NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Sovereign Justice Accord

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20781
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:07 pm

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote: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:
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote: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."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Sancta Romana Ecclesia
Envoy
 
Posts: 293
Founded: Aug 04, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:28 pm

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.
Paulus Asteorra

An Enlightened and the Guru of Diplomacy of Karma

Expressed opinions are my own and not Karma's, unless otherwise noted.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:18 am

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.
Last edited by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle on Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:39 am

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.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:02 pm

OOC: Any feedback is still welcome. If this receives no further feedback, I will submit in a couple of days or so.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15255
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:05 pm

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote: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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:47 am

Araraukar wrote:
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote: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.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9700
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:18 am

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.

Author: 1 SC and 36 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 534
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:59 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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)?
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:30 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:20 am

OOC: I made some final adjustments. I will now submit it just to test legality, you are still free to give any feedback.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2642
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:12 am

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.
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.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Comfed
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 200
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:14 am

Everything is fine except for the part where court decisions are not optional :p
All in all, it’s a good proposal, I think it’s ready to submit.
This signature space available for lease.
From The North Pacific. Join our forums, apply for citizenship, join our discord, the executive staff, and the North Pacific Army
Reploid Productions wrote:Dear gods, Nationstates has officially been around long enough to spark generation arguments. "You kids and your Discords too lazy to make forum accounts! In MY day we only had IRC and regional forums and WE LIKED IT!"
Raiders deserve to be commended for taking potentially active nations from dead regions. Prove me wrong.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9700
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:26 pm

Bananaistan wrote: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.

The New Nordic Union wrote: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.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 36 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 136
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:05 am

Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Everlasting Empire, Kenmoria

Advertisement

Remove ads