NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow UN Members:

A few months ago I, along with a few others, including Grosseschnauzer, the main co-author, attempted a proposal originally titled "Nuremburg Principles", based on the real-life Nuremburg Principles adopted by the United Nations in relation to war crimes. This got bashed around repeatedly, eventually adding about half the text that was in there and taking out even more, and being re-named for legality purposes "War Crime Principles".

This was submitted a few times, but sadly did not ever reach quorum. I eventually got caught up with RL stuff and this got pushed to the back. Now, I would like to get this going again. This is made extremely easy due to the fact that we have a draft that is short enough to fit, and has mod approval (link to approval thread, just scroll to bottom) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407737), AND by the fact that the required number of approvals is lower than what I've ever seen it at in my year-and-a-half of playing.

So, since this has already been debated sufficently (you can dig for the old thread yourselves... I don't really feel like it at the mo), I'm going to go ahead and submit this. If anyone has any suggestions, you may still make them (I'm not likely to be able to stop you, anyway), but they won't be implemented until the next submission. The submission draft is shown below, and has been submitted under the name "War Crime Principles".

All Delegates, please review and approve. Thank you for your time.

War Crime Principles

Category: Human Rights - Strength: Significant - Proposed by: Hersfold (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=Hersfold)

Description:

NOTING that wars still take place and that nations at war commit inhumane acts of violence;

REALIZING that there are no means for the United Nations to punish those who commit such acts and that responsibility for various actions may be in dispute, and may result in the failure to prosecute such crimes in a court of law;

HEREBY ENACTS the following Principles as international law with respect to the high crimes below:

I - Any person who commits high crimes is responsible for those acts.

II - The fact that national or regional law does not impose a penalty for a high crime does not relieve responsibility.

III - The fact that a person who commits a high crime acts as Head of State or Region, or as a Government official, is not a defense.

IV - The fact that a person acts upon order of a superior does not remove responsibility when a moral choice was possible.

V - Any accused person or nation under these Principles has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law, under generally recognized precepts.

VI - The following are defined as high crimes under international law, whether by action or inaction, and may be punished:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan to accomplish such acts.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; or wanton destruction of a settled area not justified by military necessity.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes persecution, murder, enslavement, or other inhumane acts against any civilian population on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or are carried on in as part of or in connection with a high crime.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law states otherwise. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

VIII - A victor of an armed conflict may be guilty of a high crime and may be brought to trial on the complaint of its victims.

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of a high crime may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

HEREBY DEFINES these terms:

Moral Choice: A choice to stop or allow an event to occur based on moral beliefs.

International Law: Any past, current or future resolution passed by the United Nations that has not been repealed.

Neutral nation: Any nation that has no involvement in the armed conflict that led to the commission of a high crime, other than the negotiation of a peaceful agreement between the parties involved.

STATES that members of the armed forces of a member nation have the right to disobey a command given to them which would result in the commission of a high crime, and may not be persecuted for disobedience should the right be exercised; and

ASKS that member nations educate their armed forces of these Principles to prevent the commission of a high crime.

Co-sponsored by Grosseschnauzer.

As before, my government supports these principals and this proposal.

As a UN delegate, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel approved it

The Commonwealth of Pontinia fully supports this proposal, and is glad that it is being submitted again.

Thanks to all of you. The proposal's been out there for about 8 hours now, and already has 10 approvals.

one small error i noticed is that in RL many war crimes are usualy tried by the nation that the accused is from though usually by a new government for example the Nuremberg trials and the current tribunal against the ousted Baathist Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein

The proposal prohibits the trial being held within the accused's nation.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law states otherwise. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

The proposal prohibits the trial being held within the accused's nation.
I noticed that and while of course NS doesn't need to follow RL examples it should be noted that most war crimes are tried in the nation that the accused is from usually by their countrymen. perhaps not an error more inconsistant with reality.

Ok... I see your point, but we're trying to make sure the trials conducted here are fair. By using a neutral nation to conduct the trials, we ensure that there is no bias in either direction.

NS is not reality. The UN is trying to make it better than reality.

I like it and have endorsed the proposal.

Approved.

its worth the vote on but im personally against it. i belive that the people that u capture are under ur mercy. it should be up to each country to decide how to punish its captives though other contrues may respond

its worth the vote on but im personally against it. i belive that the people that u capture are under ur mercy. it should be up to each country to decide how to punish its captives though other contrues may respond

Ok, thanks for your partial support, at least.

And thanks to those who have approved it.

(Bumping this, as it's getting close to being knocked off the page)

Our office will not support even such well-written legislation as this, citing the usual national sovereignty concerns.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Our office will not support even such well-written legislation as this, citing the usual national sovereignty concerns.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Thanks for the back-handed compliment, but could I ask how national soverignty applies here?

