NationStates Jolt Archive

International Justice
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild

Observing: That if a person commits a crime in one country and then flees to another country he is protected. Because he is in the other countries jurisdiction and another system of Law and Order.

Proposing: That if a criminal commits a crime in one country, UN or not, then flees to a UN member country. He will be pursued and arrested in the member country and sent to face justice in the country in which he commited the crime.

Nations will: Share information on the background and whereabouts of the criminal, have their police forces work together to capture the criminal.

Country In Which The Criminal Is Arrested Will: Hand the criminal over to the country in which he commited his offence as soon as possible once he is apprehended without interogation or imprisonment by the police of the nation in which he is arrested; unless the nation in which the criminal committed an offence has below average civil rights for convicts and suspects; in which case the arresting nation can opt to try said criminal in their court of law, and if convicted be punished, in the country where he was arrested.

The Criminal, If Not Tried By Arresting Country, Will: Stand trial in the country in which he commited the crime, and follow said countries due process of law, if convicted be punished in the country in which he committed the crime and not his native country if he is foreign.

The Criminal has the Rights: Of the police of the country in which he commited his crime, not the rights of the authorities of the country he is in, to have a lawyer from his native country if he is foreign to both said countries.

Concluding That: Criminals will no longer be able to flee to another country and avoid justice. No matter where they go, they will not be safe. They will be tried. By one country or another.

Proposing: That if a criminal commits a crime in one country, UN or not, then flees to a UN member country. He will be pursued and arrested in the member country and sent to face justice in the country in which he committed the crime.

But that might force nations to hand over criminals to nations in which they might face capital punishment. Many (most?) nations would not want to do that.

Country In Which The Criminal Is Arrested Will: Hand the criminal over to the country in which he committed his offence as soon as possible once he is apprehended.

This pretty much repeats the second clause.

The Criminal Will: Stand trial in the country in which he committed the crime, and follow said countries due process of law, be imprisoned in the country in which he committed the crime and not his native country if he is foreign.

This assumes that the accused must be imprisoned, regardless of whether the accused is acquitted or not, and regardless of the usual form of punishment for the crime committed.

The Criminal has the Rights: Of the country in which he committed his crime, not the rights of the country he is in, to have a lawyer from his native country if he is foreign to both said countries.

When the right is explicitly stated, it is fairly redundant to point out from which country the right heirs.

---
Spelling: "Committed", "jurisdiction".

But that might force nations to hand over criminals to nations in which they might face capital punishment. Many (most?) nations would not want to do that.

Unfortunately for such countries that is not up to them. The criminal committed an offence and the pursuing countries have the right to punish these criminals according to their laws. However I will make this issue a little more flexable.

The People's Republic of Rhina approves of this act. However, the UN does not have the power to force non-member nations to hand over said criminals save for military action. This must be acknowledged in the act before Rhina gives full acceptance.

Unfortunately for such countries that is not up to them. The criminal committed an offence and the pursuing country has the right to punish these criminals according to their laws. However I will make this issue a little more flexable.Au contraire, dear Islands, it is exactly up to the nation to which the alleged criminal flees. See "Right to Refuse Extradition" (UNR# 103).

Just skimming through the proposal, you also appear to be duplicating portions of Establishment of ICPIN (UNR#211).

Unfortunately for such countries that is not up to them. The criminal committed an offence and the pursuing countries have the right to punish these criminals according to their laws. However I will make this issue a little more flexable.

The term "have a right to..." is arbitrary, and I do not know how you found it. I believe that a nation has a moral obligation to shelter those who would otherwise risk torture or death. Stern opposition to capital punishment should never be an incentive for nations to disobey a UN resolution.

A possible way to handle the issue is to add a clause stating that handing over a criminal would require a guarantee from the nation in which the crime was committed and the trial is to be held that the accused would not risk capital punishment.

The People's Republic of Rhina approves of this act. However, the UN does not have the power to force non-member nations to hand over said criminals save for military action. This must be acknowledged in the act before Rhina gives full acceptance.

The term "have a right to..." is arbitrary, and I do not know how you found it. I believe that a nation has a moral obligation to shelter those who would otherwise risk torture or death. Stern opposition to capital punishment should never be an incentive for nations to disobey a UN resolution.

A possible way to handle the issue is to add a clause stating that handing over a criminal would require a guarantee from the nation in which the crime was committed and the trial is to be held that the accused would not risk capital punishment.

If the arresting country wants to shelter the criminal and try him or her by their laws, then they can pay the bail. I'm not going to force a country to give up the chase. I'm giving them the option of taking the money.

If the arresting country wants to shelter the criminal and try him or her by their laws, then they can pay the bail. I'm not going to force a country to give up the chase. I'm giving them the option of taking the money.

But imposing the bail is to more or less implicitly encourage a nation to hand over a suspected criminal. I would not like to see the UN encouraging the handing over of criminals to nations with possibly lower judicial standards.

Likely the pursuing country would prefer the money wouldn't you say? After all if they were to convict him he would take up space in their prisons. They'd have to pay for his food and other things. Plus it would have cost them a good deal of money to chase the criminal. They'd probably like to get some of that money back in their budget. They'd probably take comfort in the fact that they get the money and the convict is still tried. The bail would therefore be not that much money. Just the usual amount for a regular bail.

Likely the pursuing country would prefer the money wouldn't you say? After all if they were to convict him he would take up space in their prisons. They'd have to pay for his food and other things. Plus it would have cost them a good deal of money to chase the criminal. They'd probably like to get some of that money back in their budget. They'd probably take comfort in the fact that they get the money and the convict is still tried. The bail would therefore be not that much money. Just the usual amount for a regular bail.

I'm more thinking along the lines of human rights. If a state wishes to protect the rights of a suspect, it should be encouraged by UN legislation to do so.

I notice that the word "money" or "pay" occurs in seven out of eight sentences in the above quoted paragraph. The economical side of the issue is not important to me; the signalling value of the resolution is.

Since people don't seem to have heard the honoured representative for Rubina, I'll say it shorter:

Illegal, contravenes "Right to Refuse Extradition."