[Groot Gouda]

Right to Refuse Extradition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint Uriel

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

[Groot Gouda]

I have supported this proposal in the proposal stage, and see no reason to vote against. It respects the sovereignity of nations, and at the same time increases the rights of citizens.

[Keeslandia]

I recognize that the Empire will most likely be in the minority here, but we feel that the accused should face judgement within the realm a crime is allegedly commited.

Therefore, we have opposed this measure.

[Lloegr-Cymru]

FOR

[Federation of Disjunction]

We at Disjunction have considered this issue greatly and have held differing opinions at varrious times in our history. We ultimately must respect the right of a sovereign nation to refuse extradition.

D

[Yuunli]

The Republic of Yuunli supports the proposal.

[Groot Gouda]

KeeslandiaMay 16 2005, 09:11 PM I recognize that the Empire will most likely be in the minority here, but we feel that the accused should face judgement within the realm a crime is allegedly commited. [/quote]
Even if the accused will face an unfair trial? I feel we should be able to protect people against that.

Besides, this gives you a right, not a duty. After this resolution passes, you can still extradite fugitives. But in certain circumstances you don't have to.

[Grosseschnauzer]

The real meaning of the resolution is this:

In instances where the accused for whom extradition is sought is accused of a crime for which capital punishment could or would be the penalty, the nation where the accused has been found may condition the extradition on an agreement that the death penalty will not be imposed.

The death penalty itself is a complicated mess. It could be a valid means of punishment in extreme circumstances -- I would agree that in the rare instaed where a crime is an attack on the stability of a society, such as mass murder due to terrorism or war, or political assassination with the same motive, then the death penalty might be appropriate in some instances. (Such was the case when in RL, the State of Israel, which does not have the death penalty, nonetheless tried Adolph Eichenmann, a part of the hierarchy of the Nazi German regime in World War II for war crimes and crimes against humanity for the Holucast, and imposed and administered the death penalty under the Nuremburg rgime.

However, it is often the case that in societies that impose the death penalty on a more routine basis, it is selectively and inequitaby applied and applied in a disproportionate manner. Thus, for the normal categories often ascribed to being subject to the death penalty, we would not endorse extradition if the accused were to be subject to the death penalty.

So, with this resolution, we would usually apply its provisions and decline extradition in death penalty cases, but in cases of terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace, where any of them result in mass death, we would extradite even if the accused would be subject to the death penalty.

We will be supporting the resolution with that understanding.

[Sober Thought]

Greetings fellow IDUists --

I think everybody has good points here. I voted for this proposal (framed by somebody I tried to recruit and whose flag I designed) for a combination of the reasons listed above:

(1) Possession is 9/10ths of the law, even for people. If a criminal suspect is apprehended in my country, I get to decide whether to send the person back or not because they are in my custody.

(2) Crime should not go unpunished. A criminal suspect who escapes the country in which that crime was committed should not evade punishment by a blanket refusal to extradite.

(3) Extraterritoriality is wrong. Just because the penalty for a particular crime in another country is death doesn't mean I have to accept that decision in my country.

(4) Conditional extradition is a reasonable compromise for two countries who have different laws regarding capital punishment. In RL, my country has refused extradition to a neighbouring country without guarantees against the death penalty, and at other times it has not asked for such guarantees. A bilateral agreement allows this. In previous decades, it was the neighbouring country which was protected by this because my country still had the death penalty on the books while parts of the neighbouring country did not.

I think it balances the issues well, and even as a narrow supporter of the death penalty, I think it is valid. Is there already an NS UN resolution on not executing minors or insane persons? If not, that's a natural proposal to make which even pro-execution countries can often support.

[Sober Thought]

And Keeslandia, don't worry about being in the minority here. You are respected and honoured in this region, regardless of your vote on this issue.

I was (I think) the only hold out against the Nobel Peace Prize. Don't be afraid to speak your mind and stick to your principles, that's the great thing about majority voting and rule of law that make democracy work so well. It is one of the many selling points of our region.

[Keeslandia]

Don't worry, we're never afraid to be a minority voice. However, it's been a relatively rare circumstance here.

To address our learned Delegate's inquiry. . .yes. However, if the accused is in fact facing an unfair trial, political asylum is the correct course to pursue. As a matter of course, I believe we have to assume a fair trial within a society that has embraced certain fundamental ideals. If that is truly not the case, then petition for asylum.

My thoughts anyway. This is going to pass, but on principle, I still am uncomfortable with it. However, as a UN member nation, the Empire will abide by the adopted measure.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

We vote for. Keeslandia brings up some good points, especially the difference between refusing extradition and granting asylum, but I agree with the overall proposal. Where the accused will not be given a due trial or a fair punishment, there should be no requirement to give our approbation to their actions in order to protect them from it. This would be what giving asylum would be.
Of course, this need not be the last stop of a negotiation. Extradition could still progress given due process and fair punishment. It is harder to do this when one has granted asylum. It allows for a lessening of tension between nations.