[PASSED] Sovereign Justice Accord

[Wallenburg]

Ambassador, I see no such contradiction in the cited clauses. Let me present two possible interpretations of WAJA's 4th clause and explain why neither contradicts clause 3 of this proposal.

One could interpret clause 4 of WAJA as declaring that nations may sue - when particular criteria are met - in the courts set up by the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (hereafter "JudComm") in the WAJA.

"One could not, by your own admission, make this interpretation. World Assembly Justice Accord grants the aforementioned rights to "any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state". You yourself assert that:

I don't believe a nation can be tried under GAR#466, as it is not an entity within its own jurisdiction, it is an entity that has this jurisdiction.

"Thus showing that the protections afforded under World Assembly Justice Accord extend to non-state entities."

In that case, clause 3 of the SJA simply reaffirms this mandate, and in addition prohibits foreign affected legal persons from suing outside these JudComm courts.

"'In addition' is contradiction where it interferes with the mandates of passed resolutions, as this resolution does."

On the other hand, if we accept clause 4 as a more general mandate that persons be allowed to sure when the given criteria are met, this proposal would still not contradict it, for it only limits the venues by which suit can be brought, but in no way prevents people from using this venue to sue.

"Such limitations necessarily contradict World Assembly Justice Accord. My office's resolution does not allow the World Assembly to make amendments to it, or to install exceptions for the rights it mandates. By prohibiting individuals from bringing suits against governments under the jurisdiction of member states, you necessarily contradict the rather straightforward mandate of:

any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state may bring charges against any other entity within the jurisdiction of any member state for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law

"I have underlined the bits you seem to have overlooked. Rest assured, if this issue is not resolved prior to submission, I will have to file a motion to discard with the General Secretary Office."

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

I must agree with Wallenburgian ambassador, especially since the permission to bring a suit is given "to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions". Bringing charges (to other venue than the JudComm court) against a nation's subdivision was not forbidden by WA law at the time of GAR#466 passing, so the permission given by it extends to these suits.

OOC: You can possibly resolve that conflict by not protecting subdivisions from suits the same way you would protect nations. Or you could add "Unless permitted by a previously passed and binding resolution," before "no foreign affected legal person may" etc. That would have the effect of subdivisions being protected from suits outside of JudComm courts unless the suit happens to be about a transgression of WA law.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: I discussed this issue w/r/t the proposal's legality with Wallenburg on the WA Discord and it appeared there was a misunderstanding, as Wallenburg thought JudComm was a new commission while it is in fact the same as WAJC, both referring to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee. I will change "JudComm" to "WAJC" in any new draft to prevent further confusion. It should thus be all legal.

Any feedback is still welcome.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: I uploaded a new draft that addressed the JudComm/WAJC confusion and an issue w/r/t standing. In addition, I added a new clause that is now clause 4.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Any feedback is still welcome. If this receives no further feedback, I will submit in a couple of days or so.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Any feedback is still welcome. If this receives no further feedback, I will submit in a couple of days or so.

OOC: My eyes glaze over at the pure bureaucratic Legalese that's the entirety of the proposal, so can you sum it up in plain English, please? Also would be useful to have in plain English what is actually needed to be done by the member nations. OOCly. (I also can't read the word "tort" and not think baked goods.)

I can't even tell if the proposal makes it easier for people to sue others and makes things harder/worse for legal industry (which isn't the same as "courts", mind you), as required by the AoE.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Any feedback is still welcome. If this receives no further feedback, I will submit in a couple of days or so.

OOC: My eyes glaze over at the pure bureaucratic Legalese that's the entirety of the proposal, so can you sum it up in plain English, please? Also would be useful to have in plain English what is actually needed to be done by the member nations. OOCly. (I also can't read the word "tort" and not think baked goods.)

I can't even tell if the proposal makes it easier for people to sue others and makes things harder/worse for legal industry (which isn't the same as "courts", mind you), as required by the AoE.

OOC: In short, the proposal protects state immunity within the courts of member states, while allowing foreign legal persons to file civil suits against member states and their subdivisions in courts established by WAJC. Member states must recognise the authority of these courts, cooperate with the courts' judgements and orders, allow on duty court officials access to their country when necessary, provide the WAJC with official translations of their laws in the courts' (undefined) working language, and submit any evidence requested by WAJC courts.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A tort is a delict. I also think the first use of tort in the proposal may be incorrect, I'll take a look at it later today.

[The New Nordic Union]

A tort is a delict. I also think the first use of tort in the proposal may be incorrect, I'll take a look at it later today.

OOC (Not only for IA to consider, but a general question):

On a tangent, I have had a general problem (?) with such parlance for some time.

