NationStates

Sovereign Justice Accord
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform

---

Whereas it is destabilising to the international system to permit suits against a member nation in the courts of another member nation, as this would

1. allow for member nations to engage in abusive suits against other and
2. imply that one nation is in a position of supremacy to the nation being sued:

And whereas sovereigns have incentives to avoid being held to justice in the status quo:

And whereas GAR 466 “World Assembly Justice Accord” creates a cohesive and robust means to try cases submitted to it and provides clear and effective measures to review decisions made therein:

Be it enacted by this august World Assembly as follows:

1. In this resolution,
   
   1. use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa,
   2. legal persons means legal persons under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and/or its members,
   3. WAJC refers to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   4. member means member nation,
   5. resolution means General Assembly resolution,
   6. IAO refers to the Independent Adjudicative Office, and
   7. WAJC courts refers to the courts established by the WAJC under section 2 of this resolution.
2. WAJC shall appoint judges to trial and appellate courts, which will hear cases in panels of one and three judges respectively.
3. No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in WAJC’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.
4. WAJC courts shall apply WA law and all other laws applicable within the relevant jurisdiction(s). Members must provide the WAJC with official translations of their laws in the WAJC’s working language.
5. WAJC must make regulations to govern the processes by which people can initiate judicial proceedings in a way that ensures that grievances can be processed and adjudicated fairly for all parties with respect to civil and criminal actions.
   
   1. If it can be shown to the IAO that those regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section, the IAO may alter or abolish them.
   2. Parties in cases before WAJC courts may retain counsel for their own representation.
6. Affected legal persons-
   
   1. may appeal against judgements of WAJC’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
   2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by WAJC’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.
7. WAJC’s courts may require a member to pay compensatory and non-compensatory damages as part of a judgement against that nation.
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.
9. All members must submit evidence requested by a WAJC court which it believes is sufficiently important. The courts of WAJC should, in deciding whether to request evidence from a member, weigh the interests of the member against the necessity of requesting the evidence.
   
   1. Members are to be permitted to file emergency motions against the production of classified documents with an appellate court of WAJC, who will have final judgement on the matter. The appellate courts may dismiss any motions that are prima facie frivolous or meant to disrupt proceedings.
   2. If a member is required to produce classified documents, WAJC’s courts will take appropriate measures to prevent the disclosure of said documents to the general public.

Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

OOC: This was authored by Imperium Anglorum and me as an alternative to the proposal I brought on sovereign immunity, still preventing abusive suits, but securing people's ability to sue foreign governments.

Are resolutions allowed to reference specific resolutions in their text? What happens if we repeal that resolution?

Radicalania wrote:Are resolutions allowed to reference specific resolutions in their text? What happens if we repeal that resolution?

You’re allowed to mention them.

Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

According to its preamble, this resolution makes it so that if our nation sues your nation, we must use international courts, and not our own courts. That was apparently a choice under previous resolutions. However, this resolution should probably reuse the “World Assembly Judiciary Committee” from GAR#466, as it already provides for what Clause 2 attempts to establish. We advise the following changes to avoid duplication:

Change 1c to read “JusComm refers to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee”.

Remove Clause 2, as we don’t need two committees to appoint judges, one is enough.

OOC: I think this resolution deals with civil law, while 466 deals with criminal law. As you can tell by my comments above, I was quite confused for a bit. To clarify the difference, I’d retitle this resolution to “Civil Justice Accord” and retitle the committee to “World Assembly Civil Tribunal” or something similar.

Flying Eagles wrote:OOC: I think this resolution deals with civil law, while 466 deals with criminal law. As you can tell by my comments above, I was quite confused for a bit. To clarify the difference, I’d retitle this resolution to “Civil Justice Accord” and retitle the committee to “World Assembly Civil Tribunal” or something similar.

That might be the case, but WAJA also covers civil law.

Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

OOC: First of all, the proposal should use the Judiciary Committee not the Justice Committee, that was an error. Now, there are two main differences between this and the WAJA. On the one hand, this proposal grants member states state immunity in the courts of other states, but only on the condition that a suit in a WA court is possible. At the same time, this proposal extends itself to violations of any law by a member state, not just WA law (which I'll make more explicit in the proposal).

Now there are duplications, but that is intentional, because that way, even if WAJA is repealed, we ensure that states can still be held accountable while they have state immunity in the courts of member states.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:On the one hand, this proposal grants member states state immunity in the courts of other states, but only on the condition that a suit in a WA court is possible.
*snip*
we ensure that states can still be held accountable while they have state immunity in the courts of member states.

OOC: ...so what exactly does this do that the existing resolution(s) doesn't do? Also, obviously nations don't have immunity in any courts, if the condition applies.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: ...so what exactly does this do that the existing resolution(s) doesn't do? Also, obviously nations don't have immunity in any courts, if the condition applies.

