NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: This is going off comments by St Edmund and Mikitivity, and also the RL Interpol and (to a lesser extent) Europol.

IC: The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg wishes to continue its support and promotion of UN legislation and cooperation in fields of genuine international interest, and has decided to gauge the degree of support for something in the field of international police cooperation.

Draft in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11665299&postcount=36)

Please note this is primarily an information exchange agency, not a police force.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

*Felix, along with his entire delegation, stands and applauds*
- require nations to establish a single National Law Enforcement Office,
A sensible proposition indeed. Of course, all right thinking nations will already have such an office, but it is high time it was codified in UN law.

- whose agents shall not be permitted to act as law enforcement agents within member nations, or to make arrests
- to be prohibited from engaging in any military action
Oh can't they just a little? What would it hurt?

Oh can't they just a little? What would it hurt?
I'm not wild about giving the UN police or military matters.

Which is largely immaterial, because I can't anyway - such a condition would be illegal.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We strongly support this idea and hope to be able to contribute to its development. Crime is no respecter of borders, and facilitating international cooperation in law enforcement is a commendable goal. Two quick comments for now....

Rather than requiring nations to create a specifically-titled office, we suggest requiring them to either create such an organization or designate an existing agency to fulfill the role. Minor point, but it might save hassles.

One added possibility might be to encourage nations to enter into reciprocal agreements with neighboring nations to preposition permission for their law enforcement officers to cross borders and have the power of arrest in both countries. This sort of thing can be extremely valuable in "hot pursuit" and other time-sensitive enforcement activities.

By Order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Rather than requiring nations to create a specifically-titled office, we suggest requiring them to either create such an organization or designate an existing agency to fulfill the role. Minor point, but it might save hassles.
Quite right. I remember this point from the drafting of the Workplace Safety Act. I will make sure this accommodation is made.

One added possibility might be to encourage nations to enter into reciprocal agreements with neighboring nations to preposition permission for their law enforcement officers to cross borders and have the power of arrest in both countries. This sort of thing can be extremely valuable in "hot pursuit" and other time-sensitive enforcement activities.
Yeah, I think that's a good idea...though obviously, the proposal can do no more than encourage such agreements.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

I'm not wild about giving the UN police or military matters.

Which is largely immaterial, because I can't anyway - such a condition would be illegal.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Yes, yes, the archaic no UN army or police rule. They should put me in charge here and such impediments to progress would cease to exist.

- require nations to establish a single National Law Enforcement Office, for the purpose of coordinating law enforcement efforts and acting as an easy first contact for other nationsThis could be a problem for Federalist regimes; perhaps if it were simply mandated that each nation maintain a single governmental liaison with the proposed international organization.

Let us elaborate on the problem: certain regimes, especially confederations, might not want (or, under their constitutions, permit) the establishment of a federal police force (America didn't have one until the 20th Century [the U.S. Marshals don't count, since they were limited in jurisdiction to policing the territories and acting as agents of the federal courts]). This resolution should not require the creation of one: a liaison office attached to the foriegn ministry should be sufficient, or even an association of provincial police chiefs who keep a small (common) office for this purpose.- primarily to facilitate communications between national law enforcement agenciesUse the word “authorities” to avoid the aforementioned problem (multiple levels/groupings/departments of “authorities” might exist)

Actually, these changes are needed to cover anarchies (like Hack or HotRodia) as well as loose confederations.

We applaud this idea. Right to Refuse Extradition (#103) should be taken into account.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Rather than requiring nations to create a specifically-titled office, we suggest requiring them to either create such an organization or designate an existing agency to fulfill the role. Minor point, but it might save hassles.
Excellent point Ambassador Olembe. The Committee For State Security is already well-equipped to fulfill this role.

This could be a problem for Federalist regimes; perhaps if it were simply mandated that each nation maintain a single governmental liaison with the proposed international organization.
Liaising with the Interpol agency isn't the whole point, though. It's also to act as a point of contact for other nations.

For example, there are several law enforcement agencies in Gruenberg. As well as the main police, there are specific agencies for illegal immigration, for smuggling, and for firearms offences. There's also the military police, the coast guard, and so on. I would imagine almost every nation has differing police structures. Therefore, I think having one central point of contact is a good idea in general, aside from considerations of the Interpol agency. It means foreign governments and agents can quickly be placed in contact with the correct organization.