I know that this is an English-speaking site, and much of the WA law is heavily American/English/Common Law influenced. But while words and things like units of measurement are 'translated' ICly to fit the nation in question, does this also apply to concepts, especially legal ones with a very specific meaning? Could a nation that does not have a tort-based system even allege a tort? (Even if there exist similar concept in the nation's legal order)?

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

A tort is a delict. I also think the first use of tort in the proposal may be incorrect, I'll take a look at it later today.

OOC (Not only for IA to consider, but a general question):

On a tangent, I have had a general problem (?) with such parlance for some time.

I know that this is an English-speaking site, and much of the WA law is heavily American/English/Common Law influenced. But while words and things like units of measurement are 'translated' ICly to fit the nation in question, does this also apply to concepts, especially legal ones with a very specific meaning? Could a nation that does not have a tort-based system even allege a tort? (Even if there exist similar concept in the nation's legal order)?

OOC: I changed the wording to "wrongdoing", which should be easier to "translate" to different legal systems.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: I made some final adjustments. I will now submit it just to test legality, you are still free to give any feedback.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Section 3 is a concern IMO as regards contradiction with GAR#374. A member state X may have some form of activity in another member state Y. GAR#374 requires member state Y to properly enforce its laws etc and hold X accountable for its actions in Y and would allow injured parties in Y to take action against X, without the consent of X. Section 3 would disallow this unless X consents. IMO this is a contradiction of GAR#374.

[Comfed]

Everything is fine except for the part where court decisions are not optional
All in all, it’s a good proposal, I think it’s ready to submit.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Section 3 is a concern IMO as regards contradiction with GAR#374. A member state X may have some form of activity in another member state Y. GAR#374 requires member state Y to properly enforce its laws etc and hold X accountable for its actions in Y and would allow injured parties in Y to take action against X, without the consent of X. Section 3 would disallow this unless X consents. IMO this is a contradiction of GAR#374.

That legal entities must be held to account is not dispositive as to the venue in which they are held accountable. The jurisdictional question is separate from a choice of law question. The resolution is legal if it allows a complainant to bring actions against member states in WAJC under the law of the member nation where the cause of action arises. It does. GA 374 "Rule of Law" does not specify the specific forum in which those actions must be brought.

I know that this is an English-speaking site, and much of the WA law is heavily American/English/Common Law influenced. But while words and things like units of measurement are 'translated' ICly to fit the nation in question, does this also apply to concepts, especially legal ones with a very specific meaning? Could a nation that does not have a tort-based system even allege a tort? (Even if there exist similar concept in the nation's legal order)?

I think any legal system with the goal of producing a functioning society would have some means to redress wrongs committed against another person who was unknown to the respondent, be such wrongs caused by negligence or otherwise. Such a thing would be aptly described as a tort (or Roman law delict) regardless, I think, of how specifically that wrong is litigated or under what authority it is brought.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1600704234

[Araraukar]

A tort is a delict.
A torte is delicious.

OOC: Fixed that for you.

Voted against for IC reasons; the having to bow to decisions made by foreign (the WA) courts thing.

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby ABSTAIN from voting on this resolution due to the poor way in which it is composed. Inter alia, the manner in which 'Whereas [...]' is used here is simply bad style. Indeed, this resolution looks as if it has NOT been proofread. We are in general agreement with this resolution concerning its substance, but We object to its form, and it is for this reason that We must ABSTAIN.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

[Kenmoria]

“It is a wordy one, but legislation often needs to be in order to fulfil its policy goals. I can see no flaws with this, therefore I must appear in support.”

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby ABSTAIN from voting on this resolution due to the poor way in which it is composed. Inter alia, the manner in which 'Whereas [...]' is used here is simply bad style. Indeed, this resolution looks as if it has NOT been proofread. We are in general agreement with this resolution concerning its substance, but We object to its form, and it is for this reason that We must ABSTAIN.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

OOC: This is not an uncommon style. E.g. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge ... /4/enacted

[Imperium Anglorum]

All of these acts use "Whereas" and "And whereas".

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/2/introduction
HSBC Investment Banking Act 2002: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2002/3/introduction
National Australia Group Europe Act 2001: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2001/5/introduction
HFC Bank Act 1999: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1999/4/introduction
Lloyds TSB Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1998/5/introduction
Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/197 ... troduction
Civil List Act 1972: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/7/introduction
Game Act 1970: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/197 ... troduction
Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Act 1967: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/196 ... troduction
Wills Act 1963: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/196 ... troduction
Foreign Compensation Act 1962: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eli ... troduction
Treason Act 1814: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... troduction
Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1802: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... troduction

Maybe use of "Whereas" is just common practice.

