[Last Call] Court Integrity Act

[Old Hope]

Concerned about direct or indirect elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, do not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly forbids member states from conducting direct elections for public prosecutors or judges, and forbids member states from circumventing this act by conducting de facto direct elections for public prosecutors or judges, such as direct elections of people who are expected to pledge, or pledge, to elect a specific person, before being elected, or by issuing term limits for judges or public prosecutors other than death, inability to perform their duties properly, or legally binding criminal convictions of that judge or public prosecutor.

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no legally binding criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage via the process of sortition,

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), legally binding criminal

convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Concerned about direct or indirect elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors via the process of sortition, from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage.

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), failure to act impartially in office, criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Concerned about the adverse effects of judges and public prosecutors being subject to recall without good reasons, incentivizing judges to make judgements favourable for those who have the power of recall instead of properly applying the law,

Concerned about the adverse effects of judges being subject to the whims of the public if the public can recall judges, destabilizing the trust in reliable application of law,

The World Assembly forbids removal or demotion of judges and public prosecutors in member nations for reasons other than:
1.Permanent inability in performing their job(including death),
2.Failure to act impartially in office,
3.Getting convicted of a criminal offense,
4.Voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor,
5.Continuous inability in performing their job for a time span in excess of one ninetieth of the average life span of a sapient being in the member nation,
6. Removal due to continous inability because less than 90% of the people in that type of position, rounded down, are able to perform their job, if that judge or public prosecutor is the person in that type of position with the longest current continuous inability to perform their job.
7.Refusal to perform the usual duties expected from everyone serving in that office without valid reasons, such as being provably overworked, disabilities, or other physical or mental health problems,
8. Reaching the only retirement age applicable to judges and public prosecutors in the member nation, if this retirement age is the same for all judges and public prosecutors,

Allows member states, in addition to the exceptions above, to designate a uniform maximum timespan someone can serve as public prosecutor in that member nation,

Clarifies that promotion of judges or public prosecutors is allowed with the consent of that judge or public prosecutor,

And clarifies that member state may not enforce any contract forcing or coercing a judge, or a public prosecutor, to resign or accept promotion, except for the reasons 1-8 of this resolution.

Political Stability. Mild.

Constructive feedback is welcome

OOC:especially about the strength(Mild or significant?)

[Grays Harbor]

I fail to see how elections can be tainting of judges or prosecutors. Appointments can be just as, if not more in many cases, politically motivated than open elections. I believe this is something best left for individual nations to determine, not a one-size-fits-nobody Resolution.

[Picairn]

Political appointments are just as messy as direct elections, just look at the US as an example.

Anything that involves politics will always be messy.

[Old Hope]

Political appointments are just as messy as direct elections, just look at the US as an example.

Anything that involves politics will always be messy.

Good call, changed.

[Araraukar]

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no legally binding criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage via the process of sortition,

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), legally binding criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Political Stability. Strong.

OOC: I look at this draft and feel like you don't know what half the words you're using, mean. Or that punctuation matters. Or that grammar exists.

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

About direct what?

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

Grammar. Also, what does this have anything to do with anything?

mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law

So via lottery? And not allowed to choose the ones most suitable for the job? Like pople who have more than "minimum competency for law"? Or even allowed to restrict it to actual citizens of the nation?

having no legally binding criminal convictions

What do you imagine a non-legally binding criminal conviction is? Do you understand what criminal conviction means? It's not some contract that can or can not be legally binding. Do you understand what "legally binding" means? It's not the same as "legal".

and passing a security check on possible espionage via the process of sortition,

So what is "espionage via the process of sortition"? Do you know that "sortition" means "lottery"? So are you spying on someone via the process of lottery, or are you selected randomly for security checks? How would random selection for security checks make spies less likely to be selected as judges or prosecutors?

And what does espionage of all things have anything to do with anything? Do you know what espionage means?

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), legally binding criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Ignoring the nonsense about legally binding convictions, why are you banning the removal from office of, say, someone who has horrible racist attitudes, calls all blue-eyed people devil's spawns to their face during court sessions, is biased against them in court decisions and intentionally bungles their cases so that any appeals take so long to process that they end up innocently staying in prison for years if not decades, simply because that particular judge hates blue eyes? None of it might cross over to actual criminal actions, but it would be grounds for kicking them out of the office for incompetence and obvious bias (judges especially are supposed to be impartial) against certain category of people.

Why do you want to encourage corruption???

