[PASSED] World Assembly Justice Accord

[Wallenburg]

World Assembly Justice Accord

---

---

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the persistent issue of noncompliance with World Assembly legislation within member nations,

Also recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Concluding that, with little material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

Understanding that by guaranteeing the rule of law in a judicial setting, the World Assembly may safeguard the right of all inhabitants of member states to justice,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Establishes a World Assembly Judiciary Committee, tasked with appointing officials to (a) several trial courts, each over which one judge may preside, and (b) several appellate courts, each over which three judges may preside, to consider and receive cases appealed from the trial courts,
   
   
2. Tasks the World Assembly Judiciary Committee with overseeing the conduct and judicial responsibilities of the judges and defense attorneys appointed to the several courts under its administration, and exercising full discretion in hearing cases brought before it,
   
   
3. Tasks the World Assembly Compliance Commission with speedily reporting evidence relevant to World Assembly Judiciary Committee court proceedings to both adversaries, with the approval of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
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,
   
   
5. Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee all legal rights they enjoy according to the mandates of World Assembly law, and any privileges that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee finds necessary to guarantee those rights in a manner most practical and sensitive to the cultures of the adversaries,
   
   
   1. Also grants, with the prompt consent of both adversaries, the adversaries all legal rights they might enjoy in an equivalent hearing under the laws of the nation of origin of one of the adversaries,
6. Permits courts of the World Assembly Judicial Committee to try a defendant in absentia if the defendant communicates their written consent not to be present at trial, or the defendant repeatedly engages in disruptive conduct during court proceedings or positively refuses to appear at trial,
   
   
7. Allows a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, upon accepting a case brought before it, to bring itself to the adversaries of the case, should one or both of them be unable to leave their member nation, and requires member states to permit the entry and exit of court officials for this purpose,
   
   
8. Declares further that member states shall fully and with all possible haste carry out the rulings of the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
9. Requires that, should the ruling of a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee stipulate the incarceration of a guilty party, the member state from which the guilty party originates shall perform and maintain the incarceration of the guilty party,
   
   
   1. Directs the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to select a fully compliant and cooperative alternative member state to incarcerate the guilty party, if the member state of origin demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to carry out the full ruling of the court, and with the consent of the selected alternative member state,
      
      
   2. Authorizes the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to offer compensation to selected alternative member states as an incentive to volunteer to incarcerate those so sentenced,
10. Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall the World Assembly require member states to defer to the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal case that the justice system of a member state has taken up, nor shall the World Assembly Judiciary Committee or its courts in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions.

[Wallenburg]

World Assembly Justice Accord

---

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the persistent issue of noncompliance with World Assembly legislation within member nations,

Also recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Concluding that, with no material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

Understanding that by guaranteeing the rule of law in a judicial setting, the World Assembly may safeguard the right of all inhabitants of member states to justice,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Establishes a World Assembly Judiciary Committee, tasked with appointing officials to (a) several trial courts, each over which one judge may preside, and (b) several appellate courts, each over which three judges may preside, to consider and receive cases appealed from the trial courts,
   
   
2. Tasks the World Assembly Judiciary Committee with overseeing the conduct and judicial responsibilities of the judges and defense attorneys appointed to the several courts under its administration, and exercising full discretion in hearing cases brought before it,
   
   
3. Tasks the World Assembly Compliance Commission with speedily reporting evidence relevant to World Assembly Judiciary Committee court proceedings to both adversaries, with the approval of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
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,
   
   
5. Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee all legal rights they enjoy according to the mandates of World Assembly law, and any privileges that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee finds necessary to guarantee those rights in a manner most practical and sensitive to the cultures of the adversaries,
   
   
   1. Also grants, with the prompt consent of both adversaries, the adversaries all legal rights they might enjoy in an equivalent hearing under the laws of the nation of origin of one of the adversaries,
6. Permits courts of the World Assembly Judicial Committee to try a defendant in absentia if the defendant communicates their written consent not to be present at trial, or the defendant repeatedly engages in disruptive conduct during court proceedings or positively refuses to appear at trial,
   
