[Submitted] Ban on Sovereign Immunity

[Cynthia McKinney]

Ban on Sovereign Immunity

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Cynthia McKinney

Description: DEFINES Sovereign Immunity as the doctrine that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

UNDERSTANDING that this doctrine is used by governments to shield themselves from liability and prosecution allowing politicians and government employees to disregard the laws of the nation as well as international law, violate the political sovereignty of other nations, starting wars of aggression, commit crimes against humanity, and violate individual rights.

THEREFORE, the World Assembly hereby PROHIBITS all WA member nations including but not limited to all national, state, city, and county governments within those WA nations from claiming Sovereign Immunity.

[Connopolis]

Personally, I think this is a good idea, but it could do some work. If I were you, I'd ask a mod to remove it from the WA, that way you can make some revisions.

[Connopolis]

Ban on Sovereign Immunity

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Cynthia McKinney

Edits, opinions,, and things you should remove
Description:

The following words are defined for the purpose of this resolution

Sovereign Immunity as the doctrine that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

UNDERSTANDING that this doctrine is used by governments to shield themselves from liability and prosecution, allowing politicians and government employees to disregard the laws of the nation national laws as well as international lawviolate the political sovereignty of other nations, starting wars of aggression, commit crimes against humanity, all individual governments can violate the sovereignty of other nations, regardless of whether they're government officials are granted sovereign immunity within their own country, therefore, it's out of the scope of this resolution.and violate individual rights.

ABHORRED by individual governments that abuse their power with the sole content of gaining wealth, or influence.

HORRIFIED that many governments assassinate, imprison, or deport citizens at will without punishment or retribution.

THEREFORE, the World Assembly hereby PROHIBITS all WA member nations including but not limited to all national, state, city, and countygovernments within those the WA nations from claiming Sovereign Immunity for any purpose.

This was impromptu and on short notice, but I'll be willing to revise it further later on, if you would like.

[Albert the Fourth]

It really just looks like something to oppose the Sovereign Immunity Act by Christian Democrats. It's probably easier to submit a repeal if you don't like it that much, rather than trying to create an opposing piece of legislation. However, I'm sure other WA players are more qualified to give you advice than I am.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Sovereign Immunity is inherent with GAR 2. As such we must oppose this legislation just like we oppose the counter to it by Christian Democrats. The fact of the matter is that states have the right to ignore the legal systems of other states. If those nations don't like it they can either go to war or let it go. Simple as that.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It really just looks like something to oppose the Sovereign Immunity Act by Christian Democrats. It's probably easier to submit a repeal if you don't like it that much, rather than trying to create an opposing piece of legislation. However, I'm sure other WA players are more qualified to give you advice than I am.

Repeals are more difficult to pass than original resolutions.

Sovereign Immunity is inherent with GAR 2. As such we must oppose this legislation just like we oppose the counter to it by Christian Democrats. The fact of the matter is that states have the right to ignore the legal systems of other states. If those nations don't like it they can either go to war or let it go. Simple as that.

Where does Rights and Duties enshrine sovereign immunity?

[Darenjo]

"This seems like an overreaction. I highly doubt CD's effort will pass, so I wouldn't be too worried."

- Dr. Park

[Monikian WA Mission]

Sovereign Immunity is inherent with GAR 2. As such we must oppose this legislation just like we oppose the counter to it by Christian Democrats. The fact of the matter is that states have the right to ignore the legal systems of other states. If those nations don't like it they can either go to war or let it go. Simple as that.

Where does Rights and Duties enshrine sovereign immunity?

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"As such states naturally have the right to ignore charges brought against them in foreign courts.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

"As such a state can only be sued by in the court system of an other state with its consent.

"The immunity of sovereigns is implicit in both article 1 and article 3. The fact of the matter is if nation A has a problem with nation B if they wish to do something through a court system of a third party, or in the court system of either A or B. Both parties must consent to it.

"Most states would not consent to such an absurd demand, and as such sovereign immunity while not stated explicitly is implicit within GAR 2.

"If states have problems with each other they can either go to war, or work it out diplomatically. But the fact is that both must consent to either war or diplomacy.

"One would have thought Dr. Castro that you should know this--after all you claim to have a doctorate in political science and this is something that a grammar school graduate in Monkiah understands. That you either do not or choose not to either implies that your education is worthless or you wish to destroy the sacred sovereignty of other nations for your own nation's purposes."

[Hirota]

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"As such states naturally have the right to ignore charges brought against them in foreign courts.

Not entirely. Article 1 specifies the NationState. It does not specify supranational bodies such as the WA.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

"As such a state can only be sued by in the court system of an other state with its consent.

Subject to the immunities recognised by international law. If this passes (that's a big IF) then this isn't an issue. As far as I can see, the consent is still intact - after all, they don't have to be a WA member, and the WA intervenes in internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs on a routine basis already. If

That you either do not or choose not to either implies that your education is worthless or you wish to destroy the sacred sovereignty of other nations for your own nation's purposes."

Really? Can't we just play nicely?

[Monikian WA Mission]

Not entirely. Article 1 specifies the NationState. It does not specify supranational bodies such as the WA.

"The problem with this is that the right to sue national governments which are members of the WA would require the creation of an entirely different type of resolution. Also the establishment of an international court system beyond that which is targeted to the prosecution of war criminals. Such a system is unlikely to be established by the WA.

Subject to the immunities recognised by international law. If this passes (that's a big IF) then this isn't an issue. As far as I can see, the consent is still intact - after all, they don't have to be a WA member, and the WA intervenes in internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs on a routine basis already.

"Again the concept of sovereign immunity as it applies to nation states themselves amongst nation states would still require that the WA establish some sort of agreed upon international court system--which is unlikely to ever happen. The WA does have the right to intervene in the internal and external economic political, religious and social affairs--it does so because membership in the WA is voluntary and member states can leave at any time they desire.

"The problem here is that sovereign immunity only relates to relations between nation states themselves and not between supranational organizations. The WA for example, or an international confederation outside of the WA, or a regional or supra-regional alliance.

"The point is that barring the creation of an international court system not exclusively for the prosecution of war criminals which are individual citizens of a given nation--the nations themselves cannot be prosecuted. Why is this? Because if a government does it within their own nation is automatically must be legal. As such any suit of law can only be brought forward by the state's consent. Naturally Monkiah will not consent to any law suit filed against us by any inferior foreigners.

Can't we just play nicely?

"Attempting to "play nicely" with Dr. Castro is a waste of time and our delegation's patience. Were he not Dr. Castro, perhaps someone equally stupid and equally duplicitous but more personable we might be a tad more tolerant of his existence--but not by much."

[Cenetra]

This is an interesting resolution. I have no formal opinion as of yet, but I do believe this is important enough to be put up for vote by the entire WA.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper may support this with a few minor revisions such as wording, or a few extra preambles to boost your case for the ban on Sovereign Immunity.