense. That is an invention on your part, Tekania, and I've dealt with the issue earlier. Krioval obviously abides by the Due Process resolution, and it is a grave insult to imply that we do not.

Regardless of your wishes. It is impossible for this "Extra-Territorial Law" to hold legality against the scrutiny of international legal requirements of placed upon us by our membership in these United Nations. Irregardless of your rights under the R&D towards jurisdiction of the people's within your borders. It is impossible for the ExtraTerritorial Kriovalian laws to be legal under the mandates imposed by the Definition of Fair Trial, Due Process.

See, you keep saying this, and yet, repetition doesn't make it true. I've given the two cases in which KEL would apply. The first doesn't concern you. The second only occurs in a minority of cases, usually where the other country's punishment would involve either death or a disproportionate length of imprisonment. Inhumane prison conditions would also be a factor. Since a good deal of these provisions exist to protect citizens from non-UN nations or to enforce Kriovalian codes on our citizens abroad, I fail to see why this has you so upset in the first place. It most definitely does not violate international law, and you can shriek to the heavens all you want that it does, but you have yet to demonstrate one instance in which I have overstepped my bounds.

Krioval must immediately rewrite its laws

Talk about overstepping one's jurisdiction. Tell me, does the concept of national sovereignty only apply when it's to your advantage?

the delegates and senators of the Combined Congress of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, in full authority and power granted to us by the people of the Republic and her protectorates. Do hereby remove our recognition of the government in power in Krioval

Nothing like a measured response from a rational government. [/sarcasm]

the delegates and senators of the Combined Congress of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, in full authority and power granted to us by the people of the Republic and her protectorates. Do hereby remove our recognition of the government in power in Krioval

Nothing like a measured response from a rational government. [/sarcasm]

OOC: Sounds like a possible RP in II...

This has nothing to do with Kriovalian extraterritorial law, as it is being applied solely to Kriovalian citizens on Kriovalian territory. Thus it becomes our jurisdiction. This law (or extension of law, if one prefers) is limited to two situations:

It applies to events which occured within the jurisdictional authority of CRoT. Therefore, the case is in possession of CRoT only.

It is impossible for your law to violate DoFT. Thus, it is impossible for you to satisfy demands of international law in regards to venue of the crime. In this case venue lays in CRoT Jurisdictional authority as outlined in the R&D. Prosecution of the crime, is a violation of the protected rights and responsibilities as outlined in the DoFT and R&D.



A citizen of Krioval violates a law abroad that is not a crime in that location. That person returns home and likely receives a slap on the wrist or a stern warning; prosecution is reserved for stronger crimes. In any case, it's nobody's concern but Krioval's. Sod off.

Stern warning is not prosecution. Thus we would allow you such.


A citizen of Krioval violates a law abroad that *is* a crime in that location. Now there's a conflict of jurisdiction - your territory and my citizen. Nine times out of ten, Krioval will extradite to that country and be done with it. In the other cases, Krioval is concerned that the accused will be improperly punished or one of us no longer recognizes the legitimacy of the other's government.


In which case jurisdiction lays with CRoT. Since it is impossible for you to try the accused, and remain in compliance with DoFT. Thus you are in violation of DoFT and the R&D immunities clause.



Note that nowhere did I indicate that a person will be tried twice for the same offense. That is an invention on your part, Tekania, and I've dealt with the issue earlier. Krioval obviously abides by the Due Process resolution, and it is a grave insult to imply that we do not.

But does not abide by the DoFT. Per your own admission. Since you are requred, in cases where crimes occur aboad. To try the crime in the venue (that is jurisdiction) of the offense. Lacking such, the person is either to be extradited to CRoT, or released. Krioval can hold no trial. As it would violate the DoFT.



See, you keep saying this, and yet, repetition doesn't make it true. I've given the two cases in which KEL would apply. The first doesn't concern you. The second only occurs in a minority of cases, usually where the other country's punishment would involve either death or a disproportionate length of imprisonment. Inhumane prison conditions would also be a factor. Since a good deal of these provisions exist to protect citizens from non-UN nations or to enforce Kriovalian codes on our citizens abroad, I fail to see why this has you so upset in the first place. It most definitely does not violate international law, and you can shriek to the heavens all you want that it does, but you have yet to demonstrate one instance in which I have overstepped my bounds.

