[At Vote] [ga] Repeal: “Convention Against Heinous Crimes”

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Repeal "Convention Against Heinous Crimes”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#698

Proposed by: Tinhampton

General Assembly Resolution #698 “Convention Against Heinous Crimes” (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.



Noting that, whenever someone in a member state is charged by another member with a heinous crime (as defined), GA#698 requires that their state of residence conduct "a bona fide review... by a court or other tribunal" into whether they should be tried in that state or deported to the state seeking the charge instead, and that the tribunal grant comity if there exists "probable cause that the [suspect] is guilty of said heinous crime" (unless granting comity would violate active WA law or "due process," or if "a compelling public interest" stronger than comity would be greatly harmed should comity be granted),



Emphasising that the result of this review will always result in comity either being extended, or not extended, against the relevant person, and subsequently recognising that:

1. if comity is extended against a person, it can only be extended via trial (or sentencing) in their member state of residence, or via deportation with a view to trial (or sentencing) in the member state that charged them, meaning that they will always be tried (or sentenced) in a member state as a result; therefore, such legal proceedings must adhere to all active World Assembly law,
2. there is no reason to be concerned that either member state in the comity process will violate the rights of the person against whom comity has been extended under GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" and other relevant resolutions, given that GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" provides for fines or WA-wide sanctions for members that refuse to comply with active WA law such as GA#37, and
3. if comity is instead not extended against a person, the member state in question can readily introduce its own substantially-identical charges against that person (and may do so at any time, courtesy of GA#428 "Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes"), meaning that members will be free to bring war criminals to justice in their own courts and in full compliance with other WA law even in the absence of GA#698's comity provisions,

Deducing that GA#698's comity standards are superfluous, because all trials resulting from the decision to extend comity must adhere to the basic standards of WA law, and it is easy for member states that decide not to extend comity to press like charges (which must also adhere to said standards) anyway,



Observing that, beyond comity, Article 4 allows the International Enforcement Commission (IEC) to supply police officers, who may "use armed force" in circumstances defined in Article 4a, when members ask it for help with certain extraditions,



Bemused not only that Article 4b further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions" (with very limited exceptions), but also that the IEC itself is actually immediately constituted by GA#698 as a police force that may pursue those who have merely been "charged or convicted for a heinous crime" while awaiting trial or sentencing (as appropriate) in the overseas member state that charged them,



Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear (especially at times when the WA does not possess the kinds of "regulations" that Articles 4b(i-ii) allows it to have):

1. what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest,
2. what kind of force they may use in self-defence if the suspect goes beyond resisting arrest to assault IEC agents,
3. what immediately non-injurious actions (such as the destruction of obstacles the suspect is hiding behind) they are allowed to take to ensure safe extradition,
4. when they are meant to deploy arms in the first instance, or indeed
5. what degree of force they are meant to use against the suspect or any other person at any time, and

Believing that GA#698, when it is not somehow reminscent of prior WA law on criminal justice, endeavours to create a WA police force without setting firm and direct guidelines on its use of force, making it unnecessary and harmful at the same time...



The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#698 "Convention Against Heinous Crimes."



Co-authors: Refuge Isle, Witchcraft and Sorcery, Merni


This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Astrobolt]

Am personally opposed to the repeal, I find this back and forth on this topic tiring.

[icethousand]

Strongly opposed, and I encourage others here to also oppose.

The assertion that comity is "superfluous" is still as much of a non sequitur as it was in original repeal. The target is designed to ensure that heinous criminals are still tried even if they exit the jurisdiction of the charging member nation. The purpose is not to regulate trial procedure for fairness; the repeal's argument is thus reduced to, at best, a plain misinterpretation of what the target is meant to do, and at worst, a rather nonsensical claim at trying war criminals and genociders is unnecessary when they have to be tried fairly.

It is worth noting, too, that the coauthor's defence when this was pointed out has been "no quarter" as well as essentially admitting these claims are false, instead of any actual policy argumentation. Even if you disagree with the target, we should not encourage this sort of bad faith lying in repeals.

[Pantso]

In addition to the above criticisms, I find the last complaint, that the target resolution lacks specifics about what the IEC may and may not do, to be unconvincing and irrelevant. WA Resolutions are not intended to spell out in strict detail precisely every legal action may and may not be taken; if they did they would be hundreds if not thousands of pages long and would undoubtedly miss details anyway. Legislation in all government by necessity provides guidance and general rules and leaves policy implementation details to the relevant agencies, rather than trying to specify *all the things*.

This kind of complaint provides an excuse to repeal; not a reason. The Republic of Pantso is also against.

[Jabberwocky]

I think I voted against the original proposal, but these grounds are not sufficient to repeal.