[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Mallorea and Riva]

(Image)Ruling of the Secretariat(Image)

The above proposal, as currently written, does not constitute a violation of Section 1, Article 1 of GAR #2.

This proposal does not prohibit the existence of absolute monarchies nor any other type of dictatorship, autocracy, authoritarianism, despotism, or tyranny. It may place restrictions upon such forms of government but the General Assembly is capable of chipping away at certain aspects of any given type of government.

The above is in response to a legality query which came in via a GHR.

This is a disappointing turn of events....

*lights his pipe*
Can't win 'em all. With the legality issue on this specific point settled debate should shift towards other aspects of the proposal. Thanks all.

[Sciongrad]

(Image)Ruling of the Secretariat(Image)

The above proposal, as currently written, does not constitute a violation of Section 1, Article 1 of GAR #2.

This proposal does not prohibit the existence of absolute monarchies nor any other type of dictatorship, autocracy, authoritarianism, despotism, or tyranny. It may place restrictions upon such forms of government but the General Assembly is capable of chipping away at certain aspects of any given type of government.

The above is in response to a legality query which came in via a GHR.

This is a disappointing turn of events....

OOC: I have no idea what else anyone was expecting. I'm surprised this gathered any resistance for a legality concern, of all things, in the first place. Either way, thanks to the mods for their (relatively) swift and judicious ruling!

[Sciongrad]

"Intent?" asked Lord Raekevik sceptically. "Is it Your Excellency's argument that the legitimacy of immunity from legal action, civil or criminal, is dependant on the intent behind it? Is it Your Excellency's argument that the exact same legal status should be allowed or disallowed by this proposal based on what justification the member state uses for it?"

"My argument, your Excellency, is that the rule of law exists for a purpose - that is, to prevent arbitrary rule and abuse by certain social groups towards others - and exercises of immunity that don't violate that purpose don't violate the spirit behind the rule of the law. So yes, I'm saying the intent behind different types of immunity makes some compatible with the rule of law, and some unacceptable. For example, providing diplomatic immunity exists to ensure that diplomats are protected from abuse by foreign governments, and abuse of immunity often has long lasting consequences that most reasonable nations would want to avoid. Crown immunity, on the other hand, exists solely to remind a nation that it's sovereign is above the law. This undermines the very essence behind the rule of law, even if it's largely symbolic. While I'm willing to compromise on instances where immunity exists to serve some sort of valuable function that is compatible with the rule of law, I am absolutely against anything that would even remotely suggest absolute crown immunity or special immunity for similar purposes are acceptable."

"There are many tools and practices that have useful purposes, yet are prohibited by national or international law. Is Your Excellency's argument that the legitimacy of pardons is dependant on their usefulness?"

"That's a shamelessly ridiculous argument, and you know it. Many 'useful' practices may violate international ethical or social standards, and therefore must be prohibited. Applying this to useful practices that don't violate any such standards is illogical. The legitimacy of a pardon or immunity is found not only in its use, but in whether that use violates some standard. Prima facie, tools like diplomatic immunity may seem to violate the rule of law - a more critical approach reveals that this isn't the case."

"An amnesty is not really the same as a pardon, but it is interesting that Your Excellency brought it up. Would an amnesty be permissible under this proposal?"

"Again, it's this type of nuance that makes legislating on the rule of law very difficult. Whether or not amnesty violates the rule of law is largely based on the purpose of the amnesty. To say whether or not amnesty in general violates the rule of law would be foolish because there are obvious cases where it would not violate the intent behind the rule of law, and obvious cases where it would. I'll do my best to present reasonable solutions to this problem in coming drafts."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"My argument, your Excellency, is that the rule of law exists for a purpose - that is, to prevent arbitrary rule and abuse by certain social groups towards others - and exercises of immunity that don't violate that purpose don't violate the spirit behind the rule of the law. So yes, I'm saying the intent behind different types of immunity makes some compatible with the rule of law, and some unacceptable. For example, providing diplomatic immunity exists to ensure that diplomats are protected from abuse by foreign governments, and abuse of immunity often has long lasting consequences that most reasonable nations would want to avoid. Crown immunity, on the other hand, exists solely to remind a nation that it's sovereign is above the law. This undermines the very essence behind the rule of law, even if it's largely symbolic. While I'm willing to compromise on instances where immunity exists to serve some sort of valuable function that is compatible with the rule of law, I am absolutely against anything that would even remotely suggest crown immunity or special immunity for similar purposes are acceptable."

