NationStates Jolt Archive

After much research and discussion, I'm happy to bring my first (potential) UN proposal. I've looked intently over past UN resolutions for redundancy, but I'm pretty sure this hasn't been addressed in any other successful resolutions. If I'm in error, kindly let me know. Also, the category doesn't fit perfectly, but it seems to be the best available. Constructive feedback is greatly appreciated and questions are very welcome. Based on your feedback, I may or may not formally submit it to the UN. Thank you.

Right to Refuse Extradition
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

AFFIRMING ALSO that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

I like a lot of your ideas here, I just think they need to be further developed. Your second operative clause may be in violation of game mechanics; I don't think we can ban a nation from pursuing military action if they so choose.

I'd support the right to refuse extradition if the potentially extraditing nation feels that the punishment(s) which might be inflicted are inhumane or very excessive. This would allow nations to refuse to extradite if torture or permanent disfigurement might be inflicted, or if they do not believe that the actions in question merit punishment. For instance, we do not usually extradite people for actions which we do not criminalise, such as the expression of political views or the commission of victimless crimes.

There should also be a clause specifically saying that nations are free to waive this right.

I like a lot of your ideas here, I just think they need to be further developed. Your second operative clause may be in violation of game mechanics; I don't think we can ban a nation from pursuing military action if they so choose.
Thanks for your feedback, Nargopia. Its good to get some opinions on this. You're completely right, we can't ban a nation from military action if that were part of the game mechanics. But, since NS has no War engine gameplay, other than RP, I think its not really an issue. This is especially true since UN resolutions can't affect RP unless the RP'ers so choose (i.e. UN member nations are free to ignore UN resolutions in their RP's, but the resolution will still affect their nation's stats on NS). So, the reason I bothered to put the military clause in at all is because many UN members have complained about the lack of enforcement or "teeth" in the UN resolutions. I didn't want someone to call this a do-nothing proposal and say, why can't my empire just say, "OK, you won't extradite my fugitive back to me, you puny 6 million pop nation? Fine, I'll just nuke you back to the paleolithic." But hey, I could be wrong. It is, after all, my first proposal.

Actually Nargopia is correct - war is conducted as forum RP, and the UN cannot regulate activity on the forums:

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, August 30, 2004, 9:35 AM EST]
UN Proposals and Forum Roleplay
[Added #8 on Minor Offenses.] UN proposals may not impose a mandate or limitation of any kind on forum activity; this is considered a game mechanics violation. UN proposals may not require that a particular action be conducted on the NationStates forums (or on any forums, for that matter). UN proposals may not prohibit an activity from taking place on any forums.

Players may voluntarily incorporate UN resolutions into their roleplays, if they wish, but must remember that doing so is technically outside the scope of the UN resolution. In freeform roleplay, one can pretend that a nation blatantly ignores the effects of a UN resolution. When writing UN proposals, though, the author has to assume that no UN member nation may ignore the effects of the UN resolutions because, really, no UN member nation is able to ignore the effects of the UN resolution. The effects are programmed into the NationStates game engine. [/modedit]

I'd support the right to refuse extradition if the potentially extraditing nation feels that the punishment(s) which might be inflicted are inhumane or very excessive. This would allow nations to refuse to extradite if torture or permanent disfigurement might be inflicted, or if they do not believe that the actions in question merit punishment. For instance, we do not usually extradite people for actions which we do not criminalise, such as the expression of political views or the commission of victimless crimes.
Very good points. I considered this at first, but my aim with this proposal is to get the thing passed. I think I'm going to have a hard enough time doing that while just addressing capital punishment. If I put in that a nation is protected while refusing extradition for anything they may not 100% agree with, then I start to SERIOUSLY encroach on national sovereignty. What's illegal in your country may not be illegal in mine, but I'm probably gonna have to live with it - in most cases. What this proposal attempts to do is draw the line at capital punishment.

What I sum it up as is, if my nation does not believe in capital punishment, you cannot force me to become a party to it by turning over someone for execution.

I would also support a torture clause, if it hasn't already been done (it might have been), but I'll leave that for someone later and focus on execution for now.