Use the word “authorities” to avoid the aforementioned problem (multiple levels/groupings/departments of “authorities” might exist)
It's not a draft, yet. This is what I meant about, for now, trying to concentrate on the ideas, rather than picking at specific words.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Originally Posted by Ausserland
One added possibility might be to encourage nations to enter into reciprocal agreements with neighboring nations to preposition permission for their law enforcement officers to cross borders and have the power of arrest in both countries. This sort of thing can be extremely valuable in "hot pursuit" and other time-sensitive enforcement activities.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea...though obviously, the proposal can do no more than encourage such agreements.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

We're not sure we understand what you mean by this. If the proposal required such agreements, we would strongly oppose it. Nations must be free to enter into such agreements based on their best judgment of the professionalism and integrity of the other nation's law enforcement establishment, as well as their views on the propriety of the other nation's laws and legal procedures.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We're not sure we understand what you mean by this. If the proposal required such agreements, we would strongly oppose it. Nations must be free to enter into such agreements based on their best judgment of the professionalism and integrity of the other nation's law enforcement establishment, as well as their views on the propriety of the other nation's laws and legal procedures.
With respect, that's exactly what I did mean: that the proposal would not and could not require such agreements.

Therefore, I think having one central point of contact is a good idea in general, aside from considerations of the Interpol agency. It means foreign governments and agents can quickly be placed in contact with the correct organization.So do we; but it should be permissible to make it a clearinghouse under the foreign ministry/military/interior/whatever without the need to establish a national police force.

So do we; but it should be permissible to make it a clearinghouse under the foreign ministry/military/interior/whatever without the need to establish a national police force.
Oh, I see. Then I think either I haven't communicated the intent of the condition, or you've misunderstood it: I'm not talking about establishing a national police force, but just establishing a national point of contact.

OOC: This is based on the National Central Bureaus that Interpol member nations set up. For example, the US NCB is based in their Department of Justice in Washington DC.

With respect, that's exactly what I did mean: that the proposal would not and could not require such agreements.

Our apologies. I was misadvised. In her reading of your comment, Ambassador Ahlmann missed that teeny tiny two-letter word beginning with n and ending with o. I've suggested she have a nice nap and avoid late nights at the Flying Pig in the future.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: I can't really do this IC and be serious about it and I get tired of using the IC and OOC tags. If Felix says something sensible just assume it's OOC.

Would you have the Interpol agents also be members of a national or local law enforcement agency? If so, would they be able to make arrests in their own jurisdiction, even though they are Interpol agents as well?

Oh, I see. Then I think either I haven't communicated the intent of the condition, or you've misunderstood it: I'm not talking about establishing a national police force, but just establishing a national point of contact.

OOC: This is based on the National Central Bureaus that Interpol member nations set up. For example, the US NCB is based in their Department of Justice in Washington DC.It could be either (you mistating or us misunderstanding). We recommend careful attention to eliminate that possibility.

We commend Gruenberg on this idea. Good work, Rono.

Would you have the Interpol agents also be members of a national or local law enforcement agency? If so, would they be able to make arrests in their own jurisdiction, even though they are Interpol agents as well?
Perhaps a way to resolve it would be to say that the Interpol agents would not have authority to conduct police or military actions, except where explicitly authorised by the national government in whose jurisdiction such actions were to be conducted? I'm just concerned that we won't be able to do this anyway, because of the rules on UN army/police.

It could be either (you mistating or us misunderstanding). We recommend careful attention to eliminate that possibility.

We commend Gruenberg on this idea. Good work, Rono.
Excellent, my thanks.

I'll try to get a draft of this together by this evening/tomorrow.

This could be a problem for Federalist regimes; perhaps if it were simply mandated that each nation maintain a single governmental liaison with the proposed international organization.

Let us elaborate on the problem: certain regimes, especially confederations, might not want (or, under their constitutions, permit) the establishment of a federal police force (America didn't have one until the 20th Century [the U.S. Marshals don't count, since they were limited in jurisdiction to policing the territories and acting as agents of the federal courts]). This resolution should not require the creation of one: a liaison office attached to the foriegn ministry should be sufficient, or even an association of provincial police chiefs who keep a small (common) office for this purpose.Use the word “authorities” to avoid the aforementioned problem (multiple levels/groupings/departments of “authorities” might exist)

Actually, these changes are needed to cover anarchies (like Hack or HotRodia) as well as loose confederations.

