[DRAFT] International Appellate Court Act - Updated May 2016

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Aka "requires member nations to deal with the committee". That's not a stand-alone clause. And at least currently a stand-alone clause is needed.

Then: It's a bureaucratic agency, not a committee. There's a difference.

Not in the eyes of the WA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then: It's a bureaucratic agency, not a committee. There's a difference.

Not in the eyes of the WA.

There is a difference, i.e. it 'is not at all the same thing'.

[Araraukar]

Not in the eyes of the WA.

There is a difference, i.e. it 'is not at all the same thing'.

So you can get away with "committee only" as long as you make your committee "a bureaucratic agency"? Sounds like the mother of all loopholes.

Well, when it gets submitted, I'll file a GHR, we'll see for real then.

EDIT: Looked further into that thread...

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Well, as a less active ruling mod, I'm going to back off on that as a ruling then. If the other GA mods have been calling that a committee violation, then so be it. I still won't personally remove it for that reason, but neither will I object if someone else does.

[Dragonyza]

There is a difference, i.e. it 'is not at all the same thing'.

So you can get away with "committee only" as long as you make your committee "a bureaucratic agency"? Sounds like the mother of all loopholes.

Well, when it gets submitted, I'll file a GHR, we'll see for real then.

EDIT: Looked further into that thread...

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Well, as a less active ruling mod, I'm going to back off on that as a ruling then. If the other GA mods have been calling that a committee violation, then so be it. I still won't personally remove it for that reason, but neither will I object if someone else does.

Just an FYI, it's been submitted before, and the GHR was denied as it was ruled to be an active clause. Read a few pages back.

Thanks.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, when it gets submitted, I'll file a GHR, we'll see for real then.

Dragonyza is correct. viewtopic.php?p=24461525#p24461525

[Wallenburg]

Well, when it gets submitted, I'll file a GHR, we'll see for real then.

Dragonyza is correct. viewtopic.php?p=24461525#p24461525

Oh, please. That finding was on whether there was a category violation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Dragonyza is correct. viewtopic.php?p=24461525#p24461525

Oh, please. That finding was on whether there was a category violation.

Read. 'The very mild active clauses in this proposal' show that those active clauses exist. Which means this isn't a committee-only violation.

[Araraukar]

Read. 'The very mild active clauses in this proposal' show that those active clauses exist. Which means this isn't a committee-only violation.

The text has been changed since, though. It just makes sense to get a new ruling for whatever is eventually submitted.

[Wrapper]

EDIT: Looked further into that thread...

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Well, as a less active ruling mod, I'm going to back off on that as a ruling then. If the other GA mods have been calling that a committee violation, then so be it. I still won't personally remove it for that reason, but neither will I object if someone else does.

Not making an official ruling here, but:

Not only was that ruling retracted, but given that the committee rule was re-written, previous precedent does not necessarily hold up. Instead of focusing on precedent, let's focus on the rule as written:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

So, if the sole purpose of this proposal is the establishment of the court (a committee), then it's illegal. If there is any other purpose of this proposal in addition to the establishment of the court, then it's legal.

Dragonyza, something to think about there. Aside from the establishment and duties of the committee, what purpose does your proposal serve? If none, then you'll need to make some edits.

[Dragonyza]

EDIT: Looked further into that thread...

Not making an official ruling here, but:

Not only was that ruling retracted, but given that the committee rule was re-written, previous precedent does not necessarily hold up. Instead of focusing on precedent, let's focus on the rule as written:

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

So, if the sole purpose of this proposal is the establishment of the court (a committee), then it's illegal. If there is any other purpose of this proposal in addition to the establishment of the court, then it's legal.

Dragonyza, something to think about there. Aside from the establishment and duties of the committee, what purpose does your proposal serve? If none, then you'll need to make some edits.

I guess the issue will be the interpretation of that rule. AFAIC, this rule is flawed - I agree with many in the GA Rules forum. Not only that - a committee is different than a court, IMO.

Well, when it gets submitted, I'll file a GHR, we'll see for real then.

Nevertheless, as some people are resigned to be dinks and try and block a proposal with a GHR instead of campaigning against it when it goes in the queue, I have added a full active section.

Sorry brah, better stock up on TG stamps.

[Araraukar]

I have added a full active section.

