NationStates Jolt Archive

After careful consideration of the well thought out and well delivered arguments presented here, Tazikhstan votes for this Resolution. The Tazikh Government feels that whilst this Resolution does not go far enough, the aim and intention is a step in the right direction.

This Resolution represents the right to refuse extradition, and does not mean that the Tazikh Government will automatically refuse to extradite, Tazikhstan is willing to enter into discussions on the matter of extradition treaties with all interested Nations.

The Tazikh Government would also like to thank all Nations for their advice and input on this matter.


Ambassador Imran Zaric of the Democratic Republic of Tazikhstan

Why would you just want to quickly end a criminals life after they have commited crimes that could affect people for the rest of their lives. They get of lightly!!! And what if a criminal wanted to die, he could commit many crimes and also get what he/she wanted, to die.

You are quite correct in some sense. However, in other states, this has been dealt with. The death penalty is not the quick and easy punishment. When a prisoner is sentenced to death here, he is being told that he cannot be rehabilitated. Our nation spends countless billions on criminal rehabilitation. Every avenue possible is approached - what laws we do have are there for a reason. If you cannot accept these after many many attempts at it, the death penalty is quite possible. It is the strongest punishment that can be given: You are not welcome at all here. Your existance is detrimental to society, so society is going to take that away. We have tried our hardest to help, and you spat in our faces.

If a criminal is committing crimes to commit state-sponsored suicide, that would be seen, and treated by government psychologists. If, after years (yes, years. Treatment can be very long and costly, as long as it is positive. This is what the people of Wasabi Peoples wanted, and I am more than happy to give it to them.) of treatment, and punitive incarceration (see above posts for a description of prisons here, they are afforded much less rights than many other nations, but never for extraordinary amounts of time.), they refuse to abide by the laws, then yes, death is possible. If it is what they want, well, then they may have it, but they're gonna have to try damn hard. Euthanasia is legal here, and if they can convince a private psychologist, then so be it.

Albert Hoffman, President
The Stoned Commonwealth of Wasabi Peoples

(and now, real life discussion...)
I dunno if this is the right place, but I'm a psychology student with pre-law advising. I believe that this type of corrections institution should be in higher use - first, rehabilitation, and then only as a last resort, highly punitive punishments. Who cares how much it costs? Less crime, and more contributive people in society.

I dunno if this is the right place, but I'm a psychology student with pre-law advising. I believe that this type of corrections institution should be in higher use - first, rehabilitation, and then only as a last resort, highly punitive punishments. Who cares how much it costs? Less crime, and more contributive people in society.
Hahaha, a morally upright psychologist. And I never thought I'd see the day... On that note, with a statement like "who cares how much it costs," I can see why you opted for psychology instead of economics.

After careful consideration of the well thought out and well delivered arguments presented here, Tazikhstan votes for this Resolution. The Tazikh Government feels that whilst this Resolution does not go far enough, the aim and intention is a step in the right direction.

This Resolution represents the right to refuse extradition, and does not mean that the Tazikh Government will automatically refuse to extradite, Tazikhstan is willing to enter into discussions on the matter of extradition treaties with all interested Nations.
We regret that you have chosen to approve this law, despite its internationally protected openings for abuse, but we respect your nation for keeping an open mind for so long.

I just realized something somewhat humorous... it's a major stretch of the wording, that's a given, but this resolution could very easily be interpreted as saying that nations are simply allowed to refuse extradition without fear of military reprisal. What I'm saying is that the resolution states that nations do not have to fear said reprisal. It does not state that such military reprisal is to be made illegal. I see this as very reasonable grounds for ignoring the intended interpretation of this law and going with the interpretation that benefits your nation at the time. Can we say, "Oops,"?

OOC: By the way, in light of the poor wording of the final article, I am inclined to move that this be forced into the least significant category, or deleted altogether, as it does not affect anything differently with its current wording. Or propose the resolution again for a new vote and a new round of debate. Or drop it, since it pisses off almost a third of the voting delegates.

I just realized something somewhat humorous... it's a major stretch of the wording, that's a given, but this resolution could very easily be interpreted as saying that nations are simply allowed to refuse extradition without fear of military reprisal. What I'm saying is that the resolution states that nations do not have to fear said reprisal. It does not state that such military reprisal is to be made illegal. I see this as very reasonable grounds for ignoring the intended interpretation of this law and going with the interpretation that benefits your nation at the time. Can we say, "Oops,"?

