NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow Nations, the United Nations as it stands today is a disgrace. Forgive me for using a RL reference here, but the UN charter was written with the diea of National Soverignty in mind. The idea of managing world crises while preserving the freedoms our nations hold so dear.

If we cannot prosecute our own criminals according to our own laws, what identity do we really have? I submit to you that these international organizations to prosecute criminals is a destructive practice, depriving UN Member nations of freedom.

Therefore, I urde all member nations to consider the following resolution and give me contructive feedback.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description: This convention's purpose is the insure the continued security of the member nation's justice system and securing the ability of each nation to prosecute it's own criminal in any fasion it sees fit.

Submited respectfully by Crusader's Kingdom
Representative of the great region of The Good Word

Aware of the constant outcry of globalization and the urge of member nations to form one world government, and

Convinced that such a globalization must be handled with care to prevent certain rights of nations from being abridged, and

Further aware that one of the most important rights of member nations is the right to proesecute it's criminals in any way it sees fit, and

Noting that world courts have been a failure in the past, and

Whereas such worldwide courts may not represent the opinions of the member states, i.e: a judge of a differing nationality, raised in a different enviornment cannot be expected to rule in such a way which preserves nation's laws and constitutions, and

Recognizing that taking citizens out of nations, whether they are criminal or not, and imprisoning them is a violation of national soverignty.

Therefore, be it resolved by the United Nations gathered here that...
------------------------------------------------------------
Demands all international courts, tribunals, and other bodies where the fate of men is decided outside their own nation's legal system be disbanned effective immeadately.

Places all international war criminals, held currently, undergoing an international trial, or awaiting an international trial, in the care of their respected nation's legal system to be tried by the people most afflicted.

Prohibits any international judical bodies from being formed in the future.

Tell that to the TPP

As it would ban democratically run regional tribunals, our Community is opposed to this proposal.

"Aware of the constant outcry of globalization and the urge of member nations to form one world government"

Really? I had been unaware of this trend (and I'm a great supporter of it if it's true).

"Noting that world courts have been a failure in the past"

Examples please.

"Whereas such worldwide courts may not represent the opinions of the member states, i.e: a judge of a differing nationality, raised in a different enviornment cannot be expected to rule in such a way which preserves nation's laws and constitutions"

In many cases this is the very reason why the cases are tried in international courts, because the local judiciary are either sufficiently corrupt, biased or incompetant, that a miscarriage of justice would occur if the case was brought to trial before them. Equally, many countries are unwilling to try certain unsavoury individuals (such as war criminals) as they fear unwelcome revelations about past state activities.

"Recognizing that taking citizens out of nations, whether they are criminal or not, and imprisoning them is a violation of national soverignty."

Finally, we agree, yet this alone cannot stand as a reason for repeal.

Therefore, I wish to indicate the opposition of Compadria to this repeal.

May the blessings of your otters be upon you.

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

Delegate, the very existance of a United Nations is proof enough of the trends of globalization. Previous resolutions have alluded to globally run banks and an economic system which is inter-related. While Crusader's Kingdom, and moreover, the great region of The Good Word is excited at all the progress being made to integrate into one world government, we remain wary. While we believe that economic integration has it's positive aspects, we believe that giving up the right to try criminals is unacceptable.

The failures of similar courts in the past vary from region to country since we are all different, some nations may find it a severe impediment whereas nations such as yours may not even notice them at all.

I also agree with you that the courts do have it's values with being unbiased, but then we would have to make a truly unbiased court with a judge from every nationality, yes? Don't you agree that a court with 1,300,000 judges from every nationstate would be fairly inefficent? So no matter what we do, this proposed international court will be biased if not complete. The solution is to leave independant law alone and give the responsability back to the Nationstate which this resolution achieves.

Being still fairly new to the NSUN and having a generally isolationist foreign policy, Our government is not aware of the mechanics of these international tribunals this draft resolution speaks of. Are there at present any individuals being tried, not in their nation's courts, but by a UN body? Who are these people, what have they done to merit such treatment, and why haven't their own nation's courts proven adequate for the job?

I'm going to re-submit this - the only reason it was deleted was because I put my name on it. That's a quick fix. Even though in the real UN it's the proper format, I suppose here it's different

Basically Kawaii, International Courts in Real Life are bodies where accused are brought, outside their nation, to be tried by a panel of justices from various other countries. Passing this resolution will insure that none of these real life ideas or policies are ever brought to the game. It will also preserve the status quo of Nationstate's judical systems - a sacred right in my belief.

It's important for countries to try their own criminals. Example: Iraq should have the right to try Saddam Hussen.

*grunts in disgust*

Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 3:Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.
§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

This resolution is illegal as it stands for contradiction. You MUST repeal at least resolution 83 for this resolution not to contradict a past resolution (there might be others).

I'm going to re-submit this - the only reason it was deleted was because I put my name on it. That's a quick fix. Even though in the real UN it's the proper format, I suppose here it's different

I think it's illegal in several ways. Have you checked it against the rules sticky?

Even then, I'd be severely opposed to this. The UN should have the power to get a court together in certain cases.

It is better to try war criminals in countries other than their own. What if some dictator were to commit war crimes, but his country still supported him?

It is the people's choice who they find guilty or not guilty. It's not up to any of us inckuding the United Nations to force juries in nations to agree with us.

It is the duty of the United Nations to bring to justice those that wouldn't even be tried in their own nation (because they are the ones committing the attrocities from the seat of authority) or because they could not be fairly prosecuted in their own nation (something that is currently being held as a major concern in Iraq). We are not forcing juries to agree with use, we are forcing possible criminals to actually be determined innocent or guilty by a jury if they were just going to pardon themselves.

Further, there is a serious concern of trying people who are responsible for crimes in multiple nations (example: Nuremburg (sp?)). A person can only be prosecuted for the crimes he/she committed within the jurisdiction of the nation holding him/her. Therefore, if the person committed crimes in nations beyond that nation, then he/she may go unpunished for those crimes. If he/she is brought before an international judiciary, then he/she is prosecuted for any crimes committed by any nations that are under the scope of that judiciary (in the case of the RL World Court, anyone who subscribes, in the case of the TPP, the entire UN).

So sorry, don't buy your arguments.

I can't support this because I am one of those who believes international crimes should be handled by an international court.

To use RL Saddam Hussain as an example. He committed crimes against his own people but he also committed crimes against the Kuwaiti people, the Saudi Arabian people, the Iranian people and the Israeli people and those are just the first ones that came to mind, there may be more. Question is who gets to try him? Should we put all the nations names in a hat and let him draw out the winner?

Another example would be a drug trafficker who moves illegal drugs between 2 or more nations constantly and is a native of none of them. He gets caught. I know you will probably say the nation he gets caught in should have the right to try him, but what about the other nations he has broken the same laws in. Why should they miss out on seeing him punished for breaking their laws?

When a crime is committed completly within a nations borders and the criminal is caught within those borders then yes, national soverignty reigns and that nation has not only the right, but the duty, to punish that person. In cases when crimes cross borders and several nations are offended against, then an international court is necessary to ensure all parties are heard, all nations offended against can have justice served, and and the accused gets a fair trial.