You did? Where? Or did you forget to add it to the current draft? (OOC: This is why a changelog or previous versions in spoilers would be good.)

Nevertheless, as some people are resigned to be dinks and try and block a proposal with a GHR instead of campaigning against it when it goes in the queue, *snip*

Sorry brah, better stock up on TG stamps.

OOC: Why would I want to campaign against it? I never said I was against the proposal. I am, however, against illegal proposals slipping by to vote, hence raising a fuss about the committee-only thing. Better it being caught now than ending up being Discarded or something.

Now, let's see what this beast ate for its last meal. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel*

STRENGTH Significant

Remember that the strength is decided by the strength of the active clauses (non-committee) and the broadness of the topic. I'm not saying this is necessarily the wrong strength, it will depend on what active clauses you add for nations to do.

Description of the Act: The intent of this act is to ensure that each citizen of a WA member state may appeal a conviction to a newly created court of WA Magistrates, on the basis of corruption, presumption of guilt, state conducted tampering of judge or jury, or suspension of legal rights. An individual who is convicted of a crime may present evidence to bring forward an appeal, but is not entitled to a hearing unless the appeal is certified by the Court.

OOC: You really don't want to leave this in as "description", since it will make it look like a newbie mistake of what the "description" means on the submission form. Instead you should write that into preamble clauses.

PREAMBLE

Speaking of which, you don't really need to title your preamble.

The General Assembly,

Just make it read "The World Assembly" like normal people.

RECOGNIZES the lawful right of the World Assembly to create an international court;

If you make the above correction, this one can read "recognizes its lawful right to" or similar wording.

FURTHER recognizes the lawful right of each Nation to administer justice in differing ways;

This seems odd, considering the whole of this proposal is basically saying "we don't trust national courts to make the right choices and instead want to let the WA decide". I mean, what criminal wouldn't appeal their sentencing, especially if it being dealt with by an international committee releases them from having to pay for the proceedings? (OOC: Also, leaving an empty line between the preamble clauses makes them look neater. And you don't really need to bold the first words, since you're using capitals.)

Which reminds me, you might want to add that if the original sentence is upheld, the appealing party needs to recompensate costs to the nation it essentially sued, to prevent every single person ever convicted of anything, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, from wasting everyone's time and money with this court.

SEEKS to ensure that no citizen of any WA member nation have their legal rights removed; therefore

Correct me if I'm wrong that nothing in this proposal actually prevents that from happening. If someone has their legal rights removed (which may be against other resolutions), they'd be unlikely to be given a trial in the first place and/or be sentenced in a legal way, and thus have nothing beyond "they're not treating me like I wanted to be treated" to complain about.

The WA, by and with the advice of the General Assembly, shall enact as follows:

Just make that "Hereby", to shorten letter count.

DECLARATION
D1. CREATE the World Assembly Appellate Court.
D1.a STRIKE a Judiciary Board comprised of Justices or Magistrates versed in international law to hear accepted cases.
D2. RE-AFFIRM the importance of due process in legal proceedings.
D3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

This format is very clunky. (OOC: Do you know how to use the list code?) And in any case, what's the declaration doing here? You could just go with "CREATES the World Assembly Appellate Court". (OOC: Also, why "strike"? Why not "set up"? Strike to my mind doesn't mean setting up - I'm sure that in Legalese it does, but the majority of the voters aren't going to be lawyers.) D2. should be a preamble clause. And shouldn't D3. have something like "after exhausting appeals in the nation that sentenced them"? Or are you taking away the whole appeal process from the nations?

PROCESS

Again, no header needed, just have the "creates" clause for the committee, and these can all go under it.

P1. HEAR individual claims to appeal their convictions.

Are you having it hear individuals making claims or individual claims? Right now it's reading as the latter, but it's usually individuals that are wanting to appeal their convictions.

P2. ACCEPT appeals in order of severity where admissible evidence of wrongdoing exists, AND there is sufficient evidence of blatant state criminality in contravention of current WA legislation.

What? Does this mean the court's only going to accept (which I take to mean "take under reconsideration") cases where the defendant has broken WA laws? If yes, you need to spell it out clearer and probably include it in your FAQ (if you had one), as it changes the nature of the whole construct (OOC: and makes it much more likely to pass, due to interfering less with national law upholding).

