NATION

PASSWORD

Legality Challenge:Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4041
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Legality Challenge:Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Postby Aclion » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:14 pm

Rules broken: Honest Mistake, which as a reminder, covers "factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, and content that doesn't address the resolution."

Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction claims that "victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,"

However section 3(b) of On Universal Jurisdiction only applies to defendants if they had already received a fair trial. A trial in which the defendant was never at risk of facing justice in the first place, as described in (i) can hardly be described as fair. The claim that 3(b) prohibits retrial in this instance is therefore false, and by extension the claim that the resolution presents a barrier in victims seek justice is also false.

To paraphrase some ruling I can't be bothered to look up "double jeopardy requires that the defendant must have been in jeopardy in the first place."

Recognizing the moral depravity of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Believing that such crimes are so heinous that the international community bears a collective responsibility to bring those who are guilty of such crimes to justice,

Concerned, however, about the potential lack of accountability and abuses of power associated with granting criminal jurisdiction to an international court,

Convinced, therefore, that the best means to fulfill this responsibility is to grant individual World Assembly member states the right and obligation to prosecute such individuals,

The General Assembly,

Defines "universal jurisdiction" as the right to claim criminal jurisdiction for a crime allegedly committed by an individual, regardless of where or when the crime was allegedly committed, or the citizenship, nationality, or country of residence of that individual;

Declares that all World Assembly member states have the right to claim universal jurisdiction with respect to any act that constitutes a "crime against humanity" or a "war crime" under World Assembly legislation, or for which universal jurisdiction is implicitly or explicitly recognized under World Assembly legislation;

Requires member states to safely and fairly prosecute individuals suspected of committing an act listed in section 2 in cases where:

the individual is within the territorial jurisdiction of that member state,

the individual has not already been given a fair trial for that crime by another state, and

there is evidence which would lead a reasonably intelligent but cautious person to believe that the individual is guilty of that crime;

Directs member states to ensure that the severity of the sentence assigned to an individual following a conviction of a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution is consistent with the severity of their crime;

Strongly encourages member states to volunteer any evidence relevant to the prosecution of an individual for a crime listed in section 2 of this resolution;

Permits member states to transfer an individual subject to prosecution under section 3 of this resolution to the jurisdiction of another member state that is able and willing to safely and fairly prosecute that individual for the same alleged crime or crimes;

Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

Clarifies that nothing in this resolution grants member states the right to claim universal jurisdiction over individuals that are not currently within the member state's territorial jurisdiction;

Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution precludes the World Assembly from passing further legislation on criminal jurisdiction, international police or judicial cooperation, or extradition.

General Assembly Resolution #312 “On Universal Jurisdiction” (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

This august World Assembly,

Concerned that the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts,

Observing that section 7 of the target resolution “[f]orbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state’s claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution”,

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court,

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists from differing interpretations of section 3(c) and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and

victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as (i) even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist and (ii) section 3(b) prohibits a second trial, even when punishment is minimal to nonexistent,

Expressing its malcontent at this state of affairs, where criminality of the worst degree is not punished, where the international rules-based order is unable to deter would-be tyrants from engaging in mass murder or other heinous crimes,

Saddened at the deaths caused by the Assembly’s inability to act and the incredible injustices that the Assembly is unable to take action to right, and

Calling for the creation of an international criminal court to resolve these issues, hereby:

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.

You make now begin complaining about my tardiness in submitting this challenge in order to avoid discussing the merits of the challenge itself. In my defense it is late as I had once again made the mistake of having faith in this body and assumed it would be marked as illegal before it went to vote.
Last edited by Aclion on Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:20 pm

This challenge is similar to, though not quite the same as, the point I raised in the At Vote thread.

Aclion here argues that 3(b) does not prohibit retrial if the prosecution was a sham. I would argue that 3(b) does not prohibit retrial under any circumstance, because 3(b) is just an exception to a requirement and not a prohibition in its own right. OUJ does not contain any double jeopardy protections; it merely does not force member states to violate double jeopardy prohibitions where they exist.

To be clear, this still means that the resolution at vote is factually inaccurate; there is no sense in which the resolution's claim that "section 3(b) prohibits a second trial" is true.
Last edited by Auralia on Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:24 pm

I didn't see this when I told Auralia to file a challenge. :oops:

I posted in the thread that I don't read it that expansively. We give repeal arguments a really broad presumption. So long as there is a colorable argument, the repeal argument is good. I'd like to see some other GenSec opinions.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:27 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:I didn't see this when I told Auralia to file a challenge. :oops:

Well, Aclion and I are arguing subtly different things, I think. I would imagine that you'd prefer to consolidate both claims into a single thread, though, so unless you say otherwise I won't file a second challenge.

Separatist Peoples wrote:I posted in the thread that I don't read it that expansively. We give repeal arguments a really broad presumption. So long as there is a colorable argument, the repeal argument is good. I'd like to see some other GenSec opinions.

Indeed. I certainly think the repeal makes other questionable arguments, which I agree are not actionable, but this to me is a clear case where the repeal asserts something that is flatly untrue -- that OUJ prohibits retrials when it in fact does no such thing.
Last edited by Auralia on Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20059
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:28 am

For what it's worth, I agree that "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" has only one reasonable meaning, and that it therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule. 0/6 of an opinion.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18402
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:08 am

Challenge[s] noted. I'll take another look at this.
Oops!
Agreed. GAR #312, clause 3.b, does not prohibit re-trials as the repeal claims.
'Honest mistake'.
Illegal.

1/6
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:35 am

Wallenburg wrote:For what it's worth, I agree that "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" has only one reasonable meaning, and that it therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule. 0/6 of an opinion.

I think CD marked the proposal illegal while it was in the queue for this reason.

OUJ does prohibit the World Assembly from establishing an international court, but only if the court preempts member state jurisdiction in cases where the member state claims universal jurisdiction. This is an important condition. If the member state does not claim universal jurisdiction, then the World Assembly can prosecute. As such, I agree "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" is too broad a claim, read on its own.

With that said, the repeal does directly quote section 7 of the resolution and its arguments refer to crimes for which member states would have universal jurisdiction. As such, I think we can afford to give "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" a more charitable interpretation.

This does not change the fact that the repeal claims that OUJ prohibits retrials, and that there is no possible valid interpretation of that claim.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3309
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:50 am

Auralia's analysis of the "may not establish an international court" bit is identical to mine - I believe I saw this in the queue after CD marked it illegal, and disagreed for precisely the reasons given above. None of us, however, seem to have seen the 3(b) issue. I won't offer a public opinion on that right this second, but I think we should look hard at it.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20059
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:34 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Auralia's analysis of the "may not establish an international court" bit is identical to mine - I believe I saw this in the queue after CD marked it illegal, and disagreed for precisely the reasons given above. None of us, however, seem to have seen the 3(b) issue. I won't offer a public opinion on that right this second, but I think we should look hard at it.

I can certainly appreciate the reasoning there, but the target's effects are limited to the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The WA is still perfectly capable of establishing international courts to hear cases regarding other crimes.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2373
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Massachusetts » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:41 am

Auralia wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:For what it's worth, I agree that "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" has only one reasonable meaning, and that it therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule. 0/6 of an opinion.

I think CD marked the proposal illegal while it was in the queue for this reason.

OUJ does prohibit the World Assembly from establishing an international court, but only if the court preempts member state jurisdiction in cases where the member state claims universal jurisdiction. This is an important condition. If the member state does not claim universal jurisdiction, then the World Assembly can prosecute. As such, I agree "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" is too broad a claim, read on its own.

With that said, the repeal does directly quote section 7 of the resolution and its arguments refer to crimes for which member states would have universal jurisdiction. As such, I think we can afford to give "prohibits the Assembly from establish an international court" a more charitable interpretation.

This does not change the fact that the repeal claims that OUJ prohibits retrials, and that there is no possible valid interpretation of that claim.

I agree with both these assertions, but especially the one regarding retrials. 3b. clearly does not prohibit retrials.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

Fmr. WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

President, Right to Life
Author/Co-author: 7 GA, 2 SC resolutions

Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
Note: I don't have Discord access for now; tg me instead.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:55 am

If I'm reading the challenges correctly, it all hinges on the assertion that the sentencing after a trial is complete is the determining factor of fairness. I'm not sure I agree with this assertion. We have GAR#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, which requires that the conduct of trials must be fair. Also none of the extant resolutions which mention war crimes and crimes against humanity make any requirement regarding sentencing.

I think we can take it as a given that trials are conducted fairly. I don't think we take it as a given that because the sentence may be light we can jump to the conclusion that the trial wasn't fair.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4041
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:30 am

Bananaistan wrote:If I'm reading the challenges correctly, it all hinges on the assertion that the sentencing after a trial is complete is the determining factor of fairness. I'm not sure I agree with this assertion. We have GAR#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, which requires that the conduct of trials must be fair. Also none of the extant resolutions which mention war crimes and crimes against humanity make any requirement regarding sentencing.

I think we can take it as a given that trials are conducted fairly. I don't think we take it as a given that because the sentence may be light we can jump to the conclusion that the trial wasn't fair.

