NationStates Jolt Archive

Suggestions and support, please -

UN International Court for War Crimes

1. Approving of the various resolutions passed by this body for the protection of persons in time of war,

2. Recognising that the success of such resolutions depends in great part upon their enforcement,

3. Noting that many of these crimes occur in situations where law and order has broken down, and that therefore member states may be less able or willing to enforce said rights, or prosecute instances of breach,

4. Anxious to address the lack of a permanent international court or tribunal for the punishment of War Crimes,

The UN hereby establishes the International Court for War Crimes (ICWC).


A. The ICWC will exercise jurisdiction over the crimes created by the following resolutions;

Resolution #31 Wolfish Convention on POW
Resolution #51 Children in War
Resolution #83 The Eon Convention on Genocide
Resolution #111 Civilian Rights Post War
Resolution #113 UN Biological Weapons Ban

B. The ICWC will conduct its operations at all times in accord with the following resolutions:

Resolution #21 Fair Trial
Resolution #47 Definition of ‘Fair Trial’

C. The ICWC will share concurrent jurisdiction with national judiciaries, and will defer proceedings to domestic jurisdictions, except in the following cases:

(i) the member state is unable or unwilling, due to the collapse of any branch of state (executive, legislature, judiciary), or intimidation of witnesses/ jurors/ legal officials, to bring proceedings.

(ii) the member state prefers that proceedings be brought in the ICWC.

(iii) the member state has conducted proceedings, but in a way which the General Assembly considers to be an affront to justice.

D. There will be no appeal to the ICWC from the decision of a domestic court other than in the circumstances stated in Section C (iii).

Suggestions and support, please -

UN International Court for War Crimes

Firstly, what category and strength is this going to be?

1. Approving of the various resolutions passed by this body for the protection of persons in time of war,

2. Recognising that the success of such resolutions depends in great part upon their enforcement,

Agreed. Hence, in part, The Pretenama Panel.

3. Noting that many of these crimes occur in situations where law and order has broken down, and that therefore member states may be less able or willing to enforce said rights, or prosecute instances of breach,

That's quite an assumption. Some wars lead to total anarchy, yes; in NS, that's less common. And, in any case, there will usually be the possibility for trials to take place. Germany was reduced to crumpled destruction by 1945, yet the Nuremberg trials went ahead.

4. Anxious to address the lack of a permanent international court or tribunal for the punishment of War Crimes,

Again, I know TPP doesn't cover everything, and that RPing it broke down, but it is at least there. This is coming dangerously close to crossing into its jurisdiction, which might be illegal.

The UN hereby establishes the International Court for War Crimes (ICWC).

A. The ICWC will exercise jurisdiction over the crimes created by the following resolutions;

Resolution #31 Wolfish Convention on POW
Resolution #51 Children in War
Resolution #83 The Eon Convention on Genocide
Resolution #111 Civilian Rights Post War
Resolution #113 UN Biological Weapons Ban

B. The ICWC will conduct its operations at all times in accord with the following resolutions:

Resolution #21 Fair Trial
Resolution #47 Definition of ‘Fair Trial’

Ok, here's your problem. It's called 'House Of Cards': if these get repealed, your resolution's in a hole. Aside from the fact that HoC violations render this proposal illegal, these clauses also don't allow for the adaptation of future laws. And you seem to have missed some: what about The Law of the Sea or Diplomatic Immunity?

I would suggest simply stating that the court will prosecute all war-related actions punishable or banned under UN law, in accordance with UN guidelines.

C. The ICWC will share concurrent jurisdiction with national judiciaries, and will defer proceedings to domestic jurisdictions, except in the following cases:

(i) the member state is unable or unwilling, due to the collapse of any branch of state (executive, legislature, judiciary), or intimidation of witnesses/ jurors/ legal officials, to bring proceedings.

(ii) the member state prefers that proceedings be brought in the ICWC.

(iii) the member state has conducted proceedings, but in a way which the General Assembly considers to be an affront to justice.