   
7. Directs a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, upon accepting a case brought before it, to bring itself to the adversaries of the case, should one or both of them be unable to leave their member nation, and requires member states to permit the entry and exit of court officials for this purpose,
   
   
8. Declares further that member states shall fully and with all possible haste carry out the rulings of the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
9. Requires that, should the ruling of a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee stipulate the incarceration of a guilty party, the member state from which the guilty party originates shall perform and maintain the incarceration of the guilty party,
   
   
   1. Directs the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to select a fully compliant and cooperative alternative member state to incarcerate the guilty party, if the member state of origin demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to carry out the full ruling of the court, and with the consent of the selected alternative member state,
      
      
   2. Authorizes the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to offer compensation to selected alternative member states as an incentive to volunteer to incarcerate those so sentenced,
10. Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall the World Assembly require member states to defer to the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal case that the justice system of a member state has taken up, nor shall the World Assembly Judiciary Committee or its courts in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

World Assembly Justice Accord

---

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the persistent issue of noncompliance with World Assembly legislation within member nations,

Recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Recognizing that, with no material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

Understanding that by guaranteeing the rule of law in a judicial setting, the World Assembly may safeguard the right of all inhabitants of member states to justice,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Establishes a World Assembly Judiciary Committee, tasked with appointing officials to (a) several trial courts, each over which one judge may preside, and (b) several appellate courts, each over which three judges may preside, to consider and receive cases appealed from the trial courts,
   
   
2. Tasks the World Assembly Judiciary Committee with overseeing the conduct and judicial responsibilities of the judges and defense attorneys appointed to the several courts under its administration, and exercising full discretion in hearing cases brought before it,
   
   
3. Tasks the World Assembly Compliance Commission with speedily reporting evidence relevant to World Assembly Judiciary Committee court proceedings to both adversaries, with the approval of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
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,
   
   
5. Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee all legal rights they enjoy according to the mandates of World Assembly law, and any privileges that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee finds necessary to guarantee those rights in a manner most practical and sensitive to the cultures of the adversaries,
   
   
   1. Also grants, with the prompt consent of both adversaries, the adversaries all legal rights they might enjoy in an equivalent hearing under the laws of the nation of origin of one of the adversaries,
6. Permits courts of the World Assembly Judicial Committee to try a defendant in absentia if the defendant communicates their written consent not to be present at trial, or the defendant repeatedly engages in disruptive conduct during court proceedings or positively refuses to appear at trial,
   
   
7. Directs a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, upon accepting a case brought before it, to bring itself to the adversaries of the case, should one or both of them be unable to leave their member nation, and requires member states to permit the entry and exit of court officials for this purpose,
   
   
8. Declares further that member states shall fully and with all possible haste carry out the rulings of the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
9. Requires that, should the ruling of a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee stipulate the incarceration of a guilty party, the member state from which the guilty party originates shall perform and maintain the incarceration of the guilty party,
   
   
   1. Directs the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to select a fully compliant and cooperative alternative member state to incarcerate the guilty party, if the member state of origin demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to carry out the full ruling of the court, and with the consent of the selected alternative member state,
      
      
   2. Authorizes the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to offer compensation to selected alternative member states as an incentive to volunteer to incarcerate those so sentenced,
10. Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

World Assembly Justice Accord

---

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the persistent issue of noncompliance with World Assembly legislation within member nations,

Recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Recognizing that, with no material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

Understanding that by guaranteeing the rule of law in a judicial setting, the World Assembly may safeguard the right of all inhabitants of member states to justice,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Establishes a World Assembly Judiciary Committee, tasked with appointing officials to:
   
   
   1. Several trial courts, each over which one judge may preside,
      
      
   2. Several appellate courts, each over which three judges may preside, to consider and receive cases appealed from the trial courts,
2. Further tasks the World Assembly Judiciary Committee with oversight of the conduct and judicial responsibilities of the judges and defense attorneys appointed to the several courts under its administration,
   
   
3. Tasks the World Assembly Compliance Commission with speedily reporting evidence relevant to World Assembly Judiciary Committee court proceedings to both adversaries,
   