Wait a second. You're only now realizing that UN resolutions can have multiple interpretations? Granted, I'd normally cut a new representative a bit more slack, but with the aspersions you've been casting, I must say, this recent revelation involuntarily juxtaposes, in the minds of most Kriovalians, the intellect of the government of Rogue Newbie and the rate of movement of the common snail. Both appear to be incredibly slow, though I would personally bet on the snail.

This is truly all the more comical as a direct result of the withering attacks by your government on the resolution and its defenders. Technically, Krioval has nothing to fear from Rogue Newbie to the degree that we could imply that its leader is an alcoholic transvestite who shows a bit too much fondness for young children and goats. We'd then laugh at the impromptu fireworks display that would be the pathetic attempt of your weapons to penetrate our defenses. Naturally, Krioval would never make such statements, but if so motivated, we could easily back up anything against Rogue Newbie that we wanted - we're simply bigger, stronger, and faster.

Welcome to the brave new universe.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

Hahaha, a morally upright psychologist. And I never thought I'd see the day... On that note, with a statement like "who cares how much it costs," I can see why you opted for psychology instead of economics.

OOC: Taking a swing at somebody's real-life status is unnecessary and immature, and may border on flamebait.

Ahhh, Krioval, I understand the existence of varying interpretations of resolutions, however I had missed this one. I can't believe this, either, as it was glaring. And you ignored my point completely for the sake of disrespecting my nation, demonstrating that Krioval lacks the intellect to properly debate a nation who thinks as slowly as a snail moves. In case you missed it, my point is that this changes nothing, because it does not expressly make military action an illegal retaliation to a nation refusing to extradite. That's just what many people, including myself at first, are assuming.

OOC: Taking a swing at somebody's real-life status is unnecessary and immature, and may border on flamebait.
OOC: It was all in good fun, as I'm sure a psychologist would understand.

I'm sorry, was there supposed to be some sort of point in these screeds that wasn't completely evident to all of us from the word go?

~ Yuri Sokolev

My nation is the daft one? You are basically saying that you knew, throughout the entire duration of this debate, that the resolution actually did nothing, and yet you still argued your side's opinion vehemently. I wasted my time because I hadn't noticed this... you wasted your time because you couldn't find something more productive to do with your nation's time.

Krioval supports the rights of nations to refuse extradition when capital punishment is a likely outcome. This resolution is in direct support of that goal, effectively saying that the UN looks extremely disfavorably on attacking nations who use this specific reason to withhold extradition.

The UN has no army, and is forbidden from raising one. At the same time, if a nation withheld extradition for the reasons outlined in this resolution, Krioval would have absolutely no problems organizing a counterstrike force, especially if the nation in question is rogue, new to international affairs, and has a penchant for insulting Kriovalian ambassadors and directors, and who has obliquely threatened the Commander's life. This resolution provides an extremely useful pretext for Krioval to tell another nation to stand down over this issue.

What? You thought that the UN Gnomes were going to physically root your soldiers to the ground?

Krioval supports the rights of nations to refuse extradition when capital punishment is a likely outcome. This resolution is in direct support of that goal, effectively saying that the UN looks extremely disfavorably on attacking nations who use this specific reason to withhold extradition.
Actually, it doesn't even say that much.

The UN has no army, and is forbidden from raising one. At the same time, if a nation withheld extradition for the reasons outlined in this resolution, Krioval would have absolutely no problems organizing a counterstrike force, especially if the nation in question is rogue, new to international affairs, and has a penchant for insulting Kriovalian ambassadors and directors, and who has obliquely threatened the Commander's life. This resolution provides an extremely useful pretext for Krioval to tell another nation to stand down over this issue.
When you were voicing your support (loudly) for this proposal, you were doing so because you thought it would protect nations from military reprisal in the event that a nation refused extradition of another's prisoner. What I'm saying is that it doesn't even do that. Of course, I would not expect you to actually read what I said, when you can just as easily respond with a baseless rebuttal that makes it seem like you actually thought of a legitimate counter to my statement, as opposed to just making unrelated points, which is what you did.

What? You thought that the UN Gnomes were going to physically root your soldiers to the ground?
Pfft, according to this resolution, they can't even kick me out for using the direct interpretation instead of the loosely implied interpretation, which is all that I was worried about anyway.

You don't need to act all polititiony, mr president. just be yourself, god i hate it when people do that.
no thankyou for your post,
--One pissed off Nation


To my collegue, of Sabrinedia:

One, that is Madam President. Not Mister.
Two, I believe the word you were attempting to spell is politiciany. Which by the way does not exist in the English language.
Three, I have not addressed anyone within the UN for some time now. But when I do make my positions known, I prefer to show my intelligence and reasonable ability to think, and write. Perhaps you should do the same, if you can.

OOC: This site has a good number of persons who role-play everything their nation does, including their positions on matters such as these. I am not an avid role-player on this forum, but I do take my chance to speak to the UN within my 'character' confines. If I am speaking about matters on the general chat board, I am far more inclined to be personable. But here, I am not just representing my personal feelings. I am supposed to be representing the feelings of my nation. And as such, I act in that matter when posting a response to the other UN nations.

IC: Your comments have been taken under consideration. Thank you for your input in the matter.

--Kestral Lei
President, PEWF
Founder, NSSRC

I can't believe that this issue is going to pass with such ease...

Greetings.

In our role as guardian of the fourth estate of our land of Roathin, which estate is that of psionic aid and healing, lies our solution, which however those of strong views in support of universal human rights despair at.

We believe that criminality by choice is either the result of an incompatibility between self and self or self and society. Being generally disinclined to operate on other states in the interest of supporting the principles of sovereignty, the obvious solution is to apply the redactive and educational arts to the minds of those who require it.

Should criminals of other jurisdictions enter our lands and be apprehended at the request of said jurisdictions, and said request being granted by favour of our firm and mighty hand, we offer that solution as a means of returning a chattel of dubious utility as one of increased worth.

When we, as hereditary autocrat, thaumaturge, psychopomp, hierophant and psionic chirurgeon, applied for and accepted membership in the most august assembly of the United Nationstates, we did so with the hope that an hereditary autocrat &c &c could make positive contributions to the lives of nations. We do not yet despair, evil though others think we might be.

If you're against this resolution, do not fear. As the wording does not expressly state that military recourse is illegal, the resolution is not going to do anything, and cannot be backed by the UN on the basis of an intended interpretation.

affirmative

Looks like you're due that drink Saint Uriel - Guiness, was it?

Last UN Decision

The resolution Right to Refuse Extradition was passed 10,746 votes to 4,468, and implemented in all UN member nations.

As you may have noticed, I have not posted in this thread for some days. I do so now to thank all of you who helped pass this resolution. I am grateful for your input, feedback, cheers, constructive criticism, support, humour, and friendship. They have been invaluable to me in making my first UN proposal into a successful resolution.

A few of you by name - Nargopa, Myopia, Ecopoeia, Krioval, Frisbeeteria, Sober Thought, Hegartydom, Cobdenia, Vastiva, and Wegason - my gratitude also to all delegates and individual UN members who voted for this. This resolution was passed by a margin of 2.4 to 1, which is my no means a landslide, but is a healthy majority. I am very much aware of the current - in my opinion amazingly premature - effort to repeal the resolution and I will be fighting it in the coming days. This is disappointing to me, mainly because I was looking forward to having time to roleplay in International Incidents. Que sera sera.

Again, thanks to everyone who made this a, mostly, positive experience for me. I may have written the resolution but it is you who passed it. Cheers!

*and Myopia, I like my Guinness cold, from the tap, and never-ending ;)

Congratulations, Saint Uriel, on the passing of a well-written resolution. I thank you for your service to the UN.

This is why the resolution is essentially pointless:

Blortia: You are harboring a criminal wanted in Blortia, who has been sentenced to death.

Gleepland: We will not extradite this person as we do not believe in the death penalty.

Blortia: So be it. We do not ask that the criminal be returned to Blortia, but if you do not execute him yourselves we will attack your country.

This is why the resolution is essentially pointless:

Blortia: You are harboring a criminal wanted in Blortia, who has been sentenced to death.

Gleepland: We will not extradite this person as we do not believe in the death penalty.

Blortia: So be it. We do not ask that the criminal be returned to Blortia, but if you do not execute him yourselves we will attack your country.
If Blortia and Gleepland are both UN member nations, then the above scenario has been made illegal by the passing of resolution 103.

No. This is what resolution #103 says:

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

If no extradition is demanded, the resolution does not apply. Simple as that.

If no extradition is demanded, the resolution does not apply. Simple as that.
Sure. You have fun trying to declare war on a nation with that scenario. Please let me know how it turns out for you.

Nicely done.

No. This is what resolution #103 says:



If no extradition is demanded, the resolution does not apply. Simple as that.

How so? I'm not seeing what you're seeing, apparently.

*and Myopia, I like my Guinness cold, from the tap, and never-ending ;)

*attaches beer tap to infinite matter generation vortex engine stolen from now-vacant DLE offices, dusts off hands, and hands a pint glass to the delegate from Saint Uriel*

Extradition, eks-tra-dish-en, n. a delivering up of accused persons by one government to another

If I don't ask for the accused to be delivered up, it's technically not extradition. If it's not extradition, the resolution doesn't apply. I don't see how I can make it any simpler.