EDIT: Also I think that the strength is way off.

[Old Hope]

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no legally binding criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage via the process of sortition,

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), legally binding criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Political Stability. Strong.

OOC: I look at this draft and feel like you don't know what half the words you're using, mean. Or that punctuation matters. Or that grammar exists.

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

About direct what?

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

Grammar. Also, what does this have anything to do with anything?

mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law

So via lottery? And not allowed to choose the ones most suitable for the job? Like pople who have more than "minimum competency for law"? Or even allowed to restrict it to actual citizens of the nation?

having no legally binding criminal convictions

What do you imagine a non-legally binding criminal conviction is? Do you understand what criminal conviction means? It's not some contract that can or can not be legally binding. Do you understand what "legally binding" means? It's not the same as "legal".

and passing a security check on possible espionage via the process of sortition,

So what is "espionage via the process of sortition"? Do you know that "sortition" means "lottery"? So are you spying on someone via the process of lottery, or are you selected randomly for security checks? How would random selection for security checks make spies less likely to be selected as judges or prosecutors?

And what does espionage of all things have anything to do with anything? Do you know what espionage means?

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), legally binding criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Ignoring the nonsense about legally binding convictions, why are you banning the removal from office of, say, someone who has horrible racist attitudes, calls all blue-eyed people devil's spawns to their face during court sessions, is biased against them in court decisions and intentionally bungles their cases so that any appeals take so long to process that they end up innocently staying in prison for years if not decades, simply because that particular judge hates blue eyes? None of it might cross over to actual criminal actions, but it would be grounds for kicking them out of the office for incompetence and obvious bias (judges especially are supposed to be impartial) against certain category of people.

Why do you want to encourage corruption???

EDIT: Also I think that the strength is way off.

Tweaked slightly.
With legally binding we meant... convictions that were neither overturned nor are still subject to an instant appeal to a higher court.

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, do forgive me, but, are you insane? You expect Member-States to select criminal prosecutors by random lots? That is a position that requires years of training, Ambassador, training, and indeed a specific character. This is... little more than an absurdity; and not one the Imperium will support."

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The first iteration of this draft we could support; the later and current versions, we sadly cannot. What would make a randomly-selected judiciary any less vulnerable to corporate influence than an elected or appointed judiciary? If that is your problem, why not seek to abolish Investor-State Dispute Settlement systems?

[Araraukar]

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors via the process of sortition, from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage.

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), failure to act impartially in office, criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Political Stability. Strong.

OOC: And again...

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Direct what?

The espionage thing is still in it. Why? Do you know what espionage means? Please explain to me in your own words what you think espionage means.

And like Tinfect explained in IC, a lottery to choose someone to a very important expert job is a bad idea. Would you want to fly in an airplane whose captain had a pilot's licence, but no training to that particular plane type or route? Would you trust them to get you where you wanted to go, alive and intact, just because they might be able to fly something shaped like a plane without crashing it? That's basically what your lottery for prosecutors and judges would do.

[Old Hope]

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors via the process of sortition, from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage.

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), failure to act impartially in office, criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Political Stability. Strong.

OOC: And again...

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Direct what?

The espionage thing is still in it. Why? Do you know what espionage means? Please explain to me in your own words what you think espionage means.

And like Tinfect explained in IC, a lottery to choose someone to a very important expert job is a bad idea. Would you want to fly in an airplane whose captain had a pilot's licence, but no training to that particular plane type or route? Would you trust them to get you where you wanted to go, alive and intact, just because they might be able to fly something shaped like a plane without crashing it? That's basically what your lottery for prosecutors and judges would do.

We will consider it...

[Separatist Peoples]

Concerned about direct or indirect elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, do not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly forbids member states from conducting direct elections for public prosecutors or judges, and forbids member states from circumventing this act by conducting de facto direct elections for public prosecutors or judges, such as direct elections of people who are expected to pledge, or pledge, to elect a specific person, before being elected, or by issuing term limits for judges or public prosecutors other than death, inability to perform their duties properly, or legally binding criminal convictions of that judge or public prosecutor.

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no legally binding criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage via the process of sortition,

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), legally binding criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.

Concerned about direct or elections for public prosecutors and judges tainting the integrity of the courts,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, does not stop at a member nation's borders,

The World Assembly mandates member states to appoint judges and public prosecutors via the process of sortition, from all willing people residing in the member nation meeting the minimum standards for competency in law, having no criminal convictions, and passing a security check on possible espionage.

