NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution:

1. In circumstances wherein a person stands accused of a crime by the member-state government of one jurisdiction,
2. and said crime is also a crime under the member-state government of a second jurisdiction,
3. and evidence of the accused's guilt is presented by the first government to the second government,
4. and the evidence presented would be sufficient under the laws of the second government to effectuate an arrest if otherwise committed within that government's jurisdiction,
5. and the whereabouts of the accused is known and within the second jurisdiction,
6. the second government will capture and deliver the accused to the first government to face criminal trial;
7. the first government will compensate the second government for reasonable costs incurred in apprehending, capturing, and delivering the accused;
8. if a dispute arises as to what constitutes "reasonable costs", the matter will be settled in arbitration between the disputing member-states. A dispute over compensation will not delay the delivery of an accused;
9. this resolution shall in no way be construed to contradict or repeal the terms and content of resolution #103.

Rationale:
1. Without an extradition treaty, fugitives may escape over national borders to evade justice.
2. This treaty protects nations from having to extradite individuals for crimes that are not recognized as punishable under their own laws. Governments may still option to deliver them anyway, but that power remains sovereign.
3. This resolution includes a compensation clause, just in case all the fugitives decide that they like to flee to a particular nation, and that nation would have to foot a large bill to comply with this resolution. If you want your criminal back, you need to pay for our police force's time and energy that would otherwise be spent fighting our own crime.
4. For those of you who don't know, arbitration is where two parties in disagreement go to a third party or set of parties and ask them to make a determination as to what is fair.
5. So basically, this resolution says that if someone commits a crime like a murder in your country then flees to another country, that other country can't decline to return the criminal to you to stand trial.

5. So basically, this resolution says that if someone commits a crime like a murder in your country then flees to another country, that other country can't decline to return the criminal to you to stand trial.
And here you run afoul of RESOLUTION #103 Right to Refuse Extradition. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=102)

Resolution:

1. In circumstances wherein a person stands accused of a crime by the member-state government of one jurisdiction,
2. and said crime is also a crime under the member-state government of a second jurisdiction,
3. and evidence of the accused's guilt is presented by the first government to the second government,
4. and the evidence presented would be sufficient under the laws of the second government to effectuate an arrest if otherwise committed within that government's jurisdiction,
5. and the whereabouts of the accused is known and within the second jurisdiction,
6. the second government will capture and deliver the accused to the first government to face criminal trial;
7. the first government will compensate the second government for reasonable costs incurred in apprehending, capturing, and delivering the accused;
8. if a dispute arises as to what constitutes "reasonable costs", the matter will be settled in arbitration between the disputing member-states. A dispute over compensation will not delay the delivery of an accused.

Don't even bother. Read the resolution about the right to deny extradition.

Rationale:
1. Without an extradition treaty, fugitives may escape over national borders to evade justice.

Under UN law, that won't change.

2. This treaty protects nations from having to extradite individuals for crimes that are not recognized as punishable under their own laws. Governments may still option to deliver them anyway, but that power remains sovereign.

Suddenly, murdering people in your nation is no longer illegal in DLE...

3. This resolution includes a compensation clause, just in case all the fugitives decide that they like to flee to a particular nation, and that nation would have to foot a large bill to comply with this resolution. If you want your criminal back, you need to pay for our police force's time and energy that would otherwise be spent fighting our own crime.

So we have to pay because they are harboring a criminal? Really, really bad idea.

4. For those of you who don't know, arbitration is where two parties in disagreement go to a third party or set of parties and ask them to make a determination as to what is fair.

Yeah. Your point?

5. So basically, this resolution says that if someone commits a crime like a murder in your country then flees to another country, that other country can't decline to return the criminal to you to stand trial.

Which defies UN law on the matter, as UN law allows a nation to decline.

[QUOTE=Suddenly, murdering people in your nation is no longer illegal in DLE...



So we have to pay because they are harboring a criminal? Really, really bad idea.

[/QUOTE]

First, if your nation chooses to legalize murder, you are in violation of various provisions of UN resolutions, so you will have to choose continued membership or changing your laws.

Second, if murder is legal in your country, then good for you. have a nice, short life.

Third, if you don't want to pay to bring your criminals to justice (i suppose they just walk into your jail cells and lock the doors behind themselves), then good for you. have a nice, short life.

First, if your nation chooses to legalize murder, you are in violation of various provisions of UN resolutions, so you will have to choose continued membership or changing your laws.
Would you care to state just where the UN has stated that murder is a crime?

First, if your nation chooses to legalize murder, you are in violation of various provisions of UN resolutions, so you will have to choose continued membership or changing your laws.

Not in the least. We would simply be exercising our right of jurisdiction over our own civilians and telling your nation that your jurisdiction does not extend across our borders.

Second, if murder is legal in your country, then good for you. have a nice, short life.

Murder of people in your nation is not illegal in DLE. That doesn't mean that murder is legal when commited inside the nation, just that we won't prosecute or turn over citizens who are guilty of murder in your nation.

Third, if you don't want to pay to bring your criminals to justice (i suppose they just walk into your jail cells and lock the doors behind themselves), then good for you. have a nice, short life.

You really, really need to bother reading what I have said exactly instead of purposefully altering it away from what was actually said into some twisted mockery of my words in a cheap attempt to have a point. If you can't be bothered to read what I say and read it correctly, then simply don't bother replying.

Murder is implicitly outlawed under UN Resolutions 26 and 92. It is unfortunate that your nation has not yet implemented a formal education system.
Really, let's take a look at those resolutions shall we.
Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Free porcupines

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,


The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.I see no where that it states that murder will be a crime.

And now for 92.
Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Gwenstefani

Description: WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation. This resolution outlaws genocide killing a single person is not genocide, unless they're the last of their race, and therefore doesn't fall under this resolution.

Murder is implicitly outlawed under UN Resolutions 26 and 92.

26 is the Universal Bill of Rights, which says this:

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Nowhere under there is murder mentioned. It does mention equality of law, but that applies to the laws a nation has over its own citizens.

Resolution 92 says the following:

Description : WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26) establishes that "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" and that "any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law";

RECOGNISING that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure the human rights of their people, and that governments who seriously violate these rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power,

ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83), genocide is a “heinous crime”, a “crime against all people”, and “a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation. Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community”.

THUS ARGUES that such governments committing such violations, in contradiction to international law, should therefore not be protected by international law;

CALLS for the introduction of a right of humanitarian intervention, defined as "the proportionate international use or threat of military force, undertaken by a multilateral force with UN authorisation, aimed only at ending tyranny or genocide or extreme cases of human rights abuses on a grand scale*, welcomed by the victims, and consistent with the doctrines of consequence, intention and proportionality". (* e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing or other extreme human rights violations.)

Such violations may be brought to the UN’s attention by any coalition of nations (minimum of 2) with a plan for intervention. The case will then be assessed by a Pretenama Panel as described in the Eon Convention. They will be advised by impartial and independent human rights experts, (e.g. from human rights international non-governmental organisations,) but it will be the UN committee who votes on whether an action is appropriate. The panel will also assess the applicant’s plans for interventions, and make amendments where necessary, as well as placing strict limits, guidelines, and targets on their actions. Nations who gain UN approval to intervene are also obligated to provide post-intervention state rebuilding, plans for which are also subjected to UN evaluation.

Which was illegal under UN rules when it was passed. It doesn't force murder to be illegal or even do anything new except expand the powers of the worthless TPP.

Really, try to know your resolutions before citing them.

It is unfortunate that your nation has not yet implemented a formal education system.

We were just thinking the same thing about yours.

Brians Test also recommends that your national library invest in the purchase of a dictionary so your people can look up the meaning of the word "implicitly".

We have dictionaries in over 4,000 languages, including six you don't know about.

"Implicitly" indicates that something is implied in the context. The problem is that the two resolutions you mentioned don't mention murder of individuals at all, whether explicitly or implicitly. The one that does mention murder is expanding on an earlier anti-genocide resolution and involves the destruction or torture of entire peoples. One of my citizens running into your nation and shooting a cop in the head is not covered by that.

One of my citizens running into your nation and shooting a cop in the head is not covered by that.
Unless that cop is the last member of his race, then it could concievable be defined as genocide.

Unless that cop is the last member of his race, then it could concievable be defined as genocide.
Genocide is generally an action taken by governments, not individuals.

Regardless, let's cool down a little here, folks.

DLE is correct. When I wrote resolution #103, I wrote it with the intention of expanding and limiting national sovereignty at the same time. As DLE stated, your national sovereignty ends at my borders. I don't like the idea of another nation being able to retrieve a fugitive from my territory, especially if the accusation is not a crime in Saint Uriel.

_Myopia_ would like to reserve its right to refuse extraditions on a case-by-case basis, and not just in the death penalty case. We don't want to extradite suspects who may be mutilated, or have their rights infringed in some other way.

We also want to be able to make exceptions for special circumstances. Say there was a hypothetical nation A with an authoritarian, oppressive government. Person Z leads an attempted revolution to overthrow the government and replace it with one that will respect its citizens rights, but the uprising is brutally crushed and Z flees to _Myopia_. Nation A will probably demand that we extradite him for various acts committed during the uprising, which may well be illegal under _Myopia_'s laws, but we would prefer to be able to protect him - something this proposal would prevent us doing.

Well, I see you submitted this, however it still contradicts Right to Refuse Extradition. Putting in this clause 9. this resolution shall in no way be construed to contradict or repeal the terms and content of resolution #103. does not change the fact that this clause 5. So basically, this resolution says that if someone commits a crime like a murder in your country then flees to another country, that other country can't decline to return the criminal to you to stand trial. states that we can't refuse extradition which is a blatent contradiction of Right to Refuse Extradition, which states that we can refuse to extradite a person.

I recommend that everyone concerned read the actual text of Resolution #103. That resolution only states that a country does not have to extradite a person if the person would face the death penalty when extradited. This resolution would not change that.

Resolution #21 guarantees a right to a fair trial
Resolution #26, Article 5 prohibits torture or cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment
Resolution # 27 guarantees a right to due process
Resolution #41 prohibits barbaric punishment
Resolution #103 reserves a state's right to not extradite a criminal when doing so would possibly subject that person to punishment by death

This resolution would work with each of the other resolutions, not against them.

This proposed resolution has been placed on the list of UN Proposed resolutions and is awaiting approval to go to the UN floor.

Actually, it does provide for a way to get around Resolution 103. We declare a person is not facing the death penalty, ask for their extradition (it cannot be denied), and then "find" new evidence that changes their status to being in danger of recieving the death penalty. The nation that extradited can't do a thing about it, as we did everything legally.

Oh, and your clauses do contradict each other. You need to reword #5.