NationStates Jolt Archive

Probably IS, Mild.
The United Nations,

Aware that criminal activities often span multiple jurisdictions,

Alarmed by the prospect of criminals attempting to cross national borders in order to escape justice,

Realizing that many nations employ multiple law enforcement agencies with differing mandates and fields of specialisation, which may not have direct correlations in other nations, making international cooperation between these agencies and others difficult,

Recognising the importance of international communication in tackling crime and apprehending criminals:

1. Promotes cooperation between member nations in the apprehension of criminals, particularly international fugitives, the suppression of criminal activities, and the sharing of intelligence concerning criminal activities and their perpetrators;

2. 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;

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

4. 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;

5. Establishes the International Criminal Police Information Network (ICPIN) to promote effective communication between nations and their law enforcement agencies, and to facilitate international operations to suppress criminal activities, especially in the fields of:
- trafficking of persons, arms, drugs, stolen goods, illegal technologies and other illegal materials,
- international terrorism,
- organized crime,
- corruption and financial crime;

6. Encourages member nations, where appropriate, to use the ICPIN as means to issue alerts, exchange information and organize efforts to apprehend criminal fugitives;

7. Declares that the ICPIN shall:
- maintain regular contact with all CNOs,
- assist in the establishment and maintenance of the CNOs of nations requesting such aid,
- facilitate communications and cooperation between national law enforcement agencies,
- distribute information and alerts to all relevant CNOs about known or suspected fugitives or criminal activities,
- cooperate with other relevant international agencies, such as the ICSI,
- compile and maintain a database of known and suspected fugitives, international criminal organizations, and criminal activities spanning multiple jurisdictions;

8. Strongly emphasises that:
- ICPIN agents shall not have powers of arrest or detention, nor any authority to engage in police or military actions,
- any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN,
- nothing in this resolution shall require nations to aid in the apprehension of anyone they do not consider a criminal.
I'll keep my remarks brief, as I'd like the proposal to be judged on its text. This is not a proposal to set up a UN police force: simply to make it easier for nations to share intelligence on criminal activities, and suppress them. I'd also like suggestions for a better title.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

The UN doesn't get its own police force. That rule doesn't say anything about national police forces having the means to cooperate with one another. Which, frankly, is not a half-bad idea.

Idea supported. Not that it means anything; I'm not a delegate...but still...

It's a logical extension of the UN Counterterrorism Initiative. We like it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

For some reason, this proposal makes us nervous. We have no idea why, unless it's the thought of doubling our police budget to implement a CNO.

We are somewhat troubled by the very first phrase, "Promotes the greatest degree of cooperation". Granted the proposal is merely promoting this, but it is an extreme that is being promoted. We would feel happier with something less insistent, perhaps just omitting the words "the greatest degree of."

For some reason, this proposal makes us nervous. We have no idea why, unless it's the thought of doubling our police budget to implement a CNO.
The idea of having a CNO is to reduce bureaucracy (this is a very Quodite thing, I have to admit: establishing a committee to sort out all the other committees). To take Quintessence of Dust as an example, we have multiple law enforcement agencies at the federal level, not to mention the many state agencies. Over time, lines of communication have built up internally, but for other nations, it can be very problematic getting into contact with the relevant agencies. The CNO is intended as a jumped-up directory enquiries, liaising between all relevant agencies. Hence if the coast guard detain someone who the drugs agency want on a smuggling charge, the former don't simply let him go if he shows them his boat licence is all in order; and if Gobbannium chases a fugitive into Quintessence of Dust, our state police agencies can be alerted.

If you feel the functions should be differently explained, or simply different, do say.
We are somewhat troubled by the very first phrase, "Promotes the greatest degree of cooperation". Granted the proposal is merely promoting this, but it is an extreme that is being promoted. We would feel happier with something less insistent, perhaps just omitting the words "the greatest degree of."
That's reasonable, fine.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

If you feel the functions should be differently explained, or simply different, do say.

No, no, we have no desire to change this element of your proposal, Ambassador Madison, and we are never averse to adding bureaucracy. It is simply that we have very little in the way of policing agencies to coordinate! Still, assuming we are allowed the bureaucratic wriggle of subsuming the CNO into our existing community support services oversight, we should have little difficulty or expense in actually complying with this provision, so we see no reason to attempt to dilute it.

No, no, we have no desire to change this element of your proposal, Ambassador Madison, and we are never averse to adding bureaucracy. It is simply that we have very little in the way of policing agencies to coordinate! Still, assuming we are allowed the bureaucratic wriggle of subsuming the CNO into our existing community support services oversight, we should have little difficulty or expense in actually complying with this provision, so we see no reason to attempt to dilute it.
Yes, that's why I used 'maintain' instead of 'establish', in cases where such functions were already in place. But you've given me an idea for a small addition to the duties of the ICPIN.

-- George Madison

What is illegal in your country is not necessarily illegal in my own country, and it may be profitable for our economy. We do not wish to cooperate with international authorities in matters of commerce. It is our wish to support the "local economy". We have numerous special services, international banking, computer security specialists, mercenary units, and other commercial interests which would find this bill detrimental.


Regards,

Rex Smiley, UN Representative

What no Kudos for INTERPOL (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515296)?

Obviously, this will be totally subjective, but any ideas on whether this should be Mild or Significant?

Also, I remembered the Computer Crimes Act and so have removed the section on high-tech crime and allowed the ICPIN to cooperate with the ICSI; if anyone can think of any other UN agencies that may overlap at all, do say.

I think you're right in going with IS, Mild.

I feel a niggle coming on. My concern is with the possibility of a person being defined as criminal by one state, but regarded as not criminal by another to which he has fled. Is there anything in this to deal with that situation?

I note that the Interpol RP handled it by defining crime as what the RL Interpol regards as crime, but obviously that's not an option in a proposal, and I'm reluctant to ask for a definition because it would narrow the admirably broad approach you have taken.

In the light of that, I am also worried by this part of Clause 8:

" - any information provided shall only be disclosed with the express agreement of both the nation of origin and the ICPIN," (Would be better "be disclosed only", BTW)

It's a perfectly sensible and reasonable clause; but if your "criminals" fled to Ardchoille to avoid punishment for doing something we regard as right, I would want to know about them so I could protect them from those evil Quoddite kidnap squads. But this clause won't let me.

I don't want you to find me a loophole in your own resolution, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the "criminal/not criminal" point.

I feel a niggle coming on. My concern is with the possibility of a person being defined as criminal by one state, but regarded as not criminal by another to which he has fled. Is there anything in this to deal with that situation?
I did think about this. However, the mandatory part of this proposal is the establishment of a CNO. The optional part is everything else. If someone flees to Ardchoille from Quintessence of Dust, having perpetrated an act that is not criminal there but is here, you are under no obligation to cooperate with our attempts to locate them.

Thus my question is 'is there really a situation'? If there is something in this proposal that would require another state to assist in the apprehension of someone they do not consider a criminal, then do say, and I'll remove/reword it. If not, perhaps an explicit acknowledgement of this should be made, because it's an issue I imagine will resurface.
It's a perfectly sensible and reasonable clause; but if your "criminals" fled to Ardchoille to avoid punishment for doing something we regard as right, I would want to know about them so I could protect them from those evil Quoddite kidnap squads. But this clause won't let me.
I'm not so sure about this. If there is not this safeguard in place, nations will for a start be considerably more reticent about sharing information with the ICPIN. Furthermore, your nation has no real right to know about the activities of someone else, in another jurisdiction.

Anyway (I suspect our nations' criminal codes would be quite similar - I may be getting confused, but if it's your nation that adheres to the Wiccan Rede, that would be close to the moral basis of our laws) suppose Bob does x that is illegal here, and legal in Ardchoille. Bob travels to Ardchoille to escape capture. We can't simply enter your nation to take him: we would have to ask you to do it for us. Doing so would entail telling you of the nature of the crime anyway: if we said 'we just want to talk', wouldn't you be inclined to suspicion? Further, if you are able to offer Bob protection, then you are presumably in contact with Bob: in which case you could just ask Bob what he did.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

... If there is something in this proposal that would require another state to assist in the apprehension of someone they do not consider a criminal, then do say, and I'll remove/reword it. If not, perhaps an explicit acknowledgement of this should be made, because it's an issue I imagine will resurface.

