[DRAFT] International Appellate Court Act - Updated May 2016

[Ardchoille]

Short reply on the GHR: Denied. Can't see how an International Criminal Appelate Court would pre-empt a member state's right to prosecute an individual. There has to be a prosecution so there's something to appeal to the Appelate Court about. In a criminal court, it's the accused in the dock. In an appelate court, it's the law itself in the dock. An appelate court can't act until an individual has been prosecuted, since what it has to decide on is whether the law on which the decision rests was properly applied.

That's not to say that the GHR was the only problem. Any further arguments from the floor?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't see how this can be legal in Human Rights and On Universal Jurisdiction not be legal in Human Rights. (Mind you it's more that that first ruling was silly rather than that this proposal should be ruled illegal on the same grounds.)

This proposal was last drafted almost a year and a half ago, though. It really might be worth seeing if the author is willing to reopen it for comments before proceeding.

[Kryozerkia]

I don't see how this can be legal in Human Rights and On Universal Jurisdiction not be legal in Human Rights. (Mind you it's more that that first ruling was silly rather than that this proposal should be ruled illegal on the same grounds.)

The very mild active clauses in this proposal (after we strip away definitions and the establishment clauses) point toward human rights, whereas OUJ had only two clauses concerned with human rights.The majority was about the enforcement of a nation's jurisdiction claim.

[Dragonyza]

Honestly, I'd love to hear ideas on how to make it better.

Plus, I'm just chuffed that I caused such a fracas.

[Ainocra]

OOC:

The WA only recently managed to repeal a very flawed international criminal court.
It was replaced by the Universal Jurisdiction in what was a rather contentious lead up to the vote.
Your well meaning draft hearkens back to that.

IC:

Ambassador, you seek to subjugate the justice system of every nation in this assembly to the whims of an international court.
We will not stand to have our every legal decision approved by this assembly. Such an over reach is both abhorrent and unneeded.

[Dragonyza]

As in the subject, I have re-worded some of the active clauses in the proposal.

Also - made a key change to the beginning.

An appeal can only be launched if the member state has violated WA legislation. I feel that this should allay some concerns about activist judges.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The WA only recently managed to repeal a very flawed international criminal court.
It was replaced by the Universal Jurisdiction in what was a rather contentious lead up to the vote.
Your well meaning draft hearkens back to that.

Solve that problem by passing a not-very flawed international criminal court. Don't do it the dumb way.

[Dragonyza]

The WA only recently managed to repeal a very flawed international criminal court.
It was replaced by the Universal Jurisdiction in what was a rather contentious lead up to the vote.
Your well meaning draft hearkens back to that.

Solve that problem by passing a not-very flawed international criminal court. Don't do it the dumb way.

I'm sorry, what? I don't do riddles.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Solve that problem by passing a not-very flawed international criminal court. Don't do it the dumb way.

I'm sorry, what? I don't do riddles.

I'm responding to Ainocra.

[Dragonyza]

I'm sorry, what? I don't do riddles.

I'm responding to Ainocra.

Oh! Oke-doke!

[Imperium Anglorum]

I've never liked bolding in resolutions.

However, I haven't entirely made up my mind on whether a court is better or not. I'll be back with more later.

[Tinfect]

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, tampering with the jury or judge, 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 deemed worthy of one.

"The Imperium deals with any evidence of corruption internally, as such is considered a form of greater treason. We will not have an extranational entity attempting to adjudicate our legal system."

3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

"We see no reason to do so. The Imperial Appellate Court is perfectly capable of handling any appeals of the rulings of our Criminal Courts, and has done so without fail since its creation. The sole reason such a thing may be necessary, is if a National Appellate Court is nonexistent, something that Resolution 202 has prohibited."

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.

"So the name of the Civil Overseer, and a first-hand claim from the criminal that they are innocent, are sufficient to call into question the decisions of Imperial Courts?

In any case, the Imperium is opposed, we will not have the decisions of our legal system challenged by foreigners, nor will we allow an extranational entity to supersede the authority of the Imperium in determining corruption within its divisions."

[Railana]

Short reply on the GHR: Denied. Can't see how an International Criminal Appelate Court would pre-empt a member state's right to prosecute an individual. There has to be a prosecution so there's something to appeal to the Appelate Court about. In a criminal court, it's the accused in the dock. In an appelate court, it's the law itself in the dock. An appelate court can't act until an individual has been prosecuted, since what it has to decide on is whether the law on which the decision rests was properly applied.

That's not to say that the GHR was the only problem. Any further arguments from the floor?

((OOC: I don't understand this ruling. OUJ protects a member state's right to claim criminal jurisdiction without preemption by the World Assembly, not merely the right to prosecute an individual. The creation of a World Assembly appellate court with the authority to overrule national courts is certainly a violation of that right.))

[Imperium Anglorum]

Short reply on the GHR: Denied. Can't see how an International Criminal Appelate Court would pre-empt a member state's right to prosecute an individual. There has to be a prosecution so there's something to appeal to the Appelate Court about. In a criminal court, it's the accused in the dock. In an appelate court, it's the law itself in the dock. An appelate court can't act until an individual has been prosecuted, since what it has to decide on is whether the law on which the decision rests was properly applied.

That's not to say that the GHR was the only problem. Any further arguments from the floor?

