[DRAFT] International Appellate Court Act - Updated May 2016

[Dragonyza]

The Erefen Council votes to support this legislation.
You've got us on board.

The legislators in Dragonyza give a collective hoot.

They really are an uncivilized lot.

Thank you, the most noble Erefen Council, your support is greatly appreciated.

[Point Breeze]

This draft has taken quite a turn from the original project, which I supported. I don't feel the same anymore. I'll have a more thorough post this evening, hopefully

[Ainocra]

this creeps closer and closer to an ideological ban. I will check back tomorrow.

[Point Breeze]

Most Gracious Ambassador of Aincora,

Your comments have been noted.

The aim of this appellate court is to ensure that underhanded movements by the governments of the day for each nation cannot withhold due process from their citizens, whether it be by a writ of attainder, tainting of the jury, or any other illegal methods to secure a conviction.

The appellate court will not examine the actions of the court, per se, but the actions of the government.

Should a nation's government be found guilty of withholding due process, the matter will be turned to the International Criminal Court, and the sentence overturned.

Please, if you have any more questions, let me know.

This bill is not meant to interfere with NatSov, unless absolutely necessary.

JL/ts

This interpretation of the act being proposed is troubling and flawed. This is no longer an appellate court, it would be more accurately described as an international court with jurisdiction over cases where an individual and a national government are parties. I don't recognize the need of such an institution, and I think any realistic application of this court would be biased against national governments and serve to severely undermine national sovereignty. Nations are perfectly capable, and in many ways required, to maintain proper criminal trials and to conduct other business with efficacy and fairness.

I can see the need for an international appellate court for instances when a trial was flawed, but what you're proposing is a court of original jurisdiction that allows citizens to contest nearly any action taken by their government.

I am vehemently opposed.

[Dragonyza]

I have removed the loophole where citizens could launch torts through the WAAC, and removed the automatic investigation of Nations by the ICC.

It should be up to the ICC board to investigate any cases of illegal activity.

[Ainocra]

The right to a fair trial, except when suspended for under applicable constitutional legislation.

Illegal

Ideological ban, not every nation has a constitutional form of government.


the ambassador should put an end to this foolishness.

[Alqania]

The right to a fair trial, except when suspended for under applicable constitutional legislation.

Illegal

Ideological ban, not every nation has a constitutional form of government.


the ambassador should put an end to this foolishness.

"I would choose Contradiction of #37 as the clearest illegality there", added Lord Raekevik.

[Dragonyza]

The right to a fair trial, except when suspended for under applicable constitutional legislation.

Illegal

Ideological ban, not every nation has a constitutional form of government.


the ambassador should put an end to this foolishness.

The word 'constitutional' simply was there to indicate that it had to be legal. I have edited that word out and replaced it with 'valid'.

[Ainocra]

Now if the Ambassador would do something about the foolish parts of this idea, pretty much everything from conception till now we could move along to more important business that might actually have a chance of passing.

[Dragonyza]

Its a funny thing about opinions, really. Everyone has one.

If the Ambassador wishes to vote against the motion, he may do so.

[Ainocra]

Fleet Marshal Enta snorts loudly.

"I doubt this deeply flawed parody will come to a vote, but should it by some miracle do so then yes we shall be voting against it."

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

At the behest of Prime Minister Jack Layston, I have been instructed to voice my governments extreme objection to this. As IntFed as we are, we are going to have to play the seldomly used NatSov card on this one... The overreach of this travesty is mind boggling, to say the least. Nations possess Supreme Courts, and due process for a reason. Why does the World Assembly have to butt into how our government systems operate now? OPPOSED!

Warmest regards,

[Bears Armed]

There are so many different legal systems in place throughout the multiverse that no one court could possibly be conversant in all of them, much less competent! the paperwork alone would be a disaster.

Agreed.

[Dragonyza]

I think you have all missed the point. You're thinking of this as a normal appellate court. It isn't. It only hears cases when government corruption or wrongdoing has occurred.

[Ainocra]

If you are concerned about government corruption then I suggest you write a proposal that would deal directly with said corruption.
The nature of your replies on this proposal indicates that this court would have the power to put an entire government on trial.

Think about the logistics of just one such trial for a second.

Think in your head a second what would happen to the legitimacy of a government in the eyes of its people if every agency from the local town council of village elders all the way to the top of whatever legal system was in place were suddenly suspect.

Even attempting such a trial would grind the entire government to a halt.