There is nothing in the suggested contents of the proposal that requires or even suggests setting up a national police force. A liaison office is not a police force. We really wish the representative of Community Property would spend more time in careful reading rather than wasting it in creating phantom issues upon which he can wax eloquent.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This plan might work well in the Empire, once we get around our foreign policy laws. As it is we have one main law-enforcement agency for the entire Empire, and the various regions then have their own systems, as long as they listen to the Agundan.

We find no objection to the proposal, unless we are somehow required to allow other nations into our territory for info-gathering or law enforcement purposes. We take our jurisdiction very seriously, and such an imposition would make our foreign policy very hard to maintain.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador

We find no objection to the proposal, unless we are somehow required to allow other nations into our territory for info-gathering or law enforcement purposes. We take our jurisdiction very seriously, and such an imposition would make our foreign policy very hard to maintain.
No, no such condition would be included. If there is room, the proposal might explicitly state that this wouldn't require such, as I imagine this will be a common concern.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Perhaps a way to resolve it would be to say that the Interpol agents would not have authority to conduct police or military actions, except where explicitly authorised by the national government in whose jurisdiction such actions were to be conducted? I'm just concerned that we won't be able to do this anyway, because of the rules on UN army/police.Kind of the way U.S. Marshals need authorization from local officials to get involved?

Also, following American (FBI) and British (Scotland Yard) experience, is it worthwhile to propose that Interpol offer advisory and/or criminological (forensic lab) support (billed to the utilizing agency, of course)? Given our neo-Luddite/hippie approach to life, we'd have problems looking for chemical taggants or analyzing hard drives (in the case where, say, a group of hackers were to attempt to use our territory as a base of operations); if an “Interpol” crime lab was available, we'd be glad to pay for its use in cases like this.

Perhaps a way to resolve it would be to say that the Interpol agents would not have authority to conduct police or military actions, except where explicitly authorised by the national government in whose jurisdiction such actions were to be conducted?
Yeah, I think that would work. If they are still police officers (and still on the national payroll) they should still be allowed to act as police officers so long as they are in their jurisdiction.

When working outside their jurisdiction (on Interpol business), should they be allowed to carry their sidearms? For personal protection?

Kind of the way U.S. Marshals need authorization from local officials to get involved?
OOC: Sorry, I'm not familiar with that example.

When working outside their jurisdiction (on Interpol business), should they be allowed to carry their sidearms? For personal protection?
That's a point I did consider, but really didn't want to get into, because it looks an awful lot like a can of worms, that would really distract discussions.

Yeah, I think that would work. If they are still police officers (and still on the national payroll) they should still be allowed to act as police officers so long as they are in their jurisdiction.

When working outside their jurisdiction (on Interpol business), should they be allowed to carry their sidearms? For personal protection?

I would be inclined to say no. If the nations in which they are conducting their operations in feel the need to let them have firearms or personal protection, let them outfit them.

That way, we leave it up to member nations to decide to arm them, and we eliminate and qualms about a UN police force, because they don't have weapons and are subservient to member nations

L. Pendankr

OOC: Sorry, I'm not familiar with that example.Ah. Well, there's the example of how FBI agents worked with Pakistani (or Yemeni) law enforcement officials in looking for Al Qaeda members; we can't go in on our own (no jurisdiction) but we can come in and help if they invite us; however, the host agency always remains in charge.

OOC: I can't really do this IC and be serious about it and I get tired of using the IC and OOC tags. If Felix says something sensible just assume it's OOC.

Would you have the Interpol agents also be members of a national or local law enforcement agency? If so, would they be able to make arrests in their own jurisdiction, even though they are Interpol agents as well?

For our part, we see the employees of the suggested international organization as having no powers of arrest or detention whatever. We see the primary goal as facilitating law enforcement actions by national/state/province/local authorities.