Bringing the GA into this comes close to a Games Mechanics violation, I would have thought. Also, what is the 'member state'? We're talking about war: if it's between two UN countries, which has the right to bring in or butt out the ICWC?

D. There will be no appeal to the ICWC from the decision of a domestic court other than in the circumstances stated in Section C (iii).[/I]

That seems reasonable, as it's the current status quo.

Further thoughts: how are you enforcing this? What about scale of punishments: will the court have the power of death penalty? How will court martials be affected.

Overall, it's an interesting idea. It's been tried before, and the problem is that it's very hard to make it legal, and not completely toothless. I'd be concerned yours is verging into illegality on a few points.

I still possibly support the idea, and am willing to help produce a more workable version.

Ok, here's your problem. It's called 'House Of Cards': if these get repealed, your resolution's in a hole. Aside from the fact that HoC violations render this proposal illegal, these clauses also don't allow for the adaptation of future laws. And you seem to have missed some: what about The Law of the Sea or Diplomatic Immunity?

I would suggest simply stating that the court will prosecute all war-related actions punishable or banned under UN law, in accordance with UN guidelines.


Further more the court can not exercise jurisdiction over Genocide, as it would end up being an amendment of The EON Convention.

Category/ Strength: Civil rights; not sure what strength, perhaps strong.

That's quite an assumption

On the contrary, it’s commonplace. Rwanda; DRC (Congo); Sudan; Somalia (whose government are in exile) etc etc. The draft also reads, “many of these crimes…”, so it’s not a blanket statement.

And, in any case, there will usually be the possibility for trials to take place. Germany was reduced to crumpled destruction by 1945, yet the Nuremberg trials went ahead.

The draft refers to situations where “member states”, ie UN members, are unwilling or unable to prosecute, as was the case in Germany. Remember, the Nuremberg trials were an international endeavour, not domestic. The Germans would have been unable to prosecute the Nazis in question as their actions were in fact legalised by the Nazi regime. The reality is that most war crimes require outside intervention for successful prosecution - in addition to Nuremberg, Tokyo, and the tribunals for Rwanda, Former Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone.

The proposal is meant to correct a few limitations in the TPP - firstly, they only have jurisdiction over the crimes contained in that particular resolution, leaving important areas uncovered. Secondly, ad hoc tribunals are less efficient than standing courts; they need to be set up every time a prosecution is brought, during which time vital evidence can be lost.

Ok, here's your problem. It's called 'House Of Cards'

This is harder to address. The trouble is that UN resolutions in the area of war crimes/ crimes against humanity have become a bit unwieldy. The ICWC was meant to act as a way to consolidate all the individual parts into a coherent whole, but probably this is impossible, given that the character-limit for proposals prevents full incorporation of all those other crimes, and the fact that many of the resolutions would need to be repealed first.

It seems academic now, given the obstacles mentioned, but in answer to your other questions, the power to hand out death sentences was not envisaged, since this might have been contrary to the domestic constitutional law of some UN members. With regard to Courts Martial, these fall within domestic jurisdiction, to which the ICWC would defer as per section C.

The proposal is meant to correct a few limitations in the TPP - firstly, they only have jurisdiction over the crimes contained in that particular resolution, leaving important areas uncovered. Secondly, ad hoc tribunals are less efficient than standing courts; they need to be set up every time a prosecution is brought, during which time vital evidence can be lost.


The whole reason for setting up The Pretenama Panel the way it is set up was so that it would only deal with the case it was set up for. That way it's integrety could never be questioned, and it's membership knew exactly what it was dealing with.

I would not consider it a limitation - infact having a standing body that deals with it would be far more problematic, not to mention illegal, under The EON Convention as the idea is the fifteen nations that sit on it judge only that case and no others while they are doing it. Further more since the independence of the panel has to be paramount, the membership has to change more or less with every case to ensure that no nation has a vested interest in the outcome (for example my nation would not sit on a panel investigating Genocide in Hyrule as we HATE that nation with a firey passion and could in no way be objective in any investigation).


This is harder to address. The trouble is that UN resolutions in the area of war crimes/ crimes against humanity have become a bit unwieldy. The ICWC was meant to act as a way to consolidate all the individual parts into a coherent whole, but probably this is impossible, given that the character-limit for proposals prevents full incorporation of all those other crimes, and the fact that many of the resolutions would need to be repealed first.


"This body would sit in judgement over international crimes (for example mistreatment of prisoners of war, mistreatments of civillians in war time and violations of various UN weapons agreements) that are not already covered by existing legislation"

This takes care of the house of cards arguement, as it does not mention specific resolutions, but sets out that it will ONLY deal with international issues.

I think that solves the HOC issue, but if anyone else would like to correct me....

We tried to utilise the existing resolutions for one part that being Genocide. We formed "the Pretenema Panel" and actively tried to take nations to task who were practising Genocide.
It was a Disaster. We had one minor success but other than that it failed miserably and Split the members of that Panel.
What makes you think this will succeed?
VL.

oh and this may prove usefull reading.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showforum=34

We tried to utilise the existing resolutions for one part that being Genocide. We formed "the Pretenema Panel" and actively tried to take nations to task who were practising Genocide.
It was a Disaster. We had one minor success but other than that it failed miserably and Split the members of that Panel.
What makes you think this will succeed?
VL.

Yes, I've just looked at the site you linked...

3.1 Panel Jurisdiction
• The Panel has 3 purposes:
Stage 1) To establish whether there are grounds for intervention (i.e. genocide/ethnic cleansing is occurring) by examining evidence provided by the accusing coalition and human rights organisations.

This would be a decision for the security council. Also this...

• Stage 2) If it is agreed that there are grounds for intervention, the panel will then assess the plans for intervention, and will establish a list of goals and targets for the operation. They may also forbid certain actions. Any decisions should be based upon upholding the ideals of proportionality, consequence and motive. All actions must aim only at ending the genocide and restoring order, and excessive or unnecessary means should not be used. The threat of Armed Insurgence may only be made as a last resort. On making a decision the accused once aware may make a defence to the panel, only if the genocide is halted.

So the TPP was able to organise military intervention? Sounds a bit fishy - an undemocratic (notwithstanding the internal election of chairs, etc) judicial body taking high-level executive decisions.

You're right, it wouldn't work.

It mainly died out because of lack of interest, which is sad. Nothing else. Its undemocratic nature was actually good...it prevents Hyrule from being called the worst war criminals in the past, present, and future, by that loveable Pallatium.

(EDIT: The way to bring back TPP is to post more stuff inside of the International Incidents forum. More people go there, and they'll be more likely to want to see "INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME TRIBUNAL", and interfere/assist with it. This will make TPP better and more popluar in the long run. The idea of having most of our work be done in the International Incidents fourm is good, as it provided us with popluarity and support. Okay, we're little-known, but the UNPF has just got out of one war in ZP and is entering into another war in Kilani. People are knowing who we are. I predict that soon, the UNPF will be entering into many wars, and our presence will be well-known.

Usually, people can't interfere inside of the TPP, because, well, it's a panel and they don't want to bother to sign up to a form. But, if you post on the II Fourm, more people will see it, and more people will assist. Maybe we should try it out?)

The good thing this resolution has going for it is its vaugness. We can just rename TPP and just adpot this new resolution instead. We can keep all TPP's rules and regulations (because I personally believe TPP's rules are right), but we can CHANGE them, to help increase interest. No more having to resort to more resolutions to push in changes, you can now have changes right now.

The problem I have is that if the resolution is passed, anybody can form an "UN International Court for War Crimes". Anybody! This resolution doesn't specifiy what is the UNICWC, just provide barebone guidelines...I can suspect 5 UNICWC start up as soon as the resolution is penned down, and 1 UNICWC made every day. These new UNICWC will compete with each other to be 'offical' and will accuse the others of war crimes.

