NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: The purpose of this bill is to prevent the extradition of suspects to nations with a poor human rights record with regards to the treatment of suspects and prisoners.

This bill recognises that, whilst countries have a right to devise their own legal codes in accordance with their national sovereignty, that this national sovereignty does not extend to forcing other nations to turn over suspects who are resident in that nation, if the nation requesting the extradition is likely to abuse said suspect whilst in their custody. This is in accordance with UN Resolution 26, which outlines the basic rights of all citizens of UN member nations, and Resolutions 21 and 47 which guarantee the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the abuse of suspects extends to the act of being held without trial, as outlined in Resolution 73, which guarantees Habeas Corpus in all member nations.

Therefore this bill decrees that in the case of any extradition request, a special body under the authority of the United Nations should assess the human rights record of the country making such a request, and if the nation does not meet the standards of human rights outlined by the UN, then the suspect shall be tried in a UN court, on in the suspect’s resident nation if the consent of the nation requesting the extradition is forthcoming.

This bill would prevent miscarriages of justice by preventing the extradition of suspects to nations where they are likely to be mistreated, or to receive an unfair trial.

I got rid of the provision banning the extradition of suspects to nations which practice the death penalty, and made the definitions more in line with past legislation.

Bearing in mind it is in a draft, any feedback?

I personally think that you should define what constitutes poor human rights records. Leaving this decision to an UN comitee will greatly increase bureaucracy and will likely lead to huge and unnecessary delays in trials.

A poor human rights record would be anything that falls short of those outlined in resolution 26, if I myself defined them without reference to that resolution, it would be fairly meaningless.

Oh sorry, my stupidity. I hadn't read that part.

This is in accordance with UN Resolution 26, which outlines the basic rights of all citizens of UN member nations, and Resolutions 21 and 47 which guarantee the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the abuse of suspects extends to the act of being held without trial, as outlined in Resolution 73, which guarantees Habeas Corpus in all member nations.
OOC: Read the Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Specifically:

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Criticisms noted, is there any way for this bill to stand on its own, if I remove the references?

Instead of referring to other resolutions, just right what you meant into your resolution.

This is hewing closely to Extraordinary Rendition.