NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: The latest & submitted draft is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11703055&postcount=24).

Okay, here’s another idea that’s been on my “to do” list for a while and that my government has instructed me to give a greatly increased priority because of a proposal that another nation has suggested (in this case Gruenburg's Interpol-style (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499222) one). My team's original draft ran about 20% over the maximum length allowed, even without what are now operative clauses #3 & #4… Some of the original fine verbiage & legalese has now been replaced with more concise (but hopefully as clear) terms, a couple of perambulatory clauses that defined the term ‘extradition’ have been cut (because I think that that word is probably in wide enough use already that there shouldn’t be any reasonable quibbles over its meaning), and the idea of including a clause about allowing the extraditing nation's diplomats continued access to the extradited people (which will now have to be left for another proposal, such as the one on diplomats that somebody else was working on earlier this year) has been dropped completely, so that it should be — I think just within the allowed length* now…

General Extradition Treaty

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that if extradition is handled properly it serves the cause of justice and thereby helps the law-abiding members of the involved nations’ peoples,

RECOGNISING that the pattern of extradition treaties between the UN’s members is far from complete, and that creating a single UN-wide treaty through a resolution would be a lot simpler than getting all of those nations to negotiate such treaties between themselves,

1. DECLARES that all nations bound by this treaty must grant all extradition requests from each other, as long as the evidence accompanying those requests is at a level that would be considered sufficient for bringing comparable charges within their own courts, unless any of the following exceptions apply _
A. they choose to exercise any rights to refuse extradition conferred by any previous UN Resolution that is still in force;
B. they choose to exercise any rights to refuse extradition conferred by any treaty they had previously signed on the subject that is still in force;
C. their own laws would not have defined the alleged ‘crimes’ as illegal acts if those actions had occurred within their own territories, or from abroad into their territories, as appropriate;
D. they regard the potential penalties for conviction on those charges as excessive in comparison to the penalties that their own courts could impose in such cases;
E. the accused are protected by diplomatic immunity;
F. the accused currently hold official positions that render them immune from prosecution on comparable charges under those nations’ laws and within their territories;
G. the accused belong to an organisation which that nation’s laws grant the sole right to try them for such offences, and that body has not separately ratified this treaty as if it were a nation itself, or the trial would be in a court run by any such body that has not ratified this treaty;
H. their own legal systems are already dealing with the accused on charges of comparable or greater seriousness;
I. the nations concerned are at war with each other;

2. SPECIFIES that if a nation refuses extradition under clause 1.D. it may be required by the other nation involved to try the accused for the relevant offences in its own courts and to carry out any sentence imposed;

3. REQUIRES the nations involved to ensure that any persons extradited to face charges in their territories under this treaty are brought to trial as soon as possible rather than just held indefinitely, and allows the extraditing nations to insist on those persons’ return in any cases of undue delay;

4. ALLOWS nations to require the return of extradited people, at any point up to the completion of any sentence imposed on them for the crimes concerned, if the evidence supplied with the extradition request is discovered to have been false;

5. RECOGNISES that nations may still make treaties with each other that allow easier extradition between them, as long as they do not violate any previous UN Resolutions that are still in force in the process;

6. ESTABLISHES an agency called the ‘UN Tribunal On Extradition’ (or ‘UNTOE’), which shall _
A. judge any international disputes about whether this treaty’s terms are being followed properly;
B. collect, compile, and publish, statistics about the extraditions requested and granted under this treaty;

7. OFFERS those nations that are not within the UN the right to ratify this treaty too, individually, and thus to be bound by and benefit from its terms.


The two clauses cut from the start of the preamble were _

“RECOGNISING that some people leave nations where they have committed crimes before they can be apprehended by the authorities there, or actually commit crimes across international borders,

NOTING that ‘Extradition’ treaties allow the nations involved to request that people who have offended against their laws like that be ‘extradited’ from each other to face trial in their courts,”

I also considered including a clause about punishing people who knowingly supply false evidence in extradition cases, but then decided to leave that to the relevant nations instead…
Do you think that there should also be a clause specifying that nations have a right to refuse entry into their territories (except as an ‘act of war’, of course) to any people whom they couldn’t subsequently get extradited back again in the event of those people committing crimes there, or can we take that as a matter for common sense instead?

The existing resolution ‘Right to Refuse Extradition’ was defined as ‘Human Rights’ & ‘Significant’, so I suppose that there might be a case for changing this one’s category to ‘Moral Decency’ & perhaps its strength to ‘Strong’, but the current labels look like a better idea to me.

I suppose some people might wonder whether clause #7 is strictly legal, because of its reference to non-member nations: I think that as it only offers them the chance to ratify this treaty voluntarily, and doesn’t try to compel them to do anything, it should be okay (and there’s at least one existing precedent for such a clause…): If it isn't legal then as it's at the very end of the text it can (of course) be removed without creating a need to change anything else.


So, are there any further points that you think should be covered (although adding anything else would almost certainly require dropping some of the current text)? Have I included anything that you really think should be dropped? Double meanings, other unclear wording, infelicitous turns of phrase, spelling errors, misplaced punctuation?

______________________________________________________________

OOC _ My original inspiration for exception #1.G. was the 'Ecclesiastical courts' & 'Benefit of Clergy' that the Roman Catholic church had in [RL] medieval Europe: However I think that that clause could easily be applied not only to religious movements but also to "indigenous" tribes, multinational corporations, and possibly other types of "state within a state" too...

(*Am I right in assuming that the ‘Category’ & ‘Strength’ & ‘Proposed by’ lines, like the line that appears automatically under the title depending on the category chosen, don’t count towards the total number of characters possible? )

OOC: I'd say this proposal doesn't fit any category very well, but International Security is probably the best fit.

If the bulk of this treaty on "general extradition" is simply listing exceptions by which demands for extradition may be ignored, I see no reason for this whatsoever. Existing bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties are working just fine, methinks.

Firstly, I hope the repeal at vote won't lead to Hugefrickinclumpoftextitis shots going out, because I really need one right now.

Then:
B. they choose to exercise any rights to refuse extradition conferred by any treaty they had previously signed on the subject that is still in force;
Given the rather arbitrary nature of non-UN international law in NS, doesn't this risk rendering the proposal rather pointless?

G. the accused belong to an organisation which that nation’s laws grant the sole right to try them for such offences, and that body has not separately ratified this treaty as if it were a nation itself, or the trial would be in a court run by any such body that has not ratified this treaty;
Could you explain this clause? I can't make head nor tail.

2. SPECIFIES that if a nation which refuses extradition under clause 1.D. may be required by the other nation involved to try the accused for the relevant offences in its own courts and to carry out any sentence imposed;
The "which" is extraneous. And I'm not convinced about this clause; it seems like forcing one's legal system upon another nation.

6. ESTABLISHES an agency called the ‘UN Tribunal On Extradition’ (or ‘UNTOE’),
Don't see the point in this.

That said...we wouldn't be implacably opposed. But get the damn piracy proposal to quorum first! (So we can vote against it...)

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Our delegation is rather notorious for its legalese, but we must say our eyes crossed while trying to understand this draft. It badly needs simplification if it's to be within the ability of the members of this Assembly to understand.

We also would note that NSUN resolutions are not treaties by any stretch of the imagination and should not be labeled as such.

Article 2 is completely unacceptable to us. No nation has or ever will have the right to require us to prosecute anyone for anything.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I like this proposal, and if it reached quorum would probably vote for it. On the same token, it really doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond providing a baseline set of extradition rules assuming a treaty isn't in place, as it accepts any treaties already signed.

What I would like to know is if it allows the signing of further treaties after it's implementation.

This seems well thought out on the whole, but I'm a little concerned with clause 2. What if the legal systems of the two nations differ significantly? For example, the defendant, a citizen of nation A, committed manslaughter in nation A, was apprehended in nation B, but not extradited because nation A applies the death penalty to manslaughter whereas nation B has abolished the death penalty. Under clause 2, nation A demands that the defendant (D) be tried in nation B.

Problem: nation B's legal system does not distinguish between manslaughter and murder. Should D be put on trial for murder, a crime he did not commit under A's legislative system?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We're uneasy about this. First off, you need something about who will pay for the extradition process, or at least something about the severity of the crime: our police doesn't want to waste time by chasing foreign nationals who didn't pay their parking tickets in other nations.

But this really seems like something that should be done on a bi- or multilateral basis.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

If the bulk of this treaty on "general extradition" is simply listing exceptions by which demands for extradition may be ignored, I see no reason for this whatsoever. Existing bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties are working just fine, methinks.
This is mainly to cover the gaps where such bilateral and multilateral treaties don’t exist: Given the huge number of nations within the NSUN, even though many of them will almost certainly never be visited by anybody from any of the others, there are surely going to be cases that existing treaties don’t cover…

Firstly, I hope the repeal at vote won't lead to Hugefrickinclumpoftextitis shots going out, because I really need one right now.
Then:
B. they choose to exercise any rights to refuse extradition conferred by any treaty they had previously signed on the subject that is still in force; Given the rather arbitrary nature of non-UN international law in NS, doesn't this risk rendering the proposal rather pointless?
This is mainly to cover the gaps where existing treaties don’t apply: Isn’t my letting those earlier treaties stand, instead of trying to replace them all with this one, a suitably NatSov approach?

G. the accused belong to an organisation which that nation’s laws grant the sole right to try them for such offences, and that body has not separately ratified this treaty as if it were a nation itself, or the trial would be in a court run by any such body that has not ratified this treaty;Could you explain this clause? I can't make head nor tail.
Okay, obviously I need to clarify this point _
I suspect that (considering the incredible diversity of the NSUN and looking at a RL precedent, as mentioned in the OOC notes following the draft text) some nations may have granted certain organizations that exist within their territories the right to run private courts of their own and to insist that their members can only be tried in those courts rather than in the “national” ones. If that is the case then the terms of those grants would probably give those organizations (rather than their national governments) the right to veto their members being extradited to face foreign courts, too, so I included this possible exemption to allow for their doing so… but if they want to have anybody extradited from elsewhere for trial in those private courts then they have to ratify this agreement and thus allow their own members to be extradited to foreign courts – if & when this is requested of them – too.

2. SPECIFIES that if a nation which refuses extradition under clause 1.D. may be required by the other nation involved to try the accused for the relevant offences in its own courts and to carry out any sentence imposed;The "which" is extraneous. And I'm not convinced about this clause; it seems like forcing one's legal system upon another nation.
You’re right about the “which”: I’ll delete it once I’ve posted this comment.
Evidently this is another clause that I need to clarify: It isn’t trying to force one’s legal system on another country, it’s trying to say
“You won’t extradite them to us for trial, because the penalty that we’d impose if they’re convicted is more severe than you would impose in a similar case? Okay, we surrender our territorial jurisdiction in the case to you: Now, you try them in your courts, under your laws, and if they’re convicted then you impose the sentence that your rules consider suitable in such cases… so, even if they’re not going to be punished as much as we’d prefer, at least they won’t just get away with their crimes altogether…” (And the actions of which the person concerned has been accused must already be illegal under the laws of the country refusing extradition, after all, because otherwise it’s the previous possible exception in the list – ‘1.C’ – that would be relevant instead of the ‘1.D’ to which this clause refers.

6. ESTABLISHES an agency called the ‘UN Tribunal On Extradition’ (or ‘UNTOE’),Don't see the point in this.
Considering the scope for disagreements about whether the evidence supplied is adequate, which exceptions legitimately apply, “undue delay”, and possibly other points, having a neutral agency capable of imposing binding arbitration in such matters seemed advisable. Its statistical aspect was so that once it had had a while in which to collect data, people would have some guidance about how worthwhile applying for extradition in particular cases might be, but that was only an afterthought and as I’ll apparently need to make cuts somewhere in order to find the characters needed for clarifying more important clauses it will probably be cut from the next draft…
That said...we wouldn't be implacably opposed. But get the damn piracy proposal to quorum first! (So we can vote against it...)
I don’t know whether that will ever get to quorum… :(
Our delegation is rather notorious for its legalese, but we must say our eyes crossed while trying to understand this draft. It badly needs simplification if it's to be within the ability of the members of this Assembly to understand.
Okay, the text provided so far was only meant as a first draft: Which clauses in particular would you like to see changed?

We also would note that NSUN resolutions are not treaties by any stretch of the imagination and should not be labeled as such.
Because they’re negotiated & ratified by General Assembly collectively, rather than by the nations involved independently? I can certainly see that argument, and even though the proposal does allow for independent ratification by other possible signatories (of the “state within a state” type, as well as non-UN nations) I won’t insist on keeping the word: It could easily be replaced by “Terms” (for example) in the title, to keep the acronym, and that would only require slight changes to a couple of clauses…
Would any members of the UN Secretariat care to rule on whether using the word ‘Treaty’ in the titles of proposals is permissible?

Article 2 is completely unacceptable to us. No nation has or ever will have the right to require us to prosecute anyone for anything.
You’ve accepted that there’s enough evidence to bring the person to trial (because otherwise you wouldn’t have needed to claim any of the listed exceptions from clause #1, you could simply have refused us on the grounds of insufficient evidence), the acts of which they’re accused would have been illegal if they’d committed them inside your jurisdiction (because otherwise it would be exception #1.C, rather than #1.D, that you’d have claimed as a reason for refusing extradition): Shouldn’t you therefore accept that they should be tried somewhere, and be willing to handle the matter yourselves as you won’t let the other country involved try them because that country’s penalties for the offence are excessive by your standards, instead of being allowed to get away with their [alleged] crimes – or to remain under a cloud of suspicion if they’re actually innocent? Don’t you believe in justice?

I like this proposal, and if it reached quorum would probably vote for it. On the same token, it really doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond providing a baseline set of extradition rules assuming a treaty isn't in place, as it accepts any treaties already signed. It’s mainly meant to cover situations where no treaties already exist.

What I would like to know is if it allows the signing of further treaties after it's implementation.If they make extradition easier than this, yes (that’s in clause #5), if they’d make extradition harder than this, no (and I probably need to clarify exception #1.B to make it clearer that that would only apply for treaties which already existed before became passed as a resolution). If they’d make it neither easier nor harder than this, why not just use this instead?

This seems well thought out on the whole, but I'm a little concerned with clause 2. What if the legal systems of the two nations differ significantly? For example, the defendant, a citizen of nation A, committed manslaughter in nation A, was apprehended in nation B, but not extradited because nation A applies the death penalty to manslaughter whereas nation B has abolished the death penalty. Under clause 2, nation A demands that the defendant (D) be tried in nation B.
Problem: nation B's legal system does not distinguish between manslaughter and murder. Should D be put on trial for murder, a crime he did not commit under A's legislative system?
That’s an interesting question. That’s a very interesting question.
Nation B apparently recognizes that the person seems to have committed a valid offence (by refusing extradition on the grounds of the potential sentence [‘1.D’] rather than the grounds that the actions weren’t a crime [‘1.C’]), so they’d have to try them on some charge and if the actions would have been called ‘Murder’ if they’d occurred in nation B then that would seem to be the obvious solution. However: While the existing resolution ‘Right To Refuse Extradition’ is in force nation B could invoke that – and thus exception ‘1.A’ – instead of exception ‘1.D’, and this proposal would not require them to carry out a trial in that case (because I didn’t want to run into trouble for trying to amend that earlier resolution).
Maybe this would be a matter for ‘UNTOE’ to decide?

We're uneasy about this. First off, you need something about who will pay for the extradition process, or at least something about the severity of the crime: our police doesn't want to waste time by chasing foreign nationals who didn't pay their parking tickets in other nations.
Who usually pays for extradition? If you can draft a suitable clause (bearing in mind that this proposal is almost at the upper limit for length already) then I’d certainly consider adding it, but otherwise I think that we’ll have to hope things balance out between each possible combination of nations… You do have a valid point about relatively minor offences, I agree, but again there’s the length limit for proposals to deal with: Fortunately, I doubt whether many governments would bother going to the trouble of seeking extradition in such minor cases anyway… and if you get bilateral or multilateral treaties that allow refusal of extradition for minor charges agreed with the nations most likely to be involved (because they have the most contact with you) in place before this proposal becomes a resolution then exception ‘1.B’ here would let you continue to refuse extradition on that basis…

But this really seems like something that should be done on a bi- or multilateral basis.
As I’ve already said earlier in these comments, if you’ve already got relevant treaties then you can continue using them and there’s still some scope for negotiating new ones (as long as they’re not more restricted in scope than this proposal) too… This is mainly to cover the surely-inevitable cases where no such treaties exist.

First off, you need something about who will pay for the extradition processI wasn't aware that it was a horribly expensive prospect.

or at least something about the severity of the crime: our police doesn't want to waste time by chasing foreign nationals who didn't pay their parking tickets in other nations.Wouldn't this be another example of the UN actually allowing you to make your own decisions?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

This is mainly to cover the gaps where such bilateral and multilateral treaties don’t exist: Given the huge number of nations within the NSUN, even though many of them will almost certainly never be visited by anybody from any of the others, there are surely going to be cases that existing treaties don’t cover…
Which begs the question of the need for this. If they will almost certainly never be visited by anybody from any of the others, that would tend to imply they'll never need to arrange extradition anyway.

Okay, obviously I need to clarify this point _
I suspect that (considering the incredible diversity of the NSUN and looking at a RL precedent, as mentioned in the OOC notes following the draft text) some nations may have granted certain organizations that exist within their territories the right to run private courts of their own and to insist that their members can only be tried in those courts rather than in the “national” ones. If that is the case then the terms of those grants would probably give those organizations (rather than their national governments) the right to veto their members being extradited to face foreign courts, too, so I included this possible exemption to allow for their doing so… but if they want to have anybody extradited from elsewhere for trial in those private courts then they have to ratify this agreement and thus allow their own members to be extradited to foreign courts – if & when this is requested of them – too.
Ok, I think that makes sense, thank you.

Evidently this is another clause that I need to clarify: It isn’t trying to force one’s legal system on another country, it’s trying to say
“You won’t extradite them to us for trial, because the penalty that we’d impose if they’re convicted is more severe than you would impose in a similar case? Okay, we surrender our territorial jurisdiction in the case to you: Now, you try them in your courts, under your laws, and if they’re convicted then you impose the sentence that your rules consider suitable in such cases… so, even if they’re not going to be punished as much as we’d prefer, at least they won’t just get away with their crimes altogether…” (And the actions of which the person concerned has been accused must already be illegal under the laws of the country refusing extradition, after all, because otherwise it’s the previous possible exception in the list – ‘1.C’ – that would be relevant instead of the ‘1.D’ to which this clause refers.
No, I still don't like it. Nations should not be obligated to try someone for offences committed outside their jurisdiction.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

A. they choose to exercise any rights to refuse extradition conferred by any previous UN Resolution that is still in force;If there is a current resolution to cover extradition and it leaves things out then this to me would be an attempt to ammend those and thus no legal as one to my understanding must repeal and replace it. Not ammend it which this to me does.

