GA Resolution: International Criminal Court

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

International Criminal Court
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Quelesh


Description: The Assembled Nations of the World,

APPALLED that sapient beings are still subjected to genocide, war crimes and other atrocities;

VEXED that there now exists no international justice system by which to try the perpetrators of these heinous crimes should their home nations refuse to do so;

DEFINING, for the purpose of this resolution:

A. "Genocide" as any act intended to destroy, in whole or in part, any group of sapient beings on the basis of a shared ancestry, nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, culture, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age or age range or any other identifiable real or perceived characteristic

B. "War crimes" as any of the following committed as part of armed conflict:
1. Military actions that intentionally target civilians, resulting in civilian casualties
2. Murder, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or surrendered enemies
3. Mass internment or use for slave labor of civilians
4. Excessive destruction of occupied areas or natural resources
5. The use of nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons against a civilian population with foreknowledge of likely civilian casualties

C. "Crimes against humanity" as any of the following committed as part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient beings:
1. Murder
2. Torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment
3. Forced sterilization or acts of sexual violence
4. Forced population transfer;

hereby ESTABLISH the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the purpose of bringing to justice those responsible for the above crimes;

AUTHORIZE the ICC to issue arrest warrants for any person ("wanted person") suspected of these crimes if their home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice, unless an extant WA resolution requires they be tried elsewhere;

INSIST that no warrant be issued by the ICC without probable cause;

REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;

STRONGLY URGE member states to pursue the extradition of wanted persons not under their jurisdictions by all legal and peaceful means;

TASK the ICC with trying those accused and sentencing those convicted, subject to the following:

A. The ICC shall contract with a member state to hold pre-trial detainees ("defendants") and to house, for the duration of their sentences, those convicted by the ICC ("convicts") and sentenced to incarceration

B. Defendants have the following rights: a reasonably speedy trial, competent legal representation, to call witnesses on their behalf and examine witnesses against them, to refuse to incriminate themselves and to fully understand and participate in the proceedings

C. The ICC shall not convict a defendant without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

D. An acquitted defendant shall be immediately and unconditionally released to their nation of origin or, if that nation will not accept them, another consenting nation

E. Once acquitted by the ICC, no person shall be retried by the ICC for the same offense

F. The ICC shall never impose the death penalty

G. Convicts shall have the right to present to the ICC exculpatory evidence that was not available at trial; the ICC may reverse a conviction at any time

H. The ICC shall establish such rules and regulations, not conflicting with this resolution, concerning its operations as it sees fit, consistent with the principles of fairness and justice.

[Quelesh]

Greetings, 10k Islands!

I am the author of this proposal. I'm here to try to convince you to vote for it because I believe it is vitally important.

This much-needed proposal is aimed at providing justice to the victims of genocide, war crimes and other heinous atrocities. All too often, the perpetrators of these barbarisms escape justice because their home nation refuses to try them, and we do not yet have an international judicial body that exists to administer justice in these worst-of-the-worst cases. This proposal will rectify that and provide an avenue of last resort to try the worst offenders.

As the proposal states, it only applies to certain extraordinarily egregious crimes, and only in cases in which the perpetrator’s home nation refuses to try them. It is carefully drafted to avoid interfering in member states’ own criminal justice systems while still meeting our obligations to pursue international justice for the victims of these atrocities.

I hope I can count on your support. Please vote yes in the poll.

And if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to let me know!

[ImperialPoland]

so genocidal maniacs can't get the death penalty?

[Quelesh]

Jun 21, 2010 17:26:30 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

so genocidal maniacs can't get the death penalty?

My aim in including the death penalty clause is to ensure international legitimacy. Regardless of your views on the death penalty, or mine, many nations would see the ICC as illegitimate if it could put people to death, and may resist participating.

Moreover, can you imagine what would happen if someone put to death by the ICC was later found to be innocent? Even the esteemed WA gnomes staffing the court could get it wrong once in a while if incomplete evidence is before them. I included the clause allowing convicts to present exculpatory evidence to address this possibility, but they can't do so if they're dead.

Having to release someone who was wrongfully convicted would be a black eye for the ICC, but a wrongful execution would be its death knell. There's no need to take the chance of getting it wrong so irreversibly.

[Walabamba]

This is a fantastic proposal! FOR

[Kanaia]

FOR
An international court with a purpose. My only minor problem is the lack of death penalty, but I understand the reasons for not having it.

[Takaram]

FOR
Always like things that can create new RPing possibilities. And the lack of a death penalty is a plus, if you ask me.

[Walabamba]

^Exactly

[ginvidia]

The nation of Ginvidia is against such a proposal.

We worry that having an international brute squad will lead to more problems then it solves. Though we are against ideals such as cultural or genetic purification of any sort that will decimate one or more peoples, as long as it remains within the borders of that country. We do not have a say in how leaders choose to run their country, and we feel that the we should only have the right to interfere if such country's actions threaten other countries.

We fear that the proposal may easily taken out of context and that more powerful countries will use it as a method to go to war with weaker countries because they do not live up to certain standards.

We feel that there are times where an international court needs to be summoned, but only in times where one country has wronged another.

[Quelesh]

Jun 22, 2010 13:47:04 GMT -5 @ginvidia said:

The nation of Ginvidia is against such a proposal.

We worry that having an international brute squad will lead to more problems then it solves. Though we are against ideals such as cultural or genetic purification of any sort that will decimate one or more peoples, as long as it remains within the borders of that country. We do not have a say in how leaders choose to run their country, and we feel that the we should only have the right to interfere if such country's actions threaten other countries.

We fear that the proposal may easily taken out of context and that more powerful countries will use it as a method to go to war with weaker countries because they do not live up to certain standards.

We feel that there are times where an international court needs to be summoned, but only in times where one country has wronged another.

There would be no "international brute squad" created by this proposal. It does nothing to create any kind of international police.

It encourages member states to apprehend persons for whom an ICC arrest warrant has been issued who are in other countries by peaceful means. If a nation wanted to go to war with another, it would not need this resolution as an excuse.

The ICC is an impartial judiciary body, not some council of the most powerful nations who would pick and choose whom to target.

[Sir Lans]

No death penalty = AGAINST

[Takaram]

Seriously? Just because you can't line someone up in front of a firing squad or string them up, you're going to reject this?

[Anime Daisuki]

Jun 22, 2010 18:50:29 GMT -5 Takaram said:

Seriously? Just because you can't line someone up in front of a firing squad or string them up, you're going to reject this?

You are entitled to your opinion and Sir Lans is entitled to his. Please be civil, ok?

[Takaram]

It just seems somewhat... illogical is all. Sorry SL.

[Sir Lans]

No worries what-so-ever Tak

[ginvidia]

We are for bringing international criminals to justice, however the rules how such warrants can be issued does not seem clearly defined to us. Yes we see that there are many reasons that someone can be listed as a criminal, but we feel that there is nothing stopping foreign countries from issuing warrants against our people even if they have never left our country.

Example, if we of Ginvidia choose to drive our native species of the Duntada to near extinction because the marrow of their bones may be harvested and used to cure a very contagious and deadly disease that is spreading like wildfire through our lands, another country may choose to issue warrants of our doctors under the "4. Excessive destruction of occupied areas or natural resources" clause.

We do not endorse slavery, but we do not feel that other countries have the right to control another nation's choosing to use slaves.

Again, under the clause C. "Crimes against humanity" are all crimes that mostly take place in a single nation, not individuals from nation on another. Governing such thing on a world standpoint only impedes a nation's ability to govern itself. If Ginvidia has a crazed man that runs rampant on the streets with the single goal of raping, murdering, and murdering small children and we as a nation do nothing to stop him, that is our own nation's failing and we do not wish interference from other lands telling us how to run our own country.

Also not that we do not have a man that runs rampant as such, our crime is well under control.

We also wish to state that we find "4. Forced population transfer;" very unclear with it's lack of definition. We wish this to be defined as "Unjustified and forced transfer of native peoples" The current phrasing could mean many things. Such as the forced removal of a group of individuals who illegally crossed into our borders or the exile of criminals from our state. Which are both, in our view, justified within certain limitations.

[John Fogertys Beard]

As of now I must take a stance against this resolution. It seems an affront on the independence of nations to force them to produce a criminal they don't deem fit for extradition. At what point does the punishment of one criminal become worth escalating international tension?

"REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;"

This is precisely where I take issue. Require is a weak statement without definition. Exactly how are nations to be "required" to arrest wanted persons. Also, to what extent are other member nations permitted to venture out of their own jurisdictions in order to apprehend criminals announced by the ICC?

If these contentions can be reasonably and sufficiently quelled, I will strongly consider supporting this legislation but until then it just seems too loose for passage.

[Quelesh]

but we feel that there is nothing stopping foreign countries from issuing warrants against our people even if they have never left our country.

ICC warrants cannot be issued by foreign countries; only the court itself, an impartial arbiter, can issue the warrant, and then only with probable cause that one of the listed crimes has been committed.

Warrants can be issued for crimes committed only in one nation. The ICC is not intended to solely try crimes that involve one nation attacking another. A citizen of Nation A participating in genocide in Nation A can be the subject of an ICC warrant if Nation A refuses to bring him to justice.

Example, if we of Ginvidia choose to drive our native species of the Duntada to near extinction because the marrow of their bones may be harvested and used to cure a very contagious and deadly disease that is spreading like wildfire through our lands, another country may choose to issue warrants of our doctors under the "4. Excessive destruction of occupied areas or natural resources" clause.

Are these Duntada sapient beings or nonsapient animals? If they're a fellow sapient species, then such an extermination would be categorized as a genocide, not under clause (B)(4). If they're nonsapient animals, then it would not qualify under any of the definitions of this proposal and the ICC would not be able to issue a warrant for it.

Any of the actions in clause (B) must be undertaken "as part of armed conflict" in order to qualify as war crimes.

We do not endorse slavery, but we do not feel that other countries have the right to control another nation's choosing to use slaves.

Clause (B)(3) would criminalize the mass incarceration or use for slave labor of an enemy's civilian population during armed conflict or after an invasion. Invading a country and enslaving its citizens is an abhorrent act, and certainly a legitimate subject of international criminalization.

Other than in this specific circumstance, however, this proposal does not address slavery.

If Ginvidia has a crazed man that runs rampant on the streets with the single goal of raping, murdering, and murdering small children and we as a nation do nothing to stop him, that is our own nation's failing and we do not wish interference from other lands telling us how to run our own country.

Your run-of-the-mill serial killer would not qualify for an ICC arrest warrant. This proposal does not target conventional crimes, even murder or rape. The actions in clause (C) only qualify as crimes against humanity if they are "committed as part of a systematic attack on a population of sapient beings." A reasonable interpretation of this would not include a conventional rapist, but it would include a group of men of one ethnic group who go around raping women of a different ethnic group to sow terror in that group's population. If your nation refused to arrest and try the perpetrators of such terroristic crimes, thus at least tacitly condoning them, it is certainly the place of the international community to step in.

We also wish to state that we find "4. Forced population transfer;" very unclear with it's lack of definition.

Deporting illegal immigrants or exiling criminals would not qualify under that clause. It must be the forced transfer of a population, not just a few people. For example, driving the minority residents of a fertile agricultural area into the arid desert and forcing them to wander as nomads so the fertile land can be claimed by the majority ethnic group would qualify as a crime against humanity here.

No reasonable interpretation of the phrase "forced population transfer" would include deporting illegal immigrants. However, rounding up as many members of a minority ethnic group as you can and forcing them out of the country, with the justification that they're "illegal," is a different matter.

