NationStates

OOC: With only 22 minutes left in the vote it's obviously too late to make a legality challenge and repeals can't claim something is contradictory to rules, in the repeal argument, but Wallenburg, would you be willing to try and repeal this (or not fight someone else doing so) to fix the issue of double jeopardy?

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: But corrupt according to whom? I think very few member nations will call themselves corrupt, and it would greatly limit the power of the GA if it could only try criminals in backwater nations, not modern one that just have a few problems. If it was the WA itself that made the decision, then it would produce an end-result almost exactly the same as the current one, where the court only overrules bad decisions.)

OOC: Bad decisions according to whom? It's not that long ago that "blasphemy" was an actual crime in most Western nations in RL. If one nation's laws have that as a crime and another's don't, then of course the nation where it's not a crime would just laugh at the attempt to sue someone for blasphemy, while the other might want to prosecute. (I know this isn't directly translatable to NSWA, just using a fairly harmless RL example.) But let's say that they took into account the fact that the foreigner that broke the anti-blasphemy laws hasn't grown up thinking it to be a crime, and just assigns a mild fine and a stern lecture.

Now if there was some international court that didn't have to care about the national laws declaring something legal or illegal, and didn't have to answer to anyone for its actions (as WA committees don't), and the person who got their faith cursed at, could decide to take the matter higher, because their own nation's courts didn't deal harshly enough (in their opinion) with the case. Then who decides if it was a bad decision?

Can something stop all sore losers from dragging the cases they lost, over to the WA court to have a second trial? And what happens if the WA court and national court disagree? The WA court isn't held accountable to anyone, whether they flip a coin to decide guilt or not.

EDIT: So, in an attempt to insert some of that much-loved (by some) realism into this whole thing, either this proposal/resolution is waaaaay too overreaching and will indeed replace national courts (and will suck up enormous amounts of money and effort) or else it realistically can only touch cases that are blatant violations of WA law remaining willfully unpunished.

Though I also wonder about the fact that some offenses may have been brought to the attention of authorities too late, and the crime has "expired" and thus the state is unable to prosecute - would the WA court have any such limits given that most resolutions don't?

OOC: There’s no contradiction issue due to the generic general anti-contradiction clause in section 4.

Kenmoria wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:And while I concede that some member nations’ legal systems might be too corrupt or ineffective to hear these cases properly and that introducing WA courts to hear cases where and when that has happened might therefore be reasonable, I (and IC the Bears, too) still consider this proposed resolution making those WA courts potentially the first resort for all relevant cases — rather than just a system that can be invoked if national courts fail to operate properly — to be an insult to the many member nations whose legal systems do work properly.

(OOC: But corrupt according to whom? I think very few member nations will call themselves corrupt, and it would greatly limit the power of the GA if it could only try criminals in backwater nations, not modern one that just have a few problems. If it was the WA itself that made the decision, then it would produce an end-result almost exactly the same as the current one, where the court only overrules bad decisions.)

OOC
Where does it say "the court only over-rules bad decisions"? It specifically sets up 'trial courts' as well as the 'appellate courts', meaning that claimants could go straight to these WA courts without having to go through the national courts first, and that is the basis on which I was objecting there.

Its not competence of the world assembly to have a supreme court of justice.

World Assembly Justice Accord was passed 11,753 votes to 3,001

(OOC: Well done Wallenburg.)

Araraukar wrote:OOC: With only 22 minutes left in the vote it's obviously too late to make a legality challenge and repeals can't claim something is contradictory to rules, in the repeal argument, but Wallenburg, would you be willing to try and repeal this (or not fight someone else doing so) to fix the issue of double jeopardy?

I disagree that "double jeopardy" is an issue here, particularly considering the WAJC consists of dispassionate law-gnomes with a greater interest in pursuing real justice rather than increasing convictions.

Wallenburg wrote:I disagree that "double jeopardy" is an issue here, particularly considering the WAJC consists of dispassionate law-gnomes with a greater interest in pursuing real justice rather than increasing convictions.

OOC: But what is "real justice"? Someone may think that getting 5 years imprisonment for raping someone is way too much time, whereas others think it's way too little, and in the opinion of both justice was not done.

Araraukar wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I disagree that "double jeopardy" is an issue here, particularly considering the WAJC consists of dispassionate law-gnomes with a greater interest in pursuing real justice rather than increasing convictions.

OOC: But what is "real justice"? Someone may think that getting 5 years imprisonment for raping someone is way too much time, whereas others think it's way too little, and in the opinion of both justice was not done.

OOC: There's a judgment call in sentencing, sure, but consider two things.

1. While narrow incarceration boundaries like 5-10 years might be questionable, the WA can safely step in for big discrepancies, like two minutes.

2. I'm fairly confident later legislation can tidy the double jeopardy thing up on the grounds of sentencing.

Separatist Peoples wrote:1. While narrow incarceration boundaries like 5-10 years might be questionable, the WA can safely step in for big discrepancies, like two minutes.

OOC: Or reduce life sentence? Overturn death sentence? Can the WA court dance willy nilly over the nations' legislation simply because someone somewhere didn't like the outcome of the national courts?

And Bears's point of the creation of trial courts, not just ones for processing appeals, really does read as though bypassing national justice systems entirely.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:1. While narrow incarceration boundaries like 5-10 years might be questionable, the WA can safely step in for big discrepancies, like two minutes.

