[PASSED] Sovereign Justice Accord

[Eluney]

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.

OOC: Sorry but some issues are not clear to me. I am going to give a practical example:

Currently, Eluney is in a process of legal flexibility to encourage the establishment of banking and financial entities in the different cities of the country. It is understood that those institutions that want to open physical branches within the territory of Eluney will be subject to national, provincial and municipal laws and under the jurisdiction of our courts (Eluney is a federal republic) unless there is a bilateral or multilateral treaty that provides otherwise.

Now, how would this Resolution impact in the event that a foreign bank or one of its employees commits a wrongdoing within the territory of Eluney? I have no doubt that if the wrongdoing was carried out by an eluneyian national employee, he/she can be sued in the eluneyian courts. However, taking into account the definition of "legal person" and Clause 3 of the Resolution, before which court should the affected person sue in the following cases? Exclusively before the WAJC? Or also before the courts of Eluney?:

a) The wrongdoing was committed by a foreign employee of the bank.
b) The wrongdoing was committed by the bank.
c) The wrongdoing was committed by Eluney or a subdivision towards the bank.
d) The wrongdoing was committed by an employee -foreign or national- towards the bank.

I would like to be able to clear this doubt before voting on the resolution.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

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.

OOC: Sorry but some issues are not clear to me. I am going to give a practical example:

Currently, Eluney is in a process of legal flexibility to encourage the establishment of banking and financial entities in the different cities of the country. It is understood that those institutions that want to open physical branches within the territory of Eluney will be subject to national, provincial and municipal laws and under the jurisdiction of our courts (Eluney is a federal republic) unless there is a bilateral or multilateral treaty that provides otherwise.

Now, how would this Resolution impact in the event that a foreign bank or one of its employees commits a wrongdoing within the territory of Eluney? I have no doubt that if the wrongdoing was carried out by an eluneyian national employee, he/she can be sued in the eluneyian courts. However, taking into account the definition of "legal person" and Clause 3 of the Resolution, before which court should the affected person sue in the following cases? Exclusively before the WAJC? Or also before the courts of Eluney?:

a) The wrongdoing was committed by a foreign employee of the bank.
b) The wrongdoing was committed by the bank.
c) The wrongdoing was committed by Eluney or a subdivision towards the bank.
d) The wrongdoing was committed by an employee -foreign or national- towards the bank.

I would like to be able to clear this doubt before voting on the resolution.

OOC: In scenarios A, B and D, nothing changes. The alleged wrongdoing was committed not by "a member or its subdivisions", and as such this resolution would not impact it. In case C, wrongdoing by "a member or its subdivisions" (i.e. Eluney) is alleged, and the alleged victim is a foreign legal person (i.e. a foreign bank). In that case, the foreign bank may sue Eluney in one of WAJC's trial courts.

[Eluney]

OOC: Sorry but some issues are not clear to me. I am going to give a practical example:

Currently, Eluney is in a process of legal flexibility to encourage the establishment of banking and financial entities in the different cities of the country. It is understood that those institutions that want to open physical branches within the territory of Eluney will be subject to national, provincial and municipal laws and under the jurisdiction of our courts (Eluney is a federal republic) unless there is a bilateral or multilateral treaty that provides otherwise.

Now, how would this Resolution impact in the event that a foreign bank or one of its employees commits a wrongdoing within the territory of Eluney? I have no doubt that if the wrongdoing was carried out by an eluneyian national employee, he/she can be sued in the eluneyian courts. However, taking into account the definition of "legal person" and Clause 3 of the Resolution, before which court should the affected person sue in the following cases? Exclusively before the WAJC? Or also before the courts of Eluney?:

a) The wrongdoing was committed by a foreign employee of the bank.
b) The wrongdoing was committed by the bank.
c) The wrongdoing was committed by Eluney or a subdivision towards the bank.
d) The wrongdoing was committed by an employee -foreign or national- towards the bank.

I would like to be able to clear this doubt before voting on the resolution.

OOC: In scenarios A, B and D, nothing changes. The alleged wrongdoing was committed not by "a member or its subdivisions", and as such this resolution would not impact it. In case C, wrongdoing by "a member or its subdivisions" (i.e. Eluney) is alleged, and the alleged victim is a foreign legal person (i.e. a foreign bank). In that case, the foreign bank may sue Eluney in one of WAJC's trial courts.

OOC: Thank you very much for the clarification.

IC: We consider that the justification for this proposal is reasonable. This Delegation will vote in favor of it with the understanding that it will contribute to the promotion of international trade -among others-, granting greater legal security to companies -public and private- that want to invest in other nations and contribute to the development and growth of the employment in them.

Mr. Carlos Alejandro Herrera.
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Eluney to the World Assembly.

[North American Imperial State]

Sovereign Justice Accord was passed 10,994 votes to 2,799.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Congratulations, Saint Peter.)

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

(OOC: Congratulations, Saint Peter.)

OOC: Thanks!

[Honeydewistania]

(OOC: Congratulations, Saint Peter.)

OOC: Thanks!

Congrats!