B. they choose to exercise any rights to refuse extradition conferred by any treaty they had previously signed on the subject that is still in force.Makes this pointless as my nation already had treaties that cover this and where there is no treaty we have polices for dealing with requests from other nations where a current treaty is not in effect between that nation and Zeldon. My question here is do our polices on this still have teeth or is this to be what we follow on the matter? As if there is an existing resolution to the subject our policies were based on those so as to meet them. So this makes the full proposal have not reason to be.

Also we don't believe we can support like others the idea of us trying somebody on charges brought on them by another nation as we will extradite anyone not a citizen back to their home nation without question as long as clear evidence it presented they did do a crime.

On the matter of not extraditing when the death penility is involved we never present charges that would redender that penility when requesting extradition. We can always charge them with a lesser crime then get them back here and later bring the death penility crime to trail. As most of time one can always find two or three charges to bring on a person. Another solution is wait them out until they make the mistake of entering a nation that don't care about fact they may get death penility then request they be sent home to stand trial for say murder as here there is no time limit on when one can be charged for murder. As believe a recent proposal moved us to start doing this due to it's contents as we expected it to be voted in and saw this as a solution to it. I don't think that one even got to full vote.

I wasn't aware that it was a horribly expensive prospect.
OOC: Well, I guess I'm (and the resolution is) not clear on the definition of extradition: does extradition entail catching the criminal, or just returning an already-caught one?

Wouldn't this be another example of the UN actually allowing you to make your own decisions?
It should be, yes. But the resolution seems to mandate that all extradition requests be granted, regardless of the level of the crime.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Extradition is always a tricky topic. Neu Preussen Ordinung is adamant on not extraditing anyone to countries that impose the death penalty, if it is believed that such penalty will be applied to the individual. However, I am not sure how good of an idea it is to mandate extradition. I am not comfortable with the NSUN applying any force whatsoever to such an issue. Given the option on this, as of now, Neu Preussen Ordinung would abstain.

Extradition is always a tricky topic. Neu Preussen Ordinung is adamant on not extraditing anyone to countries that impose the death penalty, if it is believed that such penalty will be applied to the individual.
Well that's no problem then, you don't have to. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9052878&postcount=104)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hard to grasp, but if I understand this resolution correctly then I support it.

This is mainly to cover the gaps where such bilateral and multilateral treaties don’t exist: Given the huge number of nations within the NSUN, even though many of them will almost certainly never be visited by anybody from any of the others, there are surely going to be cases that existing treaties don’t cover… Which begs the question of the need for this. If they will almost certainly never be visited by anybody from any of the others, that would tend to imply they'll never need to arrange extradition anyway.”Almost certainly” isn’t “Certainly”, and situations change: Consider this to be a precautionary measure.

Okay, obviously I need to clarify this point _ *snip*Ok, I think that makes sense, thank you.As it happens, I’ll probably be dropping this passage from the next draft anyway in order to free-up some of the limited number of characters allowed for use in other clauses… However I suppose any nation & organisation that do have such an arrangement, and wish to retain it, can simply call it a “treaty” and thus use exception 1.B instead…

No, I still don't like it. Nations should not be obligated to try someone for offences committed outside their jurisdiction.Even though you admit that there’s a case to be answered, and that it’s only your concern about the penalty the accused would face that leads you to refuse extradition? (A type of refusal that, by the way, I suspect might be used more often for refusing extradition from other nations to Gruenberg than vice versa… ;) ) Surely people accused of crimes should be tried, and either punished or cleared? What’s happened to the fabled Gruenberger belief in Moral Decency?
( but, as several people have complained about this clause, I’ll probably make it a bit less binding in the next draft anyway…)

If there is a current resolution to cover extradition and it leaves things out then this to me would be an attempt to ammend those and thus no legal as one to my understanding must repeal and replace it. Not ammend it which this to me does.The only previous resolution that mentions extradition doesn’t establish any procedures, it simply lets those nations that don’t have capital punishment refuse extradition in any cases where that might be applied: I think that that’s different enough for this proposal not to count as an ‘amendment’ of that measure.

Makes this pointless as my nation already had treaties that cover this and where there is no treaty we have polices for dealing with requests from other nations where a current treaty is not in effect between that nation and Zeldon. My question here is do our polices on this still have teeth or is this to be what we follow on the matter? As if there is an existing resolution to the subject our policies were based on those so as to meet them. So this makes the full proposal have not reason to be.You can still use your existing treaties in any cases where they apply, this just covers any other cases that might arise. If no extradition situations occur between you and any nations with whom you lack treaties then this doesn’t affect you at all, but although it’s “pointless” to you it’s still potentially useful for those nations that don’t have adequate treaties on the subject.

Also we don't believe we can support like others the idea of us trying somebody on charges brought on them by another nation as we will extradite anyone not a citizen back to their home nation without question as long as clear evidence it presented they did do a crime.If you’re that willing to grant extradition then the clause about requiring you to try people would never become relevant anyway.

On the matter of not extraditing when the death penility is involved we never present charges that would redender that penility when requesting extradition. We can always charge them with a lesser crime then get them back here and later bring the death penility crime to trail. As most of time one can always find two or three charges to bring on a person.The next draft may be re-worded to make that sort of trickery a bit harder.

Another solution is wait them out until they make the mistake of entering a nation that don't care about fact they may get death penility then request they be sent home to stand trial for say murder as here there is no time limit on when one can be charged for murder.Agreed. I have no problem with that approach.

OOC: Well, I guess I'm (and the resolution is) not clear on the definition of extradition: does extradition entail catching the criminal, or just returning an already-caught one?

I was assuming that catching them, if necessary, would be involved... but intended (and forgot) to include "they genuinely have been unable to apprehend the accused;" in the list of possible reasons allowed for refusing extradition requests: That will be in the next draft.

But the resolution seems to mandate that all extradition requests be granted, regardless of the level of the crime.

Simply letting nations refuse extradition for any crimes that they might choose to define as "Minor" (with no safeguards to keep them from defining all crimes as such, to save themselves the bother of meeting requests) seemed to me as though it would defeat the purpose of this proposal, but trying to include an adequate definition of "minor" would have been impossible within the space allowed even if I'd been inclined to such micromanagment: My default position was to hope (without actually saying so) that nations would exercise some common sense in the matter, and would realise that requesting extradition in relatively trivial cases is likely to result in the other nations concerned responding in kind, whereas a more restrained approach might also be copied and thus cause them less trouble... On second thoughts, however, what I've decided to do (in the next draft) is allow nations to charge each other reasonable expenses for meeting extradition requests (with any disputes about what's "reasonable" left for UNTOE to judge) in the hope that that will discourage excessive use of the system...


___________________________________________________________

(OOC: out of time, for now, so I’ll complete & post the new draft either this evening or some time tomorrow…)

I would like to know the point of this proposal when UNR #103 is still in force.

The existing resolution means you don't have to allow extridition to a UN nation if you don't want to and you can still allow it if you do want to.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisuban Deputy Ambassador to the UN

I would like to know the point of this proposal when UNR #103 is still in force.

The existing resolution means you don't have to allow extridition to a UN nation if you don't want to and you can still allow it if you do want to.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Kirisuban Deputy Ambassador to the UN

No, 103 only applies when there's a possibility of the criminal facing the death penalty.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What about saying any crimes with more than x punishment demand extradition?

What about saying any crimes with more than x punishment demand extradition?


X being set where on the scale, bearing in mind that different nations may have differing ideas about the relative seriousness of various offences? If you want to suggest that, you come up with a definition that people will accept...

The Religious Laws of the Theocracy of Lord of Hosts forbid allowing Believers in the Lord to be tried by any Court not comprised of Believers or not ruling according to our Religious Laws, regardless of the accused person's Nationality, as per Deuteronomy 23:16:
Do not hand over to his master a slave that escapes to you [for refuge] from his master.
Our Sanhedrin has interpreted that to include any spiritual "slaves" or subjects of other deities or soveriegns.

Our nation, therefore, opposes this resolution.

X being set where on the scale, bearing in mind that different nations may have differing ideas about the relative seriousness of various offences? If you want to suggest that, you come up with a definition that people will accept...
OOC: I'd say, leave this to the jurisdiction of the UNTOE.

OOC: I'd say, leave this to the jurisdiction of the UNTOE.

OOC _
The other types of decisions left to UNTOE, about whether nations are following the terms of the resolution properly, mostly depend on common sense: Decisions about the relative seriousness of different crimes depend in part on ideology, and/or national traditions, and therefore seem (to me) to be unsuitable matters for a neutral Tribunal's attention.

What about saying any crimes with more than x punishment demand extradition?
Returning to this suggestion, wouldn't that mean that those nations which practice rehabilitation rather than punishment probably wouldn't be able to request extradition to their courts at all?

General Extradition Terms

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

BELIEVING that if extradition is handled properly it serves the cause of justice and thereby helps the law-abiding members of the involved nations’ peoples,

RECOGNISING that the pattern of extradition treaties between the UN’s members is far from complete, and that completing it through a single Resolution would be far simpler than getting all of the nations concerned to negotiate further treaties amongst themselves,

1. ALLOWS nations to continue using any extradition treaties that they had already ratified before this Resolution was passed, and to make and use new extradition treaties as long as those would not make extradition less accessible than this resolution does, as long as they do not violate any previous UN Resolutions that are still in force while doing so;

2. DECLARES that nations must grant all extradition requests from each other, as long as the evidence accompanying those requests is at a level that would be considered sufficient for bringing comparable charges within their own courts, unless any of the following exceptions apply _
A. they choose to exercise any right of refusal conferred by any previous UN Resolution that is still in force;
B. they choose to exercise any right of refusal conferred by any treaty on the subject that they have already ratified and that is still in force;
C. their own laws would not have defined the alleged ‘crimes’ as illegal acts if those actions had occurred within their own territories, or from abroad into their territories, as appropriate;
D. they have good reason to suspect the accused will be subjected to penalties that are excessive in comparison to those that their own courts could impose in such cases;
E. the accused are protected by diplomatic immunity;
F. the accused currently hold official positions that render them immune from prosecution on comparable charges under those nations’ laws and within their territories;
G. their own legal systems are already dealing with the accused on charges of comparable or greater seriousness;
H. they are genuinely unable to apprehend the accused;
I. the nations concerned are at war with each other;

3. ALLOWS nations to charge reasonable fees to cover the costs of meeting extradition requests;

4. ALLOWS and strongly urges any nation that refuses extradition on the grounds of possible excessive penalties (clause 1.D.) to resolve that case through their own legal system, unless the nation that sought extradition objects;

5. REQUIRES nations to ensure that any persons extradited to face charges in their territories under this treaty are brought to trial as soon as possible rather than just held indefinitely, and allows the extraditing nations to insist on those persons’ return in any cases of undue delay;

6. ALLOWS nations to require the return of extradited people, at any point up to the completion of any sentence imposed on them for the crimes concerned, if the evidence supplied with the extradition request is discovered to have been false;

7. ESTABLISHES an agency called the ‘UN Tribunal On Extradition’ (or ‘UNTOE’), which shall judge any international disputes about the interpretation of this Resolution's terms;

8. OFFERS those nations that are not within the UN the right to sign extradition treaties with the UN’s collective membership (represented for this purpose by UNTOE), under whose terms they will follow and benefit from this Resolution as though they were UN members.

Changes _
Preamble altered, & former clause #5 moved to #1 position, to clarify that this supplements rather than surplants nations’ own treaties.
Former clause #1, now #2: Exception ‘D’ re-written so that it could be invoked against any nations that habitually use the Zeldonian-suggested trick of upping the charges after extradition has been granted; former exception ‘G’ dropped, to reduce confusion and to save some characters for use elsewhere (but any nations that have & wish to retain any such arrangements should be able to do so by calling them ‘Treaties’ & invoking exception ‘B’ instead, I think…); former exception ‘H’ now = ‘G’; new exception ‘H’ added to clarify a point questioned earlier.
New clause #3 added, in the hope that this will reduce “frivolous” use of the extradition system.
Former clause #2, now #4, re-written so that it no longer forces nations to try cases.
Former clauses #3 & #4 now = #5 & #6.
Former clause #6, now #7: UNTOE loses its statistics-handling role, to save characters for use elsewhere.
Former clause #7, now #8: UNTOE made responsible for keeping track of which (if any…) non-member nations agree to comply with these terms in exchange for the right to request extradition (on the same basis) from member nations.

I still need to trim the length slightly, I think, but does anybody have any other complaints (apart from “We don’t need it”) that I’ve yet to answer?

Submitted, here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=extradition).

As my attention has been drawn back to this subject on what turns out to be the anniversary of this proposal's first submission I've decided to re-submit it today...

Approval link here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=general).

I would have suggested a couple of small changes (but it seems I'm too late):


5. REQUIRES nations to ensure that any persons extradited to face charges in their territories under this treaty are brought to trial as soon as possible rather than just held indefinitely, and allows the extraditing nations to obtain those persons’ return in any cases of undue delay;

6. ALLOWS nations to obtain the return of extradited people, at any point up to the completion of any sentence imposed on them for the crimes concerned, if the evidence supplied with the extradition request is discovered to have been false;


If you want it to be effective, "obtain" is better than "insist on" or "require".


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

I would have suggested a couple of small changes (but it seems I'm too late):

If you want it to be effective, "obtain" is better than "insist on" or "require".

Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

"Insist on" and "require" still involve going through the governments of the nations where the people concerned are currently living. Couldn't "obtain", however, be taken quite plausibly (in my opinion, anyway) as authorising the governments that seek those people's extradition to send their own agents into the foreign countries to collect them ( just as, in RL, the Israelis "obtained" the extradition of Eichmann... ) in the absence of prompt enough cooperation by the latter nations' governments? More effective, maybe, but perhaps less conducive to international peace?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin (http://www.nationstates.net/region=penguin) costume...)

Perhaps "require and obtain", then? The problem with "require" and "insist on" alone is that they can easily be ignored. They enable a government to say: "In compliance with the resolution, we acknowledge receipt of your request. And now we reject it."


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Perhaps "require and obtain", then? The problem with "require" and "insist on" alone is that they can easily be ignored. They enable a government to say: "In compliance with the resolution, we acknowledge receipt of your request. And now we reject it."


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

H'mm. If it doesn't make quorum this time around then I'll consider the matter.

I'd rather retain the right to enter into treaties that are more limiting than this.

This is not just setting a rule but actually interfering with the way in which they can negotiate with each other.

I'd say a lot of nations would hold their right to refuse extradition on any grounds pretty highly.

The only version of this I could possibly imagine approving would include a clause to deny extradition AFTER a court case to decide the merits of the case.

In other words, A lives in Z, he commits a crime in Y and heads back to Z. Y demands extradition, so Y pays(not a terribly high amount of money really) Z to hold a trial to determine the merits of the case based on Z's laws(In Z's courts). If Y wins, A is extradited. If Z wins, it decides what happens to A. Z can choose at any time in the process or after the process to grant extradition.


Complicated though it may be, I'd think that protects national sovereignty while at the same time allowing some sort of unified extradition law to exist.

We fear that the proposal leaves one massive loophole that has already been mentioned in the discussion on the potential repeal of the existing extradition legislation. If (for example) a person is wanted for a crime the penalty for which is death in the requesting nation, yet the extradition request itself is for some lesser crime for which the likely penalty does not seem excessive, the requested nation cannot refuse the request. The person must be extradited, and subsequently tried and executed, without the nation from which the criminal was recovered being able to do a single thing about it.

Since the proposal also includes the by now traditional weasel words to block any future UN legislation concerning extradition, we could not possibly support it.

We fear that the proposal leaves one massive loophole that has already been mentioned in the discussion on the potential repeal of the existing extradition legislation. If (for example) a person is wanted for a crime the penalty for which is death in the requesting nation, yet the extradition request itself is for some lesser crime for which the likely penalty does not seem excessive, the requested nation cannot refuse the request. The person must be extradited, and subsequently tried and executed, without the nation from which the criminal was recovered being able to do a single thing about it.

There was supposed to be a clause or sub-clause that did cover this point.
*looks*
Ah. I see, this draft doesn't feature the changed version of '1.D'...
Oops!

(If it doesn't reach quorum this time around then expect to see the loophole plugged before its next submission...)

Current Status

Approvals: 36 (Sovietskey, DeathlyLlamas, Lunar Destiny, James Rulesia, Camerith, Umbrium, Ureshii Bakane, Garsidia, Slices Right, Cricket Fans, WZ Forums, Letzte Friede, Remba, Waterana, Txiniamagna, Pays de Galles, The Duct Tape, Kivistan UN Bordello, Psycotia Island, ARC Captains, East Hylia, Misplaced States, Panido, Ashatwe, Ellenburg, Derbb, Owen Stadium, Hollowmenphobia, Fingletown, Grailquest, JMDS... Edit: + Cardinal Ximenez, Vyrr, Wee Free peeps, Intangelon, Fearsome attack)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 75 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Oct 30 2007

Doesn't look very likely to make it...

* ooc: Apologies, my head hurts a little after wading through this thread. Essentially, Dashanzi would wish to refuse extradition not only on death penalty grounds, but also where there is a possibility of torture. Now, I know UN nations have theoretically outlawed such nefarious behaviour, but the resolution(s) in question, are they actually any good? I don't remember. And what if they get repealed? Would this proposal then limit Dashanzi's right to refuse? *

* ooc: Apologies, my head hurts a little after wading through this thread. Essentially, Dashanzi would wish to refuse extradition not only on death penalty grounds, but also where there is a possibility of torture. Now, I know UN nations have theoretically outlawed such nefarious behaviour, but the resolution(s) in question, are they actually any good? I don't remember. And what if they get repealed? Would this proposal then limit Dashanzi's right to refuse? *

As I recall, the resolution in question is rather open to conflicting interpretations.
Clause '1.D' in the current draft of this proposal would effectively let Dashanzi or any other nation refuse extradition in any case where the actual punishment for the crime would involve torture, if their own legal system doesn't use such tortures as punishments for comparable offenses (as I presume, from your question here, Dashanzi's system doesn't). I must admit, however, that I overlooked the potential need to allow for refusal in cases where torture might be involved in the pre-trial or trial proceedure instead...
H'mm.
That's fair enough. I think that the planned re-write of clause '1.D' could easily be adjusted to cover this point, too, and will make the necessary changes if -- as seems likely -- the proposal's current version doesn't reach quorum.