OOC: Or reduce life sentence? Overturn death sentence? Can the WA court dance willy nilly over the nations' legislation simply because someone somewhere didn't like the outcome of the national courts?

OOC: its possible, but I think it is reasonable to expect that a court staffed by gnomes will be careful about judgments that are not clearly erroneous or an affront to justice. Real world courts manage to operate with a similarly vague directive do "do justice". While later proposals can almost certainly clarify, its not out there to roleplay a reasoned court if you don't want disaster visited upon your nation.

Or you can roleplay disaster visited upon your nation, but thats really on you.

And Bears's point of the creation of trial courts, not just ones for processing appeals, really does read as though bypassing national justice systems entirely.

OOC: It probably can, in the interest of justice. What a repeal hook! That still doesn't mean that it's scope cannot be clarified later.

OOC: I'm not sure anything can be claified later: "... to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions."

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:1. While narrow incarceration boundaries like 5-10 years might be questionable, the WA can safely step in for big discrepancies, like two minutes.

OOC: Or reduce life sentence? Overturn death sentence? Can the WA court dance willy nilly over the nations' legislation simply because someone somewhere didn't like the outcome of the national courts?

And Bears's point of the creation of trial courts, not just ones for processing appeals, really does read as though bypassing national justice systems entirely.

Enforcing WA resolutions, which are to be written into national law in all member states, doesn't "dance willy nilly over the nations' legislation". Rather the opposite. It upholds national laws where they are not being enforced by national justice systems.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I'm not sure anything can be claified later: "... to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions."

OOC: I disagree. To my reading, that means the court would obey future resolutions, not that future resolutions are blocked.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I'm not sure anything can be claified later: "... to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions."

OOC: I disagree. To my reading, that means the court would obey future resolutions, not that future resolutions are blocked.

OOC: How so? Future resolutions are not "previously passed". But it would be quite an interesting interpretation for the many resolutions which included this clause or its equivalent.

Bananaistan wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I disagree. To my reading, that means the court would obey future resolutions, not that future resolutions are blocked.

OOC: How so? Future resolutions are not "previously passed". But it would be quite an interesting interpretation for the many resolutions which included this clause or its equivalent.

Henceforward standing is less forceful than, say, extant. It specifically considers that future resolutions will come into existence and makes accommodations with the court to deal with that law. Extant requires that the law be a resolution, passed in its own right, and proposals that are not yet resolutions contradict. But henceforward standing suggests room to set up future resolutions. The degree of forcefulness in the language is pertinent to me.

Effectively then the clause refers to two sets of resolutions? One set being those that are previously passed, the other being those that will be henceforward standing, As opposed to one set of resolutions that are both previously passed and henceforward standing (which would have been my reading of that clause)?

Bananaistan wrote:Effectively then the clause refers to two sets of resolutions? One set being those that are previously passed, the other being those that will be henceforward standing, As opposed to one set of resolutions that are both previously passed and henceforward standing (which would have been my reading of that clause)?

In the latter case, what's the point of mentioning it, then? We all know (including the author) that repealed resolutions are irrelevant to subsequent law, being no longer in force. "...subject to previously passed WA resolutions," full stop, is more or less the standard format for this kind of clause, and I don't know why you'd make the add-on if it's nothing more than simple redundancy.

/$0.02

Kenmoria wrote:

HerpDeDerp wrote:Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

(OOC: Communist? It’s more globalist and internationalist than communist.)

My nation is a hermit dictatorship that calls anything and everything communist.

HerpDeDerp wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Communist? It’s more globalist and internationalist than communist.)

My nation is a hermit dictatorship that calls anything and everything communist.

"Then your nation struggles with the common political parlance, ambassador."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

HerpDeDerp wrote:Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

OOC: You will not be missed.

OOC: Was that really necessary? I made an in character post about how a crazy Kim Jong Un styled dictator was having a pissy-fit that he didn't get his way.

HerpDeDerp wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: You will not be missed.

OOC: Was that really necessary? I made an in character post about how a crazy Kim Jong Un styled dictator was having a pissy-fit that he didn't get his way.

OOC: In retrospect, I cannot figure out why it is I responded to that OOCly. Nonetheless, the community here doesn't concern itself with ragequits, IC or OOC.Its little more than emotional blackmail.

Bananaistan wrote:Effectively then the clause refers to two sets of resolutions? One set being those that are previously passed, the other being those that will be henceforward standing, As opposed to one set of resolutions that are both previously passed and henceforward standing (which would have been my reading of that clause)?

The latter is how I intended it. "Henceforward standing resolutions" means resolutions that from this point onward continue to stand.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: How so? Future resolutions are not "previously passed". But it would be quite an interesting interpretation for the many resolutions which included this clause or its equivalent.

Henceforward standing is less forceful than, say, extant. It specifically considers that future resolutions will come into existence and makes accommodations with the court to deal with that law. Extant requires that the law be a resolution, passed in its own right, and proposals that are not yet resolutions contradict. But henceforward standing suggests room to set up future resolutions. The degree of forcefulness in the language is pertinent to me.

"Henceforward" doesn't have any connotation of force or lack thereof. It's just a long word. I'm also not sure where you are getting this standard. You must consider the use of "and" here. The final clause refers to "previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions." This means that a resolution must both 1) be passed prior to this one and 2) continue to stand to meet the conditions detailed in WAJA's last clause.