So, you do not intend to allow the Crown its immunity?

[Kaboomlandia]

Through my non-rose-shaded glasses, this basically says "everybody gets held accountable by the law to the same extent".

Are you sure it doesn't duplicate anything?

[Sciongrad]

"My argument, your Excellency, is that the rule of law exists for a purpose - that is, to prevent arbitrary rule and abuse by certain social groups towards others - and exercises of immunity that don't violate that purpose don't violate the spirit behind the rule of the law. So yes, I'm saying the intent behind different types of immunity makes some compatible with the rule of law, and some unacceptable. For example, providing diplomatic immunity exists to ensure that diplomats are protected from abuse by foreign governments, and abuse of immunity often has long lasting consequences that most reasonable nations would want to avoid. Crown immunity, on the other hand, exists solely to remind a nation that it's sovereign is above the law. This undermines the very essence behind the rule of law, even if it's largely symbolic. While I'm willing to compromise on instances where immunity exists to serve some sort of valuable function that is compatible with the rule of law, I am absolutely against anything that would even remotely suggest crown immunity or special immunity for similar purposes are acceptable."

So, you do not intend to allow the Crown its immunity?

"Crown immunity, as a concept, undermines the purpose behind the rule of law. While it's certainly possible that a benevolent absolute monarch may choose to obey the law, the legal principle behind their immunity, whether or not they abuse it, is not acceptable."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Through my non-rose-shaded glasses, this basically says "everybody gets held accountable by the law to the same extent"

Which is how I have interpreted this as well. However, if the author seems to believe that the law is not an extension of the Royal peace, then I cannot support it any longer.

Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

—CS Lewis

[Sciongrad]

Through my non-rose-shaded glasses, this basically says "everybody gets held accountable by the law to the same extent".

Are you sure it doesn't duplicate anything?

"If you're suggesting this duplicates CoCR, it doesn't. CoCR requires equality before the law, while the rule of law establishes that individuals and institutions are accountable to the law. By that logic, GAR#22 is illegal because normal citizens and diplomats are not treated equally under the law."

[Sciongrad]

Through my non-rose-shaded glasses, this basically says "everybody gets held accountable by the law to the same extent"

Which is how I have interpreted this as well. However, if the author seems to believe that the law is not an extension of the Royal peace, then I cannot support it any longer.

Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

—CS Lewis

"You'll have to clarify your issue with the proposed legislation. For clarity's sake, I'll say this: this in no way inhibits absolute monarchs from being recognized as the source of the law. It merely requires that they, too, are held accountable under it."

[Imperium Anglorum]

'The source of the law cannot account to itself. The King-Emperor', trumpets sound, the delegation stops speaking, 'God Saves the King' plays, five minutes later, 'is immutably the centre of the legal system. It is against his god-given right and the constitutional histories of our nation'.

[Sciongrad]

'The source of the law cannot account to itself. The King-Emperor', trumpets sound, the delegation stops speaking, 'God Saves the King' plays, five minutes later, 'is immutably the centre of the legal system. It is against his god-given right and the constitutional histories of our nation'.

"Then I'm afraid we're fundamentally opposed on the issue. I regret that we cannot count on your Excellency's support, but we will not make any accommodations.

I must say, I continue to be shocked at how controversial basic issues like the rule of law continue to become in this august assembly."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Irl, many countries use a similar concept to Crown immunity. The United States uses it, as does the UK, and many other countries. The courts are created by the state for the protection of its own subjects, and hence, the courts have no power to compel its creator to its created institution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_immunity

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Maybe you should stick to uncontroversial issues, like legalising sex-selective third trimester abortion.

"As to the proposal our support means we're not best placed to offer anything particularly useful, but "and/or" constructions should be avoided. There's also a bit of a disconnect between the preamble - which wants to protect "individuals" - and the operative section - which applies to all persons, institutions, and the state itself.

"Good luck! Happy to see this being drafted again."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Unibot III]

1. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation.

What about minors? Or the mentally ill? Some nations also might be flexible to the enforcement of laws related to poverty to avoid starvation or the criminalisation of poverty. Other nations may try some people in a separate cultural-legal system that's more sensitive to their needs as a cultural (and potentially disadvantaged) minority.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

1. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation.

What about minors? Or the mentally ill? Some nations also might be flexible to the enforcement of laws related to poverty to avoid starvation or the criminalisation of poverty. Other nations may try some people in a separate cultural-legal system that's more sensitive to their needs as a cultural (and potentially disadvantaged) minority.

