Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: But corrupt according to whom? I think very few member nations will call themselves corrupt, and it would greatly limit the power of the GA if it could only try criminals in backwater nations, not modern one that just have a few problems. If it was the WA itself that made the decision, then it would produce an end-result almost exactly the same as the current one, where the court only overrules bad decisions.)
OOC: Bad decisions according to whom? It's not that long ago that "blasphemy" was an actual crime in most Western nations in RL. If one nation's laws have that as a crime and another's don't, then of course the nation where it's not a crime would just laugh at the attempt to sue someone for blasphemy, while the other might want to prosecute. (I know this isn't directly translatable to NSWA, just using a fairly harmless RL example.) But let's say that they took into account the fact that the foreigner that broke the anti-blasphemy laws hasn't grown up thinking it to be a crime, and just assigns a mild fine and a stern lecture.
Now if there was some international court that didn't have to care about the national laws declaring something legal or illegal, and didn't have to answer to anyone for its actions (as WA committees don't), and the person who got their faith cursed at, could decide to take the matter higher, because their own nation's courts didn't deal harshly enough (in their opinion) with the case. Then who decides if it was a bad decision?
Can something stop all sore losers from dragging the cases they lost, over to the WA court to have a second trial? And what happens if the WA court and national court disagree? The WA court isn't held accountable to anyone, whether they flip a coin to decide guilt or not.
EDIT: So, in an attempt to insert some of that much-loved (by some) realism into this whole thing, either this proposal/resolution is waaaaay too overreaching and will indeed replace national courts (and will suck up enormous amounts of money and effort) or else it realistically can only touch cases that are blatant violations of WA law remaining willfully unpunished.
Though I also wonder about the fact that some offenses may have been brought to the attention of authorities too late, and the crime has "expired" and thus the state is unable to prosecute - would the WA court have any such limits given that most resolutions don't?