Perhaps we need to steer ourselves away from thinking of this agency as a counterpart to Interpol in the mythical world of RL.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

For our part, we see the employees of the suggested international organization as having no powers of arrest or detention whatever. We see the primary goal as facilitating law enforcement actions by national/state/province/local authorities.

Perhaps we need to steer ourselves away from thinking of this agency as a counterpart to Interpol in the mythical world of RL.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign AffairsUnited Nations Law Enforcement Assistance Directorate (UNLEAD)?

Can we get another “ED” in there?

United Nations Law Enforcement Assistance Directorate (UNLEAD)?

Can we get another “ED” in there?
This a serious (and needed) proposal. Let's not give it a silly acronym.

This a serious (and needed) proposal. Let's not give it a silly acronym.United Nations Law Enforcement Assistance Agency (UNLEAA), then.

Perhaps we need to steer ourselves away from thinking of this agency as a counterpart to Interpol in the mythical world of RL.
Agreed. The international criminal database itself is just as important as whatever agency (with whatever powers) is established.

OOC: So far as I know, Interpol actually has no powers of arrest or detention IRL either.

But yes, that is irrelevant. I'm not keen on giving it police powers, so let's stick with forbidding that.

Brilliant, I love it. I think the world could use an organization like this. Also, UNLEAA is a good acronym and name in my opinion.
~Joshua S. Sarmin, UN Delegate from the Commonwealth of Malsitar

We support this. Should no resolution come of it, we would recommend that a purely voluntary Interpol should be set up outside the UN, and Ariddia would participate in that (to the full extent of our limited means).


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Tentative first draft. The preamble could do with some work, and I'm not wild about splitting into sections (but I think it's the only way to do it)...but we'll see how it goes.

The United Nations,

Aware that transnational criminal activities are an area of significant concern to all nations,

Considering that the tackling of international crime often requires cooperation between multiple authorities,

Wishing to aid and develop rapid and effective communications in the field of law enforcement, so as to aid such operations:

Section I - General Obligations

1. Affirms its commitment to the prevention of international crime;

2. Urges member nations to cooperate, to the fullest degree allowed by their national laws, in the apprehension of international criminals, the suppression of international criminal activities, and the sharing of intelligence concerning acts of international crime and their perpetrators;

3. Encourages member nations to commit resources to the enforcement of law and order within their jurisdiction, and further to cooperative efforts against international crime;

4. Further encourages member nations to negotiate reciprocal agreements with others to permit law enforcement agents to enter their nation and exercise power of arrest and detention;

5. Emphasises that the decision to grant such powers remains a national prerogative;

6. Requires member nations to maintain a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction, and to act as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication.

Section II - Establishment of Interpol

§ The International Criminal Police Network (Interpol) is established to promote effective communication between member nations and their law enforcement agencies, and to contribute to efforts to tackle international crime, especially in the fields of trafficking of persons, arms, drugs, stolen goods, illicit technologies and other illegal materials, international terrorism, organized crime, electronic and high-tech crime, corruption and financial crime, and other relevant areas of international crime.

§ Interpol shall:
- maintain regular contact with all CNOs,
- facilitate communications and cooperation between national law enforcement agencies,
- maintain databases of ongoing criminal investigations, known and suspected criminals, and fugitives, and of stolen items, particularly identity materials such as passports,
- make information from such files available upon appropriate request by agencies investigating related crimes.

§ Interpol agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention.

§ Interpol shall have no authority to engage in police or military actions.

6. Requires member nations to establish a Central National Office (CNO) to communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction, and to act as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication.

As Dr. Olembe said earlier, this ought to require member nations to have a CNO, not establish one.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ah, dammit! Changed.

4. Further encourages member nations to negotiate reciprocal agreements with others to permit law enforcement agents to enter their nation and exercise power of arrest and detention;



Did you intend these reciprocal agreements to be on a permanent or a case-by-case basis? Perhaps you should specify that member nations can consider both options.


C. Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Did you intend these reciprocal agreements to be on a permanent or a case-by-case basis? Perhaps you should specify that member nations can consider both options.
Because it's only a mild clause, I'm inclined to leave it as is...because nations will negotiate the specific terms anyway.

In other words, if I'm saying: "You can pick any fruit you want," it makes little sense to say, "You can pick an apple or an orange or a..."

How about “facilitate cooperation” (or “communications and cooperation”) between law enforcement agencies. Again, thinking of nations like mine who might lack the resources to deal with certain kinds of crime; if there's no Interpol crime lab, then at least we could go through Interpol to say, “Hey, who's got a crime lab that can do work for us? We'll pay for what we need, of course.”

How about “facilitate cooperation” (or “communications and cooperation”) between law enforcement agencies. Again, thinking of nations like mine who might lack the resources to deal with certain kinds of crime; if there's no Interpol crime lab, then at least we could go through Interpol to say, “Hey, who's got a crime lab that can do work for us? We'll pay for what we need, of course.”
That's a reasonable edition: change made.

This is kind of nitpicky, but because the stuff in the second section is the mandatory part, it might be better to number it so we can all refer to it easily in the debate.

This is kind of nitpicky, but because the stuff in the second section is the mandatory part, it might be better to number it so we can all refer to it easily in the debate.
Yeah, the format will need sorting out. For now, I'd rather get the content sorted, and then the best approach may emerge.

Tarmsden supports this proposal. It is an excellent means of fortifying existing anti-terrorism efforts and other anti-crime initiatives.

Without wishing to cause extreme controversy or make this proposal more contentious, Tarmsden would like to ask the author to consider adding wording about enforcing copyright agreements between nations as needed. Although we know that there is no international convention on copyrights that is binding, (believe us, we opposed a number of said conventions) certain nations may set up reciprocal agreements to combat piracy and copyright infringements as mutually agreed upon. Interpol can (and should) have a role in assisting in these efforts.

There's aleady an INTERPOL set up as an independent Organization.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/INTERPOL

Tarmsden supports this proposal. It is an excellent means of fortifying existing anti-terrorism efforts and other anti-crime initiatives.

Without wishing to cause extreme controversy or make this proposal more contentious, Tarmsden would like to ask the author to consider adding wording about enforcing copyright agreements between nations as needed. Although we know that there is no international convention on copyrights that is binding, (believe us, we opposed a number of said conventions) certain nations may set up reciprocal agreements to combat piracy and copyright infringements as mutually agreed upon. Interpol can (and should) have a role in assisting in these efforts.

With all respect to our distinguished colleague from Tarmsden, we could not support this. In Ausserland, infringement of copyright is a tort under civil law, not a violation of criminal law. Further, we shudder to think of the bleating and whining from certain quarters that inclusion of such a provision would introduce into the debate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

There's aleady an INTERPOL set up as an independent Organization.
Yeah, I'll probably call it something different in the end.

Without wishing to cause extreme controversy or make this proposal more contentious, Tarmsden would like to ask the author to consider adding wording about enforcing copyright agreements between nations as needed. Although we know that there is no international convention on copyrights that is binding, (believe us, we opposed a number of said conventions) certain nations may set up reciprocal agreements to combat piracy and copyright infringements as mutually agreed upon. Interpol can (and should) have a role in assisting in these efforts.
We think that'd be overstepping the useful authority of the organization. I would think, though, that nations could at least ask for assistance in such matters, if they wanted.

Can we have a recognition that different nations have different definitions as to what constitutes a 'crime', and that this clause 2. Promotes the greatest degree of cooperation between member nations in the apprehension of international criminals, the suppression of international criminal activities, and the sharing of intelligence concerning acts of international crime and their perpetrators; would not require the more 'liberal' nations to help the more oppressive regimes track -- or even round up -- any of the latter nations' people whose 'crimes' were actions of types (such as peaceful political dissent) that the 'liberal' states wouldn't have called criminal if they'd been performed in the liberal states themselves rather than in the repressive ones?

OOC: 'United Nations Committee for Law Enforcement'? ;)

No silly acronyms. And yes, I'll include something about diversity of legal systems in the preamble.

Can we have a recognition that different nations have different definitions as to what constitutes a 'crime', and that this clause would not require the more 'liberal' nations to help the more oppressive regimes track -- or even round up -- any of the latter nations' people whose 'crimes' were actions of types (such as peaceful political dissent) that the 'liberal' states wouldn't have called criminal if they'd been performed in the liberal states themselves rather than in the repressive ones?