And forbids removal of judges and public prosecutors for reasons other than permanent inability in performing their job(including death), failure to act impartially in office, criminal convictions, or voluntary resignation of that judge or public prosecutor.


Political Stability. Strong.

As always, constructive feedback is welcome.

"Why should member states appoint persons to positions who have no interest in the position? Why does the World Assembly need to mandate the least efficient selection process for public criminal justice figures? Why on earth do you believe a criminal conviction should bar access to public service if a society believes in rehabilitation? Why, ambassador, do you keep proposing awful policies?"

[Old Hope]

We have scrapped the election part due to the many issues presented, and changed the reasons presented accordingly.

[Separatist Peoples]

We have scrapped the election part due to the many issues presented, and changed the reasons presented accordingly.

"You continue, ambassador, to provide horrendous policy rationale. There is no reason that a judge or prosecutor shouldn't have their employment contracts enforceable. Regardless of their public service position, they still ought be bound by the standards of employment policies that prevent abuse and harassment in the workplace.

"Further, what an absurdly arbitrary time-frame. One ninetieth of average life span? Per year? Must this be current? Do we make adjustments for lifespan differences over gender?

"As usual, the Old Hope delegation attempts to draft policy that addresses no notable international problem and does so with an inarticulate solution. The Old Hope delegation would be well served by abandoning their drafting efforts."

[Old Hope]

We have scrapped the election part due to the many issues presented, and changed the reasons presented accordingly.

"You continue, ambassador, to provide horrendous policy rationale. There is no reason that a judge or prosecutor shouldn't have their employment contracts enforceable. Regardless of their public service position, they still ought be bound by the standards of employment policies that prevent abuse and harassment in the workplace.

"Further, what an absurdly arbitrary time-frame. One ninetieth of average life span? Per year? Must this be current? Do we make adjustments for lifespan differences over gender?

"As usual, the Old Hope delegation attempts to draft policy that addresses no notable international problem and does so with an inarticulate solution. The Old Hope delegation would be well served by abandoning their drafting efforts."

Abuse and harassment? Sounds like a case for your criminal courts for me.
We decided to accomodate for your concerns about judges refusing to work.
We clarified that this should be consecutive. No adjustments for gender neccessary, but member nations are not forced to remove them at that exact point.
You honestly think that no judgements in other member nations have effects on people residing in your nation? You think that excessive unreliability in judical decisions is not applicable?

[Separatist Peoples]

"You continue, ambassador, to provide horrendous policy rationale. There is no reason that a judge or prosecutor shouldn't have their employment contracts enforceable. Regardless of their public service position, they still ought be bound by the standards of employment policies that prevent abuse and harassment in the workplace.

"Further, what an absurdly arbitrary time-frame. One ninetieth of average life span? Per year? Must this be current? Do we make adjustments for lifespan differences over gender?

"As usual, the Old Hope delegation attempts to draft policy that addresses no notable international problem and does so with an inarticulate solution. The Old Hope delegation would be well served by abandoning their drafting efforts."

Abuse and harassment? Sounds like a case for your criminal courts for me.

" I am somehow unsurprised that you cannot tell the difference between employment policy violations and criminal acts."

We clarified that this should be consecutive. No adjustments for gender neccessary, but member nations are not forced to remove them at that exact point.

"Nations must reaudit their population annually for cause of death for that year and then apply it retroactively, then? Do we apply the last year's standard? This remains absurd micromanagement. Nobody in Old Hope is harmed by prosecutors taking long term medical leave in Bigtopia."

You honestly think that no judgements in other member nations have effects on people residing in your nation? You think that excessive unreliability in judical decisions is not applicable?

"Given that I actually understand the logistics of an average legal system, I have great faith in the deputy and assistant prosecutorial staff and multiple judges and magesterial offices in most jurisdictions, ambassador. I have great faith that the average member state is at least as equally harmed by judicial delays as foreign entities, likely more so. Nations have sufficient incentive in filling posts with active employees to manage this without holding hands with a delegation that does not understand the basic structure of a prosecutorial office or judicial bench."

[Willingdon and Jevington]

What a load of tripe. Against.

[Kenmoria]

“I disagree with the reasoning presented in the preamble, and therefore cannot support any of the active clauses on an ideological basis. At the very least, remove the ‘one ninetieth’ section and replace it with more flexible wording.”

