Habeas Corpus

[Eluvatar]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: [nation]Sanctaria[/nation]

Description: The General Assembly,

BELIEVING that being detained unlawfully is a serious affront to an individual's liberty and right to freedom,

CONCERNED that some nations may not have the pathway of habeas corpus to rectify such illegal detentions,

CONVINCED that habeas corpus is a legal remedy that must be available to those who are detained,

Hereby

MANDATES that any individual detained by the state, or a state actor, shall have the right to appeal the legality of that detention before an impartial judicial body, or its equivalent, by oneself or through proxy;

DEMANDS that detention shall neither be arbitrary nor shall continue if deemed illegal;

REQUIRES that nations employ the usage of time limits on detention so as to avoid the unnecessary breach of an individual's liberty and right to freedom.

[Sanctaria]

Hey there!

Elu advised me to come to here (well he provided a link anyway). If you have any questions, please fire away.

Basically, this is a short resolution that deals solely with habeas corpus. Hopefully it'll put an end to the continuous to-ing and fro-ing we're seeing (mainly from one certain WA nation who shall remain nameless...).

[Eluvatar]

Why do you require only that there be a limit, not any particular one?

[Sanctaria]

Why do you require only that there be a limit, not any particular one?

Well I was originally advised to include such a clause for it to act as a blocker, however I was uneasy doing that. Instead, as it currently worded, it bans indefinite detention (by requiring time limits), which can only be good, while leaving the door open for future resolutions regulating time limits on detention.

It's recently been clarified that it does not stop proposals on setting time limits from coming to the floor.

[Delfos]

So in "soviet russia", the limit can be 45 years.

[Sanctaria]

So in "soviet russia", the limit can be 45 years.

Well if that's what the nation's law is, then yes. But habeas corpus has nothing to do with time limits anyway, so even if I left the clause out, the same situation would still apply.

A new resolution can still be drafted setting time limits on certain things; this wouldn't stop that from happening.

[McMasterdonia]

While indefinite detention may not be allowed. I'm sure 200 years detention would be legal under this particular resolution.

[Gulliver]

Well the problem with the previous proposals has been that the specific time intervals given were always impractical.

[Sanctaria]

While indefinite detention may not be allowed. I'm sure 200 years detention would be legal under this particular resolution.

X years detention would still be legal anyway regardless of whether or not I included that clause. Because strictly speaking, habeas corpus is not about limits on detention.

I included it at request. And it does not stop you or anyone else writing and passing a resolution restricting limits on detention.

[Eluvatar]

I think Sanctaria's right. Habeas Corpus is the ability to appeal detention.

[Gulliver]

This is now at a vote. I have cast a provisional vote of FOR.

[Gulliver]

I'm calling my final vote of FOR.

[Gulliver]

This has passed, 9,126 votes to 2,096.