KEL is illegal under the provisions of international law. If we were the foreign state we would demand the immediate release of the accused, and charge the nation of Krioval with violating DoFT.



Talk about overstepping one's jurisdiction. Tell me, does the concept of national sovereignty only apply when it's to your advantage?

Trial of an individual for crimes in CRoT jurisdiction can only occur in CRoT Jurisdiction. You are obligated by international law to either grant extradition to the CRoT, or release the accused. You, yourself, possess no authority to try the accused, without violating international law in accordance with the DoFT and R&D. Unless you exaplain to me how you manage to try someone in your venue, for a crime which occured in venue of CRoT, and yet maintain compliance with The Definition of Fair Trial clause in regards to trial in venue of the location of the offense. Thus you are guilty of violating no less than two international laws. Violation of the immunity clase to your laws in the R&D in conjunction with violation of the Definition of Fair Trial.

In any case, it is impossible for you to try ANYONE under the KEL for any crimes commited abroad without directly violating R&D obligations to the recognition of jurisdictional authority of other nations.

If you were to determine not to extradite the accused to CRoT. Then you are obligated to release the accused, and recognizing that no law has been broken, and therefore further prosecution is illegal.

In any case, the KEL cannot be legal under international law. Short of the accused waiving all rights. In which case both nations are free to try him, in body or out, for the crime in question.

Mr. Smith is being held in Krioval for crimes commited in CRoT. Krioval tries Mr. Smith, without waiver of DoFT by the accused, Krioval is in violation of the DoFT, since they denied his international granted right to be tried in the venue of the crime. Thus Krioval has violated international law.

Mr. Smith waives his DoFT rights. CRoT then holds a trial ex habeus, not being present for the trial. CRoT authority automatically acquits. Thus, automatically, any trial Krioval holds is in violation of Due Process, and therefore Krioval has violated international law.

The KEL is illegal. Because it invalidates the immunities towards the rights granted Krioval within international law. Thus, KEL is illegal under international law.

UN Extradition Protocol
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: NeoCon Hubris



Description: Extradition Procedure of the United Nations

Article 1 - Obligation to follow the procedure

Obligates each UN State to comply with this extradition procedure when granting or denying extradition to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.

What treaty?


Article 2 - Extraditable Offenses

Article 2(1) defines an offense as an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both UN States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty.

So it is limited to felonies only. In cases where the violation is criminal in both jurisdictions. Fair enough, very logical jurisprudence.


Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense as including an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, participation in the commission of, aiding or abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to any offense described in paragraph 1 of Article 2.

Since all forms of such are also fellonies, this makes sense.


Article 3 - Nationality

Provides that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Also logical.


Article 4 - Prior Prosecution

Article 4(1) provides that extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which extradition is requested.

DoFT violation. The "Requested State" cannot legally try the accused.


Article 4(2) provides that extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the Requested State:
4(2)(a) have decided not to prosecute the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested;

Once again, their "prosecution is illegal" and therefore there is no preclusion in this case.


4(2)(b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person sought for those acts; or

Once again prosecution for "those acts" is illegal under the DoFT.


4(2)(c) are still investigating the person sought for the same acts for which extradition is sought.

Once again, DoFT violation.


Article 5 - Capital Punishment

When an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but not under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

Logical jurisprudence.


Article 6 - Extradition Procedures and Required Documents

Article 6(1) All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements,

Logical.


Article 6(2) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by:

6(2)(a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge and other competent authority;
6(2)(b) a copy of the charging document, if any.

Logical, and in support of Due Process, Habeus Corpus and Definition of Fair Trial.


Article 7 - Additional Information

If the Requested State requires additional information to enable a decision to be taken on the request for extradition, the Requesting State shall respond to the request within such time as the Requested State requires.

I do not believe that this is strictly legal. As it allows either state grounds for violating Habeus Corpus. The documents and claims should be made within the dictation of protections as supported under international law in Habeus Corpus.


Article 8 - Requests for Extradition Made by Several States

Provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the executive authority of the Requested State in determining to which State, if any, to surrender a person whose extradition is sought by more than one State.

This makes no sense. Why provide provision for something the Extraditionary Hearing is to determine anyway?


Article 9 - Consultation

Provides that the Parties may consult with each other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty.

Also confusing. Why must provision be made to allow consulation between requestor and requestee, when such is already a fundamental fact supported by normal diplomatic procedures?