I explicitly acknowledge that there isn't?

My concern wasn't that anything in the proposal suggested that; rather, I was wondering if you should (or, indeed, could) put something in there to deal with it before it becomes an issue.

So, yes, an explicit acknowledgement in the proposal that this is not the case would settle my niggles down nicely.

Anyway (I suspect our nations' criminal codes would be quite similar - I may be getting confused, but if it's your nation that adheres to the Wiccan Rede, that would be close to the moral basis of our laws) suppose Bob does x that is illegal here, and legal in Ardchoille (etc) ...

Okay, it's not nice, reasonable QoD, it's your evil twin, where having an abortion is a criminal act. Poor pregnant Bobbette travels to Ardchoille to have one. We don't know about it, because there's no reason why we should officially pry into an individual's medical records. But our undercover folk warn us of the existence of one of EvilQoD's notorious kidnap squads illegally infiltrating -- for what purpose?

We try to check on the international data base: what criminals has EvilQoD notified? But we can't, because the proposal won't let us ... so we can't spirit Bobbette away from the goons.

No, I know, Mr Madison, that's not a flaw in the proposal and it's not a case in point, anyway. I was simply lamenting that the proposal, in doing good, prevents me from doing what I would see as a greater good. But it's not a reasonable objection that I would bring up in debate. I'm just trying to be as muzzy-headed as possible so you can checkmate that kind of thing while you're still drafting.

As, indeed, you just have:

If there is not this safeguard in place, nations will for a start be considerably more reticent about sharing information with the ICPIN. Furthermore, your nation has no real right to know about the activities of someone else, in another jurisdiction.

Just a thought: while most of this must be aimed at UN-member nations, because that's whom you're legislating for, I wonder if the word "member" could be removed from Clause 5, so that non-member nations would be able to participate in the ICPIN as well? I notice that several phrases of Clause 7 could be read this way, and it would surely make the data-bse more effective if it were not confined to UN nations. The difference would be that the non-members might not have CNOs, but, as it stands, it's not obligatory to have one to participate in the ICPIN.

--Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

So, yes, an explicit acknowledgement in the proposal that this is not the case would settle my niggles down nicely.
...
Just a thought: while most of this must be aimed at UN-member nations, because that's whom you're legislating for, I wonder if the word "member" could be removed from Clause 5, so that non-member nations would be able to participate in the ICPIN as well? I notice that several phrases of Clause 7 could be read this way, and it would surely make the data-bse more effective if it were not confined to UN nations. The difference would be that the non-members might not have CNOs, but, as it stands, it's not obligatory to have one to participate in the ICPIN.
I've added in a line in section 8, and made the wording change to clause 5. Thanks.
Okay, it's not nice, reasonable QoD, it's your evil twin, where having an abortion is a criminal act. Poor pregnant Bobbette travels to Ardchoille to have one. We don't know about it, because there's no reason why we should officially pry into an individual's medical records. But our undercover folk warn us of the existence of one of EvilQoD's notorious kidnap squads illegally infiltrating -- for what purpose?
The problem here is EvilQoD's squads are by your own admission acting illegally. Not to argue that two wrongs make a right or whatever, but if they can do something illegally, why does your response have to be explicitly legalised? I understand, obviously, that this kind of thing could happen, but given you appear not to know Bobette is definitely in Ardchoille in this case, I feel EvilQoD is within their rights to withhold details of a potentially totally irrelevant case.

-- George Madison

Thank you; that soothes my qualms.

One last bit of pettifoggery: Clause 7, line five: such as, but not limited to? (Not necessary, just a belts-and-braces phrase.)

Good luck with it. It's a really useful idea.

