NationStates

"-its called a bargaining position," Bell says, leaning towards an unhappy-looking intern and not realizing the mic was on. "I can give up the clause in exchange for consideration from important voting blocs' support."

He turns towards the mic, "Howdy, folks. Take a gander."

Int’l Service of Process
Regulation | Legal Reform

---

Observing the importance of legal procedure in both criminal and civil laws;

Discerning the importance of the service of process in a procedural framework designed to prevent manipulation of a court system as a tool for state oppression;

Recognizing the inherent right of a state to establish its own jurisdictional procedure for its domestic court systems, yet

Appreciating the necessity of international procedure in an increasingly globalized world;

The World Assembly hereby establishes the following:

1. Service of process is defined as the procedure by which a party to legal action gives notice of the initialization of legal action to another party, so as to enable that party to respond to the proceeding before the judicial body.

2. Registered agent and registered office is an individual or entity, respectively, designated to receive service of process notices on behalf of a business entity so as to make service of process effective.

3. Member states shall allow the service of process from other member states upon persons within their jurisdiction, provided it contains, at minimum:


a. The name and jurisdiction of the court and the parties;
b. The name of the recipient party
c. The name and address of the plaintiff's attorney and, if allowed by the initiating party’s jurisdiction, the name of the plaintiff;
d. A copy of the complaint which contains, at minimum, the charges and the role of the named recipient in the case;
e. The time within which the recipient must appear and respond;
f. A notification to the recipient party if a failure to appear and respond will result in a default judgment for relief; and
g. The signature and seal of an officer of the court from the initiating party’s jurisdiction.

4. Member states must allow service of process if the method by which it is sent is reasonable. A method is reasonable if it is the same or substantially similar to the method used by the host nation for the same or similar purposes.

5. Where service of process cannot be accomplished without the aid of an agent of a court, member states must either:


a. Allow agents of a foreign court entry into their nation and provide sufficient assistance to allow the agent to serve process upon recipient party, or
b. Dispatch an agent of their own court to serve process upon the recipient party on the foreign jurisdiction’s behalf.

6. Member states may require foreign court agents to bear the cost of their own travel and service, but may not demand excessive compensation from the foreign jurisdiction for the costs of serving process where the foreign agents were barred entry pursuant to subparagraph 5.b.

7. Member states may require that foreign service of process efforts comport with their own jurisdictional requirements where such requirements do not conflict with or frustrate the purpose of service of process and comport with international law.

8. Member states must ensure that all business associations and entities reasonably likely to be subject to international liability maintain a registered agent or office and publicly promulgate the contact information for such agents and offices, or otherwise ensure that officers of a court can identify and serve process on those entities.

9. No provisions herein shall be construed as to require member states submit to extradition requirements or the adjudication of foreign entities, except where required by international law, nor shall be construed to apply to the jurisdictions of nonmember states.

10. Bans abortions, nuclear weapons, bodily sovereignty, national sovereignty, and weaponized cats.

"Lets preempt a few questions I anticipate:"

Q: This undermines my sovereignty! I won't give up my citizens to foreign barbarians!
A: That is not a question.

Q: Does this undermine my sovereignty? Will I have to give up my citizens to foreign barbarians?
A: No. Service of process is just a method of notification. While it might be imprudent, accepting the service of process doesn't equate to arrest, admittance of guilt, or even admittance of jurisdiction. Most courts have a method by which an individual, who believes the court lacks jurisdiction, can so answer without availing themselves of that jurisdiction.

Q: How is this Furtherment of Democracy?
A: Due process notice rights are a tool states can use to oppress or punish individuals. Protection from this is a political right, and therefore belongs in FoD. While national treaties can limit the ability of states to do this across borders, a lack of notice can leave a expatriated person unaware of the danger of returning to that jurisdiction.

Q: My nation doesn't use post. Does this apply?
A: GAR#73.

Q: I love this! How do I reward you for your excellent writing?
A: Tip jar is at the foot of the podium.

Fairburn: Ambassador Bell, our nation reserves the right to weaponise members of the species Felis catus at our own discretion. Opposed.

OOC: So basically, it guarantees the ability to serve papers and lawsuits across borders. Lawyers without borders. A force to be feared.