Prosecution of the crime, is a violation of the protected rights and responsibilities as outlined in the DoFT and R&D.

Not if certain provisions are waived. If the accused decides to waive rights to venue and jury trial, for example, the process is simple and legal. If there's evidence to prosecute, the case goes before a Kriovalian judge, and a verdict is decided. Otherwise the accused is simply released without a trial.

In which case jurisdiction lays with CRoT. Since it is impossible for you to try the accused, and remain in compliance with DoFT.

One word: waiver. Any Kriovalian defense lawyer would urge his or her client to waive the right to venue so that Kriovalian secondary jurisdiction can then apply. If the accused doesn't, Krioval reserves the right to ship the person straight to the other country, regardless of their diplomatic status. Typically, the document is signed, rather than the accused taking a chance in a country that has poor relations with Krioval. Again, simple and legal.

KEL is illegal under the provisions of international law. If we were the foreign state we would demand the immediate release of the accused, and charge the nation of Krioval with violating DoFT.

You have the right to intercept the accused anywhere except in Krioval, as KEL does not apply until that person returns to Krioval or a Kriovalian territory. I thought I had made that clear - we certainly can't try a crime if the person isn't on our land.

In any case, the KEL cannot be legal under international law. Short of the accused waiving all rights. In which case both nations are free to try him, in body or out, for the crime in question.

Mr. Smith is being held in Krioval for crimes commited in CRoT. Krioval tries Mr. Smith, without waiver of DoFT by the accused, Krioval is in violation of the DoFT, since they denied his international granted right to be tried in the venue of the crime. Thus Krioval has violated international law.

Mr. Smith waives his DoFT rights. CRoT then holds a trial ex habeus, not being present for the trial. CRoT authority automatically acquits. Thus, automatically, any trial Krioval holds is in violation of Due Process, and therefore Krioval has violated international law.

Problem: Mr. Smith can selectively waive individual rights, such as venue, jury trial, and openness to media (which would be delayed). Your "trial" would be considered unfair, despite the acquittal, since not only did the defendant not get to confront his accusers, but the aggrieved party, in this case Krioval, was not allowed to present evidence.

Further, in all likelihood Krioval would sit on your extradition request long enough to iron out these details with the accused, provided he was willing, and in the presence of a good defense attorney. We would then proceed to hold a closed trial (media waiver) in Krioval (venue waiver) before a single judge (jury waiver) to get a verdict, one way or another. A plea bargain would work as well. Then Krioval would announce the verdict, unseal the details of the trial, and deny extradition on the basis of prior conviction or acquittal. Your nation would have either sent in the requisite evidence for its extradition request, which would then be applied to the trial, or your nation would have stonewalled, in which case Krioval would likely announce an acquittal for lack of evidence.

In any case, what Krioval does in the above case is perfectly legal according to international law.

In which I oppose NeoCons proposals. As he demonstrates an inability to exercize any functional form of fair and just law.

Welcome to the corporation. We are extremely for profit, extremely against this proposal, and cover multiple worlds. And, we both know from that arguement the headaches this will cause firsthand. Thanks for helping me with that demonstration. To show no hard feelings, one of our ships has mysteriously lost two cargoholds of extremely rare stable uranium and platinum while near your territory (about 1 metric tons each). Salvage rights apply.

And, yes, the entire previous post was IC. I'm not that much of an asshole in real life.

...so, in order to preserve a person's civil rights, you deny them the right to waive their rights.

*head explodes*

EDIT:

Also, DLE, a person waiving their right to be tried in the venue of the crime doesn't mean they cannot be tried in the venue of the crime anyway. If so, anyway charged with a crime can say, "I waive my right to be tried at the venue of the crime" and then you can't touch them.

I said it earlier... waiving your right to a trial doesn't mean you can't be tried anyway. Same thing here.
Your mistake is in thinking anyone is listening...

This was Teh Art of Thread-Hijacking, in vicious three part harmony.

Rather impressive, all-in-all.

In an attempt to rescue this thread from the Resolution 47 hijacking, I'm reposting part of my response to Krioval from a couple days ago.
Neocon Hubris, have you thought about how to change the proposal to close these loopholes or clarify the procedure?