Might need to address that?

So the TPP was able to organise military intervention? Sounds a bit fishy - an undemocratic (notwithstanding the internal election of chairs, etc) judicial body taking high-level executive decisions.

You're right, it wouldn't work.

The Pretenama Panel was never designed with intervention in mind (not originally anyway). It was hijacked by another resolution (Humanitarian Intervention I think?) and turned in to a panel that could say whether or not intervention could take place.

But as for it not working - what is your alternative? You ask the nation who is committing genocide whether they want to be invaded or not?

Suggestions and support, please -

UN International Court for War Crimes

1. Approving of the various resolutions passed by this body for the protection of persons in time of war,

I'm thinking that's a House of cards violation. Try "NOTING" instead of "Approving of"

2. Recognising that the success of such resolutions depends in great part upon their enforcement,

Good

3. Noting that many of these crimes occur in situations where law and order has broken down, and that therefore member states may be less able or willing to enforce said rights, or prosecute instances of breach,

4. Anxious to address the lack of a permanent international court or tribunal for the punishment of War Crimes,

The UN hereby establishes the International Court for War Crimes (ICWC).

Really good

A. The ICWC will exercise jurisdiction over the crimes created by the following resolutions;

Resolution #31 Wolfish Convention on POW
Resolution #51 Children in War
Resolution #83 The Eon Convention on Genocide
Resolution #111 Civilian Rights Post War
Resolution #113 UN Biological Weapons Ban

Definate House of Cards violation. Make it more general so it addresses war related resolutions or something (basically, you can't actually specifically state resolutions in this manner - if all 5 of those get repealed, this resolution is useless - and what if they get replaced?)

B. The ICWC will conduct its operations at all times in accord with the following resolutions:

Resolution #21 Fair Trial
Resolution #47 Definition of ‘Fair Trial’

Again, House of cards violations

C. The ICWC will share concurrent jurisdiction with national judiciaries, and will defer proceedings to domestic jurisdictions, except in the following cases:

(i) the member state is unable or unwilling, due to the collapse of any branch of state (executive, legislature, judiciary), or intimidation of witnesses/ jurors/ legal officials, to bring proceedings.

I don't like it, but on the surface, it looks good.

(ii) the member state prefers that proceedings be brought in the ICWC.

(iii) the member state has conducted proceedings, but in a way which the General Assembly considers to be an affront to justice.

General assembly can have no bearing whatsoever on this matter. This is a rule regarding creation of committees

D. There will be no appeal to the ICWC from the decision of a domestic court other than in the circumstances stated in Section C (iii).

*blinks* LOOPHOLE. Basically, the UN overrides the judicial decision of the nation and has its own court proceedings on the same case, and then the nation just turns around and says "I don't care what you say, we're going to go with what our jury says" and override the UN ruling.

Overall, a good idea, but has one gaping loophole and a few issues of legality.

That's quite an assumption. Some wars lead to total anarchy, yes; in NS, that's less common. And, in any case, there will usually be the possibility for trials to take place. Germany was reduced to crumpled destruction by 1945, yet the Nuremberg trials went ahead.

During the war, there were certainly issues of War Crimes that went unpunished until the Nuremberg trials.

Again, I know TPP doesn't cover everything, and that RPing it broke down, but it is at least there. This is coming dangerously close to crossing into its jurisdiction, which might be illegal.

TPP's jurisdiction is genocide - and only genocide.

Yes, I know it is: he mentions the court acting on crimes under the Eon Convention. Hence, crossing over into TPP's path.

That might not be true any more....


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.


(from the Humanitarian Intervention resolution)

Our experience in TPP was extremely disillusioning, though I believe the Panel has subsequently performed with competence [OOC: and why not? the mythical beings are staffing it in our absence].

There's scope for a resolution here, I think, but we'd need to tread carefully. I'll add that no resolution that allows for capital punishment will meet our approval.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Our experience in TPP was extremely disillusioning, though I believe the Panel has subsequently performed with competence [OOC: and why not? the mythical beings are staffing it in our absence].

