[PASSED] The Rule of Law

[Sciongrad]

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Sponsored by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

1. Mandates that all persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation;

2. Declares that reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where:

1. some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity or
2. relevant officials or institutions extend pardons, amnesty, commutations, or other forms of clemency, provided such actions are in accordance with the spirit of this resolution and extant General Assembly legislation.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

And to this end resolves;

1. Declares that all persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation..

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

And to this end resolves;

1. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation;

2. Member nations shall ensure that all established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

And to this end resolves;

1. A "state of exception" shall be defined as the ability of a government to transcend the rule of law in order to provide for the public welfare;

2. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation;

3. Member nations may declare a state of exception in the event that the rule of law either incites a clear and present danger that must be rectified as soon as possible or if such a clear and present danger exists but cannot be resolved due to the rule of law, in which case such a state of exception may last only as long as is necessary to resolve the danger, and member nations shall act with all due and deliberate speed to ensure that states of exception are as brief as possible;

4. Member nations shall ensure that all established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

And to this end resolves;

1. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation;

2. Member nations shall ensure that all established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals,

Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced,

Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment,

And to this end resolves;

1. All persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held equally accountable under the established laws of a relevant member nation;

2. Member nations shall ensure that all established laws applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be forbidden from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

3. Member nations shall be required to limit ambiguity in their extant and subsequent laws in such a manner that the law may be interpreted without the possibility of excessively biased statutory interpretation; member nations shall forbid the practice of permitting judicial officials to interpret the law in such a way that may be excessively biased;

4. When there exists reasonable ambiguity in a law, it shall be interpreted in a manner that favors the prosecuted party.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Well, this is fortuitous. We were going to start a discussion on this, based on our crack team of legislative archaeologists' discovery of an ancient, dust-covered Quodite manuscript bearing an inscription we believe to have translated to be very similar to this one, although for some reason they seemed to believe theirs fell under the category of The Furtherment of Democracy...

"We are strongly supportive of this endeavour. We'll try to think up some comments on the language, but it's a strong first draft."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is Furtherment of Democracy, I would think. This affects political freedoms more than it does personal.

[Rotwood]

I have a slight problem with 2, as it can lead to an ignorance defence, which should never be a defence.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I have a slight problem with 2, as it can lead to an ignorance defence, which should never be a defence.

"I'd argue that it's precisely what gives the lie to an ignorance defence. If laws are not promulgated, it is entirely reasonable to claim ignorance of the law: how can you know you're breaking a law that you are not allowed to know the existence of? But if all laws are promulgated, then it follows that even if a person doesn't have specific knowledge of a law, they have the opportunity to have knowledge of that law, and hence cannot claim that their ignorance of it is an excuse for trespass."

[Sciongrad]

Regarding their Excellencies of the Dark Star Republic and Omigodtheykilledkenny - who am I to argue. I tried to write the proposal towards the human rights category, but if you feel that Furtherment of Democracy is more appropriate, then I'll gladly change it.

[Rotwood]

I have a slight problem with 2, as it can lead to an ignorance defence, which should never be a defence.

"I'd argue that it's precisely what gives the lie to an ignorance defence. If laws are not promulgated, it is entirely reasonable to claim ignorance of the law: how can you know you're breaking a law that you are not allowed to know the existence of? But if all laws are promulgated, then it follows that even if a person doesn't have specific knowledge of a law, they have the opportunity to have knowledge of that law, and hence cannot claim that their ignorance of it is an excuse for trespass."

What that would come down to is how much it is promulgated. Fair enough, if a country deliberately hides a law, then yes, there is a problem. The thing is if there wasn't enough coverage, or things got muddled in a campaign of mis-information, then it could be abused. Rotan lawyers could have a field day with this in that it would have to be up to the prosecutor to prove there was sufficient coverage given, leading to dismissals.

[Separatist Peoples]

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would, I think, interfere with the idea of diplomatic immunity. Which, personally, I think is great, but it bears mentioning.

I do take issue with clause 4. Ambiguity in law should be interpreted in a manner best applicable to the situation, not in favor of a particular party...

[Sciongrad]

"I'd argue that it's precisely what gives the lie to an ignorance defence. If laws are not promulgated, it is entirely reasonable to claim ignorance of the law: how can you know you're breaking a law that you are not allowed to know the existence of? But if all laws are promulgated, then it follows that even if a person doesn't have specific knowledge of a law, they have the opportunity to have knowledge of that law, and hence cannot claim that their ignorance of it is an excuse for trespass."

What that would come down to is how much it is promulgated. Fair enough, if a country deliberately hides a law, then yes, there is a problem. The thing is if there wasn't enough coverage, or things got muddled in a campaign of mis-information, then it could be abused. Rotan lawyers could have a field day with this in that it would have to be up to the prosecutor to prove there was sufficient coverage given, leading to dismissals.

The law must be promulgated " through all means practical and necessary." I feel this is pretty strong wording. Furthermore, you reference the hypothetical of a "campaign of misinformation." If such a campaign was performed by the government of a member nation, it would act directly in contravention of the same clause that you're objecting to. If it was performed by anyone else, then GAR#30 would cover it.

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent [...] incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization;

If you can provide me with an instance where, after a member nation has done everything practical and necessary to make the law known to the public and the aforementioned text of GAR#30 is applicable, and a plausible still "ignorance defense" is still possible, I will very gladly make any changes you feel would resolve this.

I do take issue with clause 4. Ambiguity in law should be interpreted in a manner best applicable to the situation, not in favor of a particular party...

I disagree. This concept - the rule of lenity, as it's called - is a fundamental protection of individuals from ambiguous law.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I'd argue that it's precisely what gives the lie to an ignorance defence. If laws are not promulgated, it is entirely reasonable to claim ignorance of the law: how can you know you're breaking a law that you are not allowed to know the existence of? But if all laws are promulgated, then it follows that even if a person doesn't have specific knowledge of a law, they have the opportunity to have knowledge of that law, and hence cannot claim that their ignorance of it is an excuse for trespass."

What that would come down to is how much it is promulgated. Fair enough, if a country deliberately hides a law, then yes, there is a problem. The thing is if there wasn't enough coverage, or things got muddled in a campaign of mis-information, then it could be abused. Rotan lawyers could have a field day with this in that it would have to be up to the prosecutor to prove there was sufficient coverage given, leading to dismissals.

"Requiring promulgation is a fairly common standard. So long as a nation's legal system upholds the basic principle of nemo censetur ignorare legem, then there would not be any such burden on the prosecution. And it would be excessively - to use the buzzword - 'micromanaging' for the WA to dictate the exact standard of promulgation. I would think any reasonable nation would consider a statement in a national newspaper and an entry into a public record to constitute such, but I suppose the WA does have its fair share of variety.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would, I think, interfere with the idea of diplomatic immunity. Which, personally, I think is great, but it bears mentioning.

"Not sure I see that. I think the key is in Article 1: 'All persons...shall be held equally accountable under the established laws of a relevant member nation'. That means that an official serving in a foreign jurisdiction with diplomatic immunity, so long as they are still held accountable under their own nation's laws. According to the relevant WA Resolution:

a) A diplomat may still be tried for crimes by the nation they serve

"As such, they are still accountable under the laws of 'a member nation' - their own."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

What that would come down to is how much it is promulgated. Fair enough, if a country deliberately hides a law, then yes, there is a problem. The thing is if there wasn't enough coverage, or things got muddled in a campaign of mis-information, then it could be abused. Rotan lawyers could have a field day with this in that it would have to be up to the prosecutor to prove there was sufficient coverage given, leading to dismissals.

The law must be promulgated " through all means practical and necessary." I feel this is pretty strong wording. Furthermore, you reference the hypothetical of a "campaign of misinformation." If such a campaign was performed by the government of a member nation, it would act directly in contravention of the same clause that you're objecting to. If it was performed by anyone else, then GAR#30 would cover it.

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent [...] incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization;

If you can provide me with an instance where, after a member nation has done everything practical and necessary to make the law known to the public and the aforementioned text of GAR#30 is applicable, and a plausible still "ignorance defense" is still possible, I will very gladly make any changes you feel would resolve this.

I do take issue with clause 4. Ambiguity in law should be interpreted in a manner best applicable to the situation, not in favor of a particular party...

I disagree. This concept - the rule of lenity, as it's called - is an fundamental protection of individuals from ambiguous law.

Okay, kinda satisfied, still afraid of the Rotan lawyers with this though (they can be nasty). Also the campaign of misinformation was more so from non-governmental opposition parties, not from the governments themselves

[Serocia]

Celidonius Lancius, the Venolian ambassador to the W.A., contemplatively said, "We support this endeavor. . . However, we feel that the last clause is vague and, perhaps, open to abuse."

[Aboras]

Seems vague, but all in all, it's something I could see Aboras supporting.

[Christian Democrats]

While I am a strong proponent of the rule of law, I oppose this resolution right now for a few reasons.

First, in extreme circumstances, a state of exception may be necessary for the welfare of the public.

Second, this proposal could inhibit the authority of kritarchic or quasi-kritarchic states to penalize criminals.

Third, this proposal seems to assume a civil law legal system.

[Point Breeze]

An exception could be added for extreme circumstances that call for martial law or states of emergency/exception.

[Auralia]

I disagree. This concept - the rule of lenity, as it's called - is a fundamental protection of individuals from ambiguous law.

The link you provided indicates that said rule applies only to criminal statutes.

I too would like to see that clause removed.

First, in extreme circumstances, a state of exception may be necessary for the welfare of the public.

Agreed.

Third, this proposal seems to assume a civil law legal system.

Also agreed. The proposal should clarify that laws may be promulgated through means other than by statute, such as law created by judges as part of court decisions.

[Bananaistan]

We share the concerns of the ambassadors of Auralia and Christian Democrats regarding common law systems. However, even so, we believe that it is necessary for states to adequately inform their inhabitants of case law and its impact.

We are also concerned that section 1 may have far reaching, unintended consequences and we are ensure what it seeks to achieve.

[Serocia]

I do take issue with clause 4. Ambiguity in law should be interpreted in a manner best applicable to the situation, not in favor of a particular party...

I disagree. This concept - the rule of lenity, as it's called - is a fundamental protection of individuals from ambiguous law.

Lancius said in response, "The rule of lenity is a substantive canon, which instructs the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results. I firmly believe that it is neither your place or the place of the W.A. to instruct the court to favor a certain interpretation. I do believe that that duty is given to the court; I do believe that is why the court exists."

He continued, "Irrespective of that, the rule of lenity applies only, as your definition said, 'when to do so would not be contrary to legislative intent.' In addition, deference canons may conflict with that canon, for example, the court should interpret a law that it does not conflict with the constitutional system; if it would not conflict with the constitutional system, the court should defer to the legislative authority's interpretation. By mandating the rule of lenity, it is made impossible for the court to interpret it properly."

[Christian Democrats]

Second, this proposal could inhibit the authority of kritarchic or quasi-kritarchic states to penalize criminals.

I want to expand on this point. A kritarchy is a land ruled by judges. There are no statutes because there is no legislature. The only source of law is tradition or sometimes a set of religious texts (Bible, Koran, etc.). Ancient Israel was a kritarchy for part of its history, and some people apply the term to modern Somalia and its legal system of xeer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_(law)

Some nations, such as Nullarni, roleplay as kritarchies; and this proposal, arguably, would interfere with their legal systems.

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nullarni/detail=factbook/id=23284

[Moronist Decisions]

As others have stated, this would assume that common-law and custom law must be codified. While I applaud the intention, I am not convinced that this implementation would be a good idea.

[Goddess Relief Office]

While I am a strong proponent of the rule of law, I oppose this resolution right now for a few reasons.

First, in extreme circumstances, a state of exception may be necessary for the welfare of the public.

Second, this proposal could inhibit the authority of kritarchic or quasi-kritarchic states to penalize criminals.

Third, this proposal seems to assume a civil law legal system.

Agreed on all points. The proposal would penalize a good number of member nations that are absolute monarchies or dictatorships, which are ruled by Man through the mandate of God/Heaven/Military power rather than ruled by law.



~GRO~

[ALMF]

While I am a strong proponent of the rule of law, I oppose this resolution right now for a few reasons.

First, in extreme circumstances, a state of exception may be necessary for the welfare of the public.

Second, this proposal could inhibit the authority of kritarchic or quasi-kritarchic states to penalize criminals.

Third, this proposal seems to assume a civil law legal system.

Agreed on all points. The proposal would penalize a good number of member nations that are absolute monarchies or dictatorships, which are ruled by Man through the mandate of God/Heaven/Military power rather than ruled by law.



~GRO~

If this is meant tobe a criticism of the proposal under consideration, the genital-being should explain how deterring such governments is a flaw as oppose to a virtue. For meany centuries we had a rule of espionage (not law) that wold not die: something we consider a fate worse than genocide.

[Isle of Lithonia]

Andreas IV glanced at the proposal, his deep green eyes taking it all in. Overall, he was rather satisfied with it. He knew that being the High Ambassador meant that he had to at least say something with regards to the proposal, but he knew that his lack of diplomatic experience would probably nip him in the proverbial butt as a result...

"I must hand it to the Ambassador from Sciongrad, this is a rather well thought-out proposal. I believe that Lithonia can support this, as it summarizes and promotes many of the ideals of our nation. As one of our Princes once said, 'It is the right and duty of the governors to promote equality of all men under the law. Why? Once the governed understand that their governors will submit themselves to becoming equal under the law with even the lowliest of men, they will understand that it is humility and unity which propels proper leadership. Thus, such equality will promote proper order and unity in a society, order which follows the rule of, "treat others as greater than oneself".'"

The Ambassador sat down, rather sure that his speech was unhelpful. Well, he thought, at least I said something.

[Sciongrad]

While I am a strong proponent of the rule of law, I oppose this resolution right now for a few reasons.

First, in extreme circumstances, a state of exception may be necessary for the welfare of the public.

Second, this proposal could inhibit the authority of kritarchic or quasi-kritarchic states to penalize criminals.

Third, this proposal seems to assume a civil law legal system.

Agreed on all points. The proposal would penalize a good number of member nations that are absolute monarchies or dictatorships, which are ruled by Man through the mandate of God/Heaven/Military power rather than ruled by law.

Regarding monarchs or dictators that rule unilaterally - the point of this proposal is to ensure that the recipients of their actions are treated fairly. I would argue that it is not proper for the World Assembly to affirm the right of any individual to act above the law, regardless of what their preexisting political system or cultural ideas support. This would not remove their power to make their decisions unilaterally - it would simply hold them accountable to those decisions.

First, in extreme circumstances, a state of exception may be necessary for the welfare of the public.

I'm very willing to consider this.

Second, this proposal could inhibit the authority of kritarchic or quasi-kritarchic states to penalize criminals.

I assume you mean the last bit of clause 3 and the entirety of clause 4. I planned on removing them, especially clause 4, due to the almost unanimous negative reaction. EDIT: I've stricken clause 3 altogether. Eliminating judicial bias is not something that I want to get involved in if I don't have to.

Third, this proposal seems to assume a civil law legal system.

When I wrote it, I unintentionally focused on statutory law - I'll change the wording to resolve this. Although, I personally am not a legal expert, so don't hesitate to provide suggestions if my revisions are not satisfactory.

[Bears Armed]

Isn't clause #1 effectively covered already by the CoCR?