1. The proposal needs to clarify whether extradition can be delayed if a person is on trial or in prison in the requested nation.
2. I think we need assurances that once a person is extradited, new charges won't be piled on.
3. Repatriation after trial, or after prison, needs to be addressed.
4. I don't understand under what circumstances time served in one nation should apply toward a prison term in the other nation.
Bump for Neocon, if he dares enter into here again...

Your mistake is in thinking anyone is listening...

This was Teh Art of Thread-Hijacking, in vicious three part harmony.

Rather impressive, all-in-all.

Actually, we're back on the main topic.

Welcome to the corporation. We are extremely for profit, extremely against this proposal, and cover multiple worlds. And, we both know from that arguement the headaches this will cause firsthand. Thanks for helping me with that demonstration. To show no hard feelings, one of our ships has mysteriously lost two cargoholds of extremely rare stable uranium and platinum while near your territory (about 1 metric tons each). Salvage rights apply.

And, yes, the entire previous post was IC. I'm not that much of an asshole in real life.

Not sure what to do with the uranium. Though the platinum will come in handy for some things.

Not if certain provisions are waived. If the accused decides to waive rights to venue and jury trial, for example, the process is simple and legal. If there's evidence to prosecute, the case goes before a Kriovalian judge, and a verdict is decided. Otherwise the accused is simply released without a trial.



One word: waiver. Any Kriovalian defense lawyer would urge his or her client to waive the right to venue so that Kriovalian secondary jurisdiction can then apply. If the accused doesn't, Krioval reserves the right to ship the person straight to the other country, regardless of their diplomatic status. Typically, the document is signed, rather than the accused taking a chance in a country that has poor relations with Krioval. Again, simple and legal.



You have the right to intercept the accused anywhere except in Krioval, as KEL does not apply until that person returns to Krioval or a Kriovalian territory. I thought I had made that clear - we certainly can't try a crime if the person isn't on our land.



Problem: Mr. Smith can selectively waive individual rights, such as venue, jury trial, and openness to media (which would be delayed). Your "trial" would be considered unfair, despite the acquittal, since not only did the defendant not get to confront his accusers, but the aggrieved party, in this case Krioval, was not allowed to present evidence.

Further, in all likelihood Krioval would sit on your extradition request long enough to iron out these details with the accused, provided he was willing, and in the presence of a good defense attorney. We would then proceed to hold a closed trial (media waiver) in Krioval (venue waiver) before a single judge (jury waiver) to get a verdict, one way or another. A plea bargain would work as well. Then Krioval would announce the verdict, unseal the details of the trial, and deny extradition on the basis of prior conviction or acquittal. Your nation would have either sent in the requisite evidence for its extradition request, which would then be applied to the trial, or your nation would have stonewalled, in which case Krioval would likely announce an acquittal for lack of evidence.

In any case, what Krioval does in the above case is perfectly legal according to international law.

IOW. You have the KEL. A law that is impossible to enforce, unless in the presence of a person who wants to be found guilty. Hmmm, very effective.

Here's your flaw.

Say one of your citizens (Mr. Smith) is in the CRoT. While there he smokes marijuana in public. A perfectly legal act in the CRoT. After returning to Krioval, Mr. Smith brags about this to others. Being in violation of the KEL. He is arrested. He refuses to waive his rights in accordance with the DoFT rights. Thus, if the trial is to proceed, you are requred under the DoFT to try him within the territorial jurisdiction of the CRoT (by the DoFT and R&D).

If you try him anyway, you violate the DoFT. If you request CRoT jurisdiction, it is denied based on the R&D. You must either transfer the case to CRoT jurisdiction, or you must set them free (The KEL is impossible to enforce). If the case is transferred, he would automatically be acquited by CRoT jurisprudence, in that no violation of CRoT laws have occured (as applicable under the R&D). As such, he is free, still, in that acquital has been applied, and any further acts on this case would be a violation of the DP.

Even if re-entry for Mr. Smith is denied. He is declared a "refugee" under CRoT laws, and is applicable for full and immediate citizenship in the CRoT. With all the rights and benefits thereof.

If Mr. Smith commited murder in the CRoT. And admits it in Krioval. You can arrest him. Mr. Smith refuses to waive his DoFT rights. At which point you are required to either set Mr. Smith free, accept an extraditionary request from CRoT. If extradition is denied. You must set Mr. Smith free... Since your hands are tied to apply the KEL in presence of the DoFT rights. Once again, the KEL is impossible to enforce. If you try Mr. Smith, you violate the DoFT. So basically, to enforce the KEL, you must extradite Mr. Smith.