Regardless this does not address Auralia's challenge, and I believe he is correct. Ultimately it does not matter if the trial is fair or not, 3(b) is an exception to a requirement, not a prohibition as claimed in the repeal.
Last edited by Aclion on Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:05 am

Aclion wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:If I'm reading the challenges correctly, it all hinges on the assertion that the sentencing after a trial is complete is the determining factor of fairness. I'm not sure I agree with this assertion. We have GAR#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, which requires that the conduct of trials must be fair. Also none of the extant resolutions which mention war crimes and crimes against humanity make any requirement regarding sentencing.

I think we can take it as a given that trials are conducted fairly. I don't think we take it as a given that because the sentence may be light we can jump to the conclusion that the trial wasn't fair.

Regardless this does not address Auralia's challenge, and I believe he is correct. Ultimately it does not matter if the trial is fair or not, 3(b) is an exception to a requirement, not a prohibition as claimed in the repeal.


Correct, my reply you quoted did not address this aspect of the challenge. And it does seem rather open and shut. Section 3 requires member states to try when conditions a, b and c are true. This does not mean that when some or none of a, b and c are true that a member state could not also try the suspect.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:56 am

Bananaistan wrote:
Aclion wrote:Regardless this does not address Auralia's challenge, and I believe he is correct. Ultimately it does not matter if the trial is fair or not, 3(b) is an exception to a requirement, not a prohibition as claimed in the repeal.


Correct, my reply you quoted did not address this aspect of the challenge. And it does seem rather open and shut. Section 3 requires member states to try when conditions a, b and c are true. This does not mean that when some or none of a, b and c are true that a member state could not also try the suspect.



On review, I find that Auralia's argument holds water, and I'm tentatively convinced by Aclions.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:08 am

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"
Date of Decision: 3 September 2018
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 6-0
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged proposal illegal. Bananaistan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Bears Armed, Christian Democrats, Sciongrad, Separatist Peoples and Sierra Lyricalia.

The repeal claims that section 3(b) of the target prohibits a second trial where a suspect has already received a fair trial in another member state. This is incorrect. Section 3 sets out the conditions under which member states are obliged to prosecute suspects, one of the conditions being if a suspect has not already received a fair trial in another member state. The target does not prohibit prosecutions where the three conditions are not met, it renders a prosecution optional in such circumstances.

We find that this forms an honest mistake.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:36 am

Thank you for the ruling. I hope that the actual opinions do in fact follow.

The exercise has served as a good means to get the people who hold their cards close to show them all off. That should make things easier into the future.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2373
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Massachusetts » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:28 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The exercise has served as a good means to get the people who hold their cards close to show them all off. That should make things easier into the future.

This is on you. Don't deflect the matter.
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

Fmr. WA Affairs Minister, The East Pacific
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

President, Right to Life
Author/Co-author: 7 GA, 2 SC resolutions

Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
Note: I don't have Discord access for now; tg me instead.

User avatar
Aclion
Senator
 
Posts: 4041
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Aclion » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:40 pm

The suggestion that this was a play rather then a case of not paying attention is flattering.
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Knight
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8746
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:19 pm

United Massachusetts wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The exercise has served as a good means to get the people who hold their cards close to show them all off. That should make things easier into the future.

This is on you. Don't deflect the matter.

Yea, fucking duh. That doesn't change the fact that this does simplify things moving forward. A new repeal will be submitted, and it will likely pass, again. It's not like this ruling has now banned repeals of On Universal Jurisdiction into all eternity.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Thyerata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Thyerata » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:36 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:This is on you. Don't deflect the matter.

Yea, fucking duh. That doesn't change the fact that this does simplify things moving forward. A new repeal will be submitted, and it will likely pass, again. It's not like this ruling has now banned repeals of On Universal Jurisdiction into all eternity.


Unfortunately for you Sir, that is exactly what some of us would have liked this ruling to do...
From the Desk of the Honourable Matthew Merriweather Ph.D. (Law, 2040) LLM Public and International Law, 2036) LLB Law (2035) (all from Thyerata State University)
Thytian Ambassador to the World Assembly and Security Council

I'm a gay man with an LLM, mild Asperger syndrome and only one functioning eye. My IC posts may reflect this, so please be aware

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14314
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Thyerata wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yea, fucking duh. That doesn't change the fact that this does simplify things moving forward. A new repeal will be submitted, and it will likely pass, again. It's not like this ruling has now banned repeals of On Universal Jurisdiction into all eternity.


Unfortunately for you Sir, that is exactly what some of us would have liked this ruling to do...


And some of us would like to win the lottery jackpot every day for a year. And gain the power of flight. And to see the NY Giants get through a single season without being embarrassing.

Unfortunately, wanting impossible things is a condition of humanity. I don't see how it's unfortunate for IA that you want that, because that is literally never a risk to him.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:05 am

Opinion issued.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Christian Democrats, Google Adsense [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads