NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a quick draft that I have done with some help.

Whereby UN Resolution #27 Due Process shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The United Nations,

AWARE of the widely varied judicial systems within member nations;

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

BELIEVING that nations should have the opportunity to select the method of bringing criminal charges which best suits its culture and legal system;

CONCERNED by the lack of definition of salient terms such as "Due Process of law";

UNSETTLED that it is unclear exactly what is meant by "witness against himsefl" [sic];

APPALLED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

Have at it, people.

In the early days of the game, there weren't UN rules, there weren't moderators, and there weren't massive amounts of would-be legal scholars hanging out here to shred and reassemble every proposal. Harping on the language and typos in the text of a repeal makes you look small and mean.

If you want a successful repeal, concentrate on the legal aspects. Take a look at more recent proposals that address the judicial process, and see if it's still necessary. Find the logical holes ('lack of definition of salient terms such as "Due Process of law"' is one such) and push those.

I will do that. Thank you, Fris.

Okay, this is the latest draft. I am currently wading my way through the resolutions that Fris has suggested. What fun.

The United Nations,

AWARE of the widely varied judicial systems within member nations;

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

BELIEVING that nations should have the opportunity to select the method of bringing criminal charges which best suits their cultures and legal systems;

CONCERNED by the lack of definition of salient terms such as "Due Process of law", which has led to some confusion amongst the member nations and the rather poor implementation of this resolution;

DISTURBED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

it really looks like this repeal could fly.

Every nation has it own ways of dealing with law and order and repealing 'due process' would give them the flexibility to carry out their legal traditions.

So far its ticking the right boxes and I would be happy to recommend this to our regional delegate.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy Ambassador to the NSUN

it really looks like this repeal could fly.

Every nation has it own ways of dealing with law and order and repealing 'due process' would give them the flexibility to carry out their legal traditions.

So far its ticking the right boxes and I would be happy to recommend this to our regional delegate.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy Ambassador to the NSUN

Thank you. It's nice to have some positive feedback here.

If you're planning a replacement resolution I hope its as sovereignty friendly as the ideas outlined in the repeal text.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisuban Deputy Ambassador to the UN

I don't have a replacement myself, but I'm sure that someone will come up with one if they haven't already.

I really hope that people won't judge this on whether or not there is a replacement. I've had that issue before and don't care to deal with it again.

Another vote in favour of this proposal here...

Great! Are there any suggestions as it pertains to wording and the like?

UNR #21 'Fair trial' should be a starting point.

at its core it says that an accused person must get a fair trial but the language is loose enough to allow for local systems of law enforcement and trials. a replacement should allow local flexibility and let a nations courts get on with their jobs in peace.

For all we know some nations could still do trial by combat or something similiar.

A replacement may not even be necessary with UNR #21 and the UN bill of rights in place.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisuban Deputy Ambassador to the NSUN

I will be supporting this, obviously.
UNSETTLED that it is unclear exactly what is meant by "witness against himsefl" [sic];
I think I would drop this. We know that it means himself and it is covered by the "CONCERNED by the lack of definition" clause directly above it.
APPALLED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;
Use something milder (and more "legislative sounding") than APPALLED. APPALLED is just a few short steps away from APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE.

Use something milder (and more "legislative sounding") than APPALLED. APPALLED is just a few short steps away from APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE.

But we actually do find ourselves apoplectic with rage...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I will be supporting this, obviously.

Thank you.

I think I would drop this. We know that it means himself and it is covered by the "CONCERNED by the lack of definition" clause directly above it.

Consider it done. I thought it was a rather silly clause myself.

Use something milder (and more "legislative sounding") than APPALLED. APPALLED is just a few short steps away from APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE.

Since the clause right before is going to be removed, how about something like FURTHER CONCERNED or something like that?

FURTHER CONCERNED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;

How does that look?

But we actually do find ourselves apoplectic with rage...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Indeed. DISTURBED would sound better though.

Is the DISTURBED part in reference to Cluich or the proposal?

Use something milder (and more "legislative sounding") than APPALLED. APPALLED is just a few short steps away from APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE.

OOC: I really must include a clause that starts with 'APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE' in a proposal... ;)

Is the DISTURBED part in reference to Cluich or the proposal?
The proposal. I find no fault with Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich. What are you implying?

The proposal. I find no fault with Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich. What are you implying?

I am not implying anything. I just got a little confused as to what you were referring to. I apologise for the misunderstanding.

EDIT: The suggested changes have been made and edited into the second draft.

The United Nations,

AWARE of the widely varied judicial systems within member nations;

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

Indeed. Ariddia makes no use of juries in its judicial system (Ariddian_government_and_judiciary#The_Judiciary). (Esat, however, does (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddia_and_the_United_Nations#ESAT_and_the_United_Nations), being compelled to do so by the United Nations.)

There is no justification for imposing the use of a jury on the judicial systems of member nations.


BELIEVING that nations should have the opportunity to select the method of bringing criminal charges which best suits its culture and legal system;

CONCERNED by the lack of definition of salient terms such as "Due Process of law", which has led to some confusion amongst the member nations and the rather poor implementation of this resolution;

DISTURBED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

Quite so, on all counts. This repeal has our full support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Great edits, this repeal will have Jey's support and assistance.

Just so people don't have to go searching through the thread, I'm going to post the final draft now. I hope that this is done. If anyone has any other suggestions, please feel free to let me know. I will be submitting this by Monday the latest.

The United Nations,

AWARE of the widely varied judicial systems within member nations;

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

BELIEVING that nations should have the opportunity to select the method of bringing criminal charges which best suits their cultures and legal systems;

CONCERNED by the lack of definition of salient terms such as "Due Process of law", which has led to some confusion amongst the member nations and the rather poor implementation of this resolution;

DISTURBED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

If there is anyone willing to help me write up a nice TG for this, please let me know. I'm terrible with that sort of thing.

Durko is new, not only as a UN member, but as an independent nation. So we have not yet implemented the UN jury system. We don't believe the UN should impose their system on every member, therefore we support this repeal.

If there are no other suggestions, I will be submitting this shortly.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Okay, here is the final version that I will be submitting.


The United Nations,

AWARE of the widely varied judicial systems within member nations;

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

NOT CONVINCED that this particular judicial system is inherently more fair, or more likely to produce correct verdicts, than other viable systems;

BELIEVING that nations should have the opportunity to select the method of bringing criminal charges which best suits their cultures and legal systems;

CONCERNED by the lack of definition of salient terms such as "Due Process of law", which has led to some confusion amongst the member nations and the rather poor implementation of this resolution;

DISTURBED that this poorly written resolution infringes so deeply into national jurisdiction;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

There's a comma at the end of the NOT CONVINCED clause: it should be a semi-colon (or all the semi-colons should be commas...just be consistent).

Look again, Guren. All semi-colons.

Look again, Guren. All semi-colons.
:confused: I could have sworn...

Oh well, all's good.

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Would like to add a minor point: The private property clause at the end restricts sealing crime scenes to search for or prevent tampering of evidence without paying the owner (even if the owner is the commiter of the crime).

Got my vote.

Would like to add a minor point: The private property clause at the end restricts sealing crime scenes to search for or prevent tampering of evidence without paying the owner (even if the owner is the commiter of the crime).

Got my vote.No it doesn't. Unless I'm mistaken, the words are lifted verbatim from the American Bill of Rights, and in America police are certainly not so limited.

The line is a reference to emminent domain.

No it doesn't. Unless I'm mistaken, the words are lifted verbatim from the American Bill of Rights, and in America police are certainly not so limited.

The line is a reference to emminent domain.

No, you are not mistaken. This is one thing about UNR #27 that was pointed out when the idea of the repeal was being discussed. This is one of the reasons that it is a bad resolution. Not to mention the grammatical and spelling errors.