P2(a) RESTRICT appeals to those who have exhausted every option of appeal in their home state.

This also needs to go in a FAQ. And you really should write one.

P2(b) FURTHER RESTRICT action to appeals of conviction only, and bar all tort suits against Nations.

(OOC: Non-lawyer here - could someone explain what this means, without using Legalese?)

P2(c) SERVE a summons to appear to the Attorney General or equivalent of the Nation.

And if there is no equivalent? Not all nations have court systems.

P2(d) RENDER judgements in absentia when a respondent does not appear.

So, where exactly would this committee hold its court? And is "respondent" there the person who's appealing, or the representative of the nation?

P3. OVERTURN convictions for successful appellants.

You're leaving out what are the conditions of success. What must the court find the nation did wrong for the appeal to the committee to be successful? Or does this just put the whole appeal system in the arbitrary hands of a bunch of gnomes?

P3(a) GRANT protections to appellants who face a credible threat of violence upon return to their home state.

What protections? "You and whose army" comes to mind, considering the WA is (OOC: currently anyway) not allowed to have a police force or an army or indeed anything that could enforce the individual citizens of the nation to not do anything. WA can command the nations, but if all WA laws were always obeyed by everyone everywhere, this court would have nothing to do (if I understood it right and it only affects acts against the resolutions).

P4. RETURN unsuccessful appellants to their home nation for sentencing.

I keep forgetting there can be a pause between conviction and sentencing - if there isn't, how does this bit work then? (OOC: Please read every time I use "sentence" in all of the above bits to mean "conviction". Told you I'm no lawyer, and to me they're pretty much one and the same, since they usually happen at the same time. )

STATE REQUIREMENTS

Again, clunky. Just say "REQUIRES the member nations to" - and use "nation" instead of "state", since some nations may have more than one state (OOC: and because this wording very much makes me think this whole crap is copied off of USA law somewhere).

SR1. INFORM a criminal of their right to appeal.
SR2. RESPOND to a summons to appear within 14 days

Again, appear where? And why the arbitrary time limit? And on their own? Accompanied by law enforcement from the nation they're coming from?

SR3. RELEASE the appellant to the custody of the WA for the duration of the trial.

Into what custody? The WA doesn't have and currently can't have anything resembling police or law enforcement forces. (OOC: I mean physical bodies capable of locking people up somewhere.)

STATE PROHIBITIONS

Again, "PROHIBITS member nations to" would work well. And yes, use "nation".

SP1. PLACE undue strain or pressure on an appellant or their legal counsel.
SP2. HINDER access to the appeal process.

What counts as undue strain or pressure? Is the nation allowed to ask them if they're really, really sure they want to do this?

SP3. SENTENCE before the Court has reviewed the appeal.

Now this should definitely be waaaaay up higher in there. In many cases (OOC: in RL too) sentencing happens when the conviction is decided on, so this will be a major hindrance/add extra costs to a nation's legal system (especially when appeal is denied and they have to get everyone together again for the sentencing).

If a nation is found to have violated the above, they are liable for trial of an indictable offence in contravention of international law

...if you want to give this committee the right to sue nations, you need to set it up. And if you do, you'll have an uphill battle much harder than you do now. (OOC: If you're just trying to say "nations aren't allowed to ignore this resolution", you can delete that bit, as compliance is technically mandatory. And if a nation is ignoring some resolutions already, they'll likely be ignoring this too, and nothing written in a resolution can enforce player compliance.)

DEFINITIONS

These should be before the active clauses, and all of them should have "for the purposes of this resolution" added.

1. DEFINES due process as:

1. The right to a fair trial, except when suspended under valid legislation.
2. The right to legal representation.
3. The right to appeal a decision to a higher court.

(OOC: Fixed your list code to show how I think you should be using them all the way above, instead of the D2-P2 stuff.) Isn't this already done by previous resolutions?

2. DEFINES suspension of legal rights as:
The process by which a national government unlawfully disallows the right to: a fair trial, due process, or right to representation.

In the bit above this bit you're saying fair trial can be suspended under valid legislation, yet now you say doing so is unlawful? Or is that not what you mean?

3. DEFINE admissible evidence as:

• Evidence that incriminates a government by showing a breach of due process.
• Evidence that is either first-hand or testimonial.
• Evidence that identifies the government of the nation, in part or in whole.