OOC: 'United Nations Committee for Law Enforcement'? ;)

The clause does need some revision to ensure this point is understood. We'd suggest:

URGES member nations to cooperate, to the fullest degree allowed by their national laws, in...

This would accommodate situations such as described above, cases where extradition is refused by law, cases where specific investigative methods and techniques are illegal, etc.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Add something about cooperation with non-UN member police agencies? There are quite a few of them.

I would think, though, that nations could at least ask for assistance in such matters, if they wanted.

That's all we're asking for. If several nations have a mutually agreed-upon set of copyright laws and feels that they need help enforcing said international (though not global) laws, then we would authorize Interpol to assist. We don't want Interpol coming into copyright issues unless the nations in question all agree to it and request help.

The shazbotdom deligate stands up to speak, before he does though he takes a sip from his soda.

"I feel that this is a great idea, and the Dark Empire of Shazbotdom will donate Five Dozen cookies to the Gruenberg deligation/proposal writers so they have sustinance during the long process of finalizing this proposal."

a delegate further to the back also stands.

The Uk in Exile also concurs that this is an idea of merit and intends to vote for it, should the drafter seek quorum, our only concern is the second clause in section two "maintain databases" which suggests to me that INTERPOL create these databases from scratch, with data being added only as a case they are asked to intervene in requires it. is this the intended meaning of the clause?

Section I - General Obligations

1. Affirms its commitment to the prevention of international crime;

Meh, crime is but a little extra spice in life.

<Horrified whispering breaks out amongst other delegates. Deputy Ambassador Holt's face takes on a greenish-grey tinge of anxiety>

My apologies honourable delegates, I was merely venturing humour.

4. Further encourages member nations to negotiate reciprocal agreements with others to permit law enforcement agents to enter their nation and exercise power of arrest and detention;

5. Emphasises that the decision to grant such powers remains a national prerogative;

I apologise if this concern has been raised already, but I presume said agents would be acting under the law of the nation they had been invited into? Or will they using their laws under special perogative of the national government that invites them in the first place?

Section II - Establishment of Interpol

§ The International Criminal Police Network (Interpol) is established to promote effective communication between member nations and their law enforcement agencies, and to contribute to efforts to tackle international crime, especially in the fields of trafficking of persons, arms, drugs, stolen goods, illicit technologies and other illegal materials, international terrorism, organized crime, electronic and high-tech crime, corruption and financial crime, and other relevant areas of international crime

I have to say that's one of the best outlines of responsibility I've seen in a long time.

§ Interpol shall:
- maintain regular contact with all CNOs,
- facilitate communications and cooperation between national law enforcement agencies,
- maintain databases of ongoing criminal investigations, known and suspected criminals, and fugitives, and of stolen items, particularly identity materials such as passports,
- make information from such files available upon appropriate request by agencies investigating related crimes,
- draw up rules for operational procedure.

§ Interpol agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention.

Could nations form reciprocal treaties with Interpol?

§ Interpol shall have no authority to engage in police or military actions.

Doesn't that make it rather toothless? I'd prefer an international police force with an international mandate to enter countries and investigate, but I recognise very few nations would endorse such a proposal. More pragmatically, couldn't Interpol Agents be allowed under special circumstances to accompany national operatives, in addition to assisting them in information terms and be able to act as a surrogate police force for poorer nations who have little existing infrastructure for police work?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S. Can we please have a silly name. Please, please, pretty-please?

I apologise if this concern has been raised already, but I presume said agents would be acting under the law of the nation they had been invited into? Or will they using their laws under special perogative of the national government that invites them in the first place?
That's really something to be worked out in these agreements. It's only an encouragement - and I'd rather leave it vague, so as to allow nations maximum width in deciding the terms of such agreements.

So - I don't know.

Could nations form reciprocal treaties with Interpol?
I'm...not sure what you mean. Interpol isn't a nation, or the sort of organization that would commonly be recognised as having states rights under international law.

Unless you mean: "could nations permit Interpol agents to exercise police powers?" in which case, I'm not sure. On the one hand, I guess if they really want to...but I really don't like the idea of giving them these powers, however willing the nation in question might be. And I'm not sure it'd be legal (see my next point) anyway.

