Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
[SPLIT] On Universal Jurisdiction II; February 1-4
Topic Started: Feb 1 2015, 07:15 AM (178 Views)
Evolu Tanis
Member Avatar
Epistemological Terrorist
Resubmitted (with, I believe, slight alterations) under International Security.

I'm afraid Clause 7 renders this a non-starter for me, despite the text's merits. The whole point (and the maximum extent to which such prosecution can be justified) of a single nation prosecuting an alleged war criminal is that it is doing so in loco omnum (or perhaps pro omne/pro omnibus is the better coinage). Without any provision for international input or participation, the extent to which such prosecutions are fully trustworthy is inevitably going to vary from country to country. That is an unacceptable state of affairs for such an essential mechanism of international law.

Therefore, AGAINST.

Here lies a toppled god.
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal -
A narrow and a tall one.
  • Tleilaxu Epigram
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
I'm FOR, but I've voted AGAINST.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Actually, I've WITHDRAWN my vote - I'm going to bed now, but I want to check that this resolution is the same as the one we were debating earlier? Otherwise, we'd need to revote on the new text.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Dedicated
It's the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Like the first submission, I support this second submission.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opressed Ones
Member Avatar
Dedicated
Against
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auralia
Member Avatar
Poster
I vote FOR.

Gruenberg
Feb 1 2015, 08:31 AM
It's the same.

Not quite. In order to appease the mods, the category was changed to International Security and any definitions of specific crimes against humanity or war crimes were removed.

Evolu Tanis
Feb 1 2015, 07:15 AM
I'm afraid Clause 7 renders this a non-starter for me, despite the text's merits. The whole point (and the maximum extent to which such prosecution can be justified) of a single nation prosecuting an alleged war criminal is that it is doing so in loco omnum (or perhaps pro omne/pro omnibus is the better coinage). Without any provision for international input or participation, the extent to which such prosecutions are fully trustworthy is inevitably going to vary from country to country. That is an unacceptable state of affairs for such an essential mechanism of international law.

All World Assembly member states are subject to World Assembly law, including regulations on states' respective criminal justice systems. If you have concerns about whether or not a member state's prosecutions will be "fully trustworthy", then you can pass a World Assembly resolution to repair whatever fault you believe is causing that problem.
Edited by Auralia, Feb 1 2015, 03:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Dedicated
Auralia
Feb 1 2015, 03:44 PM
Gruenberg
Feb 1 2015, 08:31 AM
It's the same.

Not quite. In order to appease the mods, the category was changed to International Security and any definitions of specific crimes against humanity or war crimes were removed.
What I meant was: it's presumably similar enough for voting to reasonably carry over.
Evolu Tanis
Feb 1 2015, 07:15 AM
I'm afraid Clause 7 renders this a non-starter for me, despite the text's merits. The whole point (and the maximum extent to which such prosecution can be justified) of a single nation prosecuting an alleged war criminal is that it is doing so in loco omnum (or perhaps pro omne/pro omnibus is the better coinage). Without any provision for international input or participation, the extent to which such prosecutions are fully trustworthy is inevitably going to vary from country to country. That is an unacceptable state of affairs for such an essential mechanism of international law.

Bear in mind that Preventing Multiple Trials makes an exception for miscarriages of justice. So if you can demonstrate that another country's prosecution of an accused war criminal didn't meet the standards of a "fair trial", then I'd argue you'd have a reasonable case to continue to assert jurisdiction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
At the moment we're leading 3-2 FOR, so I've vote for and change later if the vote changes.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
EDIT - posted this in the wrong thread.
Edited by unibot, Feb 1 2015, 08:39 PM.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Dedicated
I didn't really expect Unibot to vote for a blocker, and an international court blocker no less.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Gruenberg
Feb 1 2015, 08:28 PM
I didn't really expect Unibot to vote for a blocker, and an international court blocker no less.
*shrugs* I'd prefer a central court, but there aren't any good proposals out there for it. Better decentralisation than nothing at all.

Furthermore, blockers are for morons. If they think a blocker can stop a creative mind, they're just idiots. The seventh clause is easily circumventable in a myriad of ways.

For example, with Quelesh's proposal repealed, Auralia's only grants universal jurisdiction over torture and rules of surrender - the former is the only crime explictly identified by the WA as a crime against humanity and the latter is the only crime explictly identified as a war crime. If he wanted more coverage, he should have included definitions of crimes against humanity and war crimes, like Quelesh did.

EDIT: You could for example, do a proposal with an IC court that focuses itself solely on "human rights violations" - defined as something basically that includes everything we normally think of as crimes against humanity and war crimes - and then say this category of crimes is to be distinct from "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" - this blocks an attempt to retroactively include future identifications of crimes as crimes against humanity or war crimes; stuffing everything an author wants into their category, rendering Auralia's proposal, a can of underbaked beans as far as I'm concerned.
Edited by unibot, Feb 1 2015, 08:54 PM.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Auralia
Member Avatar
Poster
unibot
Feb 1 2015, 08:38 PM
For example, with Quelesh's proposal repealed, Auralia's only grants universal jurisdiction over torture and rules of surrender - the former is the only crime explictly identified by the WA as a crime against humanity and the latter is the only crime explictly identified as a war crime. If he wanted more coverage, he should have included definitions of crimes against humanity and war crimes, like Quelesh did.

I tried, but the proposal was ruled illegal, remember? :P

unibot
Feb 1 2015, 08:38 PM
EDIT: You could for example, do a proposal with an IC court that focuses itself solely on "human rights violations" - defined as something basically that includes everything we normally think of as crimes against humanity and war crimes - and then say this category of crimes is to be distinct from "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" - this blocks an attempt to retroactively include future identifications of crimes as crimes against humanity or war crimes; stuffing everything an author wants into their category, rendering Auralia's proposal, a can of underbaked beans as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I tried something like that with Protocol on Abortion, and it was ruled illegal. It also remains to be seen how the mods will interpret the phrase "universal jurisdiction...implicitly...recognized under World Assembly legislation."
Edited by Auralia, Feb 1 2015, 09:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Dedicated
unibot
Feb 1 2015, 08:38 PM
Furthermore, blockers are for morons.
Eh, go fuck yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic »
Add Reply