((OOC: I don't understand this ruling. OUJ protects a member state's right to claim criminal jurisdiction without preemption by the World Assembly, not merely the right to prosecute an individual. The creation of a World Assembly appellate court with the authority to overrule national courts is certainly a violation of that right.))

Exactly. It protects criminal jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction.

[Railana]

((OOC: I don't understand this ruling. OUJ protects a member state's right to claim criminal jurisdiction without preemption by the World Assembly, not merely the right to prosecute an individual. The creation of a World Assembly appellate court with the authority to overrule national courts is certainly a violation of that right.))

Exactly. It protects criminal jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction.

((OOC: I would argue that a court that hears appeals of criminal convictions has criminal jurisdiction, which is simply the right of a court to hear criminal cases. It has appellate criminal jurisdiction rather than original criminal jurisdiction, yes, but it's still a form of criminal jurisdiction.))

[Dragonyza]

Exactly. It protects criminal jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction.

((OOC: I would argue that a court that hears appeals of criminal convictions has criminal jurisdiction, which is simply the right of a court to hear criminal cases. It has appellate criminal jurisdiction rather than original criminal jurisdiction, yes, but it's still a form of criminal jurisdiction.))

I think you're getting hung up on 'criminal'. The very nature of an appeals court is such that it isn't a person on trial, rather the findings of law in the original judgement.

Further, you're not being pre-empted. It is absolutely impossible for an appeals court to preempt a criminal trial. There wouldn't be anything to appeal until the trial had run its course.

Also - I'd like to point out that since I first drafted this resolution, it has always said that an individual must have exhausted all appeals in their home state. Reason being that if a state is going to have someone wrongfully convicted they'll quash any appeals they can control.

[Railana]

((OOC: I would argue that a court that hears appeals of criminal convictions has criminal jurisdiction, which is simply the right of a court to hear criminal cases. It has appellate criminal jurisdiction rather than original criminal jurisdiction, yes, but it's still a form of criminal jurisdiction.))

I think you're getting hung up on 'criminal'. The very nature of an appeals court is such that it isn't a person on trial, rather the findings of law in the original judgement.

Further, you're not being pre-empted. It is absolutely impossible for an appeals court to preempt a criminal trial. There wouldn't be anything to appeal until the trial had run its course.

Also - I'd like to point out that since I first drafted this resolution, it has always said that an individual must have exhausted all appeals in their home state. Reason being that if a state is going to have someone wrongfully convicted they'll quash any appeals they can control.

((OOC: I think you're getting hung up on the word "appeal". An appellate court with the power to a) review the proceedings of a trial, including the state's case against a defendant and b) to quash criminal convictions based on that review clearly has criminal jurisdiction, even if it does not have original jurisdiction. Per Wikipedia, criminal jurisdiction is simply "the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a defendant of the commission of a crime."

As such, it is obvious that your appellate court preempts the criminal jurisdiction of member states. It has the authority to overturn criminal convictions, meaning it has the authority to reverse a decision made by a member state's judiciary. The authority of the member state's judiciary is subordinate to your appellate court in the context of criminal cases -- this is exactly what "preemption of criminal jurisdiction" means.

Furthermore, as the author of On Universal Jurisdiction, I can reassure you that the purpose of that resolution was in part to prevent you from doing exactly what you're trying to do -- establish a WA court with the authority to hear or review criminal cases.))

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, it can't be. The ruling at the top of this page says otherwise.

[Railana]

Well, it can't be. The ruling at the top of this page says otherwise.

((OOC: And when has that ever stopped me? )

[Dragonyza]

I think you're getting hung up on 'criminal'. The very nature of an appeals court is such that it isn't a person on trial, rather the findings of law in the original judgement.

Further, you're not being pre-empted. It is absolutely impossible for an appeals court to preempt a criminal trial. There wouldn't be anything to appeal until the trial had run its course.

Also - I'd like to point out that since I first drafted this resolution, it has always said that an individual must have exhausted all appeals in their home state. Reason being that if a state is going to have someone wrongfully convicted they'll quash any appeals they can control.

((OOC: I think you're getting hung up on the word "appeal". An appellate court with the power to a) review the proceedings of a trial, including the state's case against a defendant and b) to quash criminal convictions based on that review clearly has criminal jurisdiction, even if it does not have original jurisdiction. Per Wikipedia, criminal jurisdiction is simply "the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a defendant of the commission of a crime."

As such, it is obvious that your appellate court preempts the criminal jurisdiction of member states. It has the authority to overturn criminal convictions, meaning it has the authority to reverse a decision made by a member state's judiciary. The authority of the member state's judiciary is subordinate to your appellate court in the context of criminal cases -- this is exactly what "preemption of criminal jurisdiction" means.

Furthermore, as the author of On Universal Jurisdiction, I can reassure you that the purpose of that resolution was in part to prevent you from doing exactly what you're trying to do -- establish a WA court with the authority to hear or review criminal cases.))

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?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, it can't be. The ruling at the top of this page says otherwise.

((OOC: And when has that ever stopped me? )

You've got to close the starting paren.

[Araraukar]

So how is this not a committee-only violation?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So how is this not a committee-only violation?

3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

[Araraukar]

So how is this not a committee-only violation?

3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

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.