NationStates Jolt Archive


International Criminal Court

Steamodi
19-06-2005, 20:50
International Criminal Court

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

Description: Proposal: Set up a permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

Rights of the Accused

Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. The Prosecutor has the onus to prove the guilty of the accused in full respect of his/her rights and must disclose to the defence, as soon as practicable, any material that could mitigate the charges or tend to show the innocence of the accused.

(1) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(2) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused’s choosing in confidence;

(3) To be tried without undue delay;

(4) To be present at the trial, to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the accused’s choosing, to be informed, if the accused does not have legal assistance, of this right and to have legal assistance assigned by the Court in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it;

(5) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her. The accused shall also be entitled to raise defences and to present other evidence admissible under this Statute;

(6) To have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness, if any of the proceedings of or documents presented to the Court are not in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(7) Not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;

(8) To make an unsworn oral or written statement in his or her defence; and

(9) Not to have imposed on him or her any reversal of the burden of proof or any onus of rebuttal.

The will have the right to legal assistance. He/She can either choose the lawyer(s) or have legal assistance assigned by the Court also without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it.


Voting Ends: Wed Jun 22 2005
Lumius
19-06-2005, 20:54
I'm accusing you of a bad idea.
DemonLordEnigma
19-06-2005, 21:12
International Criminal Court

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security

I'm not so sure on that category.

Description: Proposal: Set up a permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

And this is why I was opposed to the TPP.

The only court the UN has is the TPP, which is an international joke, even amoung UN members. It has no respect accorded to it by most people and doesn't even have enough firepower to stare down my military, let alone any of the bigger nations. All you are doing is adding yet another court that will be openly disrespected and ignored. And if you try to enforce your decisions, you'll find out how quickly many nations can get ahold of billions of soldiers.

Rights of the Accused

Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. The Prosecutor has the onus to prove the guilty of the accused in full respect of his/her rights and must disclose to the defence, as soon as practicable, any material that could mitigate the charges or tend to show the innocence of the accused.

(1) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(2) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused’s choosing in confidence;

(3) To be tried without undue delay;

(4) To be present at the trial, to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the accused’s choosing, to be informed, if the accused does not have legal assistance, of this right and to have legal assistance assigned by the Court in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it;

(5) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her. The accused shall also be entitled to raise defences and to present other evidence admissible under this Statute;

(6) To have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness, if any of the proceedings of or documents presented to the Court are not in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(7) Not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;

(8) To make an unsworn oral or written statement in his or her defence; and

(9) Not to have imposed on him or her any reversal of the burden of proof or any onus of rebuttal.

Nice set of rights. Set those up as an alternate proposal and we can debate them, seeing what's covered and what isn't.

But, otherwise, it doesn't provide anything really new or really even worthy of the UN's attention when setting up an international court.
The South Outpost
20-06-2005, 11:27
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I kind of prefer the idea of a voluntary final appelate court, run by the UN, applying domestic law.
Clearly it would take some careful planning, and limiting the appeals that went to the court to those of a serious or uncertain nature.
As the highest court in a system, the UN court would be able to unite to some extent the laws of member nations. At the same time, it would have to treat each nation's laws as applying to that nation, thus not interfering with a nation's right to have its own law.
Smaller nations, without the depth to support a top level judicial system, may find this attractive. Even large nations may appreciate a final appelate court completely (sort of) free from bias, lending added support to the appearance of neutrality. The UN court would be able to attract the best judges from throughout member states, and thus would be able to offer a high quality bench to hear appeals.

Just a thought. A big thought, but a thought. :rolleyes:
Northeast free world
20-06-2005, 14:47
Bad idea. raceism exist
Isate
20-06-2005, 23:04
The Free Republic of Small (but growing) Isate supports this idea. It may well give more fair trials and broaden the right of a fair trial. The 26 million Isatians support this fully.
SeeEss
20-06-2005, 23:17
I vote in favour of this proposal, however if i understand correctly, this is set up to enforce national laws? I think a international court to enforce international laws, and to judge crimes based on a international level, that would be good.
Steamodi
21-06-2005, 10:56
Remember to support this resolution in the UN proposals as it needs more votes...
Enn
21-06-2005, 11:40
What special crimes is this court meant to examine?

Is it just an extension of domestic courts? If so, I will not support - I don't see any need for it.

Is it designed to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace? TPP already looks after some of that.
Steamodi
22-06-2005, 10:49
I'm accusing you of a bad idea.

Dont accuse me of a bad idea till the proposal is either beaten or passed then we shal see who is the fool...
DemonLordEnigma
22-06-2005, 18:00
Dont accuse me of a bad idea till the proposal is either beaten or passed then we shal see who is the fool...

Unfortunately, the UN sometimes passes bad ideas, like the recent weapons ban.
Dolbar
22-06-2005, 19:26
I would vote for your proposal IF an amendment is added stating that National criminal law always has priority over the international court.
Ecopoeia
22-06-2005, 23:21
I'm open to persuasion on this, but would note that I don't think the category is suitable. Perhaps 'Political Stability' would be more appropriate.

Mathiey Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN