[Draft] International Court.

[Old Hope]

Acknowledging that there are many issues with local prosecution, including corruption and individual preferences of judges, as well as a national attitude,
Wanting to put the judicial process in international matters under international control

the World Assembly establishes the International Court

1The International Court is the final judicial instance for breaches of international law in all member states.
2.The decisions of the International Court are binding on all other courts in all member states, and on the member states themselves.
3.Any sapient being may present a case they are involved in to the International Court.
3.1.Killing, torture, illegal imprisonment:Any sapient being may present a case directly to the International Court that involves killing, torturing or imprisoning sapient beings as charge.
4.The International Court is bound by international laws.
5.The International Court cannot accept cases presented that were already decided by local courts without the defendants consent
6.Local courts cannot decide a case that was already presented to the International Court.
7. The International Court has to decide in a reasonable timeframe.




The World Assembly mandates member states to provide the International Court with any relevant materials and witnesses the International Court requests.

Planned as strong Political Stability proposal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: The WA repealed an international court fairly recently. What makes you think it will reinstate an international court?

[Old Hope]

OOC: The WA repealed an international court fairly recently. What makes you think it will reinstate an international court?

That international court was limited to a few- very evil- criminal acts.And the resolution additionally legislated on other topics. And, of course, I hope that my arguments are convincing to those who opposed that.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't understand the scope of this court. Is it designed to try just any violations of WA law? Because die to the concept of mandatory compliance, violation of WA law would be a violation of Member state law, and could be handled in a domestic manner by domestic courts.

"Is it designed to try those that nations refuse to try, or have already tried? Because that becomes a more realistic issue with mandatory compliance, but you run into a host of problems, which the former ICC encountered. Apparently.

"This doesn't deal with miscarriages of justice. In theory, a nation could sentence a genocidal dictator to a stern finger shaking and be done, and this allows for such a punishment."

[Old Hope]

"I don't understand the scope of this court. Is it designed to try just any violations of WA law? Because die to the concept of mandatory compliance, violation of WA law would be a violation of Member state law, and could be handled in a domestic manner by domestic courts.

"Is it designed to try those that nations refuse to try, or have already tried? Because that becomes a more realistic issue with mandatory compliance, but you run into a host of problems, which the former ICC encountered. Apparently.

"This doesn't deal with miscarriages of justice. In theory, a nation could sentence a genocidal dictator to a stern finger shaking and be done, and this allows for such a punishment."

Well, no. Unless nobody complains, of course.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, no. Unless nobody complains, of course.

"How does this prevent such abuses, then? Or are you saying you intended this not to prevent manipulation and abuse?"

[Old Hope]

Well, no. Unless nobody complains, of course.

"How does this prevent such abuses, then? Or are you saying you intended this not to prevent manipulation and abuse?"

Well, if the last avaliable court sentenced the genocidial dictator to a handshake, anyone could give that case against that genocidial dictator to the International Court.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"How does this prevent such abuses, then? Or are you saying you intended this not to prevent manipulation and abuse?"

Well, if the last avaliable court sentenced the genocidial dictator to a handshake, anyone could give that case against that genocidial dictator to the International Court.

How are you getting around Preventing Multiple Trials?

Incidentally, there are two other proposals dealing with international crimes currently being drafted. Why is an "international court" a better model?

[Old Hope]

Well, if the last avaliable court sentenced the genocidial dictator to a handshake, anyone could give that case against that genocidial dictator to the International Court.

How are you getting around Preventing Multiple Trials?

Incidentally, there are two other proposals dealing with international crimes currently being drafted. Why is an "international court" a better model?

Wait, I think in the light of this, my first thought was better... I'll change the draft.
Edit: And the other drafts adress the problem you told me about, you know, the handshake? I doubt it.

[Separatist Peoples]

How are you getting around Preventing Multiple Trials?

Incidentally, there are two other proposals dealing with international crimes currently being drafted. Why is an "international court" a better model?

Wait, I think in the light of this, my first thought was better... I'll change the draft.
Edit: And the other drafts adress the problem you told me about, you know, the handshake? I doubt it.

"I told you about them, and no, they do not. It's indicative of an issue that arises from a variety of judicial systems and limited character space, but it was used as an example to demonstrate the kind of flaws your draft had. As it stands, you've now eliminated a nation's ability to prosecute violations of WA law by giving sole jurisdiction to your court. Once you've fixed that, you'll need to address how you also seem to be missing that a legal alternative, of which there can be none available according to this, is accepting the jurisdictional decision of the nation in question."

[Old Hope]

Wait, I think in the light of this, my first thought was better... I'll change the draft.
Edit: And the other drafts adress the problem you told me about, you know, the handshake? I doubt it.

"I told you about them, and no, they do not. It's indicative of an issue that arises from a variety of judicial systems and limited character space, but it was used as an example to demonstrate the kind of flaws your draft had. As it stands, you've now eliminated a nation's ability to prosecute violations of WA law by giving sole jurisdiction to your court. Once you've fixed that, you'll need to address how you also seem to be missing that a legal alternative, of which there can be none available according to this, is accepting the jurisdictional decision of the nation in question."

Why should I want to fix that?
Nevermind. Is this version any better?

[Wrapper]

Why should I want to fix that?

Wait... you'd want to have an international court prosecute all violations of international law? So, for example, every single instance where someone violates, say, the Child Pornography Ban, you'd rather have an international court prosecute them instead of national courts?

[Old Hope]

Why should I want to fix that?

Wait... you'd want to have an international court prosecute all violations of international law? So, for example, every single instance where someone violates, say, the Child Pornography Ban, you'd rather have an international court prosecute them instead of national courts?

I'd want that- but that proposal would fail. So better not.

[Separatist Peoples]

Wait... you'd want to have an international court prosecute all violations of international law? So, for example, every single instance where someone violates, say, the Child Pornography Ban, you'd rather have an international court prosecute them instead of national courts?

I'd want that- but that proposal would fail. So better not.

"That's ridiculous. That would literally murder the idea of sovereignty. With a rusty pipe. You are correct that it would never pass."

[Old Hope]

I'd want that- but that proposal would fail. So better not.

"That's ridiculous. That would literally murder the idea of sovereignty. With a rusty pipe. You are correct that it would never pass."

Yep, that would be too extreme. Would you support the current version?

[Separatist Peoples]

"That's ridiculous. That would literally murder the idea of sovereignty. With a rusty pipe. You are correct that it would never pass."

Yep, that would be too extreme. Would you support the current version?

Bell's dark-skinned face turns nearly white when he reads the new draft.

"I will not, in any way, support or abide by a law which deems the judicial system of the C.D.S.P. invalid by virtue of not being the WA's bitch," he says through clenched teeth. "Moreover, you've ruined all possible hopes for security and personal liberty by demanding members simply fork over whatever the fuck the gnomes want from us. There is no hearing by which a fair and open decision is made to open deliberations, no appeal process to rectify such a violation, and no, I repeat, no respect for the due process of national law. I wouldn't support this if it was my venerable mother!"

Bell, so disgusted with the current draft, picks up the Old Hope ambassador by the jacket, spins him like a dervish (with no small effort), and hurls him through the nearest window, right into the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool.

"My form was spot on, that time, eh, Chuckie?"

[Ainocra]

Absolutely not.

We will not have our judicial system suborned to this body.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Acknowledging that there are many issues with local prosecution, including corruption and individual preferences of judges, as well as a national national attitude,
Wanting to put the judicial process in international matters under international control

the World Assembly establishes the International Court

1The International Court is the final judicial instance for breaches of international law in all member states.
2.The decisions of the International Court are binding on all other courts in all member states, and on the member states themselves.
3.Any sapient being may present a case to the International Court if there are no other legal options left
4.The International Court is bound by international laws
5.No judicial decision of member states courts may be deemed valid and binding unless
5.1.the International Court decided over a case
5.2.no sapient being decided to bring this case to the International Court in a reasonable, manageable timeframe

The World Assembly mandates member states to provide the International Court with any materials and sapient beings the International Court requests.

Dear gods, no. While the formidable Mr. Bell is quite rightly blowing a gasket over there reacting as though this is a serious proposal, I'll go ahead and (for the sake of my health, and general rules of public decorum) assume the opposite. Really, that's for the best.

Let's look at Clause 5 - you're saying that no court in any WA member state, including five-minute hearings presided over by traffic magistrates, can make a valid ruling if Ralph Dickwagon in the peanut gallery, or his cousin Art the Barber on the other side of the planet decides to bring the case to the International Court? Words fail m-- I should say, polite words fail me.

Also you seem to be allowing the International Court to conscript citizens wholesale for any purpose it takes a fancy to. Did you perhaps mean "...any relevant materials and witnesses the International Court requests?" Because that would be way less completely goddamn ludicrous.

[Old Hope]

Dear gods, no. While the formidable Mr. Bell is quite rightly blowing a gasket over there reacting as though this is a serious proposal, I'll go ahead and (for the sake of my health, and general rules of public decorum) assume the opposite. Really, that's for the best.

Let's look at Clause 5 - you're saying that no court in any WA member state, including five-minute hearings presided over by traffic magistrates, can make a valid ruling if Ralph Dickwagon in the peanut gallery, or his cousin Art the Barber on the other side of the planet decides to bring the case to the International Court? Words fail m-- I should say, polite words fail me.

Also you seem to be allowing the International Court to conscript citizens wholesale for any purpose it takes a fancy to. Did you perhaps mean "...any relevant materials and witnesses the International Court requests?" Because that would be way less completely goddamn ludicrous.

Thank you for your help.
Would you suggest rewording/rewriting something else?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I should probably start linking this in my sig. Old Hope, do have a look, old bean. An extended, frankly long-winded analogy that I hope is helpful to ya.

[Old Hope]

Is the proposal still good, with the recent additions?

[Normlpeople]

Is the proposal still good, with the recent additions?

"Considering you have gelded and completely made worthless any nations local court system, It is absolutely not 'good'. You have a complete re-write, or scrapping, ahead of you. I would suggest you begin by identifying the issues that require this court be created. The fact that one does not currently exist, relying on national courts, is not an issue."

[Defwa]

Is the proposal still good, with the recent additions?

'Still' is perhaps not the best word to use there. It wasn't good before.
You are not prepared for the realities of authoring a proposal. Please follow the oft repeated advise of the veterans here and participate in some other debates before trying to author anything. Because as it stands you do not have a realistic idea of what makes a resolution- you keep trying to change a word here and there and hope it's going to fix it. That's not how writing works.
You're operating off a hugely flawed direction. You have yet to apply anything to signify your understanding of the power that these words would have were they made into law. Its currently so utterly terrible in destructive power that you need to burn it before it burns the world.

For the goodness and power of all the wizards, please stop.

[Old Hope]

Is the proposal still good, with the recent additions?

'Still' is perhaps not the best word to use there. It wasn't good before.
You are not prepared for the realities of authoring a proposal. Please follow the oft repeated advise of the veterans here and participate in some other debates before trying to author anything. Because as it stands you do not have a realistic idea of what makes a resolution- you keep trying to change a word here and there and hope it's going to fix it. That's not how writing works.
You're operating off a hugely flawed direction. You have yet to apply anything to signify your understanding of the power that these words would have were they made into law. Its currently so utterly terrible in destructive power that you need to burn it before it burns the world.

For the goodness and power of all the wizards, please stop.

What does make this proposal

utterly terrible in destructive power

, and what is that destructive power(which bad things would happen when this would pass)?

[Separatist Peoples]

What does make this proposal

utterly terrible in destructive power

, and what is that destructive power(which bad things would happen when this would pass)?

"It gives neary total power over national judiciary to the WA, ensuring that the WA all but replaces a large chunk of national government, while simultaneously giving the WA the authority to seize and detain at will. It's nothing short of an Internationally Federalizing Diktat, since it paralyzes any government action not approved by the WA in most countries."