I'm sorry, but is the law, not the law? Oh wait, now we need to make special "provisions" because Bigtopians feel they are a minority, and are disadvantaged, so we must give them their own court system? Quite simply the law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally.

[Sciongrad]

What about minors? Or the mentally ill? Some nations also might be flexible to the enforcement of laws related to poverty to avoid starvation or the criminalisation of poverty. Other nations may try some people in a separate cultural-legal system that's more sensitive to their needs as a cultural (and potentially disadvantaged) minority.

I'm sorry, but is the law, not the law? Oh wait, now we need to make special "provisions" because Bigtopians feel they are a minority, and are disadvantaged, so we must give them their own court system? Quite simply the law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally.

"I think the ambassador from Unibot was referring to laws that don't account for legitimate exceptions. Although I'm not necessarily sure the draft precludes making such exceptions. It merely states that everyone must be equally accountable to the law, not that laws must apply to everyone. Although if you do feeling the wording is too ambiguous, I'll gladly hear any suggested revisions."

[Druzhinin Imperium]

"It seems like equality and fair treatment does not apply to the treatment of other nations in the WA." The Emperor says in a slightly annoyed tone as he slowly shakes his head. "As already stated before this violates the Sovereigns immunity, luckily by law I am above the law. I wonder how that interaction would work in my nation but I digress." He covers his mouth and clears his throat.

"I, the Emperor of the Druzhinin Imperium, disagree with this proposal. And it saddens me that democracy is considered more equal than monarchy by some people."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It seems like equality and fair treatment does not apply to the treatment of other nations in the WA." The Emperor says in a slightly annoyed tone as he slowly shakes his head. "As already stated before this violates the Sovereigns immunity, luckily by law I am above the law. I wonder how that interaction would work in my nation but I digress." He covers his mouth and clears his throat.

"I, the Emperor of the Druzhinin Imperium, disagree with this proposal. And it saddens me that democracy is considered more equal than monarchy by some people."

"I'm not sure why a monarch would bother making laws he was just going to break anyways. Don't break your own laws and you won't have a problem, buddy."

[Sciongrad]

I'm sorry, but is the law, not the law? Oh wait, now we need to make special "provisions" because Bigtopians feel they are a minority, and are disadvantaged, so we must give them their own court system? Quite simply the law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally.

"I think the ambassador from Unibot was referring to laws that don't account for legitimate exceptions. Although I'm not necessarily sure the draft precludes making such exceptions. It merely states that everyone must be equally accountable to the law, not that laws must apply to everyone. Although if you do feeling the wording is too ambiguous, I'll gladly hear any suggested revisions."

OOC: I'm going to clarify this language. I reread this and even I wasn't convinced by it.

Other suggestions would be nice!

Note, I haven't made any edits in some time. If you've already suggested something and don't see it in the draft, and I haven't said otherwise, I'll make the appropriate changes in the near future.

[Kaboomlandia]

I guess this now acts as a follow-up to NPWL?

[Abazhaka]

What about military? they have different precedents to follow, under martial law, than civilians. under your idea military would either have to relax their discipline system that has worked for centuries,or subjugate civilians to martial law. you should add a clause clarifying whether or not the military can be held to a different set of laws due to their jobs.

[Separatist Peoples]

What about military? they have different precedents to follow, under martial law, than civilians. under your idea military would either have to relax their discipline system that has worked for centuries,or subjugate civilians to martial law. you should add a clause clarifying whether or not the military can be held to a different set of laws due to their jobs.

"Military personnel would fall under their Uniform Code of Military Justice should they breach military law, and would be expected to be treated equally under that code. Civilians, not being a part of any UCMJ, would not generally under a military statute, and therefore would be prosecuted under a civilian authority, where they would be expected to recover equal treatment under the law. I'm not sure there's an issue here."

[Abazhaka]

okay, my mistake. when I first read over it it sounded like it was making it so everyone was accountable to the same set of laws, but I now see that presumption was incorrect.

[Sciongrad]

"I've made the following change to the draft, but would appreciate further input on it before moving forward:"

1. Declares that all persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation, excepting instances where compelling and practical purposes necessitate good faith exceptions, such as diplomatic immunity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Again.

OOC: In real life, many countries use a similar concept to Crown immunity. The United States uses it, as does the UK, and many other countries. The courts are created by the state for the protection of its own subjects, and hence, the courts have no power to compel its creator to its created institution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_immunity