[Old Hope]

“I disagree with the reasoning presented in the preamble, and therefore cannot support any of the active clauses on an ideological basis. At the very least, remove the ‘one ninetieth’ section and replace it with more flexible wording.”

It is flexible, to an extent. It says in excess of one ninetieth; which also applies later.
It is "Forbids .... except", not "Mandates to remove ... when".

[Kenmoria]

“I disagree with the reasoning presented in the preamble, and therefore cannot support any of the active clauses on an ideological basis. At the very least, remove the ‘one ninetieth’ section and replace it with more flexible wording.”

It is flexible, to an extent. It says in excess of one ninetieth; which also applies later.
It is "Forbids .... except", not "Mandates to remove ... when".

“I understand that, but don’t understand why you have chosen ‘one ninetieth’. Furthermore, if the lifespan of a given species if extremely long or has become extremely long through medical advancements, then there is no reason to prohibit member states from removing from office a judge who will not be able to sit cases for several decades.”

[The New Nordic Union]

'In addition to the concerns already raised, many of which we share, we see no reason why there should not be a mandatory retirement age for judicial officers when such an age exists for every other person.'

[Old Hope]

'In addition to the concerns already raised, many of which we share, we see no reason why there should not be a mandatory retirement age for judicial officers when such an age exists for every other person.'

It is flexible, to an extent. It says in excess of one ninetieth; which also applies later.
It is "Forbids .... except", not "Mandates to remove ... when".

“I understand that, but don’t understand why you have chosen ‘one ninetieth’. Furthermore, if the lifespan of a given species if extremely long or has become extremely long through medical advancements, then there is no reason to prohibit member states from removing from office a judge who will not be able to sit cases for several decades.”

Do the changes fix these concerns?

[Kenmoria]

'In addition to the concerns already raised, many of which we share, we see no reason why there should not be a mandatory retirement age for judicial officers when such an age exists for every other person.'

“I understand that, but don’t understand why you have chosen ‘one ninetieth’. Furthermore, if the lifespan of a given species if extremely long or has become extremely long through medical advancements, then there is no reason to prohibit member states from removing from office a judge who will not be able to sit cases for several decades.”

Do the changes fix these concerns?

“To put it simply, no. I don’t know what the median life span of all WA residents is, and I don’t know anyone who does. Abandon the idea of one ninetieth, and stick with a more open-ended approach. Otherwise, you will end up making legislation that doesn’t fit a lot of member states.”

[Old Hope]

Do the changes fix these concerns?

“To put it simply, no. I don’t know what the median life span of all WA residents is, and I don’t know anyone who does. Abandon the idea of one ninetieth, and stick with a more open-ended approach. Otherwise, you will end up making legislation that doesn’t fit a lot of member states.”

"Well, we want to, but without letting member state abusing it to fire judges as they please. Do you have any better ideas than one ninetieth?"

OOC: Is, with all these exceptions, Significant or Mild the better strength? The judicary is a very important part of the country, though, and removal by voting is still not possible in many cases.

[Kenmoria]

“To put it simply, no. I don’t know what the median life span of all WA residents is, and I don’t know anyone who does. Abandon the idea of one ninetieth, and stick with a more open-ended approach. Otherwise, you will end up making legislation that doesn’t fit a lot of member states.”

"Well, we want to, but without letting member state abusing it to fire judges as they please. Do you have any better ideas than one ninetieth?"

“I would have something such as: ‘continuous inability in performing their job for a period of time sufficiently prolonged so as to create serious administrative or logistical difficulties’. Yes, this is more open to interpretation, but that’s the price paid for legislation that fits a variety of states.”

OOC: Is, with all these exceptions, Significant or Mild the better strength? The judicary is a very important part of the country, though, and removal by voting is still not possible in many cases.

(OOC: I would say this is ‘significant’ strength.)

[Old Hope]

"Well, we want to, but without letting member state abusing it to fire judges as they please. Do you have any better ideas than one ninetieth?"

“I would have something such as: ‘continuous inability in performing their job for a period of time sufficiently prolonged so as to create serious administrative or logistical difficulties’. Yes, this is more open to interpretation, but that’s the price paid for legislation that fits a variety of states.”

OOC: Is, with all these exceptions, Significant or Mild the better strength? The judicary is a very important part of the country, though, and removal by voting is still not possible in many cases.

(OOC: I would say this is ‘significant’ strength.)

Thanks for the feedback. You said you disagree on our reasons for this legislation spelled out in the preamble. Can you please say why?