There should also be a clause specifically saying that nations are free to waive this right.
Another excellent point. This was, believe it or not, another idea I considered at first. I discarded it in the interest of brevity and clarity, because I thought it might be understood. But, perhaps I should put in that nations are not obligated to exercise this right. Thank you for all the excellent input.

Actually Nargopia is correct - war is conducted as forum RP, and the UN cannot regulate activity on the forums:
Yes, I've read that rule. You have a valid point, I think I just interpreted the rule differently. My vision is that this resolution will not affect RP in the forums unless the RP'ers voluntarily choose it to. I.e. Myopia and Saint Uriel are roleplaying an international fugitive scenario. Saint Uriel captures your fugitive accussed of lollipop theft in Myopia and refuses to extradite him because he'll probably end up decapitated. If you then decide to nuke me off God's green earth, I can either play along or take my toys and go home. What I can't do is whine and moan to the mods about it, because you've done nothing illegal.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I put in the military clause "for effect". I never expected any gameplay changes to come from it. However, I'd like to see more opinion on it. I'm very willing to take it out if it proves to be very unpopular. Like I said, my primary goal is to get this thing passed. Compromise is part of diplomacy :)

Actually, thinking about this, since there are no laws about extradition, arrangements must be made on between nations, either consensually through a treaty, or by making a decision when a specific case comes up, and nations are already free to refuse extradition for whatever reason they like (because anything that is not covered by UN law falls to the nation to decide).

Therefore, isn't this whole proposal redundant?

Actually, thinking about this, since there are no laws about extradition, arrangements must be made on between nations, either consensually through a treaty, or by making a decision when a specific case comes up, and nations are already free to refuse extradition for whatever reason they like (because anything that is not covered by UN law falls to the nation to decide).

Therefore, isn't this whole proposal redundant?
:) I don't know. Maybe. That's why I put it up here, to see what others think.

Naw, really, I don't believe its redundant, because no prior UN resolution, to my knowledge, addresses this issue. Besides, if you're going to argue that its redundant because its not covered by UN law, that kind of makes the whole UN redundant. *laughing* I bet a lot of non NSUN members (and some members) would argue that the NSUN is very redundant. Anyway, I see your point, but I still really think its not a redundant proposal (of course, I'm biased since its my baby).

Based on remarks in this thread, as well as from TG conversations, I have added the phrase ...if they so desire... to the sixth paragraph of the proposal. I believe this makes it more clear that the right to refuse extradition would be a voluntary one, and not obligatory. Many thanks.

Any more thoughts on this proposal? I'm particularly interested in more feedback on the point that was raised about the legality of the "military reprisal" clause. I'm inclined to think its not illegal, but I'd like to hear more viewpoints. If I don't hear anything, I'll run it by the mods for the final green light before submitting it. My thanks in advance.

It's my inclination that it is illegal, and here's why:

Suppose Nation A (a UN member) wishes to declare war on Nation B after Nation B refuses to extradite Mr. Criminal from Nation A.

If this happens, Nation A is not only roleplaying a conflict with Nation B, but it is also forced to roleplay noncompliance with a UN Resolution. It is my opinion that forcing a nation to roleplay UN noncompliance is restricting free-form roleplay and thereby regulating forum activity.

It's my inclination that it is illegal, and here's why:

Suppose Nation A (a UN member) wishes to declare war on Nation B after Nation B refuses to extradite Mr. Criminal from Nation A.

If this happens, Nation A is not only roleplaying a conflict with Nation B, but it is also forced to roleplay noncompliance with a UN Resolution. It is my opinion that forcing a nation to roleplay UN noncompliance is restricting free-form roleplay and thereby regulating forum activity.
I see your concern, but my view is that UN resolutions can only have a VOLUNTARY effect on roleplay (i.e. if the RP'ers agree to it). As Myopia copied above:

""Players may voluntarily incorporate UN resolutions into their roleplays, if they wish, but must remember that doing so is technically outside the scope of the UN resolution. In freeform roleplay, one can pretend that a nation blatantly ignores the effects of a UN resolution""

So, no UN resolution can FORCE roleplay in any direction. I mean, my nation would probably roleplay that homosexual marriage is not recognised by the government of Saint Uriel. Of course, that is in violation of established UN resolutions. Can I roleplay it anyway? Sure. Can I avoid the changes to my nation's stats that those UN resolutions caused? Nope.