Thanks for the back-handed compliment, but could I ask how national soverignty applies here?

If you will, our office would like to note the following clauses:

1) A Crime Against Peace is to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression or a war in violation of any treaty, agreement, or assurance; or to participate in a common plan to accomplish such acts.

This is best resolved through the cooperation of the individual nations involved in the situation.

2) War Crimes include intentional murder, mistreatment, enslavement, or any other purposeful treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, prisoners of war or persons on the seas; killing hostages; plunder of public or private property; or wanton destruction of a settled area not justified by military necessity.

Most of these crimes mentioned can be properly in the scope of national authority, but may be international in scope depending on the individual situation.

3) A Crime Against Humanity includes persecution, murder, enslavement, or other inhumane acts against any civilian population on any basis of categorization that are protected by precepts of international law, when such acts are done or are carried on in as part of or in connection with a high crime.

Same as above.

VII - A neutral nation has jurisdiction and venue to conduct a trial against any nation, individual, or group of individuals for high crimes, subject to Principle V, unless a specific international law states otherwise. A neutral nation is not the nation which is the residence of an accuser, an accused, or the location where any alleged acts occurred.

This removes national decision-making authority and gives it to another nation, a rather obvious removal of sovereignty.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Ausserland supports this well-drafted proposal. With all respect to the distinguished delegate from Texan Hotrodders, we firmly believe that this proposal falls clearly into the realm of international law, does not constitute an unwarranted infringement on national sovereignty, and deserves passage.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Excellent proposal - approved.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

If you will, our office would like to note the following clauses:

(Insert quoted material here)

This is best resolved through the cooperation of the individual nations involved in the situation.

Say I was really pissed at you for a reason you didn't quite understand, and that I thought you were being ignorant over. I nuke the life out of your nation, thus committing a Crime Against Peace. Somehow, I really doubt you're going to peacefully negotiate with me about why I just turned your nation into a pile of radioactive ash, and I also doubt that your neighbors will be too happy with me either. Some other nations are going to have to get involved to prevent further conflict in such an event.

Most of these crimes mentioned can be properly in the scope of national authority, but may be international in scope depending on the individual situation.

So, continuing the same scenario, you launch a counter-attack on my nation, managing to capture a fair amount of it. You put all the civilians in the area into torture camps, where half of them die from the treatment. Do you really think I'm going to wait for my national courts to place a death sentence on your soldiers for doing that? Even if they tried, they wouldn't have much jurisdiction over your soldiers, since they are not citizens of Hersfold. This has to be dealt with internationally.

Same as above.

This one isn't necessarily connected with a war, but it still won't necessarily relate to Nat. Sov.. In order for a genocide (which is what this is basically describing) to be successful, you have to brainwash the population. Otherwise, they will not allow you to even begin. If you brainwash the population, you will have the control of the government as well, and they will not stop you. An outside force MUST interfere to stop a genocide.

This removes national decision-making authority and gives it to another nation, a rather obvious removal of sovereignty.

This was done to ensure that justice would be fairly served. When originally drafting this, it was mentioned that war crimes are generally trid by the victors. In RL, the Nuremburg Tribunals were conducted by the Allied Forces. More recently, Saddam Hussein was tried by the Iraq Government, which was I believe, set up by, or overseen by, the US Government. By using a neutral nation to try these cases, we ensure that a fair verdict is reached. Or, as I've already pointed out, that ANY verdict is reached.

Say I was really pissed at you for a reason you didn't quite understand, and that I thought you were being ignorant over. I nuke the life out of your nation, thus committing a Crime Against Peace. Somehow, I really doubt you're going to peacefully negotiate with me about why I just turned your nation into a pile of radioactive ash, and I also doubt that your neighbors will be too happy with me either. Some other nations are going to have to get involved to prevent further conflict in such an event.

If you turn our nation into a pile of radioactive ash, would our unhappiness not be a moot point, considering that we are all dead? In such a situation, we do not exist to complain anymore, and have no further stake in the matter. Shall we try a less extreme hypothetical scenario?

So, continuing the same scenario, you launch a counter-attack on my nation, managing to capture a fair amount of it. You put all the civilians in the area into torture camps, where half of them die from the treatment. Do you really think I'm going to wait for my national courts to place a death sentence on your soldiers for doing that? Even if they tried, they wouldn't have much jurisdiction over your soldiers, since they are not citizens of Hersfold. This has to be dealt with internationally.

Our office is somewhat confused as to how the Federation would mount a counter-attack after being turned into a pile of radioactive ash, but for the sake of discussion...