That would make sense if you had used logical reasoning.

The definition you provided doesn't mention anything about a request for delivery of the accused. In fact, your definition reinforces the point of view opposite yours.

As you said,Extradition, eks-tra-dish-en, n. a delivering up of accused persons by one government to another Therefore, if Nation X delivers Billy Bob to Nation Y, then it's extradition, no matter if a request was made or not.

You misunderstand me. My point was that Nation Y could use the threat of military force to compel Nation X to punish Billy Bob themselves, within the borders of Nation X, thereby avoiding the extradition issue entirely.

At which Nation Y can appeal to other nations to form a coalition against Nation X. Fatus Maximus, for one, would be willing to help punish Nation X for trying to circumvent the rules.

The resolution did not spell out every possible, myriad scenario that could occur between two nations because:

a. There is a character limit on resolutions, making it impossible to account for each little "what-if" scenario

b. For the sake of clarity and brevity

c. Saint Uriel did not want to insult the intelligence of UN nations by writing the resolution as if we were addressing a kindergarten class. We thought the point would be pretty clear.

Apparently, we gave some nations too much credit.

The Senate of Kerubia would like to make one thing clear:

Any nation that harbors our criminals will be treated as hostile.

Any nation that will not send the criminal back to Kerubia, for reasons of the recently passed resolution or any other reason, will be treated as hostile. Trade and diplomatic relations will be severed.

If, under these circumstances, the nation still refuses to give Kerubia its criminal, the Senate will be expected to pass Kerubia's resignation from the UN, and will take the prisoner by means of force.

Kerubia will not tolerate another nation's involvement in her matters of justice. We do not recognize the right of a nation to refuse extradiction because that nation does not believe in the death penalty, or for any other reason. They are Kerubia's prisoners, and Kerubia alone will decide their fates.

Kerubia will remain in the UN until such scenario ever comes to pass; or if the resolution is repealed.

If you ignore our warning and refuse to extradict our prisoners, raise your military budgets. We will come for you soon.

If they're your prisoners, and you care so much about keeping them, maybe you should do a better job of making sure that they don't leave your country.

I take it this means you concede the point?

The resolution did not spell out every possible, myriad scenario that could occur between two nations because:

a. There is a character limit on resolutions, making it impossible to account for each little "what-if" scenario

This concern may be amended by adding probably 10 words to your original resolution, if it's repealed.

b. For the sake of clarity and brevity

Fair enough.

c. Saint Uriel did not want to insult the intelligence of UN nations by writing the resolution as if we were addressing a kindergarten class. We thought the point would be pretty clear.

Apparently, we gave some nations too much credit.

Get off your high horse, you pompous git.

Amnalos,

The simple fact is that there were 10,746 votes that disagreed with you. I know you are quite proud of yourself because you think you've found this wonderful verbal loophole, but its simply not true. I repeat my previous invitation to try actually doing this while interacting with another UN member. Really, I'd love to see the outcome.

I'm sorry that a resolution that you didn't like was passed, but it happens to all of us. If you're so distraught over it, then try to have it repealed.


Get off your high horse, you pompous git.
Great job! Descending into flaming is the way to go! Now, only after you called me a pompous git, do I see your point! Your crediability has increased dramatically.

OOC: ROFLMAO

:high fives St. Uriel's delegate:

:D

Greetings.

Considering the erstwhile intentions of the United Nations being to work for the betterment of the world, it is amusing to us how many sabre-rattling nations of late have propounded the following argument:

We allow a criminal to escape.
You had better return him.
Or we will pound on you with superior firepower.

It makes us ask, why was that superiority not translated into better internal security? We laugh a little, else the comedy would be too tragic. Meanwhile, we take the well-intentioned (we hope) advice of Kerubia. The Great Guild of Adaranathin has ramped up the production of tools of defence under the first estate of Roathin.

Greetings.

Considering the erstwhile intentions of the United Nations being to work for the betterment of the world, it is amusing to us how many sabre-rattling nations of late have propounded the following argument:

We allow a criminal to escape.
You had better return him.
Or we will pound on you with superior firepower.
Excellent observation - I could not have said it better myself. However, I don't find it amusing anymore - just lamentable.

The Kerubian Senate has passed its withdrawal from the United Nations.

Do not keep our prisoners. It's our duty to punish them in accordance to our law. The crime was commited in Kerubia, and they will be subject to Kerubian law. Other nations have no right to interfere.

It makes us ask, why was that superiority not translated into better internal security?

