NationStates Jolt Archive

Ambassador McCoy does hereby submit for argument and debate the repeal of UN Resolution 103, the "Right to Refuse Extradition" resolution. The argument is made thusly:

NOTING the rights of states to prosecute crimes that occur within their territory

NOTING that according to this resolution, a suspect in a capital case can flee his or her nation's jurisdiction to avoid prosecution for a crime that the suspects' original jurisdiction considers worthy of capital punishment

The UN General Assembly does hereby REPEAL UN Resolution 103 due to its condoning of suspects fleeing jurisdiction in order to avoid criminal prosecution and consequent punishment.

While capital punishment may be grounds for a philosophical refusal to honor the sovereign rights of another state, and while capital punishment may be a heinous practice for some peoples, we find ourselves in agreement with the Knoxvili, although not quite for the same reason.

We believe that the original scope of the resolution, which extends only to capital punishment and not heinous corporal punishment, torture, or other such treatments, needs to be extended to include morally reprehensible actions.

To that end, we will support a repeal of #103, and will be presenting a draft resolution as a replacement, hopefully by Sunday at the latest.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

We would only support repeal should a replacement be lined up that extends the remit of the original resolution. I look forward to Ambassador Shandreth's draft with great interest.

Benedictions,

Having read the resolution in question, I find it little more than a smug fit of grandstanding against the death penalty. Indeed it encourages dangerous criminals to flee prosecution and take refuge in nations where they know they won't be executed, and indeed, it omits many other legitimate grounds for refusing extradition. However, I doubt my government would support a replacement as the representative of Snefaldia suggested. Even if it did not mention the death penalty, it may well encourage nations to refuse extradition on that basis.

That said, nations already have the right to refuse extradition on any grounds, so seeking to "protect" those rights, but only for those self-righteous regimes who oppose capital punishment, seems a rather pointless exercise, and my government would assuredly support a repeal.

Shemp #3
Observer to the United Nations

We feel that this resolution is okay and a new one need not be put in place. As have heard some of the ideas on what folks want to replace it... and they worse than this one could ever be. Such as this suggest by
[QUOTE=Snefaldia]We believe that the original scope of the resolution, which extends only to capital punishment and not heinous corporal punishment, torture, or other such treatments, needs to be extended to include morally reprehensible actions.
As currently one can simply request extradition for a minor offense and thus get them back and in the system since the problem is getting them back to stand trail that will be solved once they back.. Then can try them for minor crime and later once things settle try them for the major crime... and hang them..... as adding reasons for refusal only slows down the legal process and makes it harder to get crimals hung when they need to be. Any country that wants to allow criminal in then let them have them and deal with them as most nations have enough problems keeping order inside their own borders... If a wanted person evers returns then hang them.. and be done with it....

We should simply enshrine a basic right to refuse extradition for any reason. It doesn't preclude a nation deciding to agree to extradition on it's own, but sets a UN groundwork that would require repeal for the right to refuse. At the same time it must not limit the ability of countries to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements with regards to extradition.

Technically you could make that resolution first, then repeal this one for redundancy, since you'd simply be going further. I'd feel more comfortable that way since repealing this would reduce my sovereignty.

Here's the proposal the OP wants repealed: Right to Refuse Extradition

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Saint Uriel

Description : ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

Votes For : 10,746

Votes Against : 4,468

Implemented : Fri May 20 2005

All it does it allow nations the right to refuse extradition if the death penalty is a possibility (although you could argue most nations could without legislation anyway).

Now, I'd hope that nations could resolve these issues through dialogue, so either promises are given that the death penalty is not a possible punishment, or that the criminal is imprisoned in the country they have taken refuge within.

Really, all this proposal does is encourage dialogue between nations, which is never really a bad thing.

While we agree with some of the arguments presented by the Dourian representative, we cannot support the resolution in its current form.

NOTING that according to this resolution, a suspect in a capital case can flee his or her nation's jurisdiction to avoid prosecution for a crime that the suspects' original jurisdiction considers worthy of capital punishment

The UN General Assembly does hereby REPEAL UN Resolution 103 due to its condoning of suspects fleeing jurisdiction in order to avoid criminal prosecution and consequent punishment.