[Heavens Reach]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby ABSTAIN from voting on this resolution due to the poor way in which it is composed. Inter alia, the manner in which 'Whereas [...]' is used here is simply bad style. Indeed, this resolution looks as if it has NOT been proofread. We are in general agreement with this resolution concerning its substance, but We object to its form, and it is for this reason that We must ABSTAIN.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

The commonly accepted use of a subordinating conjunction is an egregious enough affront to style that it overrides your support of a proposal that you completely agree with? Do laws exist for your personal linguistic satisfaction, ambassador, or for the advancement of the common good?

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby ABSTAIN from voting on this resolution due to the poor way in which it is composed. Inter alia, the manner in which 'Whereas [...]' is used here is simply bad style. Indeed, this resolution looks as if it has NOT been proofread. We are in general agreement with this resolution concerning its substance, but We object to its form, and it is for this reason that We must ABSTAIN.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

The commonly accepted use of a subordinating conjunction is an egregious enough affront to style that it overrides your support of a proposal that you completely agree with? Do laws exist for your personal linguistic satisfaction, ambassador, or for the advancement of the common good?

We stated that We were in *general* agreement (NOT complete agreement) . We find the resolution to be rather bland and uninspiring. We support a resolution governing jurisdiction as regards arbitration between two or more sovereign member nations, but We think that this particular resolution lacks the dignified air befitting an official pronouncement. It is for this reason that We must abstain. If the majority decides that this resolution meets official standards, then We will not stand in the way. Nihil obstat.

[Heavens Reach]

The commonly accepted use of a subordinating conjunction is an egregious enough affront to style that it overrides your support of a proposal that you completely agree with? Do laws exist for your personal linguistic satisfaction, ambassador, or for the advancement of the common good?

We stated that We were in *general* agreement (NOT complete agreement) . We find the resolution to be rather bland and uninspiring. We support a resolution governing jurisdiction as regards arbitration between two or more sovereign member nations, but We think that this particular resolution lacks the dignified air befitting an official pronouncement. It is for this reason that We must abstain. If the majority decides that this resolution meets official standards, then We will not stand in the way. Nihil obstat.

Respectfully, whereas the WA does not employ telepaths, we might suggest that if you have a criticism of the substance of a proposal, that you submit that, instead of praise and a note about style.

[Federation of the Astral Plane]

8. No judge serving in a WAJC court may hear cases involving a member that they are or have been a citizen of, or where they have or have had permanent residence. WAJC may, upon acceptance of a case, dispatch court officials to a locale more convenient for proceedings. Members must permit the entrance and exit of such court officials.

Our government feels there may need to be a stronger clause on the prevention of bias. Namely, there should be further clauses regarding possible financial interests judges could possibly have as well as possible cultural or political bias which can occur for judges who hold positions in non-governmental organisations which can have stakes in legal proceedings as well as the cultural relationship a judge's home country or the country in which they reside may have with a legal party of a case which is heard by such court. Furthermore, we also strongly hold that the hearing of such cases should be made on neutral fixed ground, which is not exactly stated here. The dispatching of judges to more convenient locations can be misconstrued to pander to any defendant or plaintiff, which can be again seen as bias. Whilst our government applauds the efforts of such legislation, we do believe more must be done to ensure the full impartiality of the courts to ensure the authority of which these courts have is not questioned by members for being biased.

Ambassador of the Astral Plane to the World Assembly

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

8. No judge serving in a WAJC court may hear cases involving a member that they are or have been a citizen of, or where they have or have had permanent residence. WAJC may, upon acceptance of a case, dispatch court officials to a locale more convenient for proceedings. Members must permit the entrance and exit of such court officials.

Our government feels there may need to be a stronger clause on the prevention of bias. Namely, there should be further clauses regarding possible financial interests judges could possibly have as well as possible cultural or political bias which can occur for judges who hold positions in non-governmental organisations which can have stakes in legal proceedings as well as the cultural relationship a judge's home country or the country in which they reside may have with a legal party of a case which is heard by such court. Furthermore, we also strongly hold that the hearing of such cases should be made on neutral fixed ground, which is not exactly stated here. The dispatching of judges to more convenient locations can be misconstrued to pander to any defendant or plaintiff, which can be again seen as bias. Whilst our government applauds the efforts of such legislation, we do believe more must be done to ensure the full impartiality of the courts to ensure the authority of which these courts have is not questioned by members for being biased.

Ambassador of the Astral Plane to the World Assembly

"Ambassador, with all due respect, there are limits to what can be legislated by the august Assembly. However, the WAJC has the mandate (under clause 5) to create any regulations necessary to ensure that trials are adjudicated "fairly", with IAO oversight. So any further regulation necessary would already be created."