I would be more happy if, in section 2, for the words "from other member states" there were substituted "from the World Assembly and other member states". I would also prefer the use of the actual list tag and the removal of section 8. I am very concerned about housecats, which, as you will recall from the Housecat Memorandum, are "military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats".

There is also a super seekrit™ proposal which I would like to invisi-quorum after something of this sort passes. Message me on Discord.

(Ari reads, smiles, nods, then frowns at the last clause.)

Separatist Peoples wrote:8. Bans abortions, nuclear weapons, bodily sovereignty, national sovereignty, and weaponized cats.

ARI: Erm. Ambassador Bell, please, pardon us for asking, but... what have you been smoking? (Wad Ahume whispers.) Ah, and, how much does it cost?

Steph listens politely, nods, and gets a skeptical look on her face.

"One more for your Eff-Ey-Cue, there - 'Doesn't this promote litigation tourism? How is it Furtherment of Democracy to make it easier and/or more legitimate to sue people in the strictest - that is, the most litigiously favorable - possible national jurisdiction?' I can think of any number of international pariahs who would drool at the chance to establish judgments against the journalists and reporters who discovered their misdeeds; suing Lyrical authors under the notorious Marche Noirian libel regime is quite the thing of late. Wouldn't this lay groundwork for a hideous multinational court regime under which the most restrictive possible interpretation of the various rights of international law is enforced by civil judgment throughout the entire WA, even in more enlightened - uh, I mean permissive, districts?"

Iksana frowns. "Litigation tourism, now that's an alarming phrase. As is "multinational court regimen." I agree with Ambassador Zakalwe's concerns, and would to request that a sentence specifically forbidding litigation tourism, or at least allowing individual member states to forbid that, can be added to clause 7 along with the extradition stuff."

Separatist Peoples wrote:4. Where service of process cannot be accomplished through post, member states must either:

a. Allow agents of a foreign court entry into their nation and provide sufficient assistance to allow the agent to serve process upon recipient party, or
b. Dispatch an agent of their own court to serve process upon the recipient party on the foreign jurisdiction’s behalf.

We're opposed to this section. We don't believe member states should be forced to bear the costs of foreign legal systems, especially when those costs pertain to civil cases. Some member states have populations who are quite litigious, and this proposal could impose substantial and unreasonable burdens on neighboring member states where large numbers of expatriates live.

A large plant in a plant pot with wheels, which had been dormant in one corner of the room for quite some time, shook itself slightly to get rid of the dust that had gathered on its fronds meanwhile, and then spoke. Its voice was raspy, but the words were understandable:

"How would this proposal affect a nation like myself, which has no courts or lawyers, or really national soil that doesn't count as personal space¹? Also, weaponization of cats is forbidden, but not weaponization of spiders, right? Additionally, you forgot to add international federalism to the ban list."

OOC: An attorney or two may have mysteriously gone missing when trying to enter PPU soil uninvited... Or, alternatively, they may now be living the good life on some tropical island somewhere, lying on the sunny beach, sipping a cocktail.

How would this effect nations that do not have process servers and do not allow other nations process servers into their nation?

As the Imperial Delegation filed in, Feren broke from the group briefly, rushed over to the Podium occupied by Bell, and placed a rectangular coin into the jar at its base before returning to the rest of the delegation.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Furtherment of Democracy
[...]
Q: How is this Furtherment of Democracy?
A: Due process notice rights are a tool states can use to oppress or punish individuals. Protection from this is a political right, and therefore belongs in FoD. While national treaties can limit the ability of states to do this across borders, a lack of notice can leave a expatriated person unaware of the danger of returning to that jurisdiction.

Seretis opens the Imperial Statement, for once, "The Imperium does not see how the expansion of litigious rights has, anything whatsoever to do with Democracy; unless the Civil Courts of the Confederate Dominion utilize democratic vote as a means of determining liability. We also do not find the argument presented convincing in the slightest; this resolution only appears to apply to legal actions initiated between individuals or non-state organizations, in which case this is by no means a political right, rather a civil one."

Separatist Peoples wrote:8. Bans abortions, nuclear weapons, bodily sovereignty, national sovereignty, and weaponized cats.

"Given that this clause is both illegal and, to be quite 'frank', silly, I assume it will not be included within the version submitted to the Secretariat?

In any case, we see little of significant objection within this draft. The Imperium can offer its support, dependent on the condition that the lack of any legal requirement of extradition or delivery to foreign courts, beyond that which is already required by extant legislation, be retained in future drafts."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: Ambassador Bell, our nation reserves the right to weaponise members of the species Felis catus at our own discretion. Opposed.

"Barbarians! Orcs! Other insults that sound suspiciously like low-Charisma races and classes from Dungeons and Dragons! Kobalds!"

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:(Ari reads, smiles, nods, then frowns at the last clause.)

Separatist Peoples wrote:8. Bans abortions, nuclear weapons, bodily sovereignty, national sovereignty, and weaponized cats.

ARI: Erm. Ambassador Bell, please, pardon us for asking, but... what have you been smoking? (Wad Ahume whispers.) Ah, and, how much does it cost?

"I'm high on life, ambassador. Also, my brownie at lunch time tasted a little heady," Bell says, while his intern looks guilty.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Steph listens politely, nods, and gets a skeptical look on her face.

"One more for your Eff-Ey-Cue, there - 'Doesn't this promote litigation tourism? How is it Furtherment of Democracy to make it easier and/or more legitimate to sue people in the strictest - that is, the most litigiously favorable - possible national jurisdiction?' I can think of any number of international pariahs who would drool at the chance to establish judgments against the journalists and reporters who discovered their misdeeds; suing Lyrical authors under the notorious Marche Noirian libel regime is quite the thing of late. Wouldn't this lay groundwork for a hideous multinational court regime under which the most restrictive possible interpretation of the various rights of international law is enforced by civil judgment throughout the entire WA, even in more enlightened - uh, I mean permissive, districts?"

"Foreign Service of Process doesn't establish jurisdiction in personem, it merely notifies the individual of the proceedings of legal action against them in a jurisdiction the claimant feels has jurisdiction. That court could then as easily throw it out, or the respondent can argue lack of jurisdiction. The premise here is that the actual cause of the case was something over which there was jurisdiction, and the respondant has since relocated. I don't think there would create any jurisdiction hunting from this, merely a more efficient notification system."

Essu Beti wrote:Iksana frowns. "Litigation tourism, now that's an alarming phrase. As is "multinational court regimen." I agree with Ambassador Zakalwe's concerns, and would to request that a sentence specifically forbidding litigation tourism, or at least allowing individual member states to forbid that, can be added to clause 7 along with the extradition stuff."

"I just addressed that! Weren't you listening? The nerve of some people."

Christian Democrats wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:4. Where service of process cannot be accomplished through post, member states must either:

a. Allow agents of a foreign court entry into their nation and provide sufficient assistance to allow the agent to serve process upon recipient party, or
b. Dispatch an agent of their own court to serve process upon the recipient party on the foreign jurisdiction’s behalf.

We're opposed to this section. We don't believe member states should be forced to bear the costs of foreign legal systems, especially when those costs pertain to civil cases. Some member states have populations who are quite litigious, and this proposal could impose substantial and unreasonable burdens on neighboring member states where large numbers of expatriates live.

"Ambassador, if you read the following section, you'll see that you are only required to pay for foreign service of process when you've both barred service by post and entry of the foreign server. As far as I can see it, if you aren't willing to let them in, you shouldn't then run up the meter doing it for them. The funding scheme is intended to facilitate cooperative efforts, rather than place the burden on the host state."

Potted Plants United wrote:A large plant in a plant pot with wheels, which had been dormant in one corner of the room for quite some time, shook itself slightly to get rid of the dust that had gathered on its fronds meanwhile, and then spoke. Its voice was raspy, but the words were understandable:

"How would this proposal affect a nation like myself, which has no courts or lawyers, or really national soil that doesn't count as personal space¹? Also, weaponization of cats is forbidden, but not weaponization of spiders, right? Additionally, you forgot to add international federalism to the ban list."

OOC: An attorney or two may have mysteriously gone missing when trying to enter PPU soil uninvited... Or, alternatively, they may now be living the good life on some tropical island somewhere, lying on the sunny beach, sipping a cocktail.

"Erm...it wouldn't? If you have no effective jurisdiction, you'll never need to seek foreign service of process. And since you're a hivemind, leaving notification with any plant should do."

Jarish Inyo wrote:How would this effect nations that do not have process servers and do not allow other nations process servers into their nation?

"It transforms your nation into a care bear utopia. Your warplanes turn into ducks, you tanks shoot butterflies and confetti, and all your money goes to the poor. Your vote against is noted, ambassador."

Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave wrote:As the Imperial Delegation filed in, Feren broke from the group briefly, rushed over to the Podium occupied by Bell, and placed a rectangular coin into the jar at its base before returning to the rest of the delegation.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Furtherment of Democracy
[...]
Q: How is this Furtherment of Democracy?
A: Due process notice rights are a tool states can use to oppress or punish individuals. Protection from this is a political right, and therefore belongs in FoD. While national treaties can limit the ability of states to do this across borders, a lack of notice can leave a expatriated person unaware of the danger of returning to that jurisdiction.

Seretis opens the Imperial Statement, for once, "The Imperium does not see how the expansion of litigious rights has, anything whatsoever to do with Democracy; unless the Civil Courts of the Confederate Dominion utilize democratic vote as a means of determining liability. We also do not find the argument presented convincing in the slightest; this resolution only appears to apply to legal actions initiated between individuals or non-state organizations, in which case this is by no means a political right, rather a civil one."

"The right to be informed of state action against you, even if it is initiated by a private party as in civil court, is a check against oppression that more rightly fits into a political right rather than a civil one, which would include individual rights. All court actions, even in civil court, are enforced by the police power of the state, and one check to that is being notified of the process so it doesn't work against you in secret."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm high on life, ambassador. Also, my brownie at lunch time tasted a little heady," Bell says, while his intern looks guilty.

(While Wad Ahume types out the word "brownies" into his tablet's tasklist, Wad Ari clears his throat.)

ARI: Well. We insist that you excise clause 8, of course. (Ahume nudges him and points.) Yes, of course, we'll allow you to keep the words "bans" and "nuclear weapons" if you wish, though the Secretariat may take issue with that. Oh, and, "weaponized cats", that can stay too. Anyway, clauses 3 and 4. Can you add electronic means as a reasonable method? When you have a nation the size of ours, using the postal service for anything other than local delivery is quite inefficient. If electronic delivery, with electronic receipt, is effective and acceptable, then there is no need for the mandate in clause 4 for either our own or any foreign process servers to perform this function in person. Agreed?

"Wartime exceptions?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Jarish Inyo wrote:How would this effect nations that do not have process servers and do not allow other nations process servers into their nation?

Matthew snaps, "Since you're basically saying "I won't comply", thereby sticking two fingers up at the whole idea of this institution, could you do us all a big favour and just resign?"

Thyerata wrote:

Jarish Inyo wrote:How would this effect nations that do not have process servers and do not allow other nations process servers into their nation?

Matthew snaps, "Since you're basically saying "I won't comply", thereby sticking two fingers up at the whole idea of this institution, could you do us all a big favour and just resign?"

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Why don't you resign if you can't handle people that refuse to have others force socialist ideas on them? And don't have a problem stating so.

It's a valid question as not all judicial systems don't have process servers and don't allow foreign court officials to operate within their nation. Or have civil courts for that matter. How will foreign courts know if the summons has been delivered? Will there be ways to ensure that the summons sent through the mail will is verified delivered and before the date the court has decided the case would be heard?

Bears Armed wrote:"Wartime exceptions?"

(dream sequence, set real life, 1 July 1916.)
Haig: Serve them.
A British barrister, Berlin: (Walks into the Kaiser's palace) You've been served.
Kaiser: What?
A British barrister, Berlin: We're suing the German government for one million pounds sterling in compensation for the thousands of British subjects which the German government has murdered in France.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:"Wartime exceptions?"

(dream sequence, set real life, 1 July 1916.)
Haig: Serve them.
A British barrister, Berlin: (Walks into the Kaiser's palace) You've been served.
Kaiser: What?
A British barrister, Berlin: We're suing the German government for one million pounds sterling in compensation for the thousands of British subjects which the German government has murdered in France.

OOC: I was thinking more about a potential response to 'strategic bombing' campaigns...


_________________________________________________________________________

Artorrius watches as some of his staff set up another set of desks, chairs, and so on, next to those of his own Mission. When they've finished he walks across, and places a name-plate on that cluster's 'main' desk facing forwards.

Monito del Monte

(OOC: They're a new player's nation, moved into the IDU today, whose player has expressed interest in the GA and asked for my advice.)

