NationStates Jolt Archive

[Please, any relevant feedback is appreciated. I’ve studied up, and I believe this is a reasonable and legitimate proposal. If my format needs work, or if I’m violating some taboo, let me know. I’m new at this. I posted a similar draft, but got zero feedback. Is it just too uninteresting?]

CATEGORY: Political stability

RESOLUTION NAME: Accountability for International Criminals

REALIZING That crime is commonly committed by visitors from other nations, or by persons planning to escape to other nations after their crimes are committed.

IN LIGHT OF UN laws ensuring fair trials in all member nations, and preventing prosecution on grounds of unjust laws.

PROVIDED that there is no cause to suspect that the nation accusing the fugitive is in violation of any related UN resolutions.

IN ORDER TO Reduce crime both at home and abroad.

THIS RESOLUTION HEARBY DECLARES THAT:
Article I: Any member of the UN must deport any suspect of crimes against another UN country to that country for due legal processing in a criminal court meeting the requirements set forth by UN regulations, or challenge the accusor's claim (see article IV).
Article II: Article I must be carried out posthaste, regardless of the laws and regulations of the country having custody of the suspect, and without subjection to that country’s judicial system.
Article III: In cases where suspects are wanted for crimes in multiple countries, custody will of course be given to the country with the most grievous charges against the suspect.
Article IV: If the nation with custody of the suspect should decide to challenge the accusing nation's claim, the accusor must provide enough evidence to prove in an international court that there is adequate grounds to accuse this person.
Article V: Grievous abuse of this resolution (multiple failed claims for the same suspect, continued insistance that members of a certain ethnicity, race, Nationality, species, et c., are in violation of laws, or any claim ruled by the UN council to be frivolous or unfair) will result in revocation of the nation's ability to use this resolution.
Article VI: This resolution cannot be used to accuse any one of crimes not commited on the accuser's soil.
Article VII: If the accusing country is suspected (with reasonable grounds) of being in violation of any related UN regulations, the nation with custody is not obligated to follow through with the requirements of this resolution.
Article VIII: Special exceptions will be made for cases in which the accusing nation and the nation having custody have blatantly contrasted views concerning the death penalty.
Article IX: A nation can choose to protect one of its own citizens if a country demands custody under the articles of this resolution and the suspect is in his home country. If the accusatory nation chooses to persist, he can file an appeal to the UN, and after hearing from both nations and the accused, the UN may choose to either dismiss the case or deliver custody to the accusing nation to face a fair trial by an impartial jury, according to pre-existing UN regulations. Note that this option should only be persued when the charges are most serious, as the UN's time is valuable. If the UN council dismisses the case, it may choose to take action to prevent further frivolous cases from being brought before its presence by stripping the accusing nation's right to accuse citizens of the accused's nation.

THIS WILL SERVE TO:
I. Deter crimes on the part of individuals planning to escape justice in another country after violating the law.
II. Help crack down on international crime, such as arms dealing or narcotic smuggling.
III. Provide justice for the victims of crimes committed by persons that have fled the country.


Thank you for due consideration of this proposal.
--Noble President Tim of Ra Hurfarfar

We refuse to extradite suspects if they are going to be tried for actions which we believe are right or should be legal, such as rebellion against an oppressive government or drug use, or if there is the possibility that they will be subjected to punishments we deem inhumane or unjust, including mutilation and death.

Therefore, we cannot support any extradition proposal which does not allow such refusals to be made.

I would vote for this resolution if it made the floor of the UN if you allowed Member Nations to deny other nations the right to the suspect's life, unless the Nation finds indisputable evidence that the suspect is indeed worth deporting for a trial.

We refuse to extradite suspects if they are going to be tried for actions which we believe are right or should be legal, such as rebellion against an oppressive government or drug use, or if there is the possibility that they will be subjected to punishments we deem inhumane or unjust, including mutilation and death.

Therefore, we cannot support any extradition proposal which does not allow such refusals to be made.

But UN resolutions currently in place should prevent any unjust or inhumane laws or punishments. As for drug laws and other such controversial policies, it is a person's responsibility to comply with the laws of the region they are living in.

Even so, perhaps I should include a more direct clause detailing exceptions for UN violations? Yes, I believe I'll do that.

Hello,

I think your proposal is something the UN should be involved in. You've done a good job with your preamble.

The part that I feel needs work is:

THIS RESOLUTION HEARBY DECLARES THAT:
Article I: Any member of the UN must deport any suspect of crimes against another UN country to that country for due legal processing.
Article II: Article I must be carried out posthaste, regardless of the laws and regulations of the country having custody of the suspect, and without subjection to that country’s judicial system.

In Article I, I am a bit concerned that we are deporting suspects, not people whom have been charged with a crime. Though if you changed the phrase "any suspect of crimes" to "anyone charged with a crime" you will cut down on countries from just grabbing people for investigation, I have a larger concern about what would happen in a case where the charge is not valid.