No system is perfect; sooner or later, a loophole or an error will be discovered which will allow criminals to escape from Kerubia's borders. Just because they have done that though, does not mean they've escaped Kerubia's justice.

Though crime is "Totally Unknown" here in Kerubia, it would be foolish of us to assume it will stay that way. Change happens, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. The Senate believes that allowing other nations to prevent our criminals from facing justice is not a change for the better. Explain to the Senate why a culture so different of our own has the right to restrict our justice?

Like Nargopia said, make sure that Kerubian prisoners or criminals or suspects or whatever stay in Kerubia, and you'll have no problems.

Like Nargopia said, make sure that Kerubian prisoners or criminals or suspects or whatever stay in Kerubia, and you'll have no problems.

And if they make it to your nation, make sure you send them back to Kerubia, and you'll have no problems, either.

(EDIT: Everyone here is smart enough to know I'm simply Role Playing my nation, right?)

Greetings.

We believe that justice (as opposed to Justice) which is defined by and emanates from one particular state should end at that state's borders except under either or both of two conditions:

The UN mandates action across their borders
That state declares war and projects its jurisdiction into another state

The latter condition upholds a state's definition of justice at the extent of a universal ideal of statehood, that a state's borders be inviolate. We are therefore satisfied to see Kerubia leave the UN as this makes things a lot more reasonable in our eyes.

In the meantime, we commend the efforts of the Aeromancer of Zarajat to harness the power of additional elementals of the Plane of Air to the defence of this realm. Our Mind cannot be everywhere at the same time.

And if they make it to your nation, make sure you send them back to Kerubia, and you'll have no problems, either.
Well, seeing as how Saint Uriel has pretty much no offensive capabilities and only a very moderate military defense force - I mean, really, I don't think we own a single tank, the airforce mainly just puts on aerobatic shows for the kiddies, and the navy is more interested in dolphin research than submarine warfare - it really wouldn't be hard to overwhealm us militarily. Oh yeah, except for our allies. We have a bunch of those, and these guys are big bruisers who pour 95% of their GDP into defense and buy nuclear weapons on a whim.
(EDIT: Everyone here is smart enough to know I'm simply Role Playing my nation, right?) OOC: Yeah, mate, its cool. We're just doing the same.

Amnalos,

The simple fact is that there were 10,746 votes that disagreed with you. I know you are quite proud of yourself because you think you've found this wonderful verbal loophole, but its simply not true. I repeat my previous invitation to try actually doing this while interacting with another UN member. Really, I'd love to see the outcome.

Well, obviously that's out of my hands. I'd have to wait until some criminal
a) committed a crime so heinous that it would provoke me into mobilizing my armed forces. That'd probably have to be an act of terrorism, or attempted regicide.
b) escaped to a nation that steadfastly refused to give him up after lengthy negotiations

If that were to happen, I think there would be a lot of nations sympathetic to my cause and willing to run with my interpretation. Don't you?

It may amaze you to hear this but I don't want that to happen. I am not hoping for someone to commit an atrocity in Amnalos just so I can dazzle the international community with my shifty legal mind. But if someone did, then God help anyone who tries to prevent me from bringing them to justice.

I'm sorry that a resolution that you didn't like was passed, but it happens to all of us. If you're so distraught over it, then try to have it repealed.

Maybe I will.

Great job! Descending into flaming is the way to go! Now, only after you called me a pompous git, do I see your point! Your crediability has increased dramatically.

Wait a minute. You've been nothing but snide and condescending from the minute I first raised an objection to your resolution. You've basically called me stupid, apparently because intelligent nations will mentally fill in the gaps in your proposal and I'm trying to exploit those gaps. Well, guess what? I don't agree with Resolution #103 and intend to get around it if I can. That doesn't make me stupid. So don't pretend I'm the one that started with the name calling. I was just mor up front about it. I'll tell you what, you stop treating me like a moron and debate my argument on its merits and I'll stop treating you like a self-righteous ass. Deal?

Well, obviously that's out of my hands. I'd have to wait until some criminal
a) committed a crime so heinous that it would provoke me into mobilizing my armed forces. That'd probably have to be an act of terrorism, or attempted regicide.
b) escaped to a nation that steadfastly refused to give him up after lengthy negotiations

This is what has the Senate worried. If a terrorist or a spy manages to escape, then there's really nothing we can do to prevent the individual or group from striking once more. Save for paying the nation millions of dollars to try and convince them to extradict them.

Maybe the resolution isn't as bad as I thought. It's a very, very easy way to find out which nations are harboring terrorists, spies, and our enemies . . .