Doesn't that make it rather toothless?
No, it doesn't, but bear in mind what I want this to bite into. The key to tackling international crime is the sharing of intelligence. Creating some universal police force would be pretty useless, because it doesn't solve the main issue: that information isn't passed onto the right sources.

Think of it in these terms: Gruenberg has several arms of police force. As well as the regular police, there's the political police, immigration, drug trafficking, smuggling, firearms, and so on. Doesn't it make sense to just set up one national force? No, because the specialist agencies do their jobs best. What does make sense is to allow a flow of information between these agencies - hence the CNO.

Similarly, Compadrian police will be best suited to catching criminals in Compadria. They just might need their files from when they were in Gruenberg.

I'd prefer an international police force with an international mandate to enter countries and investigate, but I recognise very few nations would endorse such a proposal.
Three things:
1. I don't want unaccountable UN agents to have that kind of power.
2. The UN can have no military or police force - so it's illegal anyway.
3. It'd be a vote killer, as you identify.

More pragmatically, couldn't Interpol Agents be allowed under special circumstances to accompany national operatives, in addition to assisting them in information terms and be able to act as a surrogate police force for poorer nations who have little existing infrastructure for police work?
For now: no. I'd tentatively allow the agents to accompany national operatives, so long as the relevant nations consented, but would ask others for their thoughts on it. As to acting as surrogate police force, though, different kettle of goats. Again, it's probably illegal, and anyway it's unpopular. I suppose it could be included in some separate proposal - I seem to recall the last one of its type failing by a record margin?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

4. Further encourages member nations to negotiate reciprocal agreements with others to permit law enforcement agents to enter their nation and exercise power of arrest and detention;

5. Emphasises that the decision to grant such powers remains a national prerogative;

I apologise if this concern has been raised already, but I presume said agents would be acting under the law of the nation they had been invited into? Or will they using their laws under special perogative of the national government that invites them in the first place?


As we see it, that would be a matter for negotiation between the nations concerned. It would depend on their situations. Two possibilities come immediately to mind. Let's assume that Nations A and B have a common border.

Case 1: Nations A and B agree to reciprocally grant authority to arrest and detain to each other's sworn law enforcement officers. All sworn officers from both nations can arrest and detain suspects no matter who they are or where the crime was committed.

Case 2: The two nations agree to each grant the other's law enforcement personnel authority to arrest and detain persons suspected of committing a crime in their home jurisdiction. For example, a murder is committed in Nation A, and the murderer flees into Nation B. Nation A's police can pursue the culprit into Nation B and arrest him.

The nations could also do other things in their agreements, such as limiting the types of crimes covered, etc.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large

United Nations Law Enforcement Assistance Directorate (UNLEAD)?

Can we get another “ED” in there?

No, no, no...United Network Command for Law Enforcement.

http://www.interlingua.com/historia/imagines/uncle.jpg

Please drop it.

Please drop it.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist that. ;)

Try.

Now, back to some semblance of relevance. When Ambassador Ahlmann suggested "URGES member nations to cooperate, to the fullest degree allowed by their national laws, in...", where exactly was this meant to be incorporated into proposal, in place of what?

where exactly was this meant to be incorporated into proposal, in place of what?
I think it was in reference to the beginning of clause 2.
2. Promotes the greatest degree of cooperation between member nations in the apprehension of international criminals, the suppression of international criminal activities, and the sharing of intelligence concerning acts of international crime and their perpetrators;
Which would then become:
URGES member nations to cooperate, to the fullest degree allowed by their national laws, in the apprehension of international criminals, the suppression of international criminal activities, and the sharing of intelligence concerning acts of international crime and their perpetrators;

Also, did you miss my question about cooperation with non-UN police agencies? Or do you feel that it is already allowed by the current text and doesn't need to be specifically addressed?

Also, did you miss my question about cooperation with non-UN police agencies? Or do you feel that it is already allowed by the current text and doesn't need to be specifically addressed?
Sorry. I will include something, saying that Interpol will seek to cooperate with non-UN agencies where willing too.

"We agree wholeheartedly with this entire shindig, and back you all the way. For whatever that's worth. This is a useful and well-crafted resolution, and it's not even quite done yet. It will be an excellent addition to the books after all of the silliness in recent times. We thank Gruenberg and all who've helped for their efforts."