For example, the nation Belem recently stated that in response to my government's trade embargo, that anybody from my country would be tried as a spy. Though Belem is not a UN member, under your present text it sounds like a nation like Belem could just charge Mikitivitians as being spies and demand we all report to Belem's gun squads.

I'm going to abuse this now.

Any citizen from a nation that is not an allie of my own or a friend of my own is guilty of murder. Please report to my nation for prompt execution.

Hello,

I think your proposal is something the UN should be involved in. You've done a good job with your preamble.

The part that I feel needs work is:


In Article I, I am a bit concerned that we are deporting suspects, not people whom have been charged with a crime. Though if you changed the phrase "any suspect of crimes" to "anyone charged with a crime" you will cut down on countries from just grabbing people for investigation, I have a larger concern about what would happen in a case where the charge is not valid.

For example, the nation Belem recently stated that in response to my government's trade embargo, that anybody from my country would be tried as a spy. Though Belem is not a UN member, under your present text it sounds like a nation like Belem could just charge Mikitivitians as being spies and demand we all report to Belem's gun squads.

I wasn't aware that non-UN members could use UN documents as any sort of grounds for action. Perhaps I'll edit to ensure this in no way applies to non-UN members, although the clause concerning the accusors being in complete compliance with UN resolutions should already take care of this problem.
Concerning the clause regarding suspects of crime, UN resolutions already guarantee any suspect the right to fair trial and due process in any member nation. If there is adequate grounds to to believe a member nation is not adhering to this policy, your nation will of course be under no obligation to turn over the suspect.

I'm going to abuse this now.

Any citizen from a nation that is not an allie of my own or a friend of my own is guilty of murder. Please report to my nation for prompt execution.
That's hardly in compliance to UN regulations.

That's hardly in compliance to UN regulations.

Okay. Everyone in any nation not allies or friends of mine are hereby suspects in a murder. Please show up to my nation for trials, and make sure to sign those lovely forms as soon as you step into spacedock so we have you legally squared away.

In any case, it's still abuse your proposal allows.

Okay. Everyone in any nation not allies or friends of mine are hereby suspects in a murder. Please show up to my nation for trials, and make sure to sign those lovely forms as soon as you step into spacedock so we have you legally squared away.

In any case, it's still abuse your proposal allows.

That too is of questionable legal grounds, however I have edited the resolution to account for your point. Thank you for helping me to see flaws in this proposal. Please read it again and point out any other flaws.

I wasn't aware that non-UN members could use UN documents as any sort of grounds for action. Perhaps I'll edit to ensure this in no way applies to non-UN members, although the clause concerning the accusors being in complete compliance with UN resolutions should already take care of this problem.

Concerning the clause regarding suspects of crime, UN resolutions already guarantee any suspect the right to fair trial and due process in any member nation. If there is adequate grounds to to believe a member nation is not adhering to this policy, your nation will of course be under no obligation to turn over the suspect.

My mistake. :)

Non-UN members are not automatically granted the rights enjoyed by UN members. For example, if we hammer out a real free trade agreement, we are not obligated to say reduce tarriffs on goods from non-UN members. If they don't want to join in and agree to basic human rights, they also have to accept that it is up to individual UN nations on how to treat them in economic terms. (Though I imagine some UN nations extend UN protections to non-members that are in good standing with UN members and tend to be pro-human rights.)

So I wasn't trying to suggest that non-UN members would force our hand ... my sincere apologies. But I still worry about one nation abusing this Article 1 and would like it if we could include in the proposal language that says, "Hey, you can't just claim people are spies and demand they all die for you!" Well, but in diplomatic language of course. ;)

My mistake. :)

Non-UN members are not automatically granted the rights enjoyed by UN members. For example, if we hammer out a real free trade agreement, we are not obligated to say reduce tarriffs on goods from non-UN members. If they don't want to join in and agree to basic human rights, they also have to accept that it is up to individual UN nations on how to treat them in economic terms. (Though I imagine some UN nations extend UN protections to non-members that are in good standing with UN members and tend to be pro-human rights.)

So I wasn't trying to suggest that non-UN members would force our hand ... my sincere apologies. But I still worry about one nation abusing this Article 1 and would like it if we could include in the proposal language that says, "Hey, you can't just claim people are spies and demand they all die for you!" Well, but in diplomatic language of course. ;)

That is a genuine concern. But under some of the later additions to the proposal, they would have to present credible evidence to the UN to show they have adequate grounds to accuse the person... I guess I could just write in a clause allowing a country to protect their own citizens, if it chose. It would weaken the proposal some, but it would still serve its purpose for the most part.

That is a genuine concern. But under some of the later additions to the proposal, they would have to present credible evidence to the UN to show they have adequate grounds to accuse the person... I guess I could just write in a clause allowing a country to protect their own citizens, if it chose. It would weaken the proposal some, but it would still serve its purpose for the most part.

I've bold faced the porition I missed. Perhaps this idea of credible evidence should be discussed in the same section as Article 1. My government likes this idea and fears that if we made the mistake of not seeing those later additions that others might as well.

OOC: Sometimes it is OK to just post your latest draft instead of editing the old copy. It is kinda a lose lose situation, in that some people read the first post and then join in, while others who already started just read from the middle to the end each time they join in. That is I lean towards just posting the latest draft, and pointing to that particular post's individual URL might work. Just a thought!

I direct your attention to the latest version of my proposal, restated below. Most of your complaints have answered, I hope satisfactorally.

REALIZING That crime is commonly committed by visitors from other nations, or by persons planning to escape to other nations after their crimes are committed.

IN LIGHT OF UN laws ensuring fair trials in all member nations, and preventing prosecution on grounds of unjust laws.

PROVIDED that there is no cause to suspect that the nation accusing the fugitive is in violation of any related UN resolutions.

IN ORDER TO Reduce crime both at home and abroad.

THIS RESOLUTION HEARBY DECLARES THAT:
Article I: Any member of the UN must deport any suspect of crimes against another UN country to that country for due legal processing in a criminal court meeting the requirements set forth by UN regulations, or challenge the accusor's claim (see article IV).
Article II: Article I must be carried out posthaste, regardless of the laws and regulations of the country having custody of the suspect, and without subjection to that country’s judicial system.
Article III: In cases where suspects are wanted for crimes in multiple countries, custody will of course be given to the country with the most grievous charges against the suspect.
Article IV: If the nation with custody of the suspect should decide to challenge the accusing nation's claim, the accusor must provide enough evidence to prove in an international court that there is adequate grounds to accuse this person.
Article V: Grievous abuse of this resolution (multiple failed claims for the same suspect, continued insistance that members of a certain ethnicity, race, Nationality, species, et c., are in violation of laws, or any claim ruled by the UN council to be frivolous or unfair) will result in revocation of the nation's ability to use this resolution.
Article VI: This resolution cannot be used to accuse any one of crimes not commited on the accuser's soil.
Article VII: If the accusing country is suspected (with reasonable grounds) of being in violation of any related UN regulations, the nation with custody is not obligated to follow through with the requirements of this resolution.
Article VIII: Special exceptions will be made for cases in which the accusing nation and the nation having custody have blatantly contrasted views concerning the death penalty.
Article IX: A nation can choose to protect one of its own citizens if a country demands custody under the articles of this resolution and the suspect is in his home country. If the accusatory nation chooses to persist, he can file an appeal to the UN, and after hearing from both nations and the accused, the UN may choose to either dismiss the case or deliver custody to the accusing nation to face a fair trial by an impartial jury, according to pre-existing UN regulations. Note that this option should only be persued when the charges are most serious, as the UN's time is valuable. If the UN council dismisses the case, it may choose to take action to prevent further frivolous cases from being brought before its presence by stripping the accusing nation's right to accuse citizens of the accused's nation.

THIS WILL SERVE TO:
I. Deter crimes on the part of individuals planning to escape justice in another country after violating the law.
II. Help crack down on international crime, such as arms dealing or narcotic smuggling.
III. Provide justice for the victims of crimes committed by persons that have fled the country.

http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209114.gif

I like it! I've thought about writing something similar in the past, but neither had the time or experience in this field.

Article I: Any member of the UN must deport any suspect of crimes against another UN country to that country for due legal processing in a criminal court meeting the requirements set forth by UN regulations, or challenge the accusor's claim (see article IV).
Article IV: If the nation with custody of the suspect should decide to challenge the accusing nation's claim, the accusor must provide enough evidence to prove in an international court that there is adequate grounds to accuse this person.
okay, 1: we dont like the idea that we must deport someone suspected of a crime to another nation. they need to be actually charged with a crime, but also we have to aknowledge it was a crime. there are some laws that different nations have a different opinion on, and a different opinon of punishment. also, the UN has no police, no forces, and is prohibited to have them, so it could be deemed unenfocable too.
2: am i right in assuming that the ICJ proposal got defeated? someone will agree/rectify me on this one. if so, than what is this international court that you are talking about? as far as we can see, it doesnt exist. might have to check the mods on that one

But UN resolutions currently in place should prevent any unjust or inhumane laws or punishments. As for drug laws and other such controversial policies, it is a person's responsibility to comply with the laws of the region they are living in.

Even so, perhaps I should include a more direct clause detailing exceptions for UN violations? Yes, I believe I'll do that.

To your first point - UN resolutions prevent some inhumane punishments, but as far as I know not all. For instance I think it would still be legal to castrate male sex offenders. To your second - I do not believe that an individual should ever be obliged to follow an unjust law. A better example than drugs laws is this - what if an oppressive government demands the extradition of a political opponent of the regime who has taken refuge in _Myopia_? There's no way we would be willing to hand him/her over.

I cannot support your proposal until you insert a clause allowing nations to refuse to extradite anyone on the basis of ethical objections to any potential punishments (not just the death penalty) or to the laws under which the person is being charged.

I think you ought to get a mod to check your proposal before you submit it, as I'm not sure of the legality of having the UN council (something which does not exist) make rulings in all these cases.

2: am i right in assuming that the ICJ proposal got defeated? someone will agree/rectify me on this one. if so, than what is this international court that you are talking about? as far as we can see, it doesnt exist. might have to check the mods on that one

The International Court of Justice did in fact fail by a vote of 6,215 to 10,261. :(

Article I: Any member of the UN must deport any suspect of crimes against another UN country to that country for due legal processing in a criminal court meeting the requirements set forth by UN regulations, or challenge the accusor's claim (see article IV).

I can hold to that, depending on the rest of the proposal.


Article II: Article I must be carried out posthaste, regardless of the laws and regulations of the country having custody of the suspect, and without subjection to that country’s judicial system.

This I cannot agree to. Extradition is the appropriate term, and extraditionary hearing must be abided by for proper and fair hearing. This would also prevent the necessity of handing over persons wanted in one country, for what are effectively non-crimes in the other. For example, the CRoT should be under no requirement to extradite someone to Nonoland for using recreational drugs that are not illegal in the CRoT. It is not our purpose to enforce or ensure the enforcement of laws in another nation.


Article III: In cases where suspects are wanted for crimes in multiple countries, custody will of course be given to the country with the most grievous charges against the suspect.

Seems logical.


Article IV: If the nation with custody of the suspect should decide to challenge the accusing nation's claim, the accusor must provide enough evidence to prove in an international court that there is adequate grounds to accuse this person.

There is no "international court".


Article V: Grievous abuse of this resolution (multiple failed claims for the same suspect, continued insistance that members of a certain ethnicity, race, Nationality, species, et c., are in violation of laws, or any claim ruled by the UN council to be frivolous or unfair) will result in revocation of the nation's ability to use this resolution.

Logical.


Article VI: This resolution cannot be used to accuse any one of crimes not commited on the accuser's soil.

Also logical. (Krioval will not like this one...)


Article VII: If the accusing country is suspected (with reasonable grounds) of being in violation of any related UN regulations, the nation with custody is not obligated to follow through with the requirements of this resolution.

Ok.


Article VIII: Special exceptions will be made for cases in which the accusing nation and the nation having custody have blatantly contrasted views concerning the death penalty.

Makes sense.


Article IX: A nation can choose to protect one of its own citizens if a country demands custody under the articles of this resolution and the suspect is in his home country. If the accusatory nation chooses to persist, he can file an appeal to the UN, and after hearing from both nations and the accused, the UN may choose to either dismiss the case or deliver custody to the accusing nation to face a fair trial by an impartial jury, according to pre-existing UN regulations. Note that this option should only be persued when the charges are most serious, as the UN's time is valuable. If the UN council dismisses the case, it may choose to take action to prevent further frivolous cases from being brought before its presence by stripping the accusing nation's right to accuse citizens of the accused's nation.

Not sure if this is completely legal on game mechanics grounds, for some reason it raises a red flag. Might want to check with the mods.


THIS WILL SERVE TO:
I. Deter crimes on the part of individuals planning to escape justice in another country after violating the law.

"The Law" is somewhat subjective to each nation. And with differing views on criminal activities. I believe this raises some fundamental problems (like crimes in one country that don't exist in another).


II. Help crack down on international crime, such as arms dealing or narcotic smuggling.

To some degree.


III. Provide justice for the victims of crimes committed by persons that have fled the country.

But, this can be used to also act on "Victimless" crimes as it is presently written. Such as regulatory infractions as "illegal drug usage", "ownership of banned material" and the like.

If you stick the Extradition hearings in, you won't have that problem with Article I "Any persons suspected of a crime. Once both sides agree something is a crime, and that Joe Bob is indeed a good canidate for having committed it, things will run smoother.

I would, however, take a dim view of my loyal subjects wandering into other nations and committing crimes there, and expecting to find shelter at home.

All this depends on how we define "Crimes". :D

The International Court of Justice did in fact fail by a vote of 6,215 to 10,261. :(
just as i thought. sorry mate, but this makes your proposal illegal. might have to redraft it again.

also we still believe that there should be something to allow a nation to object to extradition. we much prefered the proposal of guidelines in extriditon proceedures than this because in this situation, we dont like hard and fast laws. there needs to be flexability and fluidity in it.