View Topic

Extradite or Prosecute

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Submitted by: Dark Star Republic

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging its role in creating international law under the assumption that violators of such law will be held accountable,

Concerned that inconsistent prosecution of internationally recognised criminal acts creates a de facto gap in the coverage of international law,

Recognising aut dedere aut judicare ("either extradite or prosecute") as a legal principle by which states must initiate a prosecution where no other state intends to initiate an extradition,

Believing that adopting this principle will effectively close any loopholes that would otherwise limit the effectiveness of international law,

Declares:

Every nation shall, in accordance with their own internal procedures and subject to any relevant international law, establish their jurisdiction over any person in their territory against whom there exists sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution for any crime specified as such through active General Assembly resolutions, except where a legal extradition request for that person is in the process of being effected.
The extraterritorial nature of the alleged crime shall not be a determining factor in assessing whether to proceed with a prosecution.
Any nation in possession of evidence or testimony relating to a prosecution carried out in accordance with Article 1 of this Resolution shall be compelled to turn over that evidence or testimony to the nation conducting the prosecution at their request.
Every nation shall maintain a single point of contact within their national justice system for processing such requests.
Clarifies:

Nothing in this resolution requires any nation to prosecute any person for acts not recognised as crimes in international law.
Nothing in this resolution affects extradition rights.

No analysis yet, other than I really really like it!

Official debate thread here.

This draft is stalled, awaiting a legality ruling.  Going on two months now, the author is waiting on a ruling by the mods on the following points

Is the category correct? (My argument: this causes an increase in police spending. Historically, IS proposals have been allowed to concentrate on one of police or military spending, especially at Mild strength.)
Does it contradict Diplomat Protection Act? (My argument: The phrase "subject to any relevant international law" means this can't override guarantees of immunity.)
Does it contradict or duplicate Extradition Rights? (My argument: hopefully it is smothered in enough disclaimers to make clear that if an extradition is taking place, the resolution is no longer relevant.)
Is it duplication, because the magic invisible clauses of every resolution already ensure this happens? (I have no defence on this charge.)