   
4. Declares that any entity within the jurisdiction of any member state may bring charges against any other entity within the jurisdicton of any member state for damages done to them which violate the terms of extant World Assembly law,
   
   
5. Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal rights they would otherwise enjoy within a court of their member nation of origin and under the mandates of World Assembly law,
   
   
6. Directs a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, upon accepting a case brought before it, to bring itself to the adversaries of the case, should one or both of them be unable to leave their member nation, and requires member states to permit the entry and exit of court officials for this purpose,
   
   
7. Declares further that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall have the authority to direct law enforcement officials within member states to carry out the rulings of its courts,
   
   
8. Requires that, should the ruling of a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee stipulate the incarceration of a guilty party, the member state from which the guilty party originates shall perform and maintain the incarceration of the guilty party,
   
   
   1. Directs the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to select a fully compliant and cooperative alternative member state to incarcerate the guilty party, if the member state of origin demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to carry out the full ruling of the court, and with the consent of the selected alternative member state,
      
      
   2. Authorizes the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to offer compensation to selected alternative member states as an incentive to volunteer to incarcerate those so sentenced,
9. Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party.

[The New Nordic Union]

Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal rights they would otherwise enjoy within a court of their member nation of origin and under the mandates of World Assembly law,

Does the first part of that clause not favour parties originating from member nations with higher judicial standards over ones from nations with lower judicial standards, which solely could rely on WA Law as a lowest common denominator (even though comprehensive WA legislation may exist)?

[Liberimery]

There are some problems that I would like to address at a later time, Ambassador, but I think it's a strong start to a major reform that needs to happen in this body. In fact, I was going to propose similar measures myself but I've been quite pressed of late. Overall, I think it may have a possible conflict with GAR#2 but it's not one that can't be easily remedied. I can schedule an appointment in my office for late this afternoon if it suits you (TG me and I can talk after work.).

[Liberimery]

Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal rights they would otherwise enjoy within a court of their member nation of origin and under the mandates of World Assembly law,

Does the first part of that clause not favour parties originating from member nations with higher judicial standards over ones from nations with lower judicial standards, which solely could rely on WA Law as a lowest common denominator (even though comprehensive WA legislation may exist)?

I can also address this with my fix as well.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Overall, I think it may have a possible conflict with GAR#2 but it's not one that can't be easily remedied...

"I see no such conflict, Ambassador."

[Bananaistan]

"This is bonkers. You could have two wholly different sets of rights, possibly conflicting with each other, depending on the nationality and locations of the plaintiff and defendant, and then you could have a trial being carried on in two different locations at the same time.

"We'd also be deeply concerned about WA judges issuing instructions to law enforcement officials outside the normal chain of command.

"In any case, we oppose. The WA needs to take far more steps in converging the legal practices of member states and standardisation of sentencing before this could be feasible. Although we'd also oppose all that."

- Ted

[Doing it Rightland]

Overall, I think this resolution has good intentions, and there are just a few things I'd like to address.

Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal rights they would otherwise enjoy within a court of their member nation of origin and under the mandates of World Assembly law,

At the moment, if two nations with very different legal codes are in court together, the trial would be fairly inconsistent. Perhaps if both parties agree, they should be able to select the legal code of one of the nations involved in the current case?

Declares further that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall have the authority to direct law enforcement officials within member states to carry out the rulings of its courts,

I like this point, it actually lets the Committee exercise a fair amount of power. However, its currently not permitted for the WA to take or condone military and police actions. There is a proposal to change that (found here) but in the meantime, to avoid legal issues, you could change it to read: "...the authority to direct member states to..."

Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party.

Would this be the case even if they were convicted of things like War Crimes or genocide? I feel like in a few cases, like those listed before, then capital punishment might be reasonable.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
This does have a Civil Rights aspect but, as it operates through law-courts, also a Moral Decency one. Given that those two aspects would partially cancel each other out in terms of effects on the member nations, I do not regard 'Strong' as the appropriate strength.