Congrajulations, you have created a law (the KEL) which is impossible to enforce unless under EXTREME circumstances in which the accused WAIVES his rights protected under international law...

Tell me, in what other ways do the Kriovalian officials waste their taxpayers money in the creation of laws which cannot be enforced?

Say one of your citizens (Mr. Smith) is in the CRoT. While there he smokes marijuana in public. A perfectly legal act in the CRoT. After returning to Krioval, Mr. Smith brags about this to others. Being in violation of the KEL. He is arrested. He refuses to waive his rights in accordance with the DoFT rights. Thus, if the trial is to proceed, you are requred under the DoFT to try him within the territorial jurisdiction of the CRoT (by the DoFT and R&D).

First off, smoking marijuana in public is a minor issue in Krioval, and usually a small fine is issued. Same for smoking tobacco in public. I just wanted to make that part clear in case people are starting to think that we have no civil rights in Krioval. In any case, such a minor offense is not covered by KEL, and I believe I used the example of drugs in an earlier post.

Now, in your hypothetical case, your nation has absolutely no jurisdiction over Mr. Smith since you feel that a crime has not been committed. Thus, original jurisdiction is Krioval's. He would be charged with the violation of Krioval's criminal code while abroad and then returning to Kriovalian territory. Thus the venue for the trial would be Krioval, and most KEL cases are routed to Torokara, the capital, since that's where 33-40% of Kriovalians live.

But let's use a hypothetical that actually applies.

Mr. Smith goes abroad and solicits a child prostitute. In the country in which he does this, the act is considered legal. He returns home and his sexual acts are discovered by the authorities. Under KEL, Mr. Smith is arrested and charged with a variety of violations of law, including sexual assault on a minor. In this case, the standard trial system is conducted, including the gathering of evidence, indictment, and jury trial. While it will be more difficult to get a conviction, the fact that people knew it was going on can lead to sufficient circumstantial evidence for a guilty verdict. If the child gives a deposition, so much the better, from Krioval's perspective.

Ultimately, even an acquittal is useful to Krioval in that it sends a strong message to our citizens that we can and will find out about these kinds of activities and will work to stomp them out. KEL's strongest application is as a deterrent. Its secondary application is to save someone from the death penalty for an unarmed robbery in another country. Thus, the goals of the Kriovalian justice system are prevention and rehabilitation.

Even if re-entry for Mr. Smith is denied. He is declared a "refugee" under CRoT laws, and is applicable for full and immediate citizenship in the CRoT. With all the rights and benefits thereof.

Kriovalian citizens have automatic right to enter Krioval, so long as they can demonstrate their citizenship. KEL can't be applied until that person returns; embassies and consular offices are exempted from applying KEL to facilitate any deal-making process if someone has violated Kriovalian law abroad and wishes to avoid harsh penalties. The process is surprisingly streamlined and typically favors the accused over the government of Krioval.

If Mr. Smith commited murder in the CRoT. And admits it in Krioval. You can arrest him. Mr. Smith refuses to waive his DoFT rights. At which point you are required to either set Mr. Smith free, accept an extraditionary request from CRoT. If extradition is denied. You must set Mr. Smith free... Since your hands are tied to apply the KEL in presence of the DoFT rights. Once again, the KEL is impossible to enforce. If you try Mr. Smith, you violate the DoFT. So basically, to enforce the KEL, you must extradite Mr. Smith.

Uh, yeah. That was the entire point. If Mr. Smith figures his chances are better in Tekania, he'll refuse to waive any fair trial provisions. Then Krioval will extradite so long as Tekania can demonstrate some validity of the murder charge. We don't exactly want murderers to be running loose in Krioval for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, if Mr. Smith figures his chances are better in Krioval, he'll waive various fair trial provisions, at which point Krioval gets to decide his fate. We can still extradite him to Tekania OR we can try him under KEL.

Congrajulations, you have created a law (the KEL) which is impossible to enforce unless under EXTREME circumstances in which the accused WAIVES his rights protected under international law...

Or where the other nation's laws don't apply. I think I've discussed just about every possible application of KEL in great detail here. I can be used to prosecute a Kriovalian crime committed in a place where the act isn't considered a crime by local authorities OR it can be used to redirect jurisdiction to Krioval if the accused waives rights to certain fair trial provisions to avoid extradition. I don't pretend that the second application is the nicest thing to do, on an international level, but the potential is there, and it occasionally gets invoked against countries with major human rights violations.