There's scope for a resolution here, I think, but we'd need to tread carefully. I'll add that no resolution that allows for capital punishment will meet our approval.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Considering the extradiction resolution.....could we somehow incorperate that if the nation where the crime was committed doesn't support capital punishment, they can attach a requirement that capital punishment can't be used for a sentance? Problem is I think there's a few nations that would probably be a big gun-ho and go "I'm NOT giving up my citizens to some wimpy UN who won't punish them correctly" or something like that (looks at the author of one proposed resolution circulating around right now)

As I've stated before, capital punishment really is a few of Gruenberg's favourite things. We love it. But I'd be at lot more understanding of an international court who chose not to enforce that on a resolution which told me not to. I only asked the question for clarification, not as a leading one: I personally wouldn't object if the resolution suggested/required/whatevered that capital punishment not be a possible punishment, or simply didn't mention it.

Yes, I've just looked at the site you linked...

3.1 Panel Jurisdiction
• The Panel has 3 purposes:
Stage 1) To establish whether there are grounds for intervention (i.e. genocide/ethnic cleansing is occurring) by examining evidence provided by the accusing coalition and human rights organisations.

This would be a decision for the security council. Also this...

• Stage 2) If it is agreed that there are grounds for intervention, the panel will then assess the plans for intervention, and will establish a list of goals and targets for the operation. They may also forbid certain actions. Any decisions should be based upon upholding the ideals of proportionality, consequence and motive. All actions must aim only at ending the genocide and restoring order, and excessive or unnecessary means should not be used. The threat of Armed Insurgence may only be made as a last resort. On making a decision the accused once aware may make a defence to the panel, only if the genocide is halted.

So the TPP was able to organise military intervention? Sounds a bit fishy - an undemocratic (notwithstanding the internal election of chairs, etc) judicial body taking high-level executive decisions.

You're right, it wouldn't work.
As i Stated! It was a Disaster!

Personally, it would be the greatest thing the UN would ever do if they would create an international war crimes tribunal. The only reason that the UN doesn't is because it has a lot of its own member nations going to war for silly reasons and getting away with trecherous acts of violence. It would be very hard to moniter all of what goes in every single country in the world but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

As i Stated! It was a Disaster!
OOC: But only when roleplayed.

Yes, I've just looked at the site you linked...

3.1 Panel Jurisdiction
• The Panel has 3 purposes:
Stage 1) To establish whether there are grounds for intervention (i.e. genocide/ethnic cleansing is occurring) by examining evidence provided by the accusing coalition and human rights organisations.

This would be a decision for the security council.


The NSUN doesn't have a 'security council'...

The NSUN doesn't have a 'security council'...
You get the point about it being an executive decision, though?

i thought this was already set up? there was another resolution, after EON and before the 'house of cards rule', that used TPP for warcrimes trials too...

The NSUN doesn't have a 'security council'...
(OOC: sorry to double post, but i kinda skipped to the end (see above))
this line alone should make the proposal illegal. what is it with people assuming, like the real UN, there is a security council, and therefor who would they assume are its permenent members (if it does have them)

i thought this was already set up? there was another resolution, after EON and before the 'house of cards rule', that used TPP for warcrimes trials too...

The Pretenama Panel can only try people for Genocide (under EON at least)

yeah, but i swear there was another, humanitarian intervention i think, that also used TPP as well, and that was for warcrimes other than genocide. or was that repealed?

yeah, but i swear there was another, humanitarian intervention i think, that also used TPP as well, and that was for warcrimes other than genocide. or was that repealed?

It does use The Panel to decide whether intervention is necessary, but I don't know if said panel then punishes the people who are doing the bad thing that needed intervention.

yeah, but i swear there was another, humanitarian intervention i think, that also used TPP as well, and that was for warcrimes other than genocide. or was that repealed?

It still doesn't cover other forms of war crimes.