[BEST DRAFT YET] WA Sovereign Immunity Act

[Thyerata]

OOC: Is this basically a form of the doctrine of restrictive immunity?

*Matthew pulls a copy of the resolution towards him and starts annotating*

3. The World Assembly consents to adjudication for monetary damages against itself or its subsidiary entities or employees involving any dispute under contract law, except where:
a. The contract was avoided by the exercise of international legislative or judicial action;

Shouldn't section 3(a)) say:

the contract was voided by the exercise of internatioanl legislative or judicial action

(emphasis supplied)?

As for this...

5. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Claims as an impartial review board, and empowers it to:
a. Review all judgments against the World Assembly from national courts per this resolution in a timely manner;
b. Reject or remand any judgments from national courts:
(i) Based upon frivolous, spurious, or vexatious facts, law, or intent;
(ii) Conducted in a manifestly unjust manner with no regard for fair and just legal proceedings; or
(iii) Awarding damages not reasonably commensurate with those of similar claims against a national or sub-national government within the court’s jurisdiction;
c. Promulgate the legal rationale and empirical data upon which the Board relies when rejecting a judgment; and
d. Reconsider, at its discretion, any decisions containing material factual errors.

We object in the strongest terms to this provision. According to Section 4(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic

No Institution established in this Part may abuse its powers in such a way to subsume the powers, duties, or competences, of the other branches. Unless provided elsewhere in this Constitution, and in all circumstances, the three branches enumerated in Chapters II, III and IV of this Part exist to check and balance the powers of the other. No branch of the State may construe or exercise its powers in any way contrary to this tenet.

. Section 12 reinforces this

in accordance with the provisions of section 4(2), whereby no Federal Institution may impinge on the powers of any other, the Federal Parliament may not legislate in any way that would be to the detriment of the Federal Judiciary

Thus it is absolutely clear that no legislative body, nor its agencies, boards or subcommittees, may give directions or other instructions to the judiciary as to how they should dispose of cases. This provision is without exception. However, clause 5 in the proposal seeks to do just that - tell our judiiciary how to dispose of cases. As the Constitution also makes clear, while Thyerata recognises the binding nature of human rights and international law, this is subject to the Constitution itself, and any provisions of international law that conflict with the constitution are inapplicable in the State - see section 20(7) as follows

As the State recognises the importance of international human rights law, the Courts of the State and the Autonomous Communities, where necessary, may look to provisions of international human rights law, which shall be binding thereon save for where they conflict with this Constitution, in which case this Constitution shall take precedence.

[Separatist Peoples]

*Matthew pulls a copy of the resolution towards him and starts annotating*

3. The World Assembly consents to adjudication for monetary damages against itself or its subsidiary entities or employees involving any dispute under contract law, except where:
a. The contract was avoided by the exercise of international legislative or judicial action;

Shouldn't section 3(a)) say:

the contract was voided by the exercise of internatioanl legislative or judicial action

(emphasis supplied)?

"No. Void and voidable are different concepts, and I did not want to limit myself to only one. And voidable as verb would best be used as "avoided." Don't worry, I was careful about this part."

We object in the strongest terms to this provision. According to Section 4(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic

"Domestic law is insufficient basis upon which to object to a WA resolution."

Thus it is absolutely clear that no legislative body, nor its agencies, boards or subcommittees, may give directions or other instructions to the judiciary as to how they should dispose of cases.

"So, you have no statutory remedies of dismissal for failure to meet certain standards in bringing a case empowered by statute? That is silly.

"The rest of this isn't important. It isn't my job to find a solution between your domestic laws and my draft."

[Thyerata]

*Matthew pulls a copy of the resolution towards him and starts annotating*



Shouldn't section 3(a)) say: (emphasis supplied)?

"No. Void and voidable are different concepts, and I did not want to limit myself to only one. And voidable as verb would best be used as "avoided." Don't worry, I was careful about this part."

We object in the strongest terms to this provision. According to Section 4(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic

"Domestic law is insufficient basis upon which to object to a WA resolution."

Thus it is absolutely clear that no legislative body, nor its agencies, boards or subcommittees, may give directions or other instructions to the judiciary as to how they should dispose of cases.

"So, you have no statutory remedies of dismissal for failure to meet certain standards in bringing a case empowered by statute? That is silly.

"The rest of this isn't important. It isn't my job to find a solution between your domestic laws and my draft."

While it is true that the Constitution vests in the Parliament the ability to legislate as to the administration of justice (see section 8(3)(m)), the courts have an implied authority to promulgate rules governing their own procedures. In any event, legislation under the "justice" power usually relates to thing such as statutes of limitations that preclude the litigant from bringing a case. Because of the strong protections in the Constitution, no statute of limitations, or any legislation for that matter would say "If X, then a court must dismiss the case". Instead, such legislation would say "if X, no cases may be brought". For example, "No person may sue the Federal or Autonmous Governments for any tortious act where five years has elapsed from the date of the alleged tort", thereby implicitly precluding any suit in tort after the five year limitation period. Furthermore, where the Constitution, or any legislation, seeks to establish judicial procedure, it sets out guidelines as to the procedure that the Courts must adopt, while ultimately leaving it to them as to what the exact procedural rules are.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'll mark that down as a Nay, then."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't see any objections from domestic constitutional bases as relevant in anyway, given GA 2's provisions.