_______________________________________________

Also, speaking from a less official viewpoint (and possibly to be joined in this IC by one of my WA nation's characters when I have time to work out their words), there needs to be some way of dealing with 'frivolous' claims so that this proposed system neither gets overloaded nor has to rival the combined legal systems of all the member nations in size.

[Kenmoria]

“I agree with other ambassadors here that there needs to be some legislation on two nations with wildly varying legal systems. I, for example, fail to see how both sides will be guaranteed normal rights if one nation uses common law and the other civil law.

Furthermore, what exactly defines ‘tortuorus’ punishments in the last clause. Obviously anything that is prohibited according to ‘Prevention of Torture’ will count, but what about life in prison, which is often very mentally taxing and could meet quite a few definitions of torturous punishment?”

[Wallenburg]

Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal rights they would otherwise enjoy within a court of their member nation of origin and under the mandates of World Assembly law,

Does the first part of that clause not favour parties originating from member nations with higher judicial standards over ones from nations with lower judicial standards, which solely could rely on WA Law as a lowest common denominator (even though comprehensive WA legislation may exist)?

Very good point. Initially, I had only considered a situation where the adversaries hail from the same member nation, but this proposal would be just as relevant to international cases. I'd like to provide both parties more rights than those guaranteed under existing WA resolutions, but if I can't figure out a fair way to compromise between different nations' criminal justice procedures, then the international guarantees should be enough.

Overall, I think this resolution has good intentions, and there are just a few things I'd like to address.

Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee any legal rights they would otherwise enjoy within a court of their member nation of origin and under the mandates of World Assembly law,

At the moment, if two nations with very different legal codes are in court together, the trial would be fairly inconsistent. Perhaps if both parties agree, they should be able to select the legal code of one of the nations involved in the current case?

I also like this idea. I may grant the adversaries the option to select one of their national criminal justice system's set of guaranteed rights, and fall back to the WA's guarantees if they cannot promptly come to an agreement.

Declares further that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall have the authority to direct law enforcement officials within member states to carry out the rulings of its courts,

I like this point, it actually lets the Committee exercise a fair amount of power. However, its currently not permitted for the WA to take or condone military and police actions. There is a proposal to change that (found here) but in the meantime, to avoid legal issues, you could change it to read: "...the authority to direct member states to..."

I hadn't really seen that before. I will consider alternative methods to issuing orders to law enforcement.

Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party.

Would this be the case even if they were convicted of things like War Crimes or genocide? I feel like in a few cases, like those listed before, then capital punishment might be reasonable.

The World Assembly has no place in killing the citizens of member states, especially under existing WA law that bans capital punishment. If people want to prosecute for the death penalty against war criminals and the like, then they should 1) push for the repeal of "Protecting Innocents yada yada yada" and 2) prosecute those criminals through their own national criminal justice system.

OOC
This does have a Civil Rights aspect but, as it operates through law-courts, also a Moral Decency one. Given that those two aspects would partially cancel each other out in terms of effects on the member nations, I do not regard 'Strong' as the appropriate strength.

The main effect of this proposal is to secure justice for those people whose governments fail to implement WA law in earnest. As I see it, this would most often happen in order to deny people their civil rights and liberties. Thus, Civil Rights. And considering the nature of this proposal, completely bypassing the national system of justice to administer the law directly, I very firmly believe this to be Strong.

Also, speaking from a less official viewpoint (and possibly to be joined in this IC by one of my WA nation's characters when I have time to work out their words), there needs to be some way of dealing with 'frivolous' claims so that this proposed system neither gets overloaded nor has to rival the combined legal systems of all the member nations in size.

Perhaps. I will consider an additional body tasked with filtering spam, but I really can't imagine that happening so much that the courts themselves can't handle irrelevant suits.

“I agree with other ambassadors here that there needs to be some legislation on two nations with wildly varying legal systems. I, for example, fail to see how both sides will be guaranteed normal rights if one nation uses common law and the other civil law.

Furthermore, what exactly defines ‘tortuorus’ punishments in the last clause. Obviously anything that is prohibited according to ‘Prevention of Torture’ will count, but what about life in prison, which is often very mentally taxing and could meet quite a few definitions of torturous punishment?”

The existing WA definition of "torture" would obviously be adopted by these courts and its overseeing committee. Life imprisonment does not qualify under the definition provided in "Prevention of Torture".

[Liberimery]

Does the first part of that clause not favour parties originating from member nations with higher judicial standards over ones from nations with lower judicial standards, which solely could rely on WA Law as a lowest common denominator (even though comprehensive WA legislation may exist)?

Very good point. Initially, I had only considered a situation where the adversaries hail from the same member nation, but this proposal would be just as relevant to international cases. I'd like to provide both parties more rights than those guaranteed under existing WA resolutions, but if I can't figure out a fair way to compromise between different nations' criminal justice procedures, then the international guarantees should be enough.

Overall, I think this resolution has good intentions, and there are just a few things I'd like to address.


At the moment, if two nations with very different legal codes are in court together, the trial would be fairly inconsistent. Perhaps if both parties agree, they should be able to select the legal code of one of the nations involved in the current case?

I also like this idea. I may grant the adversaries the option to select one of their national criminal justice system's set of guaranteed rights, and fall back to the WA's guarantees if they cannot promptly come to an agreement.

I like this point, it actually lets the Committee exercise a fair amount of power. However, its currently not permitted for the WA to take or condone military and police actions. There is a proposal to change that (found here) but in the meantime, to avoid legal issues, you could change it to read: "...the authority to direct member states to..."

I hadn't really seen that before. I will consider alternative methods to issuing orders to law enforcement.

Would this be the case even if they were convicted of things like War Crimes or genocide? I feel like in a few cases, like those listed before, then capital punishment might be reasonable.

The World Assembly has no place in killing the citizens of member states, especially under existing WA law that bans capital punishment. If people want to prosecute for the death penalty against war criminals and the like, then they should 1) push for the repeal of "Protecting Innocents yada yada yada" and 2) prosecute those criminals through their own national criminal justice system.

OOC
This does have a Civil Rights aspect but, as it operates through law-courts, also a Moral Decency one. Given that those two aspects would partially cancel each other out in terms of effects on the member nations, I do not regard 'Strong' as the appropriate strength.

The main effect of this proposal is to secure justice for those people whose governments fail to implement WA law in earnest. As I see it, this would most often happen in order to deny people their civil rights and liberties. Thus, Civil Rights. And considering the nature of this proposal, completely bypassing the national system of justice to administer the law directly, I very firmly believe this to be Strong.

Also, speaking from a less official viewpoint (and possibly to be joined in this IC by one of my WA nation's characters when I have time to work out their words), there needs to be some way of dealing with 'frivolous' claims so that this proposed system neither gets overloaded nor has to rival the combined legal systems of all the member nations in size.

Perhaps. I will consider an additional body tasked with filtering spam, but I really can't imagine that happening so much that the courts themselves can't handle irrelevant suits.

“I agree with other ambassadors here that there needs to be some legislation on two nations with wildly varying legal systems. I, for example, fail to see how both sides will be guaranteed normal rights if one nation uses common law and the other civil law.

Furthermore, what exactly defines ‘tortuorus’ punishments in the last clause. Obviously anything that is prohibited according to ‘Prevention of Torture’ will count, but what about life in prison, which is often very mentally taxing and could meet quite a few definitions of torturous punishment?”

The existing WA definition of "torture" would obviously be adopted by these courts and its overseeing committee. Life imprisonment does not qualify under the definition provided in "Prevention of Torture".

OOC: My suggestion for this administration issue is to adopt something similar to the US Department of Justice Petite Policy which is the policy of the department to not prosecute crimes if the state prosecution is determined to have been properly managed and run by the state regardless of outcome of the trial. For those who don't understand, let's take the hypothetical "Four Corners murder" question of can any of the four estates prosecute the murderer. The answer is yes, all four of them... plus the two Native America reservations. Plus the Federal government and none of this is against Double Jeopardy provided all 7 jurisdictions only try the killer once. To uphold Double Jeopardy, DOJ will not prosecute unless there is a compelling Federal interests (such as interstate criminal activities or civil rights abuses. Even in the case of the former, the Feds don't intervene unless all states can't cooperate. The Feds never prosecuted the D.C. Beltway snipers because VA and MD handled all their prosecutions.). This also settles a compromise of who tries War criminals, WA or member-nation first. It can also can be reasonable compromise with NatSov issues: The WA will trust you to handle the case, but will keep an eye on them. This also incentivises the member states to respect WA laws because the ones that think the WA is overly meddlesome need to comply or be meddled with.

Another solution is that WA judiciary is an appellant court only for intra-state crimes and handles no facts in the case but only the application of the law but has Original Jurisdiction on international crimes, crimes that involve the borders of member states, Terra Nullis crimes when all parties are in WA memberstate jurisdiction, crimes on WA property.

The location issue, I think, is handled wrong. I think a better solution is that the case is handled on WA grounds only OR default to WA grounds but the Defense may request a change of venue to a neutral third party. Since the burden of proof is with the plaintiffs, they do suffer a handicap to the rights.

Adding these restrictions on the proposed court system does go a long way to easing the burdens of everyone with some garnenteed leeway that the gnomes are not sucked on you because the WA doesn't like you.

As for the enforcement issue, I can't help you there. In Real Life SCOTUS doesn't have much recourse if someone doesn't play by the rules. Normally noncompliance is handled through any channels usually used in enforcing the law. It's a great way to lose office though. Perhaps the WA could expell nations that do not follow rulings.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: My suggestion for this administration issue is to adopt something similar to the US Department of Justice Petite Policy which is the policy of the department to not prosecute crimes if the state prosecution is determined to have been properly managed and run by the state regardless of outcome of the trial. For those who don't understand, let's take the hypothetical "Four Corners murder" question of can any of the four estates prosecute the murderer. The answer is yes, all four of them... plus the two Native America reservations. Plus the Federal government and none of this is against Double Jeopardy provided all 7 jurisdictions only try the killer once. To uphold Double Jeopardy, DOJ will not prosecute unless there is a compelling Federal interests (such as interstate criminal activities or civil rights abuses. Even in the case of the former, the Feds don't intervene unless all states can't cooperate. The Feds never prosecuted the D.C. Beltway snipers because VA and MD handled all their prosecutions.). This also settles a compromise of who tries War criminals, WA or member-nation first. It can also can be reasonable compromise with NatSov issues: The WA will trust you to handle the case, but will keep an eye on them. This also incentivises the member states to respect WA laws because the ones that think the WA is overly meddlesome need to comply or be meddled with.

This is essentially the system this proposal would put in place. If a member state fails to carry out justice as entities violate WA law within its jurisdiction, then the WA will step in. I may add a clause to make it clear that these courts will not violate the regulations put in place under "Preventing Multiple Trials".

The location issue, I think, is handled wrong. I think a better solution is that the case is handled on WA grounds only OR default to WA grounds but the Defense may request a change of venue to a neutral third party. Since the burden of proof is with the plaintiffs, they do suffer a handicap to the rights.

That runs into problems where either adversary is not allowed to leave the nation they inhabit, or where travel to World Assembly headquarters is either restricted or too costly. These courts must have the ability to go to the adversaries, whether as a result of uncooperative member states or handicapped adversaries.

Adding these restrictions on the proposed court system does go a long way to easing the burdens of everyone with some garnenteed leeway that the gnomes are not sucked on you because the WA doesn't like you.

Well, seeing as these courts don't do anything unless a case is brought to them by an injured party, nobody can reasonably claim that these courts would go out in search of dragons to slay.

As for the enforcement issue, I can't help you there. In Real Life SCOTUS doesn't have much recourse if someone doesn't play by the rules. Normally noncompliance is handled through any channels usually used in enforcing the law. It's a great way to lose office though. Perhaps the WA could expell nations that do not follow rulings.

That would violate the Game Mechanics rule.

[Liberimery]

Sorry for lack of quotes. I'm satisfied with the first paragraph. Just wanted to make sure we weren't violating a nation's right to handle its own justice system. Claim it's gnome discretion and move on.


