@import "http://lib.zetabin.com/jQuery/facebox/facebox.css";
|
The USE![]() ReGenesis, Monday 29th October 2012 Founded by Zander & Cyristan, Friday February 4th 2011 |
| Welcome to The United States Of Europe. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you cannot see any part of the forum apart from registration and log in. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. So join our community and become an integral part of The United States of Europe! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| Extradition Rights; 17/04/2011 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 17 Apr 2011, 06:44 PM (10 Views) | |
| Cyristan | 17 Apr 2011, 06:44 PM Post #1 |
|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE Extradition Rights A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights. Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Knootoss Description: The World Assembly, BELIEVING that all persons have the right to a fair trial; HAVING PREVIOUSLY ruled that Member States may not extradite a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture; HAVING FURTHER ruled that nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of certain severe crimes, subject to national and international law; ENTITLES all persons inside the jurisdiction of World Assembly Member States to a legal appeal in the nation from which extradition is requested; DECLARES that persons inside the jurisdiction of a World Assembly Member State may not be extradited to another World Assembly Member State, in the absence of a treaty governing the terms of extradition or a national law governing the terms of extradition to nations with whom no treaty has been established; FURTHER DECLARES that a legal appeal against extradition must also be accepted if any of the following are true: a) The nation requesting extradition cannot provide evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove the act for which extradition is sought; b) The act for which extradition is sought does not constitute a crime in the nation from which extradition is requested; c) The crime for which extradition is sought is of a political nature; d) The punishment for the crime for which extradition is sought would not be administered in the nation from which extradition is requested; e) The nation from which extradition is requested claims jurisdiction over the crime for which extradition is sought; CLARIFIES that the nation from which extradition is requested may also refuse to extradite for other reasons, insofar as such refusal does not contradict existing World Assembly resolutions; ENCOURAGES Member States to enact legislation which facilitates the prosecution of cross-border crime. _______________________________________________________________________________ I vote against because it provides too many loopholes for true effectiveness. That the crime cannot be of a political nature is a extreme hole. Is terrorism not a crime of a political nature? This clause will probably be utilized to the fullest extent between enemy nations. The other very big hole is that the nation that requests an extradition cannot claim jurisdiction over the crime. This is probably a poorly worded clause, but that doesn't make up for the fact that other nations may oppose a nation's request simply because it declared a crime happened in its own country! If someone is arrested in a country, that is automatically a declaration of jurisdiction and now that another nation may automatically negate this claim is a clear violation of sovereignty. Even though this is presided over by some body of the WA, once there is a legal appeal for extradition, the criminal may cross the border into another country, thus perpetuating the cycle and there is no clause stating that the country must hold the criminal during the "legal appeal". Thus, my vote is firmly against. Edited by Cyristan, 19 Apr 2011, 10:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · E-J · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:10 PM Jul 11
|




2:10 PM Jul 11