(OOC: Another way to use list code.) Wait, the only evidence you allow is evidence against the nation showing that they've not been fair to the criminal? Surely you should also allow evidence to show what the defendant did in the first place? Or is this whole court set up only to decide if the nation gave the criminal a fair trial? You keep changing the focus with these contradictory claims.

ARTICLE IV - ENACTMENT

The World Assembly hereby creates the World Assembly Appellate Court, which shall use judicial review and testimony to determine if an individual has been wrongfully or illegally convicted, based on International law, so long as it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a breach has or is likely to have occurred.

This should be in the preamble/where you create the committee. You're just wasting space saying it again. Also, all international law or just WA resolutions?

Still looking for the non-committee active clauses, and I ran out of proposal to check.

OOC: Now, if I go looking for the law that sets up the federal court of appeals (or whatever it's called) in USA, how much of your text will I find having been plagiarized from it? Repeatedly using "state" instead of "nation" is what throws up the red flags for me.

[Tinfect]

(OOC: Non-lawyer here - could someone explain what this means, without using Legalese?)

OOC:
I think it means that the individual trying for an appeal cannot seek compensation from the State on the grounds that their appeal was accepted by the International Court.

And if there is no equivalent? Not all nations have court systems.

OOC:
Well, all Member States have to have something, as Fairness in Criminal Trials mandates that they be brought to trial. They may not be recognizable as a court, the way we see them RL, but they serve the same function.

As for the Attorney General bit, where none exists, your head-of-state/highest relevant individual is almost certain to be hit with a Summons, which means that your Government gets to shut down in part so that some prick with a bone to pick can appeal on the grounds that he feels mistreated.

I keep forgetting there can be a pause between conviction and sentencing - if there isn't, how does this bit work then? (OOC: Please read every time I use "sentence" in all of the above bits to mean "conviction". Told you I'm no lawyer, and to me they're pretty much one and the same, since they usually happen at the same time. )

For the record, to my knowledge, a Conviction is when the accused is confirmed through trial as having committed the crime. Sentencing is what the State does to you afterwards, things such as prison time, or execution.

STATE PROHIBITIONS

Again, "PROHIBITS member nations to" would work well. And yes, use "nation".

Please use State. I hate seeing Nation thrown into drafts because people don't seem to understand that State does not necessarily refer to the divisions of Federal States.

OOC: Now, if I go looking for the law that sets up the federal court of appeals (or whatever it's called) in USA, how much of your text will I find having been plagiarized from it? Repeatedly using "state" instead of "nation" is what throws up the red flags for me.

Okay, I know that English may not be your first language, as I remember something about Finland, but 'State' does not necessarily refer to the local government bound together by a federal government. The Term can, and should, be used when referring the Government in general.
For example, in the former usage; 'New York, is a state of the United States of America.'
And for the latter usage; 'This vehicle is the property of the State.'

[Araraukar]

OOC: Okay, I know that English may not be your first language, as I remember something about Finland, but 'State' does not necessarily refer to the local government bound together by a federal government. The Term can, and should, be used when referring the Government in general.
For example, in the former usage; 'New York, is a state of the United States of America.'
And for the latter usage; 'This vehicle is the property of the State.'

OOC: Yeah, Finnish is my first language, English is just a hobby, and I'm aware of the meaning of "state" in the way used, but still suggest using "nation". Not only to avoid confusion for nations that do have states, but also for nations that are barely nations and might not have a centralized "state". Whereas they, due to how this game works, have to be nations at the very least.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Okay, I know that English may not be your first language, as I remember something about Finland, but 'State' does not necessarily refer to the local government bound together by a federal government. The Term can, and should, be used when referring the Government in general.
For example, in the former usage; 'New York, is a state of the United States of America.'
And for the latter usage; 'This vehicle is the property of the State.'

OOC: Yeah, Finnish is my first language, English is just a hobby, and I'm aware of the meaning of "state" in the way used, but still suggest using "nation". Not only to avoid confusion for nations that do have states, but also for nations that are barely nations and might not have a centralized "state". Whereas they, due to how this game works, have to be nations at the very least.

