NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings. I am Prince Marek Renthier-Hart, adopted son of Prince Sovereign Rylan Hart, and Prince Consort Aiden Hart. I've been duly appointed the Principality's Delagate to the United Nation. I am submitting the following proposed Resolution to Repeal the Right to Refuse Extradition.

CONCERNED that Resolution #103 - Right to Refuse Extradition encourages criminals to flee from justice and to pray for asylum, claiming fear of Capital Punishment, and entirely evading justice;

ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints;

CONCERNED that Resolution #103 impedes justice, allowing criminals to flee to sympathetic nations;

ENCOURAGING member nations through discussion and diplomacy sign and uphold extradition treaties;

BE IT RESOLVED, that Resolution #103 is hereby repealed and revoked, and shall no longer be enforced by member nations;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any fugitives from justice that are under protection under any implementation of Resolution #103 be immediatly returned to their originating jurisdiction.

I will give you some time to read this proposal, and I will present my reasons after some time, so that you may review this.

That last clause is illegal; repeals cannot introduce new legislation.

Indeed it is.

Regardless of legality, we will not support any attempt to remve this important piece of legislation from the UN statute.

Benedictions,

We think that NSUNR #103 is a rather useless thing, and would have no objection to its repeal. But the implied argument in this repeal proposal is that repeal of the resolution will somehow prohibit nations from refusing extradition. It will not, and that's why we find the original resolution rather worthless and the argument of the repeal unacceptable.

Our government has the right to refuse extradition of anyone it chooses any time it chooses. We don't need the permission of the NSUN to do so. We had that right before the resolution passed. We have that right now. And we would have that right if the resolution was repealed.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I withdraw the Submitted illegal resolution, and submit this amended resolution to comply with UN rules.

Respectfully,

His Highness.
Marek, Prince Regent of New Avarin

CONCERNED that Resolution #103 - Right to Refuse Extradition encourages criminals to flee from justice and to pray for asylum, claiming fear of Capital Punishment, and entirely evading justice;

ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints;

CONCERNED that Resolution #103 impedes justice, allowing criminals to flee to sympathetic nations;

ENCOURAGING member nations through discussion and diplomacy sign and uphold extradition treaties;

BE IT RESOLVED, that Resolution #103 is hereby repealed and revoked, and shall no longer be enforced by member nations.

The Federation agrees with the repeal, and will support it.


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Envoy Extraordinary
Deputy Representative to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

We note that the author either didn't see our earlier comments or chose to ignore them. That, of course, is his right. For our part, we believe that repeals, just like other resolutions, must be based on sound arguments and factual statements. The statement in the repeal that the resolution "impedes justice" is simply not true. All nations have the right to refuse extradition, with or without the resolution. We cannot support a repeal based solely on a spurious argument.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

To respond to the Ambassador Thwerdock's observations, I question his understanding of justice.

If a Court of Law duly convicts a criminal, sentences the criminal to death, and this criminal escapes into a country who is morally opposed to State Sanctioned executions and claims asylum, fearing for his life.

How is this not impeding justice? This country is preventing justice from being carried out, that is, "Impeding Justice."

Each country may have the right to refuse extradition. However, I wish to repeal the safeguards of that provision, preventing actions on our behalf to recover a lawfully convicted prisoner.

I will make this statement loud and clear. If you give asylum to these criminals, you are aiding & abetting these felons, and we will do our best to recover those prisoners.

Respectfully,

His Highness,
Marek, Prince Regen of New Avarin

I will make this statement loud and clear. If you give asylum to these criminals, you are aiding & abetting these felons, and we will do our best to recover those prisoners.

And you may execute them, your Highness: this is why we will not support repeal.

Ambassador Thurdock, I understand your position but do you see that the resolution offers an endorsement of our stance? It lends a moral authority to our refusal to extradite that is most valuable to us.

Benedictions,

We note that the author either didn't see our earlier comments or chose to ignore them. That, of course, is his right. For our part, we believe that repeals, just like other resolutions, must be based on sound arguments and factual statements. The statement in the repeal that the resolution "impedes justice" is simply not true. All nations have the right to refuse extradition, with or without the resolution. We cannot support a repeal based solely on a spurious argument.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I happen to agree, it is every nation's right to refuse extradition.

If a Court of Law duly convicts a criminal, sentences the criminal to death, and this criminal escapes into a country who is morally opposed to State Sanctioned executions and claims asylum, fearing for his life.

How is this not impeding justice?First, prove that law has anything to do with justice. Our legal scholars assure us it will be a difficult task. Then prove that a sentence of death is just. Our ethicists assure us you can't.

The right to refuse extradition is a bedrock right of a nation and exists with or without the resolution, as Ambassador Thurdock asserts. We do, however, agree with the good Ambassador Gao that reaffirming that right by this body (especially in light of the arguments in this repeal) is a necessary thing.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

And you may execute them, your Highness: this is why we will not support repeal.

Ambassador Thurdock, I understand your position but do you see that the resolution offers an endorsement of our stance? It lends a moral authority to our refusal to extradite that is most valuable to us.

Benedictions,

Yes, Your Excellency, we do see that. To be honest, the people of Ausserland are rather hard-headed, practical folks. With all respect to your position, we don't get very excited about things like moral authority when it comes to legislation. We tend to concern ourselves with the practical effects of the law.

In the case of the resolution in question, we see its practical effect as next to nothing. The only possible practical effect is that the last clause might deter a nation stupid enough to commit an act of war in order to retrieve a convicted individual. It most certainly does not "impede justice" as this repeal contends.

Given the concern you have expressed, we would hesitate to support any repeal of the resolution. We definitely will not support this one.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC:
If a Court of Law duly convicts a criminal, sentences the criminal to death, and this criminal escapes into a country who is morally opposed to State Sanctioned executions and claims asylum, fearing for his life.

This is not a complete sentence.

-The Author of Wolfgang, Grammar Nazi

IC:
"The Great Commonwealth agrees that refusing extradition should be the right of every nation, and thus are against the repeal."

To respond to the Ambassador Thwerdock's observations, I question his understanding of justice.

If a Court of Law duly convicts a criminal, sentences the criminal to death, and this criminal escapes into a country who is morally opposed to State Sanctioned executions and claims asylum, fearing for his life.

How is this not impeding justice?

Ifan rises to his feet, clearly looking forward to ripping into this new delegate. Somewhat to his surprise, he is immediately dragged out of the chamber by the Permanant Undersecretary, to "change out of that whiskey-sodden shirt before you get us all an undeserved reputation for spilling alcohol." She shoves a hastily scribbled note to the remaining Gobbannaen delegate in the chamber, who looks very young and very scared.

"Um. Sorry about that, your Highness, everyone." He looks round nervously. "I'm afraid the Steward is a republican, and he's a bit sensitive about princes right now.

"Cerys, uh, the Permanant Undersecretary wanted to point out two things. Firstly, the two 'CONCERNS' are basically the same thing, and she said..." he pauses and squints at the paper. "I'll paraphrase. You probably want more arguments.

"The other thing is about justice. You see, sir, there's a lot of us that someone killing someone else is about as unjust as things get, and it doesn't matter who's doing the killing. When you look at it that way round, sir, your question doesn't make sense. Refusing to allow someone -- some nation -- to kill someone else isn't impeding justice, it's facilitating it."

He shrugs. "Sorry, sir. Either you believe that killing people is always wrong, or you don't. It seems like it's kind of a religious thing, and trying to argue about it is only going to get people angry."

"Um, did I do that right?"

If a Court of Law duly convicts a criminal, sentences the criminal to death, and this criminal escapes into a country who is morally opposed to State Sanctioned executions and claims asylum, fearing for his life. How is this not impeding justice? This country is preventing justice from being carried out, that is, "Impeding Justice."

No other country has any obligation to help another country enforce "justice", especially if they disagree with the method of punishment or other aspects of the judgment. If our nation received a request for asylum from someone fleeing a despotic state that handed down a death sentence in a kangaroo court or show trial, for example, we would not just shrug and hand them back over to that despotic state to a certain and unfair death.

Each country may have the right to refuse extradition. However, I wish to repeal the safeguards of that provision, preventing actions on our behalf to recover a lawfully convicted prisoner.

Why exactly should nations hand over their inherent right to choose whether or not to extradite someone? You've yet to offer a compelling reason why.

I will make this statement loud and clear. If you give asylum to these criminals, you are aiding & abetting these felons, and we will do our best to recover those prisoners.

If that's meant as a threat, I doubt most nations here are either scared or impressed. I do know that Altanar is most decidedly not impressed. Opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Yes, Your Excellency, we do see that. To be honest, the people of Ausserland are rather hard-headed, practical folks. With all respect to your position, we don't get very excited about things like moral authority when it comes to legislation. We tend to concern ourselves with the practical effects of the law.

In the case of the resolution in question, we see its practical effect as next to nothing. The only possible practical effect is that the last clause might deter a nation stupid enough to commit an act of war in order to retrieve a convicted individual. It most certainly does not "impede justice" as this repeal contends.

Given the concern you have expressed, we would hesitate to support any repeal of the resolution. We definitely will not support this one.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
Thank you, Ambassador, I am most gratified by your response. We in Dashanzi are rather fond of statements of principle and the somewhat tenuous moral authority they lend us. Abstractions are savoured; it is therefore most pleasurable to reach accord with those of a very different cognitive bent.

Benedictions,

If a Court of Law duly convicts a criminal, sentences the criminal to death, and this criminal escapes into a country who is morally opposed to State Sanctioned executions and claims asylum, fearing for his life.

How is this not impeding justice? This country is preventing justice from being carried out, that is, "Impeding Justice."


Leaving aside ethics for a moment, it's a matter of sovereignty. Every nation has a right to decide on the nature of justice on its own sovereign territory. Hence we do not feel we should be under any obligation to extradite an individual who has not committed any offence on our territory - especially if he will face, in his country of origin, a penalty that our courts would never impose (such as death).

To put it another way, the jurisdiction of your justice system does not extend to within our sovereign borders.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Repealing a pro-sovereignty resolution with a sovereignty argument? How nicely ironic. Opposed.

Also I am allergic to catboi's and advocate their extermination.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office