Now to address Mr. Beard's comments:

It seems an affront on the independence of nations to force them to produce a criminal they don't deem fit for extradition.

I understand your appeal to national sovereignty here, but justice demands that the orchestrators of genocide, for example, face trial for their crimes, whether their home nations wish them to face that trial or not.

At what point does the punishment of one criminal become worth escalating international tension?

At the point where that individual's crimes become so horrifying and egregious as to meet the definitions in this proposal.

"REQUIRE member states to arrest wanted persons within their jurisdictions and extradite them to the ICC;"

This is precisely where I take issue. Require is a weak statement without definition. Exactly how are nations to be "required" to arrest wanted persons.

The word "require" here does not have any special definition; it means simply what the dictionary says. It is a WA mandate.

Also, to what extent are other member nations permitted to venture out of their own jurisdictions in order to apprehend criminals announced by the ICC?

Member states are not explicitly restricted by this proposal from pursuing the extradiction of wanted persons outside their jurisdictions. They are encouraged to do so "by all legal and peaceful means." This clause is an acknowledgement that the WA is a body that exists partially to promote world peace and to reduce violence and armed conflict.

That said, all member states are required to extradite wanted persons to the ICC anyway, so this clause only actually applies in the case of a wanted person in a non-member state, or in international territory. The proposal encourages member states to pursue extradition peacefully, but there are no specific restrictions in this regard save for those already enshrined in international law.

[Smoked Bacon]

We do not truly endorse the death penalty, but we believe the option of capital punishment should still be open in some limited capacity under extreme circumstances.
However saying this we do see the purpose of not permitting the death penalty, as we ourselves have rarely passed such a penalty on any of our own criminals in the past, the death penalty is still however legal in our country.

With the rebuttals explaining further on a number of points, we of the Democratic Republic of Smoked Bacon support this resolution.
(FOR).

[Pizmo Beach]

Those who are against this resolution because it does not allow for the death penalty need to read more closely.

Warrants are only issued when the person's "home jurisdiction refuses to bring them to justice . . ."

If the nation of home jurisdiction chooses to try the person, and that nation has the death penalty, there is nothing stopping the nation of home jurisdiction from trying the wanted person and -- if the person is found guilty -- imposing the death penalty.

The International Court comes into play only when no one else is willing to prosecute. Although the People's Republic of Pizmo Beach chooses to impose the death penalty in certain cases, it would be morally wrong for the International Court to impose death in the name of all member nations when there exists ANY nation which opposes the death penalty.

We support the resolution.

[ginvidia]

I'm just against it because I feel that the wording isn't precise enough, and can be interpenetrated in other ways.

[Takaram]

To be honest, I don't think there has been a law written that lacks some form of loophole.

[Ilassa]

We of Ilassa chose not to accept this perposeal at this time. We feel that a court system does not always work. Not that it doesn't have potential.

Chris, Current Leader of the Ilassaian People.

[Echolilia]

"International Criminal Court" was passed 3,679 votes to 2,050.

[Quelesh]

A short note, typed on plain white paper with a signature at the bottom, left on your desk:

Dear Esteemed Ambassadors,

A few hours ago, I had the pleasure of informing Roujinsei, Emperor of Quelesh, may he be forever beloved by the people, that the resolution authored by our delegation, International Criminal Court, had passed this assembly by a decisive margin.

Like the citizens of Quelesh, the Emperor, may his face be forever warmed by the gentle sun, believes passionately in justice, not for some, but for all, and he is greatly pleased by the passage of this resolution.

This could not have been accomplished without your support. I have been tasked, therefore, with conveying the satisfaction and gratitude of the Emperor, may his feet forever fall on the soft grass, for your support of this resolution. Further, the Emperor, may a smile forever light his face, has directed me to express to you his best wishes.

Yours truly,

Gabriel Senchi
By the grace of the gods and chance, personal assistant to the Emperor Roujinsei, may his wisdom forever be a light unto the world

tl;dr: Thank you!