LAE will supports this effort without clause -2-:

2. 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;

A sugestion, you mention several times "law enforcement agencies", I think it could be great also to emphasize communications also with "justice departments" What about urging national "justice departments" to answer information demands by another "justice department" in another UN nation (with an exemption national security reasons).

I'm a fan of this, primarily for it recognises that countries may have multiple 'law enforcement agencies' without needing a centralised police force. I would, however, be forced to oppose should this be extended to justice departments, attorneys-general etc. Such positions do not exist in Emen Un due to the nature of the country, and we do not want the UN to force us to have them. Hell, we don't even have a government in the usual sense of the word.

~ Sebastian Ennuk

Provided the requirements stay as flexible as they are now, you wouldn't be obliged to have those agencies, would you? The clause L&E quoted just calls on nation to negotiate with nation.

And "law enforcement agent" isn't defined, so whatever L&E wants it to mean, that's what it means for him; then he has to negotiate with other nations to see if they'll play ball.

It requires everyone to establish a CNO, but it doesn't say what the CNO has to consist of. As far as I can see, if somebody's third cousin wants a cushy job sitting in a cheap motel shooting the television when he disagrees with the announcer, you can just pin "CNO" on his door, hand round his mobile number and you're compliant. (Not, of course, that Emen Un would; no disrespect intended, Mr Ennuk.)

Please note, I'm not pointing that out as a fault in the proposal. Reasonable nations will make it work, unreasonable nations will do as much or as little as they can get away with.

I figure the Quintessential government must be more liberal-minded than Ardchoille's, because Mr Madison's left space for the famous Fifth Freedom: the Freedom to be Bloody Damn Stupid.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

LAE will supports this effort without clause -2-:
Well, given it's staying in, the relevant question is whether your nation will support in with clause 2.
A sugestion, you mention several times "law enforcement agencies", I think it could be great also to emphasize communications also with "justice departments" What about urging national "justice departments" to answer information demands by another "justice department" in another UN nation (with an exemption national security reasons).
I'm not sure what doing so would add, especially to a proposal whose title is Law Enforcement Cooperation.
I'm a fan of this, primarily for it recognises that countries may have multiple 'law enforcement agencies' without needing a centralised police force. I would, however, be forced to oppose should this be extended to justice departments, attorneys-general etc. Such positions do not exist in Emen Un due to the nature of the country, and we do not want the UN to force us to have them. Hell, we don't even have a government in the usual sense of the word.
I should point out this proposal doesn't require you to have law enforcement agencies, either: even if you didn't, it'd be worth having a CNO such that you could a) explain this to possibly incredulous foreigners and b) ignore their requests with added efficiency. But if any recognition of justice departments were included - which, absent justification, it won't be - that would also be worded so as to not require their establishment.
It requires everyone to establish a CNO, but it doesn't say what the CNO has to consist of. As far as I can see, if somebody's third cousin wants a cushy job sitting in a cheap motel shooting the television when he disagrees with the announcer, you can just pin "CNO" on his door, hand round his mobile number and you're compliant. (Not, of course, that Emen Un would; no disrespect intended, Mr Ennuk.)
True: so long as the CNO does indeed 'communicate between all law enforcement agencies and other relevant authorities under their jurisdiction' and acts 'as a point of first contact for other national and international organizations seeking to establish lines of communication', it can take whatever form it likes.
I figure the Quintessential government must be more liberal-minded than Ardchoille's, because Mr Madison's left space for the famous Fifth Freedom: the Freedom to be Bloody Damn Stupid.
Aptly put. I can't comment on my government's position, but I personally consider the Right To Be Stupid the most fundamental freedom of all.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I believe I have been misread (and perhaps just a bit misleading myself). I support this proposal exactly as it stands. I am especially glad that it does not require any centralised police force.

My objection, such as it was, was to the suggestion from L&e of extending this to so-called 'Justice Departments'. We get on perfectly fine without anything like that.

However, as long as the proposal remains as it is, or with no substantial changes, I would most likely support.

~ Sebastian Ennuk