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:We're opposed to this section. We don't believe member states should be forced to bear the costs of foreign legal systems, especially when those costs pertain to civil cases. Some member states have populations who are quite litigious, and this proposal could impose substantial and unreasonable burdens on neighboring member states where large numbers of expatriates live.

"Ambassador, if you read the following section, you'll see that you are only required to pay for foreign service of process when you've both barred service by post and entry of the foreign server. As far as I can see it, if you aren't willing to let them in, you shouldn't then run up the meter doing it for them. The funding scheme is intended to facilitate cooperative efforts, rather than place the burden on the host state."

This proposal, with respect to foreign servers, would require member state governments to bear the costs of admitting those individuals to the nation and the costs of "provid[ing] sufficient assistance." Processing incoming foreign travelers and providing assistance to the agents of foreign courts require the expenditure of domestic taxpayer money.

Bears Armed wrote:"Wartime exceptions?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"Most states have sovereign immunity for state actions. Those who don't are fools, and open themselves up to more serious problems than solutions. I'm not concerned it's necessary, honestly."

Christian Democrats wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ambassador, if you read the following section, you'll see that you are only required to pay for foreign service of process when you've both barred service by post and entry of the foreign server. As far as I can see it, if you aren't willing to let them in, you shouldn't then run up the meter doing it for them. The funding scheme is intended to facilitate cooperative efforts, rather than place the burden on the host state."

This proposal, with respect to foreign servers, would require member state governments to bear the costs of admitting those individuals to the nation and the costs of "provid[ing] sufficient assistance." Processing incoming foreign travelers and providing assistance to the agents of foreign courts require the expenditure of domestic taxpayer money.

"Minor expenditure. Rendering assistance is not the same thing as rolling out the red carpet. Nor either is processing them for entry any more expensive than processing a similar visa. Unless you make it expensive, of course. I'm confident that the collective benefit of improved notice outweighs minor processing costs. International cooperation doesn't always come without an associated monetary cost, and I've made a point of limiting the costs here where practicable."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Most states have sovereign immunity for state actions. Those who don't are fools, and open themselves up to more serious problems than solutions. I'm not concerned it's necessary, honestly."

OOC: Don't have time to go looking for it now, but isn't there a resolution that holds states and state employees to the laws as well? It had some exceptions, but can't remember exactly what.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Most states have sovereign immunity for state actions. Those who don't are fools, and open themselves up to more serious problems than solutions. I'm not concerned it's necessary, honestly."

OOC: Don't have time to go looking for it now, but isn't there a resolution that holds states and state employees to the laws as well? It had some exceptions, but can't remember exactly what.

Ooc: state employees acting in their capacity as employees and in the scope of their duties can be exempt from liability without violating the law. It's why cops can hit you with a nightstick without being liable for a tort, and why soldiers aren't held liable for blowing a bridge up. That's not inconsistent with the Rule of Law resolution we have. They don't get to break the law, there are just limits to penalties when they follow it and it results in an otherwise lawful harm.
Qualified immunity isn't sovereign immunity, but it's not far off.

Separatist Peoples wrote:sovereign immunity

When the courts are extensions of the monarch's God-given powers of justice, then the only person who can sue the monarch is the monarch. Logic.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Minor expenditure."

"Some member states have populations who are quite litigious."

A lot of minor expenditures add up to a major expenditure.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Don't have time to go looking for it now, but isn't there a resolution that holds states and state employees to the laws as well? It had some exceptions, but can't remember exactly what.

Ooc: state employees acting in their capacity as employees and in the scope of their duties can be exempt from liability without violating the law. It's why cops can hit you with a nightstick without being liable for a tort, and why soldiers aren't held liable for blowing a bridge up. That's not inconsistent with the Rule of Law resolution we have. They don't get to break the law, there are just limits to penalties when they follow it and it results in an otherwise lawful harm.
Qualified immunity isn't sovereign immunity, but it's not far off.

OOC: I've underlined the bit I want to draw attention to. I don't know how it works in the States, but at least here in England there is a developing body of law that says that a person may sue an organ or employee of the state (e.g. A hospital or the emergency services) in tort for negligence. For the purposes of role play, this body of law exists and applies in Thyerata given that Thytian law uses real-world English law as its basis