OOC: To put the nail in the name coffin, you called it The International Criminal Police Network. How about ICPN? Not silly, but would be recognized, I think, and doesn't trod upon the Interpol name. And, since I've nothing else constructive, I'll be quiet now.

Sorry. I will include something, saying that Interpol will seek to cooperate with non-UN agencies where willing too.
Yeah, I just got through re-reading the draft. Must not have noticed it before.

The Wolf Guardians;11672677']"We agree wholeheartedly with this entire shindig, and back you all the way. For whatever that's worth. This is a useful and well-crafted resolution, and it's not even quite done yet. It will be an excellent addition to the books after all of the silliness in recent times. We thank Gruenberg and all who've helped for their efforts."

OOC: To put the nail in the name coffin, you called it The International Criminal Police Network. How about ICPN? Not silly, but would be recognized, I think, and doesn't trod upon the Interpol name. And, since I've nothing else constructive, I'll be quiet now.

Though I've been silent thus far, Mikitivity shares the sentiments expressed by the Wolf Guardians.

OOC: I also really like ICPN.

On a related topic, I've just been putting together some ideas for a proposal about extradition: I'll try to get a draft typed up & posted later on today...

Update _
And it's here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11685333#post11685333)

The draft has been updated slightly. It's still very clunky, and the preamble needs work. Suggestions?

Well I was just browsing over the draft and noticed some awkward wording, and thought I might as well bring it to the attention of the fine Gruenberger representatives.

Considering that the tackling of international crime often requires cooperation between multiple authorities,

I don't see "tackling" as all that great of a word to use there. Maybe "effectively solving" would work better.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I like the idea of international defense and security. After some more work, I think that this could do very well.

Thea McDougal
Dominion of Kemintiri

Well I was just browsing over the draft and noticed some awkward wording, and thought I might as well bring it to the attention of the fine Gruenberger representatives.



I don't see "tackling" as all that great of a word to use there. Maybe "effectively solving" would work better.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Tracking might work as well, depending upon the context you wish to convey. In this case, sharing information fits with tracking.

I'm not talking about establishing a national police force, but just establishing a national point of contact.So let me see if I get this. We have a contact point in each member nation to deal with crimes either that have been committed or may be committed. Why not simply contact through an embassy of one nation inside another. Or better yet UN Ambassadors or one of their staff. As all members do have an Ambassador and many are looking for a reason to hire another family member to take on some task they have been given to keep up with. My second wife's third cousin would be great for our nation contact point for these matters.

What trying to say is there should be some point of contact already for such matter with all the treaties and resolutions in place that call for communication between member nations. So why are we trying to make one more contact point for something we already have to deal with say terrorism between nations. This mainly being the UN as believe it one of the duties of the UN to help member nations communicate with each other. Thus Ambassadors become points of contact between member nations dealing with many issues... So why not crime issues?

So let me see if I get this. We have a contact point in each member nation to deal with crimes either that have been committed or may be committed. Why not simply contact through an embassy of one nation inside another. Or better yet UN Ambassadors or one of their staff. As all members do have an Ambassador and many are looking for a reason to hire another family member to take on some task they have been given to keep up with. My second wife's third cousin would be great for our nation contact point for these matters.

What trying to say is there should be some point of contact already for such matter with all the treaties and resolutions in place that call for communication between member nations. So why are we trying to make one more contact point for something we already have to deal with say terrorism between nations. This mainly being the UN as believe it one of the duties of the UN to help member nations communicate with each other. Thus Ambassadors become points of contact between member nations dealing with many issues... So why not crime issues?

The reason is simple and obvious: efficiency. Law enforcement is a highly complex and technical field, and its concerns are often quite time-sensitive. Cop-talking-to-cop will be one hell of a lot more efficient and effective than having to pass every minor message through the diplomatic bureaucracy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The reason is simple and obvious: efficiency. Law enforcement is a highly complex and technical field, and its concerns are often quite time-sensitive. Cop-talking-to-cop will be one hell of a lot more efficient and effective than having to pass every minor message through the diplomatic bureaucracy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Not to mention that some of us don't have a whole lot of staff, I've got myself, a PA and that's it. And we don't have time to be passing around criminal activity reports or whatever would be required of us under that idea.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

bump