But once again, let me say that I'm biased towards my proposal. I'm not omniscient and not arrogant enough to think I am. Could I be wrong about the legality of this? Absolutely.

I have one question on this proposal.

If a nation refuses to hand over a person or persons that it feels would be subject to the death penalty because of their crimes committed in another nation, what would become of the defendant(s)?

In most cases they would have been accused of committing a heinous crime to possibly get the death sentence. Will they become the responsibility of the nation who refuses to turn them over? Will they go with out punishment of the crime? Who will pick up the tab of their internment? Who will satisfy the cry’s for justice from the victims?

Hopefully most of these issues could be worked out democratically. This resolution would effectively allow a foreign nation indirectly interfere with another’s internal policies. Because one nation disagrees with another’s legal system does not give them the right to impede it by holding and protecting one of their citizens from it.

Also would this just apply to defendants who are possibly facing a death sentence or could a nation refuse to extradite for any crime that does not mesh with their sensibilities?

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

I have one question on this proposal.

If a nation refuses to hand over a person or persons that it feels would be subject to the death penalty because of their crimes committed in another nation, what would become of the defendant(s)?

In most cases they would have been accused of committing a heinous crime to possibly get the death sentence. Will they become the responsibility of the nation who refuses to turn them over? Will they go with out punishment of the crime? Who will pick up the tab of their internment? Who will satisfy the cry’s for justice from the victims?

Hopefully most of these issues could be worked out democratically.
Excellent questions, Minister. As the resolution encourages, hopefully those issues could be worked out through diplomatic channels. Still, since the resolution doesn't address it, the fugitive would probably pretty much become the "problem" of the nation refusing extradition - this means financially as well as in public relations.

This resolution would effectively allow a foreign nation indirectly interfere with another’s internal policies. Because one nation disagrees with another’s legal system does not give them the right to impede it by holding and protecting one of their citizens from it. Yes, that is certainly a very valid way of looking at it. Another valid way of looking at is if Nation A captures Nation's B fugitive and is forced to extradite said fugitive to face possible execution, then Nation A has also just been forced to become a party to that execution. That would indirectly interfere with the internal policies of Nation A if Nation A does not support capital punishment. I'll be the first to admit that this is not a win-win proposal.

Also would this just apply to defendants who are possibly facing a death sentence or could a nation refuse to extradite for any crime that does not mesh with their sensibilities?
No, this only applies to capital punishment aka the death penalty aka execution. I'm not willing to write a proposal that deals with all other possible scenarious. It would get way too messy and have absolutely no chance of passing.

Thank you for you excellent questions and points.

could a nation refuse to extradite for any crime that does not mesh with their sensibilities?

They could, but not because of this proposal - they already have the right to make whatever arrangements they see fit, since they are unrestricted by UN law in this matter. Which makes this proposal redundant as I've already said.

AFFIRMING that each nation has the sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

I see this would be a matter for a separate UN proposal, but I'm just wondering if this was ever established? If not, then will this proposal not act as a "backdoor resolution" that actually formally allows nations to legislate capital punishment whereas before there was no formal decision either way? A clause actively banning or legalizing the death penalty may be far off yet, and it should be part of a separate resolution.

Other than that, a well-done proposal, and with a worthy goal. Aeruillin will support it.

Your second operative clause may be in violation of game mechanics; I don't think we can ban a nation from pursuing military action if they so choose.

Military action has never been part of game mechanics; so any legislation regulating/banning/legalizing it does not actually touch on game mechanics. Warfare is strictly RP.

Military action has never been part of game mechanics; so any legislation regulating/banning/legalizing it does not actually touch on game mechanics. Warfare is strictly RP.

It's still illegal, since proposals cannot regulate forum activity.