The government of the Star Empire of Ainocra receives its legitimacy from the people of Ainocra, not from this assembly.

We will defend those rights to our last breath.

If corruption in government is your concern, (and in many cases it is a valid concern.) I would be happy to assist you in drafting some type of anti corruption measure.

[Elmorica]

Against. Because that's just how law here is.
If you're ethnic Elmorik or Atka, you get a fair trial.
If not, boo hoo to you.

[Point Breeze]

I think you have all missed the point. You're thinking of this as a normal appellate court. It isn't. It only hears cases when government corruption or wrongdoing has occurred.

While that may be your intent in writing this, the resolution does what it says. We can't infer its meaning from what you think it says.

[Dragonyza]

Right, let's settle this then.

In the interpretation of the Act, it states that citizens may appeal their convictions if they have admissible evidence to show that their government denied them their legal rights, up to and including due process, the right to an appeal, and the right to a trial by jury.

So, what does the act not say?

It does not allow for

Torts against a government
Frivolous suits to bar a government from carrying out its activities
Injunctions
Civil suits
Breach of contract
etc.

The act has evolved and changed since I posted it. The meaning of the act isn't what I think it is, it's how it would be legally interpreted. Unless it says, 'ALLOWING citizens to bring suits against their government', it can't happen. The appellate court is a Court of Appeal, and nothing more.

That being said, should the ICC find there to be something of interest in a WAAC case, then that falls under the ICC.

And another thing, as judicial review has been struck out, there is no need for each magistrate to be versed in every kind of law. That's like telling the ICC that they need to be versed in the laws of every Nation. They don't need to. They act independently, and have their own 'Code' (made by the mystical gnomes that appear).

[Ainocra]

well then this is by that definition a rather sweeping amendment to the powers of the ICC.

Amendments being illegal I don't think this will fly in that form.

as for interpretation we are simply going by what you yourself have said on how it would operate

Yes,

The entire government would be held accountable.

To answer your other question, should the judiciary be found accountable, the executive branch will still be charged. It would then fall on the shoulders of the government to dismiss or admonish those justices. As in most systems, the judiciary is appointed by the executive.

The type of judicial system is irrelevant, because every judicial system has a government attached (even with separation of powers).

The main respondent will always be the Attorney General.

[Dragonyza]

well then this is by that definition a rather sweeping amendment to the powers of the ICC.

Amendments being illegal I don't think this will fly in that form.

as for interpretation we are simply going by what you yourself have said on how it would operate

Yes,

The entire government would be held accountable.

To answer your other question, should the judiciary be found accountable, the executive branch will still be charged. It would then fall on the shoulders of the government to dismiss or admonish those justices. As in most systems, the judiciary is appointed by the executive.

The type of judicial system is irrelevant, because every judicial system has a government attached (even with separation of powers).

The main respondent will always be the Attorney General.

Which has since been edited out, and amended.

Also, the act doesn't technically amend anything. It makes no mention of any other act, as that would be a House of Cards violation.

Therefore, what I post as my thoughts don't comprise of the act.

[Araraukar]

Looks like it violates the committee-only rule. You're creating a committee (the court) and giving it a bunch of stuff to do, and say nations need to let it do the stuff.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Looks like it violates the committee-only rule. You're creating a committee (the court) and giving it a bunch of stuff to do, and say nations need to let it do the stuff.

OOC: I was assuming that was what "2. RE-AFFIRM the importance of due process in legal proceedings, cognizant of differing court systems" was for. It's pretty weak, but it might be enough to render it legal.

[Araraukar]

Looks like it violates the committee-only rule. You're creating a committee (the court) and giving it a bunch of stuff to do, and say nations need to let it do the stuff.

OOC: I was assuming that was what "2. RE-AFFIRM the importance of due process in legal proceedings, cognizant of differing court systems" was for. It's pretty weak, but it might be enough to render it legal.

Possibly what it's meant for, but the formatting used is idiotic making it difficult to say for sure. To me it reads currently as "The WA ... RE-AFFIRMs", which would make it preamble.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, at least there is an acceptable work around for Article 1 Clause 3. If you don't want the punishment overturned, schedule a very prompt execution.

Still shocked at the level of invasion into sovereign judicial systems this presents...I'll stand opposed.

[Chester Pearson]

Why are we still wasting valuable airtime on an illegal proposal? Scrap this shit, and let's move on to more pressing matters.......