OOC: I would say that the word 'state' refers to a unitary system. When you have a federal political structure, you have clearly defined political systems, but one that is based on a federal system. The constituent governmental units in the Bundesrepublik or the United States of America still remain unitary structures with the fundamental ability to delegate power, which then gives the supra-unitary authority power. This is rather than deriving its power from the unitary authority itself, like a local council does. Thus, a unitary government like Britain is a State in the same way Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Bavaria, are states.

[Dragonyza]

I have added a full active section.

You did? Where? Or did you forget to add it to the current draft? (OOC: This is why a changelog or previous versions in spoilers would be good.)

Nevertheless, as some people are resigned to be dinks and try and block a proposal with a GHR instead of campaigning against it when it goes in the queue, *snip*

Sorry brah, better stock up on TG stamps.

OOC: Why would I want to campaign against it? I never said I was against the proposal. I am, however, against illegal proposals slipping by to vote, hence raising a fuss about the committee-only thing. Better it being caught now than ending up being Discarded or something.

Now, let's see what this beast ate for its last meal. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel*

STRENGTH Significant

Remember that the strength is decided by the strength of the active clauses (non-committee) and the broadness of the topic. I'm not saying this is necessarily the wrong strength, it will depend on what active clauses you add for nations to do.

Description of the Act: The intent of this act is to ensure that each citizen of a WA member state may appeal a conviction to a newly created court of WA Magistrates, on the basis of corruption, presumption of guilt, state conducted tampering of judge or jury, or suspension of legal rights. An individual who is convicted of a crime may present evidence to bring forward an appeal, but is not entitled to a hearing unless the appeal is certified by the Court.

OOC: You really don't want to leave this in as "description", since it will make it look like a newbie mistake of what the "description" means on the submission form. Instead you should write that into preamble clauses.

PREAMBLE

Speaking of which, you don't really need to title your preamble.

The General Assembly,

Just make it read "The World Assembly" like normal people.

RECOGNIZES the lawful right of the World Assembly to create an international court;

If you make the above correction, this one can read "recognizes its lawful right to" or similar wording.

FURTHER recognizes the lawful right of each Nation to administer justice in differing ways;

This seems odd, considering the whole of this proposal is basically saying "we don't trust national courts to make the right choices and instead want to let the WA decide". I mean, what criminal wouldn't appeal their sentencing, especially if it being dealt with by an international committee releases them from having to pay for the proceedings? (OOC: Also, leaving an empty line between the preamble clauses makes them look neater. And you don't really need to bold the first words, since you're using capitals.)

Which reminds me, you might want to add that if the original sentence is upheld, the appealing party needs to recompensate costs to the nation it essentially sued, to prevent every single person ever convicted of anything, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, from wasting everyone's time and money with this court.

SEEKS to ensure that no citizen of any WA member nation have their legal rights removed; therefore

Correct me if I'm wrong that nothing in this proposal actually prevents that from happening. If someone has their legal rights removed (which may be against other resolutions), they'd be unlikely to be given a trial in the first place and/or be sentenced in a legal way, and thus have nothing beyond "they're not treating me like I wanted to be treated" to complain about.

The WA, by and with the advice of the General Assembly, shall enact as follows:

Just make that "Hereby", to shorten letter count.

DECLARATION
D1. CREATE the World Assembly Appellate Court.
D1.a STRIKE a Judiciary Board comprised of Justices or Magistrates versed in international law to hear accepted cases.
D2. RE-AFFIRM the importance of due process in legal proceedings.
D3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

This format is very clunky. (OOC: Do you know how to use the list code?) And in any case, what's the declaration doing here? You could just go with "CREATES the World Assembly Appellate Court". (OOC: Also, why "strike"? Why not "set up"? Strike to my mind doesn't mean setting up - I'm sure that in Legalese it does, but the majority of the voters aren't going to be lawyers.) D2. should be a preamble clause. And shouldn't D3. have something like "after exhausting appeals in the nation that sentenced them"? Or are you taking away the whole appeal process from the nations?

PROCESS

Again, no header needed, just have the "creates" clause for the committee, and these can all go under it.

P1. HEAR individual claims to appeal their convictions.

Are you having it hear individuals making claims or individual claims? Right now it's reading as the latter, but it's usually individuals that are wanting to appeal their convictions.

P2. ACCEPT appeals in order of severity where admissible evidence of wrongdoing exists, AND there is sufficient evidence of blatant state criminality in contravention of current WA legislation.

What? Does this mean the court's only going to accept (which I take to mean "take under reconsideration") cases where the defendant has broken WA laws? If yes, you need to spell it out clearer and probably include it in your FAQ (if you had one), as it changes the nature of the whole construct (OOC: and makes it much more likely to pass, due to interfering less with national law upholding).

P2(a) RESTRICT appeals to those who have exhausted every option of appeal in their home state.

This also needs to go in a FAQ. And you really should write one.

P2(b) FURTHER RESTRICT action to appeals of conviction only, and bar all tort suits against Nations.

(OOC: Non-lawyer here - could someone explain what this means, without using Legalese?)

P2(c) SERVE a summons to appear to the Attorney General or equivalent of the Nation.

And if there is no equivalent? Not all nations have court systems.

P2(d) RENDER judgements in absentia when a respondent does not appear.

So, where exactly would this committee hold its court? And is "respondent" there the person who's appealing, or the representative of the nation?

P3. OVERTURN convictions for successful appellants.

You're leaving out what are the conditions of success. What must the court find the nation did wrong for the appeal to the committee to be successful? Or does this just put the whole appeal system in the arbitrary hands of a bunch of gnomes?

P3(a) GRANT protections to appellants who face a credible threat of violence upon return to their home state.

What protections? "You and whose army" comes to mind, considering the WA is (OOC: currently anyway) not allowed to have a police force or an army or indeed anything that could enforce the individual citizens of the nation to not do anything. WA can command the nations, but if all WA laws were always obeyed by everyone everywhere, this court would have nothing to do (if I understood it right and it only affects acts against the resolutions).

P4. RETURN unsuccessful appellants to their home nation for sentencing.

I keep forgetting there can be a pause between conviction and sentencing - if there isn't, how does this bit work then? (OOC: Please read every time I use "sentence" in all of the above bits to mean "conviction". Told you I'm no lawyer, and to me they're pretty much one and the same, since they usually happen at the same time. )

STATE REQUIREMENTS

Again, clunky. Just say "REQUIRES the member nations to" - and use "nation" instead of "state", since some nations may have more than one state (OOC: and because this wording very much makes me think this whole crap is copied off of USA law somewhere).

SR1. INFORM a criminal of their right to appeal.
SR2. RESPOND to a summons to appear within 14 days

Again, appear where? And why the arbitrary time limit? And on their own? Accompanied by law enforcement from the nation they're coming from?

SR3. RELEASE the appellant to the custody of the WA for the duration of the trial.

Into what custody? The WA doesn't have and currently can't have anything resembling police or law enforcement forces. (OOC: I mean physical bodies capable of locking people up somewhere.)

STATE PROHIBITIONS

Again, "PROHIBITS member nations to" would work well. And yes, use "nation".

SP1. PLACE undue strain or pressure on an appellant or their legal counsel.
SP2. HINDER access to the appeal process.

What counts as undue strain or pressure? Is the nation allowed to ask them if they're really, really sure they want to do this?

SP3. SENTENCE before the Court has reviewed the appeal.

Now this should definitely be waaaaay up higher in there. In many cases (OOC: in RL too) sentencing happens when the conviction is decided on, so this will be a major hindrance/add extra costs to a nation's legal system (especially when appeal is denied and they have to get everyone together again for the sentencing).

If a nation is found to have violated the above, they are liable for trial of an indictable offence in contravention of international law

...if you want to give this committee the right to sue nations, you need to set it up. And if you do, you'll have an uphill battle much harder than you do now. (OOC: If you're just trying to say "nations aren't allowed to ignore this resolution", you can delete that bit, as compliance is technically mandatory. And if a nation is ignoring some resolutions already, they'll likely be ignoring this too, and nothing written in a resolution can enforce player compliance.)

DEFINITIONS

These should be before the active clauses, and all of them should have "for the purposes of this resolution" added.

1. DEFINES due process as:

1. The right to a fair trial, except when suspended under valid legislation.
2. The right to legal representation.
3. The right to appeal a decision to a higher court.

(OOC: Fixed your list code to show how I think you should be using them all the way above, instead of the D2-P2 stuff.) Isn't this already done by previous resolutions?