It's still illegal, since proposals cannot regulate forum activity.
I still think its legal, but I'm not 100% certain. You've got me doubting myself now. I've submitted it to the mods for review and a final judgement as to legality. I'll wait to hear from them. If its legal, I will leave it in. If its illegal, I'll admit my error, remove the clause from the proposal, and buy you a beer for being right :)

I see this would be a matter for a separate UN proposal, but I'm just wondering if this was ever established? If not, then will this proposal not act as a "backdoor resolution" that actually formally allows nations to legislate capital punishment whereas before there was no formal decision either way? A clause actively banning or legalizing the death penalty may be far off yet, and it should be part of a separate resolution.
Yeah, I see what you're getting at, but this proposal just affirms that statement, it doesn't set it in stone by making it part of the operative clauses. Frankly, I agree that the NSUN is not ready for a proposal that has banning/forcing capital punishment as its purpose. Too many people would play the national sovereignty card on that. If someone wants to propose that later - fine. But it won't be Saint Uriel. What I'm trying to say in that clause is that since banning/forcing the death penalty within one's own nation has not been addressed in previous resolutions, I'm not attempting to address it in this one - just extradition.

Other than that, a well-done proposal, and with a worthy goal. Aeruillin will support it.
Thank you. Aerullin's support is VERY greatly appreciated. Thanks for your excellent input as well.

I'm leaning towards supporting _Myopia_'s position, though I'm interested to see what the mods have to say. That said, it should be noted that this proposal enshrines nations' right to refuse extradition. As matters stand, their refusal may fall on deaf ears and trigger all manner of unpleasantness. This proposal gives them something concrete to support them.

As a side note, the author's approach to this has been exemplary. We commend you, good Saint.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

it should be noted that this proposal enshrines nations' right to refuse extradition.

Doesn't that make it similar to the proposals the mods have always prohibited - the ones that resolve that the UN will not in future legislate on ______? They say things like "a nation's right to use the death penalty is hereby protected" - which has always been ruled redundant because those rights are already there by default.

And by the way, Saint Uriel, I too appreciate the way you've approached this. If the mods say I'm wrong, you too can have a drink!

Doesn't that make it similar to the proposals the mods have always prohibited - the ones that resolve that the UN will not in future legislate on ______? They say things like "a nation's right to use the death penalty is hereby protected" - which has always been ruled redundant because those rights are already there by default.
I don't think it prohibits further legislation, plus it's setting rules for all on an issue that is inherently international.

I think. Well, we'll see.

I don't think it prohibits further legislation, plus it's setting rules for all on an issue that is inherently international.

I think. Well, we'll see.

Well, it would mean you couldn't write a proposal saying that anyone suspected of a serious crime must be extradited without first repealing this. And it isn't actually setting rules, unless that bit blocking military action turns out to be legal. If that's left out, it just says that nations had the same choice they always did.

Well, it would mean you couldn't write a proposal saying that anyone suspected of a serious crime must be extradited without first repealing this.
Isn't that the case with any legislation though?

And it isn't actually setting rules, unless that bit blocking military action turns out to be legal. If that's left out, it just says that nations had the same choice they always did.
Ah, but they have recourse to UN legislation to support them. I suppose it's not worth much.

Of course, this may all prove academic!

Isn't that the case with any legislation though?

I think the modly position is that a proposal can only restrict future legislation if it imposes some obligation or restriction on nations, thereby prohibiting any contradictory obligation/restriction. This doesn't impose anything, as the right was already there.

Thanks for all your input and kind words, Ecopoeia and Myopia. Its really encouraging. I think you and I, Ecopoeia, see pretty much eye-to-eye. As you said, this proposal is very much international in scope and affects both countries that allow the death penalty and those that ban it. That clause that affirms the right of nations to choose for themselves to allow/ban execution is going to stay, I think. I feel its important to keep it in there so that I don't have a lot of nations screaming that I'm meddling too much with their national sovereignty and not letting them have capital punishment. Like I've said, Saint Uriel will never propose a total ban on capital punishment. It would probably never pass.

As for the ruling from on high, I haven't heard anything from the mods yet. I just bumped the thread here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8865795

AFFIRMING that each nation has the sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

While we're waiting for modly rulings, can I request that this be changed to

AFFIRMING that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

That leaves it more open to future legislation to make nations go one way or the other.

While we're waiting for modly rulings, can I request that this be changed to

AFFIRMING that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

That leaves it more open to future legislation to make nations go one way or the other.
A most excellent suggestion. I'd been looking for a good way to phrase that and you found it. That will leave things wide open for future resolutions. I'll incorporate it into the proposal on the first post. Thanks for the input!

Ok, I have formally submitted this proposal into the UN queue. Your support for this is greatly needed and appreciated. Please direct any further replies to this new thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8871568