NationStates Jolt Archive

Upon gazing at the list of resolutions, I did not see any legislation regarding criminal extradition.

This is manly a post to test the waters and see what your feeling would be on a universal WA wide extradition treaty. Is it allowed under the regulations regarding resolutions? Is there an appetite for such a piece of legislation? Would there be any major reservations that you may hold?

If we can get some ideas down I will draft a proposal. Consider this a white paper of sorts.

Sir Marcus Darcourt.
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for the Commonwealth of Taurat

Maybe my opinions can shed some light:

Basically, my opinion is that a citizen of a member state should bear the right to tried according to the laws of their country of citizenship. The citizen should have the right not to be extradited to another country against its will.

By observing the current events in the real world, I can safely say that extradition is a controversial issue. Some countries want anyone committing an offence to be tried in their country. If that country has a poor record of human rights it could be subject to criticism and anything from diplomatic debates to all-out sanctions at the very worst.

Guantanamo Bay prison camp is among those in the centre of extradition controversy. The US government, under Bush wanted to bring terrorists captured from outside the US to justice after 9/11, American style. They wanted to use military tribunals to prosecute the inmates. The plan attracted a lot of controversy and now Obama wants to close the prison camp and return most of the internees to their country of origin.

We agree with Ms Harper however what about the case of a nation that has a citizen needed for interrogation in there country of citizenship and is refusing extradition. This is a problem we are having right now.

Our premise would best be explained now through an example:

Criminal breaks the law in country A and flees to country B. Country B detain criminal but have no extradition treaty and thus will not send the criminal back.

Under the universal legislation, country A would send their application to an independent and centrally regulated committee and country B could choose to oppose the motion or not oppose. The committee would then decide after deliberations whether there was sufficient cause to merit extradition to the country where the crime was committed.

Of course, safe guards for where there was reasonable belief of torture and such would be built in.

Like I said, we can shape this. However, it is our belief that an independent committee would best serve this rather than leaving it to possibly politically motivated judicial panels.

Works right up to the point where Country B trumps the charges and executes the subject before the ink is dry.

Im sorry, I dont understand your concern. Are you saying that Country B may on its own charges execute the fleeing criminal?

If so, I fail to see how, since that will happen regardless of whether this proposal bears fruit or not, has any effect on the VAST number of countires who dont just kill their criminals without due process.

Maybe I have misunderstood. If you could elaborate that would be appreciated.

I, for one, am all for an extradition treaty. A criminal should not be able to commit a crime, go to another country and then never be tried for that crime in the original country!

The laws may be more lax in the country they flee to and they may only get a slap on the wrist for what they may have been put in jail for life for in the other country.

Guantanamo Bay prison camp is among those in the centre of extradition controversy. The US government, under Bush wanted to bring terrorists captured from outside the US to justice after 9/11, American style. They wanted to use military tribunals to prosecute the inmates. The plan attracted a lot of controversy and now Obama wants to close the prison camp and return most of the internees to their country of origin.
That has nothing to do with extradition. Try again.

Well, it could be limited to a country only applying to have extradition for a person committing a crime in their own country. Ie, no country could try someone for something that happened outwith their accepted jurisdiction.

Exceptions to that could be if say a diplomat was assassinated and the diplomats country request that they try the person. Of course, the nation in which the crime took place is welcome to oppose the motion and ask for a trial in their country. It would be the whole point of the international committee: to hear each case and weigh on the merits to come to a fair and impartial decision.

We would probably support a relatively limited international extradition procedure.

By 'relative limits', I mean that we would not wish to extradite in cases where:
- the offence is not a criminal offence under our own laws;
- the punishment is not a valid punishment under our own laws.

We would also be weary of turning the extradition decision process over to an independent committee, as there is no guarantee they would have the relevant information to consider the case. That sort of negotiation would be better handled between constituent embassies.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The government of the Emperor of Urgench would support better cooperation on the matter of extradition, but we, for instance, would never consent to having our citizens tried in courts we did not accept the fairness of, or to face capital punishment, or to face intense forms of interrogations associated with intelligence gathering techniques, or to countries with whom we had not exchanged embassies, or with whom we have poor relations or who may be at war with our allies or indeed with ourselves.


These are just some of the reasons we would completely refuse to allow extradition of our citizens, there are others.


Yours sincerely,

I observe that there seem to be two, relatively independent discussions of extradition taking place. I will do my best to both summarize and show their distinctness in an unbiased manner; afterward, I will state the opinion of the government of Waldsee.

The first extradition situation involves a citizen of Nation A who commits a crime in Nation A, then flees to Nation B. Nation A wishes to have the suspect extradited back to Nation A, which is both the locale of the crime and his country of citizenship, for trial. Nation B (presuming the suspect has not committed further crimes since fleeing) has no reason to wish to put the suspect to trial, but may be resistant, for various reasons, to allowing him to be extradited back to his country of citizenship.