2. DEFINES suspension of legal rights as:
The process by which a national government unlawfully disallows the right to: a fair trial, due process, or right to representation.

In the bit above this bit you're saying fair trial can be suspended under valid legislation, yet now you say doing so is unlawful? Or is that not what you mean?

3. DEFINE admissible evidence as:

• Evidence that incriminates a government by showing a breach of due process.
• Evidence that is either first-hand or testimonial.
• Evidence that identifies the government of the nation, in part or in whole.

(OOC: Another way to use list code.) Wait, the only evidence you allow is evidence against the nation showing that they've not been fair to the criminal? Surely you should also allow evidence to show what the defendant did in the first place? Or is this whole court set up only to decide if the nation gave the criminal a fair trial? You keep changing the focus with these contradictory claims.

ARTICLE IV - ENACTMENT

The World Assembly hereby creates the World Assembly Appellate Court, which shall use judicial review and testimony to determine if an individual has been wrongfully or illegally convicted, based on International law, so long as it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a breach has or is likely to have occurred.

This should be in the preamble/where you create the committee. You're just wasting space saying it again. Also, all international law or just WA resolutions?

Still looking for the non-committee active clauses, and I ran out of proposal to check.

OOC: Now, if I go looking for the law that sets up the federal court of appeals (or whatever it's called) in USA, how much of your text will I find having been plagiarized from it? Repeatedly using "state" instead of "nation" is what throws up the red flags for me.

I'm on my phone at the moment so don't have time to write full replies to your 'feelings', but if you're going to accuse me of plagiarism, then prove it.

Might be hard considering I'm a UK citizen living in Canada and have no interest in US law. Not only that - real laws aren't written in this format mate.

Unless you have proof, don't accuse people of theft. That's called defamation, FYI.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Spoiler long posts please. #notamod

[Railana]

[You've just defeated your own motion - per Wikipedia, criminal jurisdiction means the power of courts to hear a case brought against a person by a state, in which the state is accusing a person of a crime.

An appeals court hears cases of an individual accusing a state of wrongdoing or committing an error of law.

See the difference now?

((OOC: The appellate court is hearing "a case brought against a person by a state in which the state is accusing a person of a crime". They are not hearing it de novo, but it's still the same criminal case. They're ultimately making the same decision as the lower court - should the defendant be (remain) convicted or exonerated? - based on at least some of the evidence presented in the lower court.))

[Separatist Peoples]

Nevertheless, as some people are resigned to be dinks and try and block a proposal with a GHR instead of campaigning against it when it goes in the queue, *snip*
Sorry brah, better stock up on TG stamps.

"Fortunately, we'll happily volunteer our automatic campaigning office to counter-campaign. No stamps required. But we'll also weigh in with GHRs as needed."

I'm on my phone at the moment so don't have time to write full replies to your 'feelings', but if you're going to accuse me of plagiarism, then prove it.

Might be hard considering I'm a UK citizen living in Canada and have no interest in US law. Not only that - real laws aren't written in this format mate.

Unless you have proof, don't accuse people of theft. That's called defamation, FYI.

OOC: defamation well outside of your jurisdiction. I don't think Ara has to worry.

Considering the term "committee" in the GA rules is used to encompass any organization established under the WA authority and by WA law, even courts count as committees. Which makes this illegal on two levels. I, for one, look forward to seeing this pulled, because the current ruleset clearly covers the Contradiction and Committee-Only issues here.

[Araraukar]

I'm on my phone at the moment so don't have time to write full replies to your 'feelings', but if you're going to accuse me of plagiarism, then prove it.

OOC: Yeeees, because I toooootally made no other comments whatsoever.

Get off your high horse and reply to the points I made. Once you get back to your computer, anyway.

Might be hard considering I'm a UK citizen living in Canada and have no interest in US law. Not only that - real laws aren't written in this format mate.

In this era of internet, the laws of other nations are easy to look up. And changing a few words here and there doesn't make plagiarism not count. Do note that at no point did I actually accuse you of plagiarism. I just asked if you copied this or some of this from elsewhere. And you haven't said "no", you merely accused me of accusing you.

Unless you have proof, don't accuse people of theft. That's called defamation, FYI.

No, it's called "suspicion". Plagiarism is an offence worth of getting kicked out of the WA.