Venue matters.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: ...so what exactly does this do that the existing resolution(s) doesn't do? Also, obviously nations don't have immunity in any courts, if the condition applies.

Venue matters.

OOC: Yes, but the way I understood it, nations can be tried in national courts, if they COULD be tried in a WA court. Not that they'll be tried in the WA court. So, if they can be tried in national courts, they don't have an immunity of being tried in national courts. Did I miss something?

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Venue matters.

OOC: Yes, but the way I understood it, nations can be tried in national courts, if they COULD be tried in a WA court. Not that they'll be tried in the WA court. So, if they can be tried in national courts, they don't have an immunity of being tried in national courts. Did I miss something?

Section 3.

“You use ‘member nation’ in clause 3, 6 and 7, despite defining ‘member’ as the complete phrase in clause 1d. Overall, this proposal has my support.”

OP, consider changing:

(this suggestion doesn't seem to make too much sense)

OOC: I am back (finally). I addressed some of the issues above and published a new draft.

-Bumping this thread-

OOC: Bump. May "last call" if it moves to the second page without comments again.

“I have nothing to add to this; full support from my end.”

(OOC: I seem to remember there being a Unicode issue with the long-dash character used in clause 5 ‘—’ in a previous proposal; I suggest using ‘-’ instead.)

Kenmoria wrote:“I have nothing to add to this; full support from my end.”

(OOC: I seem to remember there being a Unicode issue with the long-dash character used in clause 5 ‘—’ in a previous proposal; I suggest using ‘-’ instead.)

OOC: Fixed, thank you.

We could get behind this, but it doesn't specify what lands you in this court and what law would be used. It would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried according to the laws of another nation, or even according to its own laws applied by some foreigners. Doing so would violate its sovereignty. The only acceptable laws to apply against the nation are those of WA (for its members) and international laws.

Affected legal persons-

1. may appeal against judgements of JudComm’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by JudComm’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.

Because "affected legal person" is a "legal person under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members", a member-nation itself doesn't classify as one. It is not under the jurisdiction of any member. It has jurisdiction of a member but isn't under it. It cannot even be said that it's under its own jurisdiction, as it is not limited by its own laws that can be changed by the nation. If a nation was bound by its own laws, it could never repeal any of them, which action is contradicting a previous law by making it no longer binding upon persons under its jurisdiction.
In this way sued nations are not granted a right to the appeal, which is given to the individuals suing them. This should be resolved, both parties in the case must have the same trial rights.

Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

Likewise, 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.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

OOC: First of all, the proposal should use the Judiciary Committee not the Justice Committee, that was an error. Now, there are two main differences between this and the WAJA. On the one hand, this proposal grants member states state immunity in the courts of other states, but only on the condition that a suit in a WA court is possible. At the same time, this proposal extends itself to violations of any law by a member state, not just WA law (which I'll make more explicit in the proposal)

OOC: What is "any law" to you?

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:We could get behind this, but it doesn't specify what lands you in this court and what law would be used. It would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried according to the laws of another nation, or even according to its own laws applied by some foreigners. Doing so would violate its sovereignty. The only acceptable laws to apply against the nation are those of WA (for its members) and international laws.

IC: Ambassador, let me clarify the points you have made. First of all, the proposal is clear on what lands you in this court, namely when a foreign affected legal person decides to file a civil lawsuit against a member, Secondly, I strongly disagree with you that it "would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried [...] according to its own laws applied by some foreigners". This is hardly uncommon; in fact, a court, including the courts established in this resolution, can through a process known as "choice of law" decide which laws should be applied based on the jurisdiction in which the alleged wrongdoing took place. It is important that nations abide by the laws of the jurisdictions in which they and their officials operate, be it their own or a foreign one. If a member does not want to be subject to the laws of a foreign nation, it should not operate within that nation's jurisdiction.

Because "affected legal person" is a "legal person under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members", a member-nation itself doesn't classify as one. It is not under the jurisdiction of any member. It has jurisdiction of a member but isn't under it. It cannot even be said that it's under its own jurisdiction, as it is not limited by its own laws that can be changed by the nation. If a nation was bound by its own laws, it could never repeal any of them, which action is contradicting a previous law by making it no longer binding upon persons under its jurisdiction.
In this way sued nations are not granted a right to the appeal, which is given to the individuals suing them. This should be resolved, both parties in the case must have the same trial rights.

IC: Ambassador, regardless of the truthfulness of your remarks, a member is "under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly", thus making the concerns irrelevant.

OOC: What is "any law" to you?