The second extradition situation involves a citizen of Nation A who commits a crime in Nation B (then presumably returns to his home country). Nation B wishes to have the citizen extradited back to the country in which the crime was committed for trial. Nation A will typically wish to have the suspect tried within his country of citizenship and according to its laws.

The Democratic Republic of Waldsee has bilateral extradition agreements with many nations. Additionally, we generally are not resistant to allowing the citizens of foreign countries to be returned to their home countries for criminal trial, as in the first situation above. However, we do generally refuse to extradite suspects to nations that are considered by the Waldsee government to be oppressive or human rights violators. We would likely be willing for these types of extraditions to be overseen by a WA regulatory agency, however.

The Waldsee government would be less inclined to agree to international oversight of the issue of whether citizens of our great nation are extradited to foreign nations for trial. Waldsee feels a certain responsibility and protectiveness for her citizens and is reluctant to allow them to be tried in foreign lands with whom we do not have agreements in place, preferring instead to have the trial conducted within the borders of and according to the laws of the Republic and thereby protecting the rights and freedoms of her citizens.

Thank you for your attention,
Klaus Peter Ernst-Macher, Delegate to the World Assembly from the Democratic Republic of Waldsee

Mr Ernst-Macher,

That is an excellent summary of the positions here. Let me clarify what would be in the proposal.

The first extradition situation involves a citizen of Nation A who commits a crime in Nation A, then flees to Nation B. Nation A wishes to have the suspect extradited back to Nation A, which is both the locale of the crime and his country of citizenship, for trial. Nation B (presuming the suspect has not committed further crimes since fleeing) has no reason to wish to put the suspect to trial, but may be resistant, for various reasons, to allowing him to be extradited back to his country of citizenship.

This is the situation the act would apply to. The committee would be there to rule where countries would wish to contest the agreement. The committee would be vital since, this would be a universally applicable bill and an even standard would haveto be applied.

To also clarify, the act would not allow extradition where:

There was a reasonable expectation of a violation of Resolution #9 "Prevention of Torture"

Or

Where the country seeking the extradition did not give a legally binding assurance that the Death Penalty would not be sought.

Thats the concept. The idea of nationals being extradited to foreign countries is a much touchier issue however, Im sure we could find a way to build it into a bill where we can assure #9 and no dp is upheld.

OOC: If you use the 'Search' function (with the keyword, specified as being in thread titles rather than in all posts, of "Extradition") this will show you a number of previous threads on this topic. You might find some of the discussions involved helpful.
One of those proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499817&highlight=Extradition) was a project of my own...

This is a tricky subject for Tai Lao, because we lean towards the National Sovereignty camp here in the World Assembly, and believe the right of extradition, and denial of such, rests with individual countries, not with the world body.

That being said, it also needs to be taken into account the massive loophole that is non-WA nations. If someone is planing to do a big enough crime in either their own or a fellow WA member nation, they would also be smart enough to know that they would have to go to a non-WA nation to easily circumvent any WA extradition legislature. This would turn the resolution, if passed, into a bureaucratic white elephant which the nations of the WA should not have to bear

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I am of the opinion, even though I do support extradition, that this should be left to each respective nations' judicial systems and gov'ts to sort out. This is even between nations that have extradition treaties in place, one wont extradite to the other if their gov't is morally opposed to Capital Punishment, and the nation they would send the criminal to would be facing the death penalty. Things like this would just complicate matters and make judicial systems in WA nations to make agreements and arrangements an utter waste of time.

Personally I feel that if one of my citizens commits a crime in a foreign country that person(s) should stand trial in the nation in which the crime happened and be sentenced accordingly to their laws and regulations. To make a legislative piece as wide reaching and as seemingly easy to circumvent, it should be left alone and not made a stain on the WA

Mr Ernst-Macher,

That is an excellent summary of the positions here. Let me clarify what would be in the proposal.



This is the situation the act would apply to. The committee would be there to rule where countries would wish to contest the agreement. The committee would be vital since, this would be a universally applicable bill and an even standard would haveto be applied.

To also clarify, the act would not allow extradition where:

There was a reasonable expectation of a violation of Resolution #9 "Prevention of Torture"

Or

Where the country seeking the extradition did not give a legally binding assurance that the Death Penalty would not be sought.

Thats the concept. The idea of nationals being extradited to foreign countries is a much touchier issue however, Im sure we could find a way to build it into a bill where we can assure #9 and no dp is upheld.

Thank you for your clarification. If such a resolution is well-written, I believe that Waldsee would be willing to support it. I look forward to seeing the results of your labor.