Suspects in any criminal case can attempt to flee to nations that they believe will not extradite them. If UNR 103 were repealed this would not change. The only practical effect of the repeal would be that nations refusing extradition (on the grounds of opposition to capital punishment) could face military reprisal. Regardless of that, nations could still refuse extradition for any reason they want.

The resolution might make it easier for fugitives to avoid the death penalty, but not to categorically escape prosecution or punishment. It might even be said that it places additional burdens on nations that allow capital puhishment. It does not encourage nations to protect fugitives when they would be executed. As I've said before, even if UNR103 didn't exist, nations can still refuse extradition. UNR 103 does not protect fugitives. By it's forbidding military reprisal it protects a right of nations. Saying that UNR 103 condones suspects fleeing jusrisdiction is paranoid at best and intentionally misleading at worst.

We should simply enshrine a basic right to refuse extradition for any reason. It doesn't preclude a nation deciding to agree to extradition on it's own, but sets a UN groundwork that would require repeal for the right to refuse. At the same time it must not limit the ability of countries to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements with regards to extradition.

We absolutely agree with this argument. Had the repeal been built around it we would be more likely to support it.

Technically you could make that resolution first, then repeal this one for redundancy, since you'd simply be going further. I'd feel more comfortable that way since repealing this would reduce my sovereignty.

Technically, this couldn't be done. The rules of this institution would make it illegal. Resoultions cannot add, extend, ammend, or change existing resolutions. <ooc>The sticky about UN rules make this aboundantly clear</ooc> You might maybe pass a resolution that guaranteed the right to refuse extradition on grounds different that those stated by UNR 103, but I still think It would be a long shot.


We believe that the original scope of the resolution, which extends only to capital punishment and not heinous corporal punishment, torture, or other such treatments, needs to be extended to include morally reprehensible actions.

We have to agree with Snefaldia on this. We would also definitely support a proposal that went along this lines.



----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

We believe Minister Gao has hit the nail squarely upon the head. We entirely support the right of a nation not to be complicit in the death of an individual, and would likely be supportive of a replacement that extended that right across more morally reprehensible situations.

Time to resubmit my own government's proposal on extradition, when I can find it, perhaps? That included any situation where the potential penalties faced would be excessively severe by the legal standards of the country asked to extradite somebody as legitimate grounds for refusal...

We would not support the repeal. NSUNR #103 is a harmless thing, and the argument in the repeal proposal is spurious. To demonstrate....

With this resolution in effect, my nation can refuse to extradite someone for any reason we find appropriate. If the resolution was repealed, we could refuse to extradite someone for any reason we find appropriate. The only effect of the resolution is to block a proposal removing the right to refuse extradition. We don't see any chance of such a proposal passing.

To say the resolution "condones" flight to avoid prosecution is simply not so.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

My own government's proposal on the subject of extradition is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11703055&postcount=24), and has just been re-submitted.

Given that the St. Edmundian delegation has already written and submitted a draft, we will defer to their resolution rather than writing another. We seem to have bit off more than we can chew.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Read: Too busy, dagnabbit!

Now, I'd hope that nations could resolve these issues through dialogue, so either promises are given that the death penalty is not a possible punishment, or that the criminal is imprisoned in the country they have taken refuge within.

Really, all this proposal does is encourage dialogue between nations, which is never really a bad thing.This is plainly unacceptable. The United Nations itself demurs from passing judgment on nations' sentencing policies by adopting a resolution like Fair Sentencing Act, yet it continues to lend moral backing to individual nations that do the same via extradition protocols? This doesn't encourage "dialogue between nations" at all; it only encourages nations to usurp the sentencing powers of others. Where these irrelevant foreign powers derive authority over our own criminal-justice system we have no idea, and we are not interested in negotiating our sovereignty over our own lawbreakers with them. As pointed out before, this doesn't even relate to practices that are near-universally condemned, such as torture; this applies to a very narrow aspect of criminal punishment that many nations still find acceptable, and even the United Nations will not itself condemn. If it were summary execution, or disproportionate execution sentencing, that would be a different story, but it's plain to us that this resolution carries little more weight than allowing self-righteous nations to wag their fingers at all those unbelievably backward regimes that fairly apply the death penalty for serious crimes. They can do so without legislation, sure, but that doesn't mean the UN should be in the business of extending moral support to governments over a sentencing practice it itself doesn't have the guts to outlaw.

Shemp #3
Observer to the United Nations