OOC: All laws in effect within the jurisdiction where the alleged wrongdoing took place.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:IC: Ambassador, let me clarify the points you have made. First of all, the proposal is clear on what lands you in this court, namely when a foreign affected legal person decides to file a civil lawsuit against a member,

It is clear who will go to court, Ambassador. On what grounds, it's not clear at all. As a matter of fact a "foreign affected legal person" could sue a nation without having any personal grievance against it.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:Secondly, I strongly disagree with you that it "would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried [...] according to its own laws applied by some foreigners". This is hardly uncommon; in fact, a court, including the courts established in this resolution, can through a process known as "choice of law" decide which laws should be applied based on the jurisdiction in which the alleged wrongdoing took place. It is important that nations abide by the laws of the jurisdictions in which they and their officials operate, be it their own or a foreign one. If a member does not want to be subject to the laws of a foreign nation, it should not operate within that nation's jurisdiction.

First of all, the "choice of law" should be used when addressing the grievances of an individual against a foreign individual, not an individual against the nation. Second, the process is not currently in your draft. Third, if nations can be subject to laws of other nations, why can't they be subjected to their courts in much of the same way? Your argument logically leads to that conclusion, yet the function of this resolution would be to prevent that from happening.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:

Because "affected legal person" is a "legal person under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members", a member-nation itself doesn't classify as one. It is not under the jurisdiction of any member. It has jurisdiction of a member but isn't under it. It cannot even be said that it's under its own jurisdiction, as it is not limited by its own laws that can be changed by the nation. If a nation was bound by its own laws, it could never repeal any of them, which action is contradicting a previous law by making it no longer binding upon persons under its jurisdiction.
In this way sued nations are not granted a right to the appeal, which is given to the individuals suing them. This should be resolved, both parties in the case must have the same trial rights.

IC: Ambassador, regardless of the truthfulness of your remarks, a member is "under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly", thus making the concerns irrelevant.

The "affected legal person" is defined as under the jurisdiction of WA AND that of its members. This means a legal person must be under both of these jurisdictions.

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:First of all, the "choice of law" should be used when addressing the grievances of an individual against a foreign individual, not an individual against the nation. Second, the process is not currently in your draft. Third, if nations can be subject to laws of other nations, why can't they be subjected to their courts in much of the same way? Your argument logically leads to that conclusion, yet the function of this resolution would be to prevent that from happening.

IC: Ambassador, I am not sure where you base your first point on. With regards to your second point, JudComm is tasked with establishing the exact processes, but a "choice of law" process is not just a natural part of courts like these, they would also be required in order to comply with 374. For the sake of clarifying this to you and other ambassadors, we shall consider clarifying this in a further draft. With regards to your third point, I'd point to the first clause of the preamble to explain why the venue for such civil suits is restricted to JudComm's courts.

The "affected legal person" is defined as under the jurisdiction of WA AND that of its members. This means a legal person must be under both of these jurisdictions.

OOC: Although I don't agree with that interpretation, I will change the draft to "and/or".

"The interaction of this proposal with World Assembly Justice Accord has not been resolved. Clause 3 reads:

No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in JudComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.

"This contradicts World Assembly Justice Accord's clause 4:

Declares that 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, to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

"The World Assembly Judiciary Committee handles both criminal and civil cases. It is possible that in some member states, the central government does not have jurisdiction over its subdivisions or subordinate governments, although I can't imagine any such state could sustain itself under even the slightest conflict between lesser authorities and the central state. However, it is unquestionably the case that there are member states in which the central government has such jurisdiction. In those cases, your clause 3 produces a contrary mandate. You may wish to address this before submission."

Ogenbond goes back to his papers, then adds as an afterthought, "And/or is a nonsense phrase. 'Or' functions identically, and with much greater style."

Wallenburg wrote:"The interaction of this proposal with World Assembly Justice Accord has not been resolved. Clause 3 reads:

No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in JudComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.

"This contradicts World Assembly Justice Accord's clause 4:

Declares that 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, to the extent that such legal action does not contradict the mandates of previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

"The World Assembly Judiciary Committee handles both criminal and civil cases. It is possible that in some member states, the central government does not have jurisdiction over its subdivisions or subordinate governments, although I can't imagine any such state could sustain itself under even the slightest conflict between lesser authorities and the central state. However, it is unquestionably the case that there are member states in which the central government has such jurisdiction. In those cases, your clause 3 produces a contrary mandate. You may wish to address this before submission."

Ogenbond goes back to his papers, then adds as an afterthought, "And/or is a nonsense phrase. 'Or' functions identically, and with much greater style."

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. 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.

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.

--Saint Gabriel the Archangel, patron of the ambassadors and diplomats
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii. Cardinalis Secretarius Status.