Second Paragraph kind runs into the issues in a Federal court system as there are law enforcement agencies to ensure a prisoner gets to his trial. Additionally there is Contempt of Court, which are kind of unique in that only the judge has standing to issue and then that same judge is the judge of that trial... and it's bench trial. Pretty much if the judge tells a party to do something in a hearing and the party doesn't they get hot with a criminal charge. If prosecutors refuse to bring a defendant they have custody over, they can get hit with some big problems. There are more remedial ways to fix the issue of indigent travel, such as video link to facilities or even using funds to transport them to the court. The mobile court for countries that do not allow external travel run the risk of exposing a WA court to a dictator who decides to leave the WA while the trial is ongoing and then arresting the WA court officers on trumped up charges. And now free of Death Penalty restrictions, they don't offer much in the way of an appeals process.

For the third paragraph, Prosecutorial Misconduct is a thing and does happen. It's why the bill of writes has more provisions protecting the rights of the accused than it does civil rights (depends how you read the 9 amendment and 10th amendment. It's one thing to say gnomes get it right, but it's a bit flat to see them get it wrong in your second paragraph. The issue of location can't be a gnome mistake check if the next issue is danced around by claiming infallible gnomes.

Again, not trying to completely invalidate this. I was actually working on something similar. I'm just trying to make sure this is neat and tidy before more hardcore NatSovs try to rip it apart.

[Wallenburg]

Edits made, hopefully all concerns I recognized are now addressed.

[New Bremerton]

[*]Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

This right here is a dealbreaker. We will never accept an international court that could potentially deny the ultimate form of justice to the victims of those who have endured genocide, although we do respect the right of individual nations not to impose the death penalty on their own citizens, even if an international court hands down a death sentence, which should be strictly optional for member states to carry out. Remove or amend the part marked in red, and we will vote in favor.

AGAINST.

[Wallenburg]

[*]Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

This right here is a dealbreaker. We will never accept an international court that could potentially deny the ultimate form of justice to the victims of those who have endured genocide, although we do respect the right of individual nations not to impose the death penalty on their own citizens, even if an international court hands down a death sentence, which should be strictly optional for member states to carry out. Remove or amend the part marked in red, and we will vote in favor.

AGAINST.

The World Assembly has no place in killing the citizens of member states, especially under existing WA law that bans capital punishment. If people want to prosecute for the death penalty against war criminals and the like, then they should 1) push for the repeal of "Protecting Innocents yada yada yada" and 2) prosecute those criminals through their own national criminal justice system.

[Old Hope]

We find that this resolution does not actually empower the judges to issue any verdicts.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
This does have a Civil Rights aspect but, as it operates through law-courts, also a Moral Decency one. Given that those two aspects would partially cancel each other out in terms of effects on the member nations, I do not regard 'Strong' as the appropriate strength.

The main effect of this proposal is to secure justice for those people whose governments fail to implement WA law in earnest. As I see it, this would most often happen in order to deny people their civil rights and liberties. Thus, Civil Rights. And considering the nature of this proposal, completely bypassing the national system of justice to administer the law directly, I very firmly believe this to be Strong."

OOC
I do acknowledge that Civil Rights is the best category. However, bearing in mind not only that secondary Moral Decency aspect but also the fact that -- as you yourself recognized when you stated (in response to a previous comment by me) that you did not expect this court to receive an overwhelming number of cases -- the number of people directly affected by this proposed resolution should be relatively low, I think that 'Significant' would be more appropriate for the strength.

[Wallenburg]

We find that this resolution does not actually empower the judges to issue any verdicts.

I see no reason to go through the laundry list of powers judges have. Rather, I appoint judges to courts, they hear cases, and member states follow their rulings. Hopefully other delegations can connect the dots.

[Old Hope]

OOC: Legality Check(to be repealed resolutions ignored, no claim of accuracy)

World Assembly Justice Accord

---

(Image)

---

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing the persistent issue of noncompliance with World Assembly legislation within member nations,

Recognizing that in addressing its mandates solely to its member governments, the World Assembly effectively grants member states infinite means of evading compliance, and thereby finds itself with few powers before an anarchic body of noncompliant members, and

Recognizing that, with no material force to wield against noncompliant actors, the World Assembly must resort to the moral force of a court of law free from the corrupting influences of individual member states,

Understanding that by guaranteeing the rule of law in a judicial setting, the World Assembly may safeguard the right of all inhabitants of member states to justice,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Establishes a World Assembly Judiciary Committee, tasked with appointing officials to (a) several trial courts, each over which one judge may preside, and (b) several appellate courts, each over which three judges may preside, to consider and receive cases appealed from the trial courts,
   
   
2. Tasks the World Assembly Judiciary Committee with overseeing the conduct and judicial responsibilities of the judges and defense attorneys appointed to the several courts under its administration, and exercising full discretion in hearing cases brought before it,
   
   
3. Tasks the World Assembly Compliance Commission with speedily reporting evidence relevant to World Assembly Judiciary Committee court proceedings to both adversaries, with the approval of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
   
   
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,
   

World Assembly Resolution 22(a state cannot bring charges against diplomats serving in their nation) would be contradicted, in my opinion.

Grants the adversaries in a case before a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee all legal rights they enjoy according to the mandates of World Assembly law, and any privileges that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee finds necessary to guarantee those rights in a manner most practical and sensitive to the cultures of the adversaries,

1. Also grants, with the prompt consent of both adversaries, the adversaries all legal rights they might enjoy in an equivalent hearing under the laws of the nation of origin of one of the adversaries,

Permits courts of the World Assembly Judicial Committee to try a defendant in absentia if the defendant communicates their written consent not to be present at trial, or the defendant repeatedly engages in disruptive conduct during court proceedings or positively refuses to appear at trial,

Directs a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, upon accepting a case brought before it, to bring itself to the adversaries of the case, should one or both of them be unable to leave their member nation, and requires member states to permit the entry and exit of court officials for this purpose,

Declares further that member states shall fully and with all possible haste carry out the rulings of the courts of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,

Requires that, should the ruling of a court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee stipulate the incarceration of a guilty party, the member state from which the guilty party originates shall perform and maintain the incarceration of the guilty party,

1. Directs the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to select a fully compliant and cooperative alternative member state to incarcerate the guilty party, if the member state of origin demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to carry out the full ruling of the court, and with the consent of the selected alternative member state,
   
   
2. Authorizes the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to offer compensation to selected alternative member states as an incentive to volunteer to incarcerate those so sentenced,

Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Legality Check(to be repealed resolutions ignored, no claim of accuracy)

World Assembly Resolution 22(a state cannot bring charges against diplomats serving in their nation) would be contradicted, in my opinion.
*snip*

Even assuming that member states would consider bringing charges against a diplomat before a court of the World Assembly instead of within their own national justice system:

10. Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

[Old Hope]

OOC: Legality Check(to be repealed resolutions ignored, no claim of accuracy)

World Assembly Resolution 22(a state cannot bring charges against diplomats serving in their nation) would be contradicted, in my opinion.
*snip*

Even assuming that member states would consider bringing charges against a diplomat before a court of the World Assembly instead of within their own national justice system:

10. Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,

No, that doesn't cut it. Bringing charges against a diplomat would still violate Resolution 22 even if those (charges) would be immediately dismissed.
And your clause 4 directly allows bringing charges which include those.

[Naboompu]

[*]Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,[/list][/box]

What exactly constitutes "torturous punishment"? Is a reasonable expectation of penal labour disallowed? Would it not be better to refer to corporal punishment instead?

[Wallenburg]

[*]Guarantees that no court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee shall impose capital punishment, or any otherwise torturous punishments, upon any guilty party, nor shall it compel any member state to render such punishments upon any guilty party, nor shall it in any way violate previously passed and henceforward standing World Assembly resolutions,[/list][/box]

What exactly constitutes "torturous punishment"? Is a reasonable expectation of penal labour disallowed? Would it not be better to refer to corporal punishment instead?

The World Assembly already has defined and prohibited torture under existing law, establishing a strong standard by which these courts might determine what constitutes torture.