That is only one example of a possible scenario, and an incredibly unlikely one. You still have not addressed the point that in some cases the acts mentioned would fall under national authority. In the interest of being constructive, we would suggest that if the proposal fails to reach quorum this time, the relevant clause be revised to make it exclusive to acts international in scope.

This one isn't necessarily connected with a war, but it still won't necessarily relate to Nat. Sov.. In order for a genocide (which is what this is basically describing) to be successful, you have to brainwash the population. Otherwise, they will not allow you to even begin. If you brainwash the population, you will have the control of the government as well, and they will not stop you. An outside force MUST interfere to stop a genocide.

Now that you mention it, do not "The Eon Convention on Genocide" and "Humanitarian Intervention(sp?)" resolutions already cover the issue of genocide quite adequately?

This was done to ensure that justice would be fairly served. When originally drafting this, it was mentioned that war crimes are generally trid by the victors. In RL, the Nuremburg Tribunals were conducted by the Allied Forces. More recently, Saddam Hussein was tried by the Iraq Government, which was I believe, set up by, or overseen by, the US Government. By using a neutral nation to try these cases, we ensure that a fair verdict is reached. Or, as I've already pointed out, that ANY verdict is reached.

To be clear...our office agrees that your justification for this clause is sound and practical, but reiterates that it is an obvious violation of sovereignty.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Approved. My inner idealist wins over my inner sovereigntist in this case.

Texan, I'm not going to argue this with you repeatedly. I personally do not hold much stock in National Soverignty to begin with, and fail to see how this really violates it at all. A war would generally involve two or more nations, thus being international in scope. The only case in which this would not apply would be a civil war, and even then other nations tend to get drawn in for their own personal gain. (Example: American Civil War, Great Britain originally supported the South for the cotton supply. While not getting involved militaristically, they could have, and did provide economic support.)

I cannot force you to see my views. I will not attempt to do so.

Continued thanks to those who have supported this proposal. There are currently 38 approvals, and I have not done any campaigning other than this topic.

The proposal prohibits the trial being held within the accused's nation.

This might go against the Right to Refuse Extradition Resolution.. As if it means capital punishment then one can refuse extradition..


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #103
Right to Refuse Extradition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Saint uriel
Description: 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 a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will
AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders
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

Might want to get a read on it...

Since we're apparently OOC now:

Texan, I'm not going to argue this with you repeatedly. I personally do not hold much stock in National Soverignty to begin with, and fail to see how this really violates it at all.

I somehow managed to perceive that...

A war would generally involve two or more nations, thus being international in scope. The only case in which this would not apply would be a civil war, and even then other nations tend to get drawn in for their own personal gain.

War would generally be international in scope, yes. The problem is that many of the "War Crimes" mentioned in the proposal would often not be. Remember that this proposal is primarily about crimes, and only tangentially about war.

1. For the most part, you're addressing the crimes that commonly occur before, during, or in response to wars. In both the first and the third cases, the crimes could easily be national in scope.

2. Specifically, crimes of persecution, murder, enslavement, and plunder are mentioned but nowhere in the text does it explicitly state that these are only "war crimes" in war situations.

I cannot force you to see my views. I will not attempt to do so.

Fortunately, you don't have to force me to see your views. I see them just fine. _Myopia_, however, may need the aid of vision enhancement. :cool:

Fortunately, you don't have to force me to see your views. I see them just fine. _Myopia_, however, may need the aid of vision enhancement. :cool:
Groanaroonie...

As with all such legislation, Compadria supports this resolution.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Zeldon, thanks for bringing that up, but I believe the EON Convention bans capital punsihment for charges of genocide. In most cases, that would apply, but I can work that in if you want.

I somehow managed to perceive that...

Really? I didn't think it was that obvious... ;) :p But anyway, thanks for listening, Texan.

And thank you, Compadria.

This proposal is being re-submitted today. It gained about 54 approvals last time; thanks to all who supported the bill, and please continue that support.

Zeldon, I just looked the proposal over again, and the Death Penalty is already covered:

IX - Any individual or nation who is tried and convicted of a high crime may be sentenced to any punishment, except death, that does not violate international law.

Approved. Again.

Approved again. Ta for the TG, probably would have forgotten about it otherwise.

Approved again. Ta for the TG, probably would have forgotten about it otherwise.

That's why I send 'em. :)

Thanks to all who have responded so quickly. It's a big help. With any luck, you won't have to worry about it TOO much longer, as I plan to do some actual campaigning this weekend. (w00t!)

Bump...

Approved. And bumped, it would appear.

Thanks.

Re-submitted today, the proposal got about 57 approvals last time. Not that many more than the first run, but then I didn't do any campaigning again.