Tell me, in what other ways do the Kriovalian officials waste their taxpayers money in the creation of laws which cannot be enforced?

I'm not sure we should be discussing taxes here, considering that your tax rates are more than twice mine, and mine are due to be slashed again, but every Kriovalian law is designed with a specific purpose in mind. KEL serves its purpose quite well - it protects our citizens from abuse in foreign prisons, enforces Krioval's ethical code abroad, and shores up our economy by forcing people to push for legalization of certain things, like gambling, directly, rather than allowing them to blow their money in another country.

As far as "wasting taxpayers' money", Krioval does have, at either solstice, a festival called "Soldiers' Day", in which marriages are suspended for the day and titles and ranks are abolished. Krioval subsidizes medical examinations and distribution of condoms for this, as the festival strengthens both military morale and the economy. Go figure.

First off, smoking marijuana in public is a minor issue in Krioval, and usually a small fine is issued. Same for smoking tobacco in public. I just wanted to make that part clear in case people are starting to think that we have no civil rights in Krioval. In any case, such a minor offense is not covered by KEL, and I believe I used the example of drugs in an earlier post.

No, because you can't try the case. Which I will elaborate further.


Now, in your hypothetical case, your nation has absolutely no jurisdiction over Mr. Smith since you feel that a crime has not been committed. Thus, original jurisdiction is Krioval's. He would be charged with the violation of Krioval's criminal code while abroad and then returning to Kriovalian territory. Thus the venue for the trial would be Krioval, and most KEL cases are routed to Torokara, the capital, since that's where 33-40% of Kriovalians live.

CRoT has jurisdiction. Unless you plan on ignoring the DoFT.


5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.


The Crime was commited in CRoT jurisdiction. The "Venue" is the jurisdictional territory of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania as per the powers protecting the state powers over each of their own territories as per the R&D Resolution....


Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

and


Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

As such, trying him is tantamount to a violation of DoFT.

Irregardless of what law is being sited in violation in accorance with the KEL. The venue of the criminal violation lays within the jurisdictional authority of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania.

Thus, the KEL, by definition seeks to violate Article 3 of Rights and Duties. Since it imposes upon CRoT jurisdictional authority.


Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Since imposition of jurisdictional authority, by the implication of "extra-territorial" jurisdictional claims by the KEL overlaps jurisdictional rights granted other states in the implication and oversight of their own jurisdictional rights. The KEL can be said to "interfere" with the legal powers (internal/external "social affairs) of all other NSUN member states. Thus, the KEL is illegal by the strict letter of the law.

The "venue" is of CRoT ownership and territory. Thus the proceedings may only be applied (in lieu of the DoFT) within CRoT territorial powers.

Venue is the locality of the crime, not the locality which created a particular law.

Even if a person is charged with a crime of federal scope in the Constitutional Republic, their trial occurs in the district where the crime takes place, because the local "district" is the venue.

The above applies irregardless of the "severity" of the violation as stated in the KEL.

Even if the imposition is a fine, the determinatory authority lays within venue (locality) of the actual location where the violation took place. IOW. If Mr. Smith smoked "weed" in public in the CRoT. And the KEL sites violation. You are required, by international law, to transfer such a case to CRoT jurisdiction so that the requirements of the DoFT can be met in venue. If hearing and fine is imposed by the KEL in absense of a trial, or in Krioval in absense of venue (that is the venue of the CRoT), you have violated the DoFT.

To quote the Lectre Legal Lexicon, Venue is "the county or state in which the facts were alleged to have occured." IOW. For someone who smoked weed in public, to be tried under the KEL and meet DoFT requirements, they would have to be tried in the state jurisdiction of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania. If it was murder, they would have to be tried the same.

As for a penalty which imposes a fine only. By definition of Habeus Corpus, you are required, upon the filing of such violation of the KEL to supply the accused with all rights outlined in the DoFT. Thus, you are not allowed to present fine (as per Due Process) without providing trial. And the rest stands firm. That the venue for the trial must be CRoT as per international law.

The penalty imposed for violation of the DoFT is cited in the last clause of the Fair Trial resolution. That is, immediate eviction from the United Nations.

Thus, the KEL, by definition seeks to violate Article 3 of Rights and Duties. Since it imposes upon CRoT jurisdictional authority.

You're really reaching now. The crime was committed in Krioval, since it requires that the person return of his or her free will. We don't go out and try to capture people violating Kriovalian law outside of Krioval. So your contention about venue is without merit.

Since imposition of jurisdictional authority, by the implication of "extra-territorial" jurisdictional claims by the KEL overlaps jurisdictional rights granted other states in the implication and oversight of their own jurisdictional rights. The KEL can be said to "interfere" with the legal powers (internal/external "social affairs) of all other NSUN member states. Thus, the KEL is illegal by the strict letter of the law.

No, it is not. Krioval has jurisdiction over Kriovalian citizens in Kriovalian territory. That's why extradition is needed in the first place. Nobody can prosecute someone who isn't present under their authority. We either recognize or dismiss the authority of your government to try a case when we accept or refuse extradition. We don't deny that a crime may have been committed, which allows KEL to be applied. And since, by Article 2 of the Rights and Duties Resolution, Kriovalian citizens inside Kriovalian territory are subject to Kriovalian authority, it works.

Even if a person is charged with a crime of federal scope in the Constitutional Republic, their trial occurs in the district where the crime takes place, because the local "district" is the venue.

Well, that's all well and good, but it's not how Kriovalian courts work. Since the national courts in Krioval are appointed by the Commandership and confirmed in the Senate, we decided to simplify the system and make one jurisdictional district for many cases: Krioval. Then attorneys for both sides convene, usually with a judge, to determine where the trial will be held; most are done near to where the defendant lives for sake of convenience. Thus, there are national courts in Torokara, and Valak, and even the planet Tarisia. Once a court is established to hear the case, jury selection begins. So it's interesting to hear how other countries do it, but we prefer to avoid the problems inherent with an inflexible judicial system. And for record's sake, local courts deal with local issues, which are also not part of KEL.

Even if the imposition is a fine, the determinatory authority lays within venue (locality) of the actual location where the violation took place. IOW. If Mr. Smith smoked "weed" in public in the CRoT. And the KEL sites violation. You are required, by international law, to transfer such a case to CRoT jurisdiction so that the requirements of the DoFT can be met in venue. If hearing and fine is imposed by the KEL in absense of a trial, or in Krioval in absense of venue (that is the venue of the CRoT), you have violated the DoFT.

You have no jurisdiction over this case whatsoever. You don't even claim a crime was committed. However, Krioval does, and the most important part of the commission of that crime is freely returning to Kriovalian territory. The only government alleging that a crime has happened is ours. And by Article 2 of the R&D, we're well within our bounds to do as we will. The Definition of a Fair Trial says that crimes must be tried in venue. But the crime was not considered fully committed until the person arrived in Krioval!

You can insist that your country has jurisdiction over non-crimes committed there all you'd like, but it doesn't give your claim any more legitimacy. Nor does inventing irrelevant scenarios and making contrivances out of international law that don't apply. The crimes described under KEL are considered to have taken place in Krioval upon the person's voluntary return. Thus, the venue is Krioval and the trial is fair.

You're really reaching now. The crime was committed in Krioval, since it requires that the person return of his or her free will. We don't go out and try to capture people violating Kriovalian law outside of Krioval. So your contention about venue is without merit.



No, it is not. Krioval has jurisdiction over Kriovalian citizens in Kriovalian territory. That's why extradition is needed in the first place. Nobody can prosecute someone who isn't present under their authority. We either recognize or dismiss the authority of your government to try a case when we accept or refuse extradition. We don't deny that a crime may have been committed, which allows KEL to be applied. And since, by Article 2 of the Rights and Duties Resolution, Kriovalian citizens inside Kriovalian territory are subject to Kriovalian authority, it works.



Well, that's all well and good, but it's not how Kriovalian courts work. Since the national courts in Krioval are appointed by the Commandership and confirmed in the Senate, we decided to simplify the system and make one jurisdictional district for many cases: Krioval. Then attorneys for both sides convene, usually with a judge, to determine where the trial will be held; most are done near to where the defendant lives for sake of convenience. Thus, there are national courts in Torokara, and Valak, and even the planet Tarisia. Once a court is established to hear the case, jury selection begins. So it's interesting to hear how other countries do it, but we prefer to avoid the problems inherent with an inflexible judicial system. And for record's sake, local courts deal with local issues, which are also not part of KEL.



You have no jurisdiction over this case whatsoever. You don't even claim a crime was committed. However, Krioval does, and the most important part of the commission of that crime is freely returning to Kriovalian territory. The only government alleging that a crime has happened is ours. And by Article 2 of the R&D, we're well within our bounds to do as we will. The Definition of a Fair Trial says that crimes must be tried in venue. But the crime was not considered fully committed until the person arrived in Krioval!

You can insist that your country has jurisdiction over non-crimes committed there all you'd like, but it doesn't give your claim any more legitimacy. Nor does inventing irrelevant scenarios and making contrivances out of international law that don't apply. The crimes described under KEL are considered to have taken place in Krioval upon the person's voluntary return. Thus, the venue is Krioval and the trial is fair.

Venue is venue. It is where the crime took place. The crime was not returning to Krioval. The crime was the commision of the violation within CRoT territories. CRoT territories is the venue of the crime. You can argue against it all you like. You are still wrong...That is the definition of venue.

As such, your state exists in status of criminal violation of International laws... As long as you remain in the United Nations...


Lectre Legal Lexicon...

"Venue is the county or state where the FACTS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURED"

This is the language. The "facts" that are alleged is the "commision of a crime within the territories of (CRoT)" in this case. Thus the VENUE OF THE CRIME is the CRoT... Not Krioval. It does not matter that it is your law. It does not matter that you arrested them upon return. THE PHYSICAL LOCATION AND LOCALITY OF THE CRIME is the only thing that matters within international jurisprudence.

You've got yourself in a bind. If you argue that these "violations" occured in another state, you recognize that state as venue. Thus DoFT applies... If you argue that the violations occur merely "outside of Krioval Jurisdiction" R&D#3 applies, and you have no rights towards enforcement. Either way, you cannot enforce.... Merely from the fact that they are there, and the KEL is yours, does not mean you have venue. CRoT is STILL the VENUE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.

Do I have to keep slamming the DEFINITION of Venue down your illiterate throat? YOU DO NOT HAVE #$%#%#% VENUE.

A person who performs the violation of any regulation or law within the territorial authoirty of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania can ONLY be tried by the courts of the district of the Constitutional Republic of Tekania where the alleged crime took place, and ONLY have their case heard b y jurors from the Constitutional Republic of Tekania.

Case closed...

If you want to proceed further, then we can convene a pannel before this body to determine the facts relevant to this case...

I can assure you, that no one would interpret "venue" in such an illiterate manner as yourself.

Venue is venue. It is where the crime took place. The crime was not returning to Krioval.

For someone who has never interacted with Krioval until this matter arose, you know an awful lot about our law. Too bad everything you "know" is incorrect. Returning to Krioval categorizes the action as a crime. That's the only way KEL could be applied in the first place. Thus, the crime took place in Krioval.

"Venue is the county or state where the FACTS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURED"

This is the language. The "facts" that are alleged is the "commision of a crime within the territories of (CRoT)" in this case. Thus the VENUE OF THE CRIME is the CRoT... Not Krioval. It does not matter that it is your law. It does not matter that you arrested them upon return. THE PHYSICAL LOCATION AND LOCALITY OF THE CRIME is the only thing that matters within international jurisprudence.

And the resolution in question contains the Lectre definition where? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. I say that the crime occurred in Krioval, as that's the only logical place it could have taken place.

Do I have to keep slamming the DEFINITION of Venue down your illiterate throat? YOU DO NOT HAVE #$%#%#% VENUE.

Goodness. I'm not exactly forcing you to do anything. If you feel that I am violating international law, please feel free to make the accusation somewhere where it might make an impact, rather than railing at my government for its perfectly acceptable interpretation of international law. Just make sure we establish the venue for the proceedings; I'd hate to have your case tossed on a technicality.

If you want to proceed further, then we can convene a pannel before this body to determine the facts relevant to this case...

Why would I want to proceed further? I like things as they were earlier, before you decided to shove your government's interpretations into my affairs.

I can assure you, that no one would interpret "venue" in such an illiterate manner as yourself.

Well, if the resolution allows multiple interpretations (it does), then someone must have come up with the idea aside from me. If not, I am most certainly proud to have crafted a unique legal system that fits international regulations while simultaneously